2 most important questions not asked at the 1st debate: Invasion of Iraq revenge or security & Iraq civil war
From: Archimedes Plutonium (a_plutonium_at_iw.net)
Date: 10/02/04
- Next message: patty: "Re: syllogism"
- Previous message: Acme Diagnostics: "Re: syllogism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 01:51:03 -0500
I do not know why these 2 questions have not become public debate.
Perhaps they are too painful for the USA society as a whole. Perhaps the
USA society as a whole is lousy and crumby as to clear and logical
thinking.
Anyway neither question has been raised in public except by me on the
Internet many months ago.
Questions:
(1) Is not the real reason for the Bush administration to invade Iraq is
because SH threatened and attempted to kill Mr. Bush Sr. And that the
motive of a son wanting revenge is the reason the USA invaded Iraq? That
all the other cited reasons were simply excuses. So that if say any
other USA president had been in office from 2000 to 2004 that nearly all
of them would have invaded Afghanistan starting from Washington to
Jefferson to Lincoln to FDR, but that only one president of all the
presidents would have invaded Iraq.
Because all humans act mostly on habits. And only one president of the
USA was a son of a former president who was attempted to assassinate.
Only Mr. Bush would have a habit or sensation or feeling or want or
desire to invade Iraq because of revenge. And these things of
weapons-of-mass destruction or brutal tyrant or spreading democracy are
really just excuses.
Even if Mr. Blair, the most loyal USA ally had been the president of the
USA and Mr. Bush the Prime Minister of UK that he would not have invaded
Iraq and would have let the UN weapons inspectors of Hans Blix unfold
the end of that story.
Only because Mr. Bush had a interior-motive of revenge, has the West
gone into Iraq needlessly.
I think the reason no-one brings this up in campaign or news media is
its horrible implication. And only on the Internet with its blue-ribbon
freedom of speech can anyone really air these thoughts. The horrible
implication is that 1,055 USA soldiers are dead and about 8,000 wounded.
Iraq was no threat to USA security and had no links or ties with
alQueda.
Summary: whenever you have a USA president whose own family has had a
experience of a threat where the son can build up a internal feelings of
revenge, then the entire country that he is the president should be
careful that he does not turn that revenge feeling into a invasion and
war.
(2) And question number 2 that Mr. Lehrer should have asked since Mr.
Bush is so darn stubborn and ties in with question #1. Is it winning in
Iraq if Iraq caves into 3 or more tinier countries of Kurds, Shias and
Sunies much as Yugoslavia caved into many small tiny countries. Does it
matter to the USA if we stay there for 2 years or 4 years or 10 years
when inevitably Iraq breaks apart as 3 or more countries and where each
of those smaller countries has a tyrant much like SH only sublimer. So
what use is it for the USA to stay in Iraq when the inevitable outcome
is going to be a busted apart, splintered Iraq of many tiny countries
for that is about the only way to stabilize that country is to break it
into tiny countries where a strongman can rid the violence.
So Mr. Lehrer should have asked Mr. Bush why stay in Iraq when the final
outcome in 2 years or 3 years will be a yugoslavization of the now
existing Iraq.
It is sad that the only real objective debate and airing of opinions can
be done not on TV or in newspapers but here on the Internet.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
- Next message: patty: "Re: syllogism"
- Previous message: Acme Diagnostics: "Re: syllogism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
