At what point does the Bush presidency become intolerable?

[Jstyr]

Arguments over wheteher these countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) are better or worse off than they were before the war is purely subjective. Things have changed yes but whether or not they are better or worse depends or your own personal perspective.

It's all relative, the big question is 'have we improved our safety?' I certainly hope so.

[jayyy]

I hope that life for people in afghanistan or iraq improves. But even if Bush did surprise all the critics and put in the money and time necessary for better conditions in those countries, it wouldn't change whats going on.

He invaded those countries for oil, plain and simple. All the stuff about doing it for the iraqi people is propaganda to distract people from the real aims of his party. Since when did the US care about the iraqi people? The US supported Hussein's party when they did half the chemical weapon massacring that they're now being demonized for. Hussein was just as evil and bad for Iraq when the US was his ally. The only thing that changed is what the US got out of it.

It reminds me of 1984, how the party would make oceania out to be evil and eurasia out to be brethern allies. They'd spit out propoganda about how evil oceania was and everyone would swallow it up. Then they'd switch sides, form an alliance with them, and go right to work on eurasia instead.

Bush is all about cutting taxes, cutting social programs and letting people take care of themselves and not rely on handouts from others. Its all about selfishness, basically, whether you see that as a good thing or a bad thing. So why does everyone swallow this crap about helping the poor people of the middle east, when he won't even do anything for poor americans?

Its like double-think going on.I saw Fox on satellite yesterday, and in light of the bus bomb in isreal, retaliation. etc, there was this headline blaring at the bottom of the screen in capital letters with an explanation mark, "WHY WE CARE!", and then the announcer went on about how all this turmoil was going to affect oil prices. Thats the *real* reason its important, we all know it. And yet, when a liberal criticizes the war, bush supporters go on about what a great guy bush is for liberating those people,and they actually seem to believe it. Its like a simultaneous acknowledgement of the lie and the truth, like they go together in harmony.

[nepenthe]

jayyy,

I would add that the Federal government is not only deferring power to the states, but is permitting them to founder as well. I would say more, but it is obvious that partisan politics has approached ridiculous levels in the US.

[WhoNut]

Originally posted by nepenthe
jayyy,

I would add that the Federal government is not only deferring power to the states, but is permitting them to founder as well. I would say more, but it is obvious that partisan politics has approached ridiculous levels in the US.

Only when those state's fall in line with the administration's agendas.

If I remember correctly (I'm too lazy to Google right now) the first two big offensives of Mr. Ashcrofts tenure were assaults on medical marijuana and "death with dignity" laws; both state initiaves.

[jayyy]

Originally posted by nepenthe
jayyy,

I would add that the Federal government is not only deferring power to the states, but is permitting them to founder as well. I would say more, but it is obvious that partisan politics has approached ridiculous levels in the US.

From what I've seen, he takes bold steps against things like affirmative action on a state by state basis, but when alabama wants to put the ten commandments at the foot of their court or whatever (not that thats important, but just to give a recent example), they go "Hey, its their decision, we have nothing to do with that".

[Roody]

Originally posted by jayyy

He invaded those countries for oil, plain and simple.

[JawZ]

Originally posted by torsten


What is "wrong" about saying truthfully that Iraq is much better off than it was under Hussein? That is true. Perhaps you're forgetting the scope of what it meant to have the nation controlled by a force that was friendly to terror vs one that is not.

Torsten,

Enough is enough. The US is better off without Saddam...NOT Iraq. Iraq is more conducive to terrorism than it ever was before. Those are the facts. Twist them up any way you like....I'm right here in the middle of the "situation" as you like to call it and you are not.

There are things that I'm aware of and you are not. Leave it at that Torsten....you have things backwards. The real war for the middle east is just getting underway. It will take years, not months, for us to know whether these people are better off or not.

We fight a faceless enemy...an enemy that doesn't wear a uniform, an enemy that we protect during the day but plots against us during the night Torsten. Democracy and liberty has allowed this Torsten. But those are the cards we are dealt with and we are doing the best that we can. The same Arabs that are friendly to the US are friendly to terrorists as well because they don't turn away from their own kind Torsten. If we are truly set on the right path, and I believe we are, the fruits of our work will not blossom for many years to come.

