Hmm, I think its very interesting to see people upset with the President over his expressions of religious beliefs, but then read a post like 27jd's
where he uses religon as a tool as well.
27JD, are you advocating that the Saudi's should have let Osama and his underworld group subvert Iraq instead of trying to allow legitimate nations
to try and oust an invading dictator? Are you supporting destabilization thru terrorist means?
It it my understanding that both Bush and Cheney sold off their investments with "big oil" before running for office...so saying he's profitting
from a "war for oil" seems a little like a streatch of the truth.
They sold off their oil intrests so that they would not be in a conflict of interest when in the government.
Oh yeah, we also funded and supported Saddam when he fought Iran, and we gave him components to build the chemical weapons that he used on the attack
on the Kurds,
So are you trying to blame some other entity besides the USA for helping to make the Iraq mess? As you say, we did back him and supply WMD tech and
goods, but this is not our problem to have to be involved in cleaning up?
This makes Iraq our problem as we helped make the mess.
He failed the test as president when he sent the troops with hearsay and no hard proof. I do not care if every world intel officer told him that Iraq
had WMD or links to Alqeda. He should have demanded pictures or satelite images or some HARD proof that an immenant threat existed before commiting
the US Armed forces to an invasion.
In a perfect world, yes it would be nice if our leaders (gov or millitary) had 100% knowledge of the enimies plans and secret programs etc etc...
But thats not reality. How can any leader gain this 100% knowledge?
There was alot more than your 0% intel and less than 100% intel....what % of intel is actionable to you? Is it situational? does it depend on what
"crime" we're talking about? I think genocide or mass murder via terrorism or wmd counts as something id rather err on the side of prevention than
While it seems that alot of world wide intel agencies didnt have the correct intel on iraqi wmd's, in fact the UN took steps against iraq for 10
years based upon the intel available thru saddams shell game. Bush was not the only one that had already taken actions against Iraq, and this was
going on BEFORE Bush became President. Yet you'd like to either lump all the "blame" for faulty intel on Bush (yet the world thought this way as
well), as well as ignore the history and escalation of terrorism (vs the USA)in the preceeding decade.
Your argument is revisionist armchair quaterbacking.
Based on your "not 100%" argument, then cops should never stop and question someone unless they have 100% certainty that a crime was commited?
Actions are taken daily in all aspects of life where 100% info is not available...including life and death decisions...BIG DEAL, THATS LIFE!!!!
NO ONE CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE OR DETERMINE THE "TRUTH" THAT THEY DONT ACTUALLY KNOW. (KNOW THE UNKNOWN)
I could have supported bombings, missles, even attempts at Saddams life with less than hard evidence, but what I cannot accept from a President is to
put our soldiers in harms way with limited intel and 0 proof of anything.
Yeah and that bombing/missile strategy was how good for clinton? Hell after the gulf war the UN etablished no fly zones, and still saddam kept
shooting at our planes....we kept bombing him...how effective was this strategy? Are you advocating the USA SHOULD engage in assasination attempts
against leaders of other countries?
First of all, what would be the differance between killing the leader of another country, (risking retaliation) and attacking the country?
IF a country sniped our leader...we wouldnt retaliate? Hell yes we would declare war...killing another nations leader is pretty much declairing war on
Secondly, what seperates us from terrorists if we adopt this strategy?
While i can see where assasination could be useful, it seems to be an evil act to me to sneak up and take a life for political, monetary or any
justification. It would be better (at least more honorable) to give warning that we were comming and then just attack openly, than hide in the
shadows like a thief in the night. The worlds first stealth weapon was the Trojan Horse!!!
He should have been patient and let the inteligence develope to show a threat to us before invading Iraq.
Umm, so how many YEARS of shell game inspections were enough? How long with NO THREAT of concequences was the world to allow saddam to defy them?
How many years was the USA to know about French, German, and Russians to lie to the UN by saying "bad saddam" and passing sanctions with no teeth,
all the while secretly stealing oil and $$$ by working WITH saddam thru the UN's oil for food program? How long should we have let our "allies"
lie to us and the world while being in bed with him? This is not our problem?
Lets be clear people, the "threat" from Iraq was not that he could launch a missile and hit the USA with a wmd, it was that he could do this (and
had) to any of his neighbors....it was the fact that he has supported terrorism...(payments to hamas suicide bombers families for hitting Israel, the
terrorist training camp with the plane and airport terminal mockups, how about having home grown (iraqi) groups like ansar al islam and others within
his boarders....Al queda is but one of these groups, and in fact we know saddam had at least contact thru his people with members of al queda.
What part of "if you harbor, aid, or shelter terrorists then you are in league with them" dont you get? Part of the threat from saddam was that he
would sell/give WMD's to terror groups to use against the west.
Part of the threat was that saddam could have disrupted the worlds supply of oil thru destabilizing the entire gulf region.
But its ok, only look to your short term, selfish interest as a guiode for what should be done/when.....pay no attention to the big picture, cause
"it doesnt affect you"
Hmm why dont you actually try to curtail oil product usage to the minimum...go on...TRY IT....you cant...there are too many interdependant tech and
products that utilize crude and its byproducts to even HOPE to avioid them....can you say PLASTICS? Good luck trying to live without oil.
This is exactly the same hyped up, no fact, refusal to acknowledge our cupabillity and responsibillities that have been going on here for almost 8
pages now....have you guys read this entire thread BEFORE you spewed the same bull that was back on page 2?
Bring something new other than this tired, emotive, non factual crap to the table next time.
[edit on 2-8-2004 by CazMedia]
[edit on 2-8-2004 by CazMedia]
[edit on 2-8-2004 by CazMedia]