BUSH responsible for death of thousands

[Tab]

WMDs or no WMDs, you cannot attack a country that did not attack or even threaten to attack you.

According to whom? You? Why should we let someone who sponsers terrorism and is completely insane have these weapons? So, if a contrey threatens to nuke you in 15 minutes you not going to do anthing?

Attacking a country for not obeying resolutions is sort of like shooting your spouse for reading an adult magazine because you think she or he may cheat on you in the future.

Uh, their is a big difference between a porno mag and resolution 1441, it involves global security dumbass.

You've got to be kidding me if you think a country with the largest military and most sophisticated weaponry in the world is scared of a meager third-rate country's arsenal.

They've got guns and have WMD's. If your going to belive Saddam over Bush you can shove it. I would imagine its going to be hard to inspect sites while you still have people shooting at you.

Of course there is a possibility that terrorists could get a hold of them, but you just cannot start a war due to a possibilty of what may or may not happen in the future.

Why the hell not?

Let's take a look at it. Is this war good for humanity? Is there any chance of it slowing down or stopping the cycle of violence that has plagued us throughout all of human existence?

Maybe you should look at Saddam's human rights abuse, he has murdered millions. All of the bombs that unfortunatly fell on civilians their blood is on his hands.

Furthermore, is this benifiting the Iraqis? Now that the "murderous regime" is nearly gone, is there something better? Apparently in addition to the many Iraqi lives lost, there is now an unstable, lawless nation with a major humanitarian crisis on its hands.

Many Iraqi lives lost? People die war. How can you possibly question that after a murderous regime is gone is their something better? You bet there is. Haven't you seen people cheering in the streets on tv? Its everywhere! There already was a humanitarian crisis. The oil for food program was the biggest load of bullshit ever. The Iraqi military took most of it! Go look at some of their reports.

Iraqis are now cut off from the most basic necessities. Iraq is now an even more dangerous and miserable place to live.

You think they had the basic necessitis before! HAHAHAH! You really need to do some research buddy! How is Iraq any more dangerous and miserable than before? Its alot less miserable than before.

However, by that point we probably won't even care about Iraq anymore. It will go the way of Afghanistan -- the 'forgotten war.'

We currently invested 200 million in afganistan and have 100,000 troops their still... You call this forgotten?

I will keep up with the news and would love to be PROVED WRONG about all of this.

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/news/archive/local_9647006.shtml

Wisconsin has the largest Iraq-American population. Their opinion matters more than your stupid anti-bush one. Wait, does your opinion even matter?

 

[frugal1]

This initial post is a sad example of how our liberal media can successfully propagandize many people.
People that think this way are very irrational, because they believe the propaganda that they are spoonfed without doing a little further investigating, reading, and THINKING.
AND, it is truly amazing how many people still resent the fact that Bush won.
I, for one, am very happy with the president and his staff. Rumsfeld is an excellent speaker!

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: ncircle

Originally posted by: elzmaddy
Okay, my opinion here:

Bush is responsible for the death of thousands in Iraq. Why? Because the war was totally unnecessary. WMDs or no WMDs, you cannot attack a country that did not attack or even threaten to attack you. Attacking a country for not obeying resolutions is sort of like shooting your spouse for reading an adult magazine because you think she or he may cheat on you in the future. No pre-emptive attacks can be justified. Well... they can be, as long as you are searching deeply for the justification in your head. You will find it, no matter how ludicrous or far-fetched. I believe this is called paranoia. You've got to be kidding me if you think a country with the largest military and most sophisticated weaponry in the world is scared of a meager third-rate country's arsenal. Of course there is a possibility that terrorists could get a hold of them, but you just cannot start a war due to a possibilty of what may or may not happen in the future. You could argue that eliminating these weapons will add to our national security. But at the cost of stepping all over another country? No, that is unacceptable. We want our president to defend our country, but not at the cost of making the rest of the world more miserable. You may say I'm not looking at the bigger picture of making the world a safer place. Let's take a look at it. Is this war good for humanity? Is there any chance of it slowing down or stopping the cycle of violence that has plagued us throughout all of human existence? Highly unlikely. All this does is reinforce the idea that violence is an acceptable means of solving disputes. We should not wait for Saddam or other violent leaders to stop, but be the shining example of what the world could be like. That said, war is needed sometimes. But face it, if war were truly necessary there would be no need for debate -- it would be VERY CLEAR.