[torsten]

IRAQ is also better off without Hussein. Even polls within Iraq have shown a majority there feel that way as well (though that was about a month ago). What on earth do you expect immediately after a war? Especially when there's a legal and political vacuum. To say they're worse off now is like saying someone who's had beneficial surgery is worse off because of the temporary pain afterward. Unfortunately, the elimination of Hussein has exposed a lot of problems in the country that were only held in a false check by fear and terror. They ARE better off. But you do make a good point about the US being more so. After all, that was the primary reason for getting rid of the regime -- to eliminate a protected territory that could operate as a weapons lab or a haven for terror groups. National security came first, as it should have.

"Leave it at that"? Are you telling me you dispute all the firsthand accounts I've read? From soldiers? Or are we just defining "worse off" differently? My "better off" assessment includes not just the 24hr period of August 24 2003, but looking into the future as well. If you think Iraq is worse off, I'm a little surprised by your last sentence. "... If we are truly set on the right path, and I believe we are..." Really? If so, what point are you trying to make? That there are difficult problems -- in a situation where that's to be expected? A person's perspective about this seems to differ according to his expectations. The middle east is a quagmire because of Islamic fundamentalism, and long term success will take more than a change in one government. So I agree with all you said in the last paragraph, but I don't think that means the US has made the wrong choices or that things aren't on a better path there.

[torsten]

Originally posted by jayyy
He invaded those countries for oil, plain and simple.

That statement certainly seems to be representative of your ideological leanings.

Of course, that's a bit different from it actually being correct.

[jayyy]

Originally posted by torsten
That statement certainly seems to be representative of your ideological leanings.

Of course, that's a bit different from it actually being correct.

Nah, thats the same as being correct

no offense man, but I'm more inclined to take UOD's account of what iraq's like right now over the gallup poll there. You're the one disputing the first hand accounts, not him.

[Brk]

Originally posted by Roody

"Aaaaaaand....cue Cochese..."

[Shagster]

No one hear really gives a damn about Iraq or that we kicked their ass. You just think you do because it makes you sound morale.

I'm probably right, but if your an exception to the above then go get yourself a flower.

BTW...we get close to no oil from Iraq, so shut up about that. Though we may have taken it for money. Either way it's wars that are giving me a job.

[jayyy]

double post

[jayyy]

Originally posted by Shaggy
No one hear really gives a damn about Iraq or that we kicked their ass. You just think you do because it makes you sound morale.

I'm probably right, but if your an exception to the above then go get yourself a flower.

BTW...we get close to no oil from Iraq, so shut up about that. Though we may have taken it for money. Either way it's wars that are giving me a job.

US gets close to no oil? Whatever man.

And what difference would it make if I didn't care about the people in iraq? They have nothing to do with anything. Bush invaded iraq for oil. He had three excuses for it- One that Iraq had WMD, one that Hussein had something to do with 9/11, one that it was all for the brave iraqui people, like america was going to come to their rescue out of the goodness of its heart. All of them were crocks.

I know you don't care about them because you said so. Why cant the government you support be as honest as you?

[Roody]

Originally posted by Burke


"Aaaaaaand....cue Cochese..."

I couldnt resist the conspiracy angle. Let's just say that I disagree with Javvy that that was our only reason to go to Iraq.

[jayyy]

Geez, its not like I got tipped off by an pentagon insider in a nearby parking lot or something. Turn on fox news and all they talk about is oil prices and how occupation could lower them and how the attacks could raise them.

I was in tokyo when the US got the first big oilfields and they put out the fires. This business exec type with a texas accent came in the bar almost dancing and shouting "WE GOT THE OIL, YEE-HARR!!!" and then he bought drinks for everyone in the place. Then I come in here and everyones like, "Ohh Nooooo, oil has NOTHING to do with it."

[Jstyr]

Originally posted by Burke


"Aaaaaaand....cue Cochese..."

I don't get it.

[Ghosthunter]

i just look at it as saddam houssein and his evil sons and his evil regime are no more.

While it might take a long time to rebuild Iraq, and it is not going to be easy, and there will be many obstacles along the way, and who knows maybe in 20 years things will be worst, but you know unless you try just never know. I think inaction is worst then action.

While oil might be one of the reasons, which I dont see how, since we get no oil from Iraq, besides we should just open the alaska oil fields, that is another topic

I dont think it is a simple to say oil was one of the only reason, it is much more complex then that, and I think in the end the U.S. did the right thing. Saddam Houssein was a very big danger to his country, to the Iraqi people, to the sorrounding countries and to the U.S.

