How to go beyond dumb....
[QUOTE=Silur]@RT: It is possible that the US government simply have made a number of decisions where they not fully anticipated the consequences - in short, they mean well but keep messing it up.[/QUOTE]
IMHO Bush and company are headed that way right now with North Korea. Paying them off today will only come back to haunts us in the long run. I consider this a crime worth impeaching Bush for. Yes he most likely can claim he is mentally unstably and get off, but it's still worth the time and effort.
Why hasn't Dubya been impeached?
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
IMHO Bush and company are headed that way right now with North Korea. Paying them off today will only come back to haunts us in the long run.
I think it's reasonable to regard North Korea as the Monty Pythonish 100-ton weight poised at the end of a thin string. It has 23 million people who have no idea what the rest of the world is like, and believe their government is the only thing standing between them and complete starvation. That government has completely mismanaged the nation's economy. If food supplies from the outside world are cut off, those people will start to starve, then probably revolt. There is no resistance, no dissident movement to step into power. They will be 23 million people without work, without food, without goals or any idea of what to do. It's a nightmare scenario, particularly to South Korea, but also to China and Japan. No one likes the North Korean regime, but no one wants what's bound to happen when it falls.
So basically, everybody just adds another string to the 100-ton weight, everytime the last one frays. And it just inches lower. Bush, who instigated the current crisis by cutting off support in the early part of his White House tenancy, realizes now that if the weight falls before the election it'll give some heavy ammunition to his opponents...as if more was needed.
The only good aspect of this decision is that it's probably giving all Dubya's NeoCon brethren ulcers for having reversed their stated policies.
I think it's reasonable to regard North Korea as the Monty Pythonish 100-ton weight poised at the end of a thin string. It has 23 million people who have no idea what the rest of the world is like, and believe their government is the only thing standing between them and complete starvation. That government has completely mismanaged the nation's economy. If food supplies from the outside world are cut off, those people will start to starve, then probably revolt. There is no resistance, no dissident movement to step into power. They will be 23 million people without work, without food, without goals or any idea of what to do. It's a nightmare scenario, particularly to South Korea, but also to China and Japan. No one likes the North Korean regime, but no one wants what's bound to happen when it falls.
So basically, everybody just adds another string to the 100-ton weight, everytime the last one frays. And it just inches lower. Bush, who instigated the current crisis by cutting off support in the early part of his White House tenancy, realizes now that if the weight falls before the election it'll give some heavy ammunition to his opponents...as if more was needed.
The only good aspect of this decision is that it's probably giving all Dubya's NeoCon brethren ulcers for having reversed their stated policies.To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
[QUOTE=fable] It's a nightmare scenario, particularly to South Korea, but also to China and Japan. No one likes the North Korean regime, but no one wants what's bound to happen when it falls.
[/QUOTE]
IMHO China, Japan, Russia and South Korea need to deal with North Korea. I'm tired of having to paying off thugs who in turn take what little money they were using for food and dump it into weapons. Everytime the US gives money to this country the leader cuts back on food, thinking he can depend on others to feed his people, and spends it on more weapons. The cycle must end. Sticking our head in the sand and wishing only leads to more civilians dead. The main cause of most deaths in Iraq during the 90's was from sticking our heads in the sand, must we go thru the same thing in North Korea? If Bush goes thru with this, I will consider him a traitor to the US.
[/QUOTE]
IMHO China, Japan, Russia and South Korea need to deal with North Korea. I'm tired of having to paying off thugs who in turn take what little money they were using for food and dump it into weapons. Everytime the US gives money to this country the leader cuts back on food, thinking he can depend on others to feed his people, and spends it on more weapons. The cycle must end. Sticking our head in the sand and wishing only leads to more civilians dead. The main cause of most deaths in Iraq during the 90's was from sticking our heads in the sand, must we go thru the same thing in North Korea? If Bush goes thru with this, I will consider him a traitor to the US.
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
IMHO China, Japan, Russia and South Korea need to deal with North Korea. I'm tired of having to paying off thugs who in turn take what little money they were using for food and dump it into weapons. Everytime the US gives money to this country the leader cuts back on food, thinking he can depend on others to feed his people, and spends it on more weapons. The cycle must end. Sticking our head in the sand and wishing only leads to more civilians dead. The main cause of most deaths in Iraq during the 90's was from sticking our heads in the sand, must we go thru the same thing in North Korea? If Bush goes thru with this, I will consider him a traitor to the US.
No argument there, @Weasel. We are postponing the inevitable, and in the meantime we're supporting a totalitarian, extremely dangerous regime just gets more dangerous to the rest of the world all the time. I mentioned as much when Dubya first threw us into his war for oil, stating here that if he really wanted to go after a regime that was "the worst of the worst" he should turn his attention to North Korea and/or Zimbabwe...but of course, then such rhetoric branded me a traitor in at least a few eyes.
Still, if Shrub does this, I don't see how his actions can be regarded as grounds of impeachment. Impeachment is a legal matter, not a moral one. Clinton, for whom I have considerable contempt, was caught in a loophole. Bush's buddies are far smarter than that. Like Cheney's fighting access to his energy forum's papers, like Bush sending out a White House memo telling all staff to without any information from Congress not expressly approved by the President, this is an administration that knows how to cover its butt...even as it strips the nation naked of all moral character.
No argument there, @Weasel. We are postponing the inevitable, and in the meantime we're supporting a totalitarian, extremely dangerous regime just gets more dangerous to the rest of the world all the time. I mentioned as much when Dubya first threw us into his war for oil, stating here that if he really wanted to go after a regime that was "the worst of the worst" he should turn his attention to North Korea and/or Zimbabwe...but of course, then such rhetoric branded me a traitor in at least a few eyes.
Still, if Shrub does this, I don't see how his actions can be regarded as grounds of impeachment. Impeachment is a legal matter, not a moral one. Clinton, for whom I have considerable contempt, was caught in a loophole. Bush's buddies are far smarter than that. Like Cheney's fighting access to his energy forum's papers, like Bush sending out a White House memo telling all staff to without any information from Congress not expressly approved by the President, this is an administration that knows how to cover its butt...even as it strips the nation naked of all moral character.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
[QUOTE=fable]
Still, if Shrub does this, I don't see how his actions can be regarded as grounds of impeachment. Impeachment is a legal matter, not a moral one.[/QUOTE]
I can hope...seems like sometimes all that I have left is the ability to hope.
