End of the war in Iraq

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Quote

Why would anybody lable that war as a success?

A genocidal tyrant who experimented with chemical weapons on his own people?
But then, maybe you don't give a flying fuck about that kind of thing and would rather we sat back and watched/allowed it to happen.

'cept THAT was not the excuse for going in ... keep up with the correct 'spin' model

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why would anybody lable that war as a success?

A genocidal tyrant who experimented with chemical weapons on his own people?
But then, maybe you don't give a flying fuck about that kind of thing and would rather we sat back and watched/allowed it to happen.

'cept THAT was not the excuse for going in ... keep up with the correct 'spin' model

While it wasn't the only reason given for invading Iraq, it certainly was one of the reasons.

[hwt 0]

Bad news for you Obama lovers...Obama is a war monger ...Why ? he is a puppet whose strings are pulled by the corporate special interest groups and military industrial complex...time for you to wake up to the fact that the media and both parties are owned...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNUCZlP4wNc&lr=1

[Gravitymaster 0]

Here's a refresher for those who need it before this thread spirals into a hate filled Bush Bash (as usual).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSwSDvgw5Uc

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why would anybody lable that war as a success?

A genocidal tyrant who experimented with chemical weapons on his own people?
But then, maybe you don't give a flying fuck about that kind of thing and would rather we sat back and watched/allowed it to happen.

'cept THAT was not the excuse for going in ... keep up with the correct 'spin' model

While it wasn't the only reason given for invading Iraq, it certainly was one of the reasons.

Really? (I only ever heard that Afterwards - spin)... So the way to protect the innocent is to slaughter 100K of them ... good on ya..NOT

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why would anybody lable that war as a success?

A genocidal tyrant who experimented with chemical weapons on his own people?
But then, maybe you don't give a flying fuck about that kind of thing and would rather we sat back and watched/allowed it to happen.

'cept THAT was not the excuse for going in ... keep up with the correct 'spin' model

While it wasn't the only reason given for invading Iraq, it certainly was one of the reasons.

Really? (I only ever heard that Afterwards - spin)... So the way to protect the innocent is to slaughter 100K of them ... good on ya..NOT

Because you were not paying attention does not make your view correct.

Here's the text of Bush's Speech BEFORE the War.

Quote

Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight. I appreciate you all coming. Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions, its history of aggression and its drive toward an arsenal of terror.

Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's 11-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We must also never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September 11 2001, America felt its vulnerability even to threats that gather on the other side of the Earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat from any source that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Members of Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons.

Since we all agree on this goal, the issue is how best can we achieve it?

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions about the nature of the threat, about the urgency of action. Why be concerned now? About the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror and the wider war on terror.

These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration, and tonight I want to share those discussions with you.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place.

Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States. By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique.

As a former chief weapons inspector of the UN has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime itself." Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction.

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today - and we do - does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 litres of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for and is capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, Sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He's ordered chemical attacks on Iran and on more than 40 villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people: more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September 11.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991.Yet Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons, despite international sanctions, UN demands and isolation from the civilized world.

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles; far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work.

We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles [UAVs] that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States.

And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack. All that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it. And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups.

Over the years Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans.

Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who is responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network share a common enemy: the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaida have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.

Some al-Qaida leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al-Qaida leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks.

We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September 11 Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary, confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror.

When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction, and he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them or provide them to a terror network.

Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both, and the United States military is capable of confronting both.

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to 10 years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime had been much closer. The regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites.

That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that, despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists . . . his "nuclear mujaheddin," his nuclear holy warriors.

Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of his nuclear program in the past.

Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, he could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.

And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder, "After 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now?"

And there's a reason. We have experienced the horror of September 11. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact they would be eager, to use biological or chemical or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril."

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.

Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991.

The UN inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next. They forged documents, destroyed evidence and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass 12 square miles, with hundreds of structures both above and below the ground where sensitive materials could be hidden.

The world has also tried economic sanctions and watched Iraqi's billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases rather than provide for the needs of the Iraqi people.

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities, only to see them openly rebuilt while the regime again denies they even exist.

