Bush's higher calling

I'm tired of that oil argument garbage! That's what protesters were saying in 1991 too!

Hey, is Kuwait allied with the US to gain a piece of Iraqi oil too?
 
LOL, ignorance is a bliss :-)

Do you think that the rest of the world would have been hurting if Saddam had gotten control of the biggest oil supplying countries in the world? If Saddam had been successful in his attempt to occupy Kuwait without any resistance, you think he would had continued? The rest of the world had to react.

Nah, you're right.. we are in Iraq because we are such nice guys; we are only there to liberate the Iraqi people, yupp... Oh no, we are also there because we HAVE to disarm them of their' MDWs. Oops, wait, we haven't found any.. yeah, back to what I said before - we are just such nice guys.

Wake up!
 
The oil arguement always falls through when you stop to consider a few things

1) the oil fields in Alaska are approximately the same size as Iraq's
2) the oil field in the Gulf of Mexico is one of, if not the, largest known to man currently.

and then there's also the fields in Texas, and Tennessee, and the Northeast...and other various eastern mountain range states...


America has plenty of oil lying around, it's just for some odd reason the evironmentalists always feel better buying it from someone else as opposed to digging up our own supply...
 
Yeah, ignorance is bliss. You can use 1984 quotes ONLY WHEN THEY APPLY.

If you can prove to me that the major motivation for combat is oil than I'll agree with you. There are 45 countries on board with the US, so are they in there for oil too? Why did they not take it in 1991 when they had Iraq by the throat? The US is not desperate for Iraqi oil anyway! And if they were going in for oil, they would have made a few quick stops taking over Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, so why didn't they? Don't say "they're allied countries", because Iraq and the USSR were US allies at one point too, doesn't mean things can't change. You know, Alberta has a ton of oil too! I guess the US is going to invade Alberta next eh.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Do you think that the rest of the world would have been hurting if Saddam had gotten control of the biggest oil supplying countries in the world?

How is the rest of the world hurting? Explain to me how Iraq's control of some oil reserves is putting the world in a real fix!

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Nah, you're right.. we are in Iraq because we are such nice guys; we are only there to liberate the Iraqi people, yupp... Oh no, we are also there because we HAVE to disarm them of their' MDWs. Oops, wait, we haven't found any.. yeah, back to what I said before - we are just such nice guys.

This is coming from someone who never lived in a dictatorship before, I love it. My dad's family escaped the Soviet Union. You have NO IDEA what people are put through under such regiemes! You want me to "wake up"? I've got some pictures to show you. They're pictures of dead Kurdish children from the chemical attack in 1988, as well as pictures from Saddam's torture chambers. You've got one guy with his head so smashed in you can't tell what shape it was to begin with. There is a bunch of guys who had one of their arms cut off. One guy had a huge chunk taken out of the left side of his head. And let's not forget people being thrown feet first into plastic shredders, or having their tounges cut out for speaking out against Saddam.

People in Iraq are filled with joy that the Americans have came and rescued them from Saddam Hussein for a reason! Turn on your TV and watch for yourself.

As for the WMDs. If Iraq doesn't have them than why have they not accounted for the destruction of all of them yet? Why were they continuing to #### around inspectors, even recently (not allowing them to talk to the scientists and whatnot)? Why are they equipping their troops with antidotes and chemical protection suits? You mind explaining that?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (CCGR @ Mar. 04 2003,12:22)]http://www.msnbc.com/news/878520.asp?0cl=cR

Additional info from American sources.  If you are not American, then find something that is from your country and post it.  I am not American, rather Canadian.  And IMO, our Country has not done much to be proud off.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you noticed a difference in the salute given by our military men and women as President Bush walks by? Most folks would not notice anything, but military people see it right away. Watch: When President Bush leaves his helicopter or Air Force One, the honor guards salute and face him as he disembarks, then turn their faces towards him as he passes by. They continue to salute his back as he walks away. This kind of salute has not been seen in the previous eight years, though it is customary courtesy to the Commander-in-Chief. You see, soldiers aren't required to turn and face the President as they salute. They are not required to salute his back. They are only require d to salute. They can remain face-forward the entire time. And that is what they did during Bill Clinton's entire Presidency. Our soldiers were forced to obey Clinton's orders, but they were not forced to respect him. From their salutes, we can surmise that they did not. Why is such respect afforded to President Bush? He doesn't even know how to bite his lower lip and not get teary-eyed whenever he speaks!

