NationStates Jolt Archive

It's not Bush's fault that he was convinced by intelligence that failed to convince governments around the world. Clearly it was the fault of the intelligence community who he listened to and not a judgement error to question why nobody else found it convincing. It's not that he was predisposed to accepting this as gospel due to a pre-existing disposition towards that viewpoint. Not at all.

Similarly - It's not Bush's fault that the war was poorly planned for and has become a complete debacle. After all, it's not like senior generals were stating that the troops needed were far more than was being planned and got fired for stating such. George asked other people, got different assessments, and chose to accept them. Clearly that was also wrong, but he really tried.

And it's not Georges fault that Osama is still at large. How was he to know that it would take more troops to catch him, when after all he needed the rest of the troops to attack countries that weren't involved in 9-11?

The fact that subsequent evidence has shown that it was Pakistan handing out nuke technology to anyone with a cheque-book is unfortunate, but how was he to know that this "valued ally" was the real threat? And of course he has dealt with that issue.... by letting them completely off the hook and giving them MORE high-tech toys to distract them with.

IT's not even Georges fault that his economic team has refused for three years to include ANY line-item amounts for military operations in the middle east in the Federal budgets. After all, how is he to know if the situation won't suddenly turn rosy tomorrow and allow him not to have to spend any of it?


Nope. George is really not responsible for anything. IT's all been simply the unfortunate results arising from his best judgements after receiving poor advice.

And it's not like you should be concerned about the leader of the country repeatedly accepting bad advice should you? That doesn't reflect on his judgement at all does it?


You can't keep letting GW off the hook without having to admit that at best he surrounded himself with incompetence and that it affected his decisions. Of course, given that he chose most of those people speaks volumes as to his judgement too doesn't it?


The buck used to stop in the Oval Office. Now it gets handed off to underlings who are allowed to retire with nice packages. The buck stops nowhere anymore. Everyone points fingers back and forth until the news gets tired of it and moves on.

George W. Bush will get the judgement he deserves, when he stands before his maker. He will have to answer for the deaths he has caused. I am not religious, but he is. Thus why he should be scared of the day when he dies.

George W. Bush will get the judgement he deserves, when he stands before his maker. He will have to answer for the deaths he has caused. I am not religious, but he is. Thus why he should be scared of the day when he dies.


But a) he will never be punished as his maker is... well, mother nature. Or Mr and Mrs Bush.
b) I want him punished now! In front of me, not his maker!

But a) he will never be punished as his maker is... well, mother nature. Or Mr and Mrs Bush.
b) I want him punished now! In front of me, not his maker!
Personally I'd like to see him tarred and feathered too, but that is not going to happen. He wont even have ot fear for his position until the elections in November and even then, he might still win to cause more shit in the world.

Wait a sec..he relied on the same intelligence the UN had..the same intelligence that countless intelligence agencies around the world had told their governments..and our Senate recently released a very damaging 66 page report on Iraq and terrorism...

It's not his fault that French, German, and Russian business consortiums who are so intermingled with their governments had billions in contracts with the old regime and used their influence to promote the surrender-happy monkeys in Europe..no..it couldn't have been that they had in connection with a corrupt Food for Oil United Nations plan counted on a continued Saddam Hussein presence in Iraq..and that they'd do or say anything to keep the status quo...

Nope..none of that mattered either I suppose..

As for a debacle?...The new Iraqi government has practically 3/4's of the country secured enough to the point where reconstruction has begun, and you'll notice the insurgents are killing more Iraqis then Americans...so let's just forget this bullshit hogwash that they are resisting and American occupation.

Oh..no..let's forget the brave sacrifices that Iraqi policemen have been dying by the bucket for their new free nation....and that no matter how many the terrorists kill there are always more ready to take their place to see that their country doesn't fall prey to terrorists.

Face it....the country is on the right track....we've been there barely 2 yrs and had to contend with a nation whose infrastructure was a mess, and soley due to the fact that Saddam would rather had spent his oil kickbacks on palaces then his people..

I always love how people keep saying that none of the Anti-War people condoned or liked Saddam but NONE of them were willing to DO anything bout him...

I always love how people keep saying that none of the Anti-War people condoned or liked Saddam but NONE of them were willing to DO anything bout him...

Sorry, but Iraq is (or WAS, now) an independant and sovereign country. You can't just go in there and overthrow him. He was elected (yes, i know he had no competition and the like, but he was still "elected") and according to his country's rules, he is still leader and is immune from prosecution.

Also, we had no right to overthrow the Taliban government. Same deal, Afganistan WAS a sovereign nation, and we had no right to go in there and take them out. No, I don't like them, but would you like for, say, (Remember, this is a HYPOTHETICAL situation here, i know it could never happen) China to decide that they don't like Bush, he's being too (Insert distasteful something here), so they march in and kick him out, then set us up like themselves? I mean, why is a Democracy the best government? We only say that because that's what we have. And if someone tried to set up a Communism here, wouldn't you fight back just like the Iraqis are doing?

Wait a sec..he relied on the same intelligence the UN had..the same intelligence that countless intelligence agencies around the world had told their governments..and our Senate recently released a very damaging 66 page report on Iraq and terrorism...

It's not his fault that French, German, and Russian business consortiums who are so intermingled with their governments had billions in contracts with the old regime and used their influence to promote the surrender-happy monkeys in Europe..no..it couldn't have been that they had in connection with a corrupt Food for Oil United Nations plan counted on a continued Saddam Hussein presence in Iraq..and that they'd do or say anything to keep the status quo...

Nope..none of that mattered either I suppose..

As for a debacle?...The new Iraqi government has practically 3/4's of the country secured enough to the point where reconstruction has begun, and you'll notice the insurgents are killing more Iraqis then Americans...so let's just forget this bullshit hogwash that they are resisting and American occupation.

Oh..no..let's forget the brave sacrifices that Iraqi policemen have been dying by the bucket for their new free nation....and that no matter how many the terrorists kill there are always more ready to take their place to see that their country doesn't fall prey to terrorists.

Face it....the country is on the right track....we've been there barely 2 yrs and had to contend with a nation whose infrastructure was a mess, and soley due to the fact that Saddam would rather had spent his oil kickbacks on palaces then his people..

I always love how people keep saying that none of the Anti-War people condoned or liked Saddam but NONE of them were willing to DO anything bout him...

Salishe, no insult intended, of course, but whenever I read your apologies I find myself thinking "What a fruitcake!" Which kinda makes you the first gamer here whose forum title is kinda appropriate. :)

b) I want him punished now! In front of me, not his maker!


So do I, but unfortunately he hasn't done anything provably illegal according to our laws while he has been in office, just screwing with the "elections"....so, we just gotta hope he really screws up.
Also unfortunately, turning our country's biggest surplus into a gigantic deficit isn't illegal either...just horrible business sense....oh well

I have a book to reccomend, it's called "The Dyslexicon" or something like that, it talks about how horrible Bush is, and how he got "elected" (which he didn't, Gore won Florida but Bush's brother messed with it until the Supreme Court could vote for Bush)

George W. Bush will get the judgement he deserves, when he stands before his maker. He will have to answer for the deaths he has caused. I am not religious, but he is. Thus why he should be scared of the day when he dies.

nope=

Sorry, but Iraq is (or WAS, now) an independant and sovereign country. You can't just go in there and overthrow him. He was elected (yes, i know he had no competition and the like, but he was still "elected") and according to his country's rules, he is still leader and is immune from prosecution.

