Pendaelose said:
and btw,
"Yet, did in any Iraqi "climb into" your country?"
Yeah, we normaly call it 9/11 for short. but do keep in mind that the subway bombings in Spain and several other incedents in Europe over the last few years (pre-Iraq-war as well) are rolled up into that same group of incedents.
That is why I point to the problems largely predating even those events.
As for 9/11... big topic. I don't recall hearing there were any valid links between Iraq and the attacks on the economical and governmental buildings. Do you?
I just see tools and fools here.
And while you complain about a lack of "distrobution of wealth" I draw you attention to 2 things.
1. The middle east has several of the richest countries in the world because of thier oil... and you'll notice that all that money was spent on golden toilet seats in Sadam's Palaces, or on projects such as diverting the rivers to intentionaly starve and kill the Shias in southern Iraq. Did you realize that in 1991 Iraq had the worlds 4th largest army? Iraq had tons of money, but it wasn't distributed to the people at all. Its very foolish to try and blame that on the US.
It was only powerful on the paper, and quite exaggerated (poor and non standardized equipment, unqualified troops, no real military geniuses). It didn't last long at all against the Coallition either.
Besides, it's not like the first war didn't have its hoaxes and false excuses to tip the balance in favor of war, but at least, the invasion of Kuwait was solid enough back then to warrant a military response. Of course, it would be naïve to think that it was done for the sole purpose of Kuwaitis.
What matters is what happened after the regime was defeated.
There was an impressive deployment of forces then, and it's precisely back then than real political measures should have been taken to enhance the lives of the Iraqis, not leave president Saddam Hussein in place and keep oil deals going on. Kurds were ready to move in and topple Hussein. A pity that they didn't get support. A pity that the Coallition wasn't used back then.
The more they would wait, the worse it would get. Which is precisely what happened.
It brought us to the old questions about what you should do to drop a tyrant, should it be done at all, and how to deal with the consequences?
You know that a tyrant keeps all affairs quiet under a strong iron grip, and those countries lack the social infrastructure needed to listen, for example, to minorities and treat them equally.
The tyrant is almost the failsafe keeping the dirty bomb quiet. The more you let the situation rot, the worse it gets.
I also know that there are Iraqi who are satisfied with Hussein's demise, but can only collect the ruins of their former homes. They're part of a sacrified generation.
Although it's very cynical, actually giving power to local "forces of freedom", and then steamrolling over the country with a new coallition, would have spared the US many deaths.
2. No country gives more foriegn aid money than the US. Additionaly, I seriously doubt any country has a foriegn aid budget by % even close to what the US spends.
Obviously, this money doesn't end in the right hands. So there's something wrong there, and it's been going on that way for quite some time now.
I look at the tobin tax and its variants. Less greed, more equity, a better worlds. Sounds like an ad, but it can't get any simple.
The few people who put billions of dollars per week in their pockets, like for example at the expense of the Nigerians, don't need that much money.
It's pure avarice and cynicism which fuels most of the crap that happens on that planet.
But as long as there will be people willing to fight for governments which don't care about such ideas, which they dub as hippie shit, the likes of you will keep being sent elsewhere, far from your homes, to kick some ass for Uncle Sam.
It's very funny that wars are caused by fat asses who have probably never held a gun in their life.
Yeah, good.
