Your bias is so thorough and unsupported that its very difficult to take you seriously. I somehow doubt that the Vietnam war was lost because of protests and lack of support back on the homefront. Have you possibly considered that the Vietnam war was not a just war? That it wasn’t the place of America to invade a foreign country because it felt threatened by its ideology? Or are you simply content to demonize communism as though it were still the 1950’s?
Firstly, the war in Iraq was not a war sanctioned by the world community, mainly, the United Nations. I don’t think anyone can deny that there was serious opposition to it. Secondly, the war was conducted on false premises, the intelligence that was used was not reliable. The result, we have the U.S subverting international law to remove dangerous weapons of mass destruction that are simply not there.
- I think you can at least see that the opinion of this war being illegal is legitimate (in the sense that this opinion is not irrational) even if you disagree.
Look back to when Israel bombed Iraq in the eighties to remove nuclear facilities that it felt posed a national threat. The UN condemned this action as did the US. Consider that America condemned this action when there were actual facilities that could be bombed!!! Forward twenty years later and America justifies an ENTIRE WAR based on vague intelligence with no evidence that, even if there were weapons, they would pose a national threat. How can it condemn Israel, than conduct a war of its own?
Since no weapons of mass destruction have been found, nor any direct link between 9/11 and Iraq, the Bush administration has largely defended this war on the premises of human rights. It is literally tearing this nation apart in the name of freedom, in the name of giving them democracy, an ideology. They have successively removed the tyrant Saddam, only to watch it be replaced by the tyranny of anarchy. 2. The United States has invaded a foreign nation in the name of its ideology
3. It is willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent civilians in the name of this ideology
The definition of terrorism is this: Terrorism:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
The United States is using violence, in an unlawful manner, to place tremendous pressure upon an entire society so as to adopt American democratic values. It is an act of terrorism. In invading the nation is has turned many people, who would otherwise have been civilians, to take up arms to defend their nation against this invasion. As well, countless civilians have died. Furthermore, this is done in the name of freedom and human rights. Just because this does not involve suicide bombers, does not mean it is not terrorism. What if every nation was allowed to invade another country in the name of human rights and spreading democracy? What if we simply invaded every non-democratic nation in the name of our own values? Could nations not be invaded under the guise of bringing freedom, when in fact, they did so for alternative reasons? What if there was no international body that could determine which invasions were legitimate, and which were done for the benefit of the nation invading?
That said I also agree with 2shelbys’ post cuz the reality is, some folks on the left wouldn’t like Bush no matter what. He does support the American way of life the left has been trying to destroy for a couple of generations.
