Why are so many here blaming Bush?

[S Walch]

It's amazing isn't it?

Bush couldn't find Osama so he went to find the next best thing - ridding IRAQ of it's weapons of mass distruction.

Although - I do agree that Saddam is a VERY evil man - come on - he even uses his own chemical weapons on his own people!

He needs to be stopped - and if Millitary action is the way to do so - then I say do it.

 

[paulewog]

couldn't find Osama....

that may be true But you can't blame Bush and say he didn't try. Heh. We've searched quite a bit, if I remember correctly.......

By the way, if we knew Osama was possibly considering blowing up the Twin Towers before 9/11 and we tried to get him befoer - would the same thing has happened as is now happening with Saddam Hussein? I think it probably would have.

Why can't we learn from our mistakes

 

[Doctrine1st]

Today at 12:04 AM paulewog said this in Post #22

couldn't find Osama....

By the way, if we knew Osama was possibly considering blowing up the Twin Towers before 9/11 and we tried to get him befoer - would the same thing has happened as is now happening with Saddam Hussein? I think it probably would have.

Why can't we learn from our mistakes

Perhaps, but I think the morphing of; 9/11 = Bin Laden to; 9/11 = Saddam, that has been so successful, wouldn't have worked.

 

[Evee]

I just got a feeling that all hell will break loose now that Saddam has only 48 hours.

They are going to mess with Israel watch and see if it isn't so.

 

[paulewog]

Well, I know that God will at least protect Israel, as He has throughout history... heh

 

[Evee]

Yes in the end we know who the winner is.

 

[Rae]

Hm...so does anyone here support bombing Israel for being in violation of numerous U.N. resolutions, including the 1967 one which calls for them to pull out of the occupied territories?

No?

Then this isn't about violating U.N. resolutions, and we should stop pretending it is. This is "I hate Saddam, so I'm gonna get him," not "But he violated (gasp) U.N. resolutions!"

 

[Evee]

You know what Rae I agree with you all the way.

 I myself thought North Korea a bigger threat.

I have always thought the war a bad idea, but then I have heard how he tortures his people and not sure if that is true or not either.

 

[Michael0701]

Rae,

there is no pretending on my part, I feel that Powell made a convincing case that the main reason is his (Saddam's) violations. Are there ANY other reasons, why yes of course there are, but that doesn't change the first reason.

 

[Rae]

Powell convinced me that he can be made to lie for the right price, unfortunately, with his "evidence" which all turned out to be either completely ambiguous or outright fraudulent. The constant lies from our politicians convinced me there is no real case for war that can be made by them. :shrug:

 

[Aviyah]

It's amazing isn't it?Bush couldn't find Osama

as i recall it was clinton who didnt get osama , he could have had him handed to him on a sliver platter but no clinton didnt feel he was a threat,,

and so instead of having osama in prison somewhere he just passed the problem to the present admin and now bush is being blamed for not getting him, and to those who think bush is doing a bad job i whould liek to see you doing his job

i highly doubt you could do any beter

 

[Rae]

Hey, Evee

My perspective on the "killing his own" thing is that
1. Okay, he does bad stuff to his people.
2. We do bad stuff by destroying what little they have left after the Gulf War (which isn't much).
3. How are we better than him?

See what I'm saying? Yeah, we probably won't CONTINUE to torture them afterward, unless like in Afghanistan we run out from our obligation to rebuild Iraq, or we don't really rebuild everything. But if, as in most wars, we cause tremendous suffering and death among Iraqi civilians...what's the point?

 

[Rae]

Just FYI, SOG, I don't like Clinton either.

 

[Doctrine1st]

Today at 02:20 AM Soldier_of _God said this in Post #31



as i recall it was clinton who didnt get osama , he could have had him handed to him on a sliver platter but no clinton didnt feel he was a threat,,

and so instead of having osama in prison somewhere he just passed the problem to the present admin and now bush is being blamed for not getting him, and to those who think bush is doing a bad job i whould liek to see you doing his job

i highly doubt you could do any beter

Well, one shouldn't make blanket statements like this:

"Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

When everyone knows that this is just ridiculous. All he is really doing by picking off the sitting duck is fueling the flames for future acts here.

And BTW, I could just imagine the screeching that would be done by some individuals if it was under Clinton administration as to when Bin Laden was trained and funded, but since it was under a Republican adminstration...not a peep.

 

[datan]

as I remember, the Bush administration was briefed by Clinton's administration that OBL would be the greatest threat faced by their government. They were even given contingency plans to invade Afghanistan. Unfortunately, Bush decided to do their own "intelligence study" and ignored what Clinton's government told them. Their later strategy to invade Afghanistan was basically Clinton's plans.

 

[sklippstein]

I'd like to point out that Paul Wolfowitz has warned former Pres Bush and Clinton that Saddam was still a very dangerous man and a threat to the world's safety. He has been ignored for many many years........and now look at where we are.

 

[JillLars]

Yesterday at 08:21 PM Rae said this in Post #32

Hey, Evee

My perspective on the "killing his own" thing is that
1. Okay, he does bad stuff to his people.
2. We do bad stuff by destroying what little they have left after the Gulf War (which isn't much).
3. How are we better than him?

See what I'm saying? Yeah, we probably won't CONTINUE to torture them afterward, unless like in Afghanistan we run out from our obligation to rebuild Iraq, or we don't really rebuild everything. But if, as in most wars, we cause tremendous suffering and death among Iraqi civilians...what's the point?

The point is stopping it now, so that the Iraqi people, and their children, and their children's children can live without fear of their leader.  I can speak out against the president without having to worry about "disappearing" the next day.  That mentality really doesn't make much sense.  What if the world used that mentality towards Hitler?  If we try to stop him, people will die, and he's already killing people, so we may as well just let him do it himself.  What sense does that make?

 

[Rae]

I can speak out against the president without having to worry about "disappearing" the next day.

Rae:
Until Patriot Act 2 passes. Then John Ashcroft, who already believes that speaking out against the government means treason, can arrest you and refuse to release your name, making you disappear for an unlimited amount of time.

Personally, I'd rather fund the Iraqis to overthrow him themselves, if they really want to, rather than bombing their already awfully poor country into oblivion and murdering hundreds of thousands of innocents.

 

[Jutsuka]

Rae, you're alright in my book! I must say it is refreshing to see an american not treating this like they're gearing up for the superbowl.

 

[Evee]

Yeh for Rae.

 Makes perfect sense to me.