The following incident from Major General Van Antwerp may give us an insight. Gen. Antwerp is president of the Officers' Christian Fellowship. He lost nearly all his staff when the Pentagon was attacked Sept. 11. His executive officer LTC Brian Birdwell was badly burned and in the hospital when President Bush visited him. Our President spent time and praye d with Brian. As he was getting ready to leave, he went to the foot of Brian's bed and saluted. He held his salute until Brian was able to raise his burned and bandaged arm, ever so slowly, in return. The Commander-in-Chief never initiates a salute, except in the case of a Congressional Medal of Honor winner. The injured soldier did not have to return
the salute. But he did, out of respect to his President - a Soldier's President.

Congressman JC Watts (R. Oklahoma) said, "Character is doing the right thing when nobody is looking." The nation and world learned some of what our last President did when nobody was looking. That President was disbarred -- the worst
disgrace (other than imprisonment) to a lawyer. CNN will have a difficult time shining his or his wife's tarnished images.

In this time of war and danger, I am so grateful to have a President whom the soldiers salute -- fully.

On Special Report with Brit Hume, hosted by Jim Angle, at the close of the show when they normally have some funny video clip, they showed President Bush and the First Lady on their way to Marine One to leave for Camp David for the weekend. As the video starts, the First Lady is leading the way into the helicopter with the spaniel dog on the leash,
and the president is right behind her with the Scottie on the leash. As the First Lady entered the chopper, the Marine at the gangway saluted and held his salute. The Scottie the President was walking decided it wanted to squat right when he got to steps. The president pulled on its leash, but the stubborn Scottie persisted in squatting. The President bent down and scooped up the pooch and entered Marine One. After he entered, the Marine cut his salute and returned to the
position of attention. Moments later the President reemerged from the helicopter and out onto the steps. The Marine was standing at attention, head and eyes straight ahead. The President leaned over and tapped him on the left arm. The startled Marine turned his body toward the President and received his returned salute! I was so impressed by this true
act of respect for our military people by our President! He really does get it. Most any other person of his stature would have just continued his journey, disregarding the neglected return salute. Not George W.Bush. He is earning the respect of the military community, not expecting it -- as most have and would.

President George W. Bush -- The man who admitted to having a drinking problem in younger years, and whose happy-go-lucky lifestyle led him to mediocre grades in college and an ill-fated oil venture. Whose mangled syntax, and whose speaking missteps became known as "Bushisms." He came within a hair's breadth of losing the election in November. While votes were counted and re-counted, Bush quietly but confidently waited at his ranch.

Make no mistake, his orders were carried out, but he stayed in the background, faithful and confident. Bush named Jesus Christ as Lord of his life on public TV. Not an oblique reference to being "born-again" or having a "life change." He actually said the un-PC-like phrase, "Jesus Christ!"

On September 11, he was thrust into a position only known by Roosevelt, Churchill, Lincoln, and Washington. The weight of the world was on his shoulders, and the responsibility of a generation was on his soul. So President George W. Bush walked to his seat at the front of the National Cathedral just three days after two of the most impressive symbols of American capitalism and prosperity virtually evaporated. When the history of this time is written, it will be acknowledged by friend and foe alike that President George W. Bush came of age in that cathedral and lifted a nation off its knees.
In what was one of the most impressiv e exhibitions of self-control in presidential history, President George W. Bush was able to deliver his remarks without losing his resolve, focus, or confidence.

