CCFan wrote:You're whole argument here is they didn't do this or that - but I've yet to see you acknowledge the Kurds, the hundreds of thousands that Saddam killed, etc., - so you've painted a very narrow minded "Since they didn't do anything Bush was warring against, they must've been angels" argument.
I never said anything of the sort. The Kurds (and the Marsh Arabs) were victims of a despot. The Kurds were not entirely innocent either; wherever they go they seem to start trouble. The Marsh Arabs were genuinely victims of Saddams paranoia.
But lets remember two things:
1) Where did he get those weapons with which to commit these crimes? The good ole US of A, so he could gas Iranians in the trenches of the Iran-Iraq war. (And some wonder why the Iranians still have an axe to grind against us?)
2) I am a strict isolationist(think autarky level of isolationism) and generally don't care what happens outside our borders. In fact, meddling in other countries seems to have rather negative repercussions, i.e. see chemical weapon incident above, and 9/11 which was due to the presence of US soldiers in the "Holy Land" of the Kingdom of Saud.
Neither involves Dubya incidentally. Give me some credit; I have a wider view of history than that.
I think if you compared the number of lives we dumped into it (as you so eloquently put it) to the number that never returned under Saddam's regime, you might be surprised at the ROI. (
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html for some numbers to read) Maybe a little more respect for the folks that went over and did what they were told to do is in order.
ROI is not something I would use to apply widespread death, not very elegant either. People aren't ledger items.
At least I was apt, those lives
were wasted like so much thrown into a dump. No one should die a violent death needlessly. Soldiers or civilians, Americans or Iraqis.
The fact things only got worse after the deposition of the Mustachioed One proves at least he kept things stable, and again the primary recipients of his affections were Islamic extremists opposed to his largely secular kleptocracy.
Also amazingly humorous to me is that you're still stuck on the " In fact, oil prices have only gone up" argument. I heard that day one when all the Bush bashers said it was just about oil. Explain to me again how it was just about oil?
Explain to me where I said "it was just about oil"? Oil prices have gone up since then indeed, but that was more a remark on our being the suckiest Empire in history than anything else. Only
we can invade a country rich in resource X, spend billions to invade, and then see the price of X skyrocket.
Its because we "liberate", whatever the hell that means. Never mind we don't liberate outside of oil rich nations(we'll get to Laos eventually I guess) but, whatever. Coincidence I guess.
As I've said before (contrary to what you accuse)
if we're gonna be an Empire we should do it right. Which means wholesale confiscating of resources, widespread enslavement, mass executions of natives to be repopulated by colonists; the whole shebang.
Its not just about Dubya, but he will always get the most flak because he continued what his pappy started. Thems the breaks.
); what do you care? On the contrary you would cream yourself if a 9/11 happened every day there.
