Ok, that's a little different than what I first thought you were saying, but it is more clear now.
It is definitely a bad idea to allow or force another country to be dependent upon you. In a situation like that you're damned if you do damned if you don't.
The US has a nasty history of helping one enemy merely to get at another, it's a basic principle of offset risk. The government actually uses the offset risk principle in many of its dealings. For appropriations and planning they never spend the money to do things right up front, it's always based upon "save a buck today and hope you're rich enough to pay to fix it tomorrow." It always costs more in the end to do it wrong first, but when you've only got a buck and you're hungry, you just might be willing to go to Toxic Hell and worry about being sick later.
Government pisses me off.
I'm not a huge fan of most conspiracy theories either, but there are a lot of "conspiracy theories" that are actually fact that someone lacks the evidence to convince everybody. Perhaps this is one? Sounds a lot like the whole Pearl Harbor thing....
Bush is a conspiracy theorist. He has yet to produce any good hard evidence that Saddam has WMD or any other concrete illicit weapons program yet he likes to flaunt the "facts" all day long. I couldn't believe it when I read the news article about a British intelligence dossier that went on and on about Saddam's illegal programs and the vast majority of it was copied, verbatim, from old academic papers, some of which date back to the late '80s. And it was all presented as "new evidence" until after their bluff was called. Oh but of course it's aaaaaalllll still relevant.
I currently trust Bush to tell me the truth about as much as I trust Saddam.
Ok so now I'm just babbling....off to do some shopping.
b