The British Government wouldn't help them out though....
Bush' employment as American president was the biggest scandal ever:
1) thousands of 'black' votes in florida were discarded
2) convicted felons in Florida werent allowed to vote (which is against law) but they werent allowed into the voting booths
3) Jebb Bush (********s brother) was in charge of affairs in Florida (Surprised?)
4) daddy is great pals with the supreme court judges who overuled the recount
5) Oversea votes (i.e. soldiers in other countries) had votes counted twice (as theyw ere bush supporters)
many other reasons too, if u wana knw more, just ask me.
I cant believe you can say the only justification for was is self defence. In essence you are bluntyly saying **** the Iraqui's,. ignore thier suffering, unless Iraq directly attacks us then we shouldnt do nething to help them. YTes i said there are Al kaida operatives, n there are also some here, but in England we can work to try and route them out. In Iraq they had power, to rule over people, and thier leaders commited acts of violence, you cannot compare the two. Also, peopel complaining aout Bushes route to presidency, Al gore wouldve taken the same action.... most likely.
Regardless of the supposed reasons for Bush's "employment" as American President, the man has done extraordinarily well. Dealing so bravely with one of the worst terrorist attacks a few months into office is a monumentous feat, and should be applauded. People often lament politicians for inaction, yet Bush responded with clarity, vision and most important, positive action.
Some people will always criticize politicians, yet provide no alternative course of action. This is the easy way out. The war in Iraq was a necessary course of action to root out the totalitarianist regime of Saddam Hussein. To suggest that the people of Iraq would prefer the ceaseless brutality of this cruel, oppressive regime, over the few weeks of war that they suffered is illogical and absurd. Anti-American sentiment often distorts people's perception of reality, with the presumption that "evil, capitalist" America is selfish, power hungry, and always wrong. To suggest that
"The only justice for war is self-defence."
is completely foolish and selfish. This implies no moral imperative to help others in dire, inhumane situations. Do you not care for their suffering, or do you merely shy away from a mispercieved notion of a "War" that seems unquestionably wrong, without first analysing the situation with some semblance of intellectual clarity.
The Iraq war was a resounding success. There are still problems in Iraq. It is unrealistic to expect otherwise. However, the short term suffering of the Iraqi people in the quest for their liberation was definitely worth it, as the long term prognosis can only get better.
Have you ever heard of the expression "Prevention is better than cure?" There was strong evidence at the time to suggest that Iraq was a major threat to the world's security, especially that of the world's most influential and important nations. Iraq had been ordered by the UN to disarm it's weapons of mass destruction after the first Gulf War and to allow weapons inspectors from the UN to carry out checks to verify this was happenning correctly. Saddam Huessein did not allow these checks to take place under the conditions set, and so to any level headed person this signifies that he had something to hide. Coupled with intelligence that production of WMDs was taking place inside Iraq, I think that the actions taken by the US and UK and the rest of the coalition of the Willing were justified in the action they took primarily for self (and the rest of the world) defence. They gave Saddam plenty of opportunity (13 years!) to show his willingness to coperate, and it appeared after such time that the only language he undrestood was force.
Second, the war was about the liberation of the Iraqi people. For the past 30 odd years they had been living under a terrible regime of torture and execution. There is no two ways about it, Saddam Huessein was a modern day evil dicatator, and I defy anyone to argue otherwise. The Iraqi people needed to be set free from this system, and this goal has been achieved. Of course, there were civillian casulaties in the war, but show me any war were there isn't? I am not trying to justify the killing of innocent people, in fact quite the opposite is true. What I am getting at is that if Huessein had been left in power for another 10, 15 years only to be succeded by his (more evil) son, how many innocent people woul be killed then? A darn sight more than as a result of the war.
Iraq should be a major oil exporting country. After liberalisation, this extremely valuable asset can be used to develop the country and increase the living standards of it's citizens, rather than line the pockets of the Huessein family (and definitely not those of the coalition of the willing as so many people think it will...)
Those who argue that the intelligence was wrong and that their was no production of WMDs in process... OK, perhaps Saddam didnt have a nuclear, biological or chemical weapon a few months back. But there was evidence to suggest he was developing them - not necessarily building them... yet. What should we have done, allowed him to continue to develop them on paper and then build them for real while we faffed around again like the months wasted before military action was taken, so he has some real bargaining power and ability to destroy us when we finally got round to taking action? Of course not.
You saw the joy on the faces of the Iraqi's as they pulled down the statue of Saddam in Baghdad - surely this in itself shows we did the right thing!
this is not about the war. this about the reasons for war. if they openely said this war is about removing saddam hussien . i would have supported it with all my heart. but the problem is that the government choose to use WMD as the reason. and they seem to have either exaggereted the evidence or worst of all lied to us. the problem now is whether we can still trust our leaders. i am realy happy about liberating the iraqis. but why did out bush and blair choose to go with the WMD path. I dont trust Bush and Blair one bit now.
Talk about freedom my friend, and I'll tell you its the american citizens themselves who dont have it. Any bad words agains the Bush regime, and the fbi and co are onto you like a rash in America, Everything is censored, as well as all the major newspapers being run by bush's cronies, to ensure no word gets out. He is nothing but a puppet at the end of the day, being dictated by large corporations who truly run America, along with their neo-con idealism. To boos stock values, exchange rates, oil procong etc. they fight wars (absolutely nothing to do with terror/wmd's)
And isnt it funny, the Americans always have someone to blame, if not the Japanes, its the communist, or now 'islamic militants'. Just as the fall of communism came about, the Americans had to find themselves a new common enemy, and a culprit to put the blame on and to give them the right to 'take the gloves off'. And so they found Isla, afraid of its alarming rate of growth around the world, the fastest growing religion had to become the new target for the biggest 'cancer of the world-America. (well the second biggest after Israel and the Zionists).