Did Putin Pull a fast one on Iraq?
vngelis | 13.04.2003 22:47
Did Putin Pull a fast one on Iraq?
Did Putin pull a fast one on Iraq?
It looks like the Yanks unable to take a single town then came into some type of agreement with Saddam via the mediation of Putin, who about 10 days ago admitted that America has to 'win' otherwise the US
would lose its position as world leader and the balance of world power would change not favourable to anyone.
One has to otherwise explain what has happened to the top leadership and why they didn't blow up any bridges when a few thousand Americans marched into Bagdad? Superior American military power will reply everyone, but that would then need explaining as to why they couldn't take anything in the South for two whole weeks.
It was impossible for the US armey to fight hand to hand in baghdad and so some type of agreement had to be reached. Otherwise the world order of which both Putin, Chirac and Bush would be responsible for bringing down. Saddams brief wasn't to bring down the US and like Milosevic before him chose a compromise, gave order to the army to stop fighting, changed the director of the air defence during the course of the battle and handed over Bagdad.
Irrespective of the politics of Saddam, the residents of Bagdad and Iraq in general will not be welcome to the UN and the USA running their oil well for the sake of the multinationals. Saddams sellout could have only occurred because the US is in a severe crisis starting a war it couldn't complete and threatening to bring total disorder everywhere.
Imperialism faced with meltdown chooses a compromise, which might in the short term be beneficial to all.
Did Putin pull a fast one on Iraq?
It looks like the Yanks unable to take a single town then came into some type of agreement with Saddam via the mediation of Putin, who about 10 days ago admitted that America has to 'win' otherwise the US
would lose its position as world leader and the balance of world power would change not favourable to anyone.
One has to otherwise explain what has happened to the top leadership and why they didn't blow up any bridges when a few thousand Americans marched into Bagdad? Superior American military power will reply everyone, but that would then need explaining as to why they couldn't take anything in the South for two whole weeks.
It was impossible for the US armey to fight hand to hand in baghdad and so some type of agreement had to be reached. Otherwise the world order of which both Putin, Chirac and Bush would be responsible for bringing down. Saddams brief wasn't to bring down the US and like Milosevic before him chose a compromise, gave order to the army to stop fighting, changed the director of the air defence during the course of the battle and handed over Bagdad.
Irrespective of the politics of Saddam, the residents of Bagdad and Iraq in general will not be welcome to the UN and the USA running their oil well for the sake of the multinationals. Saddams sellout could have only occurred because the US is in a severe crisis starting a war it couldn't complete and threatening to bring total disorder everywhere.
Imperialism faced with meltdown chooses a compromise, which might in the short term be beneficial to all.
vngelis
Comments
Hide the following comment
Maybe
14.04.2003 08:35
The Crimson Expat