Why are so many here blaming Bush when all Hussein has to do is leave?
It isn't it like he hasn't been warned...
It isn't it like he hasn't been warned...
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Why are so many here blaming Bush?
- Thread starter cenimo
- Start date
what right has Bush to demand another leader has to step down? What happened to national soverignty and all? How would Bush like it if Chirac tells him to step down? Bush would tell Chirac to shove it up his ... [va te faire enc...er], right? Same reasoning here.
Upvote
0
So all these UN rulings on weapons, etc...where just for grins?
Why none of these questions with all of Clinton's ordered bombings?
Why none of these questions with all of Clinton's ordered bombings?
Upvote
0
Does anyone really believe that Hussein stepping down would halt our plans to attack? Short of an invasion or an uprising of Iraq's generals, the Ba'ath Party would still be in power. We do ourselves a disservice (as citizens) when we personalise these things and concentrate on the individual in office.
Upvote
0
similarly, all Bush needs to do is to call off his dogs of war.
Look--if case you still don't realise, the issue was never about weapons of mass destruction OR terrorism. Bush wanted to get rid of Saddam right from the start. Everything since then: UN inspections, resolutions, was just a ploy to get some legitimacy for his "regime change".
Facts:
Bush started talking about "regime change" early last year--before UN inspections were even an issue.
Bush continued his build-up just as inspections were going into full swing.
Over the weekend, Saddam just turned over a batch of files explaining what happened to his nerve agents. Bush didn't even bother waiting to read it. Why? He had already made the determination to remove Saddam from power long ago--perhaps as early as last summer, according to one news report I read (washingtonpost I think). This was never about WMD or terrorsists or what not.
Everything since then has just been a political ploy to get the international community to rubberstamp his actions.
Upvote
0
paulewog
Father of Insanity; Child of Music.
- Mar 23, 2002
- 12,930
- 375
- 40
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
1441, that's the number! I can never remember that thing 
Facts - Saddam Hussein is not a happy man, and he's a danger to his own people as well as the US. I seem to remember certain US Embassies being blown up and such... heh
I do not think it's a political ploy whatsoever. That comes from believing the liberal-slanted media, really. The media hates Bush. At least, I think most of it does, from what it seems to pickily report and leave out.
As was raised - the former president "got away" with quite a few bombings and such, nobody really questioned it. I don't think he even went to the UN.
And, yes, the 1441 had some consequences, but instead the UN just wants to give Iraq another resolution, that makes no sense to me
Facts - Saddam Hussein is not a happy man, and he's a danger to his own people as well as the US. I seem to remember certain US Embassies being blown up and such... heh
I do not think it's a political ploy whatsoever. That comes from believing the liberal-slanted media, really. The media hates Bush. At least, I think most of it does, from what it seems to pickily report and leave out.
As was raised - the former president "got away" with quite a few bombings and such, nobody really questioned it. I don't think he even went to the UN.
And, yes, the 1441 had some consequences, but instead the UN just wants to give Iraq another resolution, that makes no sense to me
Upvote
0
You know who is going to assume power next, right? It will be one of Hussein's sons, each of whom are as brutal as their father and not quite bright enough NOT to use weapons of mass destruction. I'd rather Hussein keep power than let either son get it.
No, America has to put in power a party that is in keeping with their own views of the situation. That is the only thing that will satisfy America, and to do it, invasion is needed.
Upvote
0
Today at 06:13 PM paulewog said this in Post #8
And, yes, the 1441 had some consequences, but instead the UN just wants to give Iraq another resolution, that makes no sense to me
There is intense debate as to what exactly constitutes a "material breach" of 1441 and exactly what the consequences will be if Hussein does commit a "material breach". The wording of the resolution is vague on both accounts.
In the end, it is up to the UNSC to decide both issues, since it was the UNSC that drafted and passed 1441. It is not up to Bush, although he is certainly welcome to contribute his thoughts in keeping with the checks and balances system of the UN.
Upvote
0
You very well might, but there was no Iraqi involvement in those embassy bombings.
The media hates Bush? I wouldn't have guessed that from listening to them. I have a feeling that you're simply suffering from confirmation bias.
So what?
Upvote
0
tom
brownlee40
- Feb 16, 2002
- 1,023
- 35
- 61
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
the people of iraq are suffering under his rule like bush s says if this continues it is only going to get wqors he is in violation .
and the un 1441 gives the us to use military force.
and the un 1441 gives the us to use military force.
Upvote
0
Even if 1441 did authorize military force, it would be military force to enforce 1441, NOT to remove Hussein from power as the Americans will do.
Upvote
0
Bye Saddam.Has everybody forgot about the resolution all these countries signed in November? they all agreed if sadaam did not totally disarm in 5 days there would be consequences , such as war? they all signed it but now are backing away from what they agreed to do! America and Great britian and spain are the only ones with enough guts to stsand up to these terroist!
Upvote
0
Doctrine1st
Official nitwit
Actually, I blame his Daddy and Rumsfeld for funding Saddam in the making of chemical weapons and looking the other way when he killed his own people, as they do as well. Without our help Saddam perhaps wouldn't be the tyrant he is today.
Now were worried about him using chemical weapons that we helped him acquire. I blame him for telling Saddam "we have no interest in Middle East affairs" when Saddam lobbied for his veiw prior to his invading Kuwait, a situation that obviously could have been avoided by Herbert Walker speaking up, unless he was intentionally setting Saddam up. Hmmmm....
I blame G.W. Bush for not tracking down those terrorist groups that are a real threat to us and instead choosing actions that will only give them fodder to accelarating and motivating future attacks here, by us attacking Iraq.
If we actually got rid of all those terrorist groups that he stated he was going to do, then we wouldn't have to worry about "what if Saddam give them WMD' now would we. But instead he's taking the easy pickings and putting the cart before the horse, playing right into the terriosts hands and plans of turning this into a war against all muslims. This is something we needs to publically address, the insuing terrorist propaganda to surely come from terrorist groups in regard to this being a Holy war, unless of course Bush being a Bible believing man, thinks that we has a guiding hand in shaping the precussors of the Rapture?
BTW, please for me list all those terriorists groups that Bush has terminated for me please. I mean I can't think of one.
Upvote
0
paulewog
Father of Insanity; Child of Music.
- Mar 23, 2002
- 12,930
- 375
- 40
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Exactly, Francie. We're like parents that say "Don't do that or I'm going to bla bla bla" and then when they do it, "Well, don't do that again or..." and it just keeps going on and on.....
I think G. W. Bush has been trying to track down terrorists. Ever heard of "Osama" ?
I think G. W. Bush has been trying to track down terrorists. Ever heard of "Osama" ?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
