Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
and we know why this was done, right? not that it should have been nor was it a very ethical thing to do.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charlatan
Is your condescension neccessary? Why don't you act like an adult and just say what you are thinking rather than acting like a goof.
|
my apologies if my posts came across in a condescending manner. They were not meant to be. I simply asked so I knew where it was you were coming from and with what information you knew about it. |
Apology accepted.
What I was getting at is that I feel the US continues to swing at hornet's nests - sometimes with the best intentions (i.e. arming the mujahideen
in Afghanistan) and sometimes with more shady intentions (i.e. supporting various dictators in Latin America).
The point is, regardless of their intentions on these interventions, the results are generally shitty.
In the case of Iraq, the US supplied Saddam with the very chemicals he used to not only release mustard gas on Iranian soldiers but later on the Kurds. While I can appreciate the fact that the US would be wary of an anti-US movement growing in popularity in a part of the world they depend on for their primary source of energy (oil) the result was just a short term solution.
The true long term solution in the Middle East, the one that Industry would never allow, is to make the US more fuel efficient and to find other sources of fuel.
If you truly want to solve the US problem with the Middle East then just remove the US from the Middle East... or at least greatly reduce its dependance on and interests in the Middle East (I realize I am leaving Israel out of the equation but let's take one step at a time).
The fact is, if the US took these steps, Big Oil and Big Industry would freak out. But wouldnt' this be a better sacrifice than the trillions in military spending and thousands of lives lost?