How do CNN, the Guardian, the BBC, the Independent, Salon, CBS, the Washington Post, the National Security Archive, wikipedia and the ACLU fall into this category? If you could kindly explain when and where I have done this, I would be rather grateful.
This is very much in line with the equivocation of your post. I would also like it if you were to elaborate on this. Oh, and:
Q: What’s the difference between Pamela Anderson and Wesley Clark?
A: One has fake boobs and the other is a boob who is a fake.
no, actually, it isn’t. the point in my last post was the paragraph from the article i quoted. i use to hold a lot of your views, that the world is being run over by the monster that is america and we must do everything in our power to stop the evil that is being spewed. shit happens. country’s, it is thought, should act in a manner better than us because it is more than us. they don’t – i don’t think they can. of course a country that’s been hit with an attack from an unseen enemy is going to go beserk. humans in an equal situation would behave similarily. does this make it right? that’s a bigger question. and a harder one. where does personal morality translate to international codes of behavour between nations? how can you opppose this on nations with different moral codes, then?
i don’t see how you can answer these questions from the angle you’re coming from, and i also have not seen you do it.
you’re right, some of your sites are justified. others aren’t. i hope you can tell the difference, as i think it is rather obvious.
sure…just as soon as you reply to the intellectual rational behind linking all these websites to further a rather questionable moral agenda. in other words, answer my questions first…
I can’t believe that some of you are naive enough to believe a president who says Iraq is an imminent threat, just because he says so. If Iraq really was an imminent threat, don’t you think the French and Germans would have supported the US. The fact is, governments have access to the same intelligence gathering capabilities. It turns out that the evidence for war was mostly plaigarised or exaggerated. Other governments realised this, as they had access to similar info. The world’s population did not have access, and that’s what Bush & Blair relied on, trust. Even if Iraq had had a program, the French argued that it was no threat to anyone, which it obviously wasn’t. Iraq had been brought to her knees by 11 years of sanctions. The US resembles a school bully who, after years of stealing Iraq’s lunch money, has pretended that Iraq said something nasty about his mother because he was angry at another kid who he can’t catch. If you people honestly think the world is a safer place after Iraq, then you need to be watching something other than FOX News. Maybe if you just take a quick look at US and civilian casualties, you’ll realise that the perpertrators of an unnecessary war are always murderers.
War should always be a last resort, this conflicted with Bush’s possible re-election, so he concocted the sort of bullshit that would get him into Iraq sooner rather than later.
So, what was Bush’s real purpose? Democracy building. Is this a bad thing? If you are a neo-con, no. But if you realise that self-determination is a necessary condition of genuine political liberty, then “democracy building” is self-contradictory.
Either way, don’t expect people to continue buying the pre-emption bullshit. If you do, then you are placing WAY to much trust in your leaders.
Maybe it wasn’t a threat to them. Perhaps they didn’t realize it was a threat. Maybe the US acting to end something that was threatening it worked against the interests of France and Germany.
With the election coming up and the conflict still in full flight, i was wondering if any US members see some anti-Iraq cryptoamnesia setting in such as that of Vietnam? Or is patriotism still in full flight?
I’m not sure what you mean, so I can’t really refute your post, but here’s an explanation of mine.
I eat ham. I like it. It tastes good. Let’s say some quack starts proclaiming that eating ham prevents cancer. There is a global spike in the demand for ham. Prices go through the roof, there are lines around the block at every local grocery store. The world is mad, ham fevor grips the population.
Then someone categorically disproves the suggestion that ham prevents cancer. The world returns to normal. I will still eat ham. I like it. It tastes good. My reasons for eating ham had nothing to do with cancer prevention. Why should the opinion or belief of others (that ham is not a cancer fighting food) stop me from eating ham?
So, if the world supports attacking Iraq because they believe Iraq has and intends to use nuclear weapons, and I support attacking Iraq because I am an Iraqi-American whose left arm is missing below the elbow due to the cruelties of the Saddam Hussein regime, how does Iraq’s lack of nuclear arms affect my support of over-throwing his regime?
I’m not a disabled Iraqi-American, but my point is valid.
The current war being waged upon Iraq, is not a war against cruelties, it is not a war for you “arm” or for the kurds, it is not a war for civilians, it is not a war for justice…It is a war for warmongers, it is a war for false claims and illegal motives, it is a war for Bush!!! We are not fighting for the people of Iraq, anymore than we fought for the people of Afghanistan, we are not fighting for a Democracy in Iraq, we are fighting because of ad-hominem reasons, and a falsified threat of attack…
I suppot the toppling of Saddam, but I do not support it if it is done for reasons that are illegal and falsified, nor do I support it at the cost of the civilians, our credibility, nor do I support it if we are going to replace Sadam with someone we choose, nor do I support it if it is done for oil, nor do I support it if it is done unilaterally…
I support murderers being caught and tried, but i do not support it if it means 10 people will die in a shoot out, and a city block will be leveled.
Injustices do not fix injustices…Support for this war, is not support for Iraqi’s, it is not support for bring Saddam to justice, and it is not support for getting justice for those who have been wronged.
