OK, what fantasy world are you living in... Why else would America attack Iraq? Not to help them, so Iraq must have had something they wanted, right? Right... Oil. We all know America didn't invade Iraq just to help their people or their government, because what would America get out of that?
I think you are the one living in a fantasy world, one where people forget what they hear in a month.
Look at the amount of money they have spent with this war already and then compare it to the currently estimated worth of all of the Iraqi oil (there are various stats on this on the internet, although I cannot remember the exact numbers right now). Then tell me why they did not invade Saudi Arabia instead, which has twice the amount of oil and a tenth of the military power. And now find me a single war in history that has been fought purely for money. The oil thing is a pretty silly excuse, maybe only given for lack of anything better.
Now try to remember this for a month until the next argument, okay?
Once again, the media says nothing about America not being interested in Iraq's oil, and you therefore think they're not interested in it. so tell me why America invaded Iraq? What did Iraq do to America?
On the flip side, since the media says nothing about oil (which is not quite true, by the way, as before the war the oil is about all they talked about), you therefore think that they
are interested in it. Yeah, that makes sense.
Anyway, we invaded Iraq because its
political interests ran contrary to ours in some way or another. The exact reasons are unknown to us (for that you will need to ask some high foreign policy officials), but we can say with certainty that they are political, because nothing else would make any sense. For example, Iraq was the only country in the world after 9/11 to
officially say that they supported the "terrorist" actions (even Afghanistan went with everyone else). Of course, this does not say anything about their involvement, but it shows that they are willing to operate against us in the open and therefore makes them dangerous. This alone would not be enough of course; perhaps there was some evidence that they had the WMDs as well. And if you tell me that our not finding any WMDs is any evidence whatsoever that they did not have them, I will really be convinced that you are amnesiac or something.
You know, if you read around, you'll find that throughout this war in Iraq, there's been so much looting of places. You know the dozens of hospitals, museums, historical districts, etc. that were looted in front of American troops' eyes while they stood there and did nothing? Do you REALLY think they're interested in the country? did you also know that the only buildings and places that were NOT looted (were protected by American troops) were those involved with oil? funny coincidence?
Where exactly did I say that they are interested in the welfare of Iraq? Of course they are not. They are interested in their own goals. It's just that these goals have nothing to do with oil.
Also, what exactly can be easily stolen inside an oil refinery? If you had a choice between raiding an oil plant containing heavy processing machinery weighing hundreds of tons and a museum containing ancient artifacts worth millions on black markets, where would you go?
No, believe it or not, some people want media to report the truth about events, not the biased, "what the people want" view. seriously, have you gone to any other European country CP? obviously not, because what you're telling me has no fact behind it, it's what you think, not what you've experienced.
Actually, I don't have to, since my dad subscribes to a bunch of these international economics newspapers (mostly british, french and swedish ones) which I occasionally take a look at since they also have some political stuff. Anyway, what "some people" want is not important; what the majority wants is what counts, since they are the ones who will bring in the most profits. At the moment, maybe the majority wants news that shows how evil the US is, but that does not say anything about the news service or what is actually happening. Once again, you seem to be forgetting that the media services are just companies and their sole aim is to make money, not provide accurate information. Now if you met a random guy on the street and told him what you thought of him, do you think he would like it if you called him a intelligent and good man or if you called him an evil moron? The same applies to people reading news about their country and its stance on things.
Well, that was fun. Let's keep those arguments coming.
