ace, i can't speak for others, as i was against this little foray from the get go. i remember being at a friend's house when the news conference came on about us dropping hell on baghdad, and thinking to myself 'fuck, here we go. this is not going to end well.' as for the conversation, what i find annoying, personally, is that we are largely having a synthetic conversation in my opinion. if this was a game of risk or axis and allies, no one would suggest invading papau new guinnea to free the new ginneans. i think we clearly went in because of a perceived need to assure access to oil and for the ability to militarily respond to situations in the middle east. if i recall correctly, we had some problems getting approval to fly through certain countries air space when we went into afganistan. i'm as bothered by the fact that we keep rehashing all this wmd and operation iraqi freedom! nonsense as i am by the fact that we went in in the first place. the problem with discussing the united states pre-emptively invading another country to protect our strategic interests in light of concerns over world oil supply, economic stability of the $, and military response times and effectiveness is that it clearly violates international law to do so. so we have all these horseshit (my opinion) justifications for what i think was a cold-blooded decision influenced by think-tank guys like pnac. certainly the fact that the war didn't end in six weeks with iraqi children racing into the streets to wash the feet of our victorious soldiers has not made it easy to get away with. its become very messy, and the fact that our administration seems to have either outright lied or blissfully wallowed in feigned ignornace would seem to be a conversation and investigation that is necessary for the american public to engage in, per roach's post above. what do we really stand for?
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style
|