by Valis 71 Replies latest social current
do you believe that if the table were turned it would be done any differently
the democrats in power instead of the rep
Hard to say. The media seems to have their own agenda. During Vietnam, they reported news much the same way, whether Johnson or Nixon was in office.
Perry - The Army paid back 1/3 of my loans each year. I had a 5 year enlistment and was sent to Port-au-Prince for the 'elections' in '95 and Kuwait, Bahrain & Saudi in '98. There were protests in both places and wearing the indiscreet robin egg blue UN hats didn't help (Haiti).
All - The media covers the sins of people. The biggest difference between the Vietnam media and today's is the 24 hour news day and the number for media sources. Then we had the big 3 networks - ABC, NBC, CBS. Reporters were encouraged to go with the Soldiers and report on the war. This brought the war into the average American home for the first time in History (but not on a 24hour cycle). Whereas 'before' footage of the War (WWII) was seen on the big screen in the movie theater. Now we've included more networks, more competition and via media, public opinion is dependant on what's seen on TV.
Iraq - Regardless of WOMD, we should have gone in. As a 'superpower' we have the responsibility to help citizens of other countries. Granted Democracy will not (and does not) always work, but allowing 'rulers' to destroy their own populations is unacceptable.
Iraq - Regardless of WOMD, we should have gone in. As a 'superpower' we have the responsibility to help citizens of other countries. Granted Democracy will not (and does not) always work, but allowing 'rulers' to destroy their own populations is unacceptable.
Allowing "rulers" to destroy their own populations absolutely is unacceptable, I agree. However, to use a "wag the dog" ploy such as the so-called WOMD as a means for a "superpower" to invade the offending country does nothing to earn the respect of other nations worldwide who value freedom and democracy. Rather, those actions have reduced the U.S. from being percieved as a "superpower" to that of a "tyrant".
Lies and misinformation, no matter how noble the cause, can never justify acts of heroism. Had this country shown the rest of the world that our intentions were an honest concern for the Iraqi people, we would not be vilified in the media around the world, and this discussion would not be happening. We all agree Saddam needed to be ousted, but the means by which it happened was incorrect. Bush and his minions should be ashamed of themselves.
We all agree Saddam needed to be ousted, but the means by which it happened was incorrect.
And, just how would you have proposed he be ousted?
And, just how would you have proposed he be ousted?
Intelligently.
And how many years should it take? LOL.
And, just how would you have proposed he be ousted?Intelligently.
Oh, please do espouse the "intelligent" manner in which you would have deposed this madman. Details appreciated.
Oh, please do espouse the "intelligent" manner in which you would have deposed this madman. Details appreciated.
Continued pressure and monitoring from and with inspections (they weren't finding anything, imagine that). Coalition forces at the border in Kuwait (and if it's a true coalition, likely several other places too). Build a truely international coalition. Use intelligence, creativity, and allies best interest to do that. Then punative strikes if needed. Have a plan for the aftermath that includes the international community and the Iraqis themselves, and lets the Iraqis know that the entire world is behind their success. And yes, lastly if needed, overwhelming force. Strike that, that's not last. Lastly, overwhelming force in quick and intelligent rebuilding, which is really the hard part. As in all things, the journey is more important than the destination. Even more so in this case, as we could use all the friends we can pick up along the way. In a world of shadowy terrorist extremist, even a giant needs all the friends he can make.
First and foremost, not let an unecessary war for (? what ?) get in the way of a necessary war on terrorism. Iraq has w/o question stolen resources and focus away from the action against al queda and Bin Laden. America's resources are not unlimited, and Americas sons and daughters are not supposed to be canon fodder for an ill-concieved war bought with trumped up motives.
Sure, it is hindsight for me to say it now, but time really was on our side, there was no big hurry. The good news is that some saw that with foresight.
Sixy--
I just get all hot and bothered when you talk all political like...
First and foremost, not let an unecessary war for (? what ?) get in the way of a necessary war on terrorism. Iraq has w/o question stolen resources and focus away from the action against al queda and Bin Laden. America's resources are not unlimited, and Americas sons and daughters are not supposed to be canon fodder for an ill-concieved war bought with trumped up motives.
Excellent point, six! With the U.S. intelligence community still unable to locate Bin Laden, a new target needed to be created in hopes that the president's popularity after the 9/11 disaster would rebound once again. It was a tragic mistake. Not only has Bush's popularity not recovered, but with much of our resources tied up in Iraq, Bin Laden and his minions are still alive and well, and sending tapes to Al-Jazeera. Each tape received from Bin Laden is another slap in the face to this country.
If we were going to war in Iraq to oust Saddam, it should have been done for the legitimate reason of the slaughter of thousands of innocents within the Iraqi borders, not because it was a political scheme to gain popularity, and certainly not so that certain American fatcats could profit from it!
Again I ask: Why hasn't America attacked the likes of Fidel Castro? Or Kim Jong Il? Or Moammar Qadaffy? Quite simple: because there is no profit in it!
