posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 04:37 PM
First let me say that I'm not a fan of the occupation of iraq and afghanistan.
I believe that some right things were done, but for the wrong reasons.
The problem I am faced with, is that I just don't believe a word that bush says.
I didn't believe blair either - he's gone now, but will probably crop up soon in his role of mideast envoy to carry on dubya's rhetoric.
So here's the thing,
has bush cried "WOLF" once too often and now lacks realistic support?
Let's take a look at some of the excuses for war.
There is evidence to suggest that al'qaeda was responsible for the 911 attacks which were used as a rallying point to start the war on terror.
However al'qaeda has said more than once that they had nothing to do with it, and there is also evidence to support this, particularly in the 911
forum here on ATS.
The fact that there has not been any WMDs found in iraq leads me to believe that an invasion was irresponsible at best.
Perhaps saddam DID need to be removed, but who is bush/blair to say what is right and wrong?
Iraq was a sovereign nation - other countries disagree with our politics/policies but there is a place to object to another countries policies and a
way to do it according to international law.
I just don't believe that the"might is right" approach is the best one.
Afghanistan is turning into a nightmare - the taliban won't give up,and will fight to the very last man. In the meantime, where is OBL? the alleged
mastermind of 911?
Iran has been in the news a lot recently - nuclear programmes, ships being threatened etc.
Bush said one thing one week about the nuclear programme, then something else another week. Which one is right?
Oh yes, the one where they DID NOT have a nuclear weapons programme.
These are just some of the major reasons that I think bush is the boy who cried "WOLF" and who is now paying the penalty as the world does not even
pretend to pay lip service to his demands for more war.
I'm sure that other members have their own thoughts or examples of bush being guilty of terminological inexactitudes.
I'm also sure that there are members who believe him.
All thoughts appreciated.