God's hand, which guided him through that sliver-thin election, now rested fully on him. As he walked back to his seat, the camera angle was appropriate. He was virtually alone in the scene, alone in that massive place with God, just him and the Lord. Back at his seat, George H. Bush reached over and took his son's hand. In that gesture his father seemed to say, "I wish I could do this for you, son, but I can't. You have to do this on your own." President George W. Bush squeezed back and gave him a look of peace that said, "I don't have to do it alone, Dad. I've got help." What a blessing to have a believer in a good God as President.

Please take a moment after you read this to "pray for him". He truly does have the weight of the world on his shoulders. Pray that God will sustain him and give him wisdom and discernment in his decisions. Pray for his protection and that of his family.
 
Where to start...

Tom, you have absolutly no clue who I am or where I am from. Making the assumption, and then an arguement based on that assumption, just proves my previous post - namely, your ignorance. FYI, I am from Romania, and yes I do know how it feels to be afraid of speaking your mind, "securitate" knocking on the door in the middle of the night and taking your parents away, relatives - here today, gone tomorrow, relatives tortured and/or locked away in metal institution. Further, my escape from Romania was during the Ceausescu, my cousin did not make it out - let's just leave it at that - so, again, I am very well aware of living conditions under dictatorships. I am not certain, you didn't specify in your post how old you were when your family left Russia, so maybe ask you parents in that case - what goes through their minds when they hear a leader/president say "you are either with me or against me". I know how I felt, and it scared me, certainly does not sound like democracy.

There are not many things in life that I value more than freedom, and the freedom of speech. I have also learned not to blindly trust any human leadership, rather, I do my research and analysis and form my opinions on that. You should try that sometime!

"How is the rest of the world hurting? Explain to me how Iraq's control of some oil reserves is putting the world in a real fix"

You must be joking?!?! Did the world oil price raise when the notion of war started? Need I really say anymore? I am not going to teach you macro economics, well unless you pay me. But, I do suggest you crack open a book on subjects that you wish to engage in on. If you really are as clueless as your question suggests, it would take me far too much time to explain - like I said, read a book and come back to me.

Allied countries? Yeah, the UK and ok, Australia partialy. Other than that, please! What, Poland send a truckdriver? Uganda, a nurse? Seriously!

Are you really serious about Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? Do you believe that the US can just go and invade whatever country they wish? At least with Iraq, there some shread of a cause to attack. Do you comprehend the importance of petroleum? BTW, under 2002 Iraq was one of the leading suppliers of oil to the US, ranked at #7, representing approx. 4% of our total import. This may be of interest - http://www.oilcrisis.com/

"How is the rest of the world hurting? Explain to me how Iraq's control of some oil reserves is putting the world in a real fix!"

Again man, please, if you need someone to explain this you I have some advice. Go back to school.

"As for the WMDs. If Iraq doesn't have them than why have they not accounted for the destruction of all of them yet? Why were they continuing to #### around inspectors, even recently (not allowing them to talk to the scientists and whatnot)? Why are they equipping their troops with antidotes and chemical protection suits? You mind explaining that?"

Give it a rest. If Saddam had had access to WMDs he would have used it/them. I don't understand people that try this arguement, like you. On one hand Saddam is a ruthless, maniac tyrant (which I do agree with, btw). But on the other, he somehow forgot he had WMD?!? Or did he forget how to use them? Why do you wish for me to explain something that I can only possibly speculate on, when the particular issue is basically over and the facts are in? We attacked them, we waged war for approx 3 weeks, we won, no WMD were used by Iraq/Saddam. What else do you need know?

Last, something that irritates me. "Why were they continuing to #### around inspectors..." You know, if the only way to express your point of view is by using foul language, at least be a man/woman about it and type the out letters. Do feel like you are not using foul language when you type #'s? Were you not actually thinking the word? Do you think that we, the readers, do not think/read the word? Or do you think that we read "#-number" times 4?? If you are going to say something, say it! Don't be a hypocrate. Better yet, learn how to express your thoughts without foul language.

