Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I'm not disagreeing that Saddam is defiant and a lyer. Of course he is! I just don't think this initiative was put forth in the right manner. Again, there was not enough diplomacy put forth for more world support of a strike, and the wrong reasons were given for such a strike. That's simply my opinion, but I'm not alone. Most of the world agrees. This war wasn't provoked as much as it was sought out. 911 has not been shown to be tied to Iraq. I fear that much of the public support -- which as you say has come from countries that have suffered through terrorism -- has come from the premise that Iraq and Al Quada are somehow tied. Ask yourself this question: if the events of 911 had not happened, would public support be as high for a military strike in Iraq at this time? That's a tough question, but it has to be asked. To me, the Bush administration used those events as a tool to further their cause. I think loss of human life should never be used as propoganda. (Propoganda meaning using suspicion to formulate something that is disguised to sound factual, and then using that disguise to further a cause.) I find such manipulation insulting to all those who died that day, and if I were a family member I would either buy into the "revenge" aspect, or I would be even more insulted. Regardless of whether that manipulation was the administration's intention, that's how it comes across to many outside of America.womanfish said:So Michael, you don't find it interesting that Iraqi troops are being supplied with chemical weapons, the very weapons they said they destroyed in 1991? That doesn't give you any pause for thought?
Last edited: