Poor thinking by Bush and the conservatives

[3L33T32003]

ah...the simplicity and innocence of youth..

you apparently have very little in the way of understanding human nature.

Iraq is ruled by a brutal dictator - to morally equate anything the U.S. does to saddam's rule is laughable. his actions have clearly demonstrated his desire to
overthrow kuwait and saudi arabia and iran and gain control of middleast oil/money/politics. He launched missles against saudi arabia, kuwait, israel, and iran. the world will be a better place without him.

If you use this argument, there are a few people who should be ahead of him in the queue. The only thing Saddam has "going" for him over North Korea (a much bigger threat to US interests, particulary the Japanese islands) for instance, is that Saddam is sitting on huge oil reserves.

Ahhh but this isn't about oil is it....

 

[ShotgunSteven]

If you shove your head up your arse any further, you will eventually see daylight.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003

ah...the simplicity and innocence of youth..

you apparently have very little in the way of understanding human nature.

Iraq is ruled by a brutal dictator - to morally equate anything the U.S. does to saddam's rule is laughable. his actions have clearly demonstrated his desire to
overthrow kuwait and saudi arabia and iran and gain control of middleast oil/money/politics. He launched missles against saudi arabia, kuwait, israel, and iran. the world will be a better place without him.

If you use this argument, there are a few people who should be ahead of him in the queue. The only thing Saddam has "going" for him over North Korea (a much bigger threat to US interests, particulary the Japanese islands) for instance, is that Saddam is sitting on huge oil reserves.

Ahhh but this isn't about oil is it....

I wouldn't say he had anything going for him over NK, I would say that his country makes for an easier opponent than NK for us due to the fact that Iraq's not supported by a Military Power like China the way NK is.

 

[Stark]

Originally posted by: etech
yes, it looks as if the US sold Iraq some rather nasty weapons.

It's time we took care of the situation, rectified past mistakes and take them away from him.


It's too bad that Germany and France did not care about their past mistakes also.

What's your little quip about newsmaxx supposed to mean?

And who has viewed Saddam with awe and wonder for 30 years? Chiraq
Who sold Iraq two nuclear reactors and enough weapons-grade plutonium for 3 nuclear bombs? France
(bonus: who blew up the first of those reactors? Israel. double-bonus: who was the only casualty in that air-strike? a french worker)
Who benefitted by selling iraq arms in the Iran-Iraq war? France
What country had a majority of popular support for Iraq when it invaded Kuwait? France
Who sold Iraq most of the weapons that were destroyed in the gulf war? France
What country is actively seeking other countries to vote against the US proposals in the UN? France

When you understand all that, it's not suprising that France is taking the position it has. What would be suprising is if we still consider them in any way an "ally" once this is all over.

 

[3L33T32003]

And who has viewed Saddam with awe and wonder for 30 years? Chiraq
Who sold Iraq two nuclear reactors and enough weapons-grade plutonium for 3 nuclear bombs? France
(bonus: who blew up the first of those reactors? Israel. double-bonus: who was the only casualty in that air-strike? a french worker)
Who benefitted by selling iraq arms in the Iran-Iraq war? France
What country had a majority of popular support for Iraq when it invaded Kuwait? France
Who sold Iraq most of the weapons that were destroyed in the gulf war? France
What country is actively seeking other countries to vote against the US proposals in the UN? France

When you understand all that, it's not suprising that France is taking the position it has. What would be suprising is if we still consider them in any way an "ally" once this is all over.

Now the Bush administration is awarding contracts to Cheney's former company to "upgrade" oil wells after the war is over. I cite this as still another economic reason for us to go to war. Bush's puppet masters always make sure that they take care of their own...even if it means a bunch of our military men and women dying to help.

If you think the legitimate business deals between France, Russia, and Iraq are reason for them to veto the next resolution, I counter with the statement that Bush's friends have much to gain if we DO go to war. Both are equally valid. Only thing is, THEIR motivation does not lead to death and destruction...

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003

And who has viewed Saddam with awe and wonder for 30 years? Chiraq
Who sold Iraq two nuclear reactors and enough weapons-grade plutonium for 3 nuclear bombs? France
(bonus: who blew up the first of those reactors? Israel. double-bonus: who was the only casualty in that air-strike? a french worker)
Who benefitted by selling iraq arms in the Iran-Iraq war? France
What country had a majority of popular support for Iraq when it invaded Kuwait? France
Who sold Iraq most of the weapons that were destroyed in the gulf war? France
What country is actively seeking other countries to vote against the US proposals in the UN? France

When you understand all that, it's not suprising that France is taking the position it has. What would be suprising is if we still consider them in any way an "ally" once this is all over.

Now the Bush administration is awarding contracts to Cheney's former company to "upgrade" oil wells after the war is over. I cite this as still another economic reason for us to go to war. Bush's puppet masters always make sure that they take care of their own...even if it means a bunch of our military men and women dying to help.

If you think the legitimate business deals between France, Russia, and Iraq are reason for them to veto the next resolution, I counter with the statement that Bush's friends have much to gain if we DO go to war. Both are equally valid. Only thing is, THEIR motivation does not lead to death and destruction...