Vassago
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Tom, you have absolutly no clue who I am or where I am from.  Making the assumption, and then an arguement based on that assumption, just proves my previous post - namely, your ignorance.  FYI, I am from Romania, and yes I do know how it feels to be afraid of speaking your mind, "securitate" knocking on the door in the middle of the night and taking your parents away, relatives - here today, gone tomorrow, relatives tortured and/or locked away in metal institution.  Further, my escape from Romania was during the Ceausescu, my cousin did not make it out - let's just leave it at that - so, again, I am very well aware of living conditions under dictatorships.  I am not certain, you didn't specify in your post how old you were when your family left Russia, so maybe ask you parents in that case - what goes through their minds when they hear a leader/president say "you are either with me or against me".  I know how I felt, and it scared me, certainly does not sound like democracy.

First of all, I am sorry to hear about your cousin
sad.gif
.

You sounded like you were from the US, so I apologize.  Generally people from the States use pronouns such as "WE" and "OUR" when referring to actions undertaken by America and it's army (even though THEY have nothing to do with it), and therefore I made that assumption based on your post structure, and since I've seen the anti-war movement in the US use the same line over, and over, and over, and over.....

It seems you DO know what it's like to live under such conditions.  My dad and his family actually were temporarily in German territory, so they know what you're talking about with the knock on the door in the middle of the night.  My grandmother says what they feared most was that 2-3 am knock on the door from the SS.  Again, my apologies, I did not know about your past, I sympathise with you about it, as I've heard stories of my own from my grandmother and my dad.  But again, the way you structured your post made you sound like an American so I made that assumption.

[Edit: This was before I was born by the way.]

However, my dad certainly didn't have a problem with what Bush said, because he never said "you're either with ME, or you're against ME".  What he actually said was, "you're either with us [that is, the USA], or you're with the terrorists".  I watched that speech.  Answer me these questions.  What's wrong with that?  How is that a challenge to democracy?  It looks like he's saying that the USA is not going to tolerate countries that are harbouring terrorists, or not supporting the USA in eliminating the threat.  Sounds like a good defense policy to me; sign me up President Bush, I'm with the USA!

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]There are not many things in life that I value more than freedom, and the freedom of speech.  I have also learned not to blindly trust any human leadership, rather, I do my research and analysis and form my opinions on that.  You should try that sometime!

I do research my topics, actually, and since the US didn't take the oil in 1991 when those same protestors said they would, I have no reason to believe they would do it now, and you're going to have to prove to me why the US is so desperate for Iraqi oil.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]You must be joking?!?!  Did the world oil price raise when the notion of war started?  Need I really say anymore?

No, actually, it didn't.  The oil prices have been rising for YEARS!  I have been paying 60-70 cents a litre for a number of years now (at least 3 or 4), when not too long ago it was around 50 cents a litre.  I'd hate to inject some more fact into this, but when the gas companies started to use the oil shortage as an excuse to raise prices, Kuwait promised to pump out more oil to cover what was missing.  The gas price actually dropped here once the war started (I live in Canada).  So what's the explaination?  Greedy, greedy oil companies.  Ever notice that once the barrel price rises a little the gas prices will shoot up another 5 cents a litre, but when the barrel price drops the gas prices make a slow decline?  Ever notice how the gas companies are supposed to have a 50 day supply, but the prices change on a weekly basis?  Ever notice how every company sells their gas for the same, unjustifiably high price in each and every region?  This has NOTHING to do with the war in Iraq.  This was going on for a few years before talks about the war even started.  Besides, Saudi Arabia has about TWICE the oil Iraq does, and Alberta theoretically has a boatload tied up in the oil sands as well.  Sorry, you lose on this point.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Allied countries?  Yeah, the UK and ok, Australia partialy.  Other than that, please!  What, Poland send a truckdriver?  Uganda, a nurse?  Seriously!