I just know nothing is ever black & white, and we dont know half the stories of what really goes on in the administration and in Iraq




Just for the record if Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton or even Al gore were President at this time, and doing the same thing as Bush is, they would have my 100% full support

[Roody]

Originally posted by jayyy
Geez, its not like I got tipped off by an pentagon insider in a nearby parking lot or something. Turn on fox news and all they talk about is oil prices and how occupation could lower them and how the attacks could raise them.

I was in tokyo when the US got the first big oilfields and they put out the fires. This business exec type with a texas accent came in the bar almost dancing and shouting "WE GOT THE OIL, YEE-HARR!!!" and then he bought drinks for everyone in the place. Then I come in here and everyones like, "Ohh Nooooo, oil has NOTHING to do with it."

Ok then so your remarks are based on what Fox news tells you so why not just say that then? Your remarks earlier was that Bush did it for Oil. Well now you are saying Fox news tells you this stuff.

Im not quite the cynic that some are on here about FOX, but It's not like I believe everything they say. Does oil have something to do with this? Likely yes, we can use Iraqi oil to help cover costs of the war.

Just because Fox news and even myself says that Oil may have something to do with it doesnt mean that that is the only reason the Bush administration pushed for this war as you suggested.

That said, you will believe what you believe and I will believe what I believe.

[torsten]

Originally posted by jayyy
no offense man, but I'm more inclined to take UOD's account of what iraq's like right now over the gallup poll there. You're the one disputing the first hand accounts, not him.

No, that's not so. I've seen many first hand accounts of the situation in Iraq and I'm not "disputing" them. I'm asking why UOD seems to suggest a different picture than what those others have said.

And for all the oil conspiracists, could we have something beyond your heartfelt dislike of Bush (because I generally share that) to indicate that oil was the reason for deposing Hussein. An overheard conversation in a Roppongi bar just doesn't get it. Especially when the meaning behind one guy's joy at seeing oil fires put out is being inferred. You can say "it's about oil" all you want, but saying it doesn't make it so. Oil is flowing to the US from many sources now and has been for years. Without Iraqi oil, the US would continue to do just fine. If it were all about oil, the US would have removed Hussein after defeating Iraq in 1991. The thing that changed was 9/11 and the possibility that Hussein would deliver weapons to terrorists. The originally stated reasons for going into Iraq were true and still are.

[Shagster]

Originally posted by jayyy
US gets close to no oil? Whatever man.

And what difference would it make if I didn't care about the people in iraq? They have nothing to do with anything. Bush invaded iraq for oil. He had three excuses for it- One that Iraq had WMD, one that Hussein had something to do with 9/11, one that it was all for the brave iraqui people, like america was going to come to their rescue out of the goodness of its heart. All of them were crocks.

I know you don't care about them because you said so. Why cant the government you support be as honest as you?

I could say you are wrong and turn this into an endless debate but I really don't care what you think.

And I am going to be honest with you hear.

Your point, my point. They don't matter!

So fighting over it is useless.

Nobody cares (who matters) what anyone here thinks!

So my conclusion will be this...Debateing over things you have absolutely no controll over is useless

[nepenthe]

Originally posted by jayyy
Nah, thats the same as being correct

no offense man, but I'm more inclined to take UOD's account of what iraq's like right now over the gallup poll there. You're the one disputing the first hand accounts, not him.

The truth might very well be somwhere in between. Evan has been in the region multiple times in the past 13 years and is privy to information that we are not. As he said, "We will leave it at that."

[jayyy]

Originally posted by Shaggy
So my conclusion will be this...Debateing over things you have absolutely no controll over is useless

Useless, but fun! At least it is for me, anyway. But you can spend the same amount of time playing first-person shooters just as unconstructively. I don't mind if you don't care what I think, and if its boring for you to talk about by all means don't post anymore, no hard feelings. I just like debating it, its nothing personal.

[jayyy]

Too much else to respond to with quotations, but heres the answer in a nutshell.
You watch the "liberally biased" media, like CNN, and you get a bit of a humanitarian slant. You watch any media outlet run by and for wealthy conservatives, outlets run by members of the bush family and by the people that benefit from his tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of industries and utilities, and you see a constant, pervasive focus on oil, and how all these other events affect its price in the US market. Theres no "conspiracy" here. While you get 300 dollar tax cuts and hope for better days ahead, there are people that are benefiting from the Bush presidency in much more tangible ways. Theres no "conspiracy" here. Its basically out in the open. It amazes me how everyone in teh US seems to have convinced themsleves that this was done for entirely noble reasons, and all this oil is just this happy circumstantial aside. "And hey, look! Theres like, billions and billions of dollars worth of oil here! The second biggest deposit in the world! And just when we were going to drill in that alaskan wildlife park too! Isnt that the freakiest coincidence! Who wouldve thought?"

