Bush didn't inflict his will, the US Congress voted for it. They supported the president. We voted for congress... like you said, that is why Osama doesn't like us. We are as Americans, responsible for declaring war in Iraq.
The world really needs to understand, the American people spoke, and then the Congress speaks, and then the president decides. We do not attack countries because we directly wanted to. It was a democratic decision to go to Iraq.
Ironically Moveon.org is actually not moving on. Ironic. They also wasted 63 million dollars on getting Kerry elected and it didn't happen. The power of protesting Bush. Moveon loses money and the election. When will protesters find out that you actually need a positive plan of action to succeed instead of torpedoing the incumbent president.
__________________
Last edited by kingcoot on Nov 12th, 2004 at 02:38 PM
You didn't see the US congress vote unanimously? They voted solidly to go to Iraq. Bush was 1 more of the 500+ people of congress to vote to go. Yeah, so Bush should have said Nah... I won't do what 500 people agreed to do. 500 of those people represented everyone in every state.
They went to war with Iraq because they all agreed he was hiding information. That is easy for you to say, yeah Not found anything. Just be impatient. Saddam has alot of reason to be the target of the US without thinking he has weapons of mass destruction. He used chemical weapons on US troops in 1991 and he started acting up again in 1998 during Bill Clinton's term. It was likely he still had them. So the Congress all voted to go.
Saddam is like a misguided child. He knows not what he does. "Make no mistake".
__________________
Last edited by kingcoot on Nov 12th, 2004 at 02:49 PM
Gender: Male Location: between apathy and indifference
It was not likely. They knew he didn't have them. You also do not invade a country with a vastly inferior military on pure speculation that in the future they "might be capable" of doing something.
Do you not get that this is about oil?
__________________ "I made a typo bif deal" - JacopeX
Do you not get that isn't a reason congress looked at.
They did have evidence pointing to a very likelihood he was hiding something. You just said "They knew he didn't have them". If that was true, why the unanimous US decision for the declaration of war by everyone?
It sounds like you are remembering what went on in the UN and not the US. The UN really wanted to wait until they had enough evidence in 4 years. The US decided not to wait that long. The difference between waiting between the US Rep. and Dems was about 3 or 4 months difference. We would have gone to war in March (March 19th, 2003), or July when it would be murder to the troops. Bush made the decision to go earlier because the troops would suffer less. He does care. No one believes. Saddam would never give up without a fight. He wanted to battle.
__________________
Last edited by kingcoot on Nov 12th, 2004 at 03:06 PM
Gender: Male Location: between apathy and indifference
I meant to say that Bush and the higher ups in the intelligence departments knew that Sadam had no wmd's. Congress and the the people blindly followed their leader because they were totally unaware that they were being misled.
Bush took advantage of 911 to go into Iraq. Until that time no info of Sadam's weapons were mentioned, and there was no link between iraq and al queda mentioned. It was only after 911 that Bush used the intense fear of a nation and unsubstantiated information to push his agenda and get the ok to go into iraq.
__________________ "I made a typo bif deal" - JacopeX
And you know he got that information before the war for certain. There is absolutely no doubt? Intelligence is usually flawed one way or the other. It is never 100%.
If you are right, the moral is, don't hit the US, or the people just may have chosen a new world dictator (for the remainder of his/her term). Nice of Osama to bring out the best in people. (this is if you are 100% right).
Bush is trying to send a message to countries that would be friendly to terrorists. He is attempting to completely solve the problem of terrorism in the middle east if you aren't aware.
__________________
Last edited by kingcoot on Nov 12th, 2004 at 03:18 PM
Look between Afghanistan and Iraq. What do you see? Yes... that is correct. You see Iran. Strategy of aggressive negotiations.
I believe Bush wants to get a good government structure of the people of both countries to thrive, and impose it on Iran over time.
No one sees the positive side when they need to find the bad for whatever reason. There is no reason to look at the bad things in life all the time. Look at something good, and be more hopeful because the future depends on hope.
I don't like Iraq civilians being killed at all. What is the other alternative? Just wait until the problem grows into world war III. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan VS US Europe & Aus, & Canada. It could have happened if it was allowed to grow. Both sides would have nukes of course.
__________________
Last edited by kingcoot on Nov 12th, 2004 at 03:39 PM
Gender: Male Location: between apathy and indifference
And you know he got that information before the war for certain. There is absolutely no doubt?
Yes, like I said, Powel and Rice had the information that Sadam was not a threat, therefore I am sure Bush had it. Bush was also aware that there was no link between Iraq and Al Queda.
If you are right, the moral is, don't hit the US, or the people just may have chosen a new world dictator (for the remainder of his/her term). Nice of Osama to bring out the best in people
How does this make good sense to you? We have established ad nausem that Iraq DID NOT "HIT THE U.S.".
Strategy of aggressive negotiations. This tactic often results in loss of allied support followed by global resentment thereby negating it's results as anything but nonprofitable.
I believe Bush wants to get a good government structure of the people of both countries to thrive, and impose it on Iran over time.