Also, we had no right to overthrow the Taliban governmentactually only 3 nations recognized the Taliban, the UAE, Saudi Arabia,and Pakistan, and it was a government in a country that was in open civil war, they didn't even have control of their entire country. Same deal, Afganistan WAS a sovereign nation, and we had no right to go in there and take them outwe had every right, they were openly aiding and abetting the terrorists who committed 9/11/01, that makes them terrorist enablers and are the same in my book. No, I don't like them, but would you like for, say, (Remember, this is a HYPOTHETICAL situation here, i know it could never happen) China to decide that they don't like Bush, he's being too (Insert distasteful something here), so they march in and kick him out, then set us up like themselves? I mean, why is a Democracy the best government? We only say that because that's what we have. And if someone tried to set up a Communism here, wouldn't you fight back just like the Iraqis are doing?your Iraqi insurgents are killing more innocent Iraqis then Americans, so just who are they resisting?

So as you can see..your post left much to be desired

So as you can see..your post left much to be desired

thankyou™

Salishe, no insult intended, of course, but whenever I read your apologies I find myself thinking "What a fruitcake!" Which kinda makes you the first gamer here whose forum title is kinda appropriate. :)

Apologies??..for what...you've obviously mistaken me for a Saddam-enabler, or a surrender-monkey. Fruitcake..ahuh...I could say the same bout those who think we should have done nothing bout Saddam.

Wait a sec..he relied on the same intelligence the UN had..the same intelligence that countless intelligence agencies around the world had told their governments..

Same intelligence Clinton had too.. OLD INTEL.. 5 years old actually, there had been no new Intel from Iraq since 1998, except ex-pats who we all know have agendas and can't be trusted.

Yet, oddly enough America has one thing that stands out from all of these other countries you mention.. They didn't invade Iraq on false Intel, the Americans did.

Enough said! :rolleyes:

Steph I almost had a heart attack seeing that you had made a thread with that title, but then realised it was all sarcasm.

I am interested though, what other people would have done differently?

Same intelligence Clinton had too.. OLD INTEL.. 5 years old actually, there had been no new Intel from Iraq since 1998, except ex-pats who we all know have agendas and can't be trusted.

Yet, oddly enough America has one thing that stands out from all of these other countries you mention.. They didn't invade Iraq on false Intel, the Americans did.

Enough said! :rolleyes:


We had no reason to believe that information coming from ex-pats was unreliable...and whether it's 5 yrs..or 5 days..the intel was still there, should it have been determined if it was still reliable is certainly a topic for discussion but for me..it should not have been a delaying factor in the decision to go to war, simply because getting rid of Saddam was a good thing no matter what anyone else says.

We had no reason to believe that information coming from ex-pats was unreliable...and whether it's 5 yrs..or 5 days..the intel was still there, should it have been determined if it was still reliable is certainly a topic for discussion but for me..it should not have been a delaying factor in the decision to go to war, simply because getting rid of Saddam was a good thing no matter what anyone else says.

Yes, getting one man was so worth This (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/)

Lesse...it's not Bush's fault if he receives faulty intel, but what if, say, he or his group manipulated the intel to make it reasonable to invade Afghanistan and Iraq?

His fault? YEH! UP TO HIS EVIL NECK IN IT!

Yes, getting one man was so worth This (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/)
I assume of course after posting the names of Americans who died, they will post the names of Iraqis who died under Sadaam Hussain, well they could had he not kept it secret. The war was officially fought because he broke UN rules, important UN rules :D, for some reason it appears to be other reasons tht have been latched onto/.

Yes, getting one man was so worth This (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/)


Yes..it was worth it...one man with the ability to wield the evil he had perpetrated for 30 yrs..in the scheme of things..less then a 1000 dead in a war would be considered acceptable..Vietnam had over 50,000, during the American Civil War, Grant lost over 25,000 in the Battle of the Wilderness, The dead at the Battle of the Sarne met the number 1000 dead within the first few days.....yes..it was worth it...

I assume of course after posting the names of Americans who died, they will post the names of Iraqis who died under Sadaam Hussain, well they could had he not kept it secret. The war was officially fought because he broke UN rules, important UN rules :D, for some reason it appears to be other reasons tht have been latched onto/.


Yes...in 20 yrs...300,000 dead Iraqis, mostly women, children, Kurds...break that down to the number killed in the 2 yrs we've been in Iraq...and it still doesn't equal out

Yes..it was worth it.

Yes, I'm sure as you sit in your nice comfy home away from the danger of Iraq their lives are nothing to you..

Yeah, we know, your son is there, so you say.. but we have read links that show how you have made claims in the past on the old forum that completely call into question your honesty..

Yes...in 20 yrs...300,000 dead Iraqis, mostly women, children, Kurds...break that down to the number killed in the 2 yrs we've been in Iraq...and it still doesn't equal out
Statistically (I will actually have to double check this if anyone knows of a bias free statistics site; :D fox.com)

0.08 Iraqi died per second under Sadaam
0.006 under Bush


And they have democracy now.. not exactly all bad, it is just we find out about it now.

Yes, I'm sure as you sit in your nice comfy home away from the danger of Iraq their lives are nothing to you..

Yeah, we know, your son is there, so you say.. but we have read links that show how you have made claims in the past on the old forum that completely call into question your honesty..

Whether or not I sit in a comfy home is irrelevent...the fact is..he needed to go...no one else was gonna do it..no one else was going to stick up for the Iraqis buried in mass graves....WoMD's..rape rooms...gassing kurds...take your pick...they are all good reasons for taking him out. It's just that apparently it's the only reason good enough for the anti-war crowd.

It's just that apparently it's the only reason good enough for the anti-war crowd.

The anti-war crowd now out-number the pro-Iraq invasion crowd in America, it has all along in the world.. now America is starting to see the light to.. you sit in the minority. Thankfully, finally!

Whether or not I sit in a comfy home is irrelevent...the fact is..he needed to go...no one else was gonna do it..no one else was going to stick up for the Iraqis buried in mass graves....WoMD's..rape rooms...gassing kurds...take your pick...they are all good reasons for taking him out. It's just that apparently it's the only reason good enough for the anti-war crowd.
Good Luck freeing China and other countries that are under dictator-like governments.

The anti-war crowd now out-number the pro-Iraq invasion crowd in America, it has all along in the world.. now America is starting to see the light to.. you sit in the minority. Thankfully, finally!
At the time he didn't. Do you actually have a link Steph to any statistics on the Iraq war, I am trying to do some extra research and thought you may?

At the time he didn't. Do you actually have a link Steph to any statistics on the Iraq war, I am trying to do some extra research and thought you may?

What type of stats would like ?

i don't know who tried to claim that saddam was elected, but they might like to shut up. he actually seized power in a bloody military coup, and the only 'elections' he ever held involved using state tv to launch a propaganda campaign full of lies, and murdering opponents.
it's comfortable for people like you to say we shouldn't have invaded because the iraqi people had no say in us taking over their country. they had no say when saddam took it over either! and the newly-elected iraqi government next year will spend the oil money slightly better than saddam ever did, methinks.

What type of stats would like ?
Anything on death tolls, cost etc, but most importantly that isn't biased, so a range really.

Sorry, but Iraq is (or WAS, now) an independant and sovereign country. You can't just go in there and overthrow him. He was elected (yes, i know he had no competition and the like, but he was still "elected") and according to his country's rules, he is still leader and is immune from prosecution.