The world watched the US bully its way into iraq. We heard the accusations of WMD and watched iraq comply with UN inspections. We watched the US push for war even after none were found. We watched the US push ahead without the UN's support, essentially commiting an act of terrorism itself. We read about how in polls the average american connected Hussein to 9/11 and al quaeda, though in fact there was no evidence, even circumstantial, to this effect. The white house employed brilliant marketers to sell this war to the public in much the same way they sell blue jeans and cola, in much the same way regimes such as stalins and hitlers fed propoganda to its own publics.

There were no chemical weapons. There was no connection to al queada. As UOD said, deposing Hussein has actually made Iraq a new breeding ground for them, essentially having the reverse affect it was promised to. In light of these invasions muslim anger toward the US has never been stronger, giveing terrorist organizations many more possible recruits. Only one motive remains consistent. Only one motive remains logical and beneficial to the united states. There is simply no other rational reason this war was undertaken.






Let me ask you something-if the US's aim really was to deter terrorism and rogue states with weapons of mass destruction, why is it that Iraq, which basically had no chemical weapons whatsoever, was invaded, while meanwhile North Korea not only admitted to but constantly flaunted NUCLEAR weapons, even detailing how their missle could hit los angeles, has received no threat of war?????

Can someone please explain that to me? Why is it that the pisshole-in-the -ground country with oil gets the big-guns, and rogue states that actually threaten you with nuclear weapons get offered peace talks? Barring the oil incentive, Even if I was the most pro-american, pro bush guy in the whole world, I dont think I could come up with a logical answer as to why that would be so.

[zooner]

i like you jayyy

[jayyy]

Originally posted by zooner
i like you jayyy

thanks, its good to know someone does! Sometimes it feels like downhill is the only person that stands in the way of my ***getting banned!

Love speedguide and love debating politics. Dont wanna tick anyone off here, its just fun arguing with people that dont agree with you.

[torsten]

Originally posted by jayyy
The world watched the US bully its way into iraq. We heard the accusations of WMD and watched iraq comply with UN inspections. We watched the US push for war even after none were found. We watched the US push ahead without the UN's support, essentially commiting an act of terrorism itself.

After reading something like that, I find it hard to take what you say seriously. The US did not "bully" its way. They waited very patiently trying to persude petulant nations like France --- nations whose foreign policies are shaped by the oil contracts they had with Hussein, and by the petty anti-Americanism they whip up whenever it's domestically useful --- to support enforcement of the UN resolutions they had voted for earlier. Months were wasted trying to appease these fools. Yet the US did it simply to try to avoid the kind of rhetoric you're leveling above. You say Iraq complied with UN inspections? That's just nonsense. They defied the UN inspections for years, then finally as a last minute stall tactic, claimed they would comply. According to the the inspectors themselves, Iraq never did. Come on, you know better than this. If you've paid attention at all in the last decade you know Hussein's history of "compliance."

You say no weapons were found? First, read the UN reports from the years before they were kicked out about all the things that WERE found. Read what defectors from Iraq have said about their weapons program. Then read this article about the three huge cargo ships that left Iraq in February, then read this account from an ex Romanian/Soviet intelligence agent. That will give you an idea about what's happened to the WMDs that the UN has acknowledged Iraq was pursuing.

Acting without UN support is "an act of terrorism." ???? Is your dictionary that bad, or are you just willing to say anything? By the way, to say that action against Iraq is without UN support is a bit disingenuous in the first place. Some UN members, for no reason other than petty resentment of US power, backed away from enforcing their own resolutions. The US action was far more consistent with the UN resolutions than the late change of heart by the obstructionists.

Originally posted by jayyy
Can someone please explain that to me? Why is it that the pisshole-in-the -ground country with oil gets the big-guns, and rogue states that actually threaten you with nuclear weapons get offered peace talks? Barring the oil incentive, Even if I was the most pro-american, pro bush guy in the whole world, I dont think I could come up with a logical answer as to why that would be so.

