Jump to content


Photo

It is unfair to blame US government for War in Iraq


  • Please log in to reply
92 replies to this topic

#1 legendsofaranna

legendsofaranna

    Wowow! BoA is awesome!

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 19 November 2007 - 03:11 PM

Before I go further, take note of the fact that 71% of Americans supported the War in Iraq before the actual invasion began: http://www.e-thepeop...icle/15223/view

You might argue that Americans supported because they did not know Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. But Americans did know that the Bush Administration had no evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. UN inspections did not find Iraqi WMDs before the invasion.

The United States and Britain should give United Nations weapons inspectors more intelligence about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, chief inspector Hans Blix said today.

http://www.guardian....,863570,00.html

As you can find, Americans knew that the US and UK administration had no evidence that Iraq had any WMDs before the actual invasion began. And yet, they still supported the War in Iraq.

Moreover, Americans knew before the Iraqi invasion that Saddam had no connection whatsoever to Osama Bin Laden:

The go-to-war camp would love to prove that Saddam Hussein is doing business with Osama bin Laden. They talk up suspicions, but no one's got proof


http://archives.cnn....iraq/index.html

As you can see, Americans also knew that there was no evidence of a link between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. But still, 71% of Americans supported the War in Iraq.

As for the US government's claim that they want to free the Iraqi people from Saddam's dictatorship, again, Americans knew before the invasion that this was not possible.



Dick Cheney publicly said in an interview that invading Iraq will created a quagmire.

If that wasn't enough then here is more evidence that Americans knew Iraq was not prepared for a democracy before the Iraqi invasion began:

"The thing I worry about at the end of the day," said Lugar, "is not that Saddam would fall, but...that there aren't people in Iraq that may be prepared for democracy as we know it. Suggestions are, in fact, [that] liberal democracy might even lead to more terrorists being spawned out of the process." He added, "I think we need much more concentrated thinking."

http://archives.cnn.....war/index.html

I'm not going to quote these but here is more evidence:

http://www.highbeam....1P2-390987.html
http://www.highbeam....1-91381861.html
http://www.guardian....4525648,00.html

I have provided so much references and sources to prove that Americans knew Iraq wouldn't turn into a democracy before the invasion started.


Conclusion: Americans knew Iraq had no WMDs before the Iraqi invasion started. Americans knew Iraq had no connection with Osama Bin Laden before the Iraqi invasion started. Americans knew Iraq will not turn into a democracy before the invasion started. And yet, 71% of Americans supported the war before the Iraqi invasion started. In conclusion, I think it is unfair to blame George W.Bush or anyone else in the US administration for the War in Iraq because it was AMERICANS who wanted the War in Iraq. George W. Bush was just trying to serve the American people.


I don't mind if you disagree with me. But the facts are there. You can't argue with the facts. So please, do not blame George W. Bush. He was just doing his job to serve the American people's wishes.
Lastly, do not make the argument that Americans were not aware of this before the War in Iraq. That is their fault, not the media nor the government's fault.

Edited by legendsofaranna, 19 November 2007 - 03:37 PM.


#2 itslikedat

itslikedat

    My girlfriend just dumped me. -_-

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts

Posted 19 November 2007 - 05:29 PM

Eh...I'm not American but because more than half of America hates him now, how come the army doesn't leave Iraq....?

#3 legendsofaranna

legendsofaranna

    Wowow! BoA is awesome!

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 19 November 2007 - 05:34 PM

Eh...I'm not American but because more than half of America hates him now, how come the army doesn't leave Iraq....?


If the entire army leaves now, Iraq will be plunged into total social disorder as the sectarian violence intensifies. Iran will surely send its own army into Iraq to try to stabilize the country by themselves. These results contradicts America's interests and as a result, troops will not be totally pulled back anytime soon. Given that reconstruction have hardly begun and the new Iraqi government is still not unable to govern Iraq, I doubt America can pull back even a few amount of their troops. The insurgents have became a lot more powerful since the start of the invasion. The situation in Iraq is getting harder to control. And finally, due to the instability of the American economy right now, America lacks the sufficient funds to try to improve conditions in Iraq.

