BD[MCNGP]>
Sat Sep 30 19:04:37 CDT 2006
"Cerebrus" <zorg007@sify.com> wrote in message
news:1159627645.775439.278810@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> No, I don't agree with that. I haven't seen the video in the OP's link
> (a 7 meg video would take long to download), but it appears to be
> related to the 9/11 tragedy. As everyone knows, 9/11 was perpetrated by
> Al Qaeda not Saddam, and invading Iraq had nothing to do with getting
> after Al Qaeda. It was just plain good business sense to invade Iraq.
> It made Bush and his associates a lot richer, it hardly matters that it
> resulted in the loss of the lives of 46,000 innocent Iraqi's and 2,700
> brave American soldiers. It solved a lot of internal problems for Bush,
> too. If Bush had really wanted to avenge 9/11, he would have sent those
> troops into Pakistan, after bin Laden fled to Pak.
>
Sorry Cerebrus, I've also got to disagree with what you're saying (although
I do understand your point). You are correct that 9/11 was perpetrated by Al
Qaeda, but the reason we also went after Saddam was in no relation to the
9/11 attacks. The Saddam Regime goes WAY back to the late 1960s when Hussein
assumed a few lead roles in the Ba'ath Party and Iraqi Government. I think
we are all aware of what the Ba'ath Party accomplished, but what many people
don't remember is the regime that Hussein built. Primarily throughout the
1980s, Hussein's regime killed (or caused the death of) millions of
'innocent' people.
You are correct in stating "...invading Iraq had nothing to do with getting
after Al Qaeda..." but not necessarily correct when you said "It was just
plain good business sense to invade Iraq." I highly doubt that Bush
re-visited what has been in act for decades just because he thought it was
"good business sense" to encourage the killing of innocent people just to
protect US Assets, but I do think it was necessary in order to prevent the
killing of countless other innocent lives.
Everyone seems to think that we *just* started looking for Hussein in
2001...not so...Hussein has been sought after by the United States since the
1990s. It just so happened that we caught Saddam before Bin Laden (who we
started looking for a decade later). There are still many troups in
Pakistan, and in Afghanistan, that are looking for Bin Laden. But because
the areas that are being searched are basically unpopulated (or at least not
highly populated....a.k.a. hills, mountains, and caves) the media isn't
reporting it. What the media is (historically) interested in is reporting
information that will draw attention to their network. Nobody cares about a
bunch of soldiers hiking through dirt and sand if there is no gunfire and
death.
> So, my point is : it's one thing that the perpetrators of 9/11 were
> villains, and should be punished; and it's quite another thing to
> believe that the Iraq war is a justified vengeance for that.
>
I'm guessing that the only people that believe the Iraq war is a justified
vengeance for 9/11 are the people that listen to "the Drive-By media"[1].
All the media tries to do is report information (fabricated or not) that
will draw attention to their network. People that don't corroborate that
information with at least two other (non-biased) sources are missing out on
the real stories. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 other than there being a
declaration on the "War on Terror". He was, by definition, a Terrorist and
he dragged his people right into the middle of everything. Saddam Hussein is
nothing but a coward that opted to hide in populated areas because he
expected those 'innocent' people to risk their lives for him.
> And lastly, Bush and his policies are the major reason why most of the
> peoples of this world (not just Islamic countries, mind you) have
> become "anti-American".
>
That's because almost everything they hear about "Bush's Policies" comes
from the drive-by media. They watch (primarily) one source, or if they do
watch more than one source, the views are generally all biased in the same
direction. Very few people actually care to take in and comprehend the views
from both sides. When something of this nature pops up in the media, the
best thing to do is to not just immediately believe it, but to try to prove
to yourself that it is incorrect....if you have expelled all resources and
still cannot prove to yourself that it is incorrect, then at least the
chances that your initial thought of it being correct are better.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/mideast/
[1] Drive-By Media:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1614041/posts
--
BD
MCNGP #51
-- You think you know IT?!
-- Check out the new forums at:
http://www.CertGuard.com/forums/