Well, as a generally anti-Bush anti-Republican, anti-big corporate interests guy, I can tell you that the answers are quite logical and obvious. The North Korean regime escaped attack BECAUSE they already have nuclear weapons. Once that threshold is crossed, the options become very limited, unless you want to court disaster. If I were in Japan, I'd want the NK situation handled as delicately as possible. Iraq, on the other hand, presented the perfect opportunity to STOP an instance of what has already happened in NK. In other words, Iraq was very doable, North Korea, unfortunately isn't, at least not in the same way. Also, take into account that NK is an isolated secular country whose leadership is driven by a different psychology than those in the middle east. Although Hussein is personally secular, many nearby interested parties (and nations) are fundamentalist nutcases. The environment in the middle east, being the base of most of the world's terrorism, is quite different.

[zooner]

regardless of everything else, are we all willing to pay for bush's actions? It might seem like a beautiful notion, what we're doing. However, estimates run as high as 100 billion dollars in final costs.

Taking that number against the 2000 census estimates means that every family of four is running a tab of $1449 for the cause.

[jayyy]

Wow, I'm running out of steam here...You haven't actually said anything that contradicts what I've stated, so I'm left with just repeating myself again. The UN voted against war. You can split hairs about who in the UN (the majority) voted against the resolution and why, it doesn't change the decision. It doesnt change what happened.

The US pushed forward and went to war anyway, breaking the only international law we have and going against the free world's vote. You can split hairs about why it was done and why it was still just. You can call an unauthorized, lawless invasion a war instead of a terrorist act, though I hardly see the difference, practically speaking. Terrorists can call what they do war, too. And they're just as convinced that they're in the right morally. But it doesn't change the fact. It doesn't change what happened.

You post a washington post article in which a russian defector claims that General Primaov was "undoubtedly" concealing weapons for Hussein and that Moscow would rebuild his weapons of mass destruction after the "storm subsided", whatever the hell that means, considering we all knew, on both sides, that iraq and hussein would collapse in weeks.
So the US government and defectors that have made deals with it now claim weapons were sneakily destroyed pre-attack so that the united states would get egg on its face internationally. Whatever. There were no weapons. None were used during the invasion, none have been found since. Those are the facts.

There is no connection between Hussein and Al Quaeda. Unless I missed an earlier post you havent brought this up. Do you contest the fact? I'll assume you buy into that too and argue pre-emptively- There is no evidence of this link. When Bush claimed such evidence existed during his state of the union address he was lying to the american public. When his bluff was called he didn't even argue the validity, he admitted it was false and just blamed someone else for putting it in the speech.
So he has no evidence, and the evidence he claimed to have is an admitted lie. Do you still believe him? No matter if you do. In this case, It doesn't change the absence of fact.



So let me ask you something -suppose, just for the sake of argument, since that's what we're doing- that I was right, that oil really was the primary reason for invasion,and that all the unsubstantiated reasons above really were just propoganda to get the public behind the war. Were this true, we can take it as a given that the whitehouse would never come right out and admit to it.

So aside from Bush coming right out and saying so, since we know he never would anyway, what more do you have to see to be convinced of the opposite position? How much longer are you going to buy into all this before you change your mind or start thinking about the other possibilities?

[Roody]

One thing Javvy I have learned in my time on SG. It's not often that people change people's minds. As I said previously I wont deny that oil may have something to do with this war, although I dont believe it was our main purpose or that it's purpose was as bad as you suggest.

In the end though I am like you and I enjoy talking politics.

[jayyy]

Originally posted by Roody
In the end though I am like you and I enjoy talking politics.

Glad to hear it Its all good, I figure if we all agreed about this stuff it wouldnt be any fun debating it

[SeedOfChaos]

(For the sake of simplicity, "You" in this post = "the people of the US")

People in Europe have pretty much jayyy's point of view in this debate, that is what I gather from talking to people and the press as well.

Why is anyone still getting all excited about Iraq not complying with UN resolutions? It's a hollow argument until the US, EU, and everyone else start complying themselves. Do you care to comply with a law if the police ignores it themselves? Do you find it unjustified that some people can get away with stuff that other's can't? Why should Iraq comply with UN resolutions if we don't?

