Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand
It's always startling to me to see someone try to wrap themselves in knots to justify one intervention as being for democracy and justice, but somehow, deposing a brutal dictator and his sadistic family, establishing the most advanced democracy in the Mideast outside Israel, with religious pluralism, in the interest of reducing terrorism, while securing one of the largest oilfields on the planet, is somehow not even in the same category. Do you even read what you write? Do you even think about it?
One could ask the same of you: You speak of people "wrapping themselves in knots" to justify A and not B, and this is exactly what the necons do with Iraq. How does "deposing a brutal dictator" possibly factor in when, in other situations, the US has gone far out of its way to help brutal dictators assume power? Deposing a brutal dictator is a line that you throw out because it suits your purposes, whereas the true motives lie elsewhere. But if those real motives are so noble, why the constant need to find moral narratives (deposing the evil one)?
I won't even touch the "establishing the most advanced democracy" line. That remains to be seen, but judging from Cheney-Bush's performace to date I would say that, if it happens, it's gonna happen despite them and not because of them. Same for reducing terrorism: Iraq did nothing of the sort, it greatly increased the number of terrorist acts and has proved a breeding ground for the next generation of terrorists. That wouldn't have been part of the strategy, now, would it?