You are not logged in.
But there's the rub, just because the justifications given for the war didn't represent the real deeper reasons doesn't mean they weren't true.
We weren't lied to, we just weren't given the full slate of information, a practice fairly common in wartime and arguably vital if we are to win in this case. Can you seriously imagine a national, even international debate on the best way to culturally and politically reform the entire Middle East? Neo-colonialists they'd scream, imperialist usurpers! End of debate, no action.
It's true - governments need to keep secrets, but reasons for going to war arent some of them. You clearly find it acceptable to watch Bush lie to your face. Your arguments are lucid cobra, but your reasoning isnt.
And you're probably right, regime change in order to politicallly reform an entire region wouldnt have been a good enough reason on its own to attack. Maybe they should have combined the reason with removing terrorism by targetting pretty much any other country in the midle east.
Quote from the Bush convention speech:
"Four years ago, Afghanistan was the home base of al-Qaida, Pakistan was a transit point for terrorist groups, Saudi Arabia was fertile ground for terrorist fundraising, Libya was secretly pursuing nuclear weapons, Iraq was a gathering threat, and al-Qaida was largely unchallenged as it planned attacks"
Iraq was a gathering threat? He couldnt even bring himself to claim Iraq was actually doing anything in his own convention speech. Or maybe hes just not giving the full slate of information? :laugh:
Offline
*You know what, Dook? I think you're so wound up about politics that you're not really paying attention to what the other person is saying.
The difference is that John Kerry not only went to war in Vietnam and killed over there but that he then returned and testified to congress that the American soldiers are "Murderers and child killers". I guess maybe he thinks they all were except himself. Also I would respect him more if he chose jail rather than go and kill in a war that he did not believe in.
*Didn't I already say I'm NOT voting for Kerry? You're talking to me as though I need further convincing he's not the right man for the job.
Calling someone a 'quack' gives no factual evidence of their character and and just because the Canadian MP is an ugly cow does not mean that she too is not a good leader.
*You seem sore over the fact that I called you down on attacking a woman over her physical appearance. So it's still justifiable to attack her physical appearance. -? Doctors are often called "quacks" when their skills and ability are called into question. If you want to try and make it sound as though this is the same thing (your calling her an ugly cow and my "quack" reference), go right ahead; it's your opinion. I -don't- think it's the same thing; my opinion. That's that.
What I mean by your opinions being 100% political is that you believe without any proof that the war is for oil.
*I thought I made this clear in a previous post. No, I don't BELIEVE the Iraqi war is for oil. I've *speculated* that it might be so, and sometimes very strongly. Speculation isn't the same thing as belief. Also, just recently (in this thread?) I noted to Cobra Commander my willingness (albeit somewhat begrudgingly) to give Bush the benefit of the doubt as to our motives for going into the Iraqi war. So obviously your assessment of my opinions is wrong.
Are our leaders above being questioned? In my opinion, no; they're not above being questioned.
Hopefully we're clear on all these points. I'm tired of rehashing and re-explaining.
Maybe -you- shouldn't be so hasty in suggesting that others have opinions which are "100% political"? Sorry, but maybe that's you.
--Cindy
We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...
--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)
Offline
You clearly find it acceptable to watch Bush lie to your face. Your arguments are lucid cobra, but your reasoning isnt.
You're still assuming that the reasons given were falsified. I'm merely saying they were real factors focused on at the expense of deeper reasons because they were the easier sell.
Example: I want an American mission to Mars. My reasons involve colonization and expanding our civilization. But if the "search for life" is a popular idea then I'll get behind it. Doesn't mean the scientific mission is a fraud, just that there are bigger reasons underneath.
Maybe they should have combined the reason with removing terrorism by targetting pretty much any other country in the midle east.
This has actually been alluded to on several occasions, largely to set up future operations should they be deemed necessary. We can't have an open discussion of the matter because again it ends with "imperialists!" and much shaking of fists. Political pressure will be tried, but military action may come to pass in Iran and/or Syria within the next few years. This isn't about countries, the borders are just an inconvenience that make one war appear to be many small ones.
Iraq was a gathering threat? He couldnt even bring himself to claim Iraq was actually doing anything in his own convention speech. Or maybe hes just not giving the full slate of information?
Again you're missing the entire point. This is not an "if, then" scenario. We are not sitting back and responding to individual attacks, individual terrorist groups, and individual instances of state backing. We're being proactive, we're on the offensive, looking for one big reason behind every move we make is to completely misunderstand the nature of the war we are fighting and the strategy for winning it.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Offline
Again Cobra, we're arguing two different things. The points you make are valid and i can recognise the idea. You're arguing results and im arguing method.
If your administration cannot even muster the courage to publicly admit its intentions, if it doesnt feel confident enough to even win an argument about what it plans to do, then maybe, just maybe, the administration or the plan needs changing? A wave of anti-american feeling would likely play into the Bush administrations hands anyway.
There will also be issues with Syria and Iran because both sport 'democratically' elected governments. There are no real bad guys for Bush to beat his chest and point at.
Offline
If your administration cannot even muster the courage to publicly admit its intentions, if it doesnt feel confident enough to even win an argument about what it plans to do, then maybe, just maybe, the administration or the plan needs changing?
First, for the record it isn't my administration, I have had some serious disagreements with some of this Administration's policies.
That said, I see your perspective and your point would be ironclad were it not for one glaring flaw. Most likely the Bush Administration could not win support for a sweeping campaign to wipe out fundie Islam terrorism, it would reek of imperialism and having such a public discussion and losing would negate the possibility down the line. But it's what is needed to win, we can't play this one hit at a time.
So they present it in a "one hit" fashion in order to further the complete strategy. Some tailoring of the message was required and it's risky to undertake such an endeavor when a change of Administrations could cut off the campaign, but it remains the only long-term approach.
If Bush had lied about the other reasons I'd be as angry as you are, but he didn't. He gave real reasons we could get behind, and some of us inferred the rest. I have no problem with that. We aren't talking about some social welfare program that we can dicker over for years but a war to destroy people bent on destroying us. They can't fully achieve that goal but they can kill alot of people trying. If some of us can't read between the lines that doesn't bother me if fighting the war on the offensive now will save lives here later on. Sure, it doesn't feel good knowing you weren't told everything, but we never are.
In this war there are four levels of information. At the bottom is what you get watching CNN. Above that is what you can find looking in non-mainstream media sources, from people who were/are over there etc. Above that is what Bush, Blair and company know, which is far beyond what you can get on the other two levels. Finally, at the top, is what's really going on. What God knows if you prefer. Too many people are making definitive judgements about the top two tiers with information taken solely from the bottom.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Offline
There will also be issues with Syria and Iran because both sport 'democratically' elected governments. There are no real bad guys for Bush to beat his chest and point at.
Syria's President is Hafez Assad, the son of the previous President. They were elected in the same way that Saddam Hussein was elected.
Iran did not allow many reformists to participate as candidates in the recent election.
Neither of these countries are democratic. The winners are assured before the first vote is cast.
Offline