Also, we had no right to overthrow the Taliban government. Same deal, Afganistan WAS a sovereign nation, and we had no right to go in there and take them out. No, I don't like them, but would you like for, say, (Remember, this is a HYPOTHETICAL situation here, i know it could never happen) China to decide that they don't like Bush, he's being too (Insert distasteful something here), so they march in and kick him out, then set us up like themselves? I mean, why is a Democracy the best government? We only say that because that's what we have. And if someone tried to set up a Communism here, wouldn't you fight back just like the Iraqis are doing?

Afghanistan may be a sovereign nation, but that doesn't matter. Look at history. Germany we sovereign. Should they have been allowed to continue killing Jews? Hitler was elected after all, you know. The USSR was sovereign. Stalin was elected. Should we have stood by and watched as he killed millions of his people. The United States is the most powerful country in the world. It is our responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves, because they have no democracy and their leaders are ruthless killers. In the USSR or Germany or Iraq, you could not disagree with your government, as I am sure you do. Here you can, enjoy your freedom.

Now Germany, Afghanistan, France, the former USSR, Korea, Thailand, Iraq and may others all enjoy the ability to criticize their government and ours. It's their God given right which we helped facilitate.

So what am I getting at? They were all sovereign before we helped them. But when a nation attacks us (Germany, Afghanistan, Japan), we have every right in the world to retaliate. Afghanistan's government was corrupt, supported terrorists, and helped with 9/11 (a military attack on our homeland). This deserves retribution. We had every right to go in and attack.

The UN said not to? Last time I checked, the United States of America is soveriegn as well. We have a right to do what we want, because we are sovereign.

We have a democracy where people may disagree. You don't like Bush? Vote in November, and thank God that you live in a country great enough to give you a choice, to ask you what you think. That's why democracy is the best. The government is up to you. You don't like what they are doing? Vote them out. Write to them. Write to your representatives and tell them what you think. Disagree. That's what democracy is for. That's what the freedoms thousands have died to protect have given you. Enjoy it.

God bless the United States of America and her leaders.

Yes..it was worth it...one man with the ability to wield the evil he had perpetrated for 30 yrs..in the scheme of things..less then a 1000 dead in a war would be considered acceptable..Vietnam had over 50,000, during the American Civil War, Grant lost over 25,000 in the Battle of the Wilderness, The dead at the Battle of the Sarne met the number 1000 dead within the first few days.....yes..it was worth it...

Here here Salishe! Our casualties have been far less than those wars. Breaking it down, this war was far less bloodless than they were. Yes civilian died but how many actually died by American hands than by the Terrorists and Saddam's own forces? Far Less than what people are saying!

Yes, I'm sure as you sit in your nice comfy home away from the danger of Iraq their lives are nothing to you..

Yeah, we know, your son is there, so you say.. but we have read links that show how you have made claims in the past on the old forum that completely call into question your honesty..

This is a slap in the face Steph! I believe that it was worth it too and MY FATHER IS OVER THERE FIGHTING! I demand an apology for this insult! He is doing his job just like every other soldier over there.

Statistically (I will actually have to double check this if anyone knows of a bias free statistics site; fox.com)

0.08 Iraqi died per second under Sadaam
0.006 under Bush


And they have democracy now.. not exactly all bad, it is just we find out about it now.

Nice stats Enerica! This shows that we have killed far less than Saddam Hussein. Far Less in this war than what people are saying!

Iraq is a free and independent nation now. Handover took place 28 June 2004! They are NOT a puppet nation! Allawi has full control and is fighting terror. Iraq has freedom of Speech! Freedom to live their lives without fear. Yes terror attacks are taking place but for every policeman/women they kill more step up to fill their places.

i don't know who tried to claim that saddam was elected, but they might like to shut up. he actually seized power in a bloody military coup

Yes, a CIA backed military coup, you're correct.

A Little History Lesson.. (http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html)

Yes, a CIA backed military coup, you're correct.

A Little History Lesson.. (http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html)
Numerous times we have helped what we thought to be the lesser of two evils, and then found ourselves to be wrong, that doesn't stop us trying to alter it later.

Edit: at the time it mentions it would have been Kennedy or Johnson?

Bush himself was convinced saddam had to go. Now that the elections are coming and he's losing votes he's taking the easy way and that is giving the CIA the blame. Bush is the commander in chief and is responsible for the actions taken. Once a man, always a man. It also was Bush who pulled America's wallet to get the biljons of Dollars for funding this war like it was buying a piece of gum.

I's good that Saddam is behind bars, don't get me wrong. Bush just will have to face that most wars were fought under republican presidents and american's won't support a war when their kids are being killed. The more people are killed, the less chance he will have te be president another 4 years. Blaming the CIA won't get killed military men and women back.

Time to get his Texas ass back to his ranch to do what he has been doing 90% of the time he has been president, playing golf.

Numerous times we have helped what we thought to be the lesser of two evils, and then found ourselves to be wrong, that doesn't stop us trying to alter it later.

Agreed Enerica! Enerica, did you read the US Senate report? I noticed you posted the Butler one was wondering if you had a look at my thread dealing with the Senate Report!

We have done that in the past, never denied we have. On a few occassions it backfired, Cuba and Iraq being among them. Iraq has now been rectified because of Hussein's stupidity! We all know the horrors of what Saddam has done. He is now gone and good ridence.

Agreed Enerica! Enerica, did you read the US Senate report? I noticed you posted the Butler one was wondering if you had a look at my thread dealing with the Senate Report!

We have done that in the past, never denied we have. On a few occassions it backfired, Cuba and Iraq being among them. Iraq has now been rectified because of Hussein's stupidity! We all know the horrors of what Saddam has done. He is now gone and good ridence.

I'll have a look

I think Texas NEEDS Bush back..

I think Texas NEEDS Bush back..
Well at least you have a sense of humour :D

Germany we sovereign. Should they have been allowed to continue killing Jews? Hitler was elected after all, you know. The USSR was sovereign. Stalin was elected. Should we have stood by and watched as he killed millions of his people.

Germany invaded, and nearly took over an entire continent before we did anything about it. And only after years of our allies BEGGING us to help did we get involved in any truly appreciable way. We also did not find out about the Jews until long after we were embroiled in WWII. And since you seemed to miss it in history class, I don't remember us ever invading the USSR, despite all of Stalin's evils. (Though we did certainly participate in containment and all sorts of espionage, which I certainly would have supported in the case of Saddam)

While I do agree that the Afghanistan war was necessary, and other than the debaucle of not puting/keeping NEARLY enough troops their to complete the actual mission (to capture and disable the extensive terrorist network there), I don't see how any of what you said can be applied to Iraq. Seeing how there were dozens of other options and a crapload of other 'evil regimes' that we have never done, nor will ever do anything about.

Well at least you have a sense of humour :D

Indeed I do.. but I hope this turns out to come true.. :)

ok, so if we make a mistake then we shouldn't try and fix it? your case is full of holes: you start out blaming bush, then you decide it's the CIA's fault for backing saddam in the first place - bush wasn't involved in that at all. yes, everyone knows there has been lots of american hypocricy over the years, but the iraq issue has to be taken on its own, singular merits. nothing that happened before is remotely relevant, no matter how bad it was (and i agree, the CIA involvement with saddam and bin laden was VERY bad). the fact is, saddam was murdering people day after day. the international community, and the US, as the biggest player, had a responsibility to do something about that. and for the same reason, they should do something about mugabe.

