The Ohio State University "Die-In"
Apr. 14th, 2005 @ 08:18 am
|What about the WMD's?
Many sources of intelligence which included the US, Britain and Russia had reason to believe that there were WMD's. Now, chemicals had been found in several factories that could be used to produce weapons. Were any weapons necessarily built? No. Was there the capability? Yes, and UN resolutions that had been in place were not enforcable since Saddam Hussein didnt care about them whatsoever. That is why finally in 1998 that Saddam decided to close off his factories to the UN inspectors. If you were running a country right there and your neighbor was an enemy and could create problems with weapons, wouldnt you want to know what is there and prevent before saying what could have been?What about the 100,000 civilian casualties?
I am not denying that there have been civilian casualties, and you and me can both agree that we dont like to see civiilans die. However, war does have its tolls. You've got to remember that there has been a lot of insurgent activity over there. Have we killed some civilians accidentally? I'd be lying if I said no we didnt. We have accidentally killed some civilians. However, insurgents like Al-Zarqawi and his organization have kidnapped civilians and in some cases like Nick Berg and a Korean citizen, beheaded them. I did see it and all I can say is that it is a very gruesome and painful way to be killed, and Berg was totally screaming in pain and agony when he was having his head sawed off with a knife blade. Are civilian casualties bad? Yes. Are we doing what we can to try and prevent them? Yes, we are doing what we can. Are the insurgents doing what they can to prevent them? They dont care...just check out an Al-Jazerra news clip where they are kidnapping people and holding guns to their head and theres your answer.What about alternative motives for going to Iraq, like oil?
Ah, oil is the classic question that all liberal teachers, liberal college professors and liberals in general use. Historically, the US is going to be one of the nations that protects its interests. Yes, we do import a lot of oil from the middleeast, but also do so from Canada and we have our own refineries both in the Gulf and soon to be Alaska where there is a rich source that can be used for reserves. Here is some information that could give you a better perspective, and I apologize if this gets too long or starts to go off. Typically England and the US are big allies. England is our last line of defense in the Atlantic, and we are the line of defense in the Pacific. Therefore anything that will affect our allies will have us on close watch and if we need to step in, we do, and that has occured historically.
We do have several interests in this conflict. Relations is the biggest in my opinion. If there is a stable country are groups of stable countries, it does help everyone, not just us. Now, we do have a mixed economy which provides for a free market under some governmental control. Essentially supply and demand control this. Now, do we export oil? Yes, and I have stated that. However, globalization has occurred since the 1970's and countries will leverage their best assets and work with countries to help out. An example...we do import oil, we export many things as well. It is all about competitive advantage. Oil is not a factor in my opinion though. All the oil we want, we already get. We really do need to improve the relations. After all, the jihad hates us and the middle east has typically hated our freedoms. That is the nice thing we have...even though you and me disagree politically, we probably do have some similar things in common. Also, we do have the freedom to express these differences while they stick to old regimes. We should be lucky to have that ability.
what about 9 billion dollars that are unaccounted for?
Last I remember, the 9 billion dollars that is unaccounted for is part of the United Nations and the Oil for Food program, which is extremely corrupt. The scandal involves France, Germany, Russia, China, the UN, and several middle eastern countries including Iran and Iraq.What about Haliburton?
Ok, most everyone in the democratic party always brings this up. As you know, Haliburton is a transnational company based in the US that specializes in this type of contract work. It has many divisions and you have probably used their equipment before. For example...gas stations that use Wayne branded gas pumps...its part of Dresser company which is a subsidiary of Haliburton. Anyways, the reason that Haliburton is used in most contracts is because they have historically had the most experience with what is taking place. They were used in Operation Desert Storm to help rebuild in the early 1990's and have a long history with both the democratic and republican parties. There is only 1 other company in the world that I know of that remotely comes close, which is Schlumberger which is based out of France yet has a sizeable US presense. Both companies have worked together before, but Schlumberger has outsourced portions of contracts to Haliburton in the past.
Haliburton was used to help rebuild after the 1991 Gulf War (Bush 41) and Bill Clinton also employed them many times in the middle east using no-bid contracts which created overruns by the democratic administration at the time. If it is so bad to use Haliburton, why wasn't anyone complaining to Bill Clinton and the democrats about using Haliburton?? It's not a matter of political favors...it is just using who is most qualified and has the best depth of knowledge for these types of jobs, which in this case is Haliburton.
How come Bin Laden was allowed to walk? Well, the 9/11 commission disagrees with that statement, but whatever. What happened in Afghanistan when Bin Laden was trapped by coalition forces and he was allowed to get away? It cuts both ways, people make mistakes, but I'm not sure Bin Laden was allowed to get away from Clinton, at least according to the 9/11 comm.
I think you forgot to mention Jamie Goerilick, who created "the wall" between the CIA and the FBI. In the mid 1990's, she was in charge yet prohibited the communication between these organizations. Now yes, mistakes do happen. However the intentional seizure to communicate...not a good idea there. The CIA is the off-country agency that provides intelligence we need to know, and the FBI works stateside. Both agencies need to communicate with each other to be effective. Do you think that creating "the wall" made sense? Also, why was Jamie Goerilick allowed to be on the 9/11 commission when she was part of the problem in gathering intelligence?