Archives
- 01/18/2004 - 01/25/2004
- 01/25/2004 - 02/01/2004
- 02/01/2004 - 02/08/2004
- 02/08/2004 - 02/15/2004
- 02/15/2004 - 02/22/2004
- 02/22/2004 - 02/29/2004
- 02/29/2004 - 03/07/2004
- 05/30/2004 - 06/06/2004
- 11/14/2004 - 11/21/2004
- 11/28/2004 - 12/05/2004
- 12/05/2004 - 12/12/2004
- 12/26/2004 - 01/02/2005
- 03/13/2005 - 03/20/2005
- 03/27/2005 - 04/03/2005
- 04/03/2005 - 04/10/2005
- 04/10/2005 - 04/17/2005
- 04/17/2005 - 04/24/2005
- 04/24/2005 - 05/01/2005
- 05/01/2005 - 05/08/2005
- 05/08/2005 - 05/15/2005
- 05/15/2005 - 05/22/2005
- 06/12/2005 - 06/19/2005
- 06/19/2005 - 06/26/2005
- 07/03/2005 - 07/10/2005
- 07/17/2005 - 07/24/2005
- 07/24/2005 - 07/31/2005
- 06/18/2006 - 06/25/2006
You'd be surprised.
Monday, February 02, 2004
I'm watching this video called "Uncovered truth about the Iraq war". It's all about how the American leadership *tricked* the american congress and people into going to war. Hm. They start by saying that Iraq had no nuclear or biological weapons. At this point they have already lost my interest. I think that the weapons angle is totally moot. So I am still watching this thing because I'm interested in what they say.
Do they MEAN exactly what they say? Are they twisting truths and realities to suit THEIR own opinions?
President Bush Jr said " There is Al-Qeiada in Iraq". I probably f'd the spelling.
The rebuttal in this video is "Iraq was not part of the picture of terrorism before we invaded...Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden were enemies." The video goes on to describe how there was an Al Qeiada movement in Iraq outside of the zone controlled by Hussein and they were actively plotting against him (and the U.S). The truth however remains that there was Al Q in Iraq! Wtf.
Ok, Im not going to comment on this entire video. I'm just sick of people beating a dead horse. Who cares about the WMD. Hussein needed to be removed because he was in fact part of the picture of terrorism.
Do I agree that the U.S should extend it's long arm all over the world? Yes. I don't think it's "right". But it is required. What is "right"? Right is when there aren't civil wars in Africa every other month. Right is when Iraq is ruled by a fair leader that is interested in the welfare of his people, not just his own needs and desires. Right is when chech's and croatians and muslims all get along peacefully. Right is when the Palesitinians and the Jews stop fighting and have a great big orgy just for kicks. However, none of these things will happen anytime soon, so the U.S fills the role of the big bad sole superpower taking on an almost impirical stature.
I truly believe that if the U.S was not the Sole Superpower, and say a country like North Korea or China was, we'd all live in a very very miserable world. Even if American Leadership twists truths to convince congress and it's people to wage war on far away countries, is it not better than allowing these countries to torture and kill it's own people OR wage war on other nearby countries? Granted, the U.S doesn't have a perfect track record, but consider a similar situation when we did NOT get involved. WWII. We refused to get openly involved until we were attacked. Had we not been involved, had we let the world do it's thing and the Nazi regime march all over Europe ... we might be speaking German today. Most importantly, the world would very very few truly Free countries.
bzzt.
Do they MEAN exactly what they say? Are they twisting truths and realities to suit THEIR own opinions?
President Bush Jr said " There is Al-Qeiada in Iraq". I probably f'd the spelling.
The rebuttal in this video is "Iraq was not part of the picture of terrorism before we invaded...Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden were enemies." The video goes on to describe how there was an Al Qeiada movement in Iraq outside of the zone controlled by Hussein and they were actively plotting against him (and the U.S). The truth however remains that there was Al Q in Iraq! Wtf.
Ok, Im not going to comment on this entire video. I'm just sick of people beating a dead horse. Who cares about the WMD. Hussein needed to be removed because he was in fact part of the picture of terrorism.
Do I agree that the U.S should extend it's long arm all over the world? Yes. I don't think it's "right". But it is required. What is "right"? Right is when there aren't civil wars in Africa every other month. Right is when Iraq is ruled by a fair leader that is interested in the welfare of his people, not just his own needs and desires. Right is when chech's and croatians and muslims all get along peacefully. Right is when the Palesitinians and the Jews stop fighting and have a great big orgy just for kicks. However, none of these things will happen anytime soon, so the U.S fills the role of the big bad sole superpower taking on an almost impirical stature.
I truly believe that if the U.S was not the Sole Superpower, and say a country like North Korea or China was, we'd all live in a very very miserable world. Even if American Leadership twists truths to convince congress and it's people to wage war on far away countries, is it not better than allowing these countries to torture and kill it's own people OR wage war on other nearby countries? Granted, the U.S doesn't have a perfect track record, but consider a similar situation when we did NOT get involved. WWII. We refused to get openly involved until we were attacked. Had we not been involved, had we let the world do it's thing and the Nazi regime march all over Europe ... we might be speaking German today. Most importantly, the world would very very few truly Free countries.
bzzt.
Posted by: 
/ 1:48 PM
/ 1:48 PM- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -