|
boobooboogoo (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Got news for u guys - the neo-cons are still smiling as mr obama has expanded the war effort.
Todar14 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@austereben true, but without corporations many people would be jobless and the economy would be even worse.
austereben (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@irascib1e -- Corporations benefiting from war is nothing new. Ford. Standard Oil, Chase Bank, Coca Cola and I.T.T were not involved in WW2 to serve the greater good: I.T.T. supplied the Axis with bombs that were used on London. There should have been outrage back then; sadly though, they have our government (and others) by the balls, because it is widely believed that corporations are the backbone of our societies.
austereben (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@irascib1e -- To be honest, something should be done about North Korea: it has one of the worst human rights records of any nation. "why is that not the reason the american public was given?" Look up "Iraq Resolution" and "Iraq Liberation Act". There wasn't a "sole reason," like I keep telling you. Perhaps you tuning in too late? "Regime change" was coined in the 90's by Clinton; not in 2003 by Bush.
irascib1e (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@austereben if the american public was told in 2003 that the real reasons we were invading iraq was to overthrow one of the hundreds of dictators in the world, influence OPEC, benefit american corporations, and spread western values into the middle east, i guarantee that there would have been a mass outrage against the war. i find it sad for your sake that you believe the invasion of iraq was justifiable.
irascib1e (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@austereben yes, i agree, iraq does not deserve its sovereignty. but i also believe that north korea does not deserve sovereignty, but that does not mean that we should invade there. and if it is so justified to invade iraq to overthrow saddam hussein, why is that not the reason the american public was given? the sole reason we were given for invading iraq was that the safety of america was in immediate danger.
austereben (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@irascib1e -- Please state which country/countries you're talking about; It helps.
austereben (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@irascib1e -- It's not the only reason. Iraq lost its sovereignty when it violated the four UN mandates: harboring terrorists (many terrorists were found with Iraqi passports), crimes against humanity (against Kurds), use of WMDs (he refused inspections and had previous violations), invasion of another country (Kuwait). Our major mistake was not invading sooner. Of course oil is a major factor too: it hurts the global economy if that huge reserve is controlled by a crime family.
irascib1e (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@austereben and even if you do want to believe that we were overthrowing a dictator: okay, that's fine, but how can you explain the list of dictators that the US has supported who have treated their people horribly?
irascib1e (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@austereben if you believe that the US intervened in kuwait for humanitarian reasons, you're horribly mistaken. but even that is irrelevant, and you seem to be missing my point. the bush administration got the american public to believe that saddam had nuclear weapons and that he was ready to use them. after he is overthrown, we suddenly see that saddam was actually in no way a threat. how does that NOT throw up any red flags for you, is it not obvious that the US is covering up their interests? |
