The following have all been stated as reasons or justification for invading Iraq. It is just plain naive to say that oil is not one of the factors. Oil = power = staying top dog = America: rather than European or Chinese dominance or whoever esle wants control of the greatest sourse of power on the planet.
Anyone want to add to this list?
--------------------------------------------------------------
1. Euro threat to the U.S. dollar
2. War on terrorism
3. Control oil flow force others nations to be subservient to US global interests and pressure.
4. Secure strategic base in the middle east from which to ensure dominance of the region.
5. Human rights abuse
6. Eliminate grievances which fuels America hatred
7. After 9-11 American need to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't enough.
8. Unleash reform in the Arab-Muslim region towards modernity
9. The nuclear bomb, ie whoever has Arab bomb becomes leader in Arab world
14. To needlessly squander our national treasury and blood.
15. To get to the other side.
16. To stimulate our bored military: They were in dire need of on-hand tactical military training. Also, effectiveness testing of our military equipment and technologies.
17. Because we could.
18. To witness all you anti-Americans pound sand and cry like babies.
Originally posted by DaveDom The following have all been stated as reasons or justification for invading Iraq. It is just plain naive to say that oil is not one of the factors. Oil = power = staying top dog = America: rather than European or Chinese dominance or whoever esle wants control of the greatest sourse of power on the planet.
It makes a lot of sense why Bush & Co. would invade Iraq, knowing that all fossil fuels will be almost gone by the year 2040 (many scientists & researchers have concluded). Whoever is in control of these oil reserves will have a lot of power and influence in the future.
Also in 2002. Saddam was influencing OPEC to switch from the dollar to the euro. If OPEC were to switch to the euro as the standard for oil transactions, it would have serious ramifications for the US economy. Oil-consuming economies would have to flush the dollars out of and convert them to euros. Some economists estimate that with the market flooded, the US dollar could drop up to 40% in value. In laymen’s terms, it would of brought the US economy into a spiraling recession
Its is so clear the REAL intentions of the Bush Administration. Its just truly sad that most of you will never come to grips with reality
"It makes a lot of sense why Bush & Co. would invade Iraq, knowing that all fossil fuels will be almost gone by the year 2040 (many scientists & researchers have concluded). Whoever is in control of these oil reserves will have a lot of power and influence in the future."
It's also common knowledge that in just 10 or 15 years we will no longer be completely dependent on OIL. The owners of oil companies already have their hands in established technologies to replace oil as our main fule. By 2040 our oil reserves will be irrelevent.
"Also in 2002. Saddam was influencing OPEC to switch from the dollar to the euro. If OPEC were to switch to the euro as the standard for oil transactions, it would have serious ramifications for the US economy. Oil-consuming economies would have to flush the dollars out of and convert them to euros. Some economists estimate that with the market flooded, the US dollar could drop up to 40% in value. In laymen’s terms, it would of brought the US economy into a spiraling recession"
It looks to me that Bush had yet ANOTHER good reason to oust Saddam. What's wrong with protecting America?
Originally posted by sayzak21
"Also in 2002. Saddam was influencing OPEC to switch from the dollar to the euro. If OPEC were to switch to the euro as the standard for oil transactions, it would have serious ramifications for the US economy. Oil-consuming economies would have to flush the dollars out of and convert them to euros. Some economists estimate that with the market flooded, the US dollar could drop up to 40% in value. In laymen’s terms, it would of brought the US economy into a spiraling recession"
It looks to me that Bush had yet ANOTHER good reason to oust Saddam. What's wrong with protecting America?
So you feel its okay to (1) lie to the American public & the world (2) kill thousands of innocent civilians (3) create more terrorism and (4) kill American Soldiers to protect our economy?
Saddam was attempting to do something which would cause direct harm to everyone in the United States. That's just ONE (of many many many reasons) to get rid of Saddam. Going into detail about the effects of Saddam switching to euros rather than Dollars would be a tedious effort as many people would not understand and/or be bored to death, thus deluting the rest of the argument.
In a war some people are going to die. This war has caused less civilian lives than any war -- and that's with Saddam putting those people in harms way.
Create more terrorism? Actually, it's kind of funny... I woke up one morning and turned on the TV and saw the world trade centers burning. Then (as in after), this jerk standing in fron of a big American flag said "We are going to war against terrorism"...
Kill American Soldiers to protect our economy? The economy issue is just ONE of MANY reasons to wage a war against Saddam. Our soldiers (for your information) are fighting for homeland freedom as well as those in Iraq (And in Afgan.)
So to answer your question literally:
1. no
2. no
3. no
4. no
To answer it with the rhetorical spin taken off:
1. He didn't lie. Next.
2. We weren't targeting Civilians, but casualties happen.
3. We're getting rid of terrorism, not creating it.
4. Soldiers, like some civilians, are going to die in war.
Originally posted by sayzak21 Saddam was attempting to do something which would cause direct harm to everyone in the United States. That's just ONE (of many many many reasons) to get rid of Saddam. Going into detail about the effects of Saddam switching to euros rather than Dollars would be a tedious effort as many people would not understand and/or be bored to death, thus deluting the rest of the argument.
In a war some people are going to die. This war has caused less civilian lives than any war -- and that's with Saddam putting those people in harms way.
Create more terrorism? Actually, it's kind of funny... I woke up one morning and turned on the TV and saw the world trade centers burning. Then (as in after), this jerk standing in fron of a big American flag said "We are going to war against terrorism"...
Kill American Soldiers to protect our economy? The economy issue is just ONE of MANY reasons to wage a war against Saddam. Our soldiers (for your information) are fighting for homeland freedom as well as those in Iraq (And in Afgan.)
So to answer your question literally:
1. no
2. no
3. no
4. no
To answer it with the rhetorical spin taken off:
1. He didn't lie. Next.
2. We weren't targeting Civilians, but casualties happen.
3. We're getting rid of terrorism, not creating it.
4. Soldiers, like some civilians, are going to die in war.
You must be really naive if you think our invasion of Iraq is ridding terrorism. First and foremost Iraq is a defenseless pond in the war on terrorism. As a result of putting focus to Iraq, the Taliban has remerged in Afghanistan. If Bush was serious about terrorism he would of invaded Saudi Arabia right after 9-11. Instead, he chooses to defend them and remain allies. Please explain why Bush is allies with the "king" of terrorism?
According to Bush & Co. all our actions our to prevent another 9-11? So then why are we allies with the country that financed 9-11, and where 15 of the 19 hijackers originated from....just curious?
Why has every Muslim leader warned Bush & Co. that their foreign policies have made extremism ideology gain momentum in the Muslim world? Please explain this? Do you think a good solution to solving terrorism is to convert more people to extremism?
Why have the Taliban emerged? Do you think it is a good strategy on our behalf to do a half-assed job in Afghanistan, then focus on Iraq?
Was it a good strategy for the Bush Administration to ignore a warning from the CIA, that clearly said the Iraq war would greatly increase terrorism by further widening the divide between the Western and Islamic worlds?
The federal reserve has emitted thousands of billions of new dollars over the past years. This paper is not backed with new gold reserves since the renouncement to the post-war Bretton Woods agreements by Nixon in 1971. This agreement used to set up a parity between the dollar and gold.
This simply means that the dollar actual value simply rely on ... the value that international economy agrees to grant to it. The US has shifted from a position of creditor 25 years ago to the rest of the world, to a less uncomfortable one of deeply indebted. The global debt (public and private) would amount to more than 44000 billion dollars. This is ENORMOUS.
Consider these facts: a state printing massively money like ads flyers to be put on cars' windshields. A currency furthermore not correlated with precious metal. A considerable debt.
What should be the real value of the dollar versus euro, yen, yuan ? Far less than it is today.
The US use their currency as a weapon. Other countries don't have any other choice left than to support this value (by buying new dollars) otherwise their own economy would drop if the dollar went to be weakened: they would not be competitive enough.
The chinese sell massively goods to the US - the commercial exchanges are heavily unbalanced between China and the US, in favor of China. In return they are given dollars. By the way they are more and more in position to blackmail the US.