Edited by legendsofaranna, 19 November 2007 - 05:35 PM.


#4 diswunazn

diswunazn

    Who's BoA?

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 19 November 2007 - 11:21 PM

It's unfair to blame the goverment, but it's completely fair to blame Bush.

#5 Pol2ns7al2

Pol2ns7al2

    I'm an official BoA fan!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 169 posts

Posted 19 November 2007 - 11:47 PM

yeah i remember supporting the war in iraq when i was in 7th grade
im from ny and we especially were reeling from the effects of 9/11
it was hard not to form unreasonable hard feelings against the terrorists
especially since the american (what is it like 37th "free"-ranked in the world now?) media constantly pointed fingers at them

corporate media fed us jilted poop and we took it

#6 hinachan

hinachan

    I miss my mom so much....

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,472 posts

Posted 20 November 2007 - 12:27 AM

71% of Americans supported the invasion ONLY because we were misled by the Bush administration, just as the House and Senate were. Because of this deception and the failed war, Bush's approval rating hovers around 30%...one of the worst Presidental approval ratings in U.S. history.

To address the rest of your post:

Have you any idea of how few Americans are sufficiently hard-core news junkies, to hear anything of what Hans Blix said? How many even know who the hell he is? I'm a news junkie, and even *I* didn't recognize his name till I read the article. All we were hearing from the Bush camp was that Iraq had WMD's and they were going to sneak into our country and plant "dirty bombs"...it was a constant litany of fear-mongering.

Same for the "connection" between Saddam and Osama. The White House propaganda team did a great job of convincing people there was a connection. Of course, the truth was out there--in VERY small doses, compared to the BS being spewed by the White House--but to paraphrase the old saying, the lies were halfway around the world by the time truth put on its boots.

Dick Cheney publicly said in an interview that invading Iraq will created a quagmire.

That interview you refer to was done in 1994, while BILL CLINTON was President. By the time there was actual talk of an Iraq war, under Bush, Cheney had done a total 180 on the issue. That's why this clip was posted on YouTube--to prove that Cheney has recently been lying through his teeth, just to promote an illegal and unnecessary war.

You're from Canada--you have no idea what we in the U.S. have been hearing from the White House and our media ever since 9/11. I'll hand it to the Bush Administration: They did a great job of brainwashing the masses into believing a lie, using our anger and heartache over 9/11 to make our emotions override our common sense. They did a good enough job to convince 71% of us that the war was the right thing to do, to protect this country.

Most people here are so busy trying to make ends meet, that they don't have time to go online, etc., and get the real stories of what's going on in the world. Headlines and sound bites are all you can absorb, when people are being laid off, their jobs being outsourced overseas, their medical insurance premiums going sky-high, etc.

In the USA (if you'd care to look up this statistic), most bankruptcies result from medical expenses, and this has been the case for years. That's something else you don't experience, living in a country with universal health care. When people are preoccupied with matters of "How the hell am I going to make enough money to pay my bills?", or "I'll have to eat less food so I can afford my medicine," they don't have time to pay attention to the news. Those who ARE comfortably off are too self-absorbed to care about the news.

That's just what the Bush Administration was banking on. And it worked.

So it's not unfair to blame the Bush Administration for this war. They waged war in an illegal manner, which Americans did not want them to do. They're wiping their butts on our Constitution, which we did not want them to do. They lied to get us into this war, which is the only reason Americans naively supported it in the first place.

Now they're trying to do the same in Iran, even though most Americans are AGAINST that proposed war. Our troops are exhausted and spread too thin already! But logic and reason means nothing to the Bush Administration.

They deserve 100% total blame for the war in Iraq.

