Quote:
Liberator? I'd not go so far - the "war on terrorism" is not based on wanting to liberate, but instead on wanting to exact revenge for the terrorist attacks against the U.S., and advance U.S. interests (why Blair jumped on board is beyond me - he probably politically sacrificed himself by doing so).It's the easy answer to say it is revenge. The reality is probably that they are trying to prevent terrorism in the future by taking out the instigators. Unfortunately to the slightly narrow minded it probably looks like plain old revenge
Quote:
There are far worse countries in the world that would gain far more from being "liberated" (Syria is a good example), yet these countries are not included in the "them" category. So, it's difficult to believe that Bush is really just trying to improve the world.Mmm yeah and let's not forget the fact that Syria sent support to the Iraqi army as well as 4000 suicide bombers.
Quote:
40% of Americans now believe that Saddam was directly responsible for Sept. 11th, because "Terrorist", "9/11", "Saddam", and "Iraq" have so often been used in the same sentence by political higher-ups, even though it has never been even so much as claimed that there is indeed a link.If Americans believe that then I guess that is their prerogative. I don't personally take that stance.
Quote:
So by all means, go to war with Saddam, take him and his cronies out, but don't try to pretend that this is somehow going to prevent future terrorism.I assume you are talking indirectly about the US government as I've never said it would reduce terrorism.
Quote:
What is the solution? I don't know, maybe there isn't one. But I think that engaging in wars with other countries is bound to make the situation worse. However, it could also be that _not_ taking Saddam out of power poses a larger and more dangerous threat than leaving him in power. So it is possible that the current action is simply the best of two evils - I really don't know which one is better.THat's probably about right. There are two choices, leave him in power and let him develop WMD and sell them to terrorists who already have financial support and the desire to carry out attacks _OR_ take out Saddam and in the process perhaps cause some anti-american feeling amongst civilians, but civilians who are very unlikely to ever carry out terrorist attacks and have financial backing.
Quote:
I'm sure news reporters could just as easily find people who are loathing the American "invasion," they simply choose not to show it in America and Britain.That's incorrect - anyway how do you know what they are showing in Britain =) ....I was watching Sky News earlier when they showed an interview with an iraqi - his friend and 3 children were killed by a US bomb and he was saying how much he hated the US.