|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Bush and the rollback of tyranny: a look back - 3/5/2008 10:03:18 AM
|
|
|
stamper_ben
Posts: 10820
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lone Star State
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lightshineon
Gas prices are not his fault, it is the world market. come'on not everything is his fault. If I were him, I would move out of the USA, people are always beating him down. It is mob, and media rule.
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
This is a funny cartoon by Oliphaunt about the $4 a gallon gas. I don't doubt it with the total collapse of the dollar and the fact the rebate checks are going to take it farther south:
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20080305/spo080304.gif
He will be moving out of the US after January next year. He's coming back to Texas! 
_____________________________
We will be known as His by the love we show one another.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush and the rollback of tyranny: a look back - 3/5/2008 10:16:07 AM
|
|
|
TheosCentric
Posts: 1881
Joined: 2/26/2006
Status: offline
|
Gas prices were fine before the War in Iraq.
_____________________________
"Missions exists because worship doesn't." -- John Piper, Let the Nations be Glad
God at the Center - Latest post - John 3:16 conference?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush and the rollback of tyranny: a look back - 3/5/2008 11:02:09 AM
|
|
|
lightshineon
Posts: 3424
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: online
|
They were not! Remember OPEC? It is not his fault. It is the terriost Isalm fault, for the war anyway. Ie just have always been a free thinker, media, mob rule does not control my thoughts. Bush is a human, already people. On the view, at this moment they are Bush Bashing. Is this Godly? Or Biblical? And gas prices, and to blame him, is ridiculious beyond anything I have heard in a while. Blame the Arabs, who have us by the nose. YEA Bush.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ccoppenbarger
Gas prices were fine before the War in Iraq.
_____________________________
Remember, whenever you have pearls, there are always plenty of pigs nearby who would be glad to step on them.
F.T., 2007
Be sure you vote for those, whose views you want your children to emulate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush and the rollback of tyranny: a look back - 3/5/2008 11:23:46 AM
|
|
|
RichLP
Posts: 1762
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lightshineon
They were not! Remember OPEC? It is not his fault. It is the terriost Isalm fault, for the war anyway. Ie just have always been a free thinker, media, mob rule does not control my thoughts. Bush is a human, already people. On the view, at this moment they are Bush Bashing. Is this Godly? Or Biblical? And gas prices, and to blame him, is ridiculious beyond anything I have heard in a while. Blame the Arabs, who have us by the nose. YEA Bush.
My dear sister Lightshineon, the Iraqi war was NOT started by Islamic terrorists.
_____________________________
"We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda" - G.W. Bush lies to America and to the world, 5/1/2003
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush and the rollback of tyranny: a look back - 3/5/2008 11:23:46 AM
|
|
|
lightshineon
Posts: 3424
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: online
|
He is not the one i want to see have an all expense paid ticket to Iraq, or better yet afganastan to have dinner with ol' Bin. Not speaking of you cow (LOL)
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: lightshineon
Gas prices are not his fault, it is the world market. come'on not everything is his fault. If I were him, I would move out of the USA, people are always beating him down. It is mob, and media rule.
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
This is a funny cartoon by Oliphaunt about the $4 a gallon gas. I don't doubt it with the total collapse of the dollar and the fact the rebate checks are going to take it farther south:
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20080305/spo080304.gif
I'll chip in for the ticket. perhaps he can go to Iraq, where "freedom reigns". 
< Message edited by lightshineon -- 3/5/2008 12:58:27 PM >
_____________________________
Remember, whenever you have pearls, there are always plenty of pigs nearby who would be glad to step on them.
F.T., 2007
Be sure you vote for those, whose views you want your children to emulate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush and the rollback of tyranny: a look back - 3/5/2008 11:56:20 AM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 1859
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
The cartoon doesn't say that the prices are his fault. It was a jibe at a comment where he scuffed off gas prices hitting $4 a gallon and he said "nobody told him".
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004250068_bush29.html
quote:
Peter Maer of CBS News Radio asked: "What's your advice to the average American who is hurting now, facing the prospect of $4-a-gallon gasoline, a lot of people facing ... "
"Wait, what did you just say?" the president interrupted. "You're predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline?"
Maer responded: "A number of analysts are predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline."
Bush's rejoinder: "Oh, yeah? That's interesting. I hadn't heard that."