One other thing (and I don't mean this in a nasty way). I don't make any pretenses of understanding Canadian politics or the Canadian media, because I don't live there. Similarly, you don't live here, so you don't understand what's going on here. So please don't assume that you understand what Americans supposedly knew before the Iraq War, because you don't. :notworthy:

#7 FlootySwoop

FlootySwoop

    Wowow! BoA is awesome!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 426 posts

Posted 20 November 2007 - 07:00 AM

IMO, Iraq had it coming. The way saddam does things makes most people go wtf and the citizens still support him and see him as a hero. I just don't get what good they'd get out of it...

#8 itslikedat

itslikedat

    My girlfriend just dumped me. -_-

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts

Posted 20 November 2007 - 11:41 AM

And finally, due to the instability of the American economy right now, America lacks the sufficient funds to try to improve conditions in Iraq.


Can you explain that please? I don't really understand this. They can't improve conditions in Iraq, so they're only there to sort of protect the people even though their ecnomy is unstable? :unsure:

#9 legendsofaranna

legendsofaranna

    Wowow! BoA is awesome!

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 20 November 2007 - 02:07 PM

71% of Americans supported the invasion ONLY because we were misled by the Bush administration, just as the House and Senate were. Because of this deception and the failed war, Bush's approval rating hovers around 30%...one of the worst Presidental approval ratings in U.S. history.

To address the rest of your post:

Have you any idea of how few Americans are sufficiently hard-core news junkies, to hear anything of what Hans Blix said? How many even know who the hell he is? I'm a news junkie, and even *I* didn't recognize his name till I read the article. All we were hearing from the Bush camp was that Iraq had WMD's and they were going to sneak into our country and plant "dirty bombs"...it was a constant litany of fear-mongering.

Same for the "connection" between Saddam and Osama. The White House propaganda team did a great job of convincing people there was a connection. Of course, the truth was out there--in VERY small doses, compared to the BS being spewed by the White House--but to paraphrase the old saying, the lies were halfway around the world by the time truth put on its boots.
That interview you refer to was done in 1994, while BILL CLINTON was President. By the time there was actual talk of an Iraq war, under Bush, Cheney had done a total 180 on the issue. That's why this clip was posted on YouTube--to prove that Cheney has recently been lying through his teeth, just to promote an illegal and unnecessary war.

You're from Canada--you have no idea what we in the U.S. have been hearing from the White House and our media ever since 9/11. I'll hand it to the Bush Administration: They did a great job of brainwashing the masses into believing a lie, using our anger and heartache over 9/11 to make our emotions override our common sense. They did a good enough job to convince 71% of us that the war was the right thing to do, to protect this country.

Most people here are so busy trying to make ends meet, that they don't have time to go online, etc., and get the real stories of what's going on in the world. Headlines and sound bites are all you can absorb, when people are being laid off, their jobs being outsourced overseas, their medical insurance premiums going sky-high, etc.

In the USA (if you'd care to look up this statistic), most bankruptcies result from medical expenses, and this has been the case for years. That's something else you don't experience, living in a country with universal health care. When people are preoccupied with matters of "How the hell am I going to make enough money to pay my bills?", or "I'll have to eat less food so I can afford my medicine," they don't have time to pay attention to the news. Those who ARE comfortably off are too self-absorbed to care about the news.

That's just what the Bush Administration was banking on. And it worked.

So it's not unfair to blame the Bush Administration for this war. They waged war in an illegal manner, which Americans did not want them to do. They're wiping their butts on our Constitution, which we did not want them to do. They lied to get us into this war, which is the only reason Americans naively supported it in the first place.

Now they're trying to do the same in Iran, even though most Americans are AGAINST that proposed war. Our troops are exhausted and spread too thin already! But logic and reason means nothing to the Bush Administration.

They deserve 100% total blame for the war in Iraq.

