Go to Fahrenheit 911 - pros and cons
- Add a comment
- Go to Iraq as a happy land
Read it again, Shavonne - Osama bin Laden looms large in my mind in my memories of September 11th. And WMDs were only part of the reason for invading Iraq. The Sadaam regime's support of terrorism was more fundamental. (I just loved it when the new Prime Minister of Iraq pinned Tom Brokaw's ears back on that point Tuesday night. Absolutely there was corraboration, he told the flabbergasted Brokaw, perhaps not on the September 11 attacks but in other regards.)
posted by
WriterofLight
on July 1, 2004 at 7:58 PM
| link to this | reply
IN YOUR MIND Saddam looms over your memory of 9/11. Anybody reading your blogs can tell that.
I'm fully aware we are still in Afghanistan but the situation in Iraq has taken precedence ever since Bush decided to invade Iraq oversome mystical WMDs.
And a regular hand gun would be considered a WMD based on your definition of a weapon of mass destruction.
posted by
Shavonne
on July 1, 2004 at 9:03 AM
| link to this | reply
Thanks for the reply!
WMD – it seems to me a weapon capable of mass destruction of life qualifies just as much has something capable of mass destruction of structures.
Iran – Supporting Saddam wasn’t our brightest move in the long run, but at the time Iran was seen as the greater threat. And to equate our using nuclear bombs to end World War II with Sadaam’s weapons program is moral equivalency in all its glory. There is no good at all in such weapons, just as there is no good in war. But the bombs of 1945 ended the most horrific war the world had ever seen. There is no rational way of claiming Sadaam had similar motives.
You’re right, not one item in the list was Bush’s justification for war. Rather, it was most of them in sum, demonstrating to the world the evil of Sadaam and the threat he posed to the middle east.
Iraq vs. Afghanistan – last I checked, we were still in Afghanistan as well. You’re confusing initial offensive with mop-up.
Bush allowing time to think – 14 months of negotating with the U. N. about going into Iraq wasn’t enough time?
Forgetfulness – Excellent point! With the constant media parade of bad news from Iraq, we are indeed tempted to forget. In my mind, bin Laden always looms large over the memories of September 11th, and will until he is killed or brought to justice. May we never forget.
posted by
WriterofLight
on June 28, 2004 at 6:26 PM
| link to this | reply
WMD's on Kurds? The military sees a difference between chemical and biological weapons and WMDs. What Saddam used was chemical/biological weapons not WMDs.
Invasion of Iran? President Reagan supported Saddam during this time because Iran and N. Korean as well as some other communist country were trying to build nuclear weapons, you know, the kind of weapons the U.S. dropped on Japan in WWII.
And really, out of this list not one of them is the excuse President Bush used to invade Iraq. The attention was turned away from Bin Laden/Afghanistan by the invasion of Iraq. Who's idea was it to invade Iraq? President Bush.
I haven’t seen the movie but I believe you when you say Moore greatly exaggerated the truth and didn’t leave any room for the viewer to come to their own conclusion as to the situation with Iraq. But isn’t that what Bush did in his excuse for invading Iraq?
Let’s be realistic here, Bush tried to link the attacks to Iraq and when there wasn’t concrete evidence he claimed Iraq possessed WMDs. And during that whole time American forgot about Bin Laden and Afghanistan. Even today when you talk about 9/11, nobody mentions Bin Laden and Afghanistan. It’s almost as if they forgot.
Basically what I’m trying to say is Moore’s version of truth is very similar to Bush’s version of truth. Both are greatly exaggerated.
posted by
Shavonne
on June 28, 2004 at 6:44 AM
| link to this | reply