posted 04-08-2004 02:24 PM
Excellent points, shatoga, considering the social organization and characteristics of a cultlike group. Of course I see those group characteristics in the Bush administration.And I would like to speak to the concept that Bush taking out Sadam Hussein is a God-condoned act in itself and so humanitarian that it is beyond scrutiny.
First of all, Congress only has the power to wage war. This was instituted because of human nature and fallibility in one leader-- a wise move of our founding fathers. Due to the fears caused by 9/11 both engendered in the people and the politicians, the Congress too quickly and under duress gave the president the power to react to 9/11, not realizing that he would make a false connection to Saddam Hussein, thumb his nose to the UN and most other countries, and pursue a path that surprised and disappointed many who voted to give him the power.
IT WAS NEVER PROVEN THAT HUSSEIN WAS CONNECTED IN ANY WAY TO 9/11
The WMD excuse to attack Iraq came next as the reason to invade. Did that turn out to be true?
IT STILL TO THIS DAY HAS NOT BEEN SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE
The argument to this day includes the following:
1) they moved it
2) and someone will yet find it
Is this fair to the people of the U.S. who are solely paying for the destruction (including innocent Iraqis) and paying in blood for an "eminant" (Consitution) threat to our freedom and safety?
OUR FREEDOM AND SAFETY WERE NEVER THREATENED
The real reason Bush attacked Iraq is that sanctions were about to be lifted and the administration feared the European and Russian oil and economic deals in the works with Iraq would lower the value of the dollar in reference to favoring of the Euro. and thus hurt our economy. The other underlying reason, was deftly laid out by the PNAC, O'Neil's book, Clarke's book, and Kwiatkowski's essays, that the aim and goal of this administration from day 1 was to establish a base in Iraq (power) and have direct and sole access to the oil reserves. It's called hegemony -- a larger nation taking over a smaller one in order to secure its resources. Even Condi Rice's testimony today proves that they ignored warnings of Al Queda and looked the other way when intelligence and individuals were pounding on their doors to be vigilent. They weren't. And many documents attest to this fact including John Ashcroft's list of priorities.
THE ADMINISTRATION WAS NOT STRONG ON NATIONAL DEFENSE
To underline shatoga's theory, those who questioned the administration's concentration and stated goals toward Iraq in the face of information pointing to Al Queda were called "traitors." Instead of answering the questions and responding to criticisms openly and honestly they continued to try to ostrasize and demonize those who in our free country, would even question their claims and goals! This is not freedom! Now, even peace protestors are being targeted for investigation on the democratic principle of dissent. Is this Democracy and freedom?
When you consider the fact that Saddam Hussein was given weapons of mass destruction by our government back in the late eighties in order to fight Iran, it was amazing what a great clean up job the Iraqi's performed. However, they were sanctioned and watched for many years after Bush I's war and hadn't the infrastructure to sustain any kind of science in that regard. Most of Hussein's money was spent on building underground palaces.
THERE WAS NO CASE AGAINST HUSSEIN IN REGARD TO WMD OR 9/11
Yes, Saddam was a mean and cruel dictator. But so is Korea's head of state. And why didn't Bush attack Korea under the same premise that they then adopted for justification of invasion -- crimes against humanity? Korea starves its people, kills them, and threatens us and their neighbors and definately HAS WMD in the form of nuclear weapons! Answer that!
WHERE'S OSAMA BIN LADEN?
Now, as far as God? God does not condone killing. Period. Anyone who thinks God is on anyone's side who kills another human being, whether Islamic or Christian is sorely deluded.
Many Iraqis are, of course, thankful Hussein is gone. But HOW could Hussein have been ousted without damaging Iraq's infrastructure (more than it was already damaged through sanctions) and killing and wounding thousands of its people and killing and wounding hundreds of our own wonderful people (which continues) ? HOW could the world have controlled this cruel dictator without one country, and one country only paying for the bill? Think. Just a handful of countries helped us and are in Iraq still, and some of those are leaving. Most of the Western world turned against America, also, because of this administration. Is that not a sign that something was wrong? Was this advantageous for America in the global world of alliances and trust?
ARE WE SAFER NOW?
NO.
Those of you who feel the invasion of Iraq was justified and somehow a great act of humanitarianism have not read enough nor informed yourself enough on the administration's reasons for such a hasty and violent act. FBI and CIA information, afterall, said that Hussein would not be a REAL threat to America for at least five or six years.
Now, when I refer to Bush, I am also referring to Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle (at the time), Rice, and Rumsfeld as well as Ashcroft (domestically). Bush lacks true leadership and independence of thought.
You who think this administration is beyond scrutiny, need to read and read and read!
Don't be a dittohead! Think for yourself!
==========================
"A common and natural result of an undue respect for law is that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power?":
Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience
=
"Dress it as we may, feather it, daub it with gold, huzza it, and sing swaggering songs about it, what is war, nine times out of ten, but murder in uniform?":
Douglas Jerrold
=
"War hath no fury like a noncombatant":
Charles Edward Montague, Disenchantment
===
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Boomer Chick on 04-08-2004]