General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAre war Hawks insane? I mean
They been tryin the same damn thing over there in the Mid East for 14 years... Continuing a war over there that's been goin on for 1400 years... All the while expectin' a different result....
That's just plain crazy, right?
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)a few billion dollars just doesn't sound like all that much any more.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)JHB
(37,158 posts)That might be part of your answer there.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)While I get that it's very comforting to pretend that "oh well those people have been fighting forever! What can you do?" the reality is that... no, they haven't.
Everything you see in the middle east today is a result of western medding. Anyone who still thinks "they hate us for our freecomes' rahter than "they hate us becuase we keep going over there and jacking their shit up" is a moron.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)why the U.S. invaded Iraq that I've ever seen. In essence, Mailer argued, we invaded Iraq not so that we could steal its oil -- oil being a commodity that is freely traded on world markets -- but so that we could have a finger on the spigot that supplies the emerging markets and economies of India and China. Requires you to think like a sociopath, or like Zbigniew Brzezinski.
The war has not been going on for 1400 years. It's been going on for about 100 years (since 1918 and the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the maturation of Western imperial meddling there). Might want to edit your OP.
reddread
(6,896 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)his paraphrase of its contents)?
reddread
(6,896 posts)it was a while back. I think the simple sense of it is proof enough.
They werent there to source more oil, and they werent there to liberate Iraqis.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... yes.