They existed at one time but were removed prior. But that isn't my argument. You said we thought we were liberating the Iraqi people....and we never thought that. It was always about the WMDs.LJS9502_basic
Okay, fair point. But some people i've discussed with think that. That's probably because Bush himself has mentioned "liberating the Iraqi people" in most of his speeches about the war. That's why, some Americans, not an insignificant number of them i might add, think that the US role in Iraq was destroying WMDs and liberating the Iraqi people.
Don't say "we" as if you been granted even the slightest of participation in terms of this power, the machine does what it does according to its own agendas and whatever ulterior motives it might have, and the process ranging from the first spark of decision making to the actual execution of the planned is a process that is completely out of your hands, just like it's out of the hands of the general north american public.
You're in the machine by happenstance, you're not fit, the machine is fit, you do not have any power, it however has power over you, you do not use it, it uses you.
Survival of the fittest?
Indeed, but follow it up with "with the use of the dumbest".
[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The US invaded Iraq because of the threat of WMDs. Obama doesn't speak for everyone FYI.LJS9502_basic
And you actually believe this or are just screwing around with me? Believe what? The debate for war with Iraq was always about WMDs...never over the liberation of the Iraqis. As for Obama.....you can only hold his statements to his motivations. Not others. WMDs that didn't exist. And dear president Bush has stated several time that [bush's voice]we will liberate the Iraqi people from the rule of a tyrant[/bush's voice] - paraphrasing. Also wasn't that operation called Iraqi Freedom? Sure, the excuse was WMDs and yet they stayed there after there were conclusive proofs that those weapons did not exist, so we can say that they're now "liberating" the Iraqi people and stabilizing the country.
Also, i think it's pretty foolish to believe that foreign aid is donated because they care about making the world a better place when they don't, it's all about interest, that's pretty obvious. Every country has its interest at first place not just the US.
USA will fall 'from greatness' one day, just like every other society in history. I just don't think this will happen in next few centuries at least, and these doomsday scenarios are just exaggerated and silly.
The reason the US spends money on foreign aid is not because the government is so good and oh they want to make the world a better place, it's just a way to spread their influence on other countries. This isn't even a conspiracy theory, Obama has even admitted this, but he of course sugar-coated it with phrases like "stabilizing countries" and "creating opportunities for the poor" and so on. But then again, there are people who still believe that the US invaded Iraq for the liberation of the Iraqi people, so...
[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]If we were to make a list of the broken promises of every politician out there, GS should open a new forum. Every politician in every country there is has broken a thousand promises (hyperbolizing). So what, they're politicians, we're used to it.weedfacekilla
k, just remember this for the upcoming elections
Yes, i'm not from the US. Anyway, let's say everyone sees this list and votes for another candidate on the upcoming elections. Four years from then you'll be making the same list about the man/woman you voted for. What i'm saying is, all politicians are the same. They just tell people what they want to hear.
If we were to make a list of the broken promises of every politician out there, GS should open a new forum. Every politician in every country there is has broken a thousand promises (hyperbolizing). So what, they're politicians, we're used to it.
Log in to comment