Democracy in the middle east...
...is the reason why we're there, isn't it?
well, that's not the reason why we were told to go. we were told to go because there was a very evil man who wanted to poison our children with toxic gas and have terrorists put a nukyooler bomb inside a small can of beer and put it in your local 7-11.
but if he didn't have the ability to do that, why did we go?
well, we didn't know he didn't have the capability of doing that. our intelligence agencies told us that he did. we had reports of him plotting to attack us.
the CIA never said he was a threat. the intelligence agencies we are talking about were foriegn inteligence agencies, the most important of which was the famous "brittish dossier" which we later found out was written by an American: a 19 year old America, over 10 years ago.
he lied to us, and had been lying for 12 years.
Well, that's a good reason to go in and check all his sites to make sure he's not lying to us. unfortunately, even though the Iraqis were completely complying with inspections leading up to the war, they didn't obey the final altimatum that "caused" the war: Saddam and his sons didn't turn themselves in.
he gassed his own people.
Yes, he did, in 1988. we supported him at the time, and said nothing. so did england.
he tortures his own people.
Unless you haven't read the news, you'll realize that we torture his people, too. we have made some of his people disapear, and we have sent his people to other countries where they are much more effective torturers.
he had supported terrorists, including members of al-quaeda.
he gave money to the families of palestinian suicide bombers. i realize that many people sympathize with isreal. after all, nobody can justify people who kill innocent poeple, unless of course, they're isreal or the united states. they can kill as many innocent people as they want. it's really funny how difficult it is to really, clearly separate what we call "terrorism", to what we actually do and lable "counter-terrorism". as far as al-quaeda goes, if by "supporting" members of al-quaeda, you mean a few guys who are associated with al-quaeda went to a your city once, well, then, you're right. i guess they did support members of al-quaeda. even if they were your sworn enemies and were most likely in town plotting your death. hey they're all sand people, right? they must be in cahoots.
well, why we got into the war is not important anymore. we need to focus on getting the iraqi people a functioning democracy.
you do realize that we "change course" a lot. we focus, not on what our leaders got away with yesterday, but on what bullshit our leaders are currently getting us to swallow, for instance, the idiotic idea that our glorious leaders want a functioning democracy in iraq.
first off, just step back for a second and ask yourself: what, exactly, would a functioning democracy in iraq look like? well, like my favorite right-wing libertarian wacko Jay Severin would say, it would look like Shiite.
a democratic iraq would be a prominantly shiite controlled iraq, which would mean stronger ties with iran, which would mean, at the very least, an economic aliance, which would control the 2nd largest oil reserves on the planet.
hey, don't give me that. we didn't go into iraq because of the oil.
uh, yeah we did. if you actually believe that we would give two shits about iraq if it didn't have any oil, you're an idiot. if iraq was just one of the many countries out there with cruel, heartless dictators, policies of torture, ties to terrorism, and NO OIL, most americans would think "iraq" was what the kids were listening to nowadays.
lets take this logic a step further, though, shall we? if the us and it's allies really wanted a democratic iraq, they would do something: leave. the old power structure is gone, the people are taking control (or, at least, attempting to), and the overwhealming majority of iraqis think we should leave.
the thing about democracy is: you have to let the people decide. i'm pretty sure that's what the "demo" means in latin, or greek, or spanish or whatever. let them get their own shit together. let's pull out.
hey, there buddy, just one gosh darn minute! we can't pull out of there! if we did, why, then, it would be unstable, and then there wouldn't be any stability, and, uhh, without stability, there would be no democracy!
right, numbnuts, "democracy" and "stability" are, like, almost the same thing, right? listen, a real, functioning "democracy", is, ipso-facto, unstable. "stability" means "controlable", and "democracy" means "controlled by the people". Therefor, YOU CAN NOT CONTROL PEOPLE AND STILL HAVE A DEMOCRACY!
saying that we have to maintain this level of draconian control over iraq in order to safeguard democracy is like saying that you need to stuff big shards of glass up your ass in order to safeguard your anus.