Yeah, but the protesters are saying that NO ONE is with the US.  Whether you're the quarterback or a cheerleader, you're still a member of a football team.  This is no different.  France and Germany do not make up the ally base of the US (and if they did I would be worried).  One final question, are the UK and Australia making a run for Iraqi oil too?  It seems to me the one most interested in and worried about protecting his oil contracts with Iraq is Chirac.  Eon, can I get a big YES on this one ;).

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Are you really serious about Kuwait and Saudi Arabia?  Do you believe that the US can just go and invade whatever country they wish?

If the charges against Iraq are untrue, as you claim, and the US is REALLY that despirate for oil, than who's to stop them from perpetuating lies against other, oil-rich nations?

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]BTW, under 2002 Iraq was one of the leading suppliers of oil to the US, ranked at #7, representing approx. 4% of our total import.  This may be of interest

Wow.  4%!  Mission critical people!  Gees, if we lose that, our oil will only be at 96% of it's former size, and it's impossible for us to do extra drilling within our own borders, or buy additional oil from allies like Canada, Saudia Arabia, and Kuwait!

I also honestly don't recall Saddam threatening to turn off the taps to the US before the war TALKS began.  If you have linkage of that, please let me know.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Again man, please, if you need someone to explain this you I have some advice.  Go back to school.

I'm currently training as a mechanical engineer.  What courses do you want me to add to my soon to be inhuman workload?

Prove to me that Iraq was going to close off their oil to the rest of the world and I'll buy what you're selling.  Saddam actually had no choice but to give their oil to the rest of the world!  Disagree?  Go to the UNITED NATIONS website and look up the "Oil For Food Program".  Heck, I'll do it for you, here's a link:

http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/

Looks like Iraq would be in serious trouble if they cut off their oil supply.  That point wont work, sorry.  Next.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Give it a rest.  If Saddam had had access to WMDs he would have used it/them.  I don't understand people that try this arguement, like you.  On one hand Saddam is a ruthless, maniac tyrant (which I do agree with, btw).  But on the other, he somehow forgot he had WMD?!?  Or did he forget how to use them?  Why do you wish for me to explain something that I can only possibly speculate on, when the particular issue is basically over and the facts are in?  We attacked them, we waged war for approx 3 weeks, we won, no WMD were used by Iraq/Saddam.  What else do you need know?

Saddam would not guarantee WMD use because we both know he would just HATE for the American war to be justified!  Come on man, Saddam wants to be remembered in Arab folklore as a protector of the Arab world.  The last thing he NEEDS is a justified war!  Under those conditions, I don't know if he would use them even if the situation was desperate enough.  And, if he had no WMDs, than he should not have been playing little games with the inspecters

And he has used them in the past by the way, but not against the USA.  Want to see pictures of the results?

Furthermore, the United States has not deployed it's nuclear arsenal in Iraq.  Can we assume that the US has destroyed it's nuclear stockpile?

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]You know, if the only way to express your point of view is by using foul language, at least be a man/woman about it and type the out letters.

Actually, I wasn't using foul language.  To #### someone around basically means to play stupid little games with them.  That word is blocked by the filter, obviously, which changes it to little pound signs.  It was not a four letter word beginning with F or S.
 