One other thing (and I don't mean this in a nasty way). I don't make any pretenses of understanding Canadian politics or the Canadian media, because I don't live there. Similarly, you don't live here, so you don't understand what's going on here. So please don't assume that you understand what Americans supposedly knew before the Iraq War, because you don't. :unsure:

Nicely said. Here's my counter on this:

Well, Americans did knew that Bush did not have any evidence for his claims. They just willingly accepted Bush's claims without asking themselves where the evidence was.
The news I'm digging up is 5 years ago. Many people forgot most of the news that were reported back then. So, I'm not surprised that you didn't know who Hans Blix was. But 5 years ago, his name was all over the mainstream media. Many of the articles I cited above were mass published before the Iraqi invasion began.
So, sure, I perfectly agree you were misled by the government but the media did do their job. They reported both sides of the argument. Sure, some just repeated what the government said but some articles publicly reported their analysis that there was no evidence to all of Bush's claims.
I believe that, in a democracy, citizens are responsible to keep up with political issues because ultimately, it is they who are making the decisions, not really the government. The government is only there to serve the people's wishes. So, it is not responsible for some American citizens to not keep up with the news at all.

I also perfectly agree that, for the most part, I only know a piece of the puzzle when it comes to understanding American affairs. Indeed, what I was assuming was that Americans were responsible and kept on top of political issues. However, as you pointed out, I was wrong. Americans were irresponsible in the political spectrum because they did not stay on top of political issues. In the end, the US government does take a part of the blame to lying but Americans also take a part of the blame for not staying on top of political issues. Americans are also responsible for not questioning their president's claims.

And while I am not in America, I stay aware of what's going on, not only in America, but in the world as well. You pointed out how a lot of Americans do not read the news. Assuming what you said is correct, one can say that I have the potential to know more about America's domestic issues than the average American.

Can you explain that please? I don't really understand this. They can't improve conditions in Iraq, so they're only there to sort of protect the people even though their ecnomy is unstable? blink.gif


Yes, what you're thinking is exactly what I'm saying. Troops can't improve conditions in Iraq but they are trying to maintain the stability of Iraq. At least the US government thinks this is better than to give up and let Iraq plunge into chaos. Note that a lot of Iraqis will die if US troops pull out. The violence will be unstoppable. Think of Darfur to visualize this.

#10 Mashimaro-san

Mashimaro-san

    VIVID

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,478 posts

Posted 20 November 2007 - 02:28 PM

I blame George Bush :unsure:. Every president has their own tactics. I dislike most of the American presidents though. But I think the American government is spending way too much money on Iraq or those countries, and sending a lot of their army. I would really be happy if the president creates a universal health care for it's people, because it's a shame one of the richest countries don't have health care. Countries like U.K, Japan and Canada have one of the best health cares.

Canadian Prime Ministers are better in my opinion hehehe! Most of them hardly ever sent massive amounts of army after WWII, and because of that we have a really big army reserve and most of them are working other jobs like doctors, etc.

Edited by Mashimaro-san, 20 November 2007 - 02:32 PM.


#11 Dracover

Dracover

    I'm an official BoA fan!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 105 posts

Posted 20 November 2007 - 09:34 PM

well i do agree that the US government is to blame. so many lies were put out by them and my own governments.

i think the issue with public support has a lot to do with any particular society in general.

I will put forward my opinion of americans and then my own country australia as a comparison.

1: Strong support of the war at the start due mainly to white house propaganda. The public tends to take their word for it. I think the comment by hinachan about not knowing hans blix (a news savy american) shows how amero centric they are. anyone ever seen american world news? your lucky if they decide to mention Canada. Wether it's the media or the way society as developed the US disregards opinions of other countries and entities cause they're up themselves no offence but you are. what this means is that they tend not to hear both sides of the story.

2. hinachans economic arguement: America was doing fine pre 9/11. economically sound, immediately after 9/11 yes economically things began to deteriorate but really it was only after the iraq war started or was at least proposed that people started feeling shaking and lost confidence in the economy and major economic deterioation began. However the decision was before this so how can you say people are preoccupied by making ends meet. if that was the case then it's always been like this and not something new what made this so special. americans in the past have made good decisions under the same economic circumstances so why couldnt they do it then doesnt make sense unless you want to argue americans have always been under huge finacial stress (for decades and decades) and so have always made silly decisions which I would disagree with.

3. now the american public wants the troops out and leave the iraq people enpoverished. very giving of them. it again reflects their selfishness and self rightiousness. its all about them. we're spending too much money therefore lets get out.


how's this different from a country like australia who also went into this war?

1. majority of the australian public were against the war going in. the australian government was telling the same rhetoric that the american government has but yet the people could think for themselves.

2. economically australia with it's close links to south east asia was still feeling the effects of the south east asian crisis of the late 90s. we weren't in a recssion but not having any sort of major economic growth or strength. however this did not detach the public from making their minds up.

3. the Austrlian public is against any immediate withdrawl of troops. whilst they are against the war they don't want troops to just get pulled. this is because all thats gonna do is leave iraq in a mess and harbour more terroists.

any comments welcome.

just a closing remark my comments whilst shows how the american people brought this on themselves doesn't mean it's their fault as such. mostly i'm placing blame on the american society and how it's developed in recent times.

#12 kireisnowtenshi

kireisnowtenshi

    My girlfriend just dumped me. -_-

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,185 posts

Posted 21 November 2007 - 02:50 PM

Well I hate the president.

Im hopeing that someone tries to assassinate him.

And I do not agree that it is unfair to blame the US government for the war. It's obvious its their fault...why anyone would try to dispute that is beyond me.

The president is the head of the government therefore he decides all the issues and makes all the decisions right or wrong. He made a wrong choice, therefore he is to blame if you want to blame him.

And since when is our economy bad?!

Well...I live in California and we do happen to be the 5th largest economy in the WORLD lol. The U.S. being first...so ehhh Cali could survive on its own so screw the rest of America.

I guess the only thing I can say is that when people in your own republican party start denouncing the war and your wrong doings its really high time that you just admit defeat.

#13 legendsofaranna

legendsofaranna

    Wowow! BoA is awesome!

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 21 November 2007 - 03:11 PM

Well...I live in California and we do happen to be the 5th largest economy in the WORLD lol. The U.S. being first...so ehhh Cali could survive on its own so screw the rest of America.


Really? I'd like to see California defend on its own without America's military since you're so confident California could survive on its own without America.


Im hopeing that someone tries to assassinate him.


I'm hoping the Secret Service doesn't knock on your door.

#14 Spring Sakura

Spring Sakura

    My family just disowned me!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,539 posts

Posted 22 November 2007 - 06:00 AM

First things first...that 71% was NOT representative of the American public as a whole. It was conducted by Fox studios for gods sake. That's a limited sample size right there. Everyone sees those voting polls on the news --how many people actually pick up the phone and do it?
Do you know the sample size? Was it 100 people, 1000 or 20? Were they all from one area? What were the ages? The social standings? Is there another survey conducted similarly to compare it to? What time was this news poll aired? 6pm? 10pm? 2pm? Who had access to it?

Another thing is, what news stories were aired during this poll? Was it a story where George W. Bush raved on about how evil Iraq was? Or was it something unrelated?

Nicely said. Here's my counter on this:

Well, Americans did knew that Bush did not have any evidence for his claims. They just willingly accepted Bush's claims without asking themselves where the evidence was.
The news I'm digging up is 5 years ago. Many people forgot most of the news that were reported back then. So, I'm not surprised that you didn't know who Hans Blix was. But 5 years ago, his name was all over the mainstream media. Many of the articles I cited above were mass published before the Iraqi invasion began.
So, sure, I perfectly agree you were misled by the government but the media did do their job. They reported both sides of the argument. Sure, some just repeated what the government said but some articles publicly reported their analysis that there was no evidence to all of Bush's claims.
I believe that, in a democracy, citizens are responsible to keep up with political issues because ultimately, it is they who are making the decisions, not really the government. The government is only there to serve the people's wishes. So, it is not responsible for some American citizens to not keep up with the news at all.

