U.S. Has Long History of Waging Wrong Wars

Iraq WMDFreeman, libertarian critter found this unlikely news story at FOXNEWS.com — U.S. Has Long History of Waging Wrong Wars:

In addition, the U.S. invasion of nuke-free Iraq and its restraint with nuke-armed North Korea send a signal that other nations should secretly accelerate efforts to acquire nuclear weapons since they deter U.S. intervention. U.S. actions encourage the nuclear proliferation it is intended to prevent.

Every so often, FOXNEWS has a moment of libertarian zen, in another article, they also hilite the possible proliferation that has taken place of dual-use materials while Iraq has been under U.S. control:

U.N. inspectors have been blocked from returning to Iraq since the U.S.-led war in 2003 so they have been using satellite photos to see what happened to the sites that were subject to U.N. monitoring because their equipment had both civilian and military uses.

[… Acting chief weapons inspector Demetrius Perricos] said imagery analysts have identified 109 sites that have been emptied of equipment to varying degrees, up from 90 reported in March.

So, the war we were sold as neccessary in order to stop weapons of mass destruction (related program activities) from being given to terrorists has now resulted in the same equipment being carted off to God knows where now that the U.S. government has gained control of Iraq. Fucking genius.

Which all begs the question: When did FOXNEWS join the liberal media in hating that we invaded Iraq in order to promote freedom and democracy?

5 Comments
  1. Naw… it slipped through but the correspondent that posted the article is now on the street barely recognizable due to the severe beatings. ;-)

    Does anyone actually still believe that Companies are trying to help people? Does anyone actually still believe that our government is made up ‘of’ the people and is still ‘for’ the people?

    Before you answer… which income tax bracket are you in!?

  2. I respect your point about the United States waging the wrong war and many would agree with you. However there was not just one reason why the United States invaded Iraq. Even though Iraq did not have any nuclear weapons they still had weapons capable of great damage. Biological and chemical weapons that could do great damage to Americans and its allies. Saddam Hussien is a man capable of horrific action and this weapons in his hands are almost as dangerous as a nuclear bomb.

  3. You state a very good point and many would throughout the world would agree with you. However there are many reasons why the United States invaded Iraq. Even though Iraq did not have nuclear weapons they did have both chemical and biological weapons. In the hands of Saddam Hussien those weapons could have done great damage to the United States and it’s allies. Also the United States is trying to spread democracy and freedom to a country that has been murdered, tortuered, and held in captivity. The United States is protecting its own intrests and that of the oppressed people of Iraq.

  4. Even though Iraq did not have any nuclear weapons they still had weapons capable of great damage. Biological and chemical weapons that could do great damage to Americans and its allies.

    Does that mean we should go to war with every country that has biological or chemical weaposn which “could do great damage”?

    That is most of mainland Europe, Russia, China, Australia, North Korea, a good chunk of the MidEast, Great Britian, and even some Pacific and South American countries.

    Why not just take out the whole world for pax-Americana?

%d bloggers like this: