'Bring it On'. UN Tragedy

[Panama Hat]

Peace it is Imagine.    

[Euro-Aussie]

Pax Singapura.  The weapons are laid to rest, Imagine.  

We are sure to disagree again in the future about who-knows-what, but we'll keep it civil.  

[AnotherABC]

Being new to the "Board", this is some funny stuff you guys/gals post!  Here is another man's spin...

"Unless we want to go back and hash out all that again, I'd say quite obviously we're faced with the fact that the US is only in Iraq for Oil-exploitation reasons." - Interesting comment, if this was entirely true why are US oil prices at an all time high?  Dang!  Can't fill-up my SUV for less than $100 anymore.

And let's remember that everyone criticized Bush before 9/11 of being an "Isolationist".  Now that the US is decidedly NOT isolationist, albeit unilateralist, everyone wants us to be "Isolationist".  Can't have it both ways.

And let's also remind ourselves that a terrorist doesn't need any further provocation by Bush to blow up something.  "Bring it on" was not the smartest thing that ever came out of his mouth (not many things are), but it certainly was not the cause for the UN tragedy.  If it was, what was the phrase that triggered 9/11 or the Oklahoma bombing or Bali or any other terrorist act?  Terrorists surely are not acting on the words of Bush and to even think that is naive.

[Panama Hat]

I can see why you'd need an SUV in DC - the roads are like dirt tracks . . .

Have you checked out gas/petrol prices in the rest of the world?

So, please enlighten us as to the reason GW decided to take the US into another armed conflict, I'm sure your views would be very different to the ones espoused so far.  

Isolationist to Unilateralist is a huge step, indeed.  How about philanthropist . . .

Anyway, welcome to the board.  Are you actually in DC or in Singapore?  

[This message has been edited by Panama Hat (edited 27-08-2003).]

[AnotherABC]

Hey PH,

I'm here in lovely Singapore, but would rather be in DC.  But that is a story for another day.

As for my thoughts on why GW went to war...maybe it is because he really thought Saddam was a threat or maybe he just wanted to finish what his father started or maybe he just likes to use his shiny new toys/weapons...who really knows.  I certainly don't and I doubt anyone on this board knows.  But it makes for interesting conversation!

[nualum]

We could say that Mr. Bush went to war for the reasons he said he did: Iraq was an immediate threat to the US and to the region--Not. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction--Not. Iraq had links to Al Qaeda--Not. Iraq was supporting terrorism against us--Not.

We could also say that he and the neocons cooked up excuses to stampede Americans into supporting a war--nearly all of which excuses were essentially lies.

[Panama Hat]

I believe it's something as simple as detracting from other problems, mainly domestic - and being given advice by men who are in power for all the wrong reasons.  

I actually had the misfortune of meeting Reagan once when my father was posted to our Embassy in DC - he didn't make a good impression then and history is not making him look any better.  

Unfortunately in the end it is the general populace that suffers.  

Bread and games, it never changes.