by Simon 398 Replies latest social current
That you continuously try to compare the US to the Saddam Regime, or other bad, ugly evil people is sad and unjustified
whether this is unjustified strongly depends on the viewpoint.
after all bush invaded a country without solid reason and is thereby responsible for all death that this caused. if this was done for his personal reasons (which is very well possible considering the state of affairs) than he is indeed not a shred better than hussein.
realist-
bush can be outraged about his countrymen committing atrocities on other human beings (without losing sleep about the actual vicitms).....again, you may believe this impossible, i do not. i do not consider myself an ultra sensitive person, but i am personally ashamed about the actions of these soldiers. perhaps bush is not, and is concerned only about media coverage. i am not presumptuous enough to suggest that the president could care less about the actions of our soldiers unless it affects his approval ratings.....you can do so, it is your prerogative.
aa
I recently just saw an interview on CNN between two former Secretary of States, that being Albright and Kissinger. Albright took the formal approach and said these prisioner pictures are terrible, outrageous, etc, etc, blah, blah, same line everyone has used. Kissinger, as hard as it is to hear the old fart, of course said that the pictures were terrible but then surprisingly said that the pictures aren't really that bad if you put them into the context of the Middle East. Thus, he was kind of saying that the pictures were a tit for tat, they show those kind of pictures and happenings on Al Jazzera T.V., and their audience condones it, so why should the American audience be any different.
Don't get me wrong, the abuse is bad, but I think in context, pretty lame compared to what is going on everywhere else. Also, what else do we expect when we put all of these soldiers into a quagmire that is Iraq telling them that these are the people responsible for 9/11 and then expect them to behave decently. I don't think so.
dubla,
again, you may believe this impossible, i do not.
i don't find it impossible but unlikely.
you can do so, it is your prerogative.
thank you! very generous of you!
thank you! very generous of you!
i wasnt giving you permission....i was simply stating that being completely presumptuous is entirely your choice.....i just dont choose to join you in your attempts at mind reading. again, its tantamount to suggesting that no world leader in history has ever had a sincere concern for the treatment of others. to me, its ridiculous....but to each his own.
aa
dubla,
i knew what you meant.
essentially we are all just dealing with hypotheses here. yours seem to be that bush is an honest guy. mine is that he is a person interested almost exclusively in his own (and the people's standing behind him) good. my logical foundation for this assumption is that usually only the toughest and most egoistic people get to the top (alpha male hypothesis).
hypotheses can be used to make predictions about the future and should agree with past observations. what i have seen so far (bushs earlier buisness deals, the war against iraq based on lies about WMDs and terror links, the US reserving the contracts for its companies (halliburton and co.), no attempt to force israel to a decent deal with the palestinians, the breaking of all international agreements on nuclear weapons, ecological issues etc. pp.) seems to fit naturally into my hypothesis.
again, its tantamount to suggesting that no world leader in history has ever had a sincere concern for the treatment of others. to me, its ridiculous
how is this tantamount to suggesting that no world leader in history has ever had a sincere concern for the treatment of others? this has to be evaluated from case to case.
without question most leaders are like bush. but this does not mean that ghandi and a few others were actually philanthropists who had a vision of a better world.
SImon,
I heartily welcome a side by side comparison of what Saddam did versus what the US has done...the US comes out smelling like roses.
Why do you insist on calling employees of a US Government Contractor "mercinaries"?
Realist,
The US only need one good reason to go back in to Iraq, the violation of the Cease Fire Agreement by Saddam...that alone, under US and International Law justified the invasion. So, all other reasons put aside, that was reason enough.
yeru,
The US only need one good reason to go back in to Iraq, the violation of the Cease Fire Agreement by Saddam...that alone, under US and International Law justified the invasion. So, all other reasons put aside, that was reason enough.
obviously there was no agreement on that! in retrospective one can only say the critics were right the bush folks were wrong.
There's no agreement on that by the likes of yourself,...oh, and those who recieved BILLIONS from Saddam in the oil for food program...the law itself is pretty clear.
yeru,
There's no agreement on that by the likes of yourself
you mean like 3/4 of the world to make a conservative estimate?
oh, and those who recieved BILLIONS from Saddam in the oil for food program...the law itself is pretty clear.
so virtually the whole world was against this because of the possible corruption of a couple of UN people? interesting!
