VERSION|0.5.1|NAME|Other Peter|DATE|1358935787|CONTENT|@Matt, I understand where you&#039;re coming from, and I share your cynicism. 

But for me all it needs is:

1. People in power who benefit from an excuse to make war with expensive consumable weapons and manpower they partially or entirely provide, bomb a place to s**t and then re-build it. &#039;Nuff said on that one. More oil would &quot;help&quot;, but war and re-construction will make the head honchos plenty of money.

2. A perceived threat that can be used to justify military action (and win you votes to stay in power).
In this case, originally the harbouring of turrorists. That has morphed over the years into the &quot;fight to bring democracy to Afghanistan&quot;. 

Zimbabwe just can&#039;t be construed as a threat great enough to the US to justify using up all that military hardware. And maybe without piles of refineries etc. to build the reconstruction pickings aren&#039;t quite so compelling either.


|EMAIL|peter.martin17@btconnect.com|IP-ADDRESS|57.250.229.136|MODERATIONFLAG|