George Bush... How does he get away with it??????

I think this is all summed up rather nicely in a quote spoken by George W. Bush himself:

"There Ought to be Limits to Freedom."

www.gwbush.com...

Its not at all out of order and the US had no legitimate reason to go into Iraq until 9/11.The main reason was that nothing about what was going on was being reported by the very agencies responsible for reporting it.

I am no imposing anything upon you, that is your own conscience talking. You do seem very stubborn and indignant, all definitive of a thick scull as well as are you unresponsive to obvious facts.

These are not insults they are commentaries but by all means feel free to take them any way you want. To be specific you are insulting me so please understand this FD the feeling is mutual. (please do not take the lol to mean that I am joking).



Saddam did invade a country and a UN sanctioned task force, which included the US, was sent in to deal with it.

When the invasion was averted and Iraqi forces withdrew the UN pulled the cord on the operation.

And then of course there was the problem of the Russian Republic a very new government with lots of nuclear weapons (have you ever read a newspaper from those days it was presented).

There was great concern over the idea of the US being so close to Russia�s borders it was stirring up serious problem in that country. So much so that if the US had gone into Iraq on its own (which would have been the case, as no one besides perhaps England and the Aussies would have gone with them at the time) We at present would be knee deep in a Cold War with a communist administration. Who in all probability would have treated what had happened to Russia a (civil war) as a part of an American plot.

Boom Boom next in line would be the roach.

And I'd say that sanctions had far more to do with his success than some mysterious foreign power

I see so you think sanctions were responsible for him killing 210,000 people how interesting.

And who specifically was responsible for assigning UN inspectors to Iraq solely for the function of addressing, any human rights violations, which could have occurred. I mean given the fact the man Gassed the Kurds as a result of a war he won and the fact that sanctions were being imposed?????

As well as the mere fact as you have so eloquently posted in this thread that he was a madman

One more thing FD

What are your thoughts?

Are a complete waste of everyone's time. They have shown time and again that they are willing to sit back on many issues, and just lazily slap sanctions on countries they don't like.

No one is forcefully keeping brutal African dictators in power, it's just no one wants to go in and sort them out, because it would create more problems than it solves. Similar to the situation in Iraq now.

LOOK

As with Castro in Cuba, Saddam was able to blame all that was wrong with his country on sanctions. WHICH WE ALL KNOW ISN'T TRUE, but it gave him an excuse.

And another thing Toltec, seeing as you are good at finding the largest possible numbers to support your case, why don't you find the largest possible number of babies who died in Iraq as a DIRECT RESULT of sanctions.

[Edited on 19-6-2003 by Fantastic_Damage]

Let's place blame on where it should be placed, and that place is not on the sanctions but on Hussein, his refusal to live up to the agreements that stopped military action the fist time and his refusal to use the oil for food and medicine program properly so that the children would not die. The children died because of Hussein.

The western world must also take some of the blame. We always knew that Saddam would not comply, and carried on starving his people.

Only in the respect that we were without the backbone to finish the job when it was obvious he was not going to comply. I can understand not wanting more violence, decent people should despise war and violence. That can't allow us to not do what is necessary.

I agree with you. History has proven you to be right and the West weak, whereas if the final blow had been struck against Hussein back then we wouldn't be where we are at now, and the children would be happy little Iraqi teens now.

Do you think we could have routed Hussein then as we did it now, with little civilian bloodshed and minimum property damage? I'm not sure that the military had the game plan for it as they did this time.

For the past 20 years we have all seen the TV shows about starving African babies and children with no hope for an education, walking around naked and very little chance to survive past the age of ten.

As a result of the plea by various organizations millions of dollars have been collected and given to these agencies to help these poor children.

What the agencies never bothered mentioning was that in order to get the money where it was needed, they were required to pay a substantial part of that money meant for the children to warlords who for the record spent the money on weapons which they now use to the fight the very wars (by the way with those very same children) we are now seeing in Africa.

These shows went on for decades they children kept on starving and not because enough had been collected, but because so much was being given by the warlords for safe passage there was not enough to help all the children.

You do not see these shows any more and the reasons should be obvious.

The UN sanctions did not include food of medicines or for that matter other basic necessities.

What happened is because Saddam Hussein used what was allowed to come into the country as barter, for what he wanted and that had nothing to do with feeding children.

Again the UN was their it would have been a simple matter to assess if the dietary needs of the population was being met and if as was the case it was not, another very clear indicator existed which was ignored.

Those children starved to death because of the UN, Saddam Hussein, Arab Press and the Humanitarian agencies (in that order).

The same problem applies to Cuba, North Korea as well of course as countries in Africa.