The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people, and in the last year alone the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.

After 11 years during which we've tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the UN to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements.

Among those requirements the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under UN supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country. And these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them, so they are all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder.

And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.

The time of denying, deceiving and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself, or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Many nations are joining us and insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs.

And that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the UN Security Council seriously. These resolutions are very clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot whose fate is still unknown.

By taking these steps and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict.

These steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that's why two administrations - mine and President Clinton's - have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.

I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished.

If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail.

There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait, and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence.

As Americans, we want peace. We work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.

Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events.

The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear.

That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear.

This nation, in world war and in cold war, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom and help others to find freedom of their own.

Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse for world security and for the people of Iraq.

The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban.

The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army and even within his own family.

On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents had been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents had been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners had been forced to watch their own children being tortured.

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity.

People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery, prosperity to squalor, self-government to the rule of terror and torture.

America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomen, Shia, Sunnis and others will be lifted, the long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

Iraq is a land rich in culture and resources and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time.

If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq, at peace with its neighbors.

Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military if it proves necessary to enforce UN Security Council demands.

Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and it is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something.

Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq that his only chance - his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts and their duties.

The attacks of September 11 showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al-Qaida's plans and designs. Today, in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined and whose consequences could be far more deadly.

Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there's no refuge from our responsibilities.

We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace and lead the world to a better day.

May God bless America.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

Quote

***

Quote

How does that relate to this discussion?

You left-wingers just can't help yourselves sometimes can you?

How?
You were stating how much you agrred with Trump's idea that we should have been reimbursed with oil for the invasion and "liberation" of Iraq and for any other country that needs our help. The last administration promise a fraction of as much, and if they could not deliver on that, how could they deliver on one half of their oil?

Do you really fail to see a connection?

Because you have chosen once again to obsessively focus on the last administrations failure to collect on Iraq and ignored Trumps idea for collecting in the future. I agree with him that when the rebels in Libya asked for US and NATO help, there should have been a price tag put on it. See if you can focus on the reasons for or against that view.

It's just a plain stupid idea, on several levels:

You would destabalize that country and the region by taking half of their future revenue. Despite the oil, most opec countries are impoverished.

You would give reason for an oppisition to the current Government, who would be seen as a US puppet.

There would be a huge graft problem, instead of "oil for food" it would be "oil for liberation" Imagine putting Halliburton in charge of the oil collection?

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why would anybody lable that war as a success?

A genocidal tyrant who experimented with chemical weapons on his own people?
But then, maybe you don't give a flying fuck about that kind of thing and would rather we sat back and watched/allowed it to happen.

'cept THAT was not the excuse for going in ... keep up with the correct 'spin' model

Yes! The world must be made to understand and believe that the vilification of Iraq and the Hussein regime began with the lies of the devil Bush family. And, with a hoop and a holler and God Bless Texas, and unilaterally without any political or international support or concensus and without any historical evidence or perspective GW cowboyed his ass into Iraq and personally kilt 100000 innocent civilian Iraqi citizens, not to mention 4000 US servicemen .... strictly and solely for the personal enrichment of himself and his oil-buddy cronies. Repeat ...repeat ...repeat ...repeat ...repeat ........ ad nauseum.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

[Gravitymaster 0]

So you think we should continue to provide our "Services" such as we did in Libya free? Seriously?? You don't think we should even try and be paid back for the money we spend? I see problems with your thinking on many different levels. Does this relate to a general mindset which also believes that healthcare should be "free"?

[shropshire 0]

You can justify the deaths of all those innocents anyway you please ... don't expect me to join the parade - I thought it the war was wrong then and still do today.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

You can justify the deaths of all those innocents anyway you please ... don't expect me to join the parade - I thought it the war was wrong then and still do today.

How do you justify all the deaths in Libya?

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Quote

You can justify the deaths of all those innocents anyway you please ... don't expect me to join the parade - I thought it the war was wrong then and still do today.

How do you justify all the deaths in Libya?

I don't - why would you think that I would ... BTW that was America lead too

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You can justify the deaths of all those innocents anyway you please ... don't expect me to join the parade - I thought it the war was wrong then and still do today.

