- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I‘m hesitant to include this in this thread, especially considering the recent "riveting" posts that have been initiated. It‘s definitely politically relevant and bothers me immensley.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994549
It‘s come to the point where the US Gov isn‘t denying this issue anymore. It‘s generally accepted now that Iraq did not have nor were they working towards WMD‘s. I‘m not even going to get into the lack of evidence connecting Al-Qaida to them either.
The UN inspections had effectively ended the majority of this in the 90‘s. Hussein should have simply admitted this, but I suppose the percieved cost of losing face was too much.
So here‘s what I don‘t get. The war was about neutralizing the WMD‘s and for the connections to 9/11. As that is now unproven. This war is now about liberating Iraq from an evil dictator.
That doesn‘t sit right with me. The means to justify the ends. That is the problem with a crusade. Where is this one going to go? Because it seems to me that accountability is no longer an issue. Maybe I‘d have felt better if Bush were to have said publicy, "going in there was something we felt we had to do for world peace and security. It was the right thing to do. Unfortunately, we were wrong about our primary reasons for doing so. In our estimation, the world is a safer place for our effort, but a review of our intelligence process is in order." Is something along those lines so difficult? Does it show weakness to an international audience? Is that the thinking? Or is it that perception is more important than evidence?
So how do we trust these individuals? When the next "crisis" appears and the military is committed, where is the accountability to not throw lives away for the self-serving goals of politicians and corporate industry? What of the that? Bearing in mind the war actually ended last year, yet deaths are still occuring daily. Not to mention the injured, who now number in the thousands. Maybe this is off topic as Canadians aren‘t included in those numbered.
But questions to ponder nonetheless as PM Martin makes his decisions over the course of this year. Also bear in mind, he is not currently elected by the people; his party was when under a former PM and his contemporaries. Not quite the same. Is it trust that those with him will be making decisions for the good of the people (military and civilian)?
It‘s a combination of things offhand. That lack of accountability, either by the politician or in the media. It‘s fine for other nations, but not ours as we‘re the good guys? That‘s what I don‘t get. Maybe I‘m just overthinking this thing.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994549
It‘s come to the point where the US Gov isn‘t denying this issue anymore. It‘s generally accepted now that Iraq did not have nor were they working towards WMD‘s. I‘m not even going to get into the lack of evidence connecting Al-Qaida to them either.
The UN inspections had effectively ended the majority of this in the 90‘s. Hussein should have simply admitted this, but I suppose the percieved cost of losing face was too much.
So here‘s what I don‘t get. The war was about neutralizing the WMD‘s and for the connections to 9/11. As that is now unproven. This war is now about liberating Iraq from an evil dictator.
That doesn‘t sit right with me. The means to justify the ends. That is the problem with a crusade. Where is this one going to go? Because it seems to me that accountability is no longer an issue. Maybe I‘d have felt better if Bush were to have said publicy, "going in there was something we felt we had to do for world peace and security. It was the right thing to do. Unfortunately, we were wrong about our primary reasons for doing so. In our estimation, the world is a safer place for our effort, but a review of our intelligence process is in order." Is something along those lines so difficult? Does it show weakness to an international audience? Is that the thinking? Or is it that perception is more important than evidence?
So how do we trust these individuals? When the next "crisis" appears and the military is committed, where is the accountability to not throw lives away for the self-serving goals of politicians and corporate industry? What of the that? Bearing in mind the war actually ended last year, yet deaths are still occuring daily. Not to mention the injured, who now number in the thousands. Maybe this is off topic as Canadians aren‘t included in those numbered.
But questions to ponder nonetheless as PM Martin makes his decisions over the course of this year. Also bear in mind, he is not currently elected by the people; his party was when under a former PM and his contemporaries. Not quite the same. Is it trust that those with him will be making decisions for the good of the people (military and civilian)?
It‘s a combination of things offhand. That lack of accountability, either by the politician or in the media. It‘s fine for other nations, but not ours as we‘re the good guys? That‘s what I don‘t get. Maybe I‘m just overthinking this thing.
