Sugar-coating U.S. motives in Iraq

[reprehensor]

by Linda McQuaig

When Genseric, king of the Vandals, invaded northern Africa in 428 A.D., he probably didn't declare that his intention was to plunder and pillage. It's no accident that the name of his people has ended up, some 16 centuries later, as an enduring word in our vocabulary, synonymous with thuggery and hooliganism.

Invading armies are often coy when it comes to admitting their true motives. Certainly a desire to seize territory and resources are rarely among the motives modern invading armies tend to highlight.

One can understand the preference for looking like a liberator rather than a pillaging bully.

What's harder to understand is how willingly members of the media step forward to make the invaders' case for them. Iraq pops to mind.

Original:
http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar%2FLayout%2FArticle_Type1&c=Article&cid=1067642105645&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

[Paschall]

1. Great article.

Some people still don't grasp this point:

<snip>Of course, last week's bombing of the Red Cross in Baghdad was a horrific act of terrorism. My guess is that the terrorists were trying to destabilize the American occupation, rather than particularly targeting humanitarian workers. But the action of the terrorists shows they are cold-blooded murderers willing to kill innocent people to advance their political goals. Yet, is that really much different than what goes on in Washington, where political goals (i.e. eliminating Saddam) are considered sufficient grounds to justify killing people who happen to be in the way, and where Pentagon officials even celebrate the ferocity of such attacks with cute slogans like "shock and awe?" </snip>

I won't post a spoiler, but catch the last two paragraphs on this one!

[LibertyorDeath]

2. Linda McQuaig a true Canadian gem. I love her work & her mind