Still, if Shrub does this, I don't see how his actions can be regarded as grounds of impeachment. Impeachment is a legal matter, not a moral one.[/QUOTE]
I can hope...seems like sometimes all that I have left is the ability to hope.
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
It has 23 million people who have no idea what the rest of the world is like,
They have a LEADER who has no idea what the rest of the world is like, and that's more worrying. Talk about Monty Python, every parody of 3rd World dictators ever made pales in comparison to this guy. A head of state who publicly offers any two-bit blonde Hollywood starlet with big enough breasts millions of dollars to have sex with him and claims his main interests are "computer games and comic books..."
Oh my!
I am not young enough to know everything. - Oscar Wilde
Support bacteria, they're the only culture some people have!
Support bacteria, they're the only culture some people have!
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Moonbiter]They have a LEADER who has no idea what the rest of the world is like, and that's more worrying. Talk about Monty Python, every parody of 3rd World dictators ever made pales in comparison to this guy. A head of state who publicly offers any two-bit blonde Hollywood starlet with big enough breasts millions of dollars to have sex with him and claims his main interests are "computer games and comic books..." [/QUOTE]
He also had a filmmaker of some repute from South Korea that he liked kidnapped, so he could get some enjoyable North Korean films made. (The director later escaped, but not before making at least one film in North Korea.) However, I don't see his bad taste as being in any fashion exceptional. The desire for power over others in itself requires, IMO, extremely blunted taste. Many leaders just know how to hide it better. Were Kennedy's sexual escapades in office any better, just because he kept quiet about them? Was Reagan's taste for daily astrologers any better than someone who likes comic books? Was Margaret Thatcher noted for her taste in clothes, or is Blair famous for his appreciation of fine art and architecture? More to the point, are there many political leaders who truly have striking ideas, and original methods of implementation? I think we both know the answer to that. The goal of power has many requirements, but imagination and taste, let alone humanity, aren't among 'em.
He also had a filmmaker of some repute from South Korea that he liked kidnapped, so he could get some enjoyable North Korean films made. (The director later escaped, but not before making at least one film in North Korea.) However, I don't see his bad taste as being in any fashion exceptional. The desire for power over others in itself requires, IMO, extremely blunted taste. Many leaders just know how to hide it better. Were Kennedy's sexual escapades in office any better, just because he kept quiet about them? Was Reagan's taste for daily astrologers any better than someone who likes comic books? Was Margaret Thatcher noted for her taste in clothes, or is Blair famous for his appreciation of fine art and architecture? More to the point, are there many political leaders who truly have striking ideas, and original methods of implementation? I think we both know the answer to that. The goal of power has many requirements, but imagination and taste, let alone humanity, aren't among 'em.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
@Fable: Hear, hear, well spoken Bruce!
The day we can start impeaching politicians for being morally objectionable, I doubt we will be seeing any of the current lot (and I mean GLOBALLY) sticking around for more than 30 milliseconds. On the other hand, who would want to take the empty seats? One of my reasons for not getting involved with politics is that I dont want to work with even worse idiots than I sometimes do now, but it's not the only reason. So even if all the imbecils just disappeared, the job still sucks.
Edit: speling
The day we can start impeaching politicians for being morally objectionable, I doubt we will be seeing any of the current lot (and I mean GLOBALLY) sticking around for more than 30 milliseconds. On the other hand, who would want to take the empty seats? One of my reasons for not getting involved with politics is that I dont want to work with even worse idiots than I sometimes do now, but it's not the only reason. So even if all the imbecils just disappeared, the job still sucks.
Edit: speling
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations David Friedman
-
Slick Fork
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 8:34 pm
- Contact:
I'm just curious, for those of you who were/are against the U.S. involvement in Iraq, what do you think the reasoning behind going in was? As far as the WMD/Bin-Laden connection goes, it is documented fact that;
1) Hussein did at one point in time have access to various chemicals and that he DID use them against dissidents in his own country as well as the Iranians.
2) He had ample time between the war to liberate Kuwait and the second gulf war to move those weapons either out of country, or into well hidden depots that have yet to be discovered. Iraq is a big place full of terrain that makes searching for these things a time consuming and man-power intensive task. I seem to remember that shortly after the war, Libya came forward and announced the dismantling of it's nuclear program. Could it be that with Hussein out of power, funding for a joint program dried up? (I don't have any proof 1 way or the other, but it's a possibility you can't rule out, just food for thought)
3) Hussein Did support the families of suicide bombers, is it really that much of a stretch to imagine other support as well? I will concede that Hussein and Bin Laden were at very opposite ends of the religious spectrum, making co-operation unlikely but a mutual hatred of America could make for strange alliances.
Do any of you really think that the U.S. soldiers would follow the "this way to WMD depot" signs out of Baghdad? What were the possible reasons for the U.S. invading Iraq? Let's look at some of the possibilities;
1) To liberate the Iraqi people and remove a violent dictator from an already troubled region. This would assume that a government is capable of acting selflessly for the good of the region.
2) To remove an actual threat to American interests and those of her allies. While Hussein could never directly threaten the U.S., Saddam did pose a very real threat to all his neighbours, of whom Israel and Saudi Arabia (to a lesser extent) are proven allies.
3) To send a message to other dictatorships that they must play by the rules. If this is the case Iraq would be the most likely target, they didn't have any real alliances and were generally disliked by everyone on the world stage.
4) To gain the appreciation of everybody in the region. Not likely as a 6 year old could tell you that you don't make friends by beating people up.
5) To consolidate American influence in the region. As the worlds largest consumer of oil, I think the U.S. has lots of influence as it is but a little more never hurts I guess.
6) To forcibly annex Iraq and gain strategic control of its oilfields. This one I've gotta toss right out the window. I don't have any hard numbers but the sheer cost of modern combat operations would make such an idea ludicrous. I was just looking at the airforce page, they don't list fuel burns so I can't get any idea how much it costs just to launch an aircraft, but they do have ordnance costs per weapon (Harm missile comes in at a bargain $200,000 a piece) They have spent more on this war, then they could possibly get back from oil revenues, they were also getting Iraqi oil for a lower price when Hussein was in power through the oil for food and medicine program. The other thing to consider with the "We're here to take your oil" argument is that Canada and Mexico have oil deposits that Rival those of Iraq. If Bush just wanted control over oil it would've been much easier to get at if he had sent his troops north and south. Neither of these countries is crawling with RPG and assault rifle equipped citizens.
