Sure, one reason for that veritable storm of publicity could have been to garner support among other nations, but one can gain support in other ways without letting the world and his dog know about it; Putin ended up getting advance notice and preparing for war, and his preparation seems to have been way better, which our intelligentsia should have anticipated, but didn't. Sanctions have failed, bank freezes have failed, trade embargos have failed, so clearly the support of other nations didn't have the desired effect, and actually even rebounded in some cases.
As for Bush, there have been large sections of the population who have always viewed him as an intellectual zero whose election win was somewhat suspect, and one who lived under the shadow of his father. So his decision could have stemmed from a desire to appear leader-like and prove his naysayers wrong. Another reason put forth by many is that he was obsessed with a personal vendetta against Saddam. That reason makes it even worse. For him to (ab)use the Office of the President for personal revenge, at the cost of so many lives and resources, isn't the act of a leader.
Well, all of this is hearsay and I guess there is no way to definitely know what the reasons were, but it does seem as if our presidents and our political elite are not above using the the army and the excuse of war for personal gain.
So with that said, I must admit I have plenty of doubts about the origins of this latest conflict.
To add to it, it does seem as if our attention is constantly being deflected by major news, only for it to fizzle out like a damp squib in less than a month, until the next big event. This Russia-Ukraine conflict, the monkey pox, the MAL raid, all these news items seem to have gone off the boil though they were huge at the time, and it seems weird. With each major "crisis", since air-time is finite, I have noticed that there is less and less talk about supply chains and inflation and the dreaded laptop.
My mistake! It was called Desert Fox, I believe?
Sure, one reason for that veritable storm of publicity could have been to garner support among other nations, but one can gain support in other ways without letting the world and his dog know about it; Putin ended up getting advance notice and preparing for war, and his preparation seems to have been way better, which our intelligentsia should have anticipated, but didn't. Sanctions have failed, bank freezes have failed, trade embargos have failed, so clearly the support of other nations didn't have the desired effect, and actually even rebounded in some cases.
As for Bush, there have been large sections of the population who have always viewed him as an intellectual zero whose election win was somewhat suspect, and one who lived under the shadow of his father. So his decision could have stemmed from a desire to appear leader-like and prove his naysayers wrong. Another reason put forth by many is that he was obsessed with a personal vendetta against Saddam. That reason makes it even worse. For him to (ab)use the Office of the President for personal revenge, at the cost of so many lives and resources, isn't the act of a leader.
Well, all of this is hearsay and I guess there is no way to definitely know what the reasons were, but it does seem as if our presidents and our political elite are not above using the the army and the excuse of war for personal gain.
So with that said, I must admit I have plenty of doubts about the origins of this latest conflict.
To add to it, it does seem as if our attention is constantly being deflected by major news, only for it to fizzle out like a damp squib in less than a month, until the next big event. This Russia-Ukraine conflict, the monkey pox, the MAL raid, all these news items seem to have gone off the boil though they were huge at the time, and it seems weird. With each major "crisis", since air-time is finite, I have noticed that there is less and less talk about supply chains and inflation and the dreaded laptop.
So who knows ?