They want weapons and could care less about feeding there populations if they do not have them and you know why?

Because without those weapons they feel those populations will not be under their control.

So basically Saddam's, Kim's and Fidel's opinion is to hell with them.

What are your thoughts?



[Edited on 20-6-2003 by Toltec]

I always thought Sally Struthers ate all the food and thats why they still went hungry.........J/K ( it sure looked like it though)

Anyway, I agree with Toltec 100% on those points. I just have a terrible image of Sally feeding from a grain bag in my head so I have to stop now.

"how did he get away with it?"


magic

Originally posted by Fry2
Anyway, I agree with Toltec 100% on those points. I just have a terrible image of Sally feeding from a grain bag in my head so I have to stop now.

Fry

How many grain bags have you got in your head, and who else do they feed? I think you're exceedingly generous. George W Bush's silo was emptied before 2000.

Are you guys telling me that the UN and the US might be in on this thing together???!!!

You saying that they could both be acting out a little drama for the delight of the tax paying public and the military weapons dealers.

Are you saying that authority, regardless of the country, might not be acting in the best interest of its people???!!! That they might even conspire together for mutual benefit??
Ladies and gentlemen I am completely shocked and awed that you could suggest something so outlandish.
I mean, you don't really believe that, do you?
To pull this off they would have to have banking and financial interests that crossed nationality lines. They would have to have international corporate sponsorship. They would have to meet at least once a year at a heavily guarded secret retreat and converse without any press coverage or disclosure of meeting topics or notes.
I mean that they would have to control almost all the means of communication, like the news networks and the press companies, and the communication satelites. They would be forced to select members of both political parties for this scheme to pass the watchful eye of the public.
I mean they would have to maintain a pathetic minimum wage for their workers... and force them to pay rediculous amounts in taxes and medical premiums so they would be to busy working to take an active citizenry approach to their government.
These people would have to be forced a diet of mind-numbingly stupid television 24 hours a day. They would have to be kept on a nutritionally deficient diet. The kind where fruits and vegetables were sold at a higher market price than say fast food or prepackaged meals.
These so called "authorities" would have had to purposefully underfund public educational institutions like schools and libraries for years to accomplish this kind of control.
They would have to manipulate public attention and discourse with endless distracting and meaningless events like...gay bishops and murderous celebrities and stained dresses and freedom fries and rigged elections and WMD and ten commandments in a building and baby/fetus debates and affirmative action and prayer in school and liberal this and neocon that.
I mean there would have to be a 24 hour systematic agenda to keep the people fighting amongst themselves.
Personally I think its plausibility is a stretch.......


[You are all absolutely free]

astrocreep: ""Chief inspector Hans Blix reported to Security Council members that Iraq had failed to account for 1,000 tons of chemical agent, 6,500 chemical bombs, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard gas and VX nerve agent and 380 rocket engines useful in the delivery of biological and chemical agents."

Do you know what the half-life is of these chemical weapons? The time they take to degrade into useless goop? (Weeks) What was the range on these "rocket engines"? Are they rockets or just engines? Did they have a system of delivery or were they just going to stuff them in vials and try to throw them across the ocean?

Do you know that "failed to account for" is not a synonym for "hiding away"?

Do you know what 1 ton of sarin gas would do to a major city if it was dropped in a warhead and into the city in airborne form? Not much. Some might die, but maybe dozens, definitely not hundreds or (haha) millions. It's a frickin GAS and it BLOWS away and degrades in seconds.

Just because you believe what your Pentagon and it's cousin CNN tell you, don't assume I do or anyone else does. The US was using propaganda to start this war.

"Iraq is a clear and imminent threat to the US." A bald-faced lie. If they had something they would have used it on invading troops.

"Iraq was involved in Sept 11" Another lie, Bin Laden would like nothing better than to kill Saddam himself, since Hussein didn't have a secular Islamic goverment.

Try to get your facts from better sources than the laughable US media.

Toltec: "I see so you think sanctions were responsible for him killing 210,000 people how interesting."

Yeah, I do to. Because it's the truth. US imposed sanctions on Iraq have killed over a half million Iraqis since 1991. Don't take my word for it, check it out on the Internet. It's there.




jakomo

...Iraq has endured 100's of bombing sorties since 1991, from it's borders up to and passed, the 33rd & 36th parallels. Yet with everything that was blown up & with all the incoming they're going to send trucks out to count what they've got, if they had it!?! Tough to sign up even a dedicated Jihadist for that one.

