Originally posted by Vad
DREDIOCK, I have question for you.
Looks like you are not from the bunch of morons who really do believe in fair tales about "fighting for democracy", WMD and other BS. I agree that nation has the right to fight for national interests, and oil is one of the most important resource now days, but...
Did you ever think that may be "national interests" is just another line of defence? Ok, the first line is for rednecks who really do belive in "democracy" delirium. For those who at least have spoon of brains "national interests" are coming. But may be there is the third line?
The main business interest of Bush family is oil. This family makes money on oil. The latest two peaks of oil prices were ... yes, when Bush-father was ruling the USA and now, when his son took the power. Gulf war and Iraq. All others who were not Christmas presents for sure were not so interested in "national interests" or "democracy", and oil prices dropped at their times. Only two Bushes put the prices out of sky...
What do you think, is it possible that American soldiers died not for "national interests" but, how to say...., for additional profit of selected companies?
Question back at ya.
How does the Bush family control worl oil prices?
If the spikes in oil only occured in the USA I'd maybe side with your arguement. but they dont.
Without creating a wall of text going into every single detail
I have also said all along that among other things I saw the invasion of Iraq as being in our national interests.
On the oil front Bush or the rest of the oil moguls are irrelevent to me.
when supply goes down the prices go up. when oil prices go up the economy usually is hurt by it.
Doesnt matter who the president is either.
At the time I did beleive in WMDs. to a certain extent I still do
Tigers dont suddenly become lambs. Just doesnt happen
And I can fully understand how it can be made to look like they didnt have them
I also can fully understand how people can beleive he didnt have them and thus thinl the entire thing was "BS" as most people dont understand how the Iraqi WMD program worked. so its not a very far reach to see how people cant understand how it can be made to look as if they didnt have them
I also said I saw Iraq as a situation that had to be dealt with in this way sooner or later.
I've also mentioned how I've been against a policy of "containment" As we can easily see just how well that works by looking at North Korea
I've said all along there was an entire multitude of reasons to take care of Iraq.
I'd have been behind it no matter who the president was, Be it Perot, Clinton,Gore, Or Bush.
As I have said many many times already. I didnt need the excuse of WMDs.
I'd have said "fine" if they told me we were going in "because its tuesday"
I would have supported it because I see it as being in our national interests to do so.
What I dont like. Nor do I agree with is how it has been handled or mishandled as the case is, since the fall of Bahgdad.
As for Democracy in Iraq....eh its a nice thought. But it isnt something I've countd on. And certainly not in a few years.
Your dealing with a people who just arent used to that thought.
It is possible to acheive just not to our standards. At least not right away
Different culture and mindset
