Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
"We could alleviate a lot of human suffering without any need for military action simply by holding our companies accountable for their dealings overseas... I believe I said something about our government having its cake and eating it too?"
hush, I had asked you for examples and the comment above is still more rhetoric without them. First of all, are you saying that the government not policing the nation's companies overseas excludes them from performing any moral actions? Really? Second, since you had mentioned something in a previous reply about "sweat shops" do you know anything about sweat shops at all, other than a Kathy Lee Gifford clip, or is it just another phrase to use in place of an example? I do happen to know quite a bit about what you call sweat shops and I can tell you the people working there are not the ones complaining. Yes, those jobs may pay them 3 or 4 bucks an hour where the same job done in the US would pay 10-15, but in other countries they are very lucrative jobs, paying more than common laborers get from other jobs, whenever other jobs can be found. They do not feel used at all. I know in South America they happily line up for those jobs and don't refer to them as "sweat shops" at all. The only people you will hear complaining are the US union leaders who have allowed it to happen by being so outrageous in their salary requirements and working conditions demands. You are going to throw that on the government? Because of that the government has no credibility for standing up for human rights?
As far as your three distractions....
"The fact that we are invading a country pre-emptively."
There are those who would say that it is a continuation of the war on terrorism. There is little or no doubt that the wmd are there in the hands of a murderer who does not hesitate to use them. Bush says he will eliminate those weapons BEFORE they are used on us in this new world of mass-murder terrorism. To be honest I also feel that it goes back to Kuwait. Hussein agreed to the demands of weapons inspectors back in '91 and, when the Americans pulled out, did not honor them. With that, combined with the fact that daddy was the president Hussein snubbed his nose at, it wouldn't surprise me that there is a little personal irritation in this also, which still doesn't take away the validity of the action..it simply adds a personal angle. Should you choose not to accept the WMD reasoning then perhaps you can come up with your own. What would it be? Bush is insane? You have seen him on TV before and during this action. Does he appear to be insane to you? Or perhaps you feel that the US simply wants to conquer Iraq because we can, maybe to test all of these wonderful weapon toys we've never been able to use? No, of course you don't. You know as well as everyone else that America does not stand for that. Oil, then? How? Why? Simply because Bush has an oil background and Iraq has oil is enough to make one scream OIL?? Makes no sense. What would we do with it? Take it over and sell it for our own profit as booty of the invasion? No, you know America does not stand for that, either....so what scenarios are left? If you can come up with one that sounds as plausible as eliminating WMD before we lose another 5000 civilians I'd be glad to hear it.
"The fact that we are no longer focusing the search on WMD, but rather on Saddam"
hush, you can't enter a house without opening the door. The WMD are not going to be found with Hussein still in power. His removal is essential to having the freedom and capability to find them. Of course we are focusing on Saddam..that is the opening of the door. It is the natural progression of the action. Surely you can see that....
"What role does oil play in this? (No, I'm not going to make the it's all abou the oild argument, but I do think it plays a role.)"
I have no idea what role oil plays. It will realistically play some part since it is all that Iraq has and there is a lot of it..but whatever part it plays with be in the aftermath. It is not a reason for the initial action.
hush, it seems to me that you simply find it impossible to conceive that the administration can act with moral convictions and in the best interests of the security of the US and the world. It sounds like you find that possibility unacceptable and are willing to list whatever points you can find about the government to prove that moralistic action by the administration is not possible. I don't say that as a slur against you but I just wonder why you feel that way. Is it political? Had these actions been taken by the Democratic Party, would that make a difference to you? I really don't know how you feel but I find it sad that the feeling exists. Yes, we can go back through America's history and find many flaws and improper courses of action taken by then-current administrations but than has nothing more to do with now that chastizing you because an ancestor of yours may have shot an Indian or owned a slave. The current administration had nothing to do with slavery, Indian Wars, sweat shop initiations or any of our foibles of the past so why are you so eager to condemn them because of the actions of other administrations? I would really be curious to know. I have not seen anything by Bush to indicate that he is a man of low moral character and yet you appear to be judging him to be exactly that. You look for shadows behind trees. Is it personal, the political party he belongs to or just the fact that he is a President and, as such, cannot be trusted? I certainly don't know him that well but, from what I have seen, he is a man who chose good, qualified men to advise him, who has taken an action he considers to be in the best interest of the country, who has not been sidetracked by the tactics Hussein used on the UN for 12 years, who had the balls to tell the UN to act or get out of the way, who has stood by those convictions and actions even when major countries and hundreds of thousands of protestors tried to change his mind, who has basically staked his entire reputation and political career on his confidence that he has made the right decisions....this ain't bad for a guy that can't say a full sentence without making at least three grammatical errors!! Maybe what turns you off is that the confidence he has in his actions makes him come off as arrogant to you. Many people with unbending resolve come off that way. I'm willing to believe he may know what he's doing and is doing it for the right reasons. You are not willing....fair enough, that's your right. I'm just curious as to the base of such skepticism....