< Message edited by rlj -- 3/5/2008 12:03:55 PM >
_____________________________
-Roger
1 Thess 5:20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Test everything. Hold on to the good. (NIV)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush and the rollback of tyranny: a look back - 3/5/2008 12:11:32 PM
|
|
|
TheosCentric
Posts: 1881
Joined: 2/26/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lightshineon
They were not! Remember OPEC? It is not his fault. It is the terriost Isalm fault, for the war anyway. Ie just have always been a free thinker, media, mob rule does not control my thoughts. Bush is a human, already people. On the view, at this moment they are Bush Bashing. Is this Godly? Or Biblical? And gas prices, and to blame him, is ridiculious beyond anything I have heard in a while. Blame the Arabs, who have us by the nose. YEA Bush.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ccoppenbarger
Gas prices were fine before the War in Iraq.
I had to laugh when I saw this. You cannot honestly believe this, do you? Please don't tell me you're that naive.
_____________________________
"Missions exists because worship doesn't." -- John Piper, Let the Nations be Glad
God at the Center - Latest post - John 3:16 conference?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush and the rollback of tyranny: a look back - 3/5/2008 12:58:22 PM
|
|
|
lightshineon
Posts: 3424
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: online
|
I honestly have to laugh at you of all people calling someone navie. Ok that was ugly for me to respond to your unkindness tom me, moving on. If I was George and the way the Americans have treated me, I would care less about the gas prices either. I am serious he in the media mind contolled mob, can do nothing right anyway, why try anymore. That is how I would feel, if I were him.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ccoppenbarger
quote:
ORIGINAL: lightshineon
They were not! Remember OPEC? It is not his fault. It is the terriost Isalm fault, for the war anyway. Ie just have always been a free thinker, media, mob rule does not control my thoughts. Bush is a human, already people. On the view, at this moment they are Bush Bashing. Is this Godly? Or Biblical? And gas prices, and to blame him, is ridiculious beyond anything I have heard in a while. Blame the Arabs, who have us by the nose. YEA Bush.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ccoppenbarger
Gas prices were fine before the War in Iraq.
I had to laugh when I saw this. You cannot honestly believe this, do you? Please don't tell me you're that naive.
_____________________________
Remember, whenever you have pearls, there are always plenty of pigs nearby who would be glad to step on them.
F.T., 2007
Be sure you vote for those, whose views you want your children to emulate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush and the rollback of tyranny: a look back - 3/5/2008 1:04:51 PM
|
|
|
lightshineon
Posts: 3424
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: online
|
Big sigh 
quote:
ORIGINAL: RichLP
quote:
ORIGINAL: lightshineon
They were not! Remember OPEC? It is not his fault. It is the terriost Isalm fault, for the war anyway. Ie just have always been a free thinker, media, mob rule does not control my thoughts. Bush is a human, already people. On the view, at this moment they are Bush Bashing. Is this Godly? Or Biblical? And gas prices, and to blame him, is ridiculious beyond anything I have heard in a while. Blame the Arabs, who have us by the nose. YEA Bush.
My dear sister Lightshineon, the Iraqi war was NOT started by Islamic terrorists.
_____________________________
Remember, whenever you have pearls, there are always plenty of pigs nearby who would be glad to step on them.
F.T., 2007
Be sure you vote for those, whose views you want your children to emulate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush and the rollback of tyranny: a look back - 3/7/2008 10:54:42 PM
|
|
|
Leon_Figg3
Posts: 522
Joined: 4/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: RichLP
quote:
ORIGINAL: lightshineon
Big sigh
Why? Islamic terrorists were not allied with Iraq, and it was a US-led coalition that invaded Iraq in March of 2003. Iraq engaged in no bellicose activity threatening the national security of the United States. Baath military forces never launched an attack on US shores.
I repeat: the Iraqi war was NOT started by Islamic terrorists.
I suppose the next thing you're going to say is that there is no such thing as an Islamic terrorist.
No the situation in Iraq was not started by Islamic terrorists.
It was aggrevated by Saddam who probably had no intention to live up to the cease fire of Gulf War I.
It was aggrevated by Sadam who felt it was more important to him, and his place in history, to stand up to the United States like a mouse standing up angainst an eagle than it was to disclose-without question- to the United States and the world whether or not he had WMDs
It was aggrevated by 911 and intelligence reports, that various countries and the UN had, that terrorists often passed through Iraq. (It is hard to believe that terrorists of any kind least of all those associated with Al Quada could pass through/ operate in Sadam's Iraq without someone in the government knowing about it or having dealings with them)
It was aggrevated by the nightmarish possibilities of the marriage of WMDs and terrorists. Nightmarish possibilities that could not be ignored or allowed to develop.
