So here's some news for anyone who doesn't follow any kind of reporting. North Korea is claiming that they have nukes and that they are going to "bolster" their supply of them too. Any American troops wanna go to Korea? Ha I bet they are as thrilled to hear that as they are the possibility of a war in Iran.
Most people probably think that something needs to happen in North Korea because they are a "threat" to them. You know what maybe they are, but have you ever thought they are a threat to you because you have threatened them? I mean obviously they are getting the feeling that the US doesn't like them very much. But where did that feeling come from? Maybe because they started a war over "weapons of mass destruction" but when questioned on it later, denied that was one of the reasons...maybe cause they didn't find any. So they said because of terrorism. Did Iraq attack? Oh wait no it was Osama and his friends.
Maybe President Bush should step back and review his reasons for this war. If he can come up with some solid evidence then go to it. But that evidence should be made public and should be confirmed instead of these statements of "we've heard reports" blah, blah, blah. And did anyone stop to think that maybe places like North Korea and Iraq view the US as terrorists? Just because it's right from the US's point of view doesn't make it right in theirs. Hmmm...maybe the US is the bully...I know I would be on the defensive too if I heard these words,
"If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists." - President Bush
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
let's not say we. As Canadian's I think it's wise to keep a safe distance from US foreign policy right now. Don't get me wrong. They are our friends and if they need help whooping the @#$ of the people who actually attacked them we will be there but this whole idea of let's attack everyone who we think we may have heard might have anything more deadly than a pistol in their position and doesn’t wear US flag pj’s is more dangerous that the "bad guys" themselves. I would also like to say that W. is an idiot. Not because I do or don't think so just but because I want to make sure the Americans are good and worked up when they comment.
hi billings,
did you know that it's possible to be an american, and a conservative christian, and still be ashamed of hasty actions of your country? did you know that not all americans hold the attitude that you have described? just wanted to remind you. ;) did you know that not all evangelical christians vote republican? ;)
Well Jo I wasn't saying that you couldn't be ashamed of your country's actions. And I think I am going to revise my entry because I am not American. And I am by no means saying that all Americans hold this view, just thought it should be brought to their attention.
re: oil. india has lots of oil. the current peaceful existence of pakistan and india only shows a lack of intention on US part to interfere wherever it wants. also, it can't go both ways: if the US is so set on implementing its society in iraq, then the free market economy will drive up oil prices...it won't bring them down--which will bring the prices closer to what it takes to extract it from northern alberta where its frozen.
re: North Korea. Kim Jong-Il is hardly a...well, stable person. the communist gov't there is not under pressure from just the US. remember they were in negotiations with 5 other countries regarding their weapons programs! not only the US has an eye on them...even China was surprised at the recent statement. and japan offered the smuggest reply of all: fire a missle if you have them!
re: Iraq. i think the lack of abiding by UN sanctions is what most had people suspicious (overly and thereby incorrectly) for wmds. the breaking of the UN resolutions which ended a UN led war in the early 90s was grounds for invasion. there were numerous reasons why the UN would not lead such an invasion, though--oil for food scams, large exports by France, Russia, and Germany to Iraq (above UN sanctions). speaking of sanctions, however you wanted to respond (or not) to this breaking of resolution, i'm sure that sanctions would have been on your mind for the last decade and the atrocities and afflictions the poor in Iraq suffered as a result because of them. nor was this war a one-man decision in the US as is sometimes described. congress voted for the war in iraq (incl. john kerry!), which must be considered when critiquing.
i am not american. i even find myself more comfortable around more democrats than republicans. what irks me to no end is the thoughtless, parroted comments that come from michael moore, al franken, and jon stewart (who i enjoy much of the time). if you take issue with the war on terror (which i don't) and/or its extension into iraq (for which, hindsight has been 20/20, imo), then start reading people who defend it/them--there actually are intelligent defenders of it!--george weigel, jean bethke elshtain, michael novak, richard john neuhaus, to name a few. www.firstthings.com will give some good articles on it. jo is right (and for that reason we must be cautious): there are thoughtful, intelligent, *Christian*, conservative, "liberal", foolish, loud, obnoxious, useful, and important voices on both sides of the issue. i would only hope that those who wish to join the conversation would do so in a Christian way--even when they are speaking like a prophet!
figured it would be fair to include some strong critiquers of the war on terror: stan hauerwas, will willimon, richard hays, and paul griffiths. a google search should bring up some good articles by them, as well.
Wow, Jon, what is wrong with the layout of your blog? Or is it just my computer?
Anyway... on the post. The US government scares me. What makes them think THEY can have tons of nukes but other countries can't? Because they're the "good guys"? No one should have that kind of power. No one.
And if the US is going to invade every country with WMDs or with a government it doesn't agree with philosophically, then they will never stop invading... there will always be someone.
It's just your computer Whitey.
just to clarify one thing i wrote that could be taken in a different way. i wrote, "jo is right (and for that reason we must be cautious)..." i didn't mean to slam her by saying we should be cautious because it is JO who is right. i meant to take her advice and not lump people into categories, or take people as idiots, morons, or unchristian without giving hearing their voice. hope that is clear. glad to have another place to dialogue about worthy issues, billings.
Well I would have to say that America has a right to protect it's self; and other countries have a right to protect themselves. If America thinks that the best way to protect it's self is by disarming nations, esp. nations that kill thousands of people for pretty much no reason...I have to agree with that. The problem is when communist dictators decide that they want to take over the world and start to threaten people with nuclear weapons, then I think that as a nation, the US has a right to protect it's self. If that means disarming nations, then I'm sorry but hand over the weapons or we're comin'.
O yeah and if Saddam Hussien didn't kill thousands upon thousands of people and there wasn't any evidence or clues of weapons, there would be no reason to invade. Except those things happened and the United States has a right to try and protect the citizens of Iraq, as well as themselves.
Post a Comment