IF the Bush administration cared that much about the humanitarian needs of the worlds people there were at least 20 (and likely MANY more, 60 even?) better countries they could have dealt with, and better improved quality of life for. With more people helped, less people killed, and all of it costing less money.
The cost of the wars could have lifted the worlds people out of poverty, and likely alieviated all world hunger.
Instead they managed to kill 100,000 Iraqi's while 'helping' to save them from a ruler that while horrible, was LESS horrible than 1/3 of the ruling parties around the world in terms of providing for their people. In fact one of the primary causes of poverty in Iraq was American sanctions, and not even Saddam himself - who up until the Gulf War provided the best healthcare, education, and more open economy in the region. (Kurds withstanding of course, but that is not that much different from how the first world treats their own indigenous people - And in America's specific case, where extermination was the policy, actually BETTER.)
This war had NOTHING to do with humanitarianism and that sort of revisionist history is exactly what will allow American arms dealers and industrialists to AGAIN line their pockets the next time this type of scenario arises. THEY are the only ones to benefit here.
"Privitization of the gain and nationalization of the loss", both in America and in Iraq. It is sad, but at least i can see it.... why keep defending them?
Claeren.
Last edited by Claeren; 12-25-2007 at 08:21 AM.
|
