Generational Dynamics World View

[Ragnarök_62]

(06-28-2017, 02:36 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(06-28-2017, 09:08 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The Iraq invasion not being about oil doesn't mean it wasn't about unfinished business.  One of the views of the Gulf War was that we should have enforced the no fly zone in the south to prevent Saddam Hussein from putting down a popular rebellion there.  The fantasy was that the popular rebellion would have led naturally to an enlightened, democratic government.

So you buy my conclusion that the Iraq war was about trying to spread democracy in the Middle East?

Mikebert Wrote:I *know* you are my age.

Close, but no cigar.  IIRC, Warren is a 1960 cohort.  However, I'm here to mess around with y'alls pea patches.
1962 is close enough, IMHO.

Quote: Did you vote for Bush in 2000?  Aren't you a Republican? If this spreading Democracy was not what you wanted from a Republican administration, did you then vote for Kerry in 2004 (who did run on ending the Iraq debacle) or Bush? 

Oh, but Mikebert, the MIC has a whole herd of swine to put lipstick on.   The stated policy [pig with lipstick] is that assorted military actions which seem senseless, make all the sense in the world when we get to brass tacks and realize and wizen up to look beyond the lip sticked pig and look at what the elites' wallow really has.  Simply, any military or I spy action in the Mideast must be to secure the oil supplies there and prop up the petro dollar. Qaddafi was on his way to circulating a gold dinar, so he had to go away. Same for Assad. Assad is a hostile power located where some nice oil pipelines would go.

So "spreading democracy" = a pig with lipstick. "Human rights" is one more, and "national interests are involved" is the closest of the 3 pigs with lipstick, but that pig is more real, for it's the only pig without wings.

Quote:If Bush, why?

Maybe Warren voted for the person with the prettiest pig.

One for old time sakes...