By not revealing to the United States, and the world whether or not it actually had WMDs it did pose a threat to the United States and the world. It was not a direct threat, in the traditonal sense. As I have stated in previous threads, IMO the concept of war is always changing. While neighboring countries may continue to feel threatened by their neighbors, countries can be, have been, and are threatened dispite their distance (ie. 911). Wars are conducted not so much by countries, but individuals dedicated to a given philosophy (ie Islamic extremism) who have no allegiance to a particular country but only use a country as a base of operations.
_____________________________
To whom much is given, much is expected. Luke 12:48
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush and the rollback of tyranny: a look back - 3/9/2008 2:39:51 PM
|
|
|
RichLP
Posts: 1762
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Leon_Figg3
I suppose the next thing you're going to say is that there is no such thing as an Islamic terrorist.
You are free to suppose in any way you please, but it does not mean that your supposition will accurately reflect that which I know and believe. 
quote:
ORIGINAL: Leon_Figg3]No the situation in Iraq was not started by Islamic terrorists. It was aggrevated by Saddam who probably had no intention to live up to the cease fire of Gulf War I.
You're going from "started" to "aggravated." But to "aggravate" means to make worse.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Leon_Figg3
It was aggrevated by 911 and intelligence reports, that various countries and the UN had, that terrorists often passed through Iraq. (It is hard to believe that terrorists of any kind least of all those associated with Al Quada could pass through/ operate in Sadam's Iraq without someone in the government knowing about it or having dealings with them)
Intelligence was cooked to fit what our leaders was saying. A US gov’t inquiry stated there was no collaborative partnership between the Baaths and Al-Qaeda. And when Zarqawi entered Iraqi soil, the Baaths were aware, alarmed, and issued directives for his arrest. Osama Bin Laden hated Hussein, considered him a Muslim infidel, condemned his 1990 invasion of Kuwait, and called for the raising up of a holy Muslim army to expel the Iraqi military from Kuwait. Hussein was a secular leader who persecuted many religious Muslims in his country. He was a mortal foe of Shiite Iran. Allegations of Saddam’s regime having provided medical treatment to Al-Qaeda members have never been proven. Any more speculation about what is hard to believe, or are you willing to discuss according to facts?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Leon_Figg3
It was aggrevated by the nightmarish possibilities of the marriage of WMDs and terrorists. Nightmarish possibilities that could not be ignored or allowed to develop.
Ah, the classical fearmongering tactic. The mushroom cloud smoking gun line by Condi Rice. It’s exactly what the Allies were told by a senior-ranking officer of the Wehrmacht hierarchy after the end of the European theater. To convince a people to agree to war, just they’ll them they’re going to be attacked. And besides, many were saying before the war there was no proof Iraq had WMDs.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Leon_Figg3
By not revealing to the United States, and the world whether or not it actually had WMDs it did pose a threat to the United States and the world. It was not a direct threat, in the traditonal sense. As I have stated in previous threads, IMO the concept of war is always changing. While neighboring countries may continue to feel threatened by their neighbors, countries can be, have been, and are threatened dispite their distance (ie. 911). Wars are conducted not so much by countries, but individuals dedicated to a given philosophy (ie Islamic extremism) who have no allegiance to a parHussein was not forthright at all times, but he wanted to preserve the image of a strong Iraq vis-à-vis his neighbors. And wars are not conducted by countries, but by adherents of a philosophy? I guess you have a point. I personally believe the neocons like Wolfowitz, Feith, and others who pushed us into a war against Iraq had a different philosophy in mind other than the safeguarding of the national security of our country.
ticular country but only use a country as a base of operations.
Hussein was not forthright at all times, but he wanted to preserve the image of a strong Iraq vis-à-vis his neighbors. And wars are not conducted by countries, but by adherents of a philosophy? I guess you have a point. I personally believe the neocons like Wolfowitz, Feith, and others who pushed us into a war against Iraq had a different philosophy in mind other than the safeguarding of the national security of our country.
_____________________________
"We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda" - G.W. Bush lies to America and to the world, 5/1/2003
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush and the rollback of tyranny: a look back - 3/9/2008 3:35:08 PM
|
|
|
henny
Posts: 1257
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
I just stumbled on this Onion article from 2001. Even though it's meant as a joke, in retrospect it was eerily correct:
quote:
Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'
WASHINGTON, DC–Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."
"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."
Bush swore to do "everything in [his] power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.