This situation is tricky and unstable. The dollar is likely to drop - thus making American people suddenly far less wealthy that they used to be ... imagine the rate of forclosures, given the fact that an average American household spend at least 100 % of what it earns - no savings ...
What is the solution then to make the dollar remaining a currency you can control as you want ? We have seen it was not backed with proportional gold reserves and balanced indebtment...
The US has a mighty economy, of course .. is it enough ? Maybe not ... do you start to guess the interest of a mighty military able to intervene everywhere ?
The military power explains partly the dollar force of today. The Chinese should keep on selling goods, be given dollars in exchange, buy federal expenditures (T-bonds) without forgetting that their client's (and geopolitical adversary) economy is backed by the military.
You must be really naive if you think our invasion of Iraq is ridding terrorism. First and foremost Iraq is a defenseless pond in the war on terrorism. As a result of putting focus to Iraq, the Taliban has remerged in Afghanistan. If Bush was serious about terrorism he would of invaded Saudi Arabia right after 9-11. Instead, he chooses to defend them and remain allies. Please explain why Bush is allies with the "king" of terrorism?
Going to war with Saudi Arabia would cause open global conflict between muslims and westerners, and that's not what we want. US cant cut most of the world's oil supply right away, the fact that terrorists are saudi arabian does not mean their government is involved, and i believe it is influenced by religious leaders and cant oppose them. Just imagine for a second what would have happened if US did strike Saudi Arabia.
According to Bush & Co. all our actions our to prevent another 9-11? So then why are we allies with the country that financed 9-11, and where 15 of the 19 hijackers originated from....just curious?
Those hijackers' nationality does not matter.
Why has every Muslim leader warned Bush & Co. that their foreign policies have made extremism ideology gain momentum in the Muslim world? Please explain this? Do you think a good solution to solving terrorism is to convert more people to extremism?
NO! The only solution is to educate, not letting extremists affect population - exactly what Bush wants to do in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Why have the Taliban emerged? Do you think it is a good strategy on our behalf to do a half-assed job in Afghanistan, then focus on Iraq?
Why do you think we are doing a half-assed job in Afghanistan? Everyday coalition forces are looking for remainants of Taliban, Al Qaeda, and warlords. Afghanistan is completely different and peacekeepers are doing a good job there too.
Was it a good strategy for the Bush Administration to ignore a warning from the CIA, that clearly said the Iraq war would greatly increase terrorism by further widening the divide between the Western and Islamic worlds?
Believe it or no, he couldnt think of anything better. Why did they pick Afghanistan and Iraq? Maybe because attacking any other islamic-ruled terrorist-supporting full-of-extremist country would cause much more deaths and destruction?
Going to war with Saudi Arabia would cause open global conflict between Muslims and westerners, and that's not what we want. US cant cut most of the world's oil supply right away, the fact that terrorists are Saudi Arabian does not mean their government is involved, and i believe it is influenced by religious leaders and cant oppose them. Just imagine for a second what would have happened if US did strike Saudi Arabia.
Actually the Saudi Government is involved. The 9-11 commission report went into details how 9-11 was financed by Highly Ranked Saudi government officials. But for some reason Bush classifies this section of the report. It is very clear that he doesn't want us to know the truth.
NO! The only solution is to educate, not letting extremists affect population - exactly what Bush wants to do in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So they are educating the population by bombing them? That makes a lot of sense. Your missing the point here. The bottom line is we have created more extremism as a result of our policies. Which infect will create more terrorism. Aren't we spose to be stopping terrorism, instead of creating more?
Why do you think we are doing a half-assed job in Afghanistan? Everyday coalition forces are looking for remainants of Taliban, Al Qaeda, and warlords. Afghanistan is completely different and peacekeepers are doing a good job there too.
We did a half-assed job because we left without fully completing our mission. We took our resources and focus out of Afghanistan and put it in Iraq. As a result the Taliban has reemerged. Do you think the Taliban would have reemerged if the US didn't switch focus to Iraq? I think not
Actually the Saudi Government is involved. The 9-11 commission report went into details how 9-11 was financed by Highly Ranked Saudi government officials. But for some reason Bush classifies this section of the report. It is very clear that he doesn't want us to know the truth.
False. None of Saudi government officials were involved in any terrorist activity - i mean, they probably are, but there is no evidence. US intelligence has little or no evidence of independent organizations tunneling money to terrorists, though it's a well known fact. And US cant do anything because those are foreign organizations and Saudi government cant oppose it either - being afraid of islamists' protests.
And US cant attack Saudi Arabia - at least, not now.
So they are educating the population by bombing them? That makes a lot of sense. Your missing the point here. The bottom line is we have created more extremism as a result of our policies. Which infect will create more terrorism. Aren't we spose to be stopping terrorism, instead of creating more?
Doing nothing won't stop terrorism either. Somebody had to brake the ice. They were exploding US embassies, killing americans long ago Bush came to office and Iraq war started - they hate freedom, because freedom is against their beliefs. US never pressured them for their situation with human rights, but they did express their hatred towards our way of life. You think it's US who started the conflict - no. Extremists existed before.
We did a half-assed job because we left without fully completing our mission. We took our resources and focus out of Afghanistan and put it in Iraq. As a result the Taliban has reemerged. Do you think the Taliban would have reemerged if the US didn't switch focus to Iraq? I think not
What do you know about coalition forces in Afghanistan and Taliban's activity? Why am i even arguing you, as if you are so well-informed. I dont know, and i believe Bush - more than Saddam, king of Jordan, Putin, and you socialist people all together.
False. None of Saudi government officials were involved in any terrorist activity - i mean, they probably are, but there is no evidence. US intelligence has little or no evidence of independent organizations tunneling money to terrorists, though it's a well known fact. And US cant do anything because those are foreign organizations and Saudi government cant oppose it either - being afraid of islamists' protests.
TRUE. The 9-11 commission investigating the terrorist attacks. Concluded in their report that 9-11 was financed by Saudi Government officials. Instead of bringing them to justice, Bush chose to classify the section of the report
Now please explain why Bush wouldn't want the American People to know this information? Why did we defend the terrorists? Why are we allies with the terrorists? Isn't all his actions to prevent another 9-11?
Its utterly clear, that the war on terrorism is a load of crap to give Bush & Co. a reason to invade countries in order to obtain their oil.
I know you realize at this very moment, that Bush is a fraud
Why is it that people in this country believe we are fighting for the freedom of Iraqi people, and we are being targeted because of our freedoms we have here and that region hate us for it?
You cannot buy into the propaganda this government is perpetrating without looking at it from an unbiased point of view. If you do, then you will see there are plenty more agendas at work here than what's being told to us.
Search4Truth is pretty accurate in his assessment of what's going on. Problem is we refuse to see ourselves as anything more that fighters of justice throughout the world. Man what hogwash.
Here we have an "axes of evil" as Bush put it in North Korea. They were lumped into the same category as Iraq. Saddaam said he had no WMD and without any viable evidence we invaded Iraq. North Korea says.."hell yeah, we have WMD, nuclear ones at that". Clear and convincing evidence and Bush says..a political solution can be worked out there. Why? Because N. Korea offers no interest to the U.S. unlike Iraq and its reserves.
Clearly, Afghanistan was ha "half-assed job" as you both have put it. After all that money and bombing we have yet to find Osama. So what do we do? We go into another Islamic nation and bomb its people, and at the end of the day there's no Saddaam.
As for Saudi Arabia, their government did absolutely nothing prior to 9.11 about terrorist orgs in their country until they started bombing Saudi Arabia. In fact when the U.S. Gov. pointed out to them that there is terrorist activity in their country, the out right denied it. You best believe the reason Bush classified that report was because it would make him bound to his promise to fight terrorism everywhere. We just happen to have military bases in the richest resource country in the region. He didn't want to jeopardize that. It's all about the bigger agenda.
All I know is that we better wake up over here and see what's obvious among other nations. We are seeking to control interests in that region hence the real reason why we are targeted by extremist.
