Comment by frozenport | Hacker News Reader

Comment by frozenport | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>>we're the prime architects of how life in the Middle East has proceeded

This isn't quite true.

Iran goaded the US into invading Iraq, perhaps supplying the fake evidence used to link Saddam Hussein to WMDs. This was at least Hussein's opinion, and why he did not take US threats immediately leading up to the war seriously. Saddam's successor, Chalabi, was an Iranian agent [[1].

Bashar Al-Assad aggressively sponsored terrorism and sectarian violence in Iraq. In the early days, most fighters from Iraq were from Syria, or came through Syria. It was not without irony that the conflict later spilled over into his country.

The leaders of the Middle East are not without fault, they clumsily used the West's domestic insecurities (and Russia's) for their own military gain. In Syria they unleashed forces they could no longer control.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/world/middleeast/26iht-m26...

Oh, now it's Iran that is responsible for Iraq war. How convenient. Maybe US should start bombing Iran now, too?

I'm really afraid at how easily it has become to find any pretext to bomb and destroy any country by the US. All of course in the name of "democracy and freedom". It's a pity that whole generations of people living in destroyed countries are either dead or have no democracy and freedom at all.

And as it was reported here several weeks ago, sometimes pretext is not even necessary. Just send a bomb or rocket any time - it's a thirld world country, no one care about people living in those countries.

> It's a pity that whole generations of people living in destroyed countries are either dead or have no democracy and freedom at all.

The Iraqi Kurds generally seem pretty happy about not being murdered anymore.

(Just saying there's two sides to every story. Giving peace a chance only works if the other party is willing to as well - sometimes they just take the opportunity to invade Poland)

Wow! Just wow! Everything you stated belongs in the "alternative fact" category.

Why? For example, on Wikipedia you can see

    In January 2012, a French intelligence official stated that they believed Chalabi to be an Iranian agent.[8]

There is nothing alternative about saying that Iran and Syria persued aggressive anti-us policy at the expense of the Iraqi and later Syrian people.

Syria pursued "anti-us policy" at the expense of Syrian people?

I think this world is upside down.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com