218:1
3,000 Amercans "were killed," but 655,000 Iraqis "are dead.*" 218 Iraqis dead for every person killed on Sept 11th. Gosh, Bush sure isn't a pussy. He can choose a political scapegoat without any waffling at all, and kill with moral certainty. Those are the presidential qualities that have led us to victory, and left no doubts that we did the right thing (< sarcasm).
Is it justice yet? Should we kill everyone who doesn't want freedom on our terms?
*Note the blame-avoiding use of the passive mode. The Iraqis just "died."
Bush doctrine was to establish a democractic stronghold in the Middleast - a seed from which democracy would flourish and spread to Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. But this democratization could work against U.S. regional interests, if it spread to Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan and even Saudi Arabia.
All of these governments are puppet-like or firmly in the pockets of U.S. foreign policy makers.
Even if the intention of the Bush administration would have been a noble one in Iraq, the U.S. policy in the Middle East since 1975 has been inconsistent at best and duplicitous at worst.
The middle east wasn't always rife with jihadist extremist views and terrorism. One's perspective on the middle east (from Morocco to Pakiston) and its inhabitants depends upon what year you start watching the "film". Most of American foregin policy seems to be based upon the hostage taking of Americans in 1979 in Iran. If the U.S.'s intentions were purely democractic ones, and not strategic military or resource-driven ones, then most countries in the Middle East would probably view Americans very differently. Unfortunately, the reverse is true.
MarkusArelius 11 Oct 2006