TRUE. The 9-11 commission investigating the terrorist attacks. Concluded in their report that 9-11 was financed by Saudi Government officials. Instead of bringing them to justice, Bush chose to classify the section of the report
Once again: we cant afford a war against Saudi Arabia, at least right now. We all depend on it's oil.
Now please explain why Bush wouldn't want the American People to know this information?
First, if Bush didnt want us to know this information, YOU wouldnt know it either. Second, it probably is strategically important to keep good relations with Saudi Arabia, now that US invaded 2 muslim countries - invading or pressuring 3rd one is too risky.
Why did we defend the terrorists? Why are we allies with the terrorists? Isn't all his actions to prevent another 9-11?
No Bush doesnt defend them. Look what happened when attacking Iraq - lots of foreign jihadists (people who chose to lose their lives for the sake of... hell knows what) came to Iraq from all parts of Middle East. Knowing that there are extremist elements in Saudi Arabia, who were involved in 9/11 attacks, think for a minute - is it possible to go to war with them? NO, and US has to stay friends with them - until Iraq and Afghanistan are stable and prosperous.
Its utterly clear, that the war on terrorism is a load of crap to give Bush & Co. a reason to invade countries in order to obtain their oil.
Let's clear this one out, since i dont get it too well. If YOU are right and i am wrong, Bush planned and performed 9/11, as well as many other terrorist acts before he came to office, and all of US led-wars were to capture oil. Bush is not paying Iraqis for their oil (or ensuring a very low price for it), and when Iraqi oil supply is stable US will go for Saudi Arabia and capture it's oil too. Do i understand your stance right?
If yes, then you should understand why do right-wingers contempt lefties. Above is a bunch of crap, which sounds like a conspiracy theory and never comes true.
As sayzak21 once said, "it was just a movie"...
I know you realize at this very moment, that Bush is a fraud
Dont even try your mental methods on me, they dont work. I realize that despite anti-Bush and anti-war claims, he is a clever and experienced leader, maybe he makes mistakes but so far none were critical. And a leader like Bush, who does what is needed, not bounding with "legal" and "justified".
An advice for americans: vote for Bush.
So, it is politically important to remain allies or friends with Saudi Arabia. Ok, fine...
Afghanistan was liberated from the Taliban by the U.S. Removing the Taliban from power was originally a secondary goal, wasn't it? Wasn't the main mission to move in on Osama, but the Taliban gave him asylum and protection? Isn't that why the US went after the Taliban? Did the US get Osama? Did the US fully oust the Taliban? Is there still news coverage of the operation in Afghanistan? Is there even really an operation still underway in Afghanistan? I don't know, I'm just asking questions cuz I've chosen to avoid this and related issues until now... Was the established objectives of the Afghanistan conflict ever met, and if so, what were they? I thought, based on media coverage, that the US was after terrorists and those that would harbour them... Still, it's interesting that there have been terrorist attacks against American embassies in the past, with reasonable media coverage probably beginning with the big bombing in Israel (i believe...) in the early 80's, was it?... Not to mention the standard terrorist campaigns that have been going on continuously for as long as I can remember... Why did it take until there was a major, MAJOR terrorist attack on American soil before America stood up to it's self-proclaimed role as the world's watchdog?
There seems to be an apparent economic end-benefit to almost everything that the US gets involved with, whether it be diplomatic or humanitarian efforts, to this so-called war on terrorism.
Question: Why call the Iraqi campaign "Shock and Awe"? Who could the Iraqis have successfully defended themselves against? What equipment did Saddam really have that could compete with what the States have? Obviously, he didn't have WMD's in the amounts that the public was led to believe. Obviously, Saddam was not a threat to the US in that respect. In what respect was Saddam a threat to the US or to the world? Like I said before, I'm just asking because I've not been following this.
I thought that the US was supposed to be targetting terrorist groups. Why has the media focus been mainly on Al-Queda or its affiliates?
One thing I don't think I can really rely on is the media coverage. The media coverage is biased, and we can't forget that or deny it. We live on this side of the world, and our way of life is vastly different than our middle-eastern counterparts. We live by a different code, we seem to be from separate worlds in many instances. Listen to the translations given, and the manner in which the middle-easterners express themselves. We in north america do not express ourselves that way, in general. I see a HUGE difference in culture, which means a massive rift in understanding each other. It's EASY and pretty much standard practice for our media to express a nationalist bias when presenting the "news", as it would be for their media as well.
I think it's important for us to realize that we as a democratic people can only make decisions (votes) based on the information presented to us, and it really doesn't matter too much whether that information is the truth or not. All that matters is that we have information that seems sensible, and the majority of the country (any democratic country...) doesn't question the validity of the information presented to them. Moreso, often there is little hope of gaining accurate truthful information beyond what is fed to us through media.
Democracy is genius... I'm all for true democracy, don't get me wrong. It's just that for the power-mongers, it is the perfect vehicle. Once they are in power, they get access to the truth, and can present whatever facsimile that they can think of that they believe can sway the public toward whatever agenda they have. Think about what being President of a powerful democratic country means, and how that position could be corrupted. How hard would it be, in this day and age, to corrupt the Presidency of the most powerful democratic country in the world?
As always, just questions. Well, mixed with some opinions I guess.......
Afghanistan was liberated from the Taliban by the U.S. Removing the Taliban from power was originally a secondary goal, wasn't it?
Yes it was. But removing Taliban from power is very beneficial by itself too.
Wasn't the main mission to move in on Osama, but the Taliban gave him asylum and protection? Isn't that why the US went after the Taliban? Did the US get Osama? Did the US fully oust the Taliban? Is there still news coverage of the operation in Afghanistan? Is there even really an operation still underway in Afghanistan? I don't know, I'm just asking questions cuz I've chosen to avoid this and related issues until now...
Main mission was to capture Osama, and that's what US is doing - looking for him, searching thru Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Was the established objectives of the Afghanistan conflict ever met, and if so, what were they? I thought, based on media coverage, that the US was after terrorists and those that would harbour them... Still, it's interesting that there have been terrorist attacks against American embassies in the past, with reasonable media coverage probably beginning with the big bombing in Israel (i believe...) in the early 80's, was it?... Not to mention the standard terrorist campaigns that have been going on continuously for as long as I can remember... Why did it take until there was a major, MAJOR terrorist attack on American soil before America stood up to it's self-proclaimed role as the world's watchdog?
Maybe has something to do with current US administration, what do you think? Why is it so suspicious when US says "there are terrorists and their co-ops (governments, individuals, etc.) who have to be fought"? Why the use of force against animals makes you people so dizzy?
There seems to be an apparent economic end-benefit to almost everything that the US gets involved with, whether it be diplomatic or humanitarian efforts, to this so-called war on terrorism.
Look at it this way. Lets say there is a poor country and US sends some amount of aid to it. It obviously benefits the poor country, but in long term it benefits US too because improved economy in the poor country eventually lets it import more goods - the US and other countries who trade on international market export more improving their economy, and so on. From this point of view humanitarian efforts are dictated by greed... But that's how it works.
Question: Why call the Iraqi campaign "Shock and Awe"? Who could the Iraqis have successfully defended themselves against? What equipment did Saddam really have that could compete with what the States have? Obviously, he didn't have WMD's in the amounts that the public was led to believe. Obviously, Saddam was not a threat to the US in that respect. In what respect was Saddam a threat to the US or to the world? Like I said before, I'm just asking because I've not been following this.
Nobody knows where are WMD at the moment, some documents were found, along with some illegal types of missiles, network of laboratories suitable for developments of chem./bio. warheads, etc. The fact is, Saddam had WMDs and didnt comply with the UN resolution, he didnt prove to the world that he destroyed his arsenal. And for Saddam it's easy to sell WMDs to terrorists or other nation harboring them.
I thought that the US was supposed to be targetting terrorist groups. Why has the media focus been mainly on Al-Queda or its affiliates?
Buddy, if you knew how tired i am of hearing names of various terrorist organizations every day... 'Hesbolla' 'Jemaa Islamiya' 'Islamic Jihad' 'Al Qaida' and many others.
