by ThiChi 68 Replies latest social current
The president talked a lot about weapons of mass destruction in that speech, but he also addressed all these other concerns from supporting terrorism (Has most here forgotten the Salmon Pak terrorist training facility?) to repressing the Iraqi people. When the president addressed the Iraqi people, he didn't mention a word about WMD. He talked about freedom.
However, this is not the issue...
ThiChi,
I am not a member of either political party but I am considering registering to vote for the election this year. May I ask you a question that has been on my mind? You said, "Iraq is only a part of the overall plan to battle this attack on us."
This what I am unable to understand, according to the news reports Iraq before the war did not have close ties to Al Quaida (sp?) and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Why then did we attack Iraq?
I understand that Saddam is a madman and a despicable person but there are many leaders who could be described the same way. So why were not most of our efforts concentrated in Afghanistan where Bin Laden and Al Quaida were concentrated? If the same military push and monetary expense in Iraq had been put to use in Afghanistan isn't it possible that Bin Laden might have been found already and Al Quaida mortally weakened?
Also, Afghanistan is being left behind it seems in the rebuilding efforts. War lords are still in control in many areas where again religion is being used to control people. Yet, President Bush speaks very little about Afghanistan and the U.S. efforts there to bring positive change to the very country that seeded and harbored Bin Laden and his army.
Why are we concentrating the war on terror more in Iraq than in Afghanistan where Bin Laden has been hiding for years? I don't understand this.
Sabrina
Good lord!
What f***** up reasoning is it that believes other peoples' children should die because a despot leader did what despot leaders do, ie: resisted (slightly) an "ultimatum" from GW Bush?
lol, can these bloodthirsty jackboots even begin to think outside of the box enough to reason that maybe, just maybe, the fact that Saddam Hussien really was an unbelievably evil mu'fffukka, is exactly the reason that the future of the world and our children SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE TO HINGE UPON HIM???? Especially when there are a million men, far less evil perhaps, but unfortunately religious fanatics with a most nasty doctrine of martyrdom, just itching to take his place.
Good questions:
Click the Salmon Pak link above regarding IRAQ'S ties to Terrorism.
Re read the issues I posted above for the reasons for Iraq action.
Notwithstanding, geopolitically, Iraq is important. You cannot have all your eggs in one basket. With the Saudis folding to radically militant elements, they cannot be counted on. And it goes without saying what is going on in Afghanistan.
No longer is the goal of this war "regime change" or disarmament. For the first time, the president said that we're going to close the Islamic "freedom gap." This belief and faith in humanity comes from Mr. Bush's faith in God - at a time when the EU's biggest battle over a new constitution is whether or not to mention the Almighty. You can't keep freedom bottled up, or drip it out as the USSR tried to do. Remember, Reagan brought them down with his vision in the face of those who said freedom wasn't for Russians.
Today, Bush knows the Saudi royal family-types are falling apart, which is why the House of Saud wants us out so they can make the changes without appearing reactionary. But if you're going to transform that region because democracies don't use WMDs and terrorist tactics, why have we been messing with the United Nations? Why have we even reduced the standard for victory in a UN vote?
Again: we don't go anywhere to conquer or for oil. We are not rebuilding a nation here because we want to occupy it forever, or because we want oil. This war has always been about giving freedom to 23 million Iraqis and protecting our own security - nothing but. Now, it's official.
Sixer, using your logic: 1. Saddam would still be in power 2. Hitler would still be in power 3. Stalin's USSR would be operating at top speed And people who used your logic would have been turned into a bar of sope or working in some slave camp somewhere. Thank God your logic is in the minority.... Bush is a real leader and History will be on his side.
Bottom-line:
9/11 was a tragic event that brought the country together, if only for a brief moment.
This happened on Bush's watch.
Only one party can use this event, because it happened when they were in charge.
The other party, (as much as they would like) can't use the event, so
they cry "foul", and "unfair" ... dividing the country further.
Politics... gotta hate it.
Thi Chi,
I personally see a distinction between Pearl Harbor/wwII and 9/11 and the war on terrorism. One was an attack on a military base, the other was a terrorist attack on what are percieved symbols of oppression in the world from which the attackers came. Pearl Harbor should/could/would have been expected, the murder of thousands of ppl by using commercial airplanes as missles was something that few reasonable persons of our day would been able to predict. 9/11 was murder plain and simple and behind that attack were no dreams of world domintion or regional supremecy. It was a desperate act by ppl who seek to destroy our civilazation because they are led to believe that by doing so they will save their own. Given the complexity of the world scene and the issues dominating it today, I think it shows a major lack of insight for the Bush Administration to use images of the murder of 3000 ppl to win an election. America will most likely never become a place where things like 9/11 happen with the frquency they do in the rest of the world...at least as long as the are being perpetrated by foriegners.
Using imaes do nothing more than promote fear. Which I thought most conservatives said was a liberal tactic used to get their hands on ppls money.
Basically......Bottom-line:9/11 was a tragic event that brought the country together, if only for a brief moment.This happened on Bush's watch.Only one party can use this event, because it happened when they were in charge.The other party, (as much as they would like) can't use the event, sothey cry "foul", and "unfair" ... dividing the country further.Politics... gotta hate it.
bigboi:
Given the complexity of the world scene and the issues dominating it today, I think it shows a major lack of insight for the Bush Administration to use images of the murder of 3000 ppl to win an election.
Very good points.
The "insight" of the Bush administration is focused on fundamentalist Protestant principles...Rice, Powell, Ashcroft, Cheney...their self-perceived messianic 'on a mission from God' is (imo) so obvious as to be undeniable.
And playing the "steady leadership in troubled times" card is simply part of that same agenda.
Craig (of the "hesitantly, but almost unavoidably, becoming more political" class)
Bigboi: I am sorry, I may not have made my point. I was not comparing wars, only the use of events in history as Ads to show leadership. My point was, it has been dove. I don't know how you judge the merits of each war yet, it is still playing out. The 9-11 casualties do rival Pearl Harbor numbers. The reasons the Japanese had vs. the Muslims for starting the War does not really matter. The fact is we are in it......
