Clearly shows of force have done little to weaken the resolve of the Iraq insurgency. Fucked if you do, and fucked if you don't!!Quote:
If we show weakness to them, we are done. Period. They respect only one thing: Strength. That is our only hope to even begin to protect ourselves from radical Islam. Our current projection of strength is probably a huge reason why we have somehow, miraculously, not suffered another attack since 9/11. It sure as heck isn't because our borders and ports are strongly or competently defended.
Still very little public discussion as what America has done to invoke this level of hatred and retaliation.
WRONG!! Saddam invaded Kuwait because up until that time, the USA and Iraq were buddies, and Saddam figured the US wouldn't care if he invaded Kuwait. It wasn't because he thought the US was weak. How would he come to that conclusion when it was the US who helped fund him? The US, and other middle east countries were funding Iraq against Iran. For a time, the US was officially neutral in terms of the Iran/Iraq war. Reagan and Israel decided that they'd rather see Iraq on the winning side, than Iran. So, billions were given to Iraq to buy what they needed. The US's position regarding Iraq at the time was little more than:"well, we don't like you gassing the Kurds, but we also don't want Iran to conquer your country....so here's a bunch of weapons and ammo to defend against an invasion. Remember, the US backed Shah was overthrown and replaced with the anti American Ayotollah.(The US also provided Iraq with satellite surveillance of Iranian troop movement)Quote:
Do you know why Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait? Because he thought we were weak and wouldn't do anything about it.
But when Saddam invaded Kuwait, the US was like 'holy fuck, if he controls Kuwait, then he could use it as a bargaining piece against the US.'(Kuwait owns 10% of the world's oil reserves) Iraq was now seen as big a danger to U.S. interests as Iran.
The UN backed plan was for getting Iraq out of Kuwait only. It did not cover overthrowing Saddam. The US figured he'd be overthrown internally.......and we all know how that turned out. It didn't happen. After the Gulf War, a number of very senior Bush administration officials, some of whom are in the new Bush administration, were certain Saddam Hussein would fall in six months, because that was the basic take in the American intelligence community,"
Another example of intelligence getting it wrong.
The Bush administration believes that in a post-September 11 environment, threats must be dealt with pre-emptively. Fighting terrorism is always linked with 911. While this is a valid link and association, this administration has fucked up their credibility by invading Iraq and not coming up with the goods. Any future invasion is going to be a hard sell to the American people.
According to recent polls, 57% of polled Americans now say the invasion wasn't worth it.Quote:
Furthermore, you seem to really not understand that the majority of Americans are still fine with the invasion with or without WMDs. For me, getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a far more compelling reason to invade than WMDs. It always was.
Clearly, I am passionate about this issue. I never paid much attention to politics until Bush Jr. first came to power. Everything about this man spelled trouble to me. It was just one of those feelings you get. We all get them from time to time. I will say that I am mad at people who will take the official story of the White House without analyzing it for themselves, and taking their word for it, when their actions show otherwise.Quote:
You can be mad at the government or George Bush or whoever as much as you want, but if you were honest with yourself you'd know that you are simply mad at everyone who thinks differently about this issue than you do.
For this, I commend you. Having said that, the limited choice Americans have when it comes to electing a president is truly disappointing. I confess, my knowledge of Canadian politics is alot less, but at least people have more choice.Quote:
Perhaps I should mention again that after three opportunities to do so (once I was old enough), I have never voted for a George Bush- Sr or Jr.
Yes, heaven forbid we go through bureaucratic inspection stuff!! Anything but that!! Much better to shoot first and ask questions later.Quote:
Why would Bush, et. al., do something that they KNEW would make them look so bad? They could have easily sold the war on the basis of how evil Saddam Hussein was, and the fact that he had repeatedly violated the 1991 Gulf War cease fire treaty. They didn't need the WMD reason. In fact, using the WMD reason delayed things enormously because it meant they had to wait for the UN to do their whole bureaucratic inspection stuff.
The US totally underminded UN inspectors, by the way; only to send their own in post-invasion, to come up with the same story. No WMDs.
This is a good question! One that I've asked myself. At this time, I don't have an answer for it. This is not to say there isn't one out there.Quote:
Furthermore, if it was a lie, then why was everyone in on it- including George Bush's political opponents? Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and leaders from virtually every western nation thought Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of WMDs.
I think it's perfectly valid, and one doesn't have to be irrational or blind by hatred to suggest it.Quote:
But saying George Bush lied about the WMDs is just silly, crazy talk. It makes absolutely no sense. Whenever someone makes such a ridiculous, illogical, and irrational claim
I wish I could fuck up royally at my job,maybe one that cost lives, and be given 4 more years for it. I could say 'if you don't keep me around, even worse things will happen. This other guy you're thinking of putting in my place, he'll fuck up even MORE than I have.