Furthermore, is this benifiting the Iraqis? Now that the "murderous regime" is nearly gone, is there something better? Apparently in addition to the many Iraqi lives lost, there is now an unstable, lawless nation with a major humanitarian crisis on its hands. This is directly as a result of the war. Bush made a bad situation worse. Iraqis are now cut off from the most basic necessities. Iraq is now an even more dangerous and miserable place to live. Will it stay that way? Maybe, maybe not. I will keep up with the news and would love to be PROVED WRONG about all of this. However, by that point we probably won't even care about Iraq anymore. It will go the way of Afghanistan -- the 'forgotten war.'

Bush is directly and indirectly responsible for the loss of life and decreased quality of life in Iraq. How infuriated am I? I think Bush should be forced to adopt the young boy whose arms were blasted off. Lastly, the assetts of Bush, Cheney and others should be seized and used for the rebuilding of Iraq. :|

damnit!
If only bush hadnt used all that magical nation building powder in Afghanistan, we would see an Instant Stable Iraq!

What the US is doing in Afghanistan


Iraq is a different situation. Better educated people, instant revenue, standing infrastructure, etc..

 

[novon]

I agree with elzmaddy

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: novon
I agree with elzmaddy

I guess logic isnt required to register on the message boards....

 

[paulj2]

 

[paulj2]

OK...

Let's suppose that Mexico was massing troops on the border with Texas. ***I don't have anything against Mexico. I just need a neighboring country.*** Suppose the Mexicans put WMD on the border of Texas. What should we do?

In all prudence we should attack before they destroy Texas.

The nature of threats in this modern world is very different than in the past. With the Soviet Union they were concerned with mutual destruction. So that kept the use of WMD in check. Today's terrorist have no fear of US retribution (at least they used to). They think they are power without a country. The truth is there are countries that support terrorists. We must hold these countries accountable for the actions of those they support. Even if the terrorist do not wear that countries uniform. In the war in terror you are either with us or against us. Supporting, training, and harboring terrorists is an act of war. There is no other way to view it. HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN 9/11.

Also these terrorist do not attack military facilities and units. They desire to attack the weakest amoung us. Those who are going to work to support themselves unarmed. HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN 9/11. Contrast that with our war against Saddam's regime. We put ourselves at risk to protect the Iraqi civilians. We take POWs and probably feed them better than Saddam. Saddam kills and tortures our soldiers. We avoid destroying water plants, bridges, etc. Yes they had a water problem before we went in. We bring in water and food.

Don't you remember what was supposed to happen on 9/11. Planes all over the country were supposed to crash into buildings. That is the nature of the evil we are dealing with.

Your argument that we supported him in the past is hollow. It has no merit. So what if we supported him. It doesn't change the fact that he supported terrorists, posed a threat to the US via giving WMD to terrorists, and had not complied with previous UN requirements to disarm. I will not revisit my prior listing of Saddam's attrocities. No I will. You need to see it again.

