Why I'm voting for Bush

[Scrimshaw]

And the people who were actually IN Iraq, looking for these weapons, being fed this information and acting on it were finding NOTHING!!!!  Not a damn thing!!!!

 

Haha!! Gee, maybe that's because the inspectors were giving the Iraqi's 24 hours notice before they ever showed up on an inspection site!! And how about the fact that there were several locations that Iraqi's NEVER allowed inspections. The inspections were a joke that had 12 years of failure.

 

 

Does this suggest this so-called 'intelligence' was right or wrong?  To me, it suggests, even back then, that the 'intelligence' was wrong.

 

Not necessarily. It simply proved that the inspections were never going to work and inspectors were going to continue to get stonewalled, as they had been for the previous 12 years. In case you forget.....please write this down and write it on a chalkboard many times - Hans Blix NEVER confirmed that Iraq had come into compliance with the UN resolutions. That means, Saddam never proved he disarmed. So why in the hell are you implying Iraq disarmed when "the actual people on the ground" DID NOT say this?? Furthermore, you can't destroy all of the WMDs without evidence of it. In fact, documenting the destruction of the weapons would have been something they would have desparately wanted to do, to prove their compliance to the UN. No such documentation was ever presented.

 

Unless half the world was threatening to *censored* him unless he did.  Guess what?  Half the world was threatening to *censored* him unless he did.

 

Saddam had over 12 years of weapons violations, sactions, and over 17 broken UN resolutions. Blix never even ONCE confirmed that Saddam had come into compliance with any of the resolutions. Sorry dude, but that evidence proves that Saddam didn't give monkey's ass about the UN or what the world thinks.

 

Plenty if the alternative was losing their power and quite possibly being killed.  That was the situation Saddam was in.

 

HAHA!! No, you are expressing the thoughts of a logical mind. Here is how Saddam's wacked out mind would have seen his situation - "These evil white infidels are not going to alter my plans to make Iraq the first Arab superpower with nuclear capability, so we can have the power to challenge the evil Christian demons (the US) and take back our holy land from the infidel Jews!!" These people are religious psychos, hellbent on carrying out Jihad, not modern rationalists concerned about how they appear to the world.

 

Prove otherwise, then contact some of the former members of UNSCOM and UNIMOVIC for your property deal.  They thought he did, they were just unable to ascertain exactly how much he destroyed.

 

All the proof we need is our own records of what WE (the US) sold to him!! We knew he had them, because we gave them to him! Every intelligence agency in the world was aware that Saddam had WMDs. The UN knew this as well, that is why they never lifted the weapon sactions on Iraq, or declared that Iraq had come into compliance with the resolutions. You cannot destroy that many weapons and chemical agents - and HAVE NO RECORD OF IT! Think about it dude!! If you intend to destroy your weapons so you could come into compliance, documenting the destruction of the weapons would be priority NUMBER ONE!!. Without empirical proof of the destruction of the weapons, there is no way one can prove they disarmed! The burden of proof has always been on IRAQ to produce the evidence of the weapon's destruction. Ie, Time, place, method, who destroyed them, where they were destroyed, where were their parts disposed, etc. No such documentation was ever offered to the world community, even though it would have STRONGLY been in Saddam's interest to provide it. The fact it was not provided is proof that no such documentation exists. No such documentation exists because no weapons were destroyed.

 

So where are the WMDs? No one knows....perhaps they were buried somewhere we'll never find them. But chances are, they were secretly smuggled to another Arab country.....either Iran, Syria, or perhaps Jordan.

 

Well, if that is correct (as I point out above, it's not, but let's say, for arguments sake, it is), then the US government (specifically the Under Secretary of Defense) lied to the Senate about the objectives of the Iraq War.

 

LOL! Dude, have you been living in a cave? It has been well-known for years that the US and other Allied forces have wanted Saddam out of power. It has been their "objective" ever since the first Gulf war. Clinton had ordered designated bombings of select Iraqi sites throughout his entire adminstration, and made public speeches stating that Saddam was dangerous, had WMDs, and posed a potential threat to the civilized world. These charges are not unique to "Bush's administration", as so many ignorant ideologues like to claim.

 

Whats quite sad is all you want to talk about is the WMDs. You don't want to talk about all the mass-graves that were found, and how Saddam was responsible for murdering hundreds of thousands of his own people. You don't want to talk about the torture chambers, and the rapes rooms, and the beatings, etc. It seems that if world affairs were left to you, Saddam and his henchmen would be still in power, playing an endless game of cat and mouse with the weapons inspectors, still raping, still beating, still filling the mass graves.

 

I also notice that you are seemingly contradicting yourself.  One minute, you're saying it's not Bush's fault because he received faulty intelligence reports which indicated that Iraq had WMD, the next, you are seeming to say that Saddam wouldn't disarm, and therefore he did have WMD.  Which is it?  Are the intelligence reports wrong, in which case Saddam didn't have WMD, or did Saddam still have WMD, in which case they are right?  Obviously, it can't be both.

