It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
That makes GW Bush:
a. A man of his word (as Governor)
b. A lying bastard (as President)
All he needed was some incident to push everyone over the edge into war... luckily he knew just the people to make an incident happen.
Originally posted by ChineseSuperGenius
Just think to be so smart and confident that you can plan to attack your enemy even before you are in a position to do so. That is impressive.
Originally posted by ChineseSuperGenius
reply to post by Angus123
Got to give the man his props for planning ahead so well. Look Iraq had it coming regardless of 911 or WMD's. They tried to kill the mans father and more importantly defied the cease fire agreement every step of the way.
I am glad the man had the testes to do what needed to be done and to finish the job his father should have finished. I just wish he had been a little more honest in his justification for the war, but that is hard to do when you have a country full of whiny people. So I forgive his misrepresentation of the facts to accomplish a righteous goal.
[edit on 3-10-2009 by ChineseSuperGenius]
Originally posted by ChineseSuperGenius
reply to post by Angus123
Well I agree that they were mostly contained after the first war stripped them of most of thier military equipment. However, I would say we needed to attack for 2 reasons.
1. You cant get the rep that if someone fights a war with you and looses can do whatever they want once they sign a cease fire with TERMS.
2. You cant sit back and let him victimize, torture, murder, and rob his own people after you left him in power.
Originally posted by ChineseSuperGenius
reply to post by Angus123
I dont think invading a country that has violated their cease fire amounts to policing the world. It is more like showing the defeated who is still boss.
I really dont have an issue with the plight of the Iraqi people, because I disagree with Bush's idea of liberating them. I think you defeat them first, then help them out later. Also, we didnt cause sectarian violence, it was just brewing under the surface and now it is having fuel poured on it by AlQueda, Iran, and others.
Originally posted by ChineseSuperGenius
I really dont have an issue with the plight of the Iraqi people, because I disagree with Bush's idea of liberating them. I think you defeat them first, then help them out later. Also, we didnt cause sectarian violence, it was just brewing under the surface and now it is having fuel poured on it by AlQueda, Iran, and others.