I apologise if this thread already exists. I’m new here and haven’t seen this topic currently listed.
Is it just me or does there seem to be a lot of hypocricy surrounding a possible war with Iraq?
Why was it fine and dandy for Bill Clinton to lob 450 cruise missiles (more than were used during the entire Gulf War) into Iraq in December of 1998 without UN or NATO approval?
Why did Bill Clinton consider Iraq to be a credible threat in 1998, but not so much anymore–5 years after the last inspections occurred?
Why didn’t the “hollywood elite” and ivory tower liberals protest Clinton’s UNILATERAL bombing of Iraq?
Why do liberals label our possible current action “unilateral” despite the fact that we have 18 other countries supporting our decision?
Why doesn’t the “anti-war” crowd, instead of protesting the United States, instead protest Hussein’s violation of 17 separate UN resolutions and his continued harsh, tyrannical dictatorship?
How can people still claim a possible war with Iraq is about oil? Afterall, if the only thing we were interested in was oil, we’d simply lift the restrictions against Iraqi oil production and allow them to produce as much as they wanted. Also, the “no blood for oil” crowd must have limited knowledge of economics. Iraq’s oil infrastructure is inefficient and outdated. It would cost billions of dollars to modernize their industries, on top of billions of dollars due to the cost of a possible war. We wouldn’t see a profit for many, many years, and even then, it would be minimal. The “this war is about oil” argument is the lamest one I’ve ever heard.
It appears as if many of these protesters are not against war, but rather simpy despise the Bush administration. There was nary a peep from these individuals when our military was involved in actions against Iraq in '98, Haiti in '93, and Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia in '97-'99. Just as a side note: I have absolutely no qualms with pacifists who are adamently opposed to war for strict humanitarian reasons. Yet I do have a problem with those who profess to be against a possible war with Iraq when it is abundantly clear that they are anti-Bush, not anti-war.