Yerusalyim you're fighting the good fight but you're wasting your breath. If they found a train load of 20 megaton warheads and another train load of Sarin, it would be something else. These guys are anti-US in general and anti-Bush in particular. Have you read Mona Charen's book about "useful idiots?" Same deal.
US calls off search for weapons of mass destruction
by WhyNow2000 193 Replies latest social current
-
-
Badger
<------ Is solidly pro-US
<------ Is quite Anti-Bush
-
roybatty
Of course, this didn't fit in with Bush's timetable for war and so they were forced to leave.
I think history will ultimately judge Bush as a huge mistake. Like Reagan ... no one can be proud of having that senile old fool in charge ! We're still trying to clear up the legacy that he left us and in future years we'll have to try and clean up after Bush.
Actually, Simon, you'll find here in the US that as time goes by, Reagan is seen as one of the great presidents. I'm not sure if I believe that he was "great" meaing on the same level as Washington and Lincoln but here in the States both Rep. and Demo. alike praise him more and more. Say what you want but he was a great communicator, got the American people to again feel proud and did contribute to winning the Cold War.
Regarding Bush, well, history will tell. I wish I had more time to research all the links you listed but I did have some, simple question. Correct me if I'm wrong but you (along with many other people) believe that Bush flatout lied to the American people, right? That he knowingly said (to paraphrase) Iraq has WMD, knowing full well that they did not and used this to justify his invasion of Iraq. Now, my question. Do you really think that Bush is THAT stupid? Now I know it's easy to be silly and say "yeah" but think about it. He knew that if he made such a bold lie that he'd be called on it. That at least SOMEONE would say "hey, where the heck are the WMD????" . C'mon, you can't honestly believe he's that stupid? I mean, he could have used "lies" that were much easier to back up. He could have said "Saddam is killing his own people and is a threat to the peace in the middle east" and most Americans would have still supported him. When on earth would he need to make up such an elaborate lie?????
-
shamus
**yawn**
I never attacked any poster here personally. If you feel like you have been, please go get your head examined.
If you take what I say about Bush that personally, then whoever does so should go get they're head examined.
I mean can't y'all lighten up just a bit?
If it is my opinoin that George W. is no better than Hussein, then that's my opinion. God help dissent for some people in the U.S. Your gun to my head will not work. I will not be quieted by an organization called Jehovahs Witnesses, or shut up by George W.
At least I have the balls to say what the rest of people are saying.
So go ahead and "attack" back at your supposed threat... LOL!
Sorry folks, I'm a real person, and you can't shut a real persons views up, no matter how "contraversial". If I see American Bullying tactics here, then so be it. Enjoy! You will not change my views nor anyone else's views here.
Does america really have it's head so buried in the sand they can't see public opinion around the world as hating Bush as much as they do?
America has helped the world tremendously. Just don't you dare question George W.!
-
SixofNine
Wes Clark knew that if there was really a legitimate reason to go after Iraq, the intelligence had changed since he had been privy to it.
Anthony Zinni knew what Clark knew, and more, as his link to intelligence was even stronger than Clark's, having had the ME and Iraq under his command not long ago. Anthony Zinni knew that the intelligence did not make a case for war.
Both Anthony Zinni and Wes Clark knew that attacking Iraq, especially unilaterally, could lead to the situation we have now in Iraq.
Ah, but the chickenhawks.... they know better?
-
shamus
Hey, can we all just solve this thread and all the wounds I've opnened by mud wrestling? The winner gets a kick in the nuts...
-
Pleasuredome
The question about civilian casualties...there are no accurate figures and no way to distinguish between who was a civilian and who was Fedyeen or Army troops in civilian clothes...right now the number is guesstimated at between 5000 and 7000...but that number includes combatants in civilian clothes.
the war was illegal, so it matters not whether some of the thousands that died were troops or not.
-
Xena
Shamus in retrospect I am going to consider the source of your comments.....so uummm nevermind
-
Yerusalyim
Pleasuredome,
The war was NOT illegal. As a resumption of the war Iraq started, resumed due to multiple violations of the Ceasefire agreement...it was not illegal internationally, and with the resolution of Congress authorizing the use of force it was not illegal constitutionally....your arguement holds NO water. If you think it was illegal...go to court.
As to Abu Abbas, yes, he was charged with the death of one American...and that's one too many...but he and his group are responsible for the deaths of scores if not hundreds of people internationally. The "Bush Doctrine" is...if you harbour terrorists, you'll be treated as a terrorist. Saddam had Abbas killed not because Saddam was turning a new leaf, but because Abbas was becoming a liability. Saddam harboured and aided terrorists...no one disputes that.
As to "in a court of law" about not finding the WMD (yet), let's look at this as a search warrant that was executed. Using the reasonable person standard, any reasonable person, given the intelligence available, would have thought Saddam possessed WMD. The whole of the UN thought so...Clinton thought so....Congress thought so. Therefore...the invasion would stand up in a court of law.
Yes, you're correct, the world did not change on 9-11, only our preception of the world. The world seems unwilling or unable to confront the world as is. The world community seems unwillin or unable to confront evil. Dennis Prager wrote an interesting article about this very thing in WORLDNET Daily. I'll provide the link but quote only one line that struck a cord. He wrote this concerning Germany...but it applies to much of Europe and the US as well....
"There is, it would seem, only one answer. Nazism taught you nothing. Instead of learning that evil must be fought, you learned that fighting is evil. "
don't fault anyone here for what I perceive as pacifism...aside from it being the left overs of JWism for some of you, it's also an understanble concept, born mainly of Europeans, as a reaction to the needless and horrible bloodshed of the Great War
This seems to be the attitude of many here...and many in the world at large...Where the world used to be able to see war as a principle of last resort, and that there was a presumption against the use of force, I and many like myself have changed our minds about these principles because our reality has changed. Global terrorism doesn't allow the luxury of these principles anymore.
God Bless
-
Pleasuredome
yeru,
this was quoted about your knight in shining armour:
"But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone""
