posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 09:29 PM
Okay, most people agree that Bush did not do 9/11, except one guy out there who says this:
(Oil drilling in ANWAR and in the Gulf)...wouldn't pass the US Senate, as has been evidenced already in 2003. The Iraq war was easily passed as
noone dared to vote against it for fear of looking either unpatriotic and a terrorist appeaser.
His or her arguement boils down to that it is easier to stage the largest terrorist attack in history and invade Iraq to get its oil than to pass
legislation in the US Congress with a Republican majority.
If you take a serious look at the facts and put all partisan reservations behind, you will see that if BushCO put equal effort into oil drilling in
ANWAR as staging 9/11 as you say, he will easily get it done. There is no argument here.
So we have that sealed. Let's move on to more effective, higher arguements against the Iraqi War. Firstoff, let's tackle this arguement:
The Iraqi War is not part of the War on Terror, does not go after the ones responsible of 9/11, will not prevent future terrorist attacks, will
create more terrorists than it stops, and is a lie manufactured by Bush.
I want to state firstoff that this is, in part, a more legitamate criticism than the first one. It acknowledges that the US is the good guy in the War
on Terror; that the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration are good things and Osama's religious perversion is a bad thing.
But still it is faulty in many points. The first concerning the practicality of the situation we are in. In the pro-War camp, al-Qaeda and the ones
responsible for 9/11 were destroyed in the Afghani war. We have taken out al Qaeda and there is no way they can start another 9/11 the way we left
But still the threat of Islamic terrorism lingered. The only way we can defeat this is by introducing democracy and human rights to the Arab world.
True democracies participating in the free market enterprise are less likely to start wars than dictatorships. What better place to introduce
democracy into the Arab world than in Iraq? Sadaam is hated by both Westerners and Arabs. They have a well educated middle class that makes up most of
their population. They have a wealth of natural resources and have more advanced infrastructure in the Arab world. Thus, Iraq became the next front in
the War on Terror.
WMDs had a lot to due with it also. If you read the Kay report, it does state that Sadaam's main goal was to go nuclear. He did have WMD
infrastructure in place, and could start production at the drop of the hat. Also, even though he did not have stock piles, we did not know for
certain. Hans Blix could not guarantee 100% that Sadaam had no WMDs. The only reason he got as far as he did was the enhanced pressure on Sadaam due
to US troop mobilization. Less than a year after 9/11, we could not have uncertainity with a dictator with more military resources, more US hatred,
and more terrorist experience than Osama.
So it boils down to that removing Sadaam proved to be a unique oppurtunity to bring human rights and democracy to the middle east, while further
securing the US against castrotophic terrorist attacks.
Let me finish this discussion by asking the anti-war crowd that if an oppurtunity such as this fell into your lap, that you could help out millions of
Arabs instantly, hopefully bring human rights to all the Arab countries, and at the same time guarantee further security of the US, would you pull the