Quote:
Originally posted by Cal
Porno,
Two of them are editorials, which are of course opinions from the traditionally left-wing Times. My point was that the motivations behind this sudden Iraqi obsession seem to have little to do with 'homeland security' and more to do with the almighty dollar.
Yes Russia and other countries have a lot at stake in Iraq, deals that will undoubtedly continue on and grow stronger in the wake of a possible invasion, since the US will definitely NOT financially support the new Iraq on its own. On the flipside, the US refused to vote on UN security council resolutions against Israel during the latest West Bank occupation.
I think you missed the point of the news article, which is that the US is now considering not only invading the country, setting extremely dangerous precedents in world policy, but also considering treating Iraq like post-WW2 Japan. The US occupying and running a muslim country for a year? The fallout could be cataclysmic.
C.
|
No, I didn't miss the point of the news article at all. I repeat my question - who the hell do you think is going to run the country if we go to war with it? OF COURSE we're going to treat it like post-WWII Japan. There is no other way to do it. And yes, it will cause a backlash; but what is the alternative?
And anyone who thinks it will only take a year is a fucking fool who needs to read a little U.S. history between 1964-1973.
Your arguement about planning for a military occupation being sinister is a self-fulfilling prophesy - it only makes sense if you accept your initial premise, which is that we;re not doing it for reasons of security, only for greed. What the fuck would you propose we do if we invade? You think we'll be able to find these weapons overnight? You think we should leave them to their own devices after we further destroy their infrastructure?
I find it ironic that Geo. W. "no nation building" Bush is now going to take on a 2nd rehab project.