Hello there,
oops, what a thread !
Well, i guess it really depends on what you know - or what you think you know. The news shown in the media in Europe seem to differ from those the US media presents to the inhabitants of the US. It is not about the pictures of a third world, USA - natural disasters can strike everywhere. Europe is simply wondering why sending help took so long. Talk in the US media about help and loads of resources being transported to Louisiana were obviously wrong, there was no delivery of medicaments, food, water and whatever until the fourth day after the disaster started. The mayor who dared to criticize the non-existant help and delivery of food, water etc. which is talked about all the time in the media is now called a whiner and a**hole, at the same time Bush is the man of the day. Sweden is still wondering why their ships and aircraft are not being requested by the US for help, they made the proposal a week ago.
If Europe dares to shyly ask why and what has happened, we are instantly called unpatriotic, AA (sic!) and worse. I have no problem with people loving their country, or being patriotic. But if obvious things happen, i will not shut my mouth and be political correct. People come first, before patriotism and political correctness. If people suffer or die because of mistakes being made you call a spade a spade. People that defend their party's or leader's actions against better knowledge are the a**holes in my opinion.
Additionally you have to see that excessive patriotism (or chauvinism) somehow came out of fashion since 1945 in Germany, and for some obvious reasons. We have some north american friends that visit us every two years, kindest ones i know and good friends, but i was dumbfounded what they said as soon as the talk turned to politics
.
The American people should bear with us, we are most probably not properly informed over here.
Back to the original poll:
do you think america should have got involved in iraq ?
Yes, but for removing Saddam as a criminal and dictator. Unfortunately the USA were not considered credible for this special action. The rest of the world outside the US thinks of an imperial blow to secure resources.
did they make lies to get oil?
Yes, but some politicians have obviously been fooled. Powell himself just stated he had not been properly informed by his own intelligence and presented lies or at least some faked or made-up material to the UN. Wolfowitz certainly is another case... It is not so difficult, just imagine who benefits from a certain situation, or action. Even some good US friends of mine at Baker-Hughes and Halliburton have their own view about this. No, they are not "AA".
was it all worth it?
I hope the Iraqi people will somehow benefit in the long run. But with their own people partly supporting Al Quaida it will be tough. It sure did not help to keep the oil price/barrel down. The removal of Saddam was worth it.
what will america and her allies gain?
The US have unfortunately lost some reputation and credability by linking the Iraq to 9/11. As for the declaration of war towards international terrorism i wonder what has been said to the US training Al Quaida as long as they fought against the USSR in Afghanistan. Or supporting Saddam with weapons (what about Noriega, Pinochet and other dictators). There remains a problem: How do you want to kill one terrorist who lives in a 12 floor building somewhere in New York with helicopters and stealth fighters (i refer to this "terrorists are doomed" video where hundreds of ships, subs and planes shoot ammunition in a rate that compares with the gross national product of India).
whats your total opinion on the matter
You think you already know my opinion ? You are wrong. I think it was right to invade Iraq, if not for the sake of a 9/11 revenge. I am no leftist and not "revolutional", but politicians and secret agencies do not gain trust or conviction by telling bull**** to their people. Call a spade a spade and tell why you really do it. Some truth does not hurt.
Greetings,
Catfish