Did it begin with a D? In that case, it would be.
But whatever. Yeah Vassago, auto-censorer on this site...some people (no names) would misspell their words so they wouldn't get censored. Others don't care. ####ation (like cursed to hell) is censored. See?
I too feel sorry for you Vassago...I don't know if you'r eimplying he/she died, but you said to drop it. So I will.
Umm, oil prices have been going up all over the world. Forever. Especially in times of war. That's the best time to monopolize on it. Everyone's in a crisis, everyone wants to travel: ergo, jack the price up about twenty cents.
GEEZ TOM! Where do you live? 60-70 cents? It's 1.35-1.68 where I live! 1.35 in normal times! 1.68-1.75 in wartime (but the price has gone back down to 1.35, interesting...)
Don't forget: we have Alaska. Who needs Iraq? Sure, it'd be cool, but we have a pipline US government is screwing around with, hoarding it up, and overcharging us on our gas so they can suck us dry until we have no more fossil fuel...that will suck.
Also, Mexico. Also, Texas. Iraq? Iraq's a plus.
Today, for some odd reason, I happened to chance on a military "real-time" documentary thingie on MTV...commercial break cuts. Gaywad MTV travelling about, asking kids (18-25) what they think about this war. One idiot: "I think Bush is bad for taking over the oil, and therefore the world." It's reasons like that why I'm glad I live in America, and don't work for/watch MTV. Misinformation abounds in foreign countries about us dreaded tyrants and our threat to this peaceful globe.
Another idiot, from America I believe: "I don't think Saddam did anything wrong. It's just his policy. We shouldn't move in on it." Wowza. And here we are, the media spending millions to tell America, BUsh is good/Bush is bad, and we get the BUsh is bad part. That's great. I love America.
South Park's 100th episode summed it up well: Ben Franklin says, "We need a country that can do one thing, and yet have its people say another, so the rest of the world doesn't think we are thirsting for war, and yet not think we are weak people afraid to fight." Thomas Jefferson says, "A splendid idea...we need a name for this country...we shall call it...the United States of America." HEElarious. That got me good. You had to watch that episode to understand it. It was about the whole war protesters/war supporters. Again, funny stuff.
 
just my few undervalued cents ...

Saddam has used WMD ... the Kurd massacres are evidence of that ... but as Tom said, he would like to remain a martyr and be seen as "attacked with no justification" so he will not use them against the attackers (unless maybe if he expects his image to be in some way helped from it) .. also , whether or not oil motivates people....i think that is more about power than oil itself...oil is a convenient red herring as political stability and power is what it is about (imho) ... and political stability is easier obtained in a democratic country (in theory at least ... )....
 
I live in Canada, Avatar. But we're not buying gas per US gallon, we buy per litre!
 
Wow........holy long and complicated thread, Batman!

Can we agree on something?

1. Suddam is a bad bad man, and needs to be removed from power. Whether he has WMD, whether he voilated any treaties, he is EVIL, and should not be in power. He has proved that many times over.

Can we agree on that?

In my opinion, at least Bush is doing something that he believes is RIGHT. He is taking a stand against someone who is EVIL. Which is more than our SPINELESS, fence-sitting Prime Minister can do...

Historians and talking heads alike will debate whether Bush did the right thing until Christ comes back for us. Guaranteed.

All those ppl who DON'T think Suddam is EVIL can go live in Baghdad as a commoner under his rule for a few years, and see if that won't change your mind.
 
But just because someone prays to God doesn't make them the most qualified person.
If that were the case Sadaam would be a good man for praying dayly to God.
 
Saddam doesn't pray to God in the sense that it's used here. Saddam prays to Allah, a pale imitation of the true Jehovah-Jirah.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
What's wrong with that? How is that a challenge to democracy? It looks like he's saying that the USA is not going to tolerate countries that are harbouring terrorists, or not supporting the USA in eliminating the threat.

Not tolerate that I don't support a particular issue; hmm, yeah that sounds like democracy. If I am the, public elected, president of a particular country I will make decisions based on the wellfare of my citizens, and not based on what Bush tolerates or not. Look at all the France bashing now. Man, so much to write and explain... do you know how many arabs live in France? Chirac's decisions were based on what he and his people belived in, does that make it wrong?

Churchil (sp?) once said something like this: I disagree with everything that you say, but I will fight for your right to say it. Don't tell that because you have the world's largest economy and arsenal of weapons, you have the right to bully me. Other countries have the right to express what they believe in.

