GRF said:
You are free to believe what you want, but if military action is not the answer what is?
I already mentioned that if the U.S. were interested in putting as much money into other avenues that they might have made progress that way. $75 billion is a lot of money to send a lot of people into a country to search for something. If my parents had a fraction of that, even what was proportional to the size of my bedroom compared to Iraq, I think they could have found things.
GRF said:
There is only one-way to end Mad-A$$?s control of chemical factory?s that can and may produce biological weapons; his financial contributions to the families of suicide bombers who attach Israel or US targets; his ethnic cleansing of Kurdish and Shiite people in his own country; plausible and probable support of terrorist camps in his own country. ?The job of the President of the United States, or political leader of any country for that matter is to protect and defend the people and interests of his or her country. ?If you feel your country is safe from terrorist fine. ?But remember the terrorist that were arrest crossing into the US a couple years ago, they are in Canada also. ?Who knows what they will do to you.
They were in Canada, destined for the U.S. Granted, they shouldn't have been there to begin with, and reforms are making this less likely. But the fact remains that every terrorist who was found to be in Canada was destined for the U.S. This says a lot about U.S. foreign policy that you have so many people dying - literally - to get into the U.S. and wreak havoc.
There is significant evidence that chemical weapons may be found. Thus far, there has not, but it is likely they might find something. What I am really concerned about is what would occur if, for example, none are ever found? The U.S. will simply go 'oops' and back out slowly. That is why they added getting rid of Saddam to the list of reasons for this campaign. But if that were the only reason, there are plenty of other countries being oppressed by similar dictators that are far down on the list.
Oops, they don't have oil.
GRF said:
The UN is going is now similar to the fail League of Nations. ?The countries involved lack the fortitude to back up the resolutions passed. ?They would rather sit around a table and ?talk about the problem? than actually solve the problem. ?Mad-A$$ needs to be removed from power. ?There is no other way to stop his silent attack on the none hard line Muslim countries.
While most would find the prospect laughable, something the U.N. could be found legally able to do is impose sanctions on the U.S. for their actions. I say laughable because no one would do it. They would ignore it just like the U.S. ignored the U.N. I am not saying what the U.N. has done is right, but the U.S. has not been playing fair either. Let's be honest with ourselves here.
I think what it all comes down to is truthfulness. While going to war over oil is not something many people would condone, I think far more people would agree with a war if the government at least acknowledged that it has some impact. People would rather here them mention oil as a slight reason than to simply assume and then add more government lies to the top of it.
In the end though, it all comes down to what I previously said. Justified or not is not for me to decide. But while people accept Bush's judgment and feel it is right, I accept my prime minister's judgement and feel it is not. And as such, I am not going to support something that goes against that judgement.