Leisher wrote:I have no problem with that...with a stipulation, you should also then agree that Bill Clinton never had the justification to send troops to Bosnia and enter that war there.
Well, I can't say one way or another about Bosnia. I was in college, so it wasn't something I kept up on.
The one difference b/w the 2 is that Bosnia was a war, whereas we started the war in Iraq.
Leisher wrote:The fact that a lot of people believe exactly what they read on the web isn't helping matters either.
Catt's going to turn that around on you.
Our differences in opinion in this matter are boiled down, at the most basic level, to different philosophies... and it's hard to change someone's philosophy.
TheCatt wrote:Your point (correct me if I am wrong) seems to be focused on media bias and reporting of Iraq.
My point is: What Iraq did did not justify war. You included a list of items that Iraq surely did, but I still do not find those items to be worthy of the war we are funding. Was the UN too light on him? Yes. Is media reporting biased? Yes. I just don't think that the war was worth fighting, that's all. I don't think they provided enough reason to go to war. Powell's UN presentation was impressive, but it was flawed with false intelligence (or just plain lies).
I still find it humorous that people think that the government releases half of its information to the population. Are you so naive as to believe that you know even part of the story? Just because we don't know doesn't mean they don't have pleanty of reasons. I'm not abdicating blind faith in the Government, but quit assuming you have all the information.
TheCatt wrote:Your point (correct me if I am wrong) seems to be focused on media bias and reporting of Iraq.
My point is: What Iraq did did not justify war. You included a list of items that Iraq surely did, but I still do not find those items to be worthy of the war we are funding. Was the UN too light on him? Yes. Is media reporting biased? Yes. I just don't think that the war was worth fighting, that's all. I don't think they provided enough reason to go to war. Powell's UN presentation was impressive, but it was flawed with false intelligence (or just plain lies).
I still find it humorous that people think that the government releases half of its information to the population. Are you so naive as to believe that you know even part of the story? Just because we don't know doesn't mean they don't have pleanty of reasons. I'm not abdicating blind faith in the Government, but quit assuming you have all the information.
I can't ever assume such a thing.
But, if my government decides to go to war, I deserve to know why.
But, if my government decides to go to war, I deserve to know why.
Goddamn, I gotta get behind this statement. What little faith I have ain't in the gov't. I do wanna know things, damnit.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
But, if my government decides to go to war, I deserve to know why.
Goddamn, I gotta get behind this statement. What little faith I have ain't in the gov't. I do wanna know things, damnit.
Problem is, a person is smart and levelheaded. People are stupid and quick to loose control and freak. The US populace would not take some things well. There are important reasons for having gumment secrets. If you want to know everything going on in your government, ask a psychic because even the president isn't fully versed.
Thing is... to people like me, 9/11 was all the reason we needed to clean house in the middle east, no matter what reasons the President gave. But then, people like me wanted to clean house in the middle east since Beiruit. Too bad we didn't. And it's about time we did.