| I do partially agree with you Redneck....
If the main reason to attack Iraq was to help the Iraqi's I would have agreed with you, but I don't think it was....
"Saddam, the biggest threat to world peace to day" "Just one year away from having nuclear weapons" "Chemical weapons hidden around Baghdad (and the rest of Iraq), ready to be released in the event of an attack"...
Those where the reasons I saw on the news everyday before the attack.
If the reason for attacking Iraq was that Bush felt sorry for the people in Iraq, then I believe that there were several other regimes around the world, which threats their people much much worse than Saddam did, who deserved to be attacked first....
But they do not have oil!!
I have become wery skeptic to news from wars after serving in Macedonia and Bosnia before, during and after the Kosovo campaign..
What I saw down there, and what I saw on the news was two completely different things..
And I'm sorry to say that CNN was worst..
Euronews was the most "neutral" one, but the news wasn't right all the time there either.
I'm just saying that one thing is defending and dying for your own country, but one other thing is to be sent to a foreign land to fight for some unknown cause...
And again, I'm NOT anti USA, just a bit anti Bush.....
The war did happen, and now we must do whatever we can to stabilize Iraq, and make it a better country to live in! And I do support the troops down there 100% in their work!
I just don't support the reasons why to attack Iraq...
(And I'm curious about what you think in the States. It's easy to sit here in Norway and criticize the decisions when we did not have any 9/11 or any increase in hostility towards us....) |