During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784
I don't see how people can still defend him. What did he get us exactly?
1. The country's on the verge of recession.
2. A massively expensive war that wasn't really necessary.
3. We are in debt up to our eyeballs (most of which came from a Republican controlled house/senate mind you)
4. He completely squandered an outpouring of goodwill after 9/11 by alienating the rest of the world with his war in Iraq.
5. We still haven't found Osama Bin Ladin
_____________________________
Many Bothans died to bring you this information.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush and the rollback of tyranny: a look back - 3/9/2008 7:08:29 PM
|
|
|
Leon_Figg3
Posts: 522
Joined: 4/24/2005
Status: offline
|
RichLP,
Sorry if my grammar seems to be a bit off but I do not see the situation in Iraq as solely the result of the Bush administration. The Clinton administration needs to own up to its share of responisibility for what has transpired since first Gulf War. It needs to own up to its part in doing as little as possible in regard in what was already a growing threat to this country from the likes of Osma Bin Laden and other terrorist groups.
You may call what I am saying fear-mongering, I do not really care. You can keep your head buried in the sand, in regard to terrorism, and blame administrations and people you don't happen to like or agree with all you want. You can even sight historical events that, in your apparent view, point to terrorism as nothing more than a government conspiracy. To me terrorism is real.
My experience with terrorists, back in the 70s when the Bader-Meinhof Gang went crazy in Germany, may have been superficial, but it made we aware that there are individuals running around who have the imagination and ability to turn everyday items into weapons of limited death and destruction capabilities. It made me think of what these same people may be able to do if they had the knowledge and availability of bioological, chemical, and even nuclear weapons material.
It made we aware of the fact that America has been ripe for terroists attacks for a long long time. We are and have been vulnerable because, to many people in our country, it is not PC. To them we need to over-inflate what we consider to be our liberties and human rights to such a degree that our ability have a sense of security-to enjoy our true liberties and freedoms-is totally negated.
I am getting off topic.
If OUR inntelligence about Iraq was as cooked as you and others continuousely claim, why wasn't that intelligence really ever challenged by any one of the member countries of the UN at the time?
If OUR intelligence about Iraq was so far off the mark why didn't Sadam himself challenge it in any meaningful way like demanding the UN allow him to present his side of the issue?
Because Sadam wanted the confrontation. He wanted it becuse he knew that no matter the outcome, he would win, if only for a relatively short period of time.
You challenged me to contnue this discussion on the basis of facts, but how to do that when:
1. Not all the facts are known.
2. For every fact that favors your arguement, there is a fact that supports the opposing arguement.
In the end you end up where you started. You end up with little more than speculaton which needs to be acted on in some meaningful way.
You end up with a situation like Iraq.
It is unfortunate but true.
< Message edited by Leon_Figg3 -- 3/10/2008 3:19:17 PM >
_____________________________
To whom much is given, much is expected. Luke 12:48
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush and the rollback of tyranny: a look back - 3/11/2008 9:14:44 AM
|
|
|
RichLP
Posts: 1762
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline
|
Leon Figg, you don't need to tell me that history has to be studied as a whole. I've been doing that for quite some time now.
Terrorism is not a minor problem; far from it. But as I said, Saddam Hussein was not involved in 9/11. I gave you several facts about Hussein vis-a-vis Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
We're talking past each other, so all I will say is that Iraqi officials did say they didn't have WMDs or nuclear weapons.
We were wrong. Period. We invaded on false pretenses - and now we're stuck with this horrible quagmire whose price tag, according to Nobel laureate economists, will be 3 trillion dollars. But Bush, Wolfowitz, Feith, and Rumsfeld aren't worried about their mortgages or 401Ks, so this won't affect them. You or I? That's a different matter; and yet, whatever you or I may face is nothing next to what Iraqis or the families of wounded or deceased US troops face every day.
_____________________________
"We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda" - G.W. Bush lies to America and to the world, 5/1/2003
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush and the rollback of tyranny: a look back - 3/11/2008 10:54:34 AM
|
|
|
Leon_Figg3
Posts: 522
Joined: 4/24/2005
Status: offline
|
RichLP.
Nice tap dancing around the issues I brought up.
I contend that we did not go to war under false pretenses. We went to war based on what we and the rest of the world knew and suspected about Iraq at the time. It was only after our invasion that we learned that the intelligence we and the rest of the world had was faulty.
I'll ask again.
If our intelligence was as misleading and "cooked" as you and others continuously claim it was, how come absoutely no one contested it before the war?
