Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wmbwinn
Now, beyond the above, I have a hard time understanding what your point is.
|
The trouble starts when we recall pre-9/11 Bush speaking about a humble, non-interventionist foreign policy. Since then, we always hear about how "everything changed on 9/11". So far so good, because we were attacked on our own soil. We were reacting to an act of war waged against us, not meddling in other people's business for no reason. In other words, 9/11 was our justification for invading the Middle East. But that's precisely why everything falls apart when Cheney suddenly announces Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
You can't use an event as your core justification for changing your policies, while simultaneously claiming the same event to be irrelevant to your actions.
Anyway, since this Iraq operation has nothing to with anything that ever occurred in the UNITED STATES, our actions can only be categorized as
World Policing. This country is apparently willing to spend (print) billions of dollars for an operation that has nothing to do with this country, as you expressed here:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wmbwinn
But, when a country deals with Al Qaeda or any other entity on the Blacklist (Terrorist list), then they are selling weapons WITH a liability. If a gun is sold without a background check, the seller has a liability. Same thing here.
|
The only way you can accept such an idea as World Policing is if you believe the UNITED STATES is inherently good. And that's another matter of discussion entirely.