*************************Don't read the following if you have a weak stomach.******************
Medical experimentation,
***pause and think about this***

Beatings,
***pause and think about this***

Crucifixion,
***pause and think about this***

Hammering nails into the fingers and hands,
***pause and think about this***

Amputating sex organs or breasts with an electric carving knife,
***pause and think about this***

Spraying insecticides into a victim's eyes,
***pause and think about this***

Branding with a hot iron,
***pause and think about this***

Committing rape while the victim's spouse is forced to watch,
***pause and think about this***

Pouring boiling water into the victim's rectum,
***pause and think about this***

Nailing the tongue to a wooden board,
***pause and think about this***

Extracting teeth with pliers,
***pause and think about this***

Using bees and scorpions to sting naked children in front of their parents.
***pause and think about this***

Saddam's Attrocities

I hear people saying we don't need this war
I say there's some things worth fighting for
What about our freedom and this piece of ground?
We didn't get to keep 'em by backing down
They say we don't realize the mess we're getting in
Before you start preaching
Let me ask you this my friend

CHORUS 1
Have you forgotten how it felt that day
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away?
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside
Going through a living hell

And you say we shouldn't worry 'bout Bin Laden
Have you forgotten?
They took all the footage off my T.V.
Said it's too disturbing for you and me
It'll just breed anger that's what the experts say
If it was up to me I'd show it every day
Some say this country's just out looking for a fight
After 9/11 man I'd have to say that's right

CHORUS 1
Have you forgotten how it felt that day
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away?
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside
Going through a living hell
And we vowed to get the ones behind Bin Laden
Have you forgotten?
I've been there with the soldiers
Who've gone away to war
And you can bet that they remember
Just what they're fighting for

CHORUS 2
Have you forgotten all the people killed?
Yes, some went down like heroes in that Pennsylvania field
Have you forgotten about our Pentagon?
All the loved ones that we lost
And those left to carry on
Don't you tell me not to worry 'bout Bin Laden
Have you forgotten?

Have you forgotten?
Have you forgotten?

Darryl Worley

 

[AnMig]

I condem Saddam
I do not agree with the war waged by Bush and Blair. I feel war or use of force should be the last resort.I did not think it was the case in this situation.



The number of Iraqi's killed by Saddam should be around equal to the number of Iraqi's killed by Bush and Blair. (speculation only obviously).

I for one would have opted to Assasinate Saddam rather than inflict thousands of innocent civilian casualties. US govt. should review this no assasination policy.


My view only, which I think I am entitled to in this country

peace

 

[ToBeMe]

Yeah, you're probably right......................it would have been better to allow Saddam to kill and be responsible for the deaths of thousands upon thousands more people until he died, then allow his sons to continue the tradition endlessly.................................

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: AnMig
I condem Saddam
I do not agree with the war waged by Bush and Blair. I feel war or use of force should be the last resort.I did not think it was the case in this situation.
.........................Deleted to get to my point.

It was the last resort. Where you sleeping for the 6 months before we entered Iraq? Are you older than 13? That is about how long its been since the first encounter with Iraq invasion of Kuwait and attempted invasian of Saudi Arabia.


Your argument is so weak as to be virtually useless as a point of discusion. Start reading on current events and history of the last 20 years in the middle east. You might find a clue there.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot

Originally posted by: AnMig
I condem Saddam
I do not agree with the war waged by Bush and Blair. I feel war or use of force should be the last resort.I did not think it was the case in this situation.
.........................Deleted to get to my point.

It was the last resort. Where you sleeping for the 6 months before we entered Iraq? Are you older than 13? That is about how long its been since the first encounter with Iraq invasion of Kuwait and attempted invasian of Saudi Arabia.


Your argument is so weak as to be virtually useless as a point of discusion. Start reading on current events and history of the last 20 years in the middle east. You might find a clue there.

Tripleshot - You probably shouldn't delete to get to your point the parts of the quote that you're debating. That's what I think you must've done, because the part that you didn't delete was simply an opinion stated. That part simply states "I don't agree with this war. War should be used only as a last resort. I condemn Saddam." That's an argument?

 

[Tripleshot]

Gaard,

I am not a big fan of this quote feature. That is why I edited it. Long repetive qoutes are a pain in the ass.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot
Gaard,

I love this quote feature. It's purtty like my kitty cat. It's a lot easier to manipulate than the old version of the quote feature.

