What if a war had NOT been declared on the premise that there are WMDs in Iraq and it turned out there were? Or what if it were not declared for any particular reason?
Bush and his administration have been plotting the removal of Saddam since before he was elected. This is clear and has not been refuted by the administration. The motives for this are the only thing that are not clear. Was it to revenge his father, or to control oil, or to distabilize the middle east to ensure our continued military and corporate presence there or some other reason? No matter, it is clear that the stated reasons in the 2003 State of the Union address were at best overstated and more likely an outright lie, designed to foster the same 'Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD)' that have been used since 9/11 to justify the war in Afganistan and the erosion of our civil liberties.
If there were no 'war' in Iraq, where would Hussein be right now? What would he be scheming? Who would HE be killing and robbing?
Well, it is likely he would still be in power. There is no reason to believe that anyone within Iraq would have done anything to take him out. What he would be scheming? What kind of question is that? One based in FUD. Saddam is the bogeyman, and if he was still in power, ninja trained paladins of Allah himself would be raining down on our neighborhoods in stolen airliners, stealing our wives and daughters for there sex slaves! Run for your nukes and kill them all first before they can kill us! Yieeeeee!
As for who he would be killing and robbing, I am sure it would still be the people of Iraq. But, if we are going to rail against injustice and crimes about human rights, where is our indignant cries for justice in Saudi Arabia or North Korea or Iran or one of dozens of other countries that do not guaranty the same rights that we enjoy in our country? It's not there, because for the most part, Americans are complacent in their comforts. I can promise you that had President Bush tried to get us to go to unilateral war against Iraq based on human rights and that 'Saddam is Evil' he would have never gotten the support of the congress or the people. But, now that the 'WMD' have not appeared, he is trying to say that 'Saddam is Evil' was enough. I am sure it would not be considered enough to the families of the 500+ service men and women that have died over there fighting Bush's war.
If we did not go over there...how long before they would be here?
Wow, more FUD. Well, if the administrations version of 9/11 is to believed, they have already attacked us on our soil. But just who did the attacking? They say it was Al Qaeda, and maybe it was, but when was the last time you heard a report that things happened as the administration said they did? Why did the administration see the need to remove 23 pages from the congressional report about the 9/11 attacks that referred to the Saudis? Why, when 19 of the 21 people directly involved in the attacks were Saudis, did they say it was 'terrorists' and not 'Saudis' that attacked us? Why where hundreds of Saudis and over 20 members of the Bin-Laden family allowed to leave the country on chartered flights in the days after 9/11 when American citizens were grounded? Why the need to protect the Saudis? The Bush families ties to the Saudi families are long and strong, and go back several generations. Do you trust him to tell you the truth when his daddy's or grandpa's reputation is at stake
And to answer your question, Saddam knew better than to go after America. He was perfectly happy in his little piece of power. Even with economic sanctions, he was still rich beyond his needs and still ruled with an iron fist. The only reason he ever went to war with Iran and invaded Kuwait, was because the US convinced him he as at risk from those states, and that he should do something about it. Iran was a real threat to his power, because they wanted to export their Islamic Fundimentalist rule to Iraq because he was 'oppressing' the majority Sunnis in his country. The invasation of Kuwait was because Saddam believed that Kuwait was stealing oil from his Rumaylah oil fields.
The US has been planning on unseating Saddam since the late 1980s. There where massive changes in our doctrine in the region in late 1989 and we were actively working towards distabilizing Iraq and Saddam. We pitted Kuwait against Iraq in a oil price war where Kuwait was driving down the price of oil and had many wells very close to the Iraqi border. The US was very close to Iraq for as much as 6 months before this all began, then, in an about face, we lead a defacto 'embargo' of Iraq that included many other industrialized western countries. Hundreds of major scientific, engineering, and food supply contracts between Iraq and western governments were canceled by 1990.
We didn't 'finish' Saddam then, because it was decided in the administration that it would be better to use international pressures to oust him, and that coming off the 'victory' in the Gulf War, that Bush Sr. was a shoe-in for reelection. If all had gone as planned, Saddam would have been out of power 10 years ago. And then Clinton won the election. Damn Democracy...
If you suspected your neighbor across the street had a hidden arsenal in his basement and was fighting with his adjacent neighbors all the time, how long would it be before he would be on YOUR side of the street destroying your property and killing your family?
Do you close your eyes and pretend the rumors are just that? Or do you approach him and find out for sure? Do you go over to HIS house and face him eye to eye and let him know you are not taking any crap from him or will you wait until he comes to YOUR house? By then, it will be too late. You see, it is obvious your neighbor has no value of life, he does not care what your culture or beliefs are, he wants to rule your neighborhood, then his city, then country ...then....?
