|
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 5,111
|
Selfless?
Or not....
Part I
Paraphrasing the Administration - better we fight the terrorists over there than in our own country. I have come across this (not sure if its already posted here) - an Iraqi responding. See the 1 July entry (scroll down if needed):
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_riverbendblog_archive.html
Quote:
Bush said:
“The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. The war reached our shores on September 11, 2001.”
Do people really still believe this? In spite of that fact that no WMD were found in Iraq, in spite of the fact that prior to the war, no American was ever killed in Iraq and now almost 2000 are dead on Iraqi soil? It’s difficult to comprehend that rational people, after all of this, still actually accept the claims of a link between 9/11 and Iraq. Or that they could actually believe Iraq is less of a threat today than it was in 2003.
We did not have Al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to the war. We didn’t know that sort of extremism. We didn’t have beheadings or the abduction of foreigners or religious intolerance. We actually pitied America and Americans when the Twin Towers went down and when news began leaking out about it being Muslim fundamentalists- possibly Arabs- we were outraged.
Now 9/11 is getting old. Now, 100,000+ Iraqi lives and 1700+ American lives later, it’s becoming difficult to summon up the same sort of sympathy as before. How does the death of 3,000 Americans and the fall of two towers somehow justify the horrors in Iraq when not one of the people involved with the attack was Iraqi?
Bush said:
“Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. … The commander in charge of coalition operations in Iraq, who is also senior commander at this base, General John Vines, put it well the other day. He said, "We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us."
He speaks of ‘abroad’ as if it is a vague desert-land filled with heavily-bearded men and possibly camels. ‘Abroad’ in his speech seems to indicate a land of inferior people- less deserving of peace, prosperity and even life.
Don’t Americans know that this vast wasteland of terror and terrorists otherwise known as ‘Abroad’ was home to the first civilizations and is home now to some of the most sophisticated, educated people in the region?
Don’t Americans realize that ‘abroad’ is a country full of people- men, women and children who are dying hourly? ‘Abroad’ is home for millions of us. It’s the place we were raised and the place we hope to raise our children- your field of war and terror.
The war was brought to us here, and now we have to watch the country disintegrate before our very eyes. We watch as towns are bombed and gunned down and evacuated of their people. We watch as friends and loved ones are detained, or killed or pressured out of the country with fear and intimidation.
|
Part II
Bush is now (in the face of the irrefutable) acknowledging something must be done about global warming, and that man (especially the US) is at least partly responsible for the warming in question. What does he say to something that a whole lot of other countries will endure fiscal pain to do:
Free version of an LA Times article:
Quote:
Asked in the interview whether climate change is "manmade," Bush replied, "To a certain extent it is, obviously."
"You know, look, there was a debate of Kyoto, and I made the decision — as did a lot of other people in this country, by the way — that the Kyoto treaty didn't suit our needs. In other words, the Kyoto treaty would have wrecked our economy, if I can be blunt."
Bush denied, though, that he was putting U.S. economic interests above the interests of the planet.
"My hope is ... to move beyond the Kyoto debate and to collaborate on new technologies that will enable the United States and other countries to diversify away from fossil fuels so that the air will be cleaner and that we have the economic and national security that comes from less dependence of foreign sources of oil," he said.
"To that end, we're investing in a lot of ... research on hydrogen-powered automobiles. I believe we'll be able to burn coal without emitting any greenhouse gases," he said, also citing his backing for "more nuclear power."
The Kyoto Protocol took effect in February with ratification by 141 countries — including every industrialized nation except Australia and the United States. It aims to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to roughly 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.
|
He is dreaming if he thinks that half assed plan will work. I'm getting that "voodoo economics" feeling again.
__________________
1975 911S (in bits)
1969 911T (goes, but need fettling)
1973 BMW 2002tii (in bits, now with turbo)
|