cordeg Wrote:
Apr 07, 2014 7:28 PM
Uh...yeah, I see. You're probably one of those people who think GWB and Cheney were "neo-cons" -- a clear demonstration of a failure to understand the plain meaning of words. Like "genocide", say. The killing fields were clearly the mark of "genocide" -- about one-quarter of the total population of Kampuchea (nee Cambodia) ALL killed by KR to consolidate the power of the Communist regime over the country. The war in Iraq was, well, a war, and not for nothing is it said that "war is hell". But, you can't exactly have two sides fighting and call all the deaths caused by one side the result of "genocide" by the other side. That's inane. It is also a bit foolish to shout "genocide" over any of the deaths inflicted on that side which spent the previous several years shooting at us and violating the treaty by which it obtained the end of the last war it brought upon itself by invading Kuwait. Furthermore, if there is one thing several years of half-way measures in Iraq proved, it was that neither GWB nor Cheney had any designs on imposing US rule in Iraq -- or even an Iraqi-led "puppet" regime. Quite the opposite: we put up with leaders and legislators who openly poked their fingers in our eyes. It may well be hard for you and your pals to accept that US policy consisted of virtually nothing more than overthrowing a thuggish regime that even the Clinton administration said it was US policy to oust (he just never did anything about it, since he had enough military involvement in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo, where, one presumes, he didn't engage in "genocide" either), and enabling 25 million Iraqis to enjoy the kind of Liberty that allows citizens to criticize their government even when those criticisms are based on vacuous notions -- you know, the kind of liberty you think you deserve, but think "even one life" is too dear a cost for others to obtain. Well, despite years of braying by the likes of Chomsky and your illustrious self, ALL the empirical evidence supports the plain fact that the US administration you clearly love to hate had nothing more up its sleeve with regard to Iraq. They didn't take its oil (no "blood for oil") and they didn't impose their own government (no "American hegemony"). You must be so disappointed. I salute the independent thinking behind your anti-administration thoughts, but just objecting to those (once) in power, doesn't qualify as "speaking truth to power" -- that requires truth, not just a loud mouth.