The underlying problem, the REAL problem, is that the UN has no means to back itself up. But since the US will not sacrifice its sovereignty, this important change cannot happen. Just look at what happened with the International Court... it's for war criminals whose countries don't prosecute them ONLY. Still the US went against it, officially for the sake of sovereignty. Now, with the US being so theatralically against it, what is the rest of the world supposed to believe?!? The most logical consequence is: there are war criminals in the US and the government doesn't want them to be prosecuted. This is just one issue out of COUNTLESS others.

Iraq being the issue. US says "UN authorize us to go to war with Saddam or not, we'll do it anyway". From that point, right from the start, all debates were pointless. Maybe it was this mindset of Bush & co that got the opposition going. At that time I still wished the security council would be able to find a way that we, the people of the world, could walk together. Unfortunately, it wasn't, also through the sudden time pressure created by Bush & allies out of thin air.

Remember when that "could be launched in 45 min" story was debunked? Wolfowitz said that WOMD wasn't the only issue why the US went to war with Iraq. However, he didn't mention the obvious: it was the ONLY reason to go with Iraq rightaway, to stop talking, and NOT having more time to work something out at the UN.

It's not that the EU didn't want to do anything about Saddam AT ALL. We just wanted to do it differently, with more planning involved, and a different approach to doing certain things. MAYBE you can now see that a few months extra might have helped to make the transition much smoother than what the US troops are experiencing right now.

IMHO, it's fair to say that BUSH PROMOTES TERRORISM THROUGH HIS FOREIGN POLICIES!

You can all go Europe STFU and "America's the greatest nation in the world", we're all jealous of the US, bla bla, and whatever "patriotic" stuff you can come up with, you still gotta deal with it. In fact, saying the above mentioned stuff you would merely aggravate the problem.

Regardless of this POV being justified or not, it's there, and the US WILL have to deal with it. You are not alone in this world. If you have even the slightest understanding of US economics, you can see the importance of contact with other nations. None of your wealth would've been possible without the rest of the world.

Last but not least, there were people with this kind of POV taken to the extreme that decided that flying planes into buildings is a good idea. Of course that cannot be the answer! But maybe by now you guys can start to fathom where Al Quada is coming from. People do not kill themselves in terrorist attacks because they think it's cool or they wanna see big fireworks. One's gotta be desperate to a degree unimaginable by you and me. Maybe one day some of you realize that the US is not necessarily "by far the best country in the world" but a great nation among some other fine nations. Flame away, but please do take the time to stop and think, just for a second, of how the actions of the US could be perceived by other nations and peoples.

I'd still make my case that we do need another, new, form of government. Our gov't sucks just as much as your's, just in different ways. It's just that the US gov't was the point of the tread, not the EU gov't(s).

My 2c,
Ronald

[Roody]

Those are interesting points SOC. Here is my concern with them. If a group of people wants to try and resolve issues with us they are better served doing it another way then blowing themselves up.

It may not be fair and it may not be right, but I have troubles sympathizing with people who feel that suicide bombings much like some have been doing is their only way to get their point across. I guess I miss their point when they do that.

[Ghosthunter]

Originally posted by SeedOfChaos
"America's the greatest nation in the world"

Actually no one can ever deny this, how do I know?


Why are there millions trying to get into this country illegally every year?

How many other countries go through that?

[Ghosthunter]

Originally posted by Roody
Those are interesting points SOC. Here is my concern with them. If a group of people wants to try and resolve issues with us they are better served doing it another way then blowing themselves up.

It may not be fair and it may not be right, but I have troubles sympathizing with people who feel that suicide bombings much like some have been doing is their only way to get their point across. I guess I miss their point when they do that.

agreed,

i can never sympathize with madmen who think by killing thousands of innocents they will go to heaven, i dont care what the reasons are

[Jstyr]

Originally posted by jayyy
Let me ask you something-if the US's aim really was to deter terrorism and rogue states with weapons of mass destruction, why is it that Iraq, which basically had no chemical weapons whatsoever, was invaded, while meanwhile North Korea not only admitted to but constantly flaunted NUCLEAR weapons, even detailing how their missle could hit los angeles, has received no threat of war?????

Can someone please explain that to me? Why is it that the pisshole-in-the -ground country with oil gets the big-guns, and rogue states that actually threaten you with nuclear weapons get offered peace talks? Barring the oil incentive, Even if I was the most pro-american, pro bush guy in the whole world, I dont think I could come up with a logical answer as to why that would be so.

