Fahrenheit 9/11
Originally posted by John@Oct 21 2004, 09:47 AM
How, exactly, is America and the world safer with Iran and N. Korea further advancing in WMD and the country (Iraq), that according to bush had Al Qaeda ties (which it didn't until after the war thanks to the course of action Bush took) and WMD (which it didn't have which Bush wouldn't wait with our allies to verify ), is now in chaos and a breeding ground for t'rr? Al Qaeda membership is booming, according to numerous news reports, due to the distrust and low image of America that Bush has exhibited throughout the world via his \"go it alone\" policies. That is what I am stating about Bush's foreign policy, he sleeps on the real issues, turns our allies away, and acts without caution. All hallmarks of bad leadership. These polls reflect that.
The world is safer because instead of Iran, N. Korea, Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan further advancing in WMD there is
only Iran and N. Korea. Doing nothing about Iraq neither moved along or slowed down Iran or N. Korea, but it did take Iraq and Libya out of the picture. The US is certainly safer without Afghanistan. Al-Queda information recovered in Afghanistan leave no doubt that if the US did not retaliate there would have been further attacks.
Do you even need evidence to agree with that?
Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland,
Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Pilau, Panama, Philippines,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea,
Spain,
Turkey, Uganda,
Ukraine,
United Kingdom, Uzbekistan make up the coalition in Iraq. I would not consider that going alone.
The UN, thanks to France, was never going to allow a SECOND resolution authorizing force in Iraq. Yes, that's right, 1441 which was passed by the security counsel unopposed said in words not much different that my paraphrasing here, "start complying with the last 16 resolutions you broke that were passed on you after you invaded Kuwait or face serious consequences." When Iraq didn't comply with 1441, there was a choice. Either give him serious consequences or pass yet
another resolution. Apparently those who voted for 1441 and wanted another resolution after he broke that one consider passing another resolution a serious consequence.
After Afghanistan, many Al-Queda did go to Iraq (Zarcowie to name one). How were we to stop Sadam from building WMDs and giving them to terrorists? Keep issuing UN resolutions? Resolutions don't mean ANYTHING unless you from time to time back them up. Ask the murdered victims in Rwanda or Sudan if UN resolutions are working. Tell the people who have been displaced, murdered, and/or raped to hold on, right now celebrities are picketing the Sudan embassy in US and they are certain that will do something. Hey, and on top of that the Security Council passed a resolution threatening to "consider" sanctions against Sudan at some point, though at no time soon. Even more laughable is that the UN is currently doing a "study" to see if genocide was committed in Sudan. I think the entire world will breathe a sigh of relief if the U.N. finds that it is not genocide. Well, everyone except for the half-million people who were murdered there. It must have been a civil war in which only one side was fighting.
The point is, NO ONE can rely on the what the UN thinks in regards to your own security. Even though that is what the Bush adminstration probaly thinks, they still did NOT "go it alone" (see coalition list) or without a UN resolution (1441).
The IISS reported that al-Qaeda's recruitment and fundraising efforts had been given a major boost by the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It estimated that bin Laden's network today commands some 18,000 men, of which about 1,000 are currently inside Iraq. After almost three years of President Bush's war on terror, the IISS offered the following assessment of the movement's prospects: "Although half of al-Qaeda's 30 senior leaders and perhaps 2,000 rank-and-file members have been killed or captured, a rump leadership is still intact and more than 18,000 potential terrorists are still at large...
Hardly what I would call thriving.
Bush did give time for our allies to verify if Sadam had WMDs. ALL of them agreed that he
did have them. The scary thing is that at least two of our allies who agreed that he had WMDs (France and Germany) refused to do anything about it. France, who agreed that he had Mads, even lobbied against the coalition in Iraq and had an agreement with Satem that "France would never allow a US led invasion of Iraq". (Don't believe me, read the Dahlmer(spelling?) report.
No terrorist have been "bred" by the US current war on Iraq. The people attacking coalition forces in Iraq have been "bred" since the day they were born to hate the west.
) movie is alarming. People are just so willing to believe it uncritically because he is saying what they want to hear, that they don't even look to see that behind the "Great and Powerful Oz," there is really just a propagandist who wants to lull people to sleep with half truths and dodgy editing. It scares me that he is even taken seriously.