I would prefer more initial commentary and analysis on the part of the poster, less allowing the article to stand on its own merit. The originally quoted reference is very biased. As one example,
Quote:
|
(If it was so necessary, why did the administration of the elder Bush not invade until it got other nations to fund the war?)
|
The quote suggests that the US invaded Iraq during the first Gulf conflict, yet passed the bulk of the cost to other countries. The terms "invade" and "fund" are used incorrectly and intended to mislead. The Iraqi army was repelled from Kuwait, in accordance with UN Resolutions. That does not constitute an invasion. The amount of financial support provided by alliance countries was fractional compared to the investment made by the US. That hardly merits the term "funded".
Posting to generate thoughtful dialog is encouraged. As Redravin indicated, posting to elicit a purely emotional response is not.