Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Machette
But it surely was a plan he may have used...and thinking of an idea such as that is very unethical, by my standards..Also he insisted he was going to invade Iraq even if the U.N inspectors found no nuclear weapons...and they didn't so he ended up invading Iraq with no serious justification, even though he inisited to the public that WMD's where actually there. But you see this one case of this Iraq general who wrote that controversial book stating that the weapons were moved to syria..however in a interview the general said he didn't see them being moved but rather talked to one of the pilots who flew them out..the general also said he had not seen the WMD'S during most of the 90's when he was in office. Also if everyone is to believe this case of moving WMD's why doesn't president bush use this as a example? Their must obviously be serious flaws in this mans case.
I find myself questioning why on earth Bush led his country into a war which day by day is media outlets find new evidence that his administration deceitfully led the public to a war which they said would last only a short while and there would be no insurgency among other things..I know a good cause comes along with this war, but good causes can from other ways rather than war. Bush's ultimate goal in this war was to democratize the middle east. In 2005 there were incidents in the middle east that made it seem as if his plan was working - the whole Cedar Revolution in beirut, and the elections in egypt. But now that people are loosing faith and Bush is blaming the media for their coverage one must ask himself what causes come out of this disaster?
|
I can see what you mean, but saying that he would invade even if the UN didn't find weapons doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't care if they were there or not. We all know that the UN has weaknesses, and their investigatory skills aren't exactly superb. Saying he would invade despite the UN not finding anything only means that he had more faith in the intelligence gathered independently from the UN than what the evidence that the UN could give him. Whether or not that intelligence was reliable is an issue that needs to be solved with our intelligence agencies, but I beleive he made that decision based on what he thought was accurate, and he isn't the only president that has done so, JFK was close to destroying the world based on innaccurate information, but luckily, he had someone in his cabinet that had accurate information.
However, I will admit, the painting the plane and trying to get it shot at is something I would never support and it makes me angry to know it was even thought of.