Lie, cheat, and steal
Over the past weeks, months, and now even year, people have expressed their opinions about the war in Iraq and the war on terror. As we know, there are people who are for the war and support it, and conversely there are those against the war and think it is wrong. And then of course both sides have their own strong opinions, and likely have trouble understanding the other side.
I was thinking about it today, and I don't really think the issue is as divided as we all might think. I believe that everyone, conservative, liberal, and all those in between, are in support of the humanitarian aspect of it. Everyone agrees that there are people around the world who need our help, and everyone agrees that we, as the United States, should be partially responsible for helping. I also think that everyone agrees that Saddam was a bad man, who didn't deserve to be in power. And finally, I think that everyone is in agreement that terrorism is a problem and there is no reason why terrorists shouldn't be sought out and exterminated. So at the root of it all, I think that the majority of people would under normal circumstances support our actions. (I am leaving the other issues, such as prisoner abuse and other war related issues out of this for now.)
Interestingly, I regularly read a blog from a traveler who has spent time in Iraq and the Middle East, and he says from his experiences that Iraq was indeed a breeding ground for terrorists and we are doing the right thing by removing Saddam from power. This I don't doubt, and I certainly respect his opinion as he probably knows far more than me, but the thing I think that really divides people is not the intent, but rather how the administration went about it all. It is clear that there were a plethora of ulterior motives and hidden agendas that led us to the current situation. The means of going to war was through lies and deceit of the public, and has continued in that track with media control, corruption, and the installation of fear. Ask any of the questions that people have been asking since the start. If it was WMD related, why Iraq rather than North Korea? If it was humanitarian, why Iraq rather than Sudan or any other number of places? If it is to remove a leader who was a bad man and a threat, why Iraq and not Cuba or any other number of places? And why Halliburton and the gross misallocation of taxpayers' money? And most importantly, why are we now actively in Iraq and not AFGHANISTAN, which since the start of the war has become one of the biggest drug states in the world?
And while I'm at it, who are we to say we can have a nuclear program, Russia can have a nuclear program, but Libya, Iran, North Korea can not or else they will face repercussions? And why the grave concern for unborn babies but not those already living? Why a presidential yacht but cuts to college financial aid funds?
Why is the administration so concerned with Iraqis and their subpar living conditions but not those residents of South Central, Gary, Indiana, or any other ghetto here in our own country? And after claims of an improved economy and the creation of thousands of new jobs (which is really only because all those people laid off from jobs that were outsourced to India or China under the current administration are now working some half ass job making half as much money), why won't the president sign the Kyoto Treaty to cut global emissions as one of the largest polluters in the world (blagantly disregarding the current reports of significant loss of the polar ice caps) claiming that it would hurt the American economy due to loss of jobs?
To me, it is 100% clear that in a normal world with a trusted administration (ha ha ha), a war in Iraq for the right reasons would be acceptable, but not with this administration, not with all the lies, and not when the entire bush administration is crooked and becoming worse as we speak. And anyone who supports this war is supporting and encouraging this administration to continue to lie, cheat, and steal, regardless of how much they want to believe that are helping Iraq and the rest of the world.
I was thinking about it today, and I don't really think the issue is as divided as we all might think. I believe that everyone, conservative, liberal, and all those in between, are in support of the humanitarian aspect of it. Everyone agrees that there are people around the world who need our help, and everyone agrees that we, as the United States, should be partially responsible for helping. I also think that everyone agrees that Saddam was a bad man, who didn't deserve to be in power. And finally, I think that everyone is in agreement that terrorism is a problem and there is no reason why terrorists shouldn't be sought out and exterminated. So at the root of it all, I think that the majority of people would under normal circumstances support our actions. (I am leaving the other issues, such as prisoner abuse and other war related issues out of this for now.)
Interestingly, I regularly read a blog from a traveler who has spent time in Iraq and the Middle East, and he says from his experiences that Iraq was indeed a breeding ground for terrorists and we are doing the right thing by removing Saddam from power. This I don't doubt, and I certainly respect his opinion as he probably knows far more than me, but the thing I think that really divides people is not the intent, but rather how the administration went about it all. It is clear that there were a plethora of ulterior motives and hidden agendas that led us to the current situation. The means of going to war was through lies and deceit of the public, and has continued in that track with media control, corruption, and the installation of fear. Ask any of the questions that people have been asking since the start. If it was WMD related, why Iraq rather than North Korea? If it was humanitarian, why Iraq rather than Sudan or any other number of places? If it is to remove a leader who was a bad man and a threat, why Iraq and not Cuba or any other number of places? And why Halliburton and the gross misallocation of taxpayers' money? And most importantly, why are we now actively in Iraq and not AFGHANISTAN, which since the start of the war has become one of the biggest drug states in the world?
And while I'm at it, who are we to say we can have a nuclear program, Russia can have a nuclear program, but Libya, Iran, North Korea can not or else they will face repercussions? And why the grave concern for unborn babies but not those already living? Why a presidential yacht but cuts to college financial aid funds?
Why is the administration so concerned with Iraqis and their subpar living conditions but not those residents of South Central, Gary, Indiana, or any other ghetto here in our own country? And after claims of an improved economy and the creation of thousands of new jobs (which is really only because all those people laid off from jobs that were outsourced to India or China under the current administration are now working some half ass job making half as much money), why won't the president sign the Kyoto Treaty to cut global emissions as one of the largest polluters in the world (blagantly disregarding the current reports of significant loss of the polar ice caps) claiming that it would hurt the American economy due to loss of jobs?
To me, it is 100% clear that in a normal world with a trusted administration (ha ha ha), a war in Iraq for the right reasons would be acceptable, but not with this administration, not with all the lies, and not when the entire bush administration is crooked and becoming worse as we speak. And anyone who supports this war is supporting and encouraging this administration to continue to lie, cheat, and steal, regardless of how much they want to believe that are helping Iraq and the rest of the world.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home