War... How Quickly They Forget.

Well, he's using the support he already has from the 9/11 aftermath to further his personal political and commercial agenda--to serve the interests of his corporate buddies and his right-wing clique.

I'll leave that to the weapons inspectors to decide! I'm in no position to make such judgments. All I can say is that Iraq is a petty middle-Eastern dictatorship, one of many in the Islamic world. It is, from a western standpoint, a backward nation, hardly in a position to threaten civilization, as the Bush administration facetiously claims. The whole "threat" posed by Iraq has been blown way out of proportion, to say nothing of the fact that there has been no established connection between Iraq and bin Laden. Surely the Bush administration should focus its efforts on addressing the REAL threat--namely, Osama bin Laden--and forget about Iraq. The fact is, and it has only just recently occurred to me, that Bush is going after Saddam because he wants a quick and easy media victory over the Islamic world. It's all a big publicity stunt, it appears to me, except that it is seriously backfiring. Bin Laden is taking it easy because thet heat's off him and he now has time to plot his next terrorist venture, while the Bush administration is alienating pretty much everybody by going after Iraq.

Firstly, my cause is not pro-Iraq--it is against the Bush administration's belligerency and war-mongering. I have little sympathy for the brutal and dictatorial military regime in Iraq. However, it seems to me that the Bush administration, in its war-mongering, is assuming a stance not unlike the Hussein dictatorship. My concern is that the Bush administration is gradually becoming more and more like the Iraqi regime--a brutal military dictatorship rather than a democracy in which human rights and the rights of individuals to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the freedom of religion and the freedom to express oneself and to be oneself are respected rather than violated and trampled upon. Before the Bush administration attacks Iraq for its human rights violations, perhaps it should consider whether it is, itself, not violating the human rights of US residents and citizens.

Again, this is for the weapons inspectors to decide. I'm not in a position to pass judgment without evidence.

There are any number of possibilities. Is it practical to devote all the resources of the state to one, apparently (to me, at least) rather farfetched possibility while neglecting to address any number of more immediate and potentially even more devastating threats? The economy is badly in need of recovery, Osama bin Laden is still at large, North Korea is flaunting its nuclear weapons, and the list goes on. Why is the Bush administration devoting all its energies and resources on Iraq when a danger from Iraq hasn't remotely been proven to exist? Or, at least, seems extremely farfetched and ludicrous from the existing evidence? There are any number of possibilities of things going wrong. The question is one of priority--what is more important right now? Finding Bin Laden and cracking the Al Quaeda terrorist network? Resuscitating the US economy? Or going after Saddam Hussein--a petty mid-Eastern despot with no proven connection to 9/11 at all? Don't tell me that all this doesn't stink to high heaven of a personal political and commercial agenda on the part of the Bush administration and G.W. Bush himself. It's all a massive eyewash! I, personally, find it hard to believe that so many people have fallen for it! What about Pakistan, another brutal military dictatorship guilty of harboring AL QUAEDA terrorists and sponsoring terrorist activities against India in the Kashmir province? Why is the Bush administration buddying up with a military dictatorship which could potentially be harboring Osama bin Laden himself? Doesn't Bush's stance against Iraq strike you as a little hypocritical and superficial in this context?

Isn't this debate old news? The administration has gone so far with their stance on Iraq now that if there isn't an attack, it'll feed the evil regimes' notion that the U.S. is a weak nation. It's a sign of weakness not to do it after building it up so much.

Honestly, I'm sort of conflicted about the whole thing. I mean, yeah, I'm sure there's some truth to what Django's saying about the Bush administration, but would the people of Iraq benefit in the long run from Saddam's removal? Most definitely. He's a corrupt, power-mad dictator who oppresses his people. My conflict lies in whether or not it's the U.S.'s place to remove him. In all honesty, I appreciate the Bush administration's stance on foreign policies much more than I do Clinton's. Bill Clinton can be held responsible for bombing Iraq, Bosnia, and wiping out a factory in Sudan that was responsible for half that nation's pharmaceutical supplies...and the reasons he gave for them are just as sketchy as Bush's case for an invasion of Iraq. At least we know where we stand with Bush. And I know I don't want Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons.

Before you other lefties call me a turncoat, allow me to say that I think the case against war has been just as strong as the case for it. U.S. history is full of the unjustified use of force and bullying of other countries, and that's what complicates the issue. Is there a truly genuine threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, or is it some kind of 'stunt' being posed so we can get what we want?

__________________
**** the Lakers!