Afghanistan may be a sovereign nation, but that doesn't matter. Look at history. Germany we sovereign. Should they have been allowed to continue killing Jews? Hitler was elected after all, you know. The USSR was sovereign. Stalin was elected. Should we have stood by and watched as he killed millions of his people. The United States is the most powerful country in the world. It is our responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves, because they have no democracy and their leaders are ruthless killers. In the USSR or Germany or Iraq, you could not disagree with your government, as I am sure you do. Here you can, enjoy your freedom.


I hope that you do realize we DIDN'T CARE that Hitler was killing Jews, in fact, we tried to stop them from immigrating. We did everything we could to prevent them coming to America, and we didn't attack Hitler because of it. We stayed neutral until we ourselves were attacked by the Japanese, then Germany declared war on US. Also, Hitler started the war to begin with by invading Poland. If he had been happy to kill Jews in Germany, the rest of the world wouldn't care. We don't have the right to tell other nations what they can and cannot do.
Why is a democracy the best government? With freedom comes great responsibility, and the Iraqis have never had to deal with it before. They really don't have a concept of what democracy really is.
Why isn't true communism (not like chinese or russian communism) the ideal government? Everyone gets what they need, and works what they can. A true communism has never existed. The ones we have are extremely corrupt.
And just to let you know, Russia isn't a democracy, despite what bush says. Putin eliminates anyone who stands against him. He throws them in jail with false accusations, or they just disappear. Right now, he's trying to change their constitution so he can either run for a third term or be president-for-life. Is that democracy? I think not.

I think Texas NEEDS Bush back..

Thanks for your inciteful and intellectual addition to our debate.

Thanks for your inciteful and intellectual addition to our debate.

I started the thread, doh! :rolleyes:

Lesse...it's not Bush's fault if he receives faulty intel, but what if, say, he or his group manipulated the intel to make it reasonable to invade Afghanistan and Iraq?

I dont know about Bush but in the UK theres just been an investigation on the Iraq Dossier Blair provided to Parliament to justify the war.
The findings of the investigation said that the intelligence Blair had received had been manipulated to take on new meaning and where there had been question marks in the intel they had been replaced by exclamation marks.

Blair and Bush had there own agendas for invading Iraq. Why take on such a large scale war when both America and the UK were in economic recession?
Well because war is good for industry, kick start the arms industry and you kick start the economy. Invade a country with the second largest oil reserves in the world and you even get the war funded for you.

Saddam did not have any involvement Al Quaeda, we now know this(however Iran did). Saddam did not have WMD's(Iran does).
So the question is, did we invade the right country?

The trouble being caused by the insurgents is purely to undermine the coalition, these arent even all Iraqis causing the bother, the Al Quaeda has called Iraq 'The new battleground against America'. Who suffers? Mainly the Iraqis.

Saddam was a bad man, true. Iraq is better off without him, true. Blair and Bush did this out of the kindest of their hearts?

Despite what I've said I did support the war in Iraq and I think Iraq will be better off in the long run and yes, the war pulled us out of recession.


Sorry to jump into the discussion with such a long rant!

Now whose fault is it that Iraq is a mess.

Saddam who with his curropt officials stole the riches of Iraq.

The international community who sanctioned Iraq and turned the most prosperous country in the middle east into a pile of rusting debris.

OR The Bush administration who are trying to dictate the policy of a Muslim which never I repeat never has been done succesfully.

Obviously all three. Now where will the buck stop. Well, we cant blame saddam because he soon will die and would only serve as a scapegoat.

We cant blame the international community because of our veto power in the UN.

All we can blame is ourselves. Now by blame I mean find a reason for why this happened and stop it from happening again.

cough North Korea cough Columbia cough Pakistan cough

Invade a country with the second largest oil reserves




Despite what I've said I did support the war in Iraq and I think Iraq will be better off in the long run and yes, the war pulled us out of recession.


Sorry to jump into the discussion with such a long rant!

I just want to clear something: -

Saudi Arabia, US oil producer, was against the war.
Bp and Shell were against the war
If the US wanted oil they could just dig up Alaska.

I'm glad you agree though that it was worth it.

I just wanted to clear that as it seems to be a common misconception.

I hope that you do realize we DIDN'T CARE that Hitler was killing Jews, in fact, we tried to stop them from immigrating. We did everything we could to prevent them coming to America, and we didn't attack Hitler because of it. We stayed neutral until we ourselves were attacked by the Japanese, then Germany declared war on US. Also, Hitler started the war to begin with by invading Poland. If he had been happy to kill Jews in Germany, the rest of the world wouldn't care. We don't have the right to tell other nations what they can and cannot do.
Why is a democracy the best government? With freedom comes great responsibility, and the Iraqis have never had to deal with it before. They really don't have a concept of what democracy really is.
Why isn't true communism (not like chinese or russian communism) the ideal government? Everyone gets what they need, and works what they can. A true communism has never existed. The ones we have are extremely corrupt.
And just to let you know, Russia isn't a democracy, despite what bush says. Putin eliminates anyone who stands against him. He throws them in jail with false accusations, or they just disappear. Right now, he's trying to change their constitution so he can either run for a third term or be president-for-life. Is that democracy? I think not.

You're right, we hate Jews. That's why we support Isreal so heavily.

True communism fails for the same reason capitalism thrives. In communism, there is no incentive to get up and go to work. You're gonna get your hand out no matter what. So why bother? Capitalism rewards those who put forth effort. The more effort the more rewards.

Also, for communism to work, you have to rely on the ability of the people and government leaders to be incorruptable. While this is a great thought, it is extremely naive, and virtually impossible. There is a reason that communism has never worked in the world, and that reason is that the only place is works is in Marx's writings. For it to work it must be world wide, something that will never happen.

Again, Democracy is best because the citizens have input into the actions of their government. If the government does not follow those suggestions, they have their constituents to answer to come November.

Think of it this way. If we didn't live in a democracy, you would have disappeared already, and would be dead. Enjoy that thought.

God bless the USA.

The UN said not to? Last time I checked, the United States of America is soveriegn as well. We have a right to do what we want, because we are sovereign.

Also, even though we are a sovereign nation, we are a member of the UN and are bound by it. The entire world was against our going to war in Iraq, doesn't that tell you anything?

There are rules to war you know. The only situations where we can go to war are 1) Another nation attacks us. 2) Another nation is threatening us directly or 3) The UN security council approves it.

We were under no threat of attack from Iraq, they wouldn't be that stupid. And terrorists caused 9/11, not the Taliban. So they shelter terrorists. So do lots of countries, why aren't we at war with them too? And if we really wanted to get rid of a corrupt regime, why not Cuba? It's a hell of a lot closer, and we've been trying to assasinate Castro for years. The answer is OIL. Iraq has oil, therefore, we attack Iraq. Bush is REAL good friends with the big people in oil companies. He even wants to drill in the ALASKAN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE!!! He took the same information that everyone else had counted as false, and twisted it so he could get more oil.

Ummm, you have to live under a rock if you believe that George W. Bush hadn't had plans to go to war with Iraq from the beginning. I'm sorry, but the man decided he needed a war with Iraq and then asked the intellegence community to find him any reason. And just like that he went with it and go everyone to believe that Saddam Hussein had all of these nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons practically on their way to kill us all. That's not really my idea of a hero, by any stretch of the imagination.

Under no threat from Iraq? Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't President Putin of Russia tell President of Bush of the United States that Iraq was planning direct attacks against the USA? If so then we have full reason to defend ourselves before we are attacked.

First you yawn at Fahrenheit 9/11, and now this....Who are you and what have you done with Stephistan?! :suspicious:

Oh, it's sarcasm. (edited) That would explain it. *Whew*

Allied Kingdoms, I'm positive you have conclusive evidence for your statement.