How come absolutetly no one gave evidence that the intelligence was
"made up"?
Because it wasn't.
If anything the intelligence was inconclusive and the people in power chose to act on the side of caution and discover the truth of the matter the only way that was open to them, since the other side was not being any where as cooperative as they needed in providing evidence that we were wrong. It was only AFTER our invasion that we discovered that in many areas our intelligence was off the mark. In some areas we still have questions that have yet to be answered.
As far as innocent Iraqis and our military, whose cause you seem to believe your are championing by blaming the Bush administration for what has happened, and is happening, maybe you should consider a simple truth in all of life and all of nature-it takes two. It takes two to come to a compromise. It takes two to have a war. If the Bush administration is as responsible for what it going on, and has gone on, as you and others like to claim, then Sadam and the Clinton administration are equally as responsibile.
Wars are not completely avoidable. Some wars can be avoided. Iraq was not one of them.
< Message edited by Leon_Figg3 -- 3/11/2008 11:17:48 AM >
_____________________________
To whom much is given, much is expected. Luke 12:48
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush and the rollback of tyranny: a look back - 3/11/2008 11:15:20 AM
|
|
|
RichLP
Posts: 1762
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Leon_Figg3
RichLP.
Nice tap dancing around the issues I brought up.
Tap dancing? Ooooh, I'm so hurt. LOL
quote:
ORIGINAL: Leon_Figg3
I contend that we did not go to war under false pretenses. We went to war based on what we and the rest of the world knew and suspected about Iraq at the time. It was only after our invasion that we learned that the intelligence we and the rest of the world had was faulty.
You obviously do not know that a lot of people within the intelligence community were protesting what Dick Cheney was saying out in public about WMDs. There was a lot of skepticism. For more on the falsehoods, I refer you to the Iraq war thread, where weeks ago I put up a link to a database with nearly 1000 false statements the Bush administration made.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Leon_Figg3
If our intelligence was as misleading and "cooked" as you and others continuously claim it was, how come absoutely no one contested it before the war?
Wrong on the first count. There were analysts who tried to speak up but they were pressured not to. Dick Cheney visited intel offices to force the issue.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Leon_Figg3
How come absolutetly no one gave evidence that the intelligence was "made up"?
Because it wasn't.
Wrong on the second count. Look up OSP. Intelligence was cooked up.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Leon_Figg3
If anything the intelligence was inconclusive and the people in power chose to act on the side of caution and discover the truth of the matter the only way that was open to them, since the other side was not being any where as cooperative as they needed in providing evidence that we were wrong. It was only AFTER our invasion that we discovered that in many areas our intelligence was off the mark. In some areas we still have questions that have yet to be answered.
This despite the report by the Iraqi government detailing their activities; this despite UN inspectors saying they'd found nothing.
Leon, I'm gonna give you a friendly warning. Don't disrespect me (tap dancing). I will gladly engage you in more depth about Iraq in the Iraq war thread if you wish to join me there - but I haven't used disrespectful language so I'd appreciate reciprocity.
_____________________________
"We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda" - G.W. Bush lies to America and to the world, 5/1/2003
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush and the rollback of tyranny: a look back - 3/11/2008 3:05:35 PM
|
|
|
Leon_Figg3
Posts: 522
Joined: 4/24/2005
Status: offline
|
RichLP,
I feel I need to apologize if the "tap dancing" reference I made about your response to my post may have gone a bit too far.
If the reference just rubbed you the wrong way, I would say that you and I are about even as you have made statements that rubbed me the wrong way.
Don't look for me to discuss Bush or the Iraq situation with you any further since you have made your views on both perfectly clear.
_____________________________
To whom much is given, much is expected. Luke 12:48
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush and the rollback of tyranny: a look back - 3/11/2008 3:11:16 PM
|
|
|
RichLP
Posts: 1762
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Leon_Figg3
RichLP,
I feel I need to apologize if the "tap dancing" reference I made about your response to my post may have gone a bit too far.
If the reference just rubbed you the wrong way, I would say that you and I are about even as you have made statements that rubbed me the wrong way.
Don't look for me to discuss Bush or the Iraq situation with you any further since you have made your views on both perfectly clear.
Leon_Figg3,
Apology accepted; I also regret the way I responded because I was rather harsh myself. For now, I will only say 2 things.