I also perfectly agree that, for the most part, I only know a piece of the puzzle when it comes to understanding American affairs. Indeed, what I was assuming was that Americans were responsible and kept on top of political issues. However, as you pointed out, I was wrong. Americans were irresponsible in the political spectrum because they did not stay on top of political issues. In the end, the US government does take a part of the blame to lying but Americans also take a part of the blame for not staying on top of political issues. Americans are also responsible for not questioning their president's claims.

And while I am not in America, I stay aware of what's going on, not only in America, but in the world as well. You pointed out how a lot of Americans do not read the news. Assuming what you said is correct, one can say that I have the potential to know more about America's domestic issues than the average American.


It's naiive (no offense) to assume that everyone in one country is educated profficiently enough to even grasp the concept that the media can misle them. You're assuming that everyone in america is educated, everyone finished high school, everyone was brought up in a politically aware households where interest in politics was cultivated to its full potential.
Fact is that alot of americans do NOT have access to education. Sure, there are plenty of school --but access doesnt mean a person's ability to walk to a school, it also involves immediate social and economical situation.

It's unfair to blame American people simply because you believe everyone should keep up to date with politics. What about food? Money? Family?
You're assuming everyone has time to watch the news every night. If you have five kids to feed, are you really going to sit at home wondering about the political situation of the country?

Furthermore, the media may be technically doing its job --but not ALL news programs and newspapers tell both sides of the story as you claim. The mainstream ones AT THE MOST tell a small teeeny wheeeny part of one side of the story, but focuses more on the other part. It's sort of like this:

IRAQ IS EVIL AND PLANS TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD WITH ITS NUCLEAR WEAPONS OF DESTRUCTION. WE HAVE TO STOP THEM. ...but they might not actually have weapons of destruction.


Sure, there exists programs and newspapers that are unbiased but they are.never.mainstream. Frankly, American people, like people all over the world have more things to worry about than politicals and world news --the American Government knows this --and manipulate this to its full advantage.
If you had to worry about whether or not you had enough money to eat --would you really give a crap about the actual political situation of your country --or would you be more concerned about how hungry you were?

The point is that if the government didn't want to go to war in the first place, they could have easily manipulated the media to send a message other than 'we must invade iraq'. If George W. Bush didn't want to go to war (and if he was as innocent of blame as you claim --he wouldnt want to because he would KNOW that the Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction and that Suddam was not connected to Bin Ladin) he could have easily avoided it.

Yes, what you're thinking is exactly what I'm saying. Troops can't improve conditions in Iraq but they are trying to maintain the stability of Iraq. At least the US government thinks this is better than to give up and let Iraq plunge into chaos. Note that a lot of Iraqis will die if US troops pull out. The violence will be unstoppable. Think of Darfur to visualize this.


Do you HONESTLY think that the sole purpose of the US keeping troops in Iraq is to maintain stability?
For someone who is so apparently knowledgable of world politics that's TOO naiive an opinion. Sure them being there is probably better than them packing up and leaving Iraq in the state that its in, HOWEVER, that is not the MAIN REASON the US is keeping them bloody there.
When America says 'we will leave as soon as the political situation in Iraq is stable' what they're really saying is 'we'll leave once we have sunk our military and political fangs into the Iraq Government as deeply as we possibly can' 'we'll leave when the country and its political system is 100% under the control of the US' 'we'll leave once we have moulded the country into something that best benefits the US'.

Considering its actions in invading the country in the first place, it's illogical to assume that they're there soley to maintain stability.

Edited by Spring Sakura, 22 November 2007 - 06:02 AM.


#15 legendsofaranna

legendsofaranna

    Wowow! BoA is awesome!

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 22 November 2007 - 01:15 PM

First things first...that 71% was NOT representative of the American public as a whole. It was conducted by Fox studios for gods sake. That's a limited sample size right there. Everyone sees those voting polls on the news --how many people actually pick up the phone and do it?
Do you know the sample size? Was it 100 people, 1000 or 20? Were they all from one area? What were the ages? The social standings? Is there another survey conducted similarly to compare it to? What time was this news poll aired? 6pm? 10pm? 2pm? Who had access to it?