It's not Bush's fault

That settles it for me repulicans in temra can no longer breed

You are a complete moron

See Fharenhight 9/11

then tell me it's not his fault

That settles it for me repulicans in temra can no longer breed

You are a complete moron

See Fharenhight 9/11

then tell me it's not his fault

You need your head examined Temra! She is from Canada, thinks F 9/11 is 100% true when it has been debunked more times than I can count on both hands. She is a liberal too!

SHE WAS SARCASTIC!

Can't believe I just said that in defense of Stephistan!

That settles it for me repulicans in temra can no longer breed

You are a complete moron

See Fharenhight 9/11

then tell me it's not his fault

A) I've seen F 9/11

B) You didn't read my post...lol

Off topic, but I don't get it...Steph, how come you only have 50 posts while I still have my old postcount number?

You're right, we hate Jews. That's why we support Isreal so heavily.

True communism fails for the same reason capitalism thrives. In communism, there is no incentive to get up and go to work. You're gonna get your hand out no matter what. So why bother? Capitalism rewards those who put forth effort. The more effort the more rewards.

Also, for communism to work, you have to rely on the ability of the people and government leaders to be incorruptable. While this is a great thought, it is extremely naive, and virtually impossible. There is a reason that communism has never worked in the world, and that reason is that the only place is works is in Marx's writings. For it to work it must be world wide, something that will never happen.

Again, Democracy is best because the citizens have input into the actions of their government. If the government does not follow those suggestions, they have their constituents to answer to come November.

Think of it this way. If we didn't live in a democracy, you would have disappeared already, and would be dead. Enjoy that thought.

God bless the USA.

Like I said, with democracy comes great responsibility, responsibility that the majority of americans don't use. Only 40% of americans vote. so wy do we bother having a democracy?

Here's my opinion on the matter. The United States, right now, is the super power of the world. We stand on this big pedestal and tell the people of the world that we are the Defenders of Freedom and that we Police the World. We boast about having the greatest intelligence community that there is to be had.

Now, regardless of what Putin of Russia had been claiming, it is our responsibility to gather solid and credible PROOF that these weapons not only exist, but that they are a threat to us. It's amazing how this country does everything in it's power to disarm everyone else and at the same time continues to expand our own weapons of mass destruction.

So, my point in all of this being, when the President and the National Security Advisor come to Congress and the people of this country asking us whether we want to sacrifice the lives of our citizens (which have been dying every day) and kill thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians (which have also been dying every day), don't you think that the reason they should give us should be the gospel truth.

In my opinion, no one has doubted, from the day that George W. Bush took office that a war with Iraq was going to happen. Are you shocked?

Sorry, but Iraq is (or WAS, now) an independant and sovereign country. You can't just go in there and overthrow him. He was elected (yes, i know he had no competition and the like, but he was still "elected") and according to his country's rules, he is still leader and is immune from prosecution.

Also, we had no right to overthrow the Taliban government. Same deal, Afganistan WAS a sovereign nation, and we had no right to go in there and take them out. No, I don't like them, but would you like for, say, (Remember, this is a HYPOTHETICAL situation here, i know it could never happen) China to decide that they don't like Bush, he's being too (Insert distasteful something here), so they march in and kick him out, then set us up like themselves? I mean, why is a Democracy the best government? We only say that because that's what we have. And if someone tried to set up a Communism here, wouldn't you fight back just like the Iraqis are doing?

Sorry... Afghanistan and Iraq are NOT the same situation.

Eveb those who support the war in Iraq and who call those who do not "traitors" must surely acknowledge that the antiwar sentiment directed towards the Afghanistan campaign was peopled soley by hardcore pacifists who would oppose even fighting back against an invasion.

Al Queida started a war with the U.S.A. Al Queida had its base of operations inside of Afghanistan, with the blessings of the Taliban. The Taliban was thus in a tactical allegience with a power that had declared and waged war upon the U.S.A., and they were a totally fair target for our attacks as long as they were deliberately harbouring our enemies.



- Dru

People are obviously missing the point here. Bush and Blair may have taken their respective countries into an illegal war on false premises, been responsible for the deaths of Iraqi civilians and British and American servicemen and women, increased the threat of terrorism by stirring up more hatred for the west in the Middle East, but at least neither of them ever had oral sex in the Oval office. Get a sense of perspective guys.

That was low. Even though I support Bush over Kerry, that was very low...and doesn't make sense. You are being sarcastic, right?

Haha...give me Clinton (even with Monica Lewinski if you had to) any day of the week.

And to reply to the earlier post, yeah, I do believe that the Taliban, who were in support of Al Quida, hosting and sponsoring terrorism here and abroad were a fair target. The threat there was not only eminent, but it was in our own back yard. Very very different.

If the US wanted oil they could just dig up Alaska.

Excuse me. Did i read that right? Dig up the Alaskan National WILDLIFE REFUGE?? First of all, oil from alaska would only reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 2%. Second of all, it's a WILDLIFE REFUGE!!! Digging for oil would destroy it. Do you know how Bush wants to dig there? 1) Bring in heavy machinery. 2) Choose random site and dig huge hole looking for oil. 3) Repeat step 2 until oil is found.
Do you realize how much damage that would do?

People are obviously missing the point here. Bush and Blair may have taken their respective countries into an illegal war on false premises, been responsible for the deaths of Iraqi civilians and British and American servicemen and women, increased the threat of terrorism by stirring up more hatred for the west in the Middle East, but at least neither of them ever had oral sex in the Oval office. Get a sense of perspective guys.

This is not lost on me.. I'm fully aware this war was unjust and illegal under international law. My post that started this thread was sarcasm.

It's not Bush's fault that he was convinced by intelligence that failed to convince governments around the world. Clearly it was the fault of the intelligence community who he listened to and not a judgement error to question why nobody else found it convincing. It's not that he was predisposed to accepting this as gospel due to a pre-existing disposition towards that viewpoint. Not at all.

Similarly - It's not Bush's fault that the war was poorly planned for and has become a complete debacle. After all, it's not like senior generals were stating that the troops needed were far more than was being planned and got fired for stating such. George asked other people, got different assessments, and chose to accept them. Clearly that was also wrong, but he really tried.

And it's not Georges fault that Osama is still at large. How was he to know that it would take more troops to catch him, when after all he needed the rest of the troops to attack countries that weren't involved in 9-11?

The fact that subsequent evidence has shown that it was Pakistan handing out nuke technology to anyone with a cheque-book is unfortunate, but how was he to know that this "valued ally" was the real threat? And of course he has dealt with that issue.... by letting them completely off the hook and giving them MORE high-tech toys to distract them with.

IT's not even Georges fault that his economic team has refused for three years to include ANY line-item amounts for military operations in the middle east in the Federal budgets. After all, how is he to know if the situation won't suddenly turn rosy tomorrow and allow him not to have to spend any of it?


Nope. George is really not responsible for anything. IT's all been simply the unfortunate results arising from his best judgements after receiving poor advice.

And it's not like you should be concerned about the leader of the country repeatedly accepting bad advice should you? That doesn't reflect on his judgement at all does it?


You can't keep letting GW off the hook without having to admit that at best he surrounded himself with incompetence and that it affected his decisions. Of course, given that he chose most of those people speaks volumes as to his judgement too doesn't it?


The buck used to stop in the Oval Office. Now it gets handed off to underlings who are allowed to retire with nice packages. The buck stops nowhere anymore. Everyone points fingers back and forth until the news gets tired of it and moves on.

