The War on Iraq continues to evolve. Bringing, each day, new reason to remove Saddam. It started with the threat of terrorism, then weapons of mass destruction. Soon after operation "Iraqi freedome" commenced, the US started painting a picture of a tyran, that has been tollerated for far too long. And now as we are at the end of the war, or so we are told, the focus is changing to rebuilding Iraq. Amongst the nations to help rebuild Iraq are Poland and Austrilia ( nations that surely have felt the wrath of Saddam, or have they?). So as the war moves along, i find myself in a state of confusion. To begin with, why is the U.S really in Iraq? Besides the obvious reason ( which costs $2.13 a gallon in california), why is the BUSH administration constantly changing its motives. Honesty is the best policy. It is ture that Saddam is a tyran, but why has he been tollerated for so long? Were saddams actions in the late 80's ( gasing the Kurds ) not violent enough? Now on to the Bush administration. To begin with, the fact that any sort of anit-war protest is viewed as ant-american is sickening. Secondly, the French. We have know for centuries that the French are self-governing ( unless it involves a massive German Army headed for Paris), so why the suprise? Did Bush honestly think that the French would simply drop decades of close relations with Iraqi government just becasue Bush thinks Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. The French were building them a freakin necular reactor in the 80's, they should know if they have WMD. Thirdly, as the war gets closer to Bagdad, we are confronted with the reaility of Urban warfare, that CNN covers so well. As i watch U.S and British marines kick their way into thousands of houses, i can see thousands of Muslims around the world angered at what's taking place. So my quesion is, Do you think U.S policy makers (besides powell) have taken into consideration any spillover effects? Maybe the French are smarter than we thought.
Oh please, this stupid oil argument is getting old. A mistake. Clinton didn't do anything but drop his pants and selling us out. Reagan had his hands full and managed to collapse communism in Eurasia. Bush Sr. didn't finish it. I blame Clinton. Gee, I wonder what would make me think that when I see the "peace" crowd constantly burning American flags. Nothing like showing your patriotism like burning the flag eh? I think the surprise is more of how FAR the French took it, not the fact that they did oppose the coalition. Funny, I see crowds cheering and shouting "You are welcome America" at our soldiers. Yeah, war always means defeat... Smart to pre-emptively surrender eh?
so you can tell us the real reason why usa attacked iraq if it´s ot the oil ? first ,they told the public that osama&friends are using iraq as a base ,then they told something about wmd´s . finally they told something about the people in iraq ,that suffered so many years under saddam ! ahhh.....helping poor humans sounds fine Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! none of this reasons could convince the UN !
The real reason the US attacked Iraq After 911, US felt humilated, as a super power, the whole world watched while the symbol of our pride collapsed killing thousands. We were humilated by a bunch of bedwin terrorists. Bush vowed to show the whole world what would really happen to any country that would dare even think about belitteling the US again. He vowed to get the confidence of the US back. He went on the rampage againest the terrorists in Afghanistan showing the whole world his muscle and capability, and he's determined to finish the job by showing the whole world that US needs nobody to be the great super power it is. Oil is nice, but we get oil when our reputation is strong with or without invasion. Our image is the key. PS. Don't freakin interrogate me, you asked about the reason, and I gave it plain and simple
Hi Heflores, It seems to me you are right but your "spin" is wrong. Our image IS the key. You may recall we (US) are that "shining city on the hill", a beacon for all freedom loving people, and face it, that is nearly everyone. The USA is the country most people look up to, or at least did before the Clintons did thier best to destroy that image. As a result of Clintons' policies, the world has started sliding down hill so Bush, thankfully, is taking steps to repair the damage. We ARE showing the likes of Osama and Uncle Kim that there is no advantage in crossing us (US) and that we will lead if needed, the armies of the free people into thier capitols and caves to put an end to thier mischef.
No, we were pissed off. Belittle? Dont you mean slaughter our citizens?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! He went on a rampage trying to find the people responsible for committing at least 3, not 1 or 2, 3 major terrorists acts against the United States and Western interests in the last 5 years. This was just the straw that broke the camels back. (Id say the outlandish death toll and the manner it was executed had something to do with it) Yeah image, it has nothing to do with the loss of lifePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
strgt* Fine we say the same thing...You seem to use the left (emotional) language, I'm using the refined more educated right language. At the end, we say the same thing, just need the senate and congress to filter our differences.
