WTF Was Bush supposed to do?

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bush has taken the US from being a champion of the rule of law on the highest moral plane to being a filthy aggressor nation. That piece of sh!t should rot in hell for that. He should go down in history as a traitor and enemy of our nation. He is nothing but a mafia don. The damage Bush has done to our reputation as a nation is incalculable. He has opened us up to preemptive attack and any nation who does so will be as justified as Bush pretended to be.

The war was not about WMD or threat. It was about the New Century of American Imperialism, the one where we become Nazi Germany and the rest of the world turns against us and destroys us in the end.

While America slept, it became a nation of monsters.

The wages of sin are death.

Thank you for staying on topic and saying something that has even a LITTLE BIT of relavence to the topic at hand.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bush has taken the US from being a champion of the rule of law on the highest moral plane to being a filthy aggressor nation. That piece of sh!t should rot in hell for that. He should go down in history as a traitor and enemy of our nation. He is nothing but a mafia don. The damage Bush has done to our reputation as a nation is incalculable. He has opened us up to preemptive attack and any nation who does so will be as justified as Bush pretended to be.

The war was not about WMD or threat. It was about the New Century of American Imperialism, the one where we become Nazi Germany and the rest of the world turns against us and destroys us in the end.

While America slept, it became a nation of monsters.

The wages of sin are death.

Moonbeam... seeing your posts in OT and here... sometimes makes me think you are posting from the mental institution they locked you up in.

 

[arsbanned]

Had saddam acted liked he had nothing to hide, this all would likely have been avoided

So, if you "act" a certain way, the wrath of the U.S. should be expected? That is ridiculous on so many levels.

This should have been done during Gulf war I, but the internation community lacked the courage to do it then as well.

Do you have the "courage" to have bombs raining down on YOUR head? Would you have the courage to witnes your children being torn limb from limb?

The truly courageous thing to do would have been to NOT attack.

 

[GreatBarracuda]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bush has taken the US from being a champion of the rule of law on the highest moral plane to being a filthy aggressor nation. That piece of sh!t should rot in hell for that. He should go down in history as a traitor and enemy of our nation. He is nothing but a mafia don. The damage Bush has done to our reputation as a nation is incalculable. He has opened us up to preemptive attack and any nation who does so will be as justified as Bush pretended to be.

The war was not about WMD or threat. It was about the New Century of American Imperialism, the one where we become Nazi Germany and the rest of the world turns against us and destroys us in the end.

While America slept, it became a nation of monsters.

The wages of sin are death.

Thank you for staying on topic and saying something that has even a LITTLE BIT of relavence to the topic at hand.

Moonbeam's absolutely correct. If you have watched anything other than CNN, you'd know what he's talking about, specifically the whole "New American Century" concept. I suggest you read up on it and then come back to talk about it.

This war was a sham! Bush and his cronies knew damn well that there was no WMD in Iraq. They lied to to their people, they lied to the world and they fooled themselves into thinking that they would get away with it. WMD is not in Iraq, it will never be found. Saddam was not a threat to America before the war!

And it is NOT correct to blame the CIA for the disaster. The ultimate responsibility lies on the people who use this information to further their agenda. It is their responsibility to make sure that the information they have is correct. The Bush administration did not act upon the intelligence. It used the intelligence (albeit flawed) as a proof to carry out what they had already planned. The blame lies squarely on Bush, Blair and the senior members of their administrations.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: sapiens74
I am no fan of either party but when you have the CIA, Russia, Isreal and the UK all telling you that Saddam is a threat what the hell was he supposed to do?

We say on one hand he wasn't proactive enough to prevent 9/11 then he is told by every credible inteligence agency on the planet that Saddam had weapons and may sell or use them.

I don't agree with the way Iraq h as been handled, but how in the world after 9/11 was he supposed to hear all that so called proof from so many sources and not act on it?

Democrats including Kerry and Edwards and Clinton (Bill) came to the same conclusions.

You cannot fault one man for believeing what everyone else believed and told him.

you can however blame him for the way he's handled it.

But when I hear "What about WMD's" Those are the same weapons the whole world thought he had, and the best intilligence agencies in the world assured him so.

Well, if Bush has the ball to become the first President starting a pre-emptive war based on "intelligence", he better has the ball to admit the mistake and take the consequence when that "intelligence" is proven to be wrong, and tens of thousands of people died and hundreds of billions dallor spent because of his mistake.

Simple as that, you make a decision and you take responsibility for it.

 

[arsbanned]

Don't bet on it.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Had saddam acted liked he had nothing to hide, this all would likely have been avoided

So, if you "act" a certain way, the wrath of the U.S. should be expected? That is ridiculous on so many levels.



No it is not ridiculous. Had Saddam acted in the manner described by the previous 15 UN resolutions, none of this would have been an issue. We would have known with certaintly that he had disarmed. He continued to act as if he was trying to hide things.

This should have been done during Gulf war I, but the internation community lacked the courage to do it then as well.

Do you have the "courage" to have bombs raining down on YOUR head? Would you have the courage to witnes your children being torn limb from limb?

The truly courageous thing to do would have been to NOT attack.

Yes, your right we should have let Iraq roll into Saudi right after taking Kuwait. That is a real good idea.

