I will start off with a few quotes:
[size=75][i]“I came to America because of the great, great freedom which I heard existed in this country. I made a mistake in selecting America as a land of freedom, a mistake I cannot repair in the balance of my lifetime.”
–Albert Einstein
"The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology. "
– Michael Parenti
“One cannot wage war under present conditions without the support of public opinion, which is tremendously molded by the press and other forms of propaganda.”
– General Douglas MacArthur
“The first casualty of war is truth.”
–Rudyard Kipling
“When distant and unfamiliar and complex things are communicated to great masses of people, the truth suffers a considerable and often a radical distortion. The complex is made over into the simple, the hypothetical into the dogmatic, and the relative into an absolute.”
– Walter Lippmann
“The great masses of the people at the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously evil … they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big.”
– Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf [/i][/size]
None of the protesters are against freeing the Iraqi people. I personally think its good they are free of their opressive government. What the protesters are against is the lies we were told for this war, and knowing that in all likelyhood war will stem more terrorism. Here is what needs to be considered, should we watch out for the safety of our selves or the well-being of a foreign people? I mean, is Iraq being free worth having another attack like the ones on the morning of 9/11/01?
Here is a quote from and FBI agent (Coleen Rowley) in a letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller and a quote from CIA director (George J. Tenet) in a letter to congress:
[i]"That posture has been weakened by the diversion of attention from al-Qaeda to our government’s plan to invade Iraq, a step that will, in all likelihood, bring an exponential increase in the terrorist threat to the U.S., both at home and abroad.
…
And it seems clear to me now that the decision to attack Iraq was taken some time ago and you, even as FBI Director, may be little more than a helpless bystander.
Such an attack, though, may have grave consequences for your ability to discharge your responsibility to protect Americans, and it is altogether likely that you will find yourself a helpless bystander to a rash of 9-11s. The bottom line is this: We should be deluding neither ourselves nor the American people that there is any way the FBI, despite the various improvements you are implementing, will be able to stem the flood of terrorism that will likely head our way in the wake of an attack on Iraq."
-Coleen Rowley
“Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or C.B.W. against the United States.
Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions.
…
Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamic terrorists in conducting a W.M.D. attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.”
-George J. Tenet[/i]
Just today on CNN they had video of an Iraqi woman screaming at US troops, holding up a picture saying “These children are going to go to your country and blow up your civilians, how does that feel?” What it comes down to is MOST muslims are not extremists and do not support the terrorists actions. But the the fundamentalists who originally do not agree with terrorist actions become more and more angered by US aggression in muslim countries (whether it is justified or not), so over all it creates more people willing to blow themselves to carry out what they believe is right.
I think we are in agreement that this war is not based and certainly should not be based on religious persecution of the Muslims, though that persecution does exist in our country. However, that is how many of the fundamentalists are viewing it, while most of the Muslim population is seeing the Iraqi people being freed, the fundamentalists are seeing it as an attack on their beliefs.
This is a passionate subject, and emotions run high. Because of this intellectual debate and reason are sometimes hard to find and manage. I believe the peaceful protesting is proper and ‘to be desired’ in America. I’m not sure that all proper protesting should be peaceful but this protest certainly should be. First let’s recognize that there are many protests other than ‘anti-war’ protests going on in this country right now.
There’s the anti-protestors protest, the anti-France protestors (this one is real good too… in New York they are protesting the French Restaurants, which just so happen to be fully American owned an operated and simply serve French food). This is good, in my opinion although many people mislead, and I wish ALL would keep an open mind to new information, and base new decisions on new information.
I’ve heard liberals say how conservative the press is, and I’ve heard conservatives say how liberal the press is, sadly the press is just a poor source of accurate information but rather a starting point with ‘stories’.
What we are talking about is 100% perception. Many people continue to say how ‘Saddam and his regime are evil and we must overthrow them’. What you don’t hear many people say is: ’ Why did the CIA aid the Ba’th Party coup over Iraqi Prime Minister Abdel Kassem in 1963 in the first place?’ I see hundreds of fanatical liberals and far too many reactionary conservatives. You can watch Bill Maher make some excellent points on his programs, and then he goes off the deep end even in my book. On the other hand Rush Limbaugh does the exact same thing, he’ll criticize the protestors for being against the war, and then turn around again to criticize the government on how it’s fighting it.
