| |
| |
| |
I still don’t see what your point is here beyond controlling that flow (your
original point was how it was obvious that this was all about freeing the
Iraqis, yet still admit it was about the oil one way or the other).
|
Our main objective was eliminating a dangerous threat in the person of SH
(via WMD proliferation mainly, but I wouldn’t rule out other forms, either).
|
Well that has failed. The WMD are apparently AWOL, the whole country looks like
a giant terrorist recruiting centre and it is clear that the “threat” to us all
is increasing!
| |
By doing so, we freed the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator. Win-win.
|
Yep. We killed >10,000, put new torturers in the prisons, installed a new
dictator and civilians are being killed at a rate of >100 per week.
| |
And
by helping the Iraqis establish a sovereign democracy, we guarantee a free
flow of oil from a prolific source.
|
I read this
yesterday: Arguably, the war with Iraq was a war for 4x4s (SUVs). As the
former environment minister Michael Meacher pointed out in the Guardian on
Saturday, the US could do without its oil imports from the Gulf if the fuel
efficiency of its cars was improved by an average of 2.7 miles per gallon.
Special tax breaks make 4x4s effectively free to US businesses, with the result
that they now comprise 46% of the private fleet. Abandoning those tax breaks
would remove a major incentive for war.
Lol
Scott A
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
| (...) I stand corrected. I noticed my gaff after I posted:-( Though it isn't your stance, it is a common misconception that is held. I apologize for attributing it to you:-) (...) Our main objective was eliminating a dangerous threat in the person (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
106 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
