Personally I have mixed feelings about Iraq, yes Saddam was a bad man and should have been removed, if only for killing nearly 50,000+ people in his own counrty a year, not to mention the torture suffered by many. However it must be kept in mind who put him there and why. Earlier in the thread someone, i forget who now, mentioned that Iraq and iran have no tradition of democracy, this is very untrue and both countries have enjoyed democracies for many years, however not in recent history with the religion led ayatollahs. Saddam was placed into power by western governments (mentioning no names hmm hmm) in order to gain power in the region in order to support the palestine hated israelis. However as with many things this back fired when support was withdrawn (as in afghanistan against the russians now leading to Mr Bin Laden). Many people have mentioned Kuwait not realising that initially Saddam was giving the secret nod to go ahead in kuwait as this area was seen as a 'de-stabilizing' force in the middle east. The intention was always to reel in Saddam when he did eventually invade Kuwait so that he would not gain to much power. Everyone is right in saying that Iraq was/is mainly about oil, however again, it is also about power, for years saddam was controlled by the likes of America, but in recent years leading up to the war was more controlled by the UN with the use of regular inspections and embargoes. Now with the current occupying forces in control of Iraq and to a large extent able to choose and/or control who is in charge, the UN no longer has control of a large power in that area as the organisation was on the most part not involved and ruled the conflict illegal (part of saddam's defence and why he is being tried in Iraq and not the Hague). With regards to 9/11 or 11/9 however you want to pronounce it, it is common belief that it was known that an incident like this was going to occur (even the head security officer at one of the towers predicted an event such as this), however little was done about it, largely for two reasons..
Since the end of the cold war there was largely no longer an 'us and them' attitude with leaders largely having to manage a country rather than protect it and control it. The naming of al qaeda restores the 'us and them' attitude with single, figure head leaders being necessary to 'protect' us and to a large extent control us. The naming of this threat also provides a distraction so that new policies and laws may be ushered in (such as identity cards in britain and the inheritance tax) with little or no opposition in order to monitor us (1984 anyone)?
On a more ironic note..he he. It does make me chuckle to read how the cold war was 'won'. Was the cold war not against communism not just russia, and if it was just against Russia, then why go to vietnam and korea. I do laugh at how the cold war was 'won' as I have to consider how much our countries are indebted to China (to the tune of billions) a well known communist country. I also take my hat off to Cuba, for, despite all the embargoes and it's isolation, having one of the best social care systems in the world. Now roll on the chants calling me a commie! ha ha
A man not seen as wise (prizes for who can guess) once said 'A man with all the information knows that both sides of an argument are correct, a man without all the information has an opinion'. I hope i'm neither pretentious enough to think i know all the information or old enough or dangerous enough to have all the information nor un-educated enough to have an ill advised opinion.