7) Bush is a megalomaniac and wants to take over the world. Umm, a possibility I guess, but not real likely.
8) The war was initiated so Bush could award his cronies with the rebuilding contracts. Again, I would say the price tag of the war would omit this as a sole possibility. To be sure, Bush's friends have reaped the benefits of the post-war redevelopment. However, there's easier and more appreciated (by the public) ways for a gov't to reward it's friends (such as improving things that are actually in the U.S. ie, new roads and developments)
9) The gov't wanted to show the American public that it was taking a proactive/pre-emptive approach to dealing with the terrorist threat. This is a very likely possibility, we have to remember that politicians are primarily creatures that crave public adoration. Their concern is primarily getting re-elected and well remembered in the history books, and more often then not, it is better to be seen doing something then doing nothing at all.
Personally, I don't think the US invaded with completely sinister intentions. Like I said, the cost of the war makes profit for the country and Bush's personal club an unlikely prospect (unless they annex Iraq into the United States) I think it was a combination of wanting to be seen doing something, sending a message to other nations that might support and harbour terrorists, and removing a leader that was in a position to directly threaten US allies (Saudi Arabia and Israel) in the region.
I do think that Iraq was a prime candidate for this role. Out of all the nations on the "list", Iraq had the highest international "Bad boy" profile. There were and still are other candidates, there's Libya but no one had heard anything from them in a long, long time. North Korea, has a nuclear weapons program and technically the U.S. and Canada are still at war (no peace treaty ever signed, it's just a prolonged ceasefire) but a shooting war with North Korea would bring China back into it as well and that's a bigger mouthfull then anybody wants to chew at the moment. The U.S. could've taken it's pick of just about any of the African dictatorships but none of them have a real high profile on the international scene and I don't think the US has any real allies to defend in that region but I could be wrong on that.
I personally think that the middle-east is much better off without Saddam Hussein. If they can put a democratically elected gov't in Iraq so much the better, it might just prove to other PEOPLE (not gov'ts) in the Muslim world that democracy can be worked into their culture and that they are not restricted to an eternity of government by religious or military dictatorships. Anyways, I didn't mean to ramble on as long as I did. I now open the floor to everyone standing by to shoot my reasoning full of holes
1) Hussein did at one point in time have access to various chemicals and that he DID use them against dissidents in his own country as well as the Iranians.
2) He had ample time between the war to liberate Kuwait and the second gulf war to move those weapons either out of country, or into well hidden depots that have yet to be discovered. Iraq is a big place full of terrain that makes searching for these things a time consuming and man-power intensive task. I seem to remember that shortly after the war, Libya came forward and announced the dismantling of it's nuclear program. Could it be that with Hussein out of power, funding for a joint program dried up? (I don't have any proof 1 way or the other, but it's a possibility you can't rule out, just food for thought)
3) Hussein Did support the families of suicide bombers, is it really that much of a stretch to imagine other support as well? I will concede that Hussein and Bin Laden were at very opposite ends of the religious spectrum, making co-operation unlikely but a mutual hatred of America could make for strange alliances.
Do any of you really think that the U.S. soldiers would follow the "this way to WMD depot" signs out of Baghdad? What were the possible reasons for the U.S. invading Iraq? Let's look at some of the possibilities;
1) To liberate the Iraqi people and remove a violent dictator from an already troubled region. This would assume that a government is capable of acting selflessly for the good of the region.
2) To remove an actual threat to American interests and those of her allies. While Hussein could never directly threaten the U.S., Saddam did pose a very real threat to all his neighbours, of whom Israel and Saudi Arabia (to a lesser extent) are proven allies.
3) To send a message to other dictatorships that they must play by the rules. If this is the case Iraq would be the most likely target, they didn't have any real alliances and were generally disliked by everyone on the world stage.
4) To gain the appreciation of everybody in the region. Not likely as a 6 year old could tell you that you don't make friends by beating people up.
5) To consolidate American influence in the region. As the worlds largest consumer of oil, I think the U.S. has lots of influence as it is but a little more never hurts I guess.
6) To forcibly annex Iraq and gain strategic control of its oilfields. This one I've gotta toss right out the window. I don't have any hard numbers but the sheer cost of modern combat operations would make such an idea ludicrous. I was just looking at the airforce page, they don't list fuel burns so I can't get any idea how much it costs just to launch an aircraft, but they do have ordnance costs per weapon (Harm missile comes in at a bargain $200,000 a piece) They have spent more on this war, then they could possibly get back from oil revenues, they were also getting Iraqi oil for a lower price when Hussein was in power through the oil for food and medicine program. The other thing to consider with the "We're here to take your oil" argument is that Canada and Mexico have oil deposits that Rival those of Iraq. If Bush just wanted control over oil it would've been much easier to get at if he had sent his troops north and south. Neither of these countries is crawling with RPG and assault rifle equipped citizens.
7) Bush is a megalomaniac and wants to take over the world. Umm, a possibility I guess, but not real likely.
8) The war was initiated so Bush could award his cronies with the rebuilding contracts. Again, I would say the price tag of the war would omit this as a sole possibility. To be sure, Bush's friends have reaped the benefits of the post-war redevelopment. However, there's easier and more appreciated (by the public) ways for a gov't to reward it's friends (such as improving things that are actually in the U.S. ie, new roads and developments)
9) The gov't wanted to show the American public that it was taking a proactive/pre-emptive approach to dealing with the terrorist threat. This is a very likely possibility, we have to remember that politicians are primarily creatures that crave public adoration. Their concern is primarily getting re-elected and well remembered in the history books, and more often then not, it is better to be seen doing something then doing nothing at all.
Personally, I don't think the US invaded with completely sinister intentions. Like I said, the cost of the war makes profit for the country and Bush's personal club an unlikely prospect (unless they annex Iraq into the United States) I think it was a combination of wanting to be seen doing something, sending a message to other nations that might support and harbour terrorists, and removing a leader that was in a position to directly threaten US allies (Saudi Arabia and Israel) in the region.
