[Askan Nightbringer]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
No one is saying that the US was not partially responsible for this mess. What we are saying is that the US did not do it for direct profit. Our interests were always strategic. As were the interests of the Soviets. What were the interests of France, beyond lining there pockets with Iraqi cash? The US spent billions containing Soviet Communism; France made a billion arming the third world. And then had the audacity to try and protect one of the most evil men in the world. All for cash! America will have its way in Iraq, could be easy, could be hard, but we will have our way. I can only hope that we will freeze France out of the reconstruction that will follow.

Oh, it was strategic, that makes me feel alot better. It obviously was strategic to support Soharto while he killed a million of his population, strategic to arm and equip the Contras to kill 30,000 of their countrymen, strategic to kill a couple of mill in Indochina, strategic to topple a democratic government in Chile, strategic to train/equip Osama and his mates to kill the Russian invaders. Like, if all that was done for nothing but profit it would make a huge difference. All those strategic corpses must be feeling alot better now.

So is the invasion of Iraq about justice, liberation and threat of terrorist attack or is is just another strategic move in the never ending quest for complete US dominance?

There were direct interventions in Italy and France, and we outright fixed an election in Australia back in the sixties.

Are you defending the indefensible?

Askan