Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I'll lend you my imagination. Let's say that the elections go smoothly. The newly elected leader does well for a while, despite many threats from terrorist groups. Let's say that the person who is elected is exposed as being trained by the CIA (like Ossama, and a multitude of others). Aparently, he was allowing several large American and British oil companies to purchase oil at a much lower price than everyone else. It is also found out that he has been accepting large bribes since before he was elected. Crazy? That's up to you. Plausable? Maybe. Possible? Yes.
I'll give you another. Let's say that a new leader is elected in Iraq. The problem? He's christian and exit poles had him dead last. It turns out that the ballot boxes were stuffed by several FBI agents that have been living in Iraq for several years. Crazy? That's up to you. Plausable? Maybe. Possible? Yes.
despite the fact that these are highly unlikely, they are possible. Would you really be surprised if either of those happened? Honestly?
|
I really don't see the second situation happening. It'd be far too see-through, and I wouldn't see a purpose to it for any side, let alone the U.S.
I'll accept that first scenario. But it wouldn't be proof that liberation was a lie. I *think* I see your thought process there, correct me if I am wrong:
If (War for Oil)
Then NOT (War for Freedom)
That's not true. People are capable of multiple motives.