Originally posted by: IamDavid
We take the stance that can protect out national interest FIRST. If its ignorance to take care of ourselves then call me the most ignorant SOB there is.
You seem to waver equivocally back and forth, never really coming to a decision: did we invade Iraq to, as you suggest later in this very same post, "defend the Iraqi people," or protect ourselves above all others?
Furthermore, could you please point out some proof, not laden with, as, again, you yourself say later in this post, the Bush administration's "half-truths" and "flat out lies," that Saddam was a direct threat to the American people?
And what half of the world are we ignoring?
To quote a recent blurb from
The New Yorker:
And this is, after all, the President who dismissed the demonstrations of Februrary 15th -- when ten million people, in six hundred cities across the globe, marched against the invasion of Iraq in what was probably the largest one-day protest in hostory -- with the observation that he never listened to "focus groups."
Not to mention the populations of countries around the world who disagreed with our stance on Iraq. And no, not just the French, as Karl Rove and the clan would like you to believe, but populations from countries who were part of the "coalition of the willing":
Even though Spain's Prime Minister, for example, was one of the willing, the opposition of ninety per cent of his voting public meant that he was confined to contributing a hospital ship and humanitarian help, rather than combat troops, to the war effort. A private deal cut with Turkey's top politicians fell apart on the parliament floor despite American inducements amounting to some twenty-six billion dollars, because the Turkish public wouldn't abide it
I missed the point huh? You come to the same conclusion as me. Saddam being out of power is a GOOD thing. Sure the Bush administration used half truths and probably some flat out lies but I guess I can forgives them since there end goal was just.
Ever read
The Prince, or
1984, or
A Brave New World? If not, I suggest that you do. The horrifying complacency and complete trust in the government you display here is naive and, frankly, mind-boggling. The idea that the government can trounce around, toppling governments that, sure, may have been bad ones, without proper evidence and/or reasons, as if they are on a mission from God, is Orwellian/Machiavellian (take your pick) at best, and totalitarian at worst. I'm aghast at the fact that you are okay with that. The ends DO NOT JUSTIFY the means.
I guess in the end me and you see the world in different views. I see good against evil. You see republican against democrat or right against left. Maybe I'm just an IDIOT like you all like to call Bush.
Good against evil. Hah. I only wish the world were so simple. Please, put down Lord of the Rings and go pick up a newspaper. Nothing is so clear-cut, unfortunately.
Facebook
Twitter