I do think that Iraq was a prime candidate for this role. Out of all the nations on the "list", Iraq had the highest international "Bad boy" profile. There were and still are other candidates, there's Libya but no one had heard anything from them in a long, long time. North Korea, has a nuclear weapons program and technically the U.S. and Canada are still at war (no peace treaty ever signed, it's just a prolonged ceasefire) but a shooting war with North Korea would bring China back into it as well and that's a bigger mouthfull then anybody wants to chew at the moment. The U.S. could've taken it's pick of just about any of the African dictatorships but none of them have a real high profile on the international scene and I don't think the US has any real allies to defend in that region but I could be wrong on that.
I personally think that the middle-east is much better off without Saddam Hussein. If they can put a democratically elected gov't in Iraq so much the better, it might just prove to other PEOPLE (not gov'ts) in the Muslim world that democracy can be worked into their culture and that they are not restricted to an eternity of government by religious or military dictatorships. Anyways, I didn't mean to ramble on as long as I did. I now open the floor to everyone standing by to shoot my reasoning full of holes
[QUOTE=Slick Fork]
I personally think that the middle-east is much better off without Saddam Hussein. [/QUOTE]
Well I supported the war, at least I supported the war when I thought the Bush lead government had the ability to wage a war to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam. Instead they waged a war in the beginning to liberate the oil fields in Iraq, to *** with everything else. Hospitals didn't seem to matter, right along with anything else not connected to the oil business.
Then to make matters even worst (yes like it could get worst), the Bush think tank decided anyone who was a Baath member couldn't be involved in the new Iraq, forgetting that for most in Iraq under Saddam the only way to get and hold a job was to be a member.
Then while on this down hill slide they disarm the people who had some control over the Iraqi people without planning how law and order will be kept without someone to enforce it.
(I'm not even going to start on the abuse at the prisons)
So I support the troops, but have no faith in the ability of the Bush think tank to even clean a toilet bowl, much less run a war.
I personally think that the middle-east is much better off without Saddam Hussein. [/QUOTE]
Well I supported the war, at least I supported the war when I thought the Bush lead government had the ability to wage a war to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam. Instead they waged a war in the beginning to liberate the oil fields in Iraq, to *** with everything else. Hospitals didn't seem to matter, right along with anything else not connected to the oil business.
Then to make matters even worst (yes like it could get worst), the Bush think tank decided anyone who was a Baath member couldn't be involved in the new Iraq, forgetting that for most in Iraq under Saddam the only way to get and hold a job was to be a member.
Then while on this down hill slide they disarm the people who had some control over the Iraqi people without planning how law and order will be kept without someone to enforce it.
(I'm not even going to start on the abuse at the prisons)
So I support the troops, but have no faith in the ability of the Bush think tank to even clean a toilet bowl, much less run a war.
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
[QUOTE=Slick Fork]I'm just curious, for those of you who were/are against the U.S. involvement in Iraq, what do you think the reasoning behind going in was? As far as the WMD/Bin-Laden connection goes, it is documented fact that;
1) Hussein did at one point in time have access to various chemicals and that he DID use them against dissidents in his own country as well as the Iranians.
2) He had ample time between the war to liberate Kuwait and the second gulf war to move those weapons either out of country, or into well hidden depots that have yet to be discovered. Iraq is a big place full of terrain that makes searching for these things a time consuming and man-power intensive task. <snip>
[/quote]
And many years spend by the UN observers finding nothing of significance.
Nobody is denying that Iraq/Saddam Hussein have had access to biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction, but there were no real evidence pointing to the fact that he had WMD now, or even the capacity of making them.
Past behaviour, while a good indication of future behaviour is not proof.
Besides - other countries have WMD and unstable or hostile Governments. But less resources and more problems connected to using force towards them.
[QUOTE=Slick Fork]
I seem to remember that shortly after the war, Libya came forward and announced the dismantling of it's nuclear program. Could it be that with Hussein out of power, funding for a joint program dried up? (I don't have any proof 1 way or the other, but it's a possibility you can't rule out, just food for thought)
[/quote]
While Libya’s "conversion" was welcomed, the question of it all would be if they wouldn't have done something similar as this even without the Iraqi-conflict. Libya has the possibility for great oil finds, but no way of utilizing those, themselves and only limited sources to sell it to (and those were already oil-producing countries themselves). Gadaffi I think only used it as a reason to not loose as much face as he would have otherwise imo.
[QUOTE=Slick Fork]
3) Hussein Did support the families of suicide bombers, is it really that much of a stretch to imagine other support as well? I will concede that Hussein and Bin Laden were at very opposite ends of the religious spectrum, making co-operation unlikely but a mutual hatred of America could make for strange alliances.
[/quote]
While I haven't seen a real link between Bin Laden and Hussein, I don't doubt that he has properly supported terrorism in one form or the other. But this was not the public stated reason for invading Iraq; it was the WMD question and non-compliance with UN regulative (which were used as an indicator of existence of WMD).
[QUOTE=Slick Fork]
Do any of you really think that the U.S. soldiers would follow the "this way to WMD depot" signs out of Baghdad?
[/quote]
Well - looking at the rhetoric used by the US Government trying to persuade other nations to join their war, it was the image given. The emphasize was made so strongly on the existence of WMD, that the failure to find any so far is a really good indicator towards the fact that they didn't really know what they were talking about. (IMO). And I think this is a very important point.
[QUOTE=Slick Fork]
What were the possible reasons for the U.S. invading Iraq? Let's look at some of the possibilities;
1) To liberate the Iraqi people and remove a violent dictator from an already troubled region. This would assume that a government is capable of acting selflessly for the good of the region.
[/quote]
I believe this was part of the reasons, but I am not sure of the altruistic reasons for doing this. Insertion/backing of a "puppet-regime" is a possibility. This has happened before in other states. This could help provide a platform in the region. The Middle East is tremendously anti-USA and anti-western world, so a friendly face in the region would valuable. And although Israel is pro-USA and western world, it is hardly usable for such a platform as a pro-USA Iraq would be.
[QUOTE=Slick Fork]
2) To remove an actual threat to American interests and those of her allies. While Hussein could never directly threaten the U.S., Saddam did pose a very real threat to all his neighbours, of whom Israel and Saudi Arabia (to a lesser extent) are proven allies.