One thing I don't think I can really rely on is the media coverage. The media coverage is biased, and we can't forget that or deny it. We live on this side of the world, and our way of life is vastly different than our middle-eastern counterparts. We live by a different code, we seem to be from separate worlds in many instances. Listen to the translations given, and the manner in which the middle-easterners express themselves. We in north america do not express ourselves that way, in general. I see a HUGE difference in culture, which means a massive rift in understanding each other. It's EASY and pretty much standard practice for our media to express a nationalist bias when presenting the "news", as it would be for their media as well.
Exactly. Culture differs, but terrorists are everywhere, not only among islamic extremists. It's not a war against their culture - rather against religious extremism and it's offsprings - suicide bombings, etc.
Sierradaddy I have been saying just about the same things you have since I've come to this board. If we can just for one moment think, what if the things our government's been telling us is not true? I live here in the States. I am almost 40 yrs old and in my time I've seen so many lies told to the American public. I just don't understand why we automatically take what our government tells us as truth.
You hit the nail on the head when you said that our government, not unlike many others, tell us exactly what they want us to know to curtail our thought process to their agendas. In fact, they have people in Washington that specialize in just that. Then they say it's for security reasons why we aren't told something. Example; the report on Saudi Arabia and it's involvement in terrorist activity and how Bush conveniently blotted out portions of that report and classified it.
I 100% agree with you on your assessment on our fight against terrorism. We went into Afghanistan to find Osama. The Taliban was harboring him. That was our reason for taking them out as well. That entire agenda has put so far on the back burner, I'm not sure there's a fire underneath it anymore. And our objective was to find Osama, not look for him. We have in no wise completed that mission. Surely Osama and Al Quaeda were and still is our most immediate threat yet we've totally switched our focus to Iraq.
The questions that most pro-war people here on this site fail to answer to any reasonable degree is, how Saddam was a threat to the US. and where are his WMD.
They typical answer I seem to come across is that Saddam would sell his weapons to terrorist and that he hated the US. Well maybe, but do we think eliminating Saddam would make us safe? Every Arab country has the same potential to do same thing, "if" there were WMD there. Do we bomb all of them? But as we see, nothing on the scale that we've claimed he had. Not even close.
We talked about mobile labs and chemical fitted drone airplanes, all of which has been proven baseless after finding them. I just don't understand why we here in the US still do not see that every reason for going over there to date has not panned out, which can make even the most unreasonable person question the motives.
As I see it, there was nothing Bush would have not said to go into Iraq whether true or not. Clearly we were falsely lead. Why don't we just acknowledge this? Because somewhere in our heads here, we believe the years of brainwashing that we are the champions of justice and freedom all over the world. And most every move we've made in that region looks to have other agendas.
We are so much in denial here in the US. One is not judged by their words, but by their deeds. Iraq just doesn't pass the smell test and we should acknowledge this.
I'm growing more and more tired of how the government leads us. The US is one thing. Canada is another in some instances. It's like democracy has been totally corrupted, or I've grown to the point where I can see what it has always been. Don't get me wrong, I'm no communist or anything like that. I believe in purity. I want there to be no pretenses between the government and the people it governs. Maybe I'm dumb that way... The world isn't a truthful place. How many people would go in to an interview, and tell their potential employer the FULL truth about themselves? How they really feel about having to work? How they feel about the salaries they get and how most of the time that salary doesn't allow ends to meet? Most of the time, during the interview, we keep that part to ourselves, because we realize we need to work and we need the job...
The government is abusive, there's no way around that. We have a symbiotic relationship with the government. We give, they take. They tell us what they want us to know in order to get our support. We give it. They take it and use it towards their guarded interests. Then they tell us what we would like to hear, and public opinion for our governments remain generally decent, for the most part.
How the heck could Bush's public opinion polls be so high? He led his administration to BLATANTLY LIE to it's people. The people hire the President, right??? The people FIRE the President, right?
What's most interesting to me, is that I desire a life as an american. I want to live there... I mean, I like living in Canada, but the opportunities available there outnumber those available here. The lifestyle in general can be better there for me than it can be here... The question I need to answer for myself is, if I move there and become a citizen, how should I deal with my vote? How could I make my voice be heard? Should I even bother? With 300 million people living there, and obviously a lot of them being led around by their noses (as seems to be the case in most, if not all, democratic countries), how can my voice make a difference when I see political wrongs being committed? Should I speak out and risk Big Brother surveillance or persecution? I have dark parts of my life that I feel I've left behind and moved past. If I start speaking out, will those parts of my life conventiently resurface? Such a powerful and efficient government could so quickly and easily put me right back in my place... What about public opinion and how I and my family might be treated? Will we be called unpatriotic, or foreign troublemakers for voicing our opinions. Will we get regular vandalism attacks against our home? Will the tabloids take a chunk out of our lives and dignity? Will the supposedly objective media really tell the truth about us and our real goals and motives? Will I be forced to move back to Canada? Will I be welcomed back by my fellow countrymen and countrywomen, or will they label me a troublemaker as well, and further persecute me and my family?
In this day and age, just voicing an unpopular opinion - regardless of whether it is true or not, or whether it is in the best interests of the country for it to be public knowledge - could literally ruin the rest of your life, financially, socially, psychologically...
Maybe that's what the government has recognized, and maybe that's why the massive number of protests all over the world regarding the Iraqi war seemed to have just rolled right off the Bush administration's back...
Originally posted by oneofpeace Why is it that people in this country believe we are fighting for the freedom of Iraqi people, and we are being targeted because of our freedoms we have here and that region hate us for it?
You cannot buy into the propaganda this government is perpetrating without looking at it from an unbiased point of view. If you do, then you will see there are plenty more agendas at work here than what's being told to us.
Search4Truth is pretty accurate in his assessment of what's going on. Problem is we refuse to see ourselves as anything more that fighters of justice throughout the world. Man what hogwash.
Here we have an "axes of evil" as Bush put it in North Korea. They were lumped into the same category as Iraq. Saddaam said he had no WMD and without any viable evidence we invaded Iraq. North Korea says.."hell yeah, we have WMD, nuclear ones at that". Clear and convincing evidence and Bush says..a political solution can be worked out there. Why? Because N. Korea offers no interest to the U.S. unlike Iraq and its reserves.
Clearly, Afghanistan was ha "half-assed job" as you both have put it. After all that money and bombing we have yet to find Osama. So what do we do? We go into another Islamic nation and bomb its people, and at the end of the day there's no Saddaam.
As for Saudi Arabia, their government did absolutely nothing prior to 9.11 about terrorist orgs in their country until they started bombing Saudi Arabia. In fact when the U.S. Gov. pointed out to them that there is terrorist activity in their country, the out right denied it. You best believe the reason Bush classified that report was because it would make him bound to his promise to fight terrorism everywhere. We just happen to have military bases in the richest resource country in the region. He didn't want to jeopardize that. It's all about the bigger agenda.
All I know is that we better wake up over here and see what's obvious among other nations. We are seeking to control interests in that region hence the real reason why we are targeted by extremist.
Sierradaddy. I think your post was very sincere and thoughtful. I am in simular shoes as you are. Though I am a citizen, I often question society and the government. I feel like every job out there is a lie because I'm selling products to make money whether I think those products will really help people. That's capitalism in America and it's unfortunate in that way. The good part is ANYONE can do it. Anyone can benefit from business in America. The more you put in -- the more you get out of it. That's why the opportunities are equal. That's the understanding American's have.
I don't like the government lying to me. I don't want to be treated as a "child" under the government. I'm an adult and I'm capable of handling the truth about the world. Soem governments choose to completely shelter their citizens from outside influences and/or ideas and that's WRONG. It's like raising a kid to never watch rated "R" movies and never see violence. People deserve a chance to deal with those things. We all need to visit our inner "demon" in order to know ourself. What kind of life are you living if you never figure out who you are?
American's are blind when it comes to other cultures. We don't see the pain and suffering in the rest of the world because we're too busy enjoying our lives here. Our government often "deals" with other countries and threats UNDER THE TABLE. So us Americans don't even hear about it unless we REALLY dig through the news archives.
Then 9/11 happens.
