the agenda was what they said it was. there is no reason why it wouldnt be. nobody is after oil money or whatever the pretend agenda supposedly is. if i were bush i would have done exactly what he did, and my agenda would have been purely about security and smart policy. post 9/11 it became necessary to be more proactive regarding such things. i dont think there is a hidden agenda with warming, at least not the way some folks portray it. if anything, the hidden agenda is that people are selfish pricks who care about their own stupid conscience and guilt than reality, and will ruin things in an effort to feel like they are on the "good" side that cares about the earth or whatever.
If you are talking about Gulf War II then I would disagree. They went in because of WMDs and kicking out the UN inspectors. Well, my point regarding that is that it is pretty easy to determine whether or not they have an agenda. Answer this question: Is the the planet experiencing global warming because of human activity or not? If so then they don't have an agenda. If it is not then they do.
of course i am, let me enact that right now. Hold on i cant find the magical enact legislation switch, where is it. It has to be around here somewhere.
and isnt that explicitly what the stated reasons were, among other things? i am not sure what you mean. that question is not answerable. it should be noted that the history of the earth is filled with violent climate change and that would lead one to believe that it always will be regardless of our activity. like i said before, AGW is non-falsifiable and therefore not really science. we should just adapt to what the world does, instead of trying to control it. it might warm, it might cool, we have no real way to tell what causes it. we just know that it always will change. ice ages come and go. but even if the left believes that human activity is causing the warming, still so much of their agenda is ludicrous. there are so many other priorities that are ignored, that reveal that nobody really cares about solving problems beyond their own conscience.
Quote: Originally Posted by flabengal If you are talking about Gulf War II then I would disagree. They went in because of WMDs and kicking out the UN inspectors. I meant that their stated reason was because of WMDs and the UN inspectors being kicked out. In actual fact they never found WMDs and the UN did not support the war. As far as I can remember the UN was against it.....Bush said he didn't really need anyone's permission. The US went in to establish a military presence in the Middle East far in excess of what they could currently do in Saudi Arabia. In this way they can apply pressue to other states in the Middle East, like Iran. The question is answerable, just not intelligently at the moment with the available information. If they cannot answer the question yes or no then they have no basis for making policy decisions. This is exactly why they have to say that: 1) the question has been answered and AGW is true. 2) Human being must change their behavior to alleviate the problem. if they cannot answer #1 in the positive then their whole agenda falls apart.
and it is mind-bogglingly critical that our president always ignores the UN. that is mostly true, although i think the long term goal was not a military presence but a free iraq, which also pressures neighboring states. i believe this has been successful so far, and i think the best example is iran, which i think will become a free democracy within 30 years or so. i dont see what is wrong with the goals as you describe them. ultimately the goal is security for the planet, not some BS nonsense about oil money for cronies. por supuesto.
Well, I think the "free iraq" is just cover for their real intentions. Here would be the test, as far as I can tell....I would bet you that the US military NEVER leaves Iraq. NEVER.
i dont understand. the "free iraq" is the goal of the military presence. the ulterior motives you claim and the stated golas are basically the same. to establish a stable deomcracy ina region that desperately needs a good example of freedom. of course the us will never leave. they havent left germany or japan either, nor should they.
Originally posted by martn: Well, maybe I'm being picky about the language but this is my point: -The US doesn't really care whether Iraq is democratic or not. They beat the "democracy drum" for public consumption. They want the area of Iraq and it's resources to be at the US disposal. Why isn't the US concerned about democracy in Saudi Arabia, or China or the Congo? The democracy talk is propaganda. Also, if Iraq was really and truly free....and democratic do you think they would want the US military to be there? I doubt it. But the US military will not leave and this is evidence that Iraq is not free. They are very much like Vichy France. The Vichy French were not in charge, the Germans were. And the Iraqis are not in charge of Iraq, the US is. So you have a foreign government (A) with it's military outside it's national borders enforcing law and order on the population of another country (B)according to (A)'s national interests, not (B)'s. This does not sound like a free and democratic country. It is a sham...for public consumption.
the democratic talk is not propaganda. we want iraq to be a free state that doesnt harbor terrorists. of course we care if it is democratic. the reason many other countries are less of a concern does have to do with oil, but not because we want it. it is because an oil rich country is richer and therefore potentially more dangerous if run by a brutal dictator. germany and japan dont mind. they both are very peaceful and make the world a better place, while allowing US military bases on their land.
