[/quote] I think I can answer this on B&B....... why isn't Saudi Arabia under the gun?..... honestly that's most likely about oil... plus you can't take on the whole world at once..... Why not China... I think that would be an easy one to answer.......... 1.3 billion reasons........... The difficulty with China is their population.... with 1.3 billion people and 2.25 million of those active military troops you can't just walk in and sort out China. If Iraq had 2.25 million troops... even poorly trained and equiped they would have been a force to be reckoned with...... Sure there are other despots in the world and if the US had gone into those places someone would still be up in arms about the big bad USA pushing it's wieght around for whatever reason. If they decide not to go in to a country then the US is ignoring its responsibility to the world. Damned if you do.... damned if you don't
I think I can answer this on B&B....... why isn't Saudi Arabia under the gun?..... honestly that's most likely about oil... plus you can't take on the whole world at once..... Why not China... I think that would be an easy one to answer.......... 1.3 billion reasons........... The difficulty with China is their population.... with 1.3 billion people and 2.25 million of those active military troops you can't just walk in and sort out China. If Iraq had 2.25 million troops... even poorly trained and equiped they would have been a force to be reckoned with...... Sure there are other despots in the world and if the US had gone into those places someone would still be up in arms about the big bad USA pushing it's wieght around for whatever reason. If they decide not to go in to a country then the US is ignoring its responsibility to the world. Damned if you do.... damned if you don't[/quote] Ian, I agree completely with you. We are not in Saudi because they are friendly with us, and have the oil, the numbers in China obviously make us the weakling here, why pick on some you can't beat. It seems to me that if we are truly in Iraq for the people but not in the other countries, then we have a selective conscience. Again, in my view, it is about the oil, if we do have a selective conscience then we are definietley hypocrites.
At the risk of opening up the debate further I just want to answer Scott. The Patriot Act gives the US Government many rights that it did not previously have including: - The right to search your home and not inform you they have done so. They can enter your home, seize items and take pictures and not tell you right away. - The right to collect information on your medical history. - The right to collect information on your purchases. - The right to collect information on the books you read and what you study. - The right to obtain records showing what you do online as well as the subject lines of your emails. I think that what you have given up is your privacy!
the thing is that I don't think its about 1 thing......... I think it's about many....... oil... which as I stated earlier is a commodity that effects almost every we buy or sell ... either directly or indirectly.... that's a huge reason.... plus I'm sure the government thought they'd win points for doing a good dead.... getting saddam out....... stablizing part of the middle east. WMDs.. sure.. it's a reason......... Saddam had used them before....... Come up with your own valid reason and I'm sure it was probably considered. Why didn't ANYONE in the world stay in Rawanda?.... because they had nothing to sell and nothing to buy.
if I have to give up some privacy in order to be safe I will. the searching of homes sounds a little far fetched... I'd like to see the section of the patriot act that claims this. Private companiese already track what you buy (including books) and follow you online... they're doing it for profit... the government at least is doing it for security.
That's exactly what I'm saying, under Saddam. QUOTE: Secretary of Defence Dick Cheney, February 16 1992: "If we'd gone to Baghdad and got rid of Saddam Hussein - assuming we could have found him - we'd have had to put a lot of forces in and run him to ground some place... Then you've got to put a new government in his place and then you're faced with the question of what kind of government are you going to establish in Iraq? Is it going to be a Kurdish government or a Shia government or a Sunni government? How many forces are you going to have to leave there to keep it propped up?"
Well, if you listened to anything but Fox News, you would know that most Iraqi's on the ground are terrified to go outside their houses these days. They get killed while they're packing their belongings into truck while trying to flew the conflict. But of course, you only believe what Busgh says, so here goes: GWB Dec 18 2005: "My fellow citizens, not only can we win the war in Iraq, we ARE winning the war in Iraq." GWB Jun 28 2005: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050628-7.html "Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqi's to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intent to stay forever... As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters: the sober judgment of our military leaders." BOTH "on the ground" Generals in Iraq who opposed any troop level increses have sinice been replaced. That's what "listening to the Generals on the ground" means to Bush. A few more GWB quotes for you to mull over: George W. Bush, 4/9/99: "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." George W. Bush, 6/3/99: "I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn." George W. Bush, 6/24/05: "It doesn't make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you're - you're conceding too much to the enemy." It's no wonder you're confused.
Pretty much like in the USA currently, if you kept your nose clean, and followed the rules imposed by Saddam, you were fairly safe. He ruled with a strong hand, but the MAJORITY of the population, Sunni, Shiite, Christian, etc, were safe. Now, NO ONE is safe. It's turned into a hell hole.
We're not about MY freedoms here, we're talking about YOURS. You're the one's supposedly living in the "land of the free", remember.