How do you justify all the deaths in Libya?

I don't - why would you think that I would ... BTW that was America lead too

I didn't say you did. I asked how you justified it. So you think leaving Ghaddafi in power would have been in the best interests for the Libyans? That when a repressed people seek to overthrow a brutal dictator the rest of the world should stand by and simply say "good luck with that"?

[winsor 236]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You can justify the deaths of all those innocents anyway you please ... don't expect me to join the parade - I thought it the war was wrong then and still do today.

How do you justify all the deaths in Libya?

I don't - why would you think that I would ... BTW that was America lead too

I didn't say you did. I asked how you justified it. So you think leaving Ghaddafi in power would have been in the best interests for the Libyans? That when a repressed people seek to overthrow a brutal dictator the rest of the world should stand by and simply say "good luck with that"?

Pretty much.

It never ceases to amaze me that people seem to think we are some kind of American Superman, bringing Truth, Justice and the American Way to the oppressed peoples of the world.

Okay, so Despots A, B, C and so forth are very, very bad people. Countries Alpha, Beta, Gamma, etc. are woefully corrupt. What should we do about this terrible state of affairs? Beyond sending them sympathy cards, not much.

People were bitching about one despot's search for WMDs, his flaunting international law, and his lousy human rights record. How did we react? By invading without a valid Casus Belli, using forces in possession of the largest stocks of WMDs in existence, and enacting such enlightened legislation as the "Patriot Act" , which puts "security" head and shoulders above such minor concerns as human rights. Boy, are we on the moral high ground.

The numerically challenged among us are wondering why giving a blank check to the military to engage in an endless series of quixotic adventures seems to cost so much, and further wonder why we are in such deep kimchee economically.

The bottom line is that in any of these endeavors we A) can't afford it, and B) virtually never achieve our intended goals when all is said and done.

Any student of History (who passed by means other than cheating) can list the empires that have fallen because of the expenses incurred by military adventures whereby "victory" turned out to be unaffordable. We are hell-bent on adding the US of A to that list of unfortunates.

We would have been better served to have maintained our allegiance to Ho Chi Minh in 1945, rather than stabbing the Viet Minh in the back after they had fought honorably alongside us against the Empire of Japan. The lessons of that series of blunders have been obscured by decades of misinformation and disinformation, and we would have been in much better shape had we learned them in the first place. Now, our ignorance is continuing to bite us in the ass.

Everybody dies. It is not our obligation to bankrupt ourselves in the attempt to forestall the inevitable.


BSBD,

Winsor

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You can justify the deaths of all those innocents anyway you please ... don't expect me to join the parade - I thought it the war was wrong then and still do today.

How do you justify all the deaths in Libya?

I don't - why would you think that I would ... BTW that was America lead too

I didn't say you did. I asked how you justified it. So you think leaving Ghaddafi in power would have been in the best interests for the Libyans? That when a repressed people seek to overthrow a brutal dictator the rest of the world should stand by and simply say "good luck with that"?

How did that work out for ya in Somalia?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[muff528 3]

Quote

You can justify the deaths of all those innocents anyway you please ... don't expect me to join the parade - I thought it the war was wrong then and still do today.

My post had absolutely zero to do with whether I believed any deaths of "innocents" is or is not "justified". I only commented on some people's obsession with laying any "blame" solely with GWB, seemingly either to clear to their own consciences or for political reasons.

[billvon 3,070]

>Bad news for you Obama lovers...Obama is a war monger ...Why ? he is a puppet . . .

ODS - it's a terrible thing.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Quote

You can justify the deaths of all those innocents anyway you please ... don't expect me to join the parade - I thought it the war was wrong then and still do today.

My post had absolutely zero to do with whether I believed any deaths of "innocents" is or is not "justified". I only commented on some people's obsession with laying any "blame" solely with GWB, seemingly either to clear to their own consciences or for political reasons.

See, I don't solely blame Bush - but he was in the driving seat and so is ultimately responsible for all decisions made during his 'watch' and I have nothing to clear my conscience of, since I have done nothing wrong and have pretty much zero influence over our political 'leaders'.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[muff528 3]

Quote

Let the purges and mass executions begin resume. Springtime has finally arrived in Iraq.

