Dragonlich

Because I'm not a quitter... How is my statement ironic? I acknowledge that Rumsfeld met Saddam. I acknowledge the US did some pretty bad stuff. Hell, I'll even acknowledge that Pakistan got it's nukes partly because of Dutch nuclear scientists (Woo!!!).

It seems to me that I look at the whole picture, while some other people here deem it necessary to only point at one side (the US) and their faults.

What some people seem to forget, is that without some of those US "faults", the world would be very different than it is today. We cannot know *how* different, but I'm willing to bet that most of you wouldn't like that world.

Just as an example: if the US (along with the rest of the world) had not supported Iraq, it would have lost the Iran-Iraq war. Iran would then have conquered ("liberated") most of the other countries there, which would have led to one big fundy Muslim state in the middle-east... that would have meant either a *huge* oil crisis and accompanying blackmail, or a very bloody west-versus-east war to secure the oil. If Iran was then allowed to do as it pleased, this would also have led to the destruction ("liberation") of Israel, and the murder of many of it's inhabitants.

Now, you can agree with this scenario or not, but that's the kind of scenario world leaders have to deal with on a daily basis. How would you have reacted to such things?