Another thing is, what news stories were aired during this poll? Was it a story where George W. Bush raved on about how evil Iraq was? Or was it something unrelated?
It's naiive (no offense) to assume that everyone in one country is educated profficiently enough to even grasp the concept that the media can misle them. You're assuming that everyone in america is educated, everyone finished high school, everyone was brought up in a politically aware households where interest in politics was cultivated to its full potential.
Fact is that alot of americans do NOT have access to education. Sure, there are plenty of school --but access doesnt mean a person's ability to walk to a school, it also involves immediate social and economical situation.

It's unfair to blame American people simply because you believe everyone should keep up to date with politics. What about food? Money? Family?
You're assuming everyone has time to watch the news every night. If you have five kids to feed, are you really going to sit at home wondering about the political situation of the country?

Furthermore, the media may be technically doing its job --but not ALL news programs and newspapers tell both sides of the story as you claim. The mainstream ones AT THE MOST tell a small teeeny wheeeny part of one side of the story, but focuses more on the other part. It's sort of like this:

IRAQ IS EVIL AND PLANS TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD WITH ITS NUCLEAR WEAPONS OF DESTRUCTION. WE HAVE TO STOP THEM. ...but they might not actually have weapons of destruction.


Sure, there exists programs and newspapers that are unbiased but they are.never.mainstream. Frankly, American people, like people all over the world have more things to worry about than politicals and world news --the American Government knows this --and manipulate this to its full advantage.
If you had to worry about whether or not you had enough money to eat --would you really give a crap about the actual political situation of your country --or would you be more concerned about how hungry you were?

The point is that if the government didn't want to go to war in the first place, they could have easily manipulated the media to send a message other than 'we must invade iraq'. If George W. Bush didn't want to go to war (and if he was as innocent of blame as you claim --he wouldnt want to because he would KNOW that the Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction and that Suddam was not connected to Bin Ladin) he could have easily avoided it.
Do you HONESTLY think that the sole purpose of the US keeping troops in Iraq is to maintain stability?
For someone who is so apparently knowledgable of world politics that's TOO naiive an opinion. Sure them being there is probably better than them packing up and leaving Iraq in the state that its in, HOWEVER, that is not the MAIN REASON the US is keeping them bloody there.
When America says 'we will leave as soon as the political situation in Iraq is stable' what they're really saying is 'we'll leave once we have sunk our military and political fangs into the Iraq Government as deeply as we possibly can' 'we'll leave when the country and its political system is 100% under the control of the US' 'we'll leave once we have moulded the country into something that best benefits the US'.

Considering its actions in invading the country in the first place, it's illogical to assume that they're there soley to maintain stability.

Do you HONESTLY think that the sole purpose of the US keeping troops in Iraq is to maintain stability?
For someone who is so apparently knowledgable of world politics that's TOO naiive an opinion. Sure them being there is probably better than them packing up and leaving Iraq in the state that its in, HOWEVER, that is not the MAIN REASON the US is keeping them bloody there.
When America says 'we will leave as soon as the political situation in Iraq is stable' what they're really saying is 'we'll leave once we have sunk our military and political fangs into the Iraq Government as deeply as we possibly can' 'we'll leave when the country and its political system is 100% under the control of the US' 'we'll leave once we have moulded the country into something that best benefits the US'.

Considering its actions in invading the country in the first place, it's illogical to assume that they're there soley to maintain stability.


I had to re-read that quite a couple of times and I'm still not sure what you're really trying to tell me. I see that first, you told me that maintaining stability is not the purpose. Then, you told me that the purpose is to have Iraq and its political system under 100% control by the US. But, that is indeed about maintaining stability.

As for the rest of your post, one can say that democracy in America does not work if a majority of its citizens are not up to date to political issues with independent thinking.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users