The Country that Cried Wolf
CNN is reporting an article about an anti way billboard that was to be placed in New York's Time Square. The billboard was blocked by Clear Channel but after some negotiations, the billboard will go up. So what’s all the fuss about? The billboard is to have an image of a bomb with the words "Democracy is best taught by example, not by war." by it. Clear Channel rejected the billboard "because the image of a bomb would be offensive in a city that had been a target of the 9/11 terror attacks." There are a couple of things I find wrong with this.
To start off, doesn't it seem a little strange to place an anti war sign in New York where attacked on 9/11. When 9/11 hit, everyone including New Yorkers wanted retribution. I'm sure the New Yorkers we're "screaming for blood" more than others since they were the one hit. Based on that, we then again tell the world that we will not tolerate terrorism and we're going after all terrorist. We even warned other nations that if they harbored terrorist, they were acting as a threat to us. Everyone was in unison with this statement. The mission was to rid the world of terrorist and the USA rejoiced. So we go kick Al Queda's butt and everyone is happy. But remember we said that we're going after all terrorist. It only makes sense that we turn our eyes to Sadaam. My question is why the hell is America upset with the war? America wanted the damn war. America screamed, "Give me blood" and they got it. America screamed, "Take out the other possible threats" and they got it.
OK. I know some of you are thinking what about the CIA's false intelligence, the prisoner abuse, beheadings, etc. First of all I'ld like to point out that Bush apologized to the world about the prisoner abuse and the Secretary of Defense said that it was ultimately his fault. Shit rolls up hill. I've never heard of or seen another country admit they were wrong like that. The beheadings were going to happen one way or another. The prisoner abuse just added fuel to the fire. Now the big one, the CIA's false intelligence report. I seem to remember that the CIA was reporting that Sadaam had 'weapons of mass destruction' when Clinton was in office. If we had known that the Iraq didn't have 'weapons of mass destruction' should we have still gone to war? Read the paragraph above. Iraq was harboring terrorist and lets face it, Sadaam needed to get the boot.
America wants action and as soon as they get it they claimed to have never wanted it. As for the billboard's words, "Democracy is best taught by example, not by war." Yes democracy is best taught by example. But when words fail, action is required.
To start off, doesn't it seem a little strange to place an anti war sign in New York where attacked on 9/11. When 9/11 hit, everyone including New Yorkers wanted retribution. I'm sure the New Yorkers we're "screaming for blood" more than others since they were the one hit. Based on that, we then again tell the world that we will not tolerate terrorism and we're going after all terrorist. We even warned other nations that if they harbored terrorist, they were acting as a threat to us. Everyone was in unison with this statement. The mission was to rid the world of terrorist and the USA rejoiced. So we go kick Al Queda's butt and everyone is happy. But remember we said that we're going after all terrorist. It only makes sense that we turn our eyes to Sadaam. My question is why the hell is America upset with the war? America wanted the damn war. America screamed, "Give me blood" and they got it. America screamed, "Take out the other possible threats" and they got it.
OK. I know some of you are thinking what about the CIA's false intelligence, the prisoner abuse, beheadings, etc. First of all I'ld like to point out that Bush apologized to the world about the prisoner abuse and the Secretary of Defense said that it was ultimately his fault. Shit rolls up hill. I've never heard of or seen another country admit they were wrong like that. The beheadings were going to happen one way or another. The prisoner abuse just added fuel to the fire. Now the big one, the CIA's false intelligence report. I seem to remember that the CIA was reporting that Sadaam had 'weapons of mass destruction' when Clinton was in office. If we had known that the Iraq didn't have 'weapons of mass destruction' should we have still gone to war? Read the paragraph above. Iraq was harboring terrorist and lets face it, Sadaam needed to get the boot.
America wants action and as soon as they get it they claimed to have never wanted it. As for the billboard's words, "Democracy is best taught by example, not by war." Yes democracy is best taught by example. But when words fail, action is required.
posted by Jokerr at
7/16/2004 07:01:00 AM
3 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Rainman, at 7/18/2004 02:49:00 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Rainman, at 7/18/2004 02:54:00 AM
Ok, there are several items that I would like to offer rebuttal to so I will start off with the billboard that Clear Channel blocked, then allowed.
The original design was there to make a statement. The displaying of the original design is protected under the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States. I can understand Clear Channels reluctance to display such a sign, so they modified it to a dove in stars & stripes instead of the bomb, but the message is the same.
Now moving on to some of the outrageous statements in the second paragraph, yes America did scream for war against terrorists. So president Bush assembled a small force to deploy into Afghanistan to go get Osama bin Laden, who is still free to this day. The talliban was over thrown, who were terrorist sympathizers, and rightfully so. The problem is the main target, objective - get the man and group responsible for the attacks on US soil is still at large. Al Queda is still strong with many supporters and sympathizers. The American led attack on Iraq only brought in more people to that organization. Now it seems that The Saudis are offering amnesty to any Saudi national that turns themselves in. I posted about that on my blog a few days ago http://fear-and-loathing.blogspot.com.
Third, the CIA did NOT provide president Bush with false intelligence. Bush himself doctored the intelligence reports taking out such words as "maybe", "could", "possibly", etc. He did this to make a stronger case to the Senate and House who needed to vote on the war, and if they were handed reports with questionable evidence about WMDs I would go so far as to say many of them (at least not a majority) would have not voted in favor of the war in Iraq. Furthermore, the problems at Abughrib (spelling?) was known to the president and secretary of defense in January. It wasn't until pictures were leaked to the media that the public became aware of it. Additionally, the general in charge of the prison was told to step aside by "civilian contractors" who were posing as CIA agents, instructing the troops to commit these acts of torture. For this, Bush is guilty of War Crimes, just as he is putting Saddam on trial for.
As for Iraq having WMDs during the Clinton administration, well that’s what the NATO inspectors were there investigating. Hans Blix, the man in charge of the investigation found no such evidence during his time there. He only left when he was ordered to pull out by Bush. Furthermore, why did Bush instruct Colin Powell to present false evidence to NATO before the war? These reports that he swore to have been proven false, and of course we are still waiting on the WMDs to be found.
As for Saddam harboring terrorists, this is speculation. There have been NO ties relating Saddam to the attacks that happened here (Bush admitted this), the US Embassies abroad, or USS Cole. Yet about 12 of the 16 people that were directly involved with the hijacking of the four flights on September 11 were of Saudi nationality - none of them were Iraqi.
He claims to have made the world safer, but since the pre-emptive attack there have been more terrorist attacks then ever before, beheadings, and constant uprising from militants in Iraq.
Now I do want to make a point clear, Saddam was a terrible man and leader. He was ruthless who killed and tortured his own people (US troops are doing that now though). He was essentially defenseless, almost none of the resistance came from the official Iraqi army, and he had no Air Force, Navy, or unmanned aircrafts to carry out any immediate attacks on America. Yet even though all this was happening, was it worth over 1000 US lives?
These are the facts of the case, we shouldn't have preemptively attacked Iraq, and we certainly con not allow this president to continue lying to the American people for another 4 years.
By
Rainman, at 7/18/2004 02:55:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home