 

[arsbanned]

That has nothing to do with the current Bush admin's adventure in Iraq. Though it probably could be successfully argued that the Saudis and the Kuwaitis do not behave in a manner which justifies our support. They just happen to have the oil.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
He could have waited until the weapon inspectors finished before he invaded Iraq. GWB went into thie situation wanting to invade Iraq and used everything to justify doing it.

Finish? Is such a thing even possible...I wasn't aware that the never ending story had a conclusion to it.

13 years.....Three Presidents later......back to square one.......Clintons grandkids would have become president before any final assesment could have been made against Iraq.

I believe patience is a virtue, don't get me wrong....but I could hear Ghandi screaming hurry the f*ck up already.

Don't forget the 17 UN Resolutions.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
He could have waited until the weapon inspectors finished before he invaded Iraq. GWB went into thie situation wanting to invade Iraq and used everything to justify doing it.

Finish? Is such a thing even possible...I wasn't aware that the never ending story had a conclusion to it.

13 years.....Three Presidents later......back to square one.......Clintons grandkids would have become president before any final assesment could have been made against Iraq.

I believe patience is a virtue, don't get me wrong....but I could hear Ghandi screaming hurry the f*ck up already.

Don't forget the 17 UN Resolutions.

Hehe, why you people always mention the 17 UN resolution but always forget about this little fact that UN never sanctioned the 2003 invasion after considering the 17 resolutions.

 

[tallest1]

Funny how UN resolutions before the war are law and the UN resolutions made during the war are crap according to some people here. Funny how the sanctions of an organization we hardly recognize anymore are more influential than 3000 deaths all of a sudden. You cannot fault one man for believeing what everyone else believed and told him. But you can fault him for listening only do the points supporting his argument even when they were very questionable. As said above, Colin noticed this and actually made an effort not to misinform the american people.

And welcome to the forums BadKatz

 

[fwtong]

What happened is that if anyone objected, they were quickly labeled as being anti-American, soft on terror, aiding terrorists, etc... As a result, no politician had the courage to be reasonable because of the political pressure of being denounced as being anti-American and aiding terrorists.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: sapiens74
I am no fan of either party but when you have the CIA, Russia, Isreal and the UK all telling you that Saddam is a threat what the hell was he supposed to do?

We say on one hand he wasn't proactive enough to prevent 9/11 then he is told by every credible inteligence agency on the planet that Saddam had weapons and may sell or use them.

I don't agree with the way Iraq h as been handled, but how in the world after 9/11 was he supposed to hear all that so called proof from so many sources and not act on it?

Democrats including Kerry and Edwards and Clinton (Bill) came to the same conclusions.

You cannot fault one man for believeing what everyone else believed and told him.

you can however blame him for the way he's handled it.

But when I hear "What about WMD's" Those are the same weapons the whole world thought he had, and the best intilligence agencies in the world assured him so.

In a post 9/11 world, there were options. All options have the possibility of some error.

A conservative position on Iraq, regardless of what you think of the reasoning behind it, was to allow for that error on the side of caution.

There was a split among those that did not vote "yea" on the joint resolution that authorized the action. Their reasons were varied, and some reasons argued for other options. We can talk about these options, but there is no possibility of weighing what we could have done.

At this point in time, the supporters of OIF can no more prove that the invasion was justified than the opposition can prove that OIF was not justified. Even if they could it is not relevant. What is relevant is
Our next election and that will define the success or failure of IOF. The success or failure of OIF is what the future will look back at to judge the validity of the action.

 

[Mockery]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
That has nothing to do with the current Bush admin's adventure in Iraq. Though it probably could be successfully argued that the Saudis and the Kuwaitis do not behave in a manner which justifies our support. They just happen to have the oil.

lol...when in doubt go back to basics

Lyberia has diamonds. Bush only helped them because DeBeers is an actively donating special interest group. [/tinhat]

 

[KevinH]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
He could have waited until the weapon inspectors finished before he invaded Iraq. GWB went into thie situation wanting to invade Iraq and used everything to justify doing it.

Finish? Is such a thing even possible...I wasn't aware that the never ending story had a conclusion to it.

13 years.....Three Presidents later......back to square one.......Clintons grandkids would have become president before any final assesment could have been made against Iraq.

I believe patience is a virtue, don't get me wrong....but I could hear Ghandi screaming hurry the f*ck up already.

Don't forget the 17 UN Resolutions.

Hehe, why you people always mention the 17 UN resolution but always forget about this little fact that UN never sanctioned the 2003 invasion after considering the 17 resolutions.

Just like the interpretation of the intel. If you have a predetermined course of action, you take the information you need to legitimize it. There's a shocker...

 

[BadKatz]

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

13 years.....Three Presidents later......back to square one.......Clintons grandkids would have become president before any final assesment could have been made against Iraq.

I believe patience is a virtue, don't get me wrong....but I could hear Ghandi screaming hurry the f*ck up already.

Clinton's grandkids? You mean Chelsea will produce offspring? The horror.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: BadKatz

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

13 years.....Three Presidents later......back to square one.......Clintons grandkids would have become president before any final assesment could have been made against Iraq.

I believe patience is a virtue, don't get me wrong....but I could hear Ghandi screaming hurry the f*ck up already.

Clinton's grandkids? You mean Chelsea will produce offspring? The horror.

I did not write that statement.