Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zeitgeist
The Iraq fiasco is presently happening; should I just jump on the bandwagon, then? My principled opposition to that fiasco doesn't mount to hill of beans, so why bother, eh? What the hell are you attempting to impart here?
|
Well, like I said before, look at the rulebook before you go any further. See what rules they are playing by and proceed from there. What does the rest of the world use for a rulebook? Do they really do what they say or do they say "Do as I say and not as I do?" You want to talk of peddling influence yet you are unable to assure me that if you went to the country of your choice they don't do the same. What are YOU asking for? What are YOU trying to impart here?
The Iraq fiasco is our doing. The issue was that they broke their agreements, etc, etc. If that is in dispute, please let me know. If they had not played shell games, would we be even having this discussion? Probably not. IIRC, it was believed by the world since we didn't quite believe in creation and destruction of matter. That would explain the numerous resolutions, etc, etc. The people with the veto, like in the cold war, opposed each other for their own reasons. So, as per usual, nothing got done. The French and Germans had lucrative contracts and now they have scrap paper to make bookmarks with. The Russians had IOUs but like the French and Germans, they now have scrap paper. So, do you really believe that they really would vote for war and a regime change? Doubtful. Back to us now. It was deemed in our interests to take care of Hussien before a larger problem came out of it. However support at home was weak because, like you, we wish that the woodcutter would come and take care of Hussien. So, we didn't want too large a footprint there so we sent fewer troops. Fewer troops = more issues. More issues = difficulty in sending more troops to take care of the issue.