3 comments

• 

  Jonathan

  2 years ago

  Citations would've been nice. I'm sure the information is probably dead on, however, that doesn't excuse me from the responsibility of looking up each claim. So sources would've made that job easier for me. And in this case, would've made me actually want to check out the validity of each claim.
  reply
• 

  brad

  2 years ago

  wow.
  reply
• 

  cooperati

  2 years ago

  there is enough subjective conjecture in this article to turn any extremist on his natural bend, making those predisposed for the war more against this article, and those against the war for the article.
  
  however, there are also fact inside of it, which are the only thing i believe people should relate to. whatever the author believes isn't worth noting, as it is clouded with notions that the actions of our country were not honorable, without facts. so, only the facts are worth investigating.
  
  in those facts are things that can be concluded three ways; aspects to the president's credit, aspects detrimental to the president's public image, and those that are neutral toward's his office. of those that are neutral, non-issues, more conjecture is made, acusations thrown in, and a far from rosy picture is painted by the author.
  
  again, i throw that out.
  
  what things could be made to support the president's cause, things listed to display his terrible intentions, but could have actually gone towards showing his efforts in a respectable endeavor? the author lists certain subjects that he means to use against the president, such as chalabi and the un weapons inspectors, which have been shown to go for the president. chalabi lied to our administration, and tried to profit from our productivity in the invasion. our response to knowing he lied was to remove him from the political arena he thought he would gain unlimited access to. and as for the un weapons inspectors, they were shot down out of the skies by the iraqi military on orders from saddam hussein, on more than one occassion.
  
  did our prospects in removing hussein not stem from bringing a mass nurderer to justice, from removing a blockade of international aid to children and starving families who funnelled the oil-for-food program and bilked millions? that alone was worth making the invasion.
  
  how about the image of an imperialist power this war provokes? it exists, and has for decades. in this war we emphasise POWER, and one that can be directed upon the least wayward of nations.
  
  darfur, n. korea, and other nations are indeed also a threat to world peace. it's obvious we want to be in those nations, making correction, setting the world to rights. in one manner, being in iraq, establishing a democratic precedent in the middle east of regime change a doing our best to see the peace that will follow happen, even if our government changes hands many times before that comes to fruition, has forced a safety net against a worse conflict. if we invaded n.korea instead of iraq, we wouldn't be doing so much posturing as ducking nukes. also, if we had gone into iran, the same. darfur is the territory of un responsibility more than the middle east is ours, and if they aren't going to act there, or actions will just as they've been shown in iraq, prove to be contentious and unwanted.
  
  how can the author say we aren't safe in making a least threatening invasion in iraq, child's play compared to "more worthwhile" military actions he supposes, those of darfur and other wmd powers? i don't know the specifics of it, but i;'ve seen this kind of "coloring" of the truth before, and even were i a person for against the war, i couldn't condone this article as authoritatively objective and truthful, and it's bias is more than pronounced.
  
  this composition is exactly what it promised not to be in the first few paragraphs. if you don't think so, please, i invite you, even if you are already convinced of the argument against the war, read it again.
  
  -=T=-
  reply