This one I got from my father.
It has been fascinating to watch as the justification for the Bush-war in Iraq has changed with time. First, it was because Saddam had WMDs (he didn’t); then it was because Saddam was a tyrant (he was, but so is Robert Mugabe, and we don’t seem to bombing the sh*t out of him at the moment); and, now, at least as of this writing, we’re told we’re in the Gulf as part of the war against terror.
Except . . . well . . . you see . . . what’s filled the power-vacuum in the Southern part of Iraq seems to be a number of Islamic Fundamentalist militias heavily influenced by Iran. In other words, we have put into power the very people who would just dearly love to fly the not-so-friendly skies into a few more of our population centers. Those people hadn’t been effective before because Saddam was shooting and gassing them, along with anybody else who even remotely threatened his position.
Ergo, viewed from the perspective of a cold hearted, self-interested, realpolitickin’, son of a CENSORED, the invasion was a waste and it would have been a lot more profitable to have left Saddam where he was.
He was killing the people we wanted killed, and doing it more cheaply than we could ourselves.
Posts
Lean Back
3 years ago
Depends on your definition of "profitable". To us, the masses trying to make it through their day in America, profitable would entail not having American lives slaughtered without imminent threat. To the powerful and rich who RUN our country, it means selling arms and drugs to foreign interests that usually later rise up to bite us in the behind. How was it again that Saddam got those stockpiles of weapons? Oh yeah, Daddy Bush. To defend against the evil empire of Iran. Why do we give weapons to an area of the world we can't be sure of for more than thirty seconds?
ReplyDelete