1. I was talking to lightshineon last week, and I only replied to you because you replied to me (to one of the posts I wrote to her). Until then, I had not engaged with you in recent time. If you don't wish to engage me any further re: Bush and Iraq, then I ask politely that you no longer write to me when I have not written to you first.
2. You said, "It takes two to come to a compromise. It takes two to have a war. If the Bush administration is as responsible for what it going on, and has gone on, as you and others like to claim, then Sadam and the Clinton administration are equally as responsibile. Wars are not completely avoidable. Some wars can be avoided. Iraq was not one of them."
Bush is on record that he was willing to circumvent a UN Sec Resolution to go to war with Iraq. That's enough grounds for impeachment. And, Iraq provided a report listing its activities.
Some wars can be avoided? This one could have been - Saddam asked for money and exile in exchange for stepping down from power. Iraq WAS avoidable - not just because of this, but because Saddam and 9/11 were unrelated. It was at best a diversion and at worse a waste.
Finally, the argument that the Bush administration should not bear blame for Iraq by itself is specious, to put it diplomatically. I notice a lot of us Americans don't want to recognize the horrible sufferings Iraqis have come to know as daily life in the aftermath of our invasion (and George W. Bush is a fantastic example of this attitude). I sense this attitude on this website too (and no, I'm not referring to you.).
_____________________________
"We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda" - G.W. Bush lies to America and to the world, 5/1/2003
|
|
|
|
|
[Deleted] - 3/11/2008 4:35:58 PM
|
|
|
Deleted User
|
[Deleted by Admins]
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush and the rollback of tyranny: a look back - 3/11/2008 11:36:04 PM
|
|
|
henny
Posts: 1257
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
Gas prices are high right now not because of any scarcity, but rather because people are starting to buy up and invest in oil as a paper commodity with much more frequency (i.e. like groups/firms/individuals would invest in something like gold). It really has nothing to do with the war or any evil Islamic threat.
I heard a story about it on NPR a few days ago. The guy on there compared the recent boom in oil investment to the real estate boom from a few years back:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87991822
Whether you can blame Bush for not pushing to control this more is up in the air, I guess (I don't know exactly how this works on an international scale and how much control we have over it).
< Message edited by henny -- 3/11/2008 11:45:24 PM >
_____________________________
Many Bothans died to bring you this information.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush and the rollback of tyranny: a look back - 3/11/2008 11:46:08 PM
|
|
|
henny
Posts: 1257
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
In regards to Saddam/Al Qaeda links, the pentagon just finished a study of 600,000 some documents they found in Iraq and concluded that there was no link. Suppossedly the study will be released officially on Wednesday:
quote:
WASHINGTON — An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.
The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam's regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East, U.S. officials told McClatchy. However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.
The new study of the Iraqi regime's archives found no documents indicating a "direct operational link" between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaida before the invasion, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report.
He and others spoke to McClatchy on condition of anonymity because the study isn't due to be shared with Congress and released before Wednesday.
President Bush and his aides used Saddam's alleged relationship with al Qaida, along with Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, as arguments for invading Iraq after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld claimed in September 2002 that the United States had "bulletproof" evidence of cooperation between the radical Islamist terror group and Saddam's secular dictatorship.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/29959.html
_____________________________
Many Bothans died to bring you this information.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bush and the rollback of tyranny: a look back - 3/12/2008 8:57:37 AM
|
|
|
RichLP
Posts: 1762
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline
|
A point I've made in the Iraq war thread, but which is relevant here as this thread is about critiques of Bush, is that the fallout of the war in Iraq has made Iran the strongest power in the region. If the Bush administration considered Iran an "axis of evil" state, then logic would have dictated that doing anything that would have turned Iran into a regional power would have been contrary to US national security interests.
I've argued that removing Saddam Hussein's Baath regime, which had long been a buffer against Shiite Iran (don't take my word for it - ask secular Sunni Arabs from Egypt or Jordan), catapulted Tehran into a position of power and influence. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent visit to Baghdad is perhaps the clearest example.
And for anyone who is skeptical of this being reality, I present you this article.
Five years on, Iran can thank the United States for unwittingly aiding its drive for regional power by ousting Saddam Hussein, one of Tehran's deadliest foes.
The U.S. military had already defeated Afghanistan's Taliban after the Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. cities in 2001 -- with the unintended consequence of wiping out another of Iran's enemies and tilting the local balance of forces in Tehran's favour.
"The removal of these two regimes without powerful successor states benefited Iran greatly...and opened elbow room for Iran to spread its influence," said Vali Nasr, senior fellow at the Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations.
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
