Is Saddam America's stooge?

I have always been suspicious of American policies, given their selfish, serpentine foreign policies and notorious intelligence agencies. So naturally, the current developments over Iraq had me pondering on possible motives/strategies of the US Govt. Here is one of the extremes. :)

Consider the currently developing scenario:

• US is setting the stage for an invasion of Iraq and its complete take-over


• Muslim fundamentalists, known to the Americans as terrorists, opposed to US and its "crusading" policies are converging in and around Iraq as they did in Afghanistan a little more than a year ago


• US has a good guage of who its allies are and those not standing by it in this time of need


• US is willing to yet again go to war without UN approval, thus explicitly stressing it will not be governed by international policies


• Saddam is putting on a bold front as he "opposes" US and its allies


• US has open disagreement with its former allies

Events to follow:

• US invades Iraq


• US kills thousands of "fundamentalist terrorists" who have gathered together to fight the "crusaders"


• Saddam sacrifices a few thousand soldiers and civilians but allows a quick crushing decimation of Iraq's defences and a fast takeover of Baghdad


• Saddam is "killed" or "captured"


• US sets up a democratic infrastructure under its SOLE supervision in Iraq

Fallout:

• US has absolute control of a strategic region - no power sharing with other "developed" powerful nations


• US controls the huge oil resources of Iraq


• US assumes the mantle of global policeman with autonomous powers to override the UN, bomb and occupy any place suspected to be a potential risk to the US or its "allies"


• If Saddam is "killed", he can retire a martyr (which he craves to be) and a very rich man in a fiefdom of his own either in the US or any other location deemed suitable by the US


• If Saddam is "captured", he could put up a defiant fight in the ICC (which US would concede to sit on or even preside) or the war crimes tribunal in Hague and over a period of time confess to "connections" or "associations" with groups/nations whenever those groups/nations do not find America's favour and provide an excuse for America to play aggressor to "protect" itself

Conclusion:
Both US and Saddam stand only to gain if they have an alliance - Saddam playing villain and US the good cop. Saddam will achieve either "martyrdom" or HUGE popularity with the masses back home and will go down in history as the man who stood by his beliefs, his people and his nation against "Christian" oppressors and will continue to live a comfortable life. US solely, easily and justifiably will set foot in a strategic region and leave the rest of the world on tenterhooks with the "Am I next in the cross-hair" question and somewhat dependant on it for oil resources.

So the current scenario could well be a classical case of "Sometimes you have to lose the small wars to win the big battles". If it were not, 12 years ago Baghdad would have gone through what Berlin did in 1945 - demarcated and shared amongst the allies giving US very little control. Why else did they stop a few miles short of Baghdad back then?

I know this is a rather atrocious theory - I find it hilarious even as I read it now; but given who the involved parties are - I would give it some serious thought. You only need to look back in history at America's foreign and national policies:

Proven cases:

• The Iran-Contra affair - Long story in short. Emails between the protagonists


• Creation and grooming of the Taliban


• High on Noriega


• Nixon's Waterloo - The infamous Watergate scandal


• For the Katanga diamonds - The killing of Patrice Lumumba

Conspiracy Theories:

• Why John Fitzgerald Kennedy had to die: Click on the Conspiracy theories link on the left menu


• Pearl Harbour - bait waiting to be snapped


• UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold dies in plane crash


• Sep 11, 2001 - Twin towers go down