Neutral news (let alone anything pro-U.S. policy) is even harder to find in Europe I would imagine, my only experience there is with the BBC, which is vehemently anti-U.S., and more specifically anti-Bush, but it is also difficult to get it here in the States as well. My solution is to watch both CNN (liberal) and Fox (conservative) and kind of weigh their perspectives with the facts given in both their reports.
About Clinton, after his pussy-footing in Somalia (as GuyontheRight mentioned) that caused the unneccesary deaths of U.S. servicemen (by not allowing them the proper armored support, which was available in the area, or even full-fledged gunships for air support) and then pulling out, giving the Somali warlords a "victory" over the U.S. and thereby making the loss of these men's lives a futile one, I don't think his opinion in a military situation is worth the powder to blow it to hell.
However, I do agree with your point:
Quote:
|
But the world needs proof now, or else I think there will be a heavy increase in hostility towards USA in the near future....
|
But in all fairness I do believe that what we have found so far (the empty warheads with traces of chemicals in them, the remote labs which had been strangely sterilized [probably the cleanest thing in the country haha], and the massive amounts of pesticides, considering the size of Iraq's agricultural area, as well as the illegal al-Samoud and Scud missiles found around the country) is enough to justify our entry on the grounds of Iraq's threat to the countries surrounding it.
One thing that I have to say really gets in my craw is the "blood for oil" argument, to debunk the whole empire-building-oil-grubbing thing (if that is possible in this short of a space) is this: we were getting no oil from Iraq in the first place (I believe France was the only Western nation to be in that position, but I may be wrong) and the huge influx of new oil, once we get the country stabilized and producing oil again, will swamp the market, causing a surplus of oil, leading to lower prices and greater competition between oil companies. I'm not saying that it will be entirely bad for them, they will have new room to grow and expand, but I am saying that per barrel they will be making less money than they are currently.
I appreciate your opinions, Redleg, even if they're not as good as mine and GuyontheRight's (just kidding), and I appreciate the fact that you did ask us what was going on over here rather than just assume based on what you have heard over there (as far too many people do).
By the way, I'm back in haha.