View Single Post
Old 04-25-2006, 05:48 PM   #386
innerSpaceman
Kink of Swank
 
innerSpaceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Inner Space
Posts: 13,075
innerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of cool
Send a message via AIM to innerSpaceman Send a message via MSN to innerSpaceman Send a message via Yahoo to innerSpaceman
What happened to it is that no one believed it for a second. We invaded that country for oil, pure and simple. Every school girl knows that nasty dictators in countries with no valuable resources do not have their regimes changed by military means costing billions of dollars a month.

So, since the rebuilding of Iraq was designed to pour money into the hands of multinational corporations and not the economy of Iraq, the reconstruction has not gone as common sense would have envisioned it. Contrary to popular opinion, the reconstruction was not bungled by the Bush Administration. It went exactly as they designed. And yet - 3 years later - there is less oil flowing, less electricity, and less employment in Iraq than before the invasion. Most people consider that a failure, but the rebuilding effort was not designed to have more oil flow.

It should have been, and politicians of all stripes and the American people and the Iraqi people have every cause to be outraged that it's not. Because you shouldn't spend billions of dollars a month of the national treasury to have less oil flowing.

It would be heinous enough if Bush were serving the ecomonic interests of the U.S. in invading an oil-rich nation. What he's actually doing is far worse.
innerSpaceman is offline   Submit to Quotes Reply With Quote