Everyone is absolutely SHOCKED. Why? Because we didn't see it comming. Our government has allowed us to live "ignorantly" -- thus FREE from fear of those terrorists. 9/11 changed OUR WAY OF LIFE because NOW that government can't sweep threats under the table. TERRORISM is relevent news which is why the media is now covering it EVERY DAY rather than hardly mentioning it in a year. American's aren't free to ignore it anymore.
The reason George Bush's rating was so high was because he said everything we wanted to hear. He gave us a pretty picture. "Don't worry, you can live as comfortably and as ignorantly as you were before -- just as soon as we wipe out terrorism on the entire planet".
That was hope. We wanted to believe it was possible to feel as secure as we did when we could ignore the rest of the world. We took his plan and happily raised our flags supporting this cause. Bush also did the right thing by going after terrorists in Afghanistan. The people blinded by compassion didn't like this, so his ratings started to drop a little bit.
After that we grabbed our old Iraq shovel and stuck it in Iraq. Now a LOT of people blinded by compassion didn't like Bush on a world-wide scale. "What did Iraq ever do to America?" Gah! Makes me sick!
On top of that, our strategy wasn't as "pretty' as some people wanted it to be. Bush's ratings dropped a little bit more.
If American's attention spans weren't so short, Bush's ratings would be higher. We're so used to our priveladged life style, that we move from supporting him valiantly (which is as ignorant as saying there are no problems in the rest of the world) to bashing him for taking so long and not doing it as "perfectly" as we think he should.
Bush did, after all, say: "The war on terrorism will not be easy, nor quick. It will be fought on many fronts, require many recourses, and sacrafice lives." (not word for word, but something like that).
I love the hush-hush sweep terrorism under the carpet type people. These people choose to be stangnant.
Fortunately, we now have the right leader to take the vacuum cleaner to the DIRT!
This is the typical attitude of too many Americans lead around by their noses. No matter what the government tells them, they will believe it. I kinda feel sorry for them to tell the truth because it's hard to digress from years of molded mental thought processing.
I feel they our more in denial. Come on, lets be realistic. Is it so unbelievable for a small group of people with an enormous amount of power, to abuse it?
HELL NO
We should be questioning our elected, or un-elected officials (in certain cases) more often. Especially when it comes down to war & peace! Bush has tarred Americas reputation for along time to come. His foreign policies are downright horrible. And as a result, America will face MORE terrorism directed at us in the future. Its going to take a many years of diplomacy, and of course a new president to change this trend. The world is going to breathe a big sigh of relief once he is gone.
ann27 I like your suggestion, but lets just not recall Bush
Lets have him tried and convicted for all the atrocities he and his administration have taken since they took power. I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again
Bush is the worst thing ever to happen to the United States
Yes, great posts here, lot of sensible and sound arguments, from people whore dare to ask questions to their governants. Beyond our respective nationalities, we must exert our rights and ask for explanations and justifications to the people who have been issued their mandate from us. We are the tax-payers, we are the voters, and we have some RIGHTS to defend. I believe that nationalism is legitimate, but as soon it leads to blindness this is a major fault and the people are in fact the only ones blamable for the drifts in the end. We can read unfortunately too often nationalist assertions that a one Hitler would not have denied; just one or two names to replace and this might have been quoted in "Mein Kampf". It is good to read thoughts from people who step back and question themselves about major concerns. Congratulations.
Originally posted by JY_French Yes, great posts here, lot of sensible and sound arguments, from people whore dare to ask questions to their governants. Beyond our respective nationalities, we must exert our rights and ask for explanations and justifications to the people who have been issued their mandate from us. We are the tax-payers, we are the voters, and we have some RIGHTS to defend. I believe that nationalism is legitimate, but as soon it leads to blindness this is a major fault and the people are in fact the only ones blamable for the drifts in the end. We can read unfortunately too often nationalist assertions that a one Hitler would not have denied; just one or two names to replace and this might have been quoted in "Mein Kampf". It is good to read thoughts from people who step back and question themselves about major concerns. Congratulations.
Thank you! And that's exactly what we U.S. citizens do, Frenchie (besides, ever heard of the Democratic party?). You, on the other hand, are neither a U.S. tax payer nor a U.S. voter. In the scheme of reality that gives you nill leverage regarding U.S. policies.
It seems that you did not read my post in fact. I wrote about people from western democratic countries and their right to be properly informed - BEYOND any question of nationality. I am not surprised by the way to find your little verse about non-US tax-payers or voters - therefore indicating that you did not get the point. This forum is not yours, buddy, this is a place people from everywhere can pipe in. And - here again beyond our respective nationalities - the decision a one Bush makes regarding geopolitical concerns have impacts on our non-Americans daily lifes. So .... everybody has a valuable opinion to express. There are Americans, Canadians, Australians, Europeans, and others here exchanging ideas and arguments, and that's just fine. Another point for you mate: Bush and other candidates will grab some money from foreign donators, who will contribute significantly to their campaign, and to whom they will more or less be indebted in some way. I guess that an informed Search4Truth probably has relevant insights about Saudi Arabia contribution in this matter.
Those foreigners might not vote but this is an example about how this truly is an international concern. Only a narrow nationalist like you may disregard such facts.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JY_French Everybody has a valuable opinion to express. There are Americans, Canadians, Australians, Europeans, and others here exchanging ideas and arguments, and that's just fine.
Yes, it is just fine. But it ain't worth a hill of beans in shaping American politics unless you can VOTE—that's MY point.
Another point for you mate: Bush and other candidates will grab some money from foreign donators, who will contribute significantly to their campaign, and to whom they will more or less be indebted in some way. Those foreigners might not vote but this is an example about how this truly is an international concern.
More power to them. Do YOU have several million to contribute, Frenchie? If not, you ain't too politically valuable as far as U.S. policies are concerned.
I didn't realize that the only way to make influence is through monetary or brute force...
Opinions are opinions, but they shape the world, because we all are convicted by opinions, whether they be our own, or they are fed to us and we accept it without question (which seems to happen too often). It's one thing to believe it is necessary to trust your government because one must have trust in democracy. It is quite another to IGNORE blatant incongrueties in foreign policy, and in the handling of issues that relate to other countries. This Iraq war was one of those issues, and it didn't just affect the US. Neither did the World Trade Center attack. That had a global effect, as would any war that the US gets involved in.
As for influencing US foreign policy, is it your assertion, Americaaah, that voters have their hands firmly planted around the politician's necks that execute US foreign policy?
This is the typical attitude of too many Americans lead around by their noses. No matter what the government tells them, they will believe it. I kinda feel sorry for them to tell the truth because it's hard to digress from years of molded mental thought processing.
Fighting terrorism? What a joke.
We have to fight terrorism. The leaders of the United States no longer have the easy-out of dealing under the table with terrorist nations. Terrorism is real. Before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor I don't think American's really knew how bad the threat was. Suddenly American's had more to worry about than usual. America had to deal with that so that our way of life could be preserved. Now after all these years of ignorance, we simple assume anyone that doesn't agree with our government is a bad guy. That's not true. The truth isn't as horrible as some people think. I know I can handle the truth, whatever it is. I'd like the government to give me, and everyone in America that respect. THE WORLD IS A MISERABLE PLACE WHERE PEOPLE ARE STARVING TO DEATH, BEING RAPED AND MURDERED, PEOPLE CAN NOT SPEAK THEIR MIND BECAUSE THEY RISK BEING KILLED. That's why America is "the land of the free" because even though we live ignorantly to the rest of the world, we can do whatever we want from the east coast to the west coast. Now the "wall of ignorance" has come down, our government has to do something to give America it's "freedom" back. That's what the war on terrorism is.
I just don't understand why some here accepts that Bush is fighting terrorism. How is it that no matter what he says, it's repeated as if it was gospel?
Ask yourselves a question. Bush said "tons" of WMD were there in Iraq. Where are they? What proof did he present to show any link to Al Quaeda? Remember Bush gave these reasons for going into Iraq not the ones asking questions on this board. Don't you think that it's at least reasonable to ask "well where are the WMD?". If they were there in the quantity he stated, we should not take 6months to find it.
