posted on June 4, 2003 02:29:07 PM new
Has the U.S. placed itself in an awkward position by being the world's peace keeper? Because Bush has labled the Afghanistan & Iraq wars as being liberating wars, will the U.S. now be responsible for ridding all oppressive cultures of their leaders?
posted on June 4, 2003 04:25:39 PM new
Nothing wrong with oil... as long as the prices stay down, he can invade all he wants...
I think we have stepped up to being the world's peace "enforcer" look at what is happening now... President Bush has even made the Isrealis accountable...
PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans appear relatively unconcerned that nearly eight weeks after Saddam Hussein was deposed from power, coalition forces in Iraq have not been able to produce indisputable evidence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Some political leaders who originally backed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq have now raised questions about whether the war was justified, given that U.K. and U.S. officials cited Iraq's possession of WMD as a prime rationale for the invasion. And some critics have even charged the Bush administration with deliberate deception. But a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll finds that a majority of Americans are generally sanguine about this issue.
posted on June 4, 2003 08:05:36 PM new
We are remarkably short sighted as a people. We believe in our hearts that we have a god-given right to cheap fuel (..as long as the prices stay down, he can invade all he wants...) regardless of the long term consequences. Our leaders will couch their reasoning in whatever terms necessary, but we are really voting and deciding with our pocketbooks and nothing else. What goes around, will eventually come around.
If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.
- Elbert Hubbard
posted on June 4, 2003 08:51:49 PM new
It is a breakdown of the rule of law. If I can kick you teeth in I can take anything of yours which I like. Quite simply it is theft, a lust for your property. Nothing more and nothing less.
posted on June 4, 2003 09:01:57 PM new
I don't know what spinless world you live there dave, but your analogy makes no sense what so ever... that is not even close to what happened in Iraq...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
posted on June 4, 2003 09:37:29 PM new
Cheap gas means life is good. Expensive gas means something is desperately wrong, and we should do whatever it takes to fix the problem.
Gas prices are going down now, so that must mean that God is in his heaven and everything is right with the world.
Who really cares if Iraq had any WMD's. If you prorate the long term oil benefits and our increased influence in the middle east against the total number of US lives lost, we got a SMOKIN' DEAL!!
_____________________________________________
If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.
- Elbert Hubbard
posted on June 4, 2003 09:56:15 PM new
The Pentagon wanted the oil, the Pentagon took the oil. It never had anything to do with weapons, right, wrong, good or evil. We acquired the resource which we sought by any available means. WMD=Smoke & Mirrors
This war was fought for oil and strategic postion in the mideast -- nothing more. For this, thousands of innocent Iraqis along with over a hundred American and allied soldiers lost their lives.
The Bush adminsitration lied to the American public over and over about the Iraq invasion. First, an effort was made to create a link between Iraq and 9/11. That propangada technique was so successful that many Americans still believe it today. Then there was an intensive focus on weapons of mass destruction. Remember the urgent efforts to get funds, drop everything and go to war immediately? These two ideas were planted firmly along with the thought that we were going to war for an altruistic reason --to liberate the people of Iraq from a ruthless leader. Today, these liberated people are living in a state of chaos....that is, those that are still living.
posted on June 4, 2003 10:11:59 PM new
The list of justification excuses changed weekly Helen! And people bought it all, literally - that's what's really funny.
posted on June 5, 2003 05:05:59 AM new
State of Chaos? Just exactly how would you expect newly liberated people to react? They had been micro controlled for over 20 years and now enjoy freedoms they could only dream about....
Yeah, humans are such an organized species that they can go from total control to total freedom and not show some disorganization... what is it Cheryl says.... give me a break...
Saddam brought all this on himself beginning in 1991 and those of us there then, knew we would have to come back and finish the job.
“For some Americans, their desire to support the war may be leading
them to screen out information that weapons of mass destruction have not been found.”
While 59% of those polled correctly said the US has not found Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction, 41% said they believed that the US has found such weapons (34%) or were
unsure (7%). While 69% correctly said that Iraq had not used chemical or biological
weapons in the war, 31% said they believed Iraq had (22%) or were unsure (9%). Kull
adds, Given the intensive news coverage and high levels of public attention to the topic, this level of misinformation suggest that some Americans may be avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance.
