Reply With Quote
Better late than never.
Besides, all you whiners wouldn't let Stormin' Norman do it in 91.
disintegrating military? stfu... the u.s. has been the world's moral authority since the early 1900's... world leaders have never trusted the u.s. administration(dem or rep)...
Better late than never.
Besides, all you whiners wouldn't let Stormin' Norman do it in 91.
I was all for it back then, though I understand the reasoning against it--much of it is playing out now. Much more difficult sell this time around.
Why? If he need to go then, why not now? Did he redeem himself somehow?
Precisely because we didn't do it then. It's certain there wouldn't have been as much internal and external resistance to removing him after Gulf War I. We had the chance then and blew it. Notice I said it was a tougher sell.why not now?
But, it's done. He's gone. Why are you still opposed?
Are you kidding me? You might want to read what Bush and Powell have to say about that decision.
I'm opposed to being lied to.Why are you still opposed?
Well then, just because you believe you were lied to, let's allow a murderous dictator continue to reign and terrorize an entire region of the globe.
Because, it's all about you, isn't it?
Rumor has it this administration's credibility is toast.
I was. You can't be that naiive.Well then, just because you believe you were lied toWe already did. Gave him all kinds of support while he did it too. Hooray for us, we're always right.let's allow a murderous dictator continue to reign and terrorize an entire region of the globe.No it's all about all those folks who have died on both sides. I know you don't give a about them, so wave your flag and support whatever your party tells you to.Because, it's all about you, isn't it?
BTW dumbass aka "reserected one" the conflicts in Sudan and Rawanda that chump pointed are the two most horrendous genocides since the holocaust. In Sudan 98.7 percent of black african girls are raped before they are.....12.
, Chump and NBAdan OW3NED YOU
Okay, 1) There is no U.S. interest in those countries...and 2) do you think we could stop the genocide?
Probably by UN workers too...
Oh well...I'm crushed.
I thought The Almighty Bush and his conservative agenda placed human life on the top of their priorities....does that only count when it benefits their wallets?
He's just saying it's about oil.
Why not say that in the first place and leave out all this "Saddam did bad things to his people so we must stop him" crap?
As you said, better late than never.
yeah i think we could stop the genocides, stop giving the sudanese government the f-16 they use to bomb their people, now there is a place to start, and second go in and stop the Janjaweed from entering the concentratgion camps they put the Darfurians in.
Why? They already did a survey. The "Duefler Report" detailed pretty much everything.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/
Read the link you gave. A lot of this stuff is "dual use", meaning that the same equipment than can be used to may say, fertilizer or beer or whathaveyou can be retooled and used to make chemical or biological weapons.
Lets get a few things straight:
Saddam didn't really have much of any program to develop weapons. Read the link I gave to the report that Duefler did. It is the most comprehensive look into what Saddam had, what he didn't have, and what he wanted.
It basically said:
1) We couldn't find a stockpile or any evidence of one, but can't conclusively rule out the existance of such a stockpile.
2) Saddam had every intention of restarting WMD programs as soon as the sanctions were lifted, but was genuinely afraid to have WMD's or start the programs for fear of reprisals.
3)The sanctions grip were loosening over time.
This says that the sanctions were indeed working. I would go further to say that instead of a costly and prolonged invasion/occupation, we could have simply re-emphasized the sanctions regime and accomplished the same goal of keeping WMD's out of his hands without 1200+ and climbing US servicemember deaths, 10,000 wounded and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths. I was advocating this before the invasion, and the data suggest that I was right. Small comfort.
and imagine how rich kofi's son would have been if the u.s. hadn't ruined it for him. 12+ years of violating the un laws and attacking u.s. and british planes was too long.
A bit right, a bit wrong.
Yes, as I stated in my previous posts, he would have continued his WMD programs.
No, he would not have given them to terrorists.
Yes, he probably was flummoxed. Not sure how relevant this is. We are talking stategy, not tactics.
It wasn't "whiners", it was a decision by George Sr. not to go in because he didn't really believe he had the justification to do so. He has since changed his mind about that decision, but "whiners" had nothing to do with it.
Simply put the invasion wasn't justifiable.
Would Iraq have been better off with Saddam? The jury is still out on that one. If Iraq slides into a civil war, then yes.
Do I think Saddam is a great guy? No. Give him a trial, and I will shed no tears for his lifeless swinging corpse.
The fact that the war wasn't justifiable doesn't bother me as much as the sheer incompetance displayed by the administratio in running the occupation afterwards that bugs me. Bush should be impeached for every single one of those flag draped coffins, as his administrations lack of foresight and realistic planning are directly responible for them.
We prop up a lot of murderous dictators, and put up with a lot more, what would have been any different about letting Saddam stay.
Two words, Nukular (freaking) Weapons. These bas s can have all the WMD's they want and at the end of the day we can still leave their countries a sea of black, radioactive glass and not break a sweat. MAD kept us from WW3 and it keeps idiots from thinking they go the nut to take us on now. Brutal dictators aren't stupid. They got to power by being the evilist SOBs in their neighborhood, but know that they could be easily snuffed out if the US ever felt the justifaction to do so.
This is what would have kept Iraqi WMD out of hte hands of Al Qaeda (among ohter things).
having kofi's son getting rich instead of over 1000 of our troops losing their lives is a trade-off i would gladly makeand imagine how rich kofi's son would have been if the u.s. hadn't ruined it for him
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