Let me share something, maybe it'll make my feelings more clear. I work as a prof., the Iraq war/issue came up in class and we discussed it for a bit. An older student, in his 40's, suddenly busts out "shot them all". And at this point I'd venture to say, approx. 30% of the class smiled/laughed/nodded their heads.

Why is this scary? Do you recall the videos that were shown on CNN and such, only a few days after Sept. 11? The ones showing footage from several arabic countries, and people celebrating on the streets, and cheering on, happy because thousands of americans had died? We couldn't even believe it? How can someone/anyone cheer the deaths of innocent people? How barbaric is that? How can they be like this? Think and behave like this? It is insane!

Hmm, is that behavior so different than that of my students? What has happend to our country? How can it be that "regular" people in the US can now, with a smile on their face, say "let's commit genocide"? Have your read The Wave by Ron Jones, or seen the movie? That is what scares me, that that is becoming reality, only the classroom/highschool is changed for the whole country, and Jones changed to Bush. Scary! All I can say is that I hope that I am wrong! And I pray that I am wrong.

Vassago
 
That's the reason why we continuously punish the Germans so much over World War II. Inside, someplace dark we don't like to think about, we're afraid.

That could have been US so easily...
 
And this vague fear lingering on the tip of our vision incites a hate so powerful that we would become the ultimate power in the world to prevent that from happening.
Ah, such is the price of almighty freedom, the right to say: "I'm better than you" and in the same breath turn around and say to he who stepped on your toe, "I will take you to court, or I shall kill you. You have no right to harm me in such a manner. Cross my path again and I shall make your life a living hell."
Such is America. Don't screw with the guy with the big guns, I suppose.
But let's look at it this way, Vassago: perhaps it's a retaliation against those selfsame feelings expressed in the land we're now occupying with military force. "Shoot them all" would be our response to their celebration that innocents were slain. We don't usually celebrate when someone's building is run through with a plane. Not usually. Some people do, but we let them slide, because they're rednecks.
When we view a country breaking out the booze for our deaths, we tend to get, what is the scientific term, pissed (not in the Irish way; that's what they are doing).
Perhaps it's hatred against someone else we don't understand...the fear that comes from entering an alien land, such as when the Hebrews headed out of the desert, finally and found giant men (possibly six to ten feet (Israelis ARE short)) inhabiting the lands they were promised by God. Fear came. They were scared. Then God led them to defeat these giants. And the rest is history, so read your Bibles good and well to figure out what's up with what.
We're now in another land, unsure of what will happen to our troops, or to our homeland, due to the over-hyped threat of chemical weapon attacks from the general Iraqi direction. We were scared witless to check the monthly bills thanks to superhype, courtesy of the idiots that are the American media, that anthrax was in everyone's mailbox.
Now we're scared everytime a plane flies by that it will drop Arabs, Iraqis, Osama bin Laden clones or people with brown skin and beards down, armed with Intratec TEC-22 Scorpions (har dee har har), flak jackets, frag grenades, Miniguns, soman, sarin, and nukes, all jumbled up together in some conglomerate mess.
Such is the American way.
So let's not express anger to these sad individuals who show their rage in lame jokes about death to other human beings they don't know from Adam.
Give a loaded Beretta .22 to a standard, sane 22 year old American Joe. Put him in front of another man with slightly Middle Eastern features (although, people mistake me for full-blooded Mexican, when in fact, I am partly Mexican, partly British...I just got the brown of hte family), and say to the Joe that this stranger is another American. Order him to shoot this stranger. See if he does.
Now let's mingle Americans with the other Arabs. Who's to tell the difference? Suppose I go up to every black guy and shoot him, following some terrorist outbreak in the Congo against an American embassy occurs? What then? Will THAT be the standard response? Nope. We've had our bout with the blacks, and only most of the world is starting to allow black people to fit in as other human beings. Right now, it's the Middle Easterns we're after.
 
"Such is the American way"

Correct me if I misinterpret you Avatar, but are you saying that we are going to war in Iraq for the heck of it, that it is the "American way"?
 
Back
Top