Brent P
I took the phrase "people next to them" to mean the local population in those countries. For instance, Al-Qaida wasn't attacking people in Afghanistan in 2000 and wasn't attacking people in Sudan in 1999. Of course, if those people were working for or were affiliated with the US, then they became targets.
To clarify what I stated before, I was referring to government insbreastutions of the host country. Embbutties are insbreastutions affiliated with a foreign country, which is why I stated that attacks on them do not fit under the host country clbuttification.
No disagreement there.
That shouldn't be a new revelation to either of us ;)
They may not have, but at least the security and infrastructure was present. If they were *that* dissatisfied with the status quo, they would have eventually overthrown him (which would not have resulted in the destruction of vital infrastructure as the planting did).
Some would say that that would have not been possible for a long time, but one need not look very far to see how easily governments without support are overthrown. The Shah of Iran, the King of Iraq, the King of Afghanistan, the King of Libya, etc.
Going outside the Middle East, what about Aristide? Did he enjoy much support from the population at large? If he did, then how was he overthrown so easily?
Note that I did not refer to either party in my statement. I know that foreign policy goals do not change dramatically from one administration to the next, regardless of which party controls the executive branch.
The WMD was a figment of the government's imagination since they used the "common knowledge" argument without any hard evidence. Those working in the government failed to consider the fact that stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons do not have an infinite shelf-life.
I do agree with you there with regards to the "real" reason (not WMD or liberation efforts).
Or, in the case of corrupt government officials, the money lining some politicians pocket instead of going to his consbreastuents.
Perhaps we need to admend the consbreastutions to require a 99.9% majority vote favoring pre-emptive war before we actually get into it. Then again, they'll probably manipulate the results to achieve that anyway...