If the police barged into your home, arrested and shot your family because they were told that you had drugs and were a drug dealer and they do a search and find nothing, would you feel the same way about the police? You'd be on the first thing smoking headed towards a lawyers office.
Now after the Iraq invasion, do you really feel safer? I believe if you all were really honest with yourselves, you would have to ask the question Where are the WMD. And if they are not there, one has to conclude that either he had bad intel or he lied. I think it's the latter. He wanted to invade Iraq and he had every motive to do it. You just cannot simply ignore these facts.
Originally posted by sayzak21
We have to fight terrorism. The leaders of the United States no longer have the easy-out of dealing under the table with terrorist nations. Terrorism is real. Before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor I don't think American's really knew how bad the threat was. Suddenly American's had more to worry about than usual. America had to deal with that so that our way of life could be preserved. Now after all these years of ignorance, we simple assume anyone that doesn't agree with our government is a bad guy. That's not true. The truth isn't as horrible as some people think. I know I can handle the truth, whatever it is. I'd like the government to give me, and everyone in America that respect. THE WORLD IS A MISERABLE PLACE WHERE PEOPLE ARE STARVING TO DEATH, BEING RAPED AND MURDERED, PEOPLE CAN NOT SPEAK THEIR MIND BECAUSE THEY RISK BEING KILLED. That's why America is "the land of the free" because even though we live ignorantly to the rest of the world, we can do whatever we want from the east coast to the west coast. Now the "wall of ignorance" has come down, our government has to do something to give America it's "freedom" back. That's what the war on terrorism is.
sayzak21 , all that these anti-war/anti-Bush malcontents do is echo to one another is: WHERE'S THE WMD. They sound like that TV commercial from the 70s (or was it the the 80s): WHERE'S THE BEEF? Never you mind that 24 million Iraqis—let alone all of humanity—will benefit from the removal of the murdering dictator and his cancerous influence.
It doesn't matter to them that the U.S. fought, by all legitimate accounts, a LEGAL war. It doesn't matter to them that the U.S. is now persevering—and will continue to persevere—on the war on terrorists (a.k.a. hit-and-run, mass-murdering cowards). No, no! THEIR anti-U.S./anti-war OPINION is the only legitimate one, you see. And each and everyone of them has an OPINION—like each and everyone of them has an ARSEHOLE—with which they try to sh!t on the U.S. Administration. But it's rather a lengthy distance to the White House, gentlemen, especially for those of you attempting a launch from across either ocean—and that is most of you—so try for a high arc and hope that the wind is at your back. But considering the jet-stream, at least you Europeans are left with... well let's just call it "egg" on your faces.
And if buried stockpiles of WMD were found tomorrow do you think these individuals would wipe the egg of their faces and change their tune? GIMME A BREAK! Half of them would claim the WMD were planted by the U.S. and the other half would scramble for a new script to their tragic comedy titled "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Anti-U.S. Forum."
Saddam must have the best construction team in the world to dig a hole the size of the Grand Canyon, bury "tons" of chemical and biological weapons, and bury them without leaving so much as a trace of where he did it. After all, Saddam had the greatest technology in the 3rd world right?
Secondly, I'd rather sound like someone with some sense than sounding like a freakin parrot sitting on Bush's shoulder.
Originally posted by sayzak21
We have to fight terrorism. The leaders of the United States no longer have the easy-out of dealing under the table with terrorist nations. Terrorism is real. Before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor I don't think American's really knew how bad the threat was. Suddenly American's had more to worry about than usual. America had to deal with that so that our way of life could be preserved. Now after all these years of ignorance, we simple assume anyone that doesn't agree with our government is a bad guy. That's not true. The truth isn't as horrible as some people think. I know I can handle the truth, whatever it is. I'd like the government to give me, and everyone in America that respect. THE WORLD IS A MISERABLE PLACE WHERE PEOPLE ARE STARVING TO DEATH, BEING RAPED AND MURDERED, PEOPLE CAN NOT SPEAK THEIR MIND BECAUSE THEY RISK BEING KILLED. That's why America is "the land of the free" because even though we live ignorantly to the rest of the world, we can do whatever we want from the east coast to the west coast. Now the "wall of ignorance" has come down, our government has to do something to give America it's "freedom" back. That's what the war on terrorism is.
sayzak21 , all that these anti-war/anti-Bush malcontents do is echo to one another is: WHERE'S THE WMD. They sound like that TV commercial from the 70s (or was it the the 80s): WHERE'S THE BEEF? Never you mind that 24 million Iraqis—let alone all of humanity—will benefit from the removal of the murdering dictator and his cancerous influence.
It doesn't matter to them that the U.S. fought, by all legitimate accounts, a LEGAL war. It doesn't matter to them that the U.S. is now persevering—and will continue to persevere—on the war on terrorists (a.k.a. hit-and-run, mass-murdering cowards). No, no! THEIR anti-U.S./anti-war OPINION is the only legitimate one, you see. And each and everyone of them has an OPINION—like each and everyone of them has an ARSEHOLE—with which they try to sh!t on the U.S. Administration. But it's rather a lengthy distance to the White House, gentlemen, especially for those of you attempting a launch from across either ocean—and that is most of you—so try for a high arc and hope that the wind is at your back. But considering the jet-stream, at least you Europeans are left with... well let's just call it "egg" on your faces.
And if buried stockpiles of WMD were found tomorrow do you think these individuals would wipe the egg of their faces and change their tune? GIMME A BREAK! Half of them would claim the WMD were planted by the U.S. and the other half would scramble for a new script to their tragic comedy titled "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Anti-U.S. Forum."
sayzak21 , all that these anti-war/anti-Bush malcontents do is echo to one another is: WHERE'S THE WMD. They sound like that TV commercial from the 70s (or was it the the 80s): WHERE'S THE BEEF? Never you mind that 24 million Iraqis—let alone all of humanity—will benefit from the removal of the murdering dictator and his cancerous influence.
It doesn't matter to them that the U.S. fought, by all legitimate accounts, a LEGAL war. It doesn't matter to them that the U.S. is now persevering—and will continue to persevere—on the war on terrorists (a.k.a. hit-and-run, mass-murdering cowards). No, no! THEIR anti-U.S./anti-war OPINION is the only legitimate one, you see. And each and everyone of them has an OPINION—like each and everyone of them has an ARSEHOLE—with which they try to sh!t on the U.S. Administration. But it's rather a lengthy distance to the White House, gentlemen, especially for those of you attempting a launch from across either ocean—and that is most of you—so try for a high arc and hope that the wind is at your back. But considering the jet-stream, at least you Europeans are left with... well let's just call it "egg" on your faces.
And if buried stockpiles of WMD were found tomorrow do you think these individuals would wipe the egg of their faces and change their tune? GIMME A BREAK! Half of them would claim the WMD were planted by the U.S. and the other half would scramble for a new script to their tragic comedy titled "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Anti-U.S. Forum."
Kook, you've said this a dozen times and it makes even less sense each time, if that's possible. I mean if you're not parrotting Dubya, Patton or the fruitcakes on Fox, you're parrotting your own right-wing lunacy.
Give us a straight answer, yes or no: Are you willing to fight and die in Iraq? Would you send your kids? Brothers? Sisters?
Don't give us the big tough General Patton schtick about the best-trained elite volunteer Gomers in the world - Iraq isn't going to settle down any time soon - Bush might have to go with conscription. I mean he (and of course therefore you) have said we're gonna stick it out and we're in for the long haul and the freedom the Iraqi people is our goal and we're gonna be here till they find out a way to thaw out the Duke.
Kook, you've said this a dozen times and it makes even less sense each time, if that's possible. I mean if you're not parrotting Dubya, Patton or the fruitcakes on Fox, you're parrotting your own right-wing lunacy.
Give us a straight answer, yes or no: Are you willing to fight and die in Iraq? Would you send your kids? Brothers? Sisters?
Don't give us the big tough General Patton schtick about the best-trained elite volunteer Gomers in the world - Iraq isn't going to settle down any time soon - Bush might have to go with conscription. I mean he (and of course therefore you) have said we're gonna stick it out and we're in for the long haul and the freedom the Iraqi people is our goal and we're gonna be here till they find out a way to thaw out the Duke.
