Nightwing said:
Ah, so the crux of the issue to you is it is ok to have WMD's, as long as it is the 'bad guys' that are threatened with them.....again, forgetting that at least half the world (actually, more) thinks that Bush is the bad guy - who are you or I to say they are wrong?
Because its not
relative, and if it has to be 'you versus me' in this world because of differences between nations that are even supposed to be allies at the end of the day, then its going to go back to that, and we'll lose any progress as a global society that we thought we had made in the last century or so. If people are so sure as to place the blame on America for defending its people (and a good leader doesn't defend the people by letting them get killed again and again, only reacting to attacks so the world stage feels retaliation is justified - defeats the damn purpose!) then there's nothing we can do about them. We shouldn't make our decisions based on other people's criteria and motives in our private lives or public ones.
Bush is a born again Christian fundamentalist who thinks that 'God' has told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - what on Earth could be more dangerous than that?
Well, you're speaking form an anti-Christian point of view, which by the way you can have just fine and dandy, but its lacking understanding. Bush does not feel he has been given a divine revelation to send his armies forth 'and conquer'. He has never used that kind of speech, never called Muslims 'the great satan' although the inverse has happened routinely, and he has made every motion and plea to show Muslims we are not about another Crusade. Because Bush is a christian and wears it on his sleeve, appealing to the vast number of americans who share his faith, I feel he is attacked, especially by the left who dislike all religion - nothing should be bigger than government, you know. I think the fear is that he will inspire people to explore religion more, where the left has been so successful in secularising all of society - including
private institutions, through their infiltration of the media, education system and rights groups. What you are suggesting is the
opposite of fundamentalist christian thinking. If its fundamental, then it would be Christ-like, and Christ laid down his life for
others, he sacrificed.
You are also espousing the 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' theory - fair enough, but I for one do not trust Bush or Sharon any more than I would trust Hussein with WMD's - Bush went outside the law and simply used the 'might is right' scenario to invade a sovereign country that had made no threats, said it had no WMD's and was telling the truth, in the process killing some 6000 innocent Iraqis, as well as an estimated 20,000 Iraqi soldiers......dumping some 60 tonnes of depleted uranium on the country just for good measure.
Fair enough, yes, I can empathise with your distrust, but who
do you trust? Out of curiosity, considering, say, that the Chinese who are guilty of horrendous human rights violations and totalitarianism sport alot of French made electronics in their military, among others? To what law is the USA beholden to that you speak of? Bill Clinton - the opposite of George Bush - the guy eeeveryone loves around the world - made the case for the removel of Hussein and for the belief that he continued to seek and potentially manufacture weapons he was not to be allowed. Saddam played games with the regulations he was supposed to follow all throughout the 90's - maybe he should have read the boy who cried wolf? Clinton saw fit to bomb Hussein a bit and go into the Balkans without consulting the almighty Kofi Annan, as well, you know, but they never seemed to have a problem...I wonder why? As far as innocent lives being lost - always regrettable, sometimes necessary. I doubt any marxist would disagree, though for a different reason. The end justifies the means, right?
We are far less safe now than we were before the invasion of Iraq, no question. He heas no idea what to do with the ethnic minorities now battling for power in Iraq, no idea how to quell the guerilla insurgence.
Well, I think that's an awful lot of insight being made into a situation without any experience in it, which is something I guess everyone does. Considering things are going much better there than they did in Germany after WWII, and that the battle of the ethnic groups is something that was closer to a
slaughter under Hussein, I don't see it as any sort of failure. My Father happens to be in Iraq for almost a year now, and he's nearly been hit by a mortar blast, he's woken up to RPG fire hitting the wall of their encampment where he's stationed, he's seen the negative aspects of the upheaval that has taken place, and he's also told me about the great things that are happening, especially for the children there. Iraqis, much like the Russians, have alot to get used to with this newfound future. Its condescending to treat them like savages who won't be able to figure this stuff out and rise above the mess they've been locked into with no choice for decades. It will be interesting to see what the country becomes.
He should wage war on himself, as the US is the primary source of terror around the globe......in the form of nuclear, chemical, biological and conventional weapons sales, CIA funding of pro-US puppet governments, unfair and often devastating economic sanctions on countries that can least afford it, and the constant demonisation of Muslims on a hourly and daily basis.
No, the demonization of
terrorists, I recognize a difference. I don't see a problem with helping those who help us, that's called a good foreign policy decision and making alliances. The problem I think people have is that the US refuses to be a puppet. But hey - I'm going to bed, its past 1am...didn't expect to spark such a heated debate necessarily, but what the hell.
The Austrians have, even...
