Originally Posted by ganeil
I find nothing disingenuous about calling a transition from a brutal dictatorship to a representative government a liberation.
Did it ever occur to you that people and nations act for reasons outside of economics? We liberated Kuwait in 1992, did we get cheap oil from them afterwards? No we didn't.
1. So, let's get the story straight. What really prompted the war: (1) Saddam's threat to the world through his "immediate" ability to develop and manufacture WMD; or (2) the need to liberate a nation from a "brutal dictatorship?" It seems that the government goes back and forth between these two versions -- depending on where the political wind is blowing from. This is what I call disingenuous.
2. Why did "we" liberate Kuweit in 1992? And why don't we liberate Cuba? There is "brutal" dictatorship over there too. By the way, adjectives help a lot in political speeches ...
3. Who outside Iraq is exactly better of without Saddam Hussein? He did not plot bombings in Bali, Madrid, London, and New York. Is Europe better of with all kinds on Islamic terrorists only strenghtening their influence over there? Is Africa, most of which is in grave poverty, better of? Is Latin America better of? Are people of Iraq, who are now dying on their way to the grocery store, better of? Who is???