Bottom line: it wasn’t so much a matter of neo-con armed idealism, liberating the hell out of them whether they like it or not, but gaining a club to beat OPEC with.
No doubt, I’ll have to hear more to become convinced, whereas now I’m only darkly suspicious. I was already pretty pissed off, but if this shit turns out to be true…
Okay, this is the stuff that confuses the hell out of me.
Who the hell doesn’t think they were after oil?
My problem is Whiskey Tango Foxtrot gas beneath the Mason-Dixon line costs $2.10 a gallon if we won?
I don’t think so. You’re bullshit theory of ‘hey Saddam was evil, but at least he provided stability, because you know those Arabs are incapable of anything else’ Is offensive.
Weird, I thought you’d be used to the terminology of your posts, rather than displacing your insecurities onto other people.
Chrenkoff, has listed from varius news sources 20 good round-ups from Iraq,
Gosh, I’m inclined to the view that the Shia and Kurds are no longer on the long arm of the former regime? And that they, as the majority can now stand up against the former regime elements and Islamists, hence no longer oppressed. What I don’t get from the anti war crowd is that somehow people get shot = we should withdraw, which frankly I don’t hold such views.
There’s nothing close to that in my post, as you can see. I don’t know whose “bullshit theory” you were flinging poo at, but it wasn’t mine.
In fact, they are still being oppressed by the long arm of the former regime. By all accounts, the insurgents are the nasty bastards who ran the country until the war. You go on to throw another straw man at me. I never expressed any “shot=should withdraw” opinion. I am stating that we have not yet won the war. The people we went in to beat are still killing us and still oppressing the Shias and the Kurds. Our own DOD estimates 80, 000 soldiers are AWOL from the new Iraqi army, and lots of new police officers have resigned in fear of assassination. I hope that we will eventually win, and that the Iraqis will be able to keep their own country safe without our help. If you think that stuff has already happened, you’re kidding yourself.
So the standard for invasion pretexts is now, “The people will be better off afterwards”? I can think of a dozen countries that would be just DELIGHTED to discover that that is an acceptable reason for invading another country. All of them of the sort we would term as “EVIL.” Sigh. But I guess with Bush in charge, we’re on their side now…"
You don’t seriously think that Iraq has been “fixed” in any way by being invaded, bombed to bits, thousands of its people tortured and tens of thousands killed or mained? Try telling that to his victims!
God forbid that Bushco get the opportunity to “fix” any other country.
no, you missed the point. His point was if “the people were better off after the fact” was proper justification for the war, then Saudi Arabia, or some other somewhat shady country could justifiablely invade Iran or somethng, and claim that the Iranians were better off, because Iran is completely oppressed, and Saudi Araia pays lip service to democracy.
Yawn: Go shove your slogans somewhere else. ‘Bushco’ is successfully helping Afghanistan, is that a failure too?
Theres a democratic national assembly in Iraq, two years after the defeat of a Baa’thist dictatorship which has been running the country for more than 30 years. Its quite an achievement. And it was worth it.