U2@NYC
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
MaxFisher said:Also lets remember that Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. when there was no war in Iraq.
There had been wars before.
MaxFisher said:Also lets remember that Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. when there was no war in Iraq.
speedracer said:
They have not been vindicated. They may have been proven correct in their assessment that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have increased the threat of terror attacks at home, but that in itself does not prove the moral invalidity of those wars. Big difference.
Irvine511 said:
and the flip side: that the wars could be morally invalid, and London would be attacked. Iraq could have been a smashing success, and London would be attacked. we could have the head of OBL sent in a cooler back to CIA headquarters in Langley, and London would be attacked.
and i also do not support the war in Iraq. but that makes little difference in the minds of these particular thugs. my worry is that Iraq is creating more of these thugs.
MaxFisher said:My point was that democracy comes with a price. Certain individuals or groups will go to great lengths to intimidate and thwart efforts to establish freedom because it threatens their control and power. The attacks in London are an attempt to shake the resolve of those commited to reform, democracy, and the liberalization of countries living under ruthless regimes.
verte76 said:I think terrorism is something we're stuck with, and even if Tony Blair hadn't participated in the Iraq thing London would have been struck sooner or later. It's one of the big time important cities.
financeguy said:The Bush Administration told us that Iraq had Chemical weapons, none were found. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were
wrong.
The Bush Administration told us that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, none were found. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were wrong.
The Bush Administration told us that Iraq had aerial craft capable of reaching the US, none were found. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were wrong.
The Bush Administration told us that Iraq had missiles that could reach its neighbours, none were found. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were wrong.
The Bush Administration told us that Saddam Hussein was connected with 9-11, to this day, no connection has been found. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were wrong.
The Bush Administration told us that they didn't know how long the war in Iraq would take, but it certainly wouldn't take 2 years. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were wrong.
The Bush Administration told us that Iraqis would greet us with open arms, not small arms. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were wrong.
The Bush Administration told us that we were bringing democracy to Iraq. And then they closed down Baghdad's largest newpaper. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were wrong.
The Bush Administration told us that we would go to war as a last resort. And then Bush told the weapons inspectors to get out of Iraq. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were wrong.
The Bush Administration told us that Saddam was cruel to his people. And after we invaded Iraq we needed to build 2 more prison camps in Iraq. Seems Saddam didn't have enough prisons to suit the 'liberators'. Did they lie? I don't know, but they were wrong.
melon said:
I've often questioned if this is about democracy or freedom or even capitalism; or if it is just about having full American access to their resources and markets. Hence why we can tolerate nations like Saudi Arabia and even China, while we get angry at nations like Iran and Cuba.
melon said:
I've often questioned if this is about democracy or freedom or even capitalism; or if it is just about having full American access to their resources and markets. Hence why we can tolerate nations like Saudi Arabia and even China, while we get angry at nations like Iran and Cuba.
I'm not opposed to the idea of "spreading freedom," per se, but, for me, it is a question of consistency and credibility. I often think that the Bush Administration fails on both fronts, unfortunately.
Melon