It is really a waste of time to be on the Internet lately, it takes time from my reading. I have been browsing several blogs lately, and found a few that list other blogs. At first I thought these were engaged with each other, forming conclusions based on reasonable discourse. This is exactly the impression people hope to deliver, especially with a title like Atlas Shrugs. I fell for it for a few hours, because that is really what I am looking for when I get on the Internet. Human nature will not be thwarted though, even by such social tools as the Internet.

I read somewhere a long time ago that people engaged in a discussion are not really engaged, they are simply waiting their turn to be heard. With the Internet, you don't have to wait your turn, you can put forth your ideas the moment they are conjured. One of the problems is people listen only long enough to formulate an opinion which suits them, or listen only long enough for an opportunity to pounce on an idea as being good or bad. There is never a discussion, people are there just to rattle sabers along with others that share similar thoughts against those that disagree, not in an effort to engage but to oppress.

I commented on another blog where the dude was ranting about how it makes perfect sense for the administration to come out with an exit strategy after all this time of denying a need for an exit strategy. I posted a long comment, but first some of his remarks...

We could leave the Iraqis to their own devices....
Of course if that happens America will be forced to take action again. Only next time in accordance with my friends wishes and so many other Iraqis we should avoid meddling in their affairs. If they want to live under the yoke of dictators so be it. When we feel threatend by our enemies we should simply kill them and leave. We could have removed Saddam and walked out of Iraq. Next time we should do just that and not sacrifice American lives for Iraqi futures.

This is my comment in its entirety...

It is obvious now that ‘we won’t say stay the course anymore’ was just a prelude to a withdrawal strategy. That strategy is now in the works, with more officials admitting things are fubar in a big way. The administration is finally getting the notion that things will never work out the way they had hoped, and they are ready with a new set of mantras to change reality in the minds of the American people.

I don’t care how they packaged it; this administration had no intention of leaving. The plan was to get rid of Saddam, not because he treated his people badly, but because he treated the United States Government with indifference. If you believe for one instant that the goals of this administration were altruistic you have YOUR head in the sand. You just have to look around the world at similar situations, where people are mistreated by those in power, have been mistreated, even before we went to Iraq the second time. If the motive were truly altruistic, and we arrived to ‘bring democracy’, we would not have had the resources, because we would already have been engaged elsewhere in the world.

This administration went into Iraq because there are markets and people to exploit, and they thought it would be easy pickings, as easy as it was the first time. Our Congress agreed to it wholeheartedly, Republicans AND Democrats, because they all saw the same thing. They were foaming at the mouth with greed at all the opportunities, and the only thing that stood in the way of those opportunities, so they thought, was a dictator and his spineless followers. Once WE controlled the economy things would go well for us in the region. It isn’t the lack of democracy that we hold against these leaders, it’s the economy. Our government doesn’t care whether their people have democracy, the goal is a leader, dictator or otherwise, that will play by rules our government lays out. Our government doesn’t care how they control the people, so long as we control the economy. Plunder has been the objective since the beginning of time, and this situation is no different. To think otherwise means you are blinded by the rhetoric, or you aren’t paying attention to what has happened throughout history, or both.

So, no we could not have removed Saddam and walked out, because that was not the intention. And Iraqi futures are a consideration only as a means to an end, an end our administration dictates.

I did miss something else I wanted to point out. The guy says we would be forced to take action again. This is what gave me the notion the guy assumes the motive for going into Iraq was altruistic. Saying we are forced to action implies a lot of things that are debatable. Some implications off the top of my head. Forced into action as a policeman is when he draws his gun, or a fireman as he wields his ax to fight a fire. Forced into action because people are suffering. Forced into action because people are being oppressed by outside influence. There are lots of excuses that lead to being forced into action, but they all suffer the same basic flaw; that our motives are above reproach. If you know your history, this simply is not the case.

It is always the same. I start with an urge to say something, and in the process read over and over what I am commenting on and realize these people don't want a discussion, and nothing I say will be considered at all. So, I end up preaching long and hard about the things I see and being sucked into the same path.

I guess what I am looking for is someone to come up with a convincing argument that we are not repeating history, that the motives have finally changed.