Although I have provided you with sufficient information for you to draw the correct conclusion
The "correct conclusion" on what issue?
You have provided no information at all to support your initial contention that the US had at one point adopted a policy of privatising Iraqi oil fields.
In support of your contention that Iraq's elections were delayed in order to achieve some unspecified but presumably nefarious objective, you cite a single article, dated less than 3 months after the fall of Baghdad, which reports that elections were delayed. This may or may not have been a mistake - Bremer's contention that early elections would give an unfair advantage to Baathist and Islamist parties with a political apparatus already in place seems not entirely without merit - but there is nothing here to suggest any conspiracy to prevent Iraqis from attaining representative government or any attempt to benefit oil companies.
If you are trying to make some other obscure point, please explain what it is, and make some effort to support it with evidence or reasoning.
You have, I admit, provided an abundant and consistent base of evidence to support the inescapable conclusion that you are an incoherent ass. I don't think that's what you set out to demonstrate, but you succeed admirably nonetheless: the law of unintended consequences works in mysterious ways.
What, exactly, is my ideology?
One might, if pressed, classify it as corporaphobic left with overtones of conspiracy theorist. On reflection, I am not entirely sure whether that syndrome would properly be called an ideology or a personality disorder, but I will leave that distinction to be defined by someone whose interest in the taxonomy of intellectual deficiencies exceeds mine. |
