|
Edited on Sun Feb-22-04 07:22 PM by Kamika
Ok this is from a trek board I visit, one trek series called DS9 was about terrorism and you can VERY easily draw parallels between israel/palestine 911/iraq etc in it even though the series was from 93 to 98 or so
That of course make us trekkies go wild and here's a priceless post by the dark side.
now you don't have to read all this junk but read some to understand him, then check out his last paragraph it's priceless
----------------------------------------
First off, this is probably not the proper forum to discuss this as the Iraq conflict is really analagous to Bajor at all. Some have tried to compare the Cardassian invasion to the American invasion of Iraq. For that to be true, then the former artistic and peaceful Bajoran society would have to comparable to the Hussein regime. I don't think anyone could sufficiently argue for that premise. Bajor overthrew the Cardassians themselves so you can't really compare the Cardassians to the Hussein regime either. The Israel situation is a much closer fit, although there are problems there as well.
Also, the only fault I have with DS9, my favorite Trek, is that the Cardassians during the Occupation were never portrayed as bad as they should have been. Yes, we were constantly TOLD of the atrocities in labor camps and such, but any flashback show was restrained to DS9 and none of the mass murder, rapings, and experimentation was ever depicted. At times, I had trouble believeing that the Cardassians in the flashbacks were the same butchers that were often talked about. "Things Past" was the only flashback episode to me that was close to depicting the level of barbarism that was often attributed to the occupation. Admittedly, though, those types of things are extremely difficult to portray in a television show.
Having said that, I'd like to respond to a few things and make some observations.
1) How does Bush, Sr. not getting re-elected have anything whatsoever to do with Hussein? He was beaten on economic issues. Heck, his approval rating after the Gulf War was one of the highest in history. It wouldn't make sense for Bush to hold that against Hussein. If anything, Hussein made Bush's presidency more important.
2.) Bush did not "fail" to get Hussein at an earlier time. During the Gulf War, the UN Mandate was to push Hussein out of Kuwait. Bush accomplished that. To have continued into Iraq in order to get Hussein would have been to violate UN orders.
3.) Clinton himself repeatedly made mention of Iraq's dangerous weapons programs and the need to do something about it. Nobody complained then. Let's not even mention the several chances Clinton had to get Osama. Also, John Kerry, Wesley Clark and several of the other democratic candidates supported Bush initially and voted based on the same information Bush had.
4. As far as stabilization of the region goes, the invasion of Iraq has had success in at least one area. Libya recently announced that it was halting their NBC (Nuclear, Chemical, Biological) weapons programs. Does anyone think they would have done that without witnessing what happened to Iraq?
5. It should be pointed out that while WMD was given as a reason to invade Iraq, it was NEVER given as the only reason, or even the main reason.
6. As far as David Kay goes, why does everyone dwell on his statements about WMD but ignore the fact that he also stated recently the Hussein was actually much more dangerous than we had realized?
7. The terrorist camps were not "probable" they were fact. For example the Salmon Pak camp just south of Baghdad which contained an airplane fuselage and documentation stating that it was used to train terrorists in how to take over and fly aircraft.
8. Iraq's nuclear program was not "probable" it was fact. The UN itself has acknowleged in the past that Iraq was pursuing nuclear capability. Some of Hussein's top scientists, upon defecting, have stated that that program was ongoing.
9. If any of this data was false, Hussein would have been stupid to not allow the inspectors access to his labs. By complying with UN Resolution 1441, he could have saved himself and his country.
10. Finally, there was a much talked about poll of the Iraqi people showing that as much as 8% of the population were against American intrusion in Iraq. It is also not mentioned that the same poll showed that approximately 8% of Iraq's population worked for Hussein's regime. Coincidence?
11. If Hussein did indeed plot to assassinate Bush, Sr. that sounds like a good reason to get rid of him to me. I don't want my President, whoever it happens to be, to be killed by some foreign dictator.
12. It's also important to note that Iraq made a better target than some other nations because of the amount allies and bases we had in the area. There was a lot of talk about the US not having international support for the invasion. That's interesting considering we had over 60 countries on our side. Basically the only two nations against us were France and Germany, both of which had economic ties to Hussein, some of which were illegal.
13. Soldiers returning from Iraq have stated almost unanimously that the situation in Iraq is not as bad as the media suggests. The media has the tendancy to dwell on the negative, and devalue the positive. It is only certain areas of Iraq that are dangerous and utilities have been restored in many areas. Thanks for reading.
As I said though, this really isn't the forum to debate this issue, so I'll stop there. In closing, I would like to explain that I have a degree in political science and international relations as well as personal experience with the Iraq situation so I'm not just making stuff up and regurgitating talking points
--------------------------
:D
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