It's NEVER the President's fault, when that President is a REPUBLICAN...but, God forbid, had a DEMOCRAT been in office and committed the same outrages, it WOULD be his fault...god damn liberal media...

It's NEVER the President's fault, when that President is a REPUBLICAN...but, God forbid, had a DEMOCRAT been in office and committed the same outrages, it WOULD be his fault...god damn liberal media...

I think someone here doesn't realize that ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN, and MSNBC have stated that Bush mislead America! If a Democrat was in charge, they would be DEFENDING the president instead of ATTACKING him as they have done to Bush!

I think Texas NEEDS Bush back..

BULLCRAP!! I'm a Texan, and I don't want him back!! Let him go back to Connecticut, or Kennebunkport!!

I think someone here doesn't realize that ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN, and MSNBC have stated that Bush mislead America! If a Democrat was in charge, they would be DEFENDING the president instead of ATTACKING him as they have done to Bush!

You obviously don't recall the Clinton impeachment.. or you wouldn't be saying that.

You obviously don't recall the Clinton impeachment.. or you wouldn't be saying that.

The Clinton impeachment was a different animal! They defended him till the US House passed Articles of Impeachment! How I know this is because my brother followed it constently! When it went to the Senate, the news media jumped on it because it was the biggest news item of the day! Thus Clinton-bashing was only inevitable!

This is not lost on me.. I'm fully aware this war was unjust and illegal under international law. My post that started this thread was sarcasm.Don't worry. I've seen enough of your politics to be fully aware of that. I just reckoned if I didn't make the post someone else would have attempted to.;) (On a completly unrelated point, what has happened to Friends of Bill?)

Oops, some other evil person has been using the work computer for nationstates.

The Clinton impeachment was a different animal! They defended him till the US House passed Articles of Impeachment! How I know this is because my brother followed it constently! When it went to the Senate, the news media jumped on it because it was the biggest news item of the day! Thus Clinton-bashing was only inevitable!

Ah, so there goes your theory huh.. :p

Ah, so there goes your theory huh.. :p

I said it was inevitable! Most of the anchors defended Clinton stating that it was his personal life. Frankly I don't care but when questioned under oath, he lied which is a crime!

Just a few quick points:

The war in Afghanistan was justified and UN condoned. The only problem is that it was abandoned too quickly.

The US had no justification to invade Iraq. It's true that everybody had the same intelligence, but not everybody arrived at the same conclusion. War is serious business, the decision can't be taken lightly as the US appears to have done.

The US is a sovereign country. That means it can do what it wants *inside* its own borders.

It's true that the war in Iraq has killed less people than Saddam used to kill. But we have to consider that Saddam did most of his killing during the war with Iran and putting out rebellions started but not followed up by the US. There was systematic killing, of course, mostly against the Kurds. Nevertheless, it can't be said that if we have killed less people than Saddam then we're better than Saddam. That's ridiculous. I mean, how much better? Are we only 60% as evil as Saddam? 35% better?

Is Iraq better today? In some aspects it is, in some aspects it isn't. It's hard to say if it will be better off in the near future, the outlook is bleak. Further in the future it may be better, but then other causes may be responsible and not the removal of Saddam. Who knows? This is why wars shouldn't be fought over the premise of "this is for their own good".

Were there alternatives to the war in Iraq. Yes, although none of them were explored enough before the US invaded and the US had no will to explore any alternative.

Has the US the right ot defend itself? Yes, but only against imminent, manifest threat, not possibilities fueled by speculation and flaky evidence. Otherwise every other country would be attacking each other all the time.

Should the UN have done more? Oh, yes. But the UN has no ability to take these kind of decisions quickly, plus any of the five permanent members of the Security Council can veto any resolutions, as they all have done in the past. Also, the UN doesn't have it's own army and without the support from the powers, especially the US with the largest military capacity in the world, it's resolution are often unenforceable. So, if the US and the other powers want to make the UN a more able body they have to step out of its way, give it some military and economic power, and recognise its rule. It'll never happen.

I just want to clear something: -

Saudi Arabia, US oil producer, was against the war.
Bp and Shell were against the war
If the US wanted oil they could just dig up Alaska.

I'm glad you agree though that it was worth it.

I just wanted to clear that as it seems to be a common misconception.

They where against it because more oil makes it cheaper and they get less money

I just want to clear something: -

Saudi Arabia, US oil producer, was against the war.
Bp and Shell were against the war
If the US wanted oil they could just dig up Alaska.

I'm glad you agree though that it was worth it.

I just wanted to clear that as it seems to be a common misconception.


My point was not about the oil companies, it was that the the oil could fund the invasion for the US and the UK.
Both these countries were in an economic recession when they decided to spend hundreds of billions on the war, they couldnt(and wouldnt) have done it if there was nothing to compensate their loss.

I said it was inevitable! Most of the anchors defended Clinton stating that it was his personal life. Frankly I don't care but when questioned under oath, he lied which is a crime!

True - it was a crime. And he was properly censured for it.

Of course, we all realize the relevance of a possible extra-marital affair to a hearing that was supposed to be about possible improprieties in business dealings that happened before he was elected.

Clinton made the bold step as a president to go under oath in public to try and clear up the Whitewater innuendo that had been floating around for years - an issue that had nothing to do with his performance as the PResident. But he did it. And he got suprised with this completely irrelevant line of questioning, and as many people do - lied about having commited adultery. That was wrong for his to do. He was punished.

Notice how they never did find a shred of proof regarding what the hearings were supposed to be about? When it was all over we heard a lot about cigars, but nothing about improprieties regarding Whitewater.



Now let's contrast that with GW. When asked to give testimony on a case that had EVERYTHING to do with his Presidency - the 9-11 commission - what did he do?

Refused to testify in public.
Refused to testify under oath.
Refused to testify without Cheney at his side.


Yeah - that's a whole lot better.

Guess he learned from what the Republican's did to Clinton. It's safer NOT to put yourself in a position where you have to tell the truth.

George W. Bush will get the judgement he deserves, when he stands before his maker. He will have to answer for the deaths he has caused. I am not religious, but he is. Thus why he should be scared of the day when he dies.

I am not religious either, but I hope that if their is a "God", that He punishes Bush.

Numerous times we have helped what we thought to be the lesser of two evils, and then found ourselves to be wrong, that doesn't stop us trying to alter it later.

Yeah, far be it for us to actually not support ANY evil...

My point was not about the oil companies, it was that the the oil could fund the invasion for the US and the UK.
Both these countries were in an economic recession when they decided to spend hundreds of billions on the war, they couldnt(and wouldnt) have done it if there was nothing to compensate their loss.

I think you missed the Alaska part of that

if W wanted oil he would have invaded Alaska

I am not religious either, but I hope that if their is a "God", that He punishes Bush.

hhhmmmmm.. you procliam athism, but think that if God exists it will be the loyal Christians he punishes

oh

now I get it

I am not religious either, but I hope that if their is a "God", that He punishes Bush.

Bush is a Christian so I don't think God will punish him! If anything, he'll welcome him with open arms!

Bush is a Christian so I don't think God will punish him! If anything, he'll welcome him with open arms!

I doubt Bush is a good and loyal Christian. He certainly doesn't fit the description Jesus gives of a good Christian: voluntarily poverty, pacifism, loving his neighbour, presenting the other cheek... In fact he does quite the opposite of what I believe a good Christian should do.

