Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 2,005 - 2,016 of 6,170
Posts 2,005 - 2,016 of 6,170
You can only take cultural relativism so far. What about WWII? What business of ours was it if the Germans wanted to exterminate a bunch of Jews? According to the dominant German culture, that was the right thing to do, and who are we to judge... Yeah.
However much I might favor peace, certain circumstances require action. I don't think Iraq was one of those cirumstances. Bush manipulated information so that he'd have an excuse to invade. The good part? One fewer bloodthirsty dictator in the world. The bad? Read the body count, on both<0> sides. We won't know the overall effect for several years, but I would not say that the world is a "safer place" because of this war.
However much I might favor peace, certain circumstances require action. I don't think Iraq was one of those cirumstances. Bush manipulated information so that he'd have an excuse to invade. The good part? One fewer bloodthirsty dictator in the world. The bad? Read the body count, on both<0> sides. We won't know the overall effect for several years, but I would not say that the world is a "safer place" because of this war.
Well, except that even a corrupt and deceptive democracy is better than most totalitarian regimes.
On the other hand, maybe I'm wrong about that.
On the other hand, maybe I'm wrong about that.
It's really hard to draw the line as far as who needs to be attacked and who doesn't. However, no leader should lie to his people to get them to approve of a war he wants to start. Especially when his real concern probably isn't safety or the well-being of the country in question at all.
Doubtless, our primary reason for taking out Hussein was our own security; you'll notice we haven't attacked communist China yet. But what did Bush lie about? Did he somehow have information about Iraq that the best American and British intelligence did not?
It's been stated (repeatedly) that there was no hard evidence that Iraq had WMD's prior to the invasion. Definitely nothing strong enough to act on. Now Bush may have convinced himself that the evidence was strong enough, since he was looking for an excuse anyway, but it was actually quite weak. So either Bush lied to himself to get the country to go to war, or Bush realized the evidence was weak and lied to the country. Take your pick.
One member of the CIA who appeared on the Daily Show interview portion after quitting his job and writing a book said that Bush came to the CIA at the beginning of his term saying that he wanted them to come up with a reason to attack Iraq. He apparently wanted that from the beginning.
And why Iraq and not Iran, Saudi Arabia (where most of the terrorists came from), China, North Korea, and the other threats? a) Iraq was weak, and b) it had oil.
And why Iraq and not Iran, Saudi Arabia (where most of the terrorists came from), China, North Korea, and the other threats? a) Iraq was weak, and b) it had oil.
and (c) he wanted to finish what his father started.
(Related question: I heard a rumor that Hussein had put a hit out on George Bush, Sr, just prior to W's decision to invade. I have no clue if this is true or not, and was wondering if anyone else knew.)
(Related question: I heard a rumor that Hussein had put a hit out on George Bush, Sr, just prior to W's decision to invade. I have no clue if this is true or not, and was wondering if anyone else knew.)
I don't believe it's even been proven that Saddam had anything to do with Osama bin Laden whatsoever (correct me if I'm wrong). If Bush wants to attack Iraq, fine, show up on TV and say "Saddam sucks, let's kill him." Don't appear on TV and say "Saddam is Osama bin Laden's gay lover and they're in this together, let's fry the bastard." He didn't tell us the truth, he told us what he wanted us to believe.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar