[The Black Ghost]

Quote by: grandpa If this were meant to be ironic, maybe it would make sense. The thing is, -- and hopefully you'll at least admit this much -- even if the US government doesn't have the best interests at heart (which I think is the case, but just for the sake of argument), it would still feel licensed to do virtually anything it wants. After all, we did support future Islamic terrorists like Osama bin Laden, and have supported dictators like Saddam Hussein. So before you liken my reasoning to that of a "bad politician or criminal," consider what the US government has done in fact, whatever its reasons. And, by the way, the reasoning is accurate anyway. If the invasion hadn't occurred, many Iraqi deaths would have certainly been prevented, and many terrorists and extremists wouldn't have run amok in Iraq. And if they eventually had, that's not necessarily our business anyway, just like Saddam Hussein having WMD's wouldn't have really been a valid excuse to invade. Plenty of countries have WMD's that they've threatened to use in self-defense. The US is in fact the only country to have actually done so, and in areas densely populated by civilians (Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Plus, as I mentioned, the US supported Saddam even after it was known that he had gassed Kurds. But, if people believe in an imaginary man in the sky, I guess they can believe in anything. Yes, our policies are somehow moral simply because they are ours. If anyone does something similar to what we do but are not "us," then we can more easily consider them immoral. This "white man's burden"-style thinking is clearly dangerous, and I urge any readers not to make a career of it.

Lets focus on now, not the past. We live in the now, after all. If we keep going back to things that happened 20-30+ years ago, Im sure there are plenty of examples to support any number of ideas.

Sure, some deaths would have been prevented--we couldnt have anticipated the scale of those deaths--but even so, we still have to do something. You keep talking about how the US is tyrannical and must be stopped. Well, why then, is it so hard to think about stopping (what even you must admit) is a much worse and real tyranny.

Hyprocrisy is the worst problem, perhaps, and those who have made bad decisions have marred the image of our presidency much. However, that does not mean we still have a responsibility to protect others abroad, and protect our own interests--even if that is oil, or resources. I mean, our society runs on our resources, were they cut, we would collapse, so it is vital. I think Bush realized this when he said "we are addicted to oil"...because we depend upon nations we otherwise wouldnt need to because of it--leading to inevitable conflict with those that dont agree with us.

I'll have to hold my applause to your little speech, I'm afraid.

Depsite what you say, not supporting thugs, terrorists and coups is not necessarily "doing nothing in every situation." For example, I think political asylum is a perfectly valid concept. But, if I remember correctly, the US actually treats such people rather badly, and even charges fees for political asylum. It's just another example of us not being heroes, but sons of bitches.

Again, stop overgeneralizing.

Not only has this war been considered almost pointless, except for profits inside our militarized global economy, but it's left the country largely destroyed and the people living in even greater fear than they had been before, but the economic cost has been great for Iraqis, as well as for us. And much of Iraq, like much of the United States, is in the private domain of a handful of self-proclaimed experts in the name of "government by the people." This is nothing but one of the greatest, authentic conspiracies of all time.

Well, I respectfully disagree with every statement there. The reward is not always present right away. Making Iraq a freer place is a reward enough...and in the future, it will be more rewarding. The conspiracy is very flawed.

Blowing up someone's house is a little different from "sticking our nose into someone else's door," and I don't think too many Iraqis actually wanted their country to be invaded, their infrastructure destroyed, and everything to be de-stabilized. Asking to be invaded is pretty much like asking for a death warrant. In fact, I'd say that any Iraqis who wanted something like this to happen would have to have been incredibly stupid, incredibly twisted, or both. Grandpa h.

1. Most Iraqis were happy to be invaded--in reality, liberated. Support only waned when the insurgency took root and rival factions began fighting.... once things get tough, people quickly stop supporting them, but that is when it is most important to hold out.
2.We also did not want to destroy their infrastructure and be destabilized. We actually destroyed very little infrastructure comparatively to most invasions...much of it was destroyed later by insurgents. The entire war was meant to be quick--minimize deaths on all side, minimize infra. damage, minimize friendly casualties. It worked well, but insurgents caused a lot of mayhem later on.
3. I think you make the assumption that Iraqis were fine living under Saddam, many were not.