I haven't gone anywhere ladies and gentlemen. I've been brushing up on my history a bit. I'm now deeply absorbing everything I can in an effort to figure out what particular, credible threat, to our National Security, did Iraq pose. Tony and I had a little off topic discussion about this already.
I'm also in awe of the historical moment that Barack Obama, the first black American nominated for president of the United States, by one of the nation's major parties.
I am TOTALLY in awe of this great moment in time, and this great accomplishment, by a great man. This proud moment is one like my grandparents and parents passed down to us, regarding Dr. Martin Luther King and the impact of the civil rights movement. I thought I would never live to see the day.
I won't even let the fact the the LA Times states that he's the first "biracial" American, in an attempt to diminish the pride that black people may feel as a result. Of course, some will see that as me being "hypersensitive", but I will argue that I'm not. See, as a result of the "one-drop" rule, if you had any trace of african blood, you were considered black. I guess some people just can't let those things go. I hope I don't come off as being sensitive for pointing out the LA Times proclamation. I do it in total disappointment... It just means a lot to me.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Eric,
Out of curiousity, regarding your Iraq comment, had you had a chance to look at my reply under your "What Did Bush Do Wrong? Dude...Seriously?!?" post?
Well, you pose the question as if it is a convincing argument for the Iraq war, and I somehow missed it.
Yes, I read the comment. While I can appreciate the level of effort, represented by its "wordiness", I certainly do not agree with it.
To address your statement, "Now, considering all the above, why the administration has allowed the lack of WMD to become a sole comdemnation eludes me." Well, that's because this was the sole argument, used as a justification for the war. Also, coming on the heals of the 9/11 attacks, the American people were feeling very vulnerable, and as a result, the vast majority of Americans supported it.
Actually, a collection of the phrases used at that time, by the bush administration, as justification for the Iraq war are:
"mortal threat," "urgent threat," "immediate threat", "serious and mounting threat", "unique threat," and claiming that Iraq was actively seeking to "strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction"
We are correct to study history. I don't study history, in order to justify my position on anything. I study history so that I may understand how we may have gotten to where we are. We can't, or shouldn't try to use history to rewrite the history of how we ended up in the second Iraq war.
However, I'm still early in my study, and I could be wrong; though I highly doubt it.
First, I am writing this after watching Barack Obama's acceptance speech. I am not an Obama supporter or African American, but I do agree with you that this is an important event in our Nation's history. I think this will be one of those times that in the future people will say "What were you doing when ...?"
On to the whole Iraq thing, now. One of the things in his speech that struck me was that while he was condemning Bush and McCain for invading Iraq he stated that the time for "tough words" towards Iran was over. He railed against the administration for not doing more about Iran, but criticized them for doing too much about Iraq.
What I may be missing is how is the situation in Iran currently any different than situation in Iraq prior to the war? In both cases each nation's leaders have defied repeated urging for co-operation with the UN while facing sanctions. In both cases each leader has claimed no wrong doing while continuing to leave more questions of intent than answers.
Saddam Hussien repeatedly kicked UN inspection teams out of the country, kept selling oil for profit in defiance of UN sanctions, made blatant threats against the West and put on shows to suggest he was moving weaponry around. He has also demonstrated his willingness to use WMD against just about anybody in the past.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes repeated threats about the annihilation of one of our allies, refuses to cooperate with UN inspection teams and continually thumbs his nose at the West saying he will continue nuclear enrichment for "peaceful purposes". Not to mention recent missile tests.
Which situation called for action and which situation only called for "tough words"? I am not sure that Barack can distinguish between the two when it seems he has trouble following his own career. Or am to actually believe he voted against invading Iraq "just days after 9/11"? The Iraqi invasion occurred on March 19, 2003 but Barack wasn't elected to the US Senate until November 2, 2004.
Although I don't support McCain for president, I do respect him. I think the ad congratulating Barack on our historic night was something a man would do.
Your right Michael, he didn't vote against the war, in the US Senate. He was, indeed, still an Illinois State Senator at the time. His claim is that he has publicly opposed the war, since before it began. That absolutely cannot be disputed.
Eric, To keep this post on its focus, I replied to your Iraq comments under your "What Did Bush Do Wrong? Dude...Seriously?!?" post.
Post a Comment