Except for the death and destruction of innocent Iraqi civilians under a terrible regime. At least the citizens of Iraq can make some money off of their oil. And we'll get it for really cheap. I'll take it.

 

[ToBeMe]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Shut up. Your 13 year old thoughts are not welcome here.

 

[js1973]

This thread is so original.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Shut up. Your 13 year old thoughts are not welcome here.

Yes they are. Some of us take an interrest in what others think about certain topics, even if they don't agree with us. Some of us even agree with some of the thoughts he posted! Imagine that, differing opinions on a discussion board.

Remember, you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. If you were polite and presented your thoughts on the topics in an intelligent matter, you would be thought more highly of by some (even if they disagree), and you may even win over a member or two.

In summary, that comment was rude and uncalled for in my opinion, and there are much better things both of us can be doing with our time and bandwidth. Thanks.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003
As we move closer to what seems to be an inevitable escalation of the hostilities in Iraq (I say escalation because our bombing in the "no fly zone" never stopped) I have to wonder about the logic of the people who want war to start.

1) Bush says that, since Iraq is in "material breach" of 1441, then we should go to war. Problem is, UN Resolution 1441 never called for the use of force against Iraq. It ONLY said there would be "dire consequences." Since the use of force was not specifically mentioned in 1441, then Bush cannot assume that the breach by Iraq should lead directly to war.

Tell us what you think dire consequences means.

2) The Republicans and conservatives have been saying for years that the UN is becoming "invalid" because of its inability to enforce resolutions against Iraq, among many other things. If this is the case, why did we go to them in the first place to get "permission" to use force?

The democrats insisted. Plus, we don't need their permission, congress already gave Bush permission.

3) More importantly, are we going to be any better than Iraq if we decide to defy the UN security council and go to war? When Bush says that the reason for going after Iraq is because they defy 1441, we cannot possibly justify attacking them if the UN does not give us their blessing to do so. Just because Saddam is a bad guy does not give us the right to take him out; the job of "policeman of the world" has not been bestowed upon us by anyone.

What UN resolution would we be defying?

In short, two wrongs do not make a right. We think that Gestapo tactics by the cops, illegal searches and seizures by the FBI and ATF, and government incursions against our persons and private property are wrong. This is the same thing, just played out on a grander scale. The UN security council is going to say that our latest resolution is not valid. For us to go against that makes us no better than the people we are trying to get out of power.

Liberal tool.

 

[Cerb]

1) Bush says that, since Iraq is in "material breach" of 1441, then we should go to war. Problem is, UN Resolution 1441 never called for the use of force against Iraq. It ONLY said there would be "dire consequences." Since the use of force was not specifically mentioned in 1441, then Bush cannot assume that the breach by Iraq should lead directly to war.

2) The Republicans and conservatives have been saying for years that the UN is becoming "invalid" because of its inability to enforce resolutions against Iraq, among many other things. If this is the case, why did we go to them in the first place to get "permission" to use force?

3) More importantly, are we going to be any better than Iraq if we decide to defy the UN security council and go to war? When Bush says that the reason for going after Iraq is because they defy 1441, we cannot possibly justify attacking them if the UN does not give us their blessing to do so. Just because Saddam is a bad guy does not give us the right to take him out; the job of "policeman of the world" has not been bestowed upon us by anyone.

In short, two wrongs do not make a right. We think that Gestapo tactics by the cops, illegal searches and seizures by the FBI and ATF, and government incursions against our persons and private property are wrong. This is the same thing, just played out on a grander scale. The UN security council is going to say that our latest resolution is not valid. For us to go against that makes us no better than the people we are trying to get out of power.

1) Who fought them before?
Who made the UN?
Who gives the majority of the UN's budget?
USA. A UN resolution is a resolution from us with some pats on the back from other countries.

2) Too look good. It's diplomacy; an art of the devil's own creation.

3) See #1.

Unnumbered paragraph: France is against the war. That alone would have me betting that it is a good thing to do. After all, "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."

 

[Cerb]

Nowhere in 1441 does it say we or anyone else can use force! In fact, I do not think any of the resolutions after Gulf War 1 said we could use force if
Saddam ignored the decrees.

Yeah, let's put a murderous dictator on the Honor System! That'll work!
Can you provide a *working* alternative to military force?

 

[Queasy]

<sigh> is it friday yet?

 

[Moonbeam]

Bush probably made a blunder in stragegery.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bush probably made a blunder in stragegery.

Wow, moonie, you made fun of the way Pres. Bush pronounced a word.

How orginal, how so very 'special' of you.

Cerb
The people tearing into the President and his policies do not have any other alternatives. They know there are none besides keeping sanctions on Iraq and keeping the inspectors in country. That obviously has been tried for the past twelve years and hasn't addressed the root of the problem so they will just sit and whine but don't expect them to advance any real answers.

 

[Moonbeam]

You mean it's not pronounced stragegery?

At least we seem to agree he made a blunder.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bush probably made a blunder in stragegery.

Some village in Texas is without their idiot.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bush probably made a blunder in stragegery.