Intentional or not, congress gave the approval for Bush to wage war based on FALSE information. As for the disclosure of WMD. We have no evidence… in our legal system you need a preponderance of evidence at the very least. We are the accusers. This has been the complaint of the international community. We sent people into Iraq to find evidence (inspectors)… any evidence… and while still searching for evidence the US decides ‘Well we don’t need any evidence’. What is that?
I’ll admit I’m skeptical that Iraq doesn’t have WMD, I’d be a little surprised if they didn’t, but I know our government won’t pull out of Iraq without finding evidence whether it’s fabricated or not. (This we will never know because the tests they run will be the EXACT same as our chemical and biological weapons…because WE are the ones who gave them those weapons in the first place)
I don’t disagree that there are legal arguments for this war, we must remember there were legal arguments for Hitler’s actions as well. The defense arguments are a bit shady, we are talking about a country that has no means of outright attacking our country. (Everyone seems to be surprised now that Iraq hasn’t attacked Israel, how soon we forget that he wasn’t supposed to have weapons that could reach Israel…Hmmm? (minus the propaganda of course)) As far a legitimate moral argument I’m still waiting.
Saddam Hussein is perhaps an evil madman, he is however a foreign leader, regardless of our opinions of him, and we need to act like he is. The problem with circumstantial evidence is just that, it’s circumstantial not direct.
Abuses take place all over the world, morally we can argue if war is a way to end abuses. I’m for letting society run its course, be it king, dictator, or president, people throughout history and modern times have always held the one right that can never be taken away. The right to revolt.
“I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar soaked fingers out of the business of these [Third World] nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own. And if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the “haves” refuse to share with the “have-nots” by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don’t want and above all don’t want crammed down their throats by Americans.”
–General David Sharp [Former United States Marine Commandant 1966]
Who starved Iraq is another debate, the US/UN controlled the food. Now, the US controls the food. My point was whoever controls the food would be the people’s hero. He may have spent the money on extravagant palaces, but it was just that MONEY not FOOD. WE were not allowing the food into Iraq. And there is evidence to support the FACT people died due to US/UN santions, you can read all about it in the book: “The Children are Dying: The effects of sanctions on Iraq”
On the subject of countries not wanting to attack Iraq because they had business interests with Iraq…I will use France as an example. This is ridiculous accusation. If France had business dealings with Iraq, that would not be their motivation against war, because as soon as the war was over their business dealing would be able to continue. Had the inspectors found WMD they more than likely would have supported action against them. The more likely reason is that most countries believe that this attack will in all likelihood create more problems than it will solve. Nearly every nation around the world and the majority of the people around the world view this action as dangerous to world peace. The majority of the people in the nations of “the coalition” do not support this, and many of their governments accepted because they were offered incentives for supporting. (Remember how much the US was willing to give Turkey in exchange for their support, they finally declined to support the action, but they they were offered a nice “benefits package” if they did)
I really think the number of countries that would have been against action against Iraq (if weapons were found) would be VERY low. And even still, if they want to help absorb the cost of rebuilding then let them do it, i mean really, what kind of point are we making to them “NO, we want to spend OUR money on rebuilding” This makes little if any sense and can only be explained by trying to help certain business’.
As far as Saddam making peace with us, I don’t know that there is information that would convince Saddam to make peace with us. I do believe, however, that if by “peace” you mean “not war”, there were several ways to have peace. But at this point it’s a mute case.
Kim Jong Il may not have used chemical weapons, but he has starved and oppressed his own people, blown up South Korean officials, kidnapped Japanese teenagers to use as language teachers for spies, proliferated missiles and placed 10,000 artillery pieces within 20 km of Seoul. He has intercontinental nuclear weapons, is now seeking more, and renounced his treaty obligations not to build them and threatened that any sanctions against his country would be tantamount to “a declaration of war.” Bush says diplomacy, not war, is the appropriate route with Pyongyang, in which case, many Europeans ask, why not with Baghdad too?
The Pre-emtive strike, I believe, was THE worst thing Bush could have done while in office. It brings us into a world of Pre-emtive strikes which could increase the likelihood that countries such as North Korea and China will claim the same right to pre-emptive action against perceived threats.
looks like we have a very interesting disscussion going on here!
I support this war and I support the American troops.