But back to the question: How's he get away with it:

- Media consolidated into publicly traded empires dependent on revenue & a solid stock price. They needed a complicit partner to clear the barriers in front of the last steps to complete market ownership....Gore had already been on record as opposing them, Bush, given any thought and told it a 'good one' - would champion it. They compared the track records of who allowed rampant deregulation and who did so sans conscience - Bush was their man, hence started the marketing, free of charge, of his campaign, as well as the distortion and managed dissemination of everything he said or did. Review the tapes of the 2000 Presidential Debates; no one in their right mind felt Bush came close to winning any of them. Yet, what was reported on Bush, was done with a passing grade standard so low, he needed only not take a steaming dump on his podium to warrant their highest praise. Gore? He was assailed on his wardrobe, his 'talking down to us' because he felt obligated to clearly state his position and the facts that lead up to that thought process, and that he carried himself with a 'upper crust snobbery'.
Thus, the legend was created: an everyman - even though a fake Texan who comes from New England Blue Blood, who has high morals MBA business savvy - even though the 100's of thousands of individuals who've lost jobs under his various illegal business transactions before political office, a plain/straight forward speaker 0 even though it really is a lack of desire to learn anything about everything as well as a refusal to take a lengthy debriefing - .....was what we we're fed as to the insight.
That he tripled the number of campaign appearances as compared to any other president in his first two years while also having the fewest number of unscripted 'news conferences' than any other president, ever , all of this during 'war time', all this was also not reported in major outlets. And if it was, the hit squad of character destruction was immediately put into play, and like plantation slaves looking at their fellow slave with half a foot missing, they went back to picking cotton with nary a whisper.

- With the media clearly in pocket, mid term elections came around, with massive fund raising and rides on Air Force One being part of the marketing plan. That military veterans who were triple amputees were marketed as Un American because they opposed the Iraq fiasco, caught little coverage. Or that stations ran ads of Democratic incumbent's images being placed side by side next to UBL & Sadaam.
Data was suppressed leading up to the elections, as was the coverage of all other relevant issues. We were fed exactly what the marketing campaign wanted us to eat " a strong no nonsense approach to US safety only the GOP can get it done".
Couch potato America, with our horrible voter turn out numbers, was manipulated. The plan was a beauty.

All the while, the unwarranted fear factor was tweaked as needed, with unintelligible warnings popping up whenever they felt it necessary. Need proof we're making progress? Let's arrest some Latino kid who converted to jail-house Islam and say we busted a dirty bomb plot that would have taken out DC.

That's the bulk of how he's gotten away with it, but really, it's all about media portrayal and the ultimate trump card - the complicit and partisan Supreme Court that installed him to begin with.

Originally posted by MKULTRA

What atrocities is Saddam guilty of that the US/Israel also hasn't done?

do we pull people out of their houses and shoot them in the middle of the stree in the middle of the night?

George Bush... How does he get away with it??

I've long been convinced that if anyone ever sold their soul to the devil..it was Dubya.... There is simply no way that someone that idiotic could get elected president without supernatural assistance, hehe...

...my Avatar!

Could be that it was the "sins of the father" , and Boy George was the bounty of the bargain.

Anyone find a jackal skeleton in a Kennebunkport grave in the last 50-some-odd years!?

Originally posted by KrazyIvan

Originally posted by MKULTRA

What atrocities is Saddam guilty of that the US/Israel also hasn't done?

do we pull people out of their houses and shoot them in the middle of the stree in the middle of the night?

errr who knows? but you do drag them out of there beds at gun point infront of there children and wife while they to are held back at gun point. you do murder a lot of innocent Iraqis, a repoter was with with a group of soldiers who got fired at nothing much a few shots no one hurt, a young soldier points to a building amongst buildings (civilains in there) and says i think it came from thast building so without hatse they let rip everything they ahd at the buliding, nothing porfessional no recy first no making sure there were no women or children in the building just plain old shoot em up.

you also drag the Iraqi men of the street and there familys worry sick not knowing what happened to them some after 3 months are lucky to be released with $5 in there pocket from there kidnappers for the errr slight misunderstanding, but then it does not happen much just a few thousand per month is all

Originally posted by Byrd
My sarcastic, unkind, before-the-first-cuppa-coffee response is "because he's 'doing' the American public... not White House interns."

Actually, I did hear that same question raised on NPR this morning.

So, if he did interns and the American public as another president did, would it be ok??

Something I find funny about this whole Iraq A$$ Kickin' War Part 2. The first Gulf War ended rather quickly, and Saddam was much more well off back then. His military was much stronger, but look how fast we "won" back then.

Now, 11 years later, his military weakened, no air force what-so-ever, and look how much of a fight "Saddam Loyalists" are putting up.

I bet you that Saddam is sitting on a beach somewhere with a US government expense account in his name...