I mean, would you want to go over?
I am 44 years of age, Googoo. I have a career, a wife and two children. Had I focused my earlier life toward the military, I would be PROUD to serve and I WOULD GO OVER TO IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN (OR WHEREVER MY COMMANDER IN CHIEF SENT ME) IN A HEARTBEAT AND WOULD GIVE MY ALL FOR MY COUNTRY AND MY COMRADES!
I DO NOT want my 6-year old son to be a soldier when he grows up—but I would be D A M N proud of him if he did decide to be one. (And I am just as proud of the boys who are over in Iraq today.)
Now.... DO YOU HAVE A POINT?
Oh, and by the way Googoo, I don't watch FOX. I read the L.A. Times and TIME magazine, I watch MSNBC and CNN. I do not read leftist websites or publications nor do I watch Al Jazerra or the BBC. If that's not a balanced enough source of information according to your grace, tough tOOties—ask me if I care!
When i asked DaveDom whether he loves his country or no, he couldnt even give me a straight "yes" - or, at least a straight "no". Coogee, do you love YOUR homeland?
Oh i am sorry - "homeland" implies patriotism, which is absolutely politically incorrect. How dare you love Australia, when there is Africa with it's starving children?
I love the planet earth and all the people on it - i just don't want to see it ****ed up by you right-wing nut-jobs.
Australia's easily the greatest country in the world - that much is obvious. But what that's got to do with the starving Armenians in Africa....I dunno, and nor do you.
Anyway - Pearl, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush - these guys are like you Aaah, and you Vette - no more idea of war than what they saw on Saving Private Ryan (which you'll admit looked pretty ****ed) - anyway. Big ideas about the American Way, and General Patton, but if it was your kiddies with their arms blown off .... be a different story wouldn't it.
Hey Aah, you're 44 and your kids are six. Imagine if someone from another country rained bombs down on them and blew their heads off and gave you the reason that they were liberating them.
I cant believe it, you did it Coogee. I asked you "DO YOU LOVE YOUR HOMELAND OR NO" and you couldnt answer. YES OR NO?
And BTW in my homeland thousands died under tanks - for the sake of freedom. They chose to die for nation's future.
Would you sacrifice yourself for Australia's future?
Ah yes - the US government is so noble. So noble it'll slaughter thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis who's only crime was being in the rough vicinity of those believed to have a moustache or turban.
And so democratic, that Bush can win the election because his daddy knows a few high court judges.
And so free, that there's a place called Guantanamo Bay where people have no rights, where they've simply waived the Geneva Convention, where it's not even a place that has to obey US law - YOUR LAW - all that democracy and freedom and stuff doesn't apply. I mean they've got some arseholes locked up there, don't get me wrong, but the bastards should still have human rights. They should have attorneys and basic legal representation. I mean, they've got taxi drivers in there, blokes who were giving someone else a lift. One bloke enquired about his mate who'd been locked up, got locked up himself and flown to ****ing Cuba. I mean, respect for human rights are what seperates (well, used to seperate) the US and other Western democracies from fascists. What, is it too hard now?
Look, the US is a big, beautiful, diverse, friendly, and above all GOOD place - but it's not perfect. And it's foreign policy sucks.
And yes Vette, of course I love Australia. When I said it was the greatest country in the world, what did that imply to you? Ambivalence?
I just love the whole planet more. I mean, it's all we got isn't it. And yet your government's going around invading and bombing and killing and making more terrorists. It's so stupid. The War on Terror is being fought with a sledgehammer when a scalpel is required. How does killing Iraqis help the war on terror? I mean, even ousting Saddam hasn't helped. Indeed it's created MORE terrorists. It's crazy.
We've got to go after Al Queda - no argument. But by invading Iraq? By blowing the absolute **** out of it and creating a clusterfug of hate and death and daily killing and slaughter?
Why not spread a bit of love and peace and hope to the down-trodden? Maybe there'd be less fanatics if they grow up in an American-made school, praying at an American-made mosque, wearing a Denver Broncos T-shirt donated by ... well, you blokes.
Okay - that's the plan for Iraq now. Why not do it as an international effort? Why not let it be run by the UN? There's some agendas there, and the freedom of the Iraqi people aint one of em.
Instead the US backs Israel, the enemy of Islam, to the hilt with guns and rockets and money and power. That's why Islamic fundamentalists think the US is the great Satan. They see Palestinians with slingshots and Jews flying apache attack helicopters firing stingers.
Juke, I'd go to war for Australia if someone invaded us. I wouldn't go to Iraq or Vietnam or Timbuctoo if I didn't agree with the reason for going.
Both of you: please read John Pilger. Okay? Give him a go.
Originally posted by Coogee Beach
Hey Aah, you're 44 and your kids are six. Imagine if someone from another country rained bombs down on them and blew their heads off and gave you the reason that they were liberating them.
My children are growing up in a country with a free, Democratic government, Googoo. An honorable and responsible government that is willing to send its finest young men in harm's way, on foreign soil, to destroy a regime that does nothing but murder and torture innocents just like MY CHILDREN. I wouldn't have it any other way!
My children are growing up in a country with a free, Democratic government, Googoo. An honorable and responsible government that is willing to send its finest young men in harm's way, on foreign soil, to destroy a regime that does nothing but murder and torture innocents just like MY CHILDREN. I wouldn't have it any other way!
Originally posted by Coogee Beach:
Hey Aah, you're 44 and your kids are six. Imagine if someone from another country rained bombs down on them and blew their heads off and gave you the reason that they were liberating them.
My children are growing up in a country with a free, Democratic government, Googoo. An honorable and responsible government that is willing to send its finest young men in harm's way, on foreign soil, to destroy a regime that does nothing but murder and torture innocents just like MY CHILDREN.
I wouldn't have it any other way!
Ah yes - the US government is so noble. So noble it'll slaughter thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis who's only crime was being in the rough vicinity of those believed to have a moustache or turban.
That's all you need to say, Googoo. It is very clear now, if not before, WHO and WHAT you are—thanks for bringing it to sharp focus for us....
And so free, that there's a place called Guantanamo Bay where people have no rights, where they've simply waived the Geneva Convention, where it's not even a place that has to obey US law - YOUR LAW - all that democracy and freedom and stuff doesn't apply. I mean they've got some arseholes locked up there, don't get me wrong, but the bastards should still have human rights. They should have attorneys and basic legal representation.
Human rights are not applicable when you are dealing with terrorists. Somebody who kills for some idea - not even his own benefit - is not humane.
And yes Vette, of course I love Australia. When I said it was the greatest country in the world, what did that imply to you? Ambivalence?
When you say it is the greatest country in the world it implies that you think Australia is the greatest country in the world...
Anyways i just misunderstood you.
I just love the whole planet more. I mean, it's all we got isn't it.
Yes.
And yet your government's going around invading and bombing and killing and making more terrorists. It's so stupid. The War on Terror is being fought with a sledgehammer when a scalpel is required.
Scalpel, disinfection, vaccinations, etc. dont work. They simply dont understand - read thru the history of terrorist acts and how they have change in the recent years. Sledgehammer never misses, that's why it's good.
How does killing Iraqis help the war on terror? I mean, even ousting Saddam hasn't helped. Indeed it's created MORE terrorists. It's crazy.
It didnt create more terrorists but create more concentration of them in Iraq. Anti-US moods raised among population that's true, but they will go away as soon as US achieves the main goal - delivering iraqis quality of life it promissed to them.
Why not spread a bit of love and peace and hope to the down-trodden? Maybe there'd be less fanatics if they grow up in an American-made school, praying at an American-made mosque, wearing a Denver Broncos T-shirt donated by ... well, you blokes.
Since when has the US been spreading hatred and hostility?
Okay - that's the plan for Iraq now. Why not do it as an international effort? Why not let it be run by the UN? There's some agendas there, and the freedom of the Iraqi people aint one of em.
Exactly, probably that's why UN only agrees to invest their troops and money in Iraq in exchange for more control, which will be used to secure juicy contracts.