[/quote]
After the first war (Desert Storm), I doubt many percived Iraq as a possible threat towards the region. The threat was mostly towards its own population. Isreal would have little to fear from Iraq, partly due to the distance, the Isreal military (which is formidable) and the fact that it is strongly supported. The only possible directly military threat towards Isreal from Iraq would be if Iraq could gather an alliance towards it and this alliance would go to war. Otherwise it would be via terroristic bombings, and Isreal alreay suffers these, so that is hardly a possibility. Iraq couldn't attack or threat Saudi-Arabia either, that would cause most other Islamic countries in the region to turn against Iraq. After the Iran-Iraq conflict, Iraq only had the possiblity to military threaten small states, withouth getting into a major conflict - and Iraq had already learned that lesson when they tried in the first gulf-war. So a threat to allies? - I can't buy that one at all.
[QUOTE=Slick Fork]
3) To send a message to other dictatorships that they must play by the rules. If this is the case Iraq would be the most likely target, they didn't have any real alliances and were generally disliked by everyone on the world stage.
[/quote]
This is a reason I can agree with - if only it was because Iraq wasn't so weak already. It isn't any kind of a signal to stronger dictatorial regimes if you pick on one of the weakest of the crowd. The large schoolyard bullies aren’t impressed if you pick on the weakest guy of the lot.
Iraq would however be the best (easiest) target, because of their weakened nation.
[QUOTE=Slick Fork]
4) To gain the appreciation of everybody in the region. Not likely as a 6 year old could tell you that you don't make friends by beating people up.
[/quote]
Agreed, but one should still not underestimate a friendly face in the region if a pro-USA government was created afterwards. Then USA would have two supporters in the region, and one being an oil-producing country would be very beneficial.
[QUOTE=Slick Fork]
5) To consolidate American influence in the region. As the worlds largest consumer of oil, I think the U.S. has lots of influence as it is but a little more never hurts I guess.
[/quote]
Wrong - Who do you think suffer most if the tab is turned off, and no oil is produced?
The oil-hungry countries. Being the world’s largest consumer of oil makes USA have absolutely no influence at all, because they are at the economical mercy of the ones that has the goods. It is basic laws of capitalism ... the oil-industry is in a sellers market, and thus they have the power. It would only become a buyers market, if a large part of the world, collectively, stopped requesting oil. Not likely (yet).
[QUOTE=Slick Fork]
6) To forcibly annex Iraq and gain strategic control of its oilfields. This one I've gotta toss right out the window. I don't have any hard numbers but the sheer cost of modern combat operations would make such an idea ludicrous. I was just looking at the airforce page, they don't list fuel burns so I can't get any idea how much it costs just to launch an aircraft, but they do have ordnance costs per weapon (Harm missile comes in at a bargain $200,000 a piece) They have spent more on this war, then they could possibly get back from oil revenues, they were also getting Iraqi oil for a lower price when Hussein was in power through the oil for food and medicine program. The other thing to consider with the "We're here to take your oil" argument is that Canada and Mexico have oil deposits that Rival those of Iraq. If Bush just wanted control over oil it would've been much easier to get at if he had sent his troops north and south. Neither of these countries is crawling with RPG and assault rifle equipped citizens.
[/quote]
It might be expensive to wage a war, but when you use millions of barrels each day, the perspective of an expensive war presently, is much cheaper then a perspective of no (or less) oil in the (near) future.
[QUOTE=Slick Fork]
7) Bush is a megalomaniac and wants to take over the world. Umm, a possibility I guess, but not real likely.
8) The war was initiated so Bush could award his cronies with the rebuilding contracts. Again, I would say the price tag of the war would omit this as a sole possibility. To be sure, Bush's friends have reaped the benefits of the post-war redevelopment. However, there's easier and more appreciated (by the public) ways for a gov't to reward it's friends (such as improving things that are actually in the U.S. ie, new roads and developments)
[/quote]
Got no real comments about these two hypotheses. I don't know Bush and the US politics well enough
[QUOTE=Slick Fork]
9) The gov't wanted to show the American public that it was taking a proactive/pre-emptive approach to dealing with the terrorist threat. This is a very likely possibility, we have to remember that politicians are primarily creatures that crave public adoration. Their concern is primarily getting re-elected and well remembered in the history books, and more often then not, it is better to be seen doing something then doing nothing at all.<snip>
[/quote]
This I think is very plausible actually.
....next post comming up in closing
1) Hussein did at one point in time have access to various chemicals and that he DID use them against dissidents in his own country as well as the Iranians.
2) He had ample time between the war to liberate Kuwait and the second gulf war to move those weapons either out of country, or into well hidden depots that have yet to be discovered. Iraq is a big place full of terrain that makes searching for these things a time consuming and man-power intensive task. <snip>
[/quote]
And many years spend by the UN observers finding nothing of significance.
Nobody is denying that Iraq/Saddam Hussein have had access to biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction, but there were no real evidence pointing to the fact that he had WMD now, or even the capacity of making them.
Past behaviour, while a good indication of future behaviour is not proof.
Besides - other countries have WMD and unstable or hostile Governments. But less resources and more problems connected to using force towards them.
[QUOTE=Slick Fork]
I seem to remember that shortly after the war, Libya came forward and announced the dismantling of it's nuclear program. Could it be that with Hussein out of power, funding for a joint program dried up? (I don't have any proof 1 way or the other, but it's a possibility you can't rule out, just food for thought)
[/quote]
While Libya’s "conversion" was welcomed, the question of it all would be if they wouldn't have done something similar as this even without the Iraqi-conflict. Libya has the possibility for great oil finds, but no way of utilizing those, themselves and only limited sources to sell it to (and those were already oil-producing countries themselves). Gadaffi I think only used it as a reason to not loose as much face as he would have otherwise imo.
[QUOTE=Slick Fork]
3) Hussein Did support the families of suicide bombers, is it really that much of a stretch to imagine other support as well? I will concede that Hussein and Bin Laden were at very opposite ends of the religious spectrum, making co-operation unlikely but a mutual hatred of America could make for strange alliances.
