by Simon 28 Replies latest social current
Well, thank god we went in there eh? Obviously, it was to stop abuse (after the previous excuses fell through).
Now that things are as bad as under Saddam, I guess that puts the final nail in the lie that they went in to help the people (you know, after their previous lie fell through).
Is anyone still under any illusion that Bush, Blair and co. give a shit about the people or are competent enough to organise anything other than a complete fuck up?
Kinda' hard to tell from here Simon. The media has it's agenda here in the US, and it appears mostly to lean towards the continuance of the Bush Bashing. They seem to be determined to make Boy George look like a real @$$hole, though in many instances, he doesn't require a lot of help.
The ones in the war, however, appear to get it, what it is that George is trying to accomplish, that of bringing about change to the entire middle east and it starts, in his mind, with Iraq. As soon as Iraq falls in line, so too will the rest of that region.
It's really difficult to predict the eventual outcome, above and beyond the fact that the war appears to be going incredibly bad, only time will be able to dictate asto whether or not Boy Georgre had it right afterall.
I personally feel it will eventually take its toll on the American psyche, as well as those who continue to enlist and invest thier lives in this war. The ones the Americans are fighting seem to be more willing to die for thier belief as opposed to those who are dying for a US political cause.
White Phospherous. Very chilling discovery what it is the United States are raining down upon Iraqis. Whether they they be soldier and especially if they are not, appears to be the equivalent of what was dropped in Viet-Nam, that of Napalm.
Some of the photographs brought to me thru a Google Search brought back some intensely sobering images of the war and what it is we are doing over there. This chemical is reported to only go out if the oxygen is removed from it, otherwise it burns down to even the bone. It might be quiet asto now, but as soon as the regulars get wind of the kind of destruction that the United States is responsible for, this is certain to ugly from the stateside view as regards the war.
"Why doesn't Blair listen?!?"
Because he's not there to listen, he's there to push forward an agenda, whether the people want it or not. War is big business, it has nothing to do with 'helping the Iraqi people'
You can call it "Bush Bashing". If the evidence is clear that he is responsible for attrocities and has been hypocritical beyond belief then he deserves to be bashed.
It's like a pedophile claiming that he's being bashed by evidence at a trial - of course he's being bashed, he deserves it !
I think some of the brainwashed clowns around these days will throw themselves in front of a moving Bus(h) to save Dubya.
*sigh* ... I do not believe that comparing the US military tactics to Sadaam gasing and torturing his own subjects is realistic. But, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and agenda, I suppose...
J
*sigh* ... I do not believe that comparing the US military tactics to Sadaam gasing and torturing his own subjects is realistic. But, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and agenda, I suppose...
It doesn't mean that the the US has carried out all of the abuse directly (although it is clear that they have carried out some and set a sad precedent in doing so).
However, when you invade and assume control of a country you bear some responsibility for what they goes on. You are responsible for the law and order or lack thereof. It's sad that they could devote so much effort into destroying important infastructure and yet chose to allow the symbols of oppression to remain standing and then be reoccupied either by themselves or the puppet regime operating under their control.
Despite claiming that it is the reason they invaded Iraq I think the US Administration has shown that they do not really value the lives of Iraqi's or place their wellbeing very high on the agenda. Halliburton and co seem to be doing very well though as does the Carlyle group.
To that, I ask, why is it unlawful for Saddam to kill innocent civilians but it is right, or excusable, for the American led invasion to do the same thing?
