Are you trying to say that the US is starting this war only for humanitarian reasons, to save the people of Iraq or something?
Have you talked to any of the FOUR MILLION Iraqis in exile and asked them why they left?
Listen to me, you proverbial North American couch potato, sitting in your cosy little North American home, mouthing off about parts of the world you have never been in. Some of us here lived in the Middle East. I can safely say I know more Middle Eastern people, including Iraqis, than those you have seen on TV, and I speak to them in languages you cannot fathom. Don't you dare suggest your "understanding" of the suffering in the area from what you have read and heard from your western media comes within a mile of my experience first as a girl and then as a young woman in the Middle East.
I have never said I hold any love for that hairy dictator with a single eye brow. However, invading Iraq is not only counterproductive to any hopes of stability and democracy in the region, but also will significantly undermine any war on terrorism you might still have in mind following your president's Weapons of Mass Distraction.
I oppose this war, not out of love for Saddam's regime, but because of the additional death and suffering it will cause. Not to mention the increased recruitment for terrorism that will surely follow as a result, and the obvious return to imperialist policies and "might makes right".
Your oil company remark is totally irrelevant to the argument of whether we go to war or not. But there always have been and probably always will be "spoils of war".
It would of course be futile to point out the inconsistency in the above statement. Eventual seizing of the oil fields don't matter in the decision for war but it will happen anyway. Right. |
