Quote:
|
Originally posted by ink: I suppose. I was against unilateral action last fall, and was happy with the coalition that the US put together, but was still worried about the possible outcomes. I'm just sick of the "anti-war" shock sites that I keep getting in e-mail, which only tell half of the story... (talk about hypocracy). Most of all, I'm sick about the lies of how the Iraqi citizens were completely against this action; El Pre$idente's comments were completely and utterly false, on Christanity, his Kurdish friend and (it seems) the entire situation. |
I think it's premature to claim this. As I remember those predictions, they were about ruling Iraq, not conquering it.
Nobody questioned that we could readily conquer Iraq--although many of us feared it would take a terrible toll on those we wish to liberate.
Now we are actually getting to point where El Pre$'s predictions may turn out to be accurate. He's not the only one who's questioned whether or not the US can really get what it wants economically/strategically from true popular rule in Bagdad. Historically, I don't think there can be any question that those ideals seem in open conflict.
But we'll see. If the US tries to rule Iraq, it will be disastrous. If the US lets Iraq find it's own way, there might be some disasters, but they wont' be our disasters. There is also a very real chance that Iraqis will find their own way to something very very positive. We should just be prepared to allow that to happen even if it challenges our historical interests.