No, and neither would you. If you suspected or knew that some nut job like this was in your neighborhood, you would call the police, they would investigate, and they would get warrents to search his house and arrest him, if needed. This does not happen in our society.
When do we retaliate? AFTER they have invaded our country? Wasn't 9-11 enough warning of the horrors from the East?
More FUD. Invade our country? Horrors from the East? Did you even read that first? Tell me, did you run out and buy plastic sheeting and duct tape too?
We retaliate when we have correctly identifed the people responsable for the attacks. If we can find them, that is. Do we then use that as rationalization to 'clean house' in a region of the world that we don't understand or control, because they don't eat bacon, wear reveling clothing or buy into our culture in general? Sure, if you are the power hungry neo-christian conservatives in the Bush administration. And since the Bush administration has never underestimated the American public's 'just below the surface' hatred for anything alien or misunderstood, they have done a great job of whipping the majority of them into a post 9/11 frenzy. (see above mention of ninja trained paladins yada yada...)
You are definitely entitled to your opinions, David, and I respect that. Just keep in mind I am entitled to mine, also. I have never been one to believe what I read. All articles are biased as are any statistics.
One year you read everywhere that eggs are bad for you. Several years later you read that they aren't so bad for you after all. There is more good than bad in eggs. So, do you believe what you read, or do you experiment and make your own conclusions
I make my own decisions. But, just like I didn't believe Clinton, I don't believe Bush. We all start from fundemental assumptions. I at first suspect all as being false, investigate, and then I decide what I believe to be true. Your fundemental assumptions seem to be that if Republicans are saying it, it is true.
I think the ones to be censured are the media...NOT Bush. AND...Bush does not act alone. He has to hear from and answer to lots of people. So, I hope they DO censure them...Bush and all of them. Then maybe we won't be reading all this crap in the newspapers and hearing it on the nightly news.
BZZZZZT! Wrong answer! You have obviously never been in the military or in management. Bottom line is that Bush is responsble. That is why we 'elected' him. He is the chief Executive of this country, and he is ultimately responsable for all those that report to him, that he hand picked, which includes deciding what is truth and what is fiction. A true leader takes responsabilty for the failings of his subordinates, and a politician passes the buck. He is not a true leader.
The media only reports what is made public and then not even that. Do you think that the big business owned media in this country is really 'free and independent'? Do you? No, they are beholden to people they finance to put into office.
I don't include references to articles in Billings, Montana newspapers or exhibit petitions signed by people who most of them probably don't know what they are signing. And I don't pass on the quotes of politicians from other states that I have never even heard of. I count on my own conclusions, my own beliefs and my own understanding of ALL sides.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But at least all of my convictions are my own. Not someone else's.
I never assumed that your convictions are anything but yours, but is it easier for you to dismiss 538,000 people by accusing them of blindly signing a petition than for you to examine your position? Is it easier for you to assume that 538,000 people are blindly NOT following the collective concience of the country? People do not blindly go against the 'popular' or 'majority', they do it because something in them tells them that something is not right. They do it with conviction and a desire make a difference, not because of a desire to 'conform'. These are people that went out of their way to find this petition online and many of them included their own thoughts and opinions with thier signature. Then these petitions were delivered to their elected officials with purpose, with a desire to make a difference, with a desire to participate in the process that our freedoms guaranty.
*S*
Sincerely,
Pam
PS...If the Iraqis have nothing to hide, why did they fight us when we entered their country to investigate?
I don't even know how to answer this. This is like saying that people that don't have anything to hide shouldn't be worried about violations to their 4th ammendment rights. Yeah, that is until they come for you, then where are your rights?
What are you referring to here anyways? The UN weapons inspectors or our illegal, unilateral invasion of their sovereign country? First off, I am making no excused for Saddam. He is who he is, and I don't think that he would even have cooperated fully with any outsiders interfering in his domain. He ruled with absolute power in Iraq, and any pressure from the outside made him look weak to his country. He feared his own people more than he feared the world, which was ultimately his undoing. Secondly, aren't the Iraqis allowed some pride also? Why do American's assume that patriotism is in the sole domain of them and the anyone brash enough to 'defy' our troops are 'terrorists'? I am sure that they see themselves as 'freedom fighers' trying to rid themselves of an oppressive occupier.
I have sources to back any of the information that I provided here, if you desire that I back up my position.
