Narfle

Im not one of those "blood for oil" whiny guys, and I really couldnt care less who the current american president is, because I pretty much dont belive he has a much "creative control" as everyone thinks he does. Bush being a prime example.

No, he didnt kill all the men of military age (and you should really be looking to the russians for that one and their parties in Ukraine, much better example), he DID loot it (to an extent ofcource, and in creative ways), he didnt rape the women and he didnt set fire to the oil wells. He did yoink quite a few of them though, in creative ways ofcource.

Only invading smaller countries without ability to defend themselves have been a priority of the american army since the vietnam war, so the tragedy of a greatly pro-longed war that turns (practically) into a defeat for the way bigger aggressor would never occur again. Its such horrible publicity and divides up the population so they are harder to herd.

Back to your comparison, however.

You are comparing a war where its prioritized that the enemy is destroyed so they cannot continue fighting with a war where its prioritized that the aggressor comes out of it with maximal financial and PR gains. Or, for the sake of argument, "for the good of mankind / god told me to / its the right thing", but they are all completely bullshit possibilities and we all know it. No logic in doing all that has been done, simply because of wanting to "do the right thing". I cant argue with religious fanaticism ofcource, but if thats the case we shouldnt be arguing with logics either, but just shouting at each other with firearms.


If you permit, i'll list it very obviously.

1. "Bush didn't invade a smaller country unable to defend itself."

Yes, yes he did. Twice. I take it we are not talking about all men with the surname Bush that has been presidents of the USA, just the current one.

2. "Bush didn't kill all the men of military age in this smaller country"

So you mean that obvious war-crimes of barbaric nature was not comitted during this quest for greatness of mankind, profit and good PR? I wonder why, since doing this would have cost a lot of money, brought a lot of bad publicity and would have gained USA nothing total. OFCOURCE HE DIDNT. His men made damn sure that the natives of the countries was tortured though.

3. "didn't loot it"

Yes, yes he did.

4. "rape it's women"

See #2. And yes, yes they did.

5. "or set fire to 600 oil wells."

But how many oil wells was "stolen" instead?