"US al qaida free""iraq safer than detroit""terrorists want bearnaise sauce

[The Ghost of RubangB]

Sqrl said:

The Ghost of RubangB said:

 

Iraq wasn't a threat to the U.S. though, unless you mean a threat to our foreign oil interests. Yeah he committed horrible crimes against humanity, but it's not America's job to protect humanity. If it was, we'd be in Darfur and the Congo instead of Iraq. (Ask Ann Coulter how she feels about that.)

There are dictators far worse than Saddam who get away with murder because they don't own the most important land mass on the planet, connecting all of the eastern hemisphere, which just also happens to be full of oil.

Also, the folks look brown in Iraq, so it's easier to trick the American people into thinking they had anything to do with 9/11. Maybe if they were Chinese terrorists on the planes, we'd have invaded Taiwan or Japan or something.

With all that said, we're already there, but I still don't agree with the "you break you buy" philosophy when it comes to war and human lives. If for some reason, the U.S. needs to keep X amount of troops abroad meddling with other countries at all times, there are places where those troops could be doing far more good, and probably even costing less money.

 

 

I don't see how you think a sadistic person who we know wanted nukes and disliked both us and our allies was no threat.  But again whether he was or wasn't a threat is moot now.

As for the oil interest, that really hasn't panned out that well for us from what I can tell. We get a small percentage of our oil from there (between 2-4% iirc) and we pay full price for it and the contracts and operation of the whole deal from Iraqi wells to American cars is under considerable scrutiny. From start to finish the "We invaded for oil" line has enjoyed little to no actual support. The best supporting argument that I know of is that supposedly Paul Wolfowitz had proposed to use the oil in Iraq to fund the war but it was either rejected or never actually suggested because we aren't doing it.

As for your belief that we attacked because they were "brown" and people would be ok with that, I have to say I find that particularly disturbing on your part if you truly believe that. I won't dignify it further.

 

Wanting nukes and disliking us?  Are we the thought police now?  What about North Korea or Iran?  If you believe Iraq was a threat to the U.S., how was it a larger threat than those two?

I'm not saying we invaded just for oil, but if we're going to invade and occupy a country and install a puppet government that's an instant ally and will allow us to make a permanent military base there, we might as well put it in the most valuable landmass on the planet.  The oil is a very small fringe benefit, but Wolfowitz and co. proposed the Plan for a New American Century back in the 90's, arguing that Iraq was the best spot of land on earth because it could provide land trade routes between Europe, Asia, and Africa, and had oil to boot.  Yeah he's the nutjob who said the oil would fund the invasion as if we'd just snatch it all up immediately, but these are the nutjobs who fed the media frenzy to get this war started.

I don't think we attacked because they were brown, but I think it was easy for the media to trick the stupid public into confusing which brown people were the bad guys to get America all riled up for the invasion.  Getting the public to hate the enemy is an integral part of any war, on both sides.  For example, in August of 2003, 70% of Americans believed Iraq was involved in 9/11.  There was absolutely no evidence for this, and still isn't, but the media just went "Iraq Iraq Iraq, 9/11 9/11 9/11" all day until people just put the two together.  Fifteen of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon.  It's a little different from our WW2 tactics of telling Americans that Nazis and Japs eat babies, but it's the same idea.

 

I can't think of a single good reason to have gone into Iraq, but now that we're there... why are we there?  If we're there simply to stop a civil war, there are other countries with worse civil wars and genocides going on.  The difference: those civil wars and genocides won't end with a permanent U.S. military base on the planet's most valuable landmas.