Before I join in, I have to mention I strongly support Bush and, therefore I am against the majority of the people here. However, since this whole Iraq war tends push one of my most passionate buttons, I had to contribute.
The idea of many innocent people/soldiers dying; I am not going to deny that some HAVE died and that's true of any war. The numbers however are anti-war propaganda. Many more innocent people were dying before we stepped in over there than there are now. It's just that because we're over there, the media is reporting individual deaths more.
Here's my pet peeve about this entire topic: It never fails to amaze me how willingly forgetful people are.
For one thing, President Bush couldn't have declared war without congress. The same Americans who are criticising him now were 100% behind him, telling him we were doing the right thing then. They had the same information Pres. Bush did. And they voted to support us ousting Saddaam Hussein. It surprises me that some try to re-write history and say it was all one man's fault.
It is, of course, too early to evaluate a president. That, historically, takes decades, and views change over times as results and impact become more obvious.
Did you know that, while in office, Ronald Regan was regarded as one of the worst Presidents in history? And now that the impact of all he did has been taken into consideration, he is regarded as one of the best presidents, especially economically speaking. Jimmy Carter, while in office, was considered one of the best, and now that the impact of his Presidency has been felt over the last 30 years, it is known that he was pretty bad. Clinton will always be regarded as a great President because he did absolutely NOTHING to change the status quo while he was in office. Things went *smoothly*, so he was obviously "good".
I got into a debate with others on the same topic the other day. The argument they had against the war and his presidency was that GB 'is dumb'. These people whom I hear saying "George Bush is dumb", are the same people who are saying "George Bush lied to us about WMDs". So if he's dumb, and you were mislead by him, then what does that say about YOU?
Perhaps my opinions are biased because I've got a friend who is fighting in Iraq, but let me say this; he's encountered thousands of grateful Iraqians who, for the first time, have some freedom in their life. Problem is, right or wrong, now that we've started it, we HAVE to finish the job or
1)let Al Zarqawi and his band of miscreants win
2) let down the Iraqi people we are trying to help set up their new government,
3) risk Iraq going back to a dictatorship and therefore risk the lives of the people who are supporting democracy, and
4) basically wasting our time and resources. To give up now means that everyone who has given their life has died in vain. And I believe that freedom is never in vain.
Just like that saying, freedom isn't free.
Oh yeah. Don't you know... Hussein had NO KNOWLEDGE of the nerve agents he had been using on the Kurds - and I'm sure he had NO IDEA how our troops came in contact with sarin gas.
The WMDs - troops have found traces, which means there was more, and (DUH) if we gave Hussein fair warning that we were going to be inspecting, wouldn't a logical person be able to figure out that he moved them?
I guess it's just less frightening to believe that there were no WMDs, because if there were, then that means they still exist somewhere and we may be in danger from them eventually. It's one thing when they are being used on some nondescript population such as the Kurds. That's easy to ignore because, after all, it's not happening to us. Let's suppose there was no war. When the deadly agents were let loose at shopping centres, or the City or other public places, people would say "why weren't the terrorists stopped?"
*gets off soap box*
Yes, thing of mine...erm...I'm shutting up now.
This post has been edited by Satirical: 09 December 2005 - 02:28 PM
Help
MultiQuote
Posted 02 January 2006 - 01:19 PM
Arghhh...
