Quote by shinsengumiI guess
I'll toss my two cents into the pot.
Quote by Lacuslover81last
I check there was no weapons of mass distruction there.
You speak with the gift of hindsight. Before
entering the war, it was the general consensus amongst the intelligence community both in the United States and in
Europe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. More importantly, ridding Iraq of WMD was never the sole purpose of
entering into Iraq. A key aspect of the neoconservative movement is the belief that it is a right of people to live
without fear and to be able to determine their own fates democratically, and and therefore the desire to remove Saddam
Hussein and sow the seeds of democratic governance was an important factor for the decision to go to war. A clear
indication of this fundamental goal can be seen with the very name of the operation: Operation Iraqi Freedom (as opposed
to something along the lines of Operation Get Nukes Out Of Iraq).
Well that is a point of view since the general consensus was also that it wasn't worth to go to war, and the
international community wasn't convinced by the WMD, or by the good wishes of the Neoconservatives (after all,
North Korea was seen more dangerous and more likely to be an international threat, and well so Nigeria uranium, no real
terrorist links to Irak (but now thanks to this war, there are), no link with 09/11. And I'm pretty sure that this
"Freedom" claimed by the actual american government stands nicely with Abu Graib, Guantanamo, retaining
without charge some people, changing some words like "torture", "civilians",
"occupation".
I may be cynic but isn't it true that the USA also choose according to its interests... quite sure that the
international consensus was more likely to be about the Palestinia state...
Quote by shinsengumi
Quote by Acyx Impeach Bush and
Cheney. . . for conspiring to murder more than three thousand Americans in 9-11 in order to gain his so-called
"just cause" to go to war with Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Given the number of people who
subscribe to conspiracy theories such as this, at times I truly despair for the current state and future of humanity.
Conspiracy theories play to fears and emotions, but any scrutiny with a rational lens shows them to be nothing but
particularly fanciful and hysterical fiction.
In general practice, four criteria are used to evaluate the plausibility of theories: Occam's razor, the emotional
and psychological needs of the proponents, whether or now the proof for the theory uses proper and rigorous methodology,
and the number of co-conspirators necessary for the conspiracy theory to actually be true. Even after just brief
scrutiny, one can cleary see that the (absurd) idea that the government murdered thousands of citizens as a pretense for
going to war does not meet any of those four criteria and therefore can be ruled out as baseless speculation.
I suppose, however, given the gullible nature of the public and the paucity of objective reason, that it will forever be
impossible to fully stamp out conspiracy theories regardless of how much evidence and how much proof one presents, as
the psychological and emotional attachments that proponents have to their theories generally cause them to further
stretch their theories to try to encompass all other possibilities into a monolithic theory of reality that objective
observers frankly find not only to be ludicrous, but comic.
But, that is just my opinion.
I don't think it was a conspiration for 9-11 but I think there were manipulation for this Iraq war, so that's
why they should be impeached. If someone can be impeached for having an affair, I wonder if it isn't more serious
when it deals with things like bringing some soldiers to war.
If there were no manipulations :
Ah well... so I don't why there's this thing with Valerie Plame now. I don't see where are the WMD the
government was so sure to be there in Iraq, and I don't see either why the USA distance themselves from some Iraqi
people that were witnesses to WMD's existence. I have too a hard time believing that most of the american people
have imagined by their own Iraq had a relationship with 09/11. I don't even see why this Iraq war didn't have
the blessing of UN.
But I think there was a strange thing in the USA where not agreeing with the president was seen unpatriotic, even
working with the terrorists... as if following someone just because he's the leader is a good thing. It must be why
I like so this quote :
On the President:
"He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his
efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able and disinterested service to the nation as a whole.
"Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this
means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other
attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or
wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth
should be spoken about him or anyone else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant,
about him than about any one else."
Theodore Roosevelt
Quote: Funny. Last I checked, the figure for the President's
disapproval rating was 60%, as published by ABC, the BBC, and the Washington Post. Please base your arguement on the
data available rather than conjuring statistics based on your opinion.
Well, true that the "95 % of us" would be better with a source. But I don't think it's the american
population. Minitokyo ? Worldwide (think it's more than 60 %) ?
