Muennin Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 True, Peregrin, occassionally they do. I contend that an uprising of the popular voters may well have resulted in sectors of anarchy and media-spread panic, however, I commend Gore for possessing the foresight and the courage to concede the election at the final bell...and for preserving the nearest prototypical Democracy in history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark0ne Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 My point still stand, however, that the man's presendency is a (definite?) lie - so what can we expect from a false president? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojlnir Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Ahh, here we go again, I just can't get enough of this topic! Anyway, in regards to to WMD it should be pointed out that this is an often miss-used term. WMD (as we all know) refers to Weapons of MASS Destruction, which was developed in order to describe nuclear weapons...hence "mass" destruction. In today's world the news media and others (governments) have over used the term because its "sexy," meaning its hard to ignore and gets peoples attention.Biological and chemical weapons do NOT qualify as WMD because of the amounts required to do serious damage. These weapons are typically referred to as C/B (chemical/biological) weapons because they occupy a completely separate class of weaponry.While potentially devastating when used in large quantities, the problem is just that, they must be used in large quantities. Chemical weapons degrade very quickly in sunlight and are therefore more apt to be used at night and in tactical situations. It is pretty impractical to use these weapons for anything else. Biological weapons are damned hard to produce because they have to be weaponized. This means that the biological agent (say anthrax) must be turned into an aerosolized powder. This is not kid stuff and it took the U.S. and Russia the better part of a decade to figure out how to do it. Again, these weapons must be used in large quantities to cause significant harm...and they most certainly do not cause destruction.Okay, now that everyone is good and annoyed with me, lets get to the meat of this topic. Why did the US invade Iraq? Well, there are a number of reasons, at least from my point of view. First, Iraq has been a thorn in the US's side for more than a decade, ever since we left him in power at the end of Gulf I. This proved to be an embarrassment for Bush Sr. and therefore Bush Jr. as well. This was not the only reason. Strategic planning (of the Cold War sort) was also at hand here. The people who are in charge now are the same bunch of Cold War nutters that were in charge in the Reagan administration. They believe in following policies of deterrence (which theoretically works, though you can never prove it) and what is known as "domino theory." Simply put, this is what got us into trouble in Vietnam...when one country falls to communism (insert radical/extremists elements for the modern version) then its neighboring countries are more likely to fall as well...domino effect. So, Iran is already on the baddies list having long since "fallen" to radicalism. Afghanistan went next, falling to extremists who then supported terrorism. Well, in the eyes of those in power (particularly Chenney & Rummy) this was proof that the domino theory was back. Well, in order to stop it and return a stabilizing influence to the region (which in their minds is so backwards it can't help itself) we need to remove a threat, help create a democratic regime and show those poor ignorent people how they're supposed to live. Okay, well now we need a threat....ahhh...Saddam is such a pain in the butt isn't he? Well, he's shown aggression in the past, he makes it hard for inspectors, he's anti-American (which automatically equates to terrorist now) and he's got lots of oil. Well, now we just need to find proof that Saddam is up to no good and we'll be good to go. Okay, so let's interview every questionable exiled "leader" we can get our hands on (many of whom had not been inside Iraq in decades) and some "defectors" who we'll just believe because...why would they lie? Okay, and now for intelligence, well inspections have actually been going pretty well and we can't find much of anything anymore. But he's still being pesky and that means that the reports must be wrong. So, VP Chenny and Rummy set up a separate intelligence gathering mechanism, run out of the DoD and start cranking out the most inflammatory info they can find. This of course gets the Presidents attention because he trusts his advisors (thats what they're there for anyway) and decides its time to act. I believe his decision was made in good faith, its just that everyone around him gave him a false picture of reality. And to top it off, the benefit of having created a culture of fear within the US after 9/11? Nobody questions the President for fear of being labeled "unpatriotic." And that, friends, is Mojlnir's recipe for war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmid Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 And that, friends, is Mojlnir's recipe for war. And just for garnish, add double-crossing - America pledged it's 'undying support' to Saddam back when he was their friendly face in the Middle East, so it's quite possible that Saddam would be a little off-guard due to this, and America knew this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arsisis Posted February 18, 2004 Author Share Posted February 18, 2004 I really hope Bush isn't re-elected. He's broken too many rules for his view of benefit. This war and some other things (he established some type of religious group in the white house). From all I am gathering it doesn't seem this war needed to happen at all. But hey, look at the bright side, it made him a popular president so now more people will vote for him... hey wait a sec... Everyone that posted in this thread better not vote Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Thief Oriana Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 I don't think many people on this entire board are even in the U.S., much less old enough to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDeadTree Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 My point still stand, however, that the man's presendency is a (definite?) lie - so what can we expect from a false president? Well that's the thing, Dark. False "president" or not, he's still in the whitehouse (when not on vacation). That's politics in America. Democrats screw you secretly, Republicans do it to your face. Who is worse? I dunno. The last Democrat in office that escalated a stupid war (Johnson) knew what was good for him and did not rerun for office. Granted we then got Nixon, who could be be described as both the best and worst president of the last 30 years and then went and blew the hell out of Vietnam. Despite our unbelieveable amount of gun violence in America, no one talked revolution when Bush Jr. took office. We're stuck with him, and his false presidency, his two-faced politics, his friends with deep pockets, and especially his handlers: Cheney and Wolfowitz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojlnir Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Too right...don't forget that evil little gnome Karl Rove though, he's scary too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muennin Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Perhaps the most telling element of the current American power structure, for me at least, was the location of Federal officials post 9-11. Bush, strings on his lips and hands, standing in front of cameras issuing pre-proclamations of vengeance...while Cheney remained "in an undisclosed location" manipulating said strings. So, shall we reelect the grand (and secure) puppeteer? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 No, never. Again I am forced to vote for the lesser of two Evils. Bush must not be re-elected, that is imperative; notonly to the U.S but to the safety and sanctity of the whole World. Right now, our hypocrit-in-Chief is attempting to build low yield Nukes (read "Mini-Nukes") that would fall under the category of 'Conventional Weapons' and not 'WMD'. That said, our Government could build up an unlimited stockpile of these weapons (if they ever got around to perfecting them and actually making one that works). Add to this that Bush not long after he was in office broke a long-standing treaty with the Russians (formerly Soviet Union) to never build a Missile Defense System (or one that can accuratley shoot down incoming Nukes, at the time MAD was the only way to guarentee World Safety since no one in their right mind would subject the annihilation of the Human Race over a squable in Social structures). So now Bush (or my Government, I've lost interest in either one...) is developing low yield Nukes to be used as Conventional Weapons, and to boot developing a Missile-Defense shield. To quote the Bard (slightly):"Something's rotten in Denmark" or, if you will, America. ~A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.