11-11-2003, 10:08 PM | #1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Ok. I've been wanting to voice this ever since it started so here goes.
Now from what I understood in the beginning, we went to war because of weapons of mass destruction AND a belief that Saddam Hussein has ties with Al-Quida (sp?). So I watch the news today and it shows Bush explaining to our Americans we are fighting for the freedom of Iraqis, freedom for Americans. Huh? Am I missing something here? I thought it was for those other two things. Now I'm thinking to myself, this excuse to fight for freedom is actually made up since the first two reasons didn't pan out well for the Bush administration. Okay, I'm not privy on Middle East history or politics, but that's what I'm seeing out of this war and this Bush admninistration. I see lies and deception. Well, thanks for letting me write this. Just a thought and I wanted to share that. BTW I consider myself a concerned American. Please don't see me as un-American. Peace. [img]smile.gif[/img] |
11-12-2003, 01:37 AM | #2 |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
First, Barry the Sprout's sig quotes apply.
Second, I supported going to Iraq at the time, but for two reasons: (1) I believed evidence of WMD given by Powell (who I tended to trust) to the UN, and (2) freeing Iraqis. I think the administration shot itself in the foot by "making hay" out of the WMD and not focusing on the conditions in Iraq. I, and many others, foresaw that later in time -- like, NOW -- the administration would resort to the "free Iraq" position -- making them seem dishonest. And, maybe they were, with themselves and with us. This could have all been avoided by focusing on the more important and *known* issue of freeing Iraq earlier and more vehemently. Oh well, they don't pay me to make policy, but anyway, those are my thoughts. |
11-12-2003, 02:09 AM | #3 |
Ironworks Moderator
Join Date: June 27, 2001
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Age: 43
Posts: 6,763
|
I think they learned a lesson out of this...
__________________
Once upon a time in Canada... |
11-12-2003, 02:28 AM | #4 |
Drow Priestess
Join Date: March 13, 2001
Location: a hidden sanctorum high above the metroplex
Age: 54
Posts: 4,037
|
Don't you know that Washington deals only with sound bytes? If it plays well in the media and with public opinion polls then that is the "play of the day"; this, of course, can--and does--change about every two weeks. Facts are things for statisticians and think tanks to ponder....
The entire "weapons of mass destruction" plot was thin from the beginning. Suppose Hussein did have such weapons; he would never have been able to use them against the continental US, only against American targets abroad. Hence, we didn't need to disable his weapons programs due to some imminent danger to us, only to the nations around him. Like Timber assets, had our position been "we are removing a destablizing force from the Middle East power scheme and helping to free the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator" then perhaps more people/nations would have supported military action. Oh, well, they don't pay me to form policy, either...but they should. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] I couldn't possibly do any worse than anyone currently in Washington....
__________________
Everything may be explained by a conspiracy theory. All conspiracy theories are true. No matter how thinly you slice it, it's still bologna. |
11-12-2003, 02:42 AM | #5 |
Zartan
Join Date: July 18, 2001
Location: America, On The Beautiful Earth
Age: 50
Posts: 5,373
|
President Bush has just recently started being honest with his rhetoric of 'democracising' the middle east. The neo-cons that make up his administration have been pushing for that since the end of gulf war I.
WMDs and The war on terror was simple and effective fear-mongering propoganda. As far as "liberating" the Iraqis goes, well its feelgood in theory and a nice side effect of protecting national interests in the region, but it loses gusto when one realizes how many people in the world need to be "liberated" and just how inconsistent this policy of liberation really is. This idea that a "destabilizing force" has been removed kinda boggles my mind. I woud hardly call the region more stable now that Saddam's regime has fallen. And yet other "destabilizing forces: like Isreal, Syria, Lebanon, Iran,ect. have been passed over, at least militarily. I don't buy it. I think the region was more 'stable' with a "contained" Saddam regime in the short term veiw with regards to the """post-war""" and in retrospect. |
11-12-2003, 12:51 PM | #6 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Interesting thoughts and info. Thanks everyone for sharing. I wonder what other unstable countries does Bush want to stabilize. Me thinks there are reasons the Bush people and his allies are not telling us. Ahhh, the dark side of politics and power?
|
11-12-2003, 01:58 PM | #7 |
Dracolisk
Join Date: March 21, 2001
Location: Europe
Age: 39
Posts: 6,136
|
I'm not a historian, but didn't the first Gulfwar start after rumours that the Iraqis killed numerous baby's in Kuwait, while the only real witness was the daughter of the Kuwaitian Ambassador?
After all his crimes, Husseins fall was caused by a number of lies that weren't even his. Irony of faith. |
11-12-2003, 02:51 PM | #8 | |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Quote:
Anyway, so there's your 5 cent history lesson for the day. |
|
11-12-2003, 03:23 PM | #9 |
Ra
Join Date: March 11, 2001
Location: Ant Hill
Age: 49
Posts: 2,397
|
The ends justify the lies.
|
11-13-2003, 03:44 AM | #10 | |||
Drow Priestess
Join Date: March 13, 2001
Location: a hidden sanctorum high above the metroplex
Age: 54
Posts: 4,037
|
Quote:
Quote:
Even if the "liberator" mentality falls apart as you say it does, how could it be wrong to protect national interests? Quote:
The short-term solution of a "controlled" Hussein regime was not a workable solution. The most miserable failure of Bush, Sr.'s Presidency was the failure to remove Hussein in 1991; this would have given Iraq 10 years to form a stable government, improve its infrastructure, rebuild its economy, etc. A short-term solution in the Middle East is like a band-aid on a butcher-knife slash--it might keep the skin together for a while and slow the bleeding a little, but it will never help the wound heal. There will never be any peace in the Middle East as long as the hot-headed children who currently have social or political clout keep trying to: a) form an fundamental Islamic government, because there is too much history of various Islamic groups trying to kill each other over discrepancies in matters of faith b) strong-arm their way into power so that they can bully anyone on their "list of enemies" out of existence c) demand the destruction of Israel, only because there is a history of bad blood between Jews and Muslims and Israel will fight back The leaders in these nations need to put the past behind them. Of course, as soon as they do that their population will see them as weak and revolt.... When Islamic groups are bombing Muslims during Ramadan in Riyadh I fear that the Middle East is going to kill itself completely.
__________________
Everything may be explained by a conspiracy theory. All conspiracy theories are true. No matter how thinly you slice it, it's still bologna. |
|||
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to end terrorism | Dirty Meg | General Discussion | 28 | 09-15-2004 10:37 AM |
Another act of terrorism? | Skunk | General Discussion | 8 | 08-06-2003 02:43 PM |
Terrorism | Timber Loftis | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 1 | 10-10-2002 12:32 PM |
Act of terrorism? | Jorath Calar | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 14 | 10-07-2002 07:17 AM |
New benefits for those who help in the war against terrorism | Ronn_Bman | General Discussion | 1 | 12-01-2001 05:04 PM |