By now, unless you are in total denial, you accept the fact that we invaded Iraq for reasons other than WMD. So what was our government's main objective? Profit for VP Cheney's former company Halliburton? I say no. Humanitarian effort? No, but a good excuse to play on people's emotions.

 

The real reason was to start a democracy in a region in bad need of this form of government. So the real question should be is a war justifiable for that reason? Would the Middle East have eventually converted to democracy? Did we cause more harm than good when we invaded? Would a president just use the war for political advantage?

 

Maybe beating a dead horse, but Im interested in what people think the war was truly about and if it will bring the Middle East to democracy quicker...or will it fracture our relations with the Arabic world even further, pushing more young Arabs into fundamentalism?

Since when do we give a crap if a country is a democracy or not? that's bull.

 

The REAL reason the was occurred was to pass big spending policies so both parties can save face, increase the size of government, help out their special interests, and pinch OUR wallets. The war was nothing more than a distraction, because I don't see oil profits benefitting us enough to offset anything.

So Terrorism is the next Communism in other words?

The moment 9-11 happen I knew that's exactly what it was. Another excuse to increase military, foregin intervention, the size of government, and spending. Clinton had no choice but to make "military cuts" (which he really didn't) because the size of our military was absurd for a peace budget. So we perpetuate war.

 

I think an exact qutoe from after 9-11 I said in response to an congressional war session, "You know what would be funny? If we just declared war generally on terror."

 

I was joking, because the idea that we declare war on such a non-specified enemy seemed hilarious and stupid. Just afterwards, I learned that's exactly what congress did.

 

So afghanistan was a necessary for our defense, but Iraq, F22 build ups, 400 billion dollar military, and in the mean time pushing through homeland security legilation, bureaucratic increases, prescription drugs...same sh*t, different era.

The real reason was to start a democracy in a region in bad need of this form of government. So the real question should be is a war justifiable for that reason? Would the Middle East have eventually converted to democracy? Did we cause more harm than good when we invaded? Would a president just use the war for political advantage?

 

Even if you beleive that this was a purely political war, blah blah blah (which I don't) consider this:

 

Assume that a reason for war was to convert the current form of government there to another, more benefical system. Don't you think that a few thousand dead, then a massive infusion of cash to rebuild is better than the good old Marshall Doctrine of the past 70 years, where political despots are allowed to rule in whatever way they see fit as long as they toe the line ideologically?

 

How many people do you think were needlessly killed in 3rd world countries that were ruled for decades by despots supported by the US just because their form of butchery aligned with us (and not communism) on an ideological level?

 

Oh, and by the way, there will be democracy in the Mid East soon. Wanna guess where? Nope, not Iraq. In Iran. Yep, that's right, Iran. If you look out there and do some research there are alot of think tanks (both Rep and Dem alike) who predict that student dissidence and poor economic conditions will turn Iran into a democracy before Iraq.

The moment 9-11 happen I knew that's exactly what it was. Another excuse to increase military, foregin intervention, the size of government, and spending. Clinton had no choice but to make "military cuts" (which he really didn't) because the size of our military was absurd for a peace budget. So we perpetuate war.

 

I think an exact qutoe from after 9-11 I said in response to an congressional war session, "You know what would be funny? If we just declared war generally on terror."

 

I was joking, because the idea that we declare war on such a non-specified enemy seemed hilarious and stupid. Just afterwards, I learned that's exactly what congress did.

 

So afghanistan was a necessary for our defense, but Iraq, F22 build ups, 400 billion dollar military, and in the mean time pushing through homeland security legilation, bureaucratic increases, prescription drugs...same sh*t, different era.

So how do you propose we attack a non-specified enemy?

I think the approach in the phillipine, afghanistan, indonasia(sp), and ect. has been working quite nicely, and none of these approaches need a massive standing army smart guy. It is simple military logisitics. Our damn army is too big. However, in order to occupy Iraq and still have enough power to take on any country on earth, the military will for at least 10 years have to maintain a large standing portion.

 

Let me put it this way. F22s aren't the best terrorist weapon. You want a weapon against terrorism? Stop fanning the flames of it.

The real reason was to start a democracy in a region in bad need of this form of government. So the real question should be is a war justifiable for that reason? Would the Middle East have eventually converted to democracy? Did we cause more harm than good when we invaded? Would a president just use the war for political advantage?

 

Even if you beleive that this was a purely political war, blah blah blah (which I don't) consider this:

 

Assume that a reason for war was to convert the current form of government there to another, more benefical system. Don't you think that a few thousand dead, then a massive infusion of cash to rebuild is better than the good old Marshall Doctrine of the past 70 years, where political despots are allowed to rule in whatever way they see fit as long as they toe the line ideologically?

 

How many people do you think were needlessly killed in 3rd world countries that were ruled for decades by despots supported by the US just because their form of butchery aligned with us (and not communism) on an ideological level?

 

Oh, and by the way, there will be democracy in the Mid East soon. Wanna guess where? Nope, not Iraq. In Iran. Yep, that's right, Iran. If you look out there and do some research there are alot of think tanks (both Rep and Dem alike) who predict that student dissidence and poor economic conditions will turn Iran into a democracy before Iraq. Im with you on this one. The reasons I listed are believed by some, but I think they are ridiculous (went to war for halliburton, bush is a cowboy, blah, etc).

 

Ive also heard about the Iranian students. I wonder if the invasion of Iraq will retard democracy or expedite its spread. Are these students welcoming American intervention? Or has it turned them off from reform?

:mischief guys, you know it's the militar-burueacratic complex...you know it!

Believe it or not, everything in this world is not a conspiracy.

Yeah, there is no conspiracy. It has been openly the status quo since Roosevelt.