If I'm mistaken and God does indeed welcome him with open arms... Let's just say I'll pretend not to see the sign saying "Christian's Heaven -> this way" inside the big tunnel when I die, okay? :-P

Saddam did not have any involvement Al Quaeda, we now know this(however Iran did). Saddam did not have WMD's(Iran does).
So the question is, did we invade the right country?


Take the case of Isreal and Palestine.For years now,America has been extending a LOT of support to Israel,while the poor palestinians are facing the attacks of Israel.What about that?Isn't it a bad judgement?

Face it....the country is on the right track....we've been there barely 2 yrs and had to contend with a nation whose infrastructure was a mess, and soley due to the fact that Saddam would rather had spent his oil kickbacks on palaces then his people..

Hmmmm I have noticed that the US has the highest childhood poverty rate of industrialized countries, and there are a couple of people in the White House who seem to be more than willing to spend their oil kickbacks on palaces then on their people, and even throw in a "tax cut" for the wealthiest citizens so that they can make their palaces more palatial.

Now what was your point?

Bush is a Christian so I don't think God will punish him! If anything, he'll welcome him with open arms!

Many people would challenge the assertion that Bush is a Christian. Many would also say that he is a liar, a cheat, and a thief.

There are many people who claim to be Christian because they go to church on Sundays, but on Monday they forget and often times they forget right through to Saturday. They know the rules, but yet they let their greed, or anger, or arrogance get the better of them.

I believe to earn those wings, one must work daily to achieve them.

Yes, I'm sure as you sit in your nice comfy home away from the danger of Iraq their lives are nothing to you..

Yeah, we know, your son is there, so you say.. but we have read links that show how you have made claims in the past on the old forum that completely call into question your honesty..

I have read some of the links that you refer to Stephistan and I concur. Are the old threads gone forever?

I said it was inevitable! Most of the anchors defended Clinton stating that it was his personal life. Frankly I don't care but when questioned under oath, he lied which is a crime!

I would suggest that Bush's lies are far more critical and certainly more criminal.

But a) he will never be punished as his maker is... well, mother nature. Or Mr and Mrs Bush.
b) I want him punished now! In front of me, not his maker!


now you have me imagining barbara bush grabbing her son by the ear, twisting it really hard and yelling " this is not the way we raised you!"

its what my mother would have done

I think we are all agreed that Saddam had no right to rule? Well, if the US isn't going to help the Iraqis, then who is? The UN? The UN is worthless, and the only nation it is willing to piss off is the US. Who does it always come to begging for another billion dollars? I say screw em, the only thing the UN is good at is humanitarian aid, and the funding for that comes from the US. The UN sanctioned the invasion of Korea way back when. But guess what? All the troops were Americans. Why should we need UN sanction for our actions when the countries that compose it will sit back, insult the US, publicly renounce our actions, and then DEMAND another billion dollars? It is just plain ridiculous.

I think we are all agreed that Saddam had no right to rule? Well, if the US isn't going to help the Iraqis, then who is? The UN? The UN is worthless, and the only nation it is willing to piss off is the US. Who does it always come to begging for another billion dollars? I say screw em, the only thing the UN is good at is humanitarian aid, and the funding for that comes from the US. The UN sanctioned the invasion of Korea way back when. But guess what? All the troops were Americans. Why should we need UN sanction for our actions when the countries that compose it will sit back, insult the US, publicly renounce our actions, and then DEMAND another billion dollars? It is just plain ridiculous.
Yes, oh great nation of the US, spending billions of dollars for humanitarian causes while the entire uncivilized world outside of the US does not. Thou hast our greatest gratitude, sire. Thank thee very muchly. God blesseth teh United Stateseth of teh Americaseth. Gawd.. I wish people like you would die from the obvious lack of brain.

I think we are all agreed that Saddam had no right to rule? Well, if the US isn't going to help the Iraqis, then who is? The UN? The UN is worthless, and the only nation it is willing to piss off is the US. Who does it always come to begging for another billion dollars? I say screw em, the only thing the UN is good at is humanitarian aid, and the funding for that comes from the US. The UN sanctioned the invasion of Korea way back when. But guess what? All the troops were Americans. Why should we need UN sanction for our actions when the countries that compose it will sit back, insult the US, publicly renounce our actions, and then DEMAND another billion dollars? It is just plain ridiculous.

Agreed HadesRulesMuch! The UN only cares about the US money and are better at Humanitiarian Aide. Every UN Action was a debacle including the 1st Gulf War telling us we can't invade Iraq and take out Hussein then. Only to Liberate KuWait. My dad fought in that one too.

Korea ended in an Armistace, still no peace between the 2 nations. Other actions where limited in nature too. Humanitarian is fine unless the facility is bombed then the UN runs for the hills by pulling all of them out of the area. How does the UN function like this? I don't know. No wonder alot of people call the UN Cowards. We get shot at, bombed, and beheaded, yet the US and her allies, Ex-cluding Spain (caved to terror), El Salvador (same), and the Philippines (same as well)! are still in the region despite all of this. Now the UN is back? I wonder how long they'll stay when the next attack on the UN there occurs.

Yes, oh great nation of the US, spending billions of dollars for humanitarian causes while the entire uncivilized world outside of the US does not. Thou hast our greatest gratitude, sire. Thank thee very muchly. God blesseth teh United Stateseth of teh Americaseth. Gawd.. I wish people like you would die from the obvious lack of brain.

We donate far more in money than anyother nation Gigatron. We are the one the world comes too in a crisis. They denounce us tell they need us. When they ask us to help we do and when its over, they'll thank us then go back to denouncing us.

As for the last line, no need to result to an attack on his character. That is uncalled for.

I have read some of the links that you refer to Stephistan and I concur. Are the old threads gone forever?

Nope, all the old threads from the old forum are still around.. you can find them at the bottom of the screen there is a drop down menu box that allows you to go back as far as a year I believe ;)

Nope, all the old threads from the old forum are still around.. you can find them at the bottom of the screen there is a drop down menu box that allows you to go back as far as a year I believe ;)

Actually I found the drop box goes all the way back to the beginning! not just last year but further back. I think I saw one from the '70s!

I think we are all agreed that Saddam had no right to rule? Well, if the US isn't going to help the Iraqis, then who is? The UN? The UN is worthless, and the only nation it is willing to piss off is the US. Who does it always come to begging for another billion dollars? I say screw em, the only thing the UN is good at is humanitarian aid, and the funding for that comes from the US. The UN sanctioned the invasion of Korea way back when. But guess what? All the troops were Americans. Why should we need UN sanction for our actions when the countries that compose it will sit back, insult the US, publicly renounce our actions, and then DEMAND another billion dollars? It is just plain ridiculous.

do you honestly believe that our invasion of iraq had anything to do with humanitarianism?

it was based on lies and it has diverted us from our real goal of eliminating terrorism

when george bush shows me the head of osama bin laden on a stick THEN ill consider his war on terrorism somewhat successful.

Agreed HadesRulesMuch! The UN only cares about the US money and are better at Humanitiarian Aide. Every UN Action was a debacle including the 1st Gulf War telling us we can't invade Iraq and take out Hussein then. Only to Liberate KuWait. My dad fought in that one too.

Another false statement.

The UN did not tell GHW that he could not invade Iraq. Bush never asked to go into IRaq. He did not want to go into Iraq. He felt that invading IRaq was a dumb idea!

from: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/july-dec98/bush_10-5.html


JIM LEHRER: But on the moral part of this, a lot of people have suggested, wait a minute, we went to war, thousands of people died, most of them Iraqis, died in Desert Storm because of one man. Why not take that one man out and maybe have prevented the deaths of so many others?

