IcemanCometh
12-25-2004, 12:43 PM
From your own kind no less (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1220/dailyUpdate.html)
This is what happens when you put a naive rube from Texas (by way of Conn) in charge of something as complex as U.S. foreign policy. It's really hard to believe that Bush thought that we would be welcomed as conquering heroes and that a Western-style democracy would ensue.
We've expended enormous quantities of human life, U.S. dollars, and U.S. international prestige only to give the Iranians a huge victory ---- one that they would never have gained themselves.
Remeber when everyone asked why Bush 1 didn't invade Iraq and left Saddam in power? Maybe he had smarter people advising him, or maybe he wasn't as big a dumbass as his son.
So I have to ask you guys, is it possible that the better alternative for the U.S. (better, that is, than furthering the spread of Islamic fundamentalism) would be to rehabilitate Saddam, rearm him, and have him stand as the bulwark against the rise of radical Islam that he was before?
This is what happens when you put a naive rube from Texas (by way of Conn) in charge of something as complex as U.S. foreign policy. It's really hard to believe that Bush thought that we would be welcomed as conquering heroes and that a Western-style democracy would ensue.
We've expended enormous quantities of human life, U.S. dollars, and U.S. international prestige only to give the Iranians a huge victory ---- one that they would never have gained themselves.
Remeber when everyone asked why Bush 1 didn't invade Iraq and left Saddam in power? Maybe he had smarter people advising him, or maybe he wasn't as big a dumbass as his son.
So I have to ask you guys, is it possible that the better alternative for the U.S. (better, that is, than furthering the spread of Islamic fundamentalism) would be to rehabilitate Saddam, rearm him, and have him stand as the bulwark against the rise of radical Islam that he was before?