Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jconnolly
I don't think that's the case at all. Possibly, but doubtful.
It's the habit of people such as yourself to say that we are attempting to impose our rule on them for their own good, screeching about white man's burden.
It's my theory, however, that this is also a self-defense maneuver - the only rational counter to terrorism is to make the countries that harbour them crack down. And, no, Iraq didn't have terrorists within its borders. But Iraq was an easy target, and once consolidated will provide projected power in the Middle East
Or we could just let them ferment and build up until they attack again.  |
Self-defense? From a country that had been torn apart by sanctions? Our own and the UN's analysts didn't see Iraq as a threat, so where is it? Where is the "self-defense?" You admit that this is a pure realpolitik war, so can't you see how the neocon's wrong headed thinking has only weakened our position in the Middle East? We are more hated globally than when this thing started. Wolfowitz, Perl and the rest really did believe that this would solidify our position in the regoin, but boy were they wrong. Of course, it was "screeching" people such as myself that warned of just this eventuality, but we're crazy, right? Who cares if Bush has been wrong about everything so far? How can rationality compare to empty arguments and emoticons?