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Well, one reason, you’d have added the a lot of deaths of innocent Americans too. We had international law on our side – not to kill Saddam Hussein but to end the aggression. And we ended the aggression. And as a result of that, you saw the Middle East peace process begin at Madrid. That wouldn’t have happened if we unilaterally had marched into Baghdad. And what gets me, Jim, is you got a lot of revisionists now that take a look ex-post facto and say you should have gone in and killed Saddam Hussein. Would you want your son there in an urban, a guerrilla war, where we couldn’t even find a two-bit warlord in Mogadishu – dusty warehouses -- and then they’re saying to me now late – hey, you should have gone in and killed him, alone , occupying power in an Arab land – the United States of America -- no way. Now am I happy he’s there? No. But we had a mission; we defined it, and thanks to the heroism of a lot of young Americans we fulfilled that mission. And I don’t believe in mission creep, incidentally. Am I happy he’s there? No. But there are a lot of bad guys out there, a lot of terrorists out there – maybe none quite as brutal to his own people as Saddam. But you can click off a few, I’m sure, and some of these despots around the world.


Pay careful attention to where he states that he defined the mission, and that this mission did not include an invasion of Iraq.

Shows how better decisions are made by those with military, intelligence, and foreign service experience as opposed to those with a history of evading active service, drinking, and talking to God about what to do.

The son sure ain't the father. One of the two at least had a clue.

Now, now people. Just because Clinton and W. had the same exact intel, and that intel was waaaay out of date AND Clinton didn't act on it and W. did, is no reason to blame W.

It must've been Clinton's fault for...um...not listening to the outdated intel. :confused:

I think we are all agreed that Saddam had no right to rule? Well, if the US isn't going to help the Iraqis, then who is? The UN? The UN is worthless, and the only nation it is willing to piss off is the US. Who does it always come to begging for another billion dollars? I say screw em, the only thing the UN is good at is humanitarian aid, and the funding for that comes from the US. The UN sanctioned the invasion of Korea way back when. But guess what? All the troops were Americans. Why should we need UN sanction for our actions when the countries that compose it will sit back, insult the US, publicly renounce our actions, and then DEMAND another billion dollars? It is just plain ridiculous.

If you read the UN Charter of Rights, you would understand why the US would require UN approval to invade Iraq. The UN was fulfilling its' mandate by looking for those very same WMD that Bush claimed that Saddam had. The problem for Bush was that the UN inspectors were not finding anything controversial, and this fact was lessening his ability to attack Iraq. People seem to forget this very important fact.....Bush told the UN inspectors to GET OUT because the US was going in. It was this singleness of purpose that alienated many of the US's traditional allies.

Bush wanted to attack Iraq, come hell or high water and now he is living with the consequences. Bush exploited the attack of 911 to his advantage to force an attack on Iraq. IF there had been NO mention of WMD, and Iraqi ties to Al-Queda, do you believe that Congress would have approved an attack against Iraq? The obvious answer would be NO!!

BTW, check your facts on who fought and/or assisted in the Korean war:

The United Nations Wall on the opposite side lists the countries that provided troops, medical support, or supplies to help South Korea. These were: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Columbia, Denmark, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the United States of America.

Facts tend to lend credence to an argument. Next time come prepared?

Btw, with 507 troop for Peacekeeping missions, the US are among the lowest number of troop contributions for peacekeeping missions of the UN. 57 fatalities for the US as of June 2004, 106 for Canada and even France has more than the US. No. 1 troop contributor to peacekeeping missions is Pakistan!

Source: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/SummaryJune2004.pdf

Also, the US pay the largest share of UN dues (22% - because they can due to highest share of world economy) but are the nation with the highest percentage of unpaid dues (38%).

http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/%7Egboychuk/psci110/feb5.ppt

Btw, with 507 troop for Peacekeeping missions, the US are among the lowest number of troop contributions for peacekeeping missions of the UN. 57 fatalities for the US as of June 2004, 106 for Canada and even France has more than the US. No. 1 troop contributor to peacekeeping missions is Pakistan!

Source: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/SummaryJune2004.pdf

Also, the US pay the largest share of UN dues (22% - because they can due to highest share of world economy) but are the nation with the highest percentage of unpaid dues (38%).

http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/%7Egboychuk/psci110/feb5.ppt

Thats because they trust the UN more than the USA! Our troops are the most advanced soldiers in the world are NOT under UN Control! We had an incident where a US Soldier REFUSED to wear the UN BAND saying he was an American Soldier under American Control and not a world military force. He was subsequently court martialed but brought up why America doesn't like our soldiers to be under foreign command.

Thats because they trust the UN more than the USA! Our troops are the most advanced soldiers in the world are NOT under UN Control! We had an incident where a US Soldier REFUSED to wear the UN BAND saying he was an American Soldier under American Control and not a world military force. He was subsequently court martialed but brought up why America doesn't like our soldiers to be under foreign command.

While I will be the first to admit the UN is no where near perfect.. it should really not surprise you that the world trusts the UN at this point a hell of a lot more then the USA and not without good reason.

It's not Bush's fault that he was convinced by intelligence that failed to convince governments around the world. Clearly it was the fault of the intelligence community who he listened to and not a judgement error to question why nobody else found it convincing. It's not that he was predisposed to accepting this as gospel due to a pre-existing disposition towards that viewpoint. Not at all.

Similarly - It's not Bush's fault that the war was poorly planned for and has become a complete debacle. After all, it's not like senior generals were stating that the troops needed were far more than was being planned and got fired for stating such. George asked other people, got different assessments, and chose to accept them. Clearly that was also wrong, but he really tried.

And it's not Georges fault that Osama is still at large. How was he to know that it would take more troops to catch him, when after all he needed the rest of the troops to attack countries that weren't involved in 9-11?

The fact that subsequent evidence has shown that it was Pakistan handing out nuke technology to anyone with a cheque-book is unfortunate, but how was he to know that this "valued ally" was the real threat? And of course he has dealt with that issue.... by letting them completely off the hook and giving them MORE high-tech toys to distract them with.

IT's not even Georges fault that his economic team has refused for three years to include ANY line-item amounts for military operations in the middle east in the Federal budgets. After all, how is he to know if the situation won't suddenly turn rosy tomorrow and allow him not to have to spend any of it?


Nope. George is really not responsible for anything. IT's all been simply the unfortunate results arising from his best judgements after receiving poor advice.

And it's not like you should be concerned about the leader of the country repeatedly accepting bad advice should you? That doesn't reflect on his judgement at all does it?


You can't keep letting GW off the hook without having to admit that at best he surrounded himself with incompetence and that it affected his decisions. Of course, given that he chose most of those people speaks volumes as to his judgement too doesn't it?


The buck used to stop in the Oval Office. Now it gets handed off to underlings who are allowed to retire with nice packages. The buck stops nowhere anymore. Everyone points fingers back and forth until the news gets tired of it and moves on.
Steph, this is the first time I've seen you really angry. You never used to get like this. Let's face it, it's not Bush's fault that bin Laden is at large. Do you think 120,000 troops would wipe the mafia clean from New York? I think that you're anger borderlines irrationality. You're smarter than this, Steph. Snap outta it.

Yes, oh great nation of the US, spending billions of dollars for humanitarian causes while the entire uncivilized world outside of the US does not. Thou hast our greatest gratitude, sire. Thank thee very muchly. God blesseth teh United Stateseth of teh Americaseth. Gawd.. I wish people like you would die from the obvious lack of brain.
I agree and hades do have any proff are are u just gonna talk bullshit