Well, enough that they attacked us and killed several thousand Americans.
And if you define “hating freedom” as meaning things like secular government, not forcing women to wear burkas, the modern stock market, freedom of religion, etc., then yes, they certainly hated freedom long before the invasion of Iraq.
You are a liar.
Hell, who am I kidding? It’s obvious what you are.
I’m not hummingbird, but it’s not like we don’t intervene all the time when we find it politically convenient. Given America’s willingness to use force in it’s own interest, the “we’re not the world’s policeman” argument amounts to an admission that we’re just thugs, bashing people over the head and stealing their valuables.
As well, if we can stop an injustice and no one else will, it’s our moral duty to try. “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” And no, Iraq is not a counterargument to that because neither our motives or behavior have been even remotely good.
You’ll note in my response to hummingbird that I validated the point made, but not the examples.
As has been pointed out, the United States is called a thug if we intervene and a villain if we don’t. Your premise that we invade for valuables (oil being a good example) implies that we gain something financially in the process. Removing Saddam would not, and will never yield a positive cash flow for the United States. The idea that it is an act of imperialism is not valid.
Your litmus test to sort out “world policeman” from thug is not without merit but needs further clarification. We are not the world’s policeman, or should not be, in the sense that we can be called up whenever a group of countries wants our services. Any arguments you apply to Kosovo or Bosnia can be applied to Iraq. We had no vested interested in the region beyond intervening in a civil war. Particularly since Kosovo was a self inflicted war that resulted from the restructuring of Yugoslavia in the early 70’s. And if you talk to anyone who has traveled through Bosnia recently you’ll know that nothing has changed there except we are now a permanent babysitter in the region. We are there because our NATO partners want us there and that’s ok but that road should run both ways. Otherwise, we are the world’s policeman.
A quibble. This fact is apparent to rational life-forms, like you and I. Would it not still be imperialism if/when the aggressors are acting on false premises?
Possibly…if in fact you have some proof that Bush and his merry men THOUGHT that the invasion of Iraq would in fact yield a positive cash flow. It would either be an indication of quasi-Imperialism…or yet another proof that Bush et al were in fact complete morons. Or perhaps a bit of both (I’d lean more heavily toward the ‘Bush’ and ‘complete morons’ side myself, but I’m prejudiced).
Do you have any proof along those lines? I for one would be interested in seeing them, if so.
Peer into their minds? Two answers: no and ewwwww!
But their public utterances certaily indicate such. As witness Mr. Wolfowitz’ famous suggestion that Iraq could finance its own reconstruction might be descriptive of such a belief? If GeeDub didn’t believe it, he certainly took no steps to disabuse us. So, it follows, does it not, that he believed there was considerable wealth at hand, to be either prudently managed or plundered.
Of course, if by proof you mean signed confessions, written in blood, well…from your lips to the Ears.
Well, obviously we can’t take their public utterances at face value. Also, I’m unsure if saying that the Iraqi reconstruction financed by Iraqi oil is the same as a positive cash flow for the US…after all, the invasion itself cost a hell of a lot, even leaving aside the tons of money it cost the US for the reconstruction.
No one will be happier than me if such a memo turns up. Hey, I’ll even help with lighting the bon-fire and passing out the pitchforks. I’m not going to hold my breath though…