Bush and his infinite wisdom...or so we're told 149 replies

Please wait...

Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#41 13 years ago

True, but no all terrorists and insurgents are members of al Qaeda. You're old enough to remember the run up to the war Fear, so I'll give you the short story. Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons weren't the only things banned by the UN, also included were ballistic missiles that could fly a certain range (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/missile/al_hussein.htm). Saddam still had these. He also refused to pay debts owed to neighboring countries for the problems he caused when he invaded Kuwait in 1990. This was all outlined in UN Resolution 1441, which stated that Saddam had to straighten his shit out. He didn't, and now he's paying the consequences.




Locomotor

in spite of erosion

50 XP

13th May 2004

0 Uploads

3,490 Posts

0 Threads

#42 13 years ago

I'm very aware of the circumstances that surrounded Iraq prior to the invasion. Either way, I don't want to get into a quoffle about the Iraq War at the moment.




Karst

I chose an eternity of this

50 XP

6th January 2005

0 Uploads

4,505 Posts

0 Threads

#43 13 years ago
RLt.W1982;3359371True, but no all terrorists and insurgents are members of al Qaeda. You're old enough to remember the run up to the war Fear, so I'll give you the short story. Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons weren't the only things banned by the UN, also included were ballistic missiles that could fly a certain range (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/missile/al_hussein.htm). Saddam still had these. He also refused to pay debts owed to neighboring countries for the problems he caused when he invaded Kuwait in 1990. This was all outlined in UN Resolution 1441, which stated that Saddam had to straighten his shit out. He didn't, and now he's paying the consequences.

If it was just about banned weapons, why didn't that happen to India, Pakistan, or Israel?




-DarthMaul-

I'm way cooler than n0e (who isn't though?)

50 XP

11th February 2003

0 Uploads

5,051 Posts

0 Threads

#44 13 years ago
feardamaverickhunters;3357157bush also has his head in iraq clinton's was in america and i coulda have found a job easily then if i was old enough but i wasnt

How can someone say more or less infinite? :confused: :P infinite = infinite impossible to be more or less.

Anyhow guys.. my opinion of bush? He has been doing a bad job. But this is his last term, why complain? Ok, first of all he has done a REALLY REALLY bad job of getting Arab support on his work over there. Second..he hasnt tried to get muslims as a whole into the war on terror thing, which makes it seem like its a crusade(like he said himself) there would be alot of less hate if arabs had, had more say into issues concerning the middle east..And with John Bolton no vetoing everysingle alphabetical letter that comes up against the holy invincible land of Zion. Gases? I dont think he controls them, the oil companies do and they can keep them high up or low, regardless of the supply of oil. What I really really like about him is his stand on gay marriage and family values(which shows why historically the majority muslims in the US voted Republican till only a few years ago..) Iraq? well thats a bullshit war..we are there though, so we have to stay and finish it correctly(and god bless and protect the troops).. Israel/Palastine? dont know..depending on the president in office, we are either neutral(which is a big plus) or we give israel a cookie(tank/apache/bunker buster/etc.) whenever a Qassam lands on a rock and blows it to smitherines. Our Military? The best :) lets keep it that way, and I really hope democrats dont try to weaken them, or cut thier budgets and bonuses. Whatever other issue I missed/forgot you prolly already know my stance.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#45 13 years ago
Karst;3359401If it was just about banned weapons, why didn't that happen to India, Pakistan, or Israel?

Because India and Pakistan do not have any illegal weapons (neither are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the UN never ordered them to disarm as I recall) and Israel is our close friend and ally.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#46 13 years ago
RLt.W1982;3359422Because India and Pakistan do not have any illegal weapons (neither are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the UN never ordered them to disarm as I recall) and Israel is our close friend and ally.

And looking from it at a practical point of view you could point out that it is known that Pakistan, India, and Isreal have nuclear weapons, so invading them would be suicidal. It would be the same as invading North Korea in the future(could still possibly be done now, but no one would agree with me on that one I don't think)

Iraq was beleived to have chemical and biological agents, not nuclear weapons. You can defend in different ways from biological and chemical agents, atleast much better then you can against nuclear weapons. Also it was probaly beleived that Saddam would be the easiest to topple(and he was damn easy to take down) so it would serve as an example to other dictators that they should fix their little countries up or face the music.

And of note is that fact that not all people support the war in Iraq for the same reason. MY only real reason was because I wanted to see Saddam gone. I didn't think he had nuclear weapons and I didn't beleive he posed any immeidate danger to anyone, but he sure as shit made life hard for his people.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#47 13 years ago

Just for future reference, I feel the same way as Afterburner in regards to why I supported, and continue to support, the war.




Karst

I chose an eternity of this

50 XP

6th January 2005

0 Uploads

4,505 Posts

0 Threads

#48 13 years ago
RLt.W1982;3359422Because India and Pakistan do not have any illegal weapons (neither are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the UN never ordered them to disarm as I recall)

So in the end, it comes down to who the US and the UN want to mess with, and with whom they don't.... Sure, they weren't happy at all about Pakistan getting nukes. But can't be helped.

and Israel is our close friend and ally.

Exactly. Basically, by saying rules apply only to those you don't like, you're effectively labelling yourself supreme power in the world, and that's completely out of place for anyone to say. No single country has the right to make such a claim.

Edit: This doesn't really have much to do with Bush anymore....we shouldn't drift offtopic too much.




feardamaverickhunters

theres a dollar in my pocket

50 XP

9th November 2006

0 Uploads

863 Posts

0 Threads

#49 13 years ago

and it's like i said in a different thread...no country can prosper by its self it has to have other countries to trade and shit with




-DarthMaul-

I'm way cooler than n0e (who isn't though?)

50 XP

11th February 2003

0 Uploads

5,051 Posts

0 Threads

#50 13 years ago

KarstExactly. Basically, by saying rules apply only to those you don't like, you're effectively labelling yourself supreme power in the world, and that's completely out of place for anyone to say. No single country has the right to make such a claim.[/QUOTE] You Anti-Semetic whore! retract that statement NOW!

[QUOTE=Karst]So in the end, it comes down to who the US and the UN want to mess with, and with whom they don't.... Sure, they weren't happy at all about Pakistan getting nukes. But can't be helped.

I wouldnt balme it on the whole administration and the party affiliated with the president really..just the current cabinet and its members including the president..I myself really am more republican at heart than I am democratic(well Im a centeist/reformist) but I think for example, that bush is bad not the republicans. Besides what does the UN do nowadays? :P

[just a small note to people who cant see my sarcasam somehwere in the post to look more closely ;) ]