:beer:

 

[seawolf21]

Originally posted by: BaDaBooM
So to you, it is better that Saddam remains in power killing MILLIONS of Iraqis than to oust him and in doing so killing thousands, (mostly combatants). You forget that most of the civilian deaths are caused by the cowardly fighting done by Saddam's minions.

The legal reasons for this war was the conditions on the cease-fire of the first Gulf War (not the possibility of terrorist attack), in which Saddam agreed to disarm any weapons that the UN deems they cannot have. Saddam fired missiles that were prohibited by the UN during the conflict proving he was in violation of the original cease-fire. I'm sure we will find even more dramatic violations in the coming months (some may have already been found). So technically this was not pre-emptive. It was a direct result of Saddam invading Kuwait and not disarming like he agreed to. The other reason you speak of are also given, but this is in addition to the primary reason.

I guess you missed all the Iraqis celebrating and thanking Bush. Reguardless, it has been a whole few days since the went into Bagdad. One can hardly expect that the country is already a thriving democracy. You can't expect it to be better overnight, but it WILL be better.

Violence is an acceptable means to resolve something at times. This is one of those times. Peace is impossible without peace-keepers.

There are no legal UNreasons for this war. The cease fire you talked about was addressed in 1441 and it called for a "final chance" at inspections despite previous violations....inspections which we cut short when we told Blix to kiss off and declared war before he finished his inspection. The moment we denied Blix the opportunity to finish his inspection was the moment we lost any legal UN claim to this war.

I agree with the original posters first point that an pre-emptive war is not justified. It sets an example for too many other nations to use as an excuse to wage war, pisses off some allies, and does not accomplish much in the fight for terrorism. Do any of us expect terrorists to lay down their arms because of this? This will bolster their preachings along with those of hardliner politicians and clerics in the Middle East.

However, I disagree with his post for the decrease in the quality of life in Iraq. The Iraq public itself will most likely come out for the better.

 

[Pennstate]

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither
liberty or security - Benjamin Franklin

 

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: Pennstate
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither
liberty or security - Benjamin Franklin

I've got a better quote:

"You can't make an omelette without killing a few people."

 

[HappyGamer2]

it's far too early to tell what will happen in Iraq, in the short run or the long run.
good or bad? time will only tell

PS, Bush's poll ratings are UP, that all part of the plan

 

[FuZoR]

Originally posted by: novon
I agree with elzmaddy

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Me again!

Originally posted by:Me!
I disagree with elzmaddy

 

[etech]

There are no legal UNreasons for this war. The cease fire you talked about was addressed in 1441 and it called for a "final chance" at inspections despite previous violations....inspections which we cut short when we told Blix to kiss off and declared war before he finished his inspection. The moment we denied Blix the opportunity to finish his inspection was the moment we lost any legal UN claim to this war.

I agree with the original posters first point that an pre-emptive war is not justified. It sets an example for too many other nations to use as an excuse to wage war, pisses off some allies, and does not accomplish much in the fight for terrorism. Do any of us expect terrorists to lay down their arms because of this? This will bolster their preachings along with those of hardliner politicians and clerics in the Middle East.

However, I disagree with his post for the decrease in the quality of life in Iraq. The Iraq public itself will most likely come out for the better.

It was Saddam's final chance. He did not meet the conditions of that chance.

Attorney General's Iraq response

The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, spelled out the UK Government's legal basis for military action in a parliamentary written answer.
He argued that the combined effect of previous UN resolutions on Iraq dating back to the 1990 invasion of Kuwait allowed "the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security".

Below is the full text of his statement.

All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security:
1. In resolution 678 the Security Council authorised force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.

2. In resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area.

Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under resolution 678.

3. A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678.

4. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.

5. The Security Council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" if it did not.

6. The Security Council also decided in resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.

7. It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.

8. Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today.

9. Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended.

Thus, all that resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force.
__________"

 

[gwlam12]

My opinion is that in the long run, the benefits of this war will outweigh the costs. But as of now, the costs are high.