Such dynamics may also be skewing some Americans’ memory of the government’s
rationale for going to war. Asked, “Thinking back to when the US government was
making the case for going to war with Iraq, according to the government, what was the
most important reason for going to war with Iraq?” 60% said “the evidence that Iraq had
weapons of mass destruction,” and 19% said “the evidence that Iraq was working with
the terrorist group al’Qaeda.” But 20% said the most important reason was, “the fact that
Saddam Hussein was an oppressive dictator.” Asked for the second most important
reason, another 32% chose “the fact that Saddam Hussein was an oppressive dictator,”
while weapons of mass destruction were chosen by 24% and links to al’Qaeda by 42%.
posted on June 5, 2003 08:28:36 AM new
The poll respondants seem to be happy to overlook the fact that cheap oil is not, in the long run, good for the country. As long as the gas keeps pumping, America will never follow the lead of other nations and start breaking its reliance on the tyranny of the automobile. Meanwhile our water, soil and air is becoming sodden with toxic chemicals.
Cheap oil isn't good for America, but it is good for Halliburton and that seems to be the real test here.
posted on June 5, 2003 10:08:45 AM new
What a nightmare, junquemama!
Of course the long term health of the troops is affected too. It seems that the Gulf War Syndrome is more widespread than was originally reported. Now, based on new evidence, all disability claims may be approved without having to provide proof. http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/7992
And, the chaotic situation today....
The lesson from Iraq is that using fewer troops can win a war, but can't keep the peace.
June, 2003
http://slate.msn.com/id/2083948/
Lawlessness and chaos continue to reign. Women are raped, law-abiding citizens have their property stolen, those who have anything left don't go to work so they can guard what they still have. The prize the United States sacrificed so much to gain--freeing Iraq from Saddam and clearing the way for its democratic rebirth--is being squandered on the ground as ordinary Iraqis come to equate the American presence with violent lawlessness and immorality, and grasping mullahs rush into the vacuum created by our lack of troops. Mass grave sites, with no troops to secure them, have been unearthed by Iraqis desperate to find remnants of relatives killed by Saddam Hussein's regime, but those same Iraqis, digging quickly and roughly, may have inadvertently destroyed valuable evidence of human rights violations and crippled the ability of prosecutors to bring war criminals to justice. Perhaps worst of all, the prime objective of the entire invasion--to secure and eliminate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction capacity--has been dealt a serious blow. Even Iraq's publicly known nuclear sites had been thoroughly looted before American inspectors arrived, because, once more, not enough troops had been available to secure them. Radioactive material, perhaps enough to make several "dirty bombs," has now disappeared into anonymous Iraqi homes, perhaps awaiting purchase by terrorists. Critical records detailing the history and scope of the WMD program have themselves been looted from suspected weapons sites because too few soldiers were available to guard those places. "There aren't enough troops in the whole Army," said Col. Tim Madere, the officer overseeing the WMD effort in Iraq, in a recent interview with Newsweek. Farce vied with disaster when the inspectors' own headquarters were looted for lack of adequate security. Triumph on the battlefield has yielded to tragedy in the streets.
posted on June 5, 2003 10:47:46 AM new
Helen,I saw a number of 2 million soldiers needed to keep the peace in Iraq.I feel sorry for those kids(soldiers) over there,and their health.
When they come home with any illness,
I hope they dont get a run around, like the first Desert Storm troops did.
posted on June 5, 2003 10:54:40 AM new
Twelve, your statement doesn't make sense to me. If the Iraqi people have been 'micro-controlled' by their governement for 20 years, which I agree with, didn't the U.S. (and Britain) realize before they went to war, this would happen? Was there no plan in place for what to do after a city or palace had been seized? While heavy looting and destruction was taking place by the Iraqi people, why did all the soldiers just stand around watching? The U.S. claimed WOMD (or parts of) could be hidden anywhere in Iraq, so wouldn't they try to secure these palaces and buildings for their extensive searches first?