[/quote]
While I haven't seen a real link between Bin Laden and Hussein, I don't doubt that he has properly supported terrorism in one form or the other. But this was not the public stated reason for invading Iraq; it was the WMD question and non-compliance with UN regulative (which were used as an indicator of existence of WMD).
[QUOTE=Slick Fork]
Do any of you really think that the U.S. soldiers would follow the "this way to WMD depot" signs out of Baghdad?
[/quote]
Well - looking at the rhetoric used by the US Government trying to persuade other nations to join their war, it was the image given. The emphasize was made so strongly on the existence of WMD, that the failure to find any so far is a really good indicator towards the fact that they didn't really know what they were talking about. (IMO). And I think this is a very important point.
[QUOTE=Slick Fork]
What were the possible reasons for the U.S. invading Iraq? Let's look at some of the possibilities;
1) To liberate the Iraqi people and remove a violent dictator from an already troubled region. This would assume that a government is capable of acting selflessly for the good of the region.
[/quote]
I believe this was part of the reasons, but I am not sure of the altruistic reasons for doing this. Insertion/backing of a "puppet-regime" is a possibility. This has happened before in other states. This could help provide a platform in the region. The Middle East is tremendously anti-USA and anti-western world, so a friendly face in the region would valuable. And although Israel is pro-USA and western world, it is hardly usable for such a platform as a pro-USA Iraq would be.
[QUOTE=Slick Fork]
2) To remove an actual threat to American interests and those of her allies. While Hussein could never directly threaten the U.S., Saddam did pose a very real threat to all his neighbours, of whom Israel and Saudi Arabia (to a lesser extent) are proven allies.
[/quote]
After the first war (Desert Storm), I doubt many percived Iraq as a possible threat towards the region. The threat was mostly towards its own population. Isreal would have little to fear from Iraq, partly due to the distance, the Isreal military (which is formidable) and the fact that it is strongly supported. The only possible directly military threat towards Isreal from Iraq would be if Iraq could gather an alliance towards it and this alliance would go to war. Otherwise it would be via terroristic bombings, and Isreal alreay suffers these, so that is hardly a possibility. Iraq couldn't attack or threat Saudi-Arabia either, that would cause most other Islamic countries in the region to turn against Iraq. After the Iran-Iraq conflict, Iraq only had the possiblity to military threaten small states, withouth getting into a major conflict - and Iraq had already learned that lesson when they tried in the first gulf-war. So a threat to allies? - I can't buy that one at all.
[QUOTE=Slick Fork]
3) To send a message to other dictatorships that they must play by the rules. If this is the case Iraq would be the most likely target, they didn't have any real alliances and were generally disliked by everyone on the world stage.
[/quote]
This is a reason I can agree with - if only it was because Iraq wasn't so weak already. It isn't any kind of a signal to stronger dictatorial regimes if you pick on one of the weakest of the crowd. The large schoolyard bullies aren’t impressed if you pick on the weakest guy of the lot.
Iraq would however be the best (easiest) target, because of their weakened nation.
[QUOTE=Slick Fork]
4) To gain the appreciation of everybody in the region. Not likely as a 6 year old could tell you that you don't make friends by beating people up.
[/quote]
Agreed, but one should still not underestimate a friendly face in the region if a pro-USA government was created afterwards. Then USA would have two supporters in the region, and one being an oil-producing country would be very beneficial.
[QUOTE=Slick Fork]
5) To consolidate American influence in the region. As the worlds largest consumer of oil, I think the U.S. has lots of influence as it is but a little more never hurts I guess.
[/quote]
Wrong - Who do you think suffer most if the tab is turned off, and no oil is produced?
The oil-hungry countries. Being the world’s largest consumer of oil makes USA have absolutely no influence at all, because they are at the economical mercy of the ones that has the goods. It is basic laws of capitalism ... the oil-industry is in a sellers market, and thus they have the power. It would only become a buyers market, if a large part of the world, collectively, stopped requesting oil. Not likely (yet).
[QUOTE=Slick Fork]
6) To forcibly annex Iraq and gain strategic control of its oilfields. This one I've gotta toss right out the window. I don't have any hard numbers but the sheer cost of modern combat operations would make such an idea ludicrous. I was just looking at the airforce page, they don't list fuel burns so I can't get any idea how much it costs just to launch an aircraft, but they do have ordnance costs per weapon (Harm missile comes in at a bargain $200,000 a piece) They have spent more on this war, then they could possibly get back from oil revenues, they were also getting Iraqi oil for a lower price when Hussein was in power through the oil for food and medicine program. The other thing to consider with the "We're here to take your oil" argument is that Canada and Mexico have oil deposits that Rival those of Iraq. If Bush just wanted control over oil it would've been much easier to get at if he had sent his troops north and south. Neither of these countries is crawling with RPG and assault rifle equipped citizens.
[/quote]
It might be expensive to wage a war, but when you use millions of barrels each day, the perspective of an expensive war presently, is much cheaper then a perspective of no (or less) oil in the (near) future.
[QUOTE=Slick Fork]
7) Bush is a megalomaniac and wants to take over the world. Umm, a possibility I guess, but not real likely.
8) The war was initiated so Bush could award his cronies with the rebuilding contracts. Again, I would say the price tag of the war would omit this as a sole possibility. To be sure, Bush's friends have reaped the benefits of the post-war redevelopment. However, there's easier and more appreciated (by the public) ways for a gov't to reward it's friends (such as improving things that are actually in the U.S. ie, new roads and developments)
[/quote]
Got no real comments about these two hypotheses. I don't know Bush and the US politics well enough
[QUOTE=Slick Fork]
9) The gov't wanted to show the American public that it was taking a proactive/pre-emptive approach to dealing with the terrorist threat. This is a very likely possibility, we have to remember that politicians are primarily creatures that crave public adoration. Their concern is primarily getting re-elected and well remembered in the history books, and more often then not, it is better to be seen doing something then doing nothing at all.<snip>
[/quote]
This I think is very plausible actually.
....next post comming up in closing
Insert signature here.
followup on former post......
In closing.
I must admit that I was for the war in Iraq, but mostly because it ment getting rid of a dictator that cared noting for his country. Also because I don't doubt that the regime had links to terrorisme (properly not Bin Laden), which I think should be hit hard anywhere possible.
However - I think Iraq was chosen as the ground of conflict, for a few reasons.
