Do you really think that if we wanted to control the oil in the Middle East we couldn't do so?
It's not just about the goddam oil! It may be a factor, but not it's necessarily the primary one. More likely it's strategic positioning; the build up/growth of a power base; a power play/display just to show "WE CAN if we damn well want to"...and most certainly it's political bullshit to hoodwink the public into believing it is other than what it really is.
Much like the schoolyard bully stamps his authority, for Bush it's a show of strength to deter weaker elements from mounting challenges/arguments....and essentially, Bush is just a glorified school bully with a penchant for power and violence. Sadly, a few hundred years of political/social indoctrination has too many thinking Bush is a hero, rather than the warmongering thug he is.
perhaps go see for yourself what is going on - or - you can sit behind your safe walls watch the news and rely on the media - and anecdotal second, third or fourth hand information that always sounds the same but is never put to a true test for accuracy.
I don't need to step into a war zone to know of needless bloodshed, horror and misery. My compassion for my fellow man is more than enough to know of the abysmal violence and atrocities against mankind. It's about mothers and fathers losing sons and daughters, wives and children losing husbands and fathers, about society losing too many good people....and I have seen the pain and misery of that first-hand, no thanks to a stroke of the President's/Prime Minister's pen.
No, I've never stood on a war-zone, thank God, but I stood in the ruins of some bombed out homes of WWII when I was a kid in England. There were no bodies during the late 50's early 60's, but there was always an icy cold chill going down my spine because I actually knew survivors who were horrifically scarred/disfigured - survivors who lost their whole family to a bomb that ripped their home apart. Standing in those ruins was very much a wake up to the horrors of war, particularly when my own father was bombed out twice during WWII and bore a scar where his 14 year old chest was ripped open by shrapnel.
Yep, that's how it was, the damage so widespread and complete, the ruins of a conflict that ended in 1945 were very much evident during the 50's and 60's. I don't know if there still any, having not been there for 37 years, but I feel it's one of the major factors that still influences Britons against war.
The US has never seen such widespread damage on its home soil, which is why presidents are still
able to send sons and daughters, husbands and fathers to war....why US public opinion isn't more vocal against presidential pen-strokes sending loved ones to die or be permanently maimed.
Oh, and there's a huge difference between showing support for the troops who are merely carrying out politicians orders, and support for the warmongering arsehole(s) who send them there. Troops are cannon fodder for gutless heroes who sit in high places.... better they're at home with their families, don't you think!
