>right...did you see iraq before the first gulf war? obviously
>not.

Um, yeah I did, what about it?

>>Further, U.S. subsidies increased
>>right around the time Hussein was
>>gassing the hell out of the Kurdish
>>population, therefore, your beloved
>>"democratic" heros in Washington never
>>had any intentions of liberating the
>>Iraqi people.
>
>that was then, this is now. your logic is severely flawed as
>always.

My "logic"... Hell outta here
with that horsecrap.

Yeah, that was "then", hotshot...
And there's a common thread that
runs through the past to the present:
U.S. motives.

If you would have me to believe
for one moment that by some quirk
of nature the U.S. just suddenly
decided to care about Iraqis, your
dumber than you already portray your-
self.

Let's examine the U.S. government's
legacy in Iraq. It warmly supported
Hussein during his most brutal acts
of genocide, and supplied him with
duel-use technology right up until
the invasion of Kuwait (Great Britain
as well).

And your assertion is that Washington
one day decided that after all the mass
murders, it felt morally compelled to
help Iraqis make a transition to a
democratic regime? Do better.

On the contrary, guru, Washington
decided to rid the Middle East of
Hussein after he decided he no
longer wanted to be a client of U.S.
"interests" -- much like Noreaga.

This is well understood in Washington
and had been reported in the foreign
press for years. Institutions and
Middle East experts you call morons,
'Mr. Foreign Affairs' expert.

----------------------------------------------------------

The Rand (Paul or Ayn) philosophy, putting private property rights at
the same level of human rights, equates the status of things with the
status of human beings. If property is considered equal