*stRgrL:* Leading Causes of Death in the U.S. Heart Disease: 710,760 Cancer: 553,091 Stroke: 167661 Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease: 122,009 Accidents: 97,900 Diabetes: 69,301 Pneumonia/Influenza: 65,313 Alzheimer's Disease: 49,558 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 37,251 Septicemia: 31,224 How far down the list do you think terrorism is? Do you think Fishman would edit the post down before I got to it? It would be at least another 100 lines down. I don't even know what septicemia is, but I would wager we could cut those deaths in half for less money, and without pissing off the planet.
Wonder what his reasons will have evolved into by the time it's all over. What would his excuses be when it becomes evident that the Iraqi Q.O.L. isn't going to go up very much. Somebody should slip Bush some truth serum right before he answers media questions, then people will be really surprised.
Ok, Hypewaders, the US should ignore all terrorist attacks because they have not yet found a cure for cancer. Right?
Retaliating for terrorism with invasions is self-defeating. Addressing the causes of desperation that motivate terrorism, and legally apprehending criminals through police action, is effective. Such policy not only reduces terrorism, but also conserves resources for properly addressing many other problems including cancer.
Hype, Terrorism is not about deaths. It is about terror. Terror is a tool used to weaken or paralize nations and thier coalitions. Fortunatly some governments are not terrorized by terrorizm. Our (US) government is strong enough to give it's people direction and the strenth to stand tall rather than cower. It scares the crap out of me to cosider what would happen if the Clintonistas were in power.:bugeye:
WTF are you smoking?! You cannot count that list with terrorism omfg how many young people die of Alzheimer's huh? Most of that shit is for the older people that their bodies just get, well, OLD. Hey is murder ok as long as smoking cigarettes kills a mass more number of people? Wha Bou Driving Drunk and hitting you and your family killing all but you? Would you want drunk driving to be illegal if it was not? I'd like to go kill all those anti war protestors that are causing the problems and not the ones that are protesting but just the ones getting violent and stopping our ships, and highways. And some of you Liberals along the way. Just gas/nuke/chem you all! And it would be alright because whats a few 10's of thousands of lives when we could just make smoking and drinking illegal and fast food, red meat, high sodium foods, etc and save much more lives(instead of sending an army after me before I lite up Washington with a NUKE during a large Anti Protest)....... But see someone smokes and drinks of free will, the family getting murdered didnt have a choice. But this is just my rant.
You didn't get it hype, and I said the IMAGE of the US was shattered, their morals were affected, I didn't say their state of the art advancement in medecine has shattered. While you are at it, Why don't you list to us the largest death causing diseace and the related number. It's not cancer. It's the diseace of being humans and ultimately dying. The numbers affected by this diseace is the whole population. So by your standards, you cares about cancer, diabetes, Pneumonia, influenzz, ect...... Moderator edit
YES Its about time someone realised that, people die, its really no big deal. What is a big deal and what does suck is people having the life they get sucking, like for example being physically tortured and living in fear ie: Saddam's regime. If people need to die by way of explosion to make the future lives of iraqi's more bearable then so be it. Even if it doesn't work it was worth a shot. Moderator edit
Mass violence is a social and psychological pandemic that is best addressed with other means than mass violence, to include solutions I have already stated above. Terrorism is a far smaller threat to Americans of any age or political persuasion, and is utterly dwarfed by any number of other risk factors that make them just as dead, many before their times. "Risk factor" does not mean that the risks can't be managed. In order to do so, they must be put in perspective, analyzed for causation, and then effective preventive action can be taken. Clearly in the case of terrorism motivated by occupations, occupations are not the solution for terrorism. We are losing sight of reason as a nation in allowing ourselves to be led to believe that our government is presently reacting proportionally and correctly to unconventional security threats.
By that reasoning, one is led to conclude that what happened on 911 is no tragedy. By that reasoning, shouldn't one also conclude that 911 was really no big deal?