You cannot force a democracy on a people especially a tribal people. Not to mention I don't believe that the U.S. has set up a democracy or foriegn government in the last 50 years that either did not attack them later on or was corrupt.
Bush is trying to send a message to countries that would be friendly to terrorists. He is attempting to completely solve the problem of terrorism in the middle east if you aren't aware.
Iraq and Al Queda WERE NOT LINKED! Many countries support terrorism. Why not go after Palestine or Iran first? They are more involved in nationally sponsored terrorism than anyone else.
No one sees the positive side when they need to find the bad for whatever reason. There is no reason to look at the bad things in life all the time. Look at something good, and be more hopeful because the future depends on hope
The future depends on people looking at things realistically and making informed descisions. WE do not need people who rely on hope, we need people who act with honour, humanity and truth.
I don't like Iraq civilians being killed at all. What is the other alternative? Just wait until the problem grows into world war III. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan VS US Europe & Aus, & Canada. It could have happened if it was allowed to grow. Both sides would have nukes of course.
Iran and Iraq hate eachother. There was no was no relationship between Afghanistan and Iraq. There was between Iran and Afghanistan, but that was ignored, as was Saudi Arabia's involvement. Fundamentalist countries did not like Iraq because it was a secular governed nation. This War that you talk of would not have happened because middle eastern countries allegances are very week. If you are worried about WW3, then turn your attention to China and (North Korea) as that country is pushing maximum density and is on the verge of radical change.
__________________ "I made a typo bif deal" - JacopeX
So what do we do, in your mind. Let the tribes live the way they are, hate each other, hate the US for doing nothing, or hate some world body that can mess it up anyways? How is that for realistic. It isn't too far off. Either way reality "bites". We won't have a nice world to the nth degree.
Yes, historically the governments put in place end up like the one with Yasser Arafat. He acts as a "peace keeper" and is corrupted by the environment that is the area. You need to tell me what government plan would work for a tribes people. I would love to know fresh ideas.
I wish Palastine the best luck, for they lost their leadership for much of their lifetime.
Talk about realistic. Can the US take on Iran, China, and North Korea, let alone one at a time? I'd say Iraq times 7 at the least.
__________________
Last edited by kingcoot on Nov 12th, 2004 at 05:52 PM
Gender: Male Location: between apathy and indifference
Your thought that it can only take the U.S. and military intervention to solve the problems in the middle east are both arrogant and laughable. Do you have any sense of the history of that region both between current countries and the states. By going to Iraq you mad e the situation far worse than it was before.
There is no government plan for a tribe-like people, they have to be guided and informed as to their option, and let the process take it's cours. As they choose their own path so goes their fate. One country getting involved as deeply as the US is has NEVER worked.
I did not endorse attacking Iran, China, and North Korea, I stated that those are the countries who pose a direct threat to U.S. and global peace. Iraq was not a major player.
__________________ "I made a typo bif deal" - JacopeX
Senior CIA anti-terrorism officer Michael Scheuer, who publicly criticized the agency's handling of the war on terrorism, resigned Thursday but said he wasn't forced out despite the fact the CIA was considering disciplinary action against him.
interesting article. this was one of the top guys in charge of investigating the whereabouts of bin laden.
"My decision is entirely my own," Scheuer said in a statement. "I have been in no way forced to this decision by the CIA. ... I have concluded that there has not been adequate national debate over the nature of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and the forces he leads and inspires, and the nature and dimensions of intelligence reform needed to address that threat. It is my intention to articulate a series of views in the hope of producing a more substantive debate than what has heretofore occurred."
ahhh the bush administration...always assuring freedom for the ultimate 'freedom hating' terrorist.
Team America: World Police
"America, f**k yeah. Comin again to save the mother f**king day yeah. America, f**k yeah. Freedom is the only way, yeah. Terrorists, your game is through. Now you'll have tah answer to, America. F**k yeah. America..... f**k..."
No one believes in patriotism. You can't, or people think you are arrogant. Eff that. I stand for what America is doing right now.
__________________
Last edited by kingcoot on Nov 13th, 2004 at 06:19 PM
If you support your country, you are patriotic.
If you support your country and oppose a rightful opponent, you are patriotic.
But if you support your country, think you are the best in the world (like most of us "Americans" do), and oppose more than just your opponent, but your allies as well... you're arrogant.
So those 5 months waiting for the UN was a total arrogant move. I see.
And before you say it wasn't Bush's Idea... he did wait 5 months. Besides, you can't read his mind. Most dictators don't give 1 week before they have plans to do something. Bush waited 26 (3 weeks 5 days) days before invading Afganistan after 9-11-01... and all the countries didn't have a huge disagreement with that.
I don't see how he has that much patience and people hate him. Under those circumstances, how long could you wait before you bombed Osama? I'd say no more than a month, and don't give Osama time to think about it.
__________________
Last edited by kingcoot on Nov 13th, 2004 at 06:38 PM
I agree with you on what you said about our allies, but I certainly don't see anything wrong with thinking your country is the best in the world. That's basically what being a patriot is all about, no matter what country you live in.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 12th, 2004 02:25 PM
i guess you beat kingcoot to the punch.
