Nice satire there. And no, not everything will appear to directly benefit the people of the U.S. But here we go.Turquoise wrote:
I'm sorry, Mr. Secretary of Defense. I didn't mean to offend.Ridir wrote:
What makes you more qualified to assume if someone is or is not a threat to international relations?Turquoise wrote:
But wait, I thought Al Gore was full of shit in your opinion? So, is he only speaking truth when he mentions Saddam in a threatening context?
Personally, I think Gore is much better suited for addressing environmental issues, because we've already proven this statement by him to be untrue.
Clinton also made the mistake of assuming Saddam was a valid threat in the late 90s, as did much of the industrialized world.
Maybe when we stop being so paranoid about the Middle East, we won't end up getting stuck in unnecessary and expensive wars.
Besides, Afghanistan and Pakistan are where our attention should be, not Iraq.
Do you have a security clearance?
Are you briefed daily on international matters but a highly specialized and trained staff with support staffs ranging into the hundreds if not thousands?
Do you possess knowledge that will somehow focus the world's attention immediately where it needs to be every single time it needs to be some place?
Do you even know what a viable threat to international relations is?
Do you know everything that has happened "behind the scenes" that 98% of civilians will never know?
Didn't think so.
I'll go back to praising your infinite wisdom, if it pleases you, oh great one.
I mean, what the hell was I thinking? Government always acts in the best of our interests. Why would they ever lie to us? I'm sure things like the Iran-Contra scandal, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Iraq, the Bay of Pigs, and Vietnam all involved our best interests.
Vietnam: Controlling the Spread of Communism so that the U.N. and massive amounts of foreign trade embragos aren't levied against the U.S. and it's allies so that we lose the cold war. Military wise we were winning the war. Be it in battles or war of attrition, the VietCong and NVC were using more and more desperate measures, effect at first but desperate and ultimately failed till we withdrew. If we had been there and stayed for the duration the NVC and VietCong could have lost and had no military or political power to wield.
Abu Ghraib was not the U.S. government but showing you the unprofessionalism that can come in any army over time. Not only that but everyone from the enlisted personel and their commanding officers were convicted per se the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and international laws.
The Bay of Pigs: Failed CIA venture to control the spread of Communism. The loss of the Cuban people was a serious blow and the fact that it became a public affair that the CIA was involved. If it had been successful the last communist state would not be around but would have a pro democratic government in its place.
The Iran-Contra scandel was a failure all around, but without proper replacement parts most of the gear was useless within months or years. Albit, it is a failure but could also be seen as a try for a diplomatic solution with a "radical" group. This is what a lot of democrates insist we should always be trying to do, diplomatic solutions.
Gitmo is actually a lot of different things. It is a deepwater port for the US Navy so that we can project our forces better. This is in defense of the U.S. coast and it's peoples. Holding prisoners there is a good solution to a bad situation. While holding unconfirmed "prisoners of war" can be viewed as a violation of international law it can also be viewed as a true statement when looking at all of the evidence. Unknown to many people the CIA and US military had Osama Bin Ladin in their sights (as in a rifle sight) twice during the Cliton adminstration but due to not wanting to violate those laws they did not take the shot. This is after it was confirmed that he had been either funding, leadership, or planner to a degree of somesort. In otherwords we have every legal right to what happens there and we also have every legal right to that land and water.
Iraq: The case is still open due to the fact that the conflict is not over. The reason for waging war was legitament to make some of the firmest anti-war senators and congress(wo)men change their tunes into supporting it. Of course everyone is going to jump on the "Oh, what a screw up Iraq is!" bandwagon. With media not supporting it anymore it would be fool hardy for any politician to fully support the war if they wanted to get re-elected no matter their personal stance. But even Cliton adminstration members, Al Gore included, are quoted as saying that Iraq would always persue WMD's as long as Saddam was in power. And while WMDs from Iraq's government would not be a direct threat to us, they could be given to terrorist (something that wasn't past Saddam to do) to be smuggled into the States or used on Israel one of our allies.
So wait, yes, these actions could be discribed as in the best interest of the the citizens of the United States and/or our allies and Western European countries.