I agree that oil played a major role in our decisions to go into Iraq and Afghanistan, however the reason we do not go into N. Korea is because HISTORY has taught us that the Chinese will respond with military force to any action against this nation. Read some history about General MacArthur (sp). He was the Army general in charge of Asian operations during WWII and then the troops during the Korean Conflict. One of the reasons he was disposed as acting general in N. Korea was his miscalculation that the Chinese would be able to come to the N. Koreans aid if we invaded their territory. The chinese did come to their aid with somethign around 200,000 troops and caused us quite alot of casualities after a push into their territory.

The point is, a conflict with Red China is a whole different ball game than swatting down the Iraqi regime. This still doesn't change the fact that Iraq had little to do with the events of 911 and to really believe that oil had absolutely nothing to do with our commitment to a complete regime change in this country is extremely naive.

[torsten]

Originally posted by jayyy
Wow, I'm running out of steam here...You haven't actually said anything that contradicts what I've stated, so I'm left with just repeating myself again. The UN voted against war. You can split hairs about who in the UN (the majority) voted against the resolution and why, it doesn't change the decision. It doesnt change what happened.

You say I didn't contradict anything you stated? Um.... I think you'd better read the post again. And nothing I said was "splitting hairs." The fact is that an obstructionist group of nations, led by France, originally voted for UN resolutions and then backed away from supporting their enforcement. The US and UK did not.

Originally posted by jayyy
There is no connection between Hussein and Al Quaeda. Unless I missed an earlier post you havent brought this up. Do you contest the fact? I'll assume you buy into that too and argue pre-emptively- There is no evidence of this link.

Don't you remember the discovery of documents soon after the fall of Baghdad that indicated Iraqi officials had met with Al Qaeda representatives? It was covered pretty well at the time. Also, during the final days of the official war period, American soldiers encountered a good bit of resistance in northern Iraq from some Al Qaeda related forces. In fact, they destroyed a large camp of them. What were they doing there if there was no link? One would think, given the mutual seething hostility toward the US, that the possibility of cooperation between Hussein and Al Qaeda would be obvious and impossible to ignore, but some apparently have the desperate urge to believe that because Hussein was "secular" and Al Qaeda is fundamentalist that they would never cooperate. Uh huh.... yeah.

Originally posted by jayyy
So aside from Bush coming right out and saying so, since we know he never would anyway, what more do you have to see to be convinced of the opposite position? How much longer are you going to buy into all this before you change your mind or start thinking about the other possibilities?

I've thought of other possibilities from day one, especially since I distrust the Republican party's motives on anything concerned with money. To be convinced of the opposite position, you'd have to refute the things I've said in my last post. Despite suggesting otherwise, you didn't do that.

[SeedOfChaos]

Roody, I agree 100% with you! Notice that I'm still alive? I didn't blow myself up or pilot a plane into a building. I'm also not sponsoring anyone to do that, nor do I condone such things in any way. 9/11 was pure madness, let's leave it at that, shall we?

However, there's a difference between supporting those madmen and recognizing that there are problems in some countries, which helped twisting their minds like that. And we, the west, have played a huge role in creating their problems. So I can somewhat understand that some of them are quite pissed at us. This entire problem won't go away until we, the rich nations of the world, agree to a more fair world order. Globalization works both ways: we can exploit them better, and they can more easily attack us. Maybe we should opt to not exploit weaker nations economically, for a start, since we're in the power position, the ones with the power to create real change, positive change.

Ghosthunter, the EU nations have plenty of applications for immigrants, trust me... I don't have any figures, but I suppose it could be even higher than for the US. (Please note that in a way I view the EU as one country, only with a very restricted "federal" gov't)

[Roody]

I dont doubt that we havent made things easy on other countries who may have at some time felt exploited by us. Like I said though, It's hard for me to sympathize with their issues if they can't express a more proper way to display their displeasure.

[SeedOfChaos]

Originally posted by Roody
I dont doubt that we havent made things easy on other countries who may have at some time felt exploited by us. Like I said though, It's hard for me to sympathize with their issues if they can't express a more proper way to display their displeasure.

What I wanted to say was: don't condemn them all for the actions of a few. I'm not asking you to sympathize with terrorists, just for the other people in such regions.

WE are the ones with the power, WE have to start. Terrorism is an extreme expression of feeling powerless. Especially the suicidal one. And IMO fighting fire with fire doesn't work.