Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FunkMachine
Hmmm well let's see now.
Either:
1. The US can spend 500 billion dollars on getting their hands on Iraqi oil by means of war, and go through a hell of a lot of hassle during the process.
2. The US can spend zero dollars on getting their hands on Iraqi oil by doing a deal with Saddam which involves lifting sanctions and letting him stay in power.
If it was about oil, which one do you think would be the more economical? Would the US spend 500 billion dollars getting something it knew it could get for free?
It was always about regime change. A costly experiment to see if democracy can be brought to that part of the world.
|
I dont doubt you there.. and there is much validity to what you say , but the "regime change" isn't going to work the way they are doing it anyways. Thats pretty clear, so we still do need to end the war.
Your right it was a costly experiment to see if democracy could be brought to that part of the world , but it was done obviously for $$$ not just because america thinks we should share our "great" democracy with the rest of the world because we are such good people.