You misunderstood what I stated. You said Bush had nothing to lose by invading Iraq and everything to gain financially. I pointed out that his legacy as President is what he was risking by invading Iraq. You want to believe that it was all about money because that is what it appears to be today w/Haliburton, when in reality you have no evidence showing that WMD's weren't the real reason in the beginning. No one not even France spoke up to say that WMD's weren't in Iraq, everyone was under the impression that Sadam had them at his disposal, and WMD casing and residual chemical were actually found. The believed arsenal wasn't found but that doesn't mean they weren't in existance, Sadam had plenty of time to move them out of the country or simply burry them in the desert



Again another misunderstanding. I said that Americans didn't care about the war in Europe, nor the terrorists in the ME and acts around the world because it didn't effect us here at home. Americans didn't really care about the U.S.S. Cole, the embassy bombings, or about U.S. citizens being murdered outside the country simply because they were Americans. As long as we stayed here or traveled to Europe we were safe, it wasn't until 9/11 that terrorism hit home and needed an actual U.S. response. Had 9/11 not occured there would have been no invasion of Iraq, Sadam would likely still be in power, and only U.S. installations outside the U.S. would have been targets of islamic terrorism.


Yes we have supported both sides of a conflicts, i.e. our enemy's enemy is our friend, this is practiced by governemenst all over the world, and works well. Europeans and colonists used the concept here with the American Indians. France used it to support us in our bid for freedom from England. Hitler tried using it to get Mexico to attack us durring WWII, and Nixon used it to seperate the U.S.S.R and China durring teh cold War. This is a long practiced and accepted foriegn policy, and no one should be surprised. Right now in Iraq we are using it with Iraqi national insurgent groups to fight the foreign born insurgents and Al Queda. There is nothing wrong with it.



Again not exactly the way it happened. In 1951 Mosaddeq (a socialist) was elected Prime Minister, which he then immediately nationalized Iran's oil industry, an oil industry that British Petroleum had created. Of course this didn't sit well with BP, as it shouldn't have. He also enacted policies that attempted to strip the power of the monarchy. Mosaddeq's forces did force Shah Reza out in 1953, however his failed socialist and nationalization policies, allong w/the growing communist party Tudeh causing problems with his clergy allies, and the British economic embargo made the coup to reinstate Shah Reza rather easy to pull off. The reinstatement of Shah Reza led to new oil contarcts that feuled Iran's economic growth for the next 25yrs. Shah reza also enacted social/political reforms that would become to be known as the "White Revolution". The "White Revolution" basically began in '61 and started with land reform which redistributed land to 2.5 milion Iranians in 1963. Along with land reform the Shah reduced the autonomy of tribal groups, established education and health corps to benefot Iran's rural population, advanced social and legal reforms that furthered the emancipation of women, and limited profit sharing from industrial/agriculture industries. This all lead to Iran's economic boom and greatly increased the per capita income of Iranians, which came ytp an end in 1979. Granted the Shah wasn't a humanitarian, and he did squelch political dissedents, had his own version of the KGB called the Organization of National Security and Information , which the Shah used to polityically dominate Iran. However, the uprising in '79 was brought on more by the effected parties of the land reform(the landed elite), the loss of tribal power(clergy), and failed or corrupt programs that effected portions of the Iranian population, than teh Shah's support by the West. the Shah was criticizd for trying to immitate the West and for being subserviant to the West, but not enough to cause his downfall. Also prior to '79 Revolution Iran had more students attending U,S, universities than any other state. It is pretty clear given the reforms enacted under Shah Reza and his like of the West would have given Iran its best chance at already becomming a real democracy. However after the '79 revolt Khomeini did away with most of the reform policies womens rights, reinstated traditional religeous law, and did away with his allies who helped him gain power(nothing new it is part of the revolutionists handbook, get the weaker parties to help, then destroy them since they are now your enemies). The CIA's and British backed coup of '53 didn't cause any long term harm to Iran, it actually helped them. Absent the return of Shah Reza Iran would have been under economic sanctions since '51 rather than '79, and would have never experienced the economic/political/social growth gained before '79. Khomeini, and his two predecessors have done their best to isolate Iran from the West, an isolation that continues to cause them economic harm. Ahmadinejad is doing the most harm by pushing for war with the West, in hope that it will turn the majority of the population(currently under 40) against the West, and reinforce Islamic fundementalism.