The descent and reversion to barbarism accelerates.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/iraq-hit-by-boycott-as-us-troops-pull-out-20111218-1p0s8.html

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You can justify the deaths of all those innocents anyway you please ... don't expect me to join the parade - I thought it the war was wrong then and still do today.

How do you justify all the deaths in Libya?

I don't - why would you think that I would ... BTW that was America lead too

I didn't say you did. I asked how you justified it. So you think leaving Ghaddafi in power would have been in the best interests for the Libyans? That when a repressed people seek to overthrow a brutal dictator the rest of the world should stand by and simply say "good luck with that"?

Pretty much.

It never ceases to amaze me that people seem to think we are some kind of American Superman, bringing Truth, Justice and the American Way to the oppressed peoples of the world.

Damn, Winsor! Preach it!
Too bad so few of us the bozos are listening.


"Look, you pinkos. We're gonna help you even if takes mangling you and your entire country to do it."

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You can justify the deaths of all those innocents anyway you please ... don't expect me to join the parade - I thought it the war was wrong then and still do today.

My post had absolutely zero to do with whether I believed any deaths of "innocents" is or is not "justified". I only commented on some people's obsession with laying any "blame" solely with GWB, seemingly either to clear to their own consciences or for political reasons.

See, I don't solely blame Bush - but he was in the driving seat and so is ultimately responsible for all decisions made during his 'watch' and I have nothing to clear my conscience of, since I have done nothing wrong and have pretty much zero influence over our political 'leaders'.

I'm not referring to you or any other person who is not in a position of influence outside of voting. I mean those in positions of power who helped set the stage for deposing Hussein. Most of their bloviating and huffing and puffing during the decade leading up to the invasion of Iraq was seemingly only meant for political posturing and establishing their "positions" as being "tough" on despots on the international stage. Turned out to be pure bullshit. I don't buy all the "Bush made me do it" excuses either.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You can justify the deaths of all those innocents anyway you please ... don't expect me to join the parade - I thought it the war was wrong then and still do today.

My post had absolutely zero to do with whether I believed any deaths of "innocents" is or is not "justified". I only commented on some people's obsession with laying any "blame" solely with GWB, seemingly either to clear to their own consciences or for political reasons.

See, I don't solely blame Bush - but he was in the driving seat and so is ultimately responsible for all decisions made during his 'watch' and I have nothing to clear my conscience of, since I have done nothing wrong and have pretty much zero influence over our political 'leaders'.

I'm not referring to you or any other person who is not in a position of influence outside of voting. I mean those in positions of power who helped set the stage for deposing Hussein. Most of their bloviating and huffing and puffing during the decade leading up to the invasion of Iraq was seemingly only meant for political posturing and establishing their "positions" as being "tough" on despots on the international stage. Turned out to be pure bullshit. I don't buy all the "Bush made me do it" excuses either.

Fair dos

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[matthewcline 0]

A heavy just flew by on final with the first of the 101st ABN's last group out. Tomorrow rest are due to arrive, Home.

Matt

PS Any one here read General George Sada's book "Sadams Secrets"? I am still looking for it myself. The Man who did the forward for the book said it would "quiet" a few who say the WMD's never existed.

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[jclalor 12]

Quote

That when a repressed people seek to overthrow a brutal dictator the rest of the world should stand by and simply say "good luck with that"?

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

So you think we should continue to provide our "Services" such as we did in Libya free? Seriously?? You don't think we should even try and be paid back for the money we spend?

We should provide such "services" only when it is in our national interest to do so, and then defending our national interest is the only paypack we should expect. In particular, it is a spectacularly bad idea to go around the world invading countries to "rescue" them from some bad guy we decide we don't like, then demand that the "rescuees" pay reparations. That stinks of gangster-style shakedowns. Also we have an extraordinarily atrocious track record of replacing leaders/governments we don't like with "our" depots who go on to be even more ruthless, which does our interests no good in the long run. Iran is a prime example of that.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)