Oil. It can't be denied - currently oil is one (the?) of the most important resources we have in this world, which I find unfortunal, because it will lead to more conflicts.
Weakness. Iraq was weak, and the easiest country to use to set the example for "all dictators". I must however admit - North Korea scares me much more on a global scale then Saddam's Iraq did.
Puppet-Regimes. I think it was logical that the US would attempt its utmost to install a puppet-regime in the country, or at least a very US-friendly regime. This would help US operations and influence in the region.
As I said - I actually support(ed) this war, but I think the reasons given was wrong and border lining a lie. Maybe everybody in the intelligence agencies and government really thought so strongly they would find WMD down there, but looking at the statements given (mostly by UN observers), it was a stretch. And as I mentioned earlier – they spoke so strongly for the existence of WMD and all the proof they had, and the fact that they still haven’t found any leads/WMDs, only points to the fact that they didn’t know what they were talking about.
It would have been much more "right", if they had used the arguments as for instance removing Saddam Hussein from power, because he was "their fault".
Disclaimer: sorry - this post is long, so I possible contradicted myself somewhere. Don't hold it against me I am trying my best
In closing.
I must admit that I was for the war in Iraq, but mostly because it ment getting rid of a dictator that cared noting for his country. Also because I don't doubt that the regime had links to terrorisme (properly not Bin Laden), which I think should be hit hard anywhere possible.
However - I think Iraq was chosen as the ground of conflict, for a few reasons.
Oil. It can't be denied - currently oil is one (the?) of the most important resources we have in this world, which I find unfortunal, because it will lead to more conflicts.
Weakness. Iraq was weak, and the easiest country to use to set the example for "all dictators". I must however admit - North Korea scares me much more on a global scale then Saddam's Iraq did.
Puppet-Regimes. I think it was logical that the US would attempt its utmost to install a puppet-regime in the country, or at least a very US-friendly regime. This would help US operations and influence in the region.
As I said - I actually support(ed) this war, but I think the reasons given was wrong and border lining a lie. Maybe everybody in the intelligence agencies and government really thought so strongly they would find WMD down there, but looking at the statements given (mostly by UN observers), it was a stretch. And as I mentioned earlier – they spoke so strongly for the existence of WMD and all the proof they had, and the fact that they still haven’t found any leads/WMDs, only points to the fact that they didn’t know what they were talking about.
It would have been much more "right", if they had used the arguments as for instance removing Saddam Hussein from power, because he was "their fault".
Disclaimer: sorry - this post is long, so I possible contradicted myself somewhere. Don't hold it against me
I am trying my best Insert signature here.
I will do my best to make this a shorter post even though it's a very difficult subject
Weapons of mass destruction have a "best used before" date. This applies to chemical agents, nuclear warheads and biological compounds alike. You need complex facilities to keep these things "fresh". So, assuming the US and whomever else sold these weapons to Saddam stopped doing so around 1992, most of them are worthless at best. This should not surprise the US government who by far outnumbers any other holder of these gruesome weapons. If Iraq by some chance managed to hide such facilities, they would still require quite conspicuous utilities such as plenty of power, transport routes, etc that aren't entirely easy to hide. This is how the UN weapon inspectors found some the missile parts that had survived the first war, but this was before the media found it interesting enough to put on the front page. It was also at the time when the interest for Iraq was minimal. Considering how motivated the US must have been to find proof in Iraq, they would have found the facilities containing usable weapons quite quickly, and any weapons stored elsewhere are most likely dud since it is very unlikely that they have been moved the last ten years or so. My conclusion; there were no usable weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and this was no surprise to the US intelligence community.
Liberation of the Iraqi people is a noble goal, but their lives were better by far to, for instance, the citizens of North Korea or anyone either starving or dying from AIDS in southern Africa. Why are the Iraqi people in such a dire need of saving? Just counting in number of lives saved, sending one millionth of the cost of the war to basically any African country south of the Sahara would do ten times the effect. Disarming all the gunslinging nuts in the US would save close to five times the number of people that died in the September 11 attack every year.
The insertion of a friendly puppet government is not an unlikely motive, but since the affair has been handled with such a complete disregard for the local culture and the civilian population it is doubtful that it was a key issue. The effect is however quite the oposite, since now the US _only_ has Israel in the region and no longer can expect any support from either Saudi Arabia or the Arab Emirates that used to be friendly to the US. They have also strengthened the largely aloof governments of countries such as Egypt, Iran, Syria, to mention but a few. If this motive were important, the US would have waited for the UN. Obviously there was something else that was so valuable that it was worth loosing two local and numerous global allies over. Considering what did have priority in Iraq I would say oil.
As for sending a message to world dictators, I feel the message to be "don't threaten with nuclear weapons until you have them". Because when you do, the US government will come smiling to the negotiation table. It also helps to have no valuable resources. I completely agree with Xan that beating up the weakest guy is not effective and doesn't win you any friends either.
I also agree that the US is the country most vulnerable from the fact that the middle eastern countries control most of the world oil resources. Especially since the latest car fashion in the US is to drive a Hummer, since you obviously need something bigger than all the wretched SUVs out there. Again, oil.
What is the key line of business for the Bush family. Oil? I'm starting to see a pattern. Now all I have to do is include the Halliburton group in the mix and to me, the key ingredients for a war become apparent. For the weapons industry, it is necessary for some of the hardware to be spent for them to get new orders. If no Tomahawks fly, no smartbombs are dropped, no helicopters crash, the US government won't need to buy any new ones. Now where do you find most of Shrubs friends?
The US intelligence agencies need to make up their minds about Osama bin Laden. It was very convenient to decide that he wasn't quite the fanatic nut they've always claimed him to be, just to be able to bundle him up with Saddam. Personally I still believe he is the proverbial fanatical nut, and that he would rather pay to see Saddam roasted over a slow fire rather than take his money. Most of Osama's financing comes from, and has always come from, Saudi Arabia. Go fetch, Dubbya! They have oil too. Throw a stray missile at Mecca while you're at it.
I have been against the war from day one. I do not believe that human rights and justice can be instigated by war, and just looking at the disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq is to me ample proof. In my opinion, the US president should not be impeached - he should be brought in front of the world tribunal for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He can have the seat between Saddam and Ariel Sharon.