Instead the US backs Israel, the enemy of Islam, to the hilt with guns and rockets and money and power. That's why Islamic fundamentalists think the US is the great Satan. They see Palestinians with slingshots and Jews flying apache attack helicopters firing stingers.
BTW Bush cooled down towards Israel a lot, unlike Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, etc. Remember it was Bush who initiated Road Map which would make sure Palestine gets it's lands in a fair division. Would, if not couple of terrorist acts by Hamas or whoever else they were.
Juke, I'd go to war for Australia if someone invaded us. I wouldn't go to Iraq or Vietnam or Timbuctoo if I didn't agree with the reason for going.
Military trial, charge: unabiding by superior's command, following INPRISONMENT.
You would make a good soldier.
Maybe not the best SOLDIER, but a good person, nonetheless. People are supposed to be intelligent enough to disobey orders if they are in moral disagreement with them. It happens to be a personal right, and part of the foundation of democracy. Now, by saying sarcastically that coogee would make a good soldier, are you suggesting that soldiers should always obey their superiors, no matter what, just to avoid personal persecution? That wouldn't make soldiers very good human beings, would it? There are times when certain actions should be questioned. There is not ONE person in this world who has ALWAYS done the right thing in their lives, and that includes saints and heroes like the Pope and Mother Theresa. People CANNOT always make the right decisions, no matter how hard they try. When a government leads a country, there is no way that the government will always do the right thing. No government in HISTORY has been perfectly good in all their decisions. That includes major decisions sometimes. The beauty of democracy is that we as citizens under the government of our elected officials have a right to voice our concerns and make protest against whatever issues we don't agree on.
What's astounding, is that when some people speak out against specific questionable government activity or decisions, usually they are dismissed, being called trouble-makers, or traitors, or unpatriotic, maybe appeasement monkeys, or left/right wing (depending...) radicals. No. They are people with opinions, and they are not negligent in their duty of providing correction and direction to a sometimes wayward government. Now, obviously this doesn't apply to everyone. Some people are just always in disagreement with the government; maybe because they support the opposing party... Whatever... I have no sides in politics except for what I believe to be the morally proper side. Bush has done somethings that were on the morally proper side. However, on the issue of the Iraqi war, I don't think HIS motivations were MORALLY proper. Please, don't go saying that he liberated a country under tyrannical dictatorship. That country had been under that regime (Baath party) for something like 30 or 40 years. Saddam had been in control since approximately 1980. Saddam had been a crazed menace since sometime before Desert Storm. Desert Storm didn't remove Saddam from power, and he remained in power as a dictator until April of this year. Bush may have liberated the Iraqi people, but why didn't the US get involved from the very beginning, or at least properly take care of Saddam at Desert Storm?
I don't have any other real issues with Bush's government. Maybe I need to do more research on his administration... But the issue of the Shock and Awe campaign is something that I do have an opinion about, and in my estimation, it was never about freeing a people under the abrasive and menacing thumb of one Saddam Hussein. That's just an additional aspect of the situation that Bush can use as bragging rights...
Don't hate me for my opinion, or call me meaningless names that don't sum me up or accurately depict me as an individual...
Maybe not the best SOLDIER, but a good person, nonetheless.
A nations needs good soldiers when it's at war, whether you are a good person or no doesnt matter.
People are supposed to be intelligent enough to disobey orders if they are in moral disagreement with them. It happens to be a personal right, and part of the foundation of democracy.
A serviceman or woman ALWAYS HAS to obey his/her orders. There is no such thing "moral disagreement", you can morally disagree as much as you want but you have to follow orders anyways.
Now, by saying sarcastically that coogee would make a good soldier, are you suggesting that soldiers should always obey their superiors, no matter what,
Exactly! That's how it is, actually.
just to avoid personal persecution?
No...
That wouldn't make soldiers very good human beings, would it?
What do you understand by being good human beings?
There are times when certain actions should be questioned. There is not ONE person in this world who has ALWAYS done the right thing in their lives, and that includes saints and heroes like the Pope and Mother Theresa. People CANNOT always make the right decisions, no matter how hard they try. When a government leads a country, there is no way that the government will always do the right thing. No government in HISTORY has been perfectly good in all their decisions. That includes major decisions sometimes. The beauty of democracy is that we as citizens under the government of our elected officials have a right to voice our concerns and make protest against whatever issues we don't agree on.
Use your right to vote for another political party, use your right to speak freely to protest against government's actions, but while you serve, please be so nice to obey every single order your superior gives you, ok???
Originally posted by Sierradaddy Maybe not the best SOLDIER, but a good person, nonetheless. People are supposed to be intelligent enough to disobey orders if they are in moral disagreement with them. It happens to be a personal right, and part of the foundation of democracy. Now, by saying sarcastically that coogee would make a good soldier, are you suggesting that soldiers should always obey their superiors, no matter what, just to avoid personal persecution? That wouldn't make soldiers very good human beings, would it? There are times when certain actions should be questioned. There is not ONE person in this world who has ALWAYS done the right thing in their lives, and that includes saints and heroes like the Pope and Mother Theresa. People CANNOT always make the right decisions, no matter how hard they try. When a government leads a country, there is no way that the government will always do the right thing. No government in HISTORY has been perfectly good in all their decisions. That includes major decisions sometimes. The beauty of democracy is that we as citizens under the government of our elected officials have a right to voice our concerns and make protest against whatever issues we don't agree on.
What's astounding, is that when some people speak out against specific questionable government activity or decisions, usually they are dismissed, being called trouble-makers, or traitors, or unpatriotic, maybe appeasement monkeys, or left/right wing (depending...) radicals. No. They are people with opinions, and they are not negligent in their duty of providing correction and direction to a sometimes wayward government. Now, obviously this doesn't apply to everyone. Some people are just always in disagreement with the government; maybe because they support the opposing party... Whatever... I have no sides in politics except for what I believe to be the morally proper side. Bush has done somethings that were on the morally proper side. However, on the issue of the Iraqi war, I don't think HIS motivations were MORALLY proper. Please, don't go saying that he liberated a country under tyrannical dictatorship. That country had been under that regime (Baath party) for something like 30 or 40 years. Saddam had been in control since approximately 1980. Saddam had been a crazed menace since sometime before Desert Storm. Desert Storm didn't remove Saddam from power, and he remained in power as a dictator until April of this year. Bush may have liberated the Iraqi people, but why didn't the US get involved from the very beginning, or at least properly take care of Saddam at Desert Storm?
I don't have any other real issues with Bush's government. Maybe I need to do more research on his administration... But the issue of the Shock and Awe campaign is something that I do have an opinion about, and in my estimation, it was never about freeing a people under the abrasive and menacing thumb of one Saddam Hussein. That's just an additional aspect of the situation that Bush can use as bragging rights...
Don't hate me for my opinion, or call me meaningless names that don't sum me up or accurately depict me as an individual...
Sierradaddy, your post is a contribution that I would depict as the one from a true democrate, willing to exert his rights as a function of moral concerns. Your remarks and questions are the ones every person of good sense is entitled to express.
There is quite a difference with MrJukovette assertions, that I would qualify as scaring: always obey orders given by a superior, no shade of grey regarding how right or bad are undertaken actions ... this kind of behaviour is what is expected from people in a dictature.
"There is quite a difference with MrJukovette assertions, that I would qualify as scaring: always obey orders given by a superior, no shade of grey regarding how right or bad are undertaken actions ... this kind of behaviour is what is expected from people in a dictature."
You dont even know military law... In a democracy soldiers may decide to disobey if they find orders morally inappropriate.
Such BS. Why am i even arguing.
Originally posted by Americaaah My children are growing up in a country with a free, Democratic government, Googoo. An honorable and responsible government that is willing to send its finest young men in harm's way, on foreign soil, to destroy a regime that does nothing but murder and torture innocents just like MY CHILDREN. I wouldn't have it any other way!
"Take Up the White Man's Burden",
Take Two, the USA on the stage.
The people FIRE the President, right? 
Do YOU have several million to contribute, Frenchie? If not, you ain't too politically valuable as far as U.S. policies are concerned. 