Weapons of mass destruction have a "best used before" date. This applies to chemical agents, nuclear warheads and biological compounds alike. You need complex facilities to keep these things "fresh". So, assuming the US and whomever else sold these weapons to Saddam stopped doing so around 1992, most of them are worthless at best. This should not surprise the US government who by far outnumbers any other holder of these gruesome weapons. If Iraq by some chance managed to hide such facilities, they would still require quite conspicuous utilities such as plenty of power, transport routes, etc that aren't entirely easy to hide. This is how the UN weapon inspectors found some the missile parts that had survived the first war, but this was before the media found it interesting enough to put on the front page. It was also at the time when the interest for Iraq was minimal. Considering how motivated the US must have been to find proof in Iraq, they would have found the facilities containing usable weapons quite quickly, and any weapons stored elsewhere are most likely dud since it is very unlikely that they have been moved the last ten years or so. My conclusion; there were no usable weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and this was no surprise to the US intelligence community.
Liberation of the Iraqi people is a noble goal, but their lives were better by far to, for instance, the citizens of North Korea or anyone either starving or dying from AIDS in southern Africa. Why are the Iraqi people in such a dire need of saving? Just counting in number of lives saved, sending one millionth of the cost of the war to basically any African country south of the Sahara would do ten times the effect. Disarming all the gunslinging nuts in the US would save close to five times the number of people that died in the September 11 attack every year.
The insertion of a friendly puppet government is not an unlikely motive, but since the affair has been handled with such a complete disregard for the local culture and the civilian population it is doubtful that it was a key issue. The effect is however quite the oposite, since now the US _only_ has Israel in the region and no longer can expect any support from either Saudi Arabia or the Arab Emirates that used to be friendly to the US. They have also strengthened the largely aloof governments of countries such as Egypt, Iran, Syria, to mention but a few. If this motive were important, the US would have waited for the UN. Obviously there was something else that was so valuable that it was worth loosing two local and numerous global allies over. Considering what did have priority in Iraq I would say oil.
As for sending a message to world dictators, I feel the message to be "don't threaten with nuclear weapons until you have them". Because when you do, the US government will come smiling to the negotiation table. It also helps to have no valuable resources. I completely agree with Xan that beating up the weakest guy is not effective and doesn't win you any friends either.
I also agree that the US is the country most vulnerable from the fact that the middle eastern countries control most of the world oil resources. Especially since the latest car fashion in the US is to drive a Hummer, since you obviously need something bigger than all the wretched SUVs out there. Again, oil.
What is the key line of business for the Bush family. Oil? I'm starting to see a pattern. Now all I have to do is include the Halliburton group in the mix and to me, the key ingredients for a war become apparent. For the weapons industry, it is necessary for some of the hardware to be spent for them to get new orders. If no Tomahawks fly, no smartbombs are dropped, no helicopters crash, the US government won't need to buy any new ones. Now where do you find most of Shrubs friends?
The US intelligence agencies need to make up their minds about Osama bin Laden. It was very convenient to decide that he wasn't quite the fanatic nut they've always claimed him to be, just to be able to bundle him up with Saddam. Personally I still believe he is the proverbial fanatical nut, and that he would rather pay to see Saddam roasted over a slow fire rather than take his money. Most of Osama's financing comes from, and has always come from, Saudi Arabia. Go fetch, Dubbya! They have oil too. Throw a stray missile at Mecca while you're at it.
I have been against the war from day one. I do not believe that human rights and justice can be instigated by war, and just looking at the disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq is to me ample proof. In my opinion, the US president should not be impeached - he should be brought in front of the world tribunal for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He can have the seat between Saddam and Ariel Sharon.
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations David Friedman
Assumptions are being made about reasons for the war, but if you put the neo-con ideas or just plain ideas aside, we must remember the Bush Administration's economic record. Bush has proven himself an incompetent when it comes to economy, and none of his staff are much better. None seem to have a problem wasting large amounts of money, either; remember, almost all of Bush's cabinet were millionaires before they took office.
This, for one, makes the argument of going after oil much more plausible. The Bush Admin is also underfire for grossly underestimating the cost of the war. Unfortunately for everyone involved, it's not in the neo-conservative ideology to back out and admit wrong (most of Bush's policies are seen as infallible by the current Administration).
Oh, and Iraq is much easier to scapegoat and to find ulterior motives for invading than Canada and Mexico would. Debatable, true, with Shatner and all...
The idea of setting an example works with some countries in the Middle East (it did have a positive influence on Libya, which openned its doors to its nuclear program). However, to the more dangerous dictatorships, such as that of North Korea, the conquest of Iraq isn't threatening at all.
As the US has already shown, the Iraqi gouvernment can't do all it wants.
The liberation of Iraq is surely a nice thing in itself. But that can't have possibly been the reason for the war. Situations all over the world are much worse, like in North Korea, places in China, and the AIDS situation in Africa.
This, for one, makes the argument of going after oil much more plausible. The Bush Admin is also underfire for grossly underestimating the cost of the war. Unfortunately for everyone involved, it's not in the neo-conservative ideology to back out and admit wrong (most of Bush's policies are seen as infallible by the current Administration).
Oh, and Iraq is much easier to scapegoat and to find ulterior motives for invading than Canada and Mexico would.
Debatable, true, with Shatner and all...The idea of setting an example works with some countries in the Middle East (it did have a positive influence on Libya, which openned its doors to its nuclear program). However, to the more dangerous dictatorships, such as that of North Korea, the conquest of Iraq isn't threatening at all.
As the US has already shown, the Iraqi gouvernment can't do all it wants.
The liberation of Iraq is surely a nice thing in itself. But that can't have possibly been the reason for the war. Situations all over the world are much worse, like in North Korea, places in China, and the AIDS situation in Africa.
If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do.
[QUOTE=Nightmare]The liberation of Iraq is surely a nice thing in itself. But that can't have possibly been the reason for the war. Situations all over the world are much worse, like in North Korea, places in China, and the AIDS situation in Africa.[/QUOTE]
Chiina rolled battle tanks over their own students. I don't see any US troops rushing to the rescue... if you don't count Nike's managers going there to start factories.
Chiina rolled battle tanks over their own students. I don't see any US troops rushing to the rescue... if you don't count Nike's managers going there to start factories.
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations David Friedman