 

No contradiction. No one ever said the intelligence reports were completely wrong, which is what you are suggesting I was suggesting (which I was not). They were partially wrong. In other words, there were some technical details (some statistical information about weapons, locations, etc) that were in error. They thought Saddam had put weapons in certain places he had not. They also had some false information about Iraq's ability to deploy them. Another possible explanation is they found that the weapons may have been moved at some point between the time the reports were put together, and when the ground forces inspected those locations after the war. We announced the invasion way ahead of time, so Saddam had AMPLE time to smuggle the weapons out of the country, or bury them in places we may never find.

[Malchik]

Surian, whilst I may have spoiled the fun, you are right, this is a different topic. Your post seems well researched but the one I deleted and the one I edited would have been offensive to some and are not allowed on the forum. I would prefer the Israel-Palastine question not to be debated any further in this thread. If people wish to respond will they please PM a moderator and ask them to split out the topic.

 

Can those posting in this thread continue beating the Bush. (I mean around the Bush of course!)

[Darnoc]

Hm, this reminds me of an advertisement of the SPS (Socialist Party of Switzerland) ^_^

 

 

On this advertisment you saw eight bottles of Evian-mineral-water, every bottle had a flag of a different nation, to be precise, the G8-nations. Above it stood:

 

"Acht Flaschen können noch keinen Bus©hbrand löschen"

 

The advertisment was during the G8-meeting in Evian...

 

 

 

Now for those who don't understand German, translated it means:

 

"Eight bottles can't kill a Bush-fire". To understand this, you'll have to know that this is a wordgame in German.

 

A bottle is also a swear word in German (synonym for a "dumb turkey"), a "Busch" is a shrub, and of course "Busch" and "Bush" sound the same.

[tyjet3]

Scrimshaw, you have put in to words what I couldn't. Thank you. People always seem to think that the world is not dangerous and that Bush started this whole mess when he didn't. People are to nieve.

[Darnoc]

Scrimshaw, you have put in to words what I couldn't. Thank you. People always seem to think that the world is not dangerous and that Bush started this whole mess when he didn't. People are to nieve.

 

This is clear to anyone who uses his brain. But admit it, Bush didn't really do anything in order to make things better, he increased the mess which is our world.

 

Our world was a whole mess before Bush and will be after he is long forgotten. It doesn't matter who started the mess, but only who increases it and who tries to something about it. Bush clearly is a person who makes our world worse than it already is. The world doesn't need people like Bush, the world needs people like Gandhi or Mother Theresa.

 

The middle east was bad before Bush, it will be bad after he departs. But he didn't do anything to make things better, he made things worse. He tries to meddle in things which don't concern him. People who do this mostly burn their hands. Or at least he should have first studied the problems of this region and then he could go and do something about it. But of course, he doesn't have the time. It takes years of study and not even then you fully grasp the problems of this region. You have to be born there and live there.

 

To say it with the words of the Arabs:

 

A scorpion asked a frog to take him over the river. The frog asked "Will you not sting me?" But the scorpion replied: "This would be stupied, for then I would drown myself." So the frog agreed to carry the scorpion. In the middle of the river, the scorpion stinged the frog. With his last breath the frog asked: "Why did you do that, now you will drown yourself?" The scorpion answered: "Don't be surprised, this is the middle east."

 

Bush is naive when he thinks he can part the world into good and bad. The world is not black and white, the world is shades of grey. And I would certainly not think that the USA is on the side more to white. For this the USA has spilled too much blood and in most cases unjustified. The invasion in Iraq has only increased hatred for the USA and the subject of the USA's support for Israel of course also.

[Hir_Nesta]

Scrimshaw:

These people are religious psychos, hellbent on carrying out Jihad, not modern rationalists concerned about how they appear to the world.

 

... :angry:

 

Therefore I suppose the Islam is the evil source behind all (not that you said that but...)

And so I suppose all countries with Islam as the official religion is evil

and has to be destroyed.

...

 

F** the system :)

 

whatever

 

i think such thoughts (from you Scrimshaw) are dangerous.

Not every Iraqi is a psychopatic djihad-proclamig religious fundamental terrorist...

think about that...

[Malchik]

The middle east was bad before Bush, it will be bad after he departs. But he didn't do anything to make things better, he made things worse. He tries to meddle in things which don't concern him. People who do this mostly burn their hands.

Well put.

 

But perhaps, given that he is a born-again Christian, he quite fancied the idea of being a Burning Bush, so that THE LORD might speak out of his mouth?

[tyjet3]

It takes years of study and not even then you fully grasp the problems of this region. You have to be born there and live there.

 

Well you don't live there and you weren't born there so what is your point?

 

 

To say it with the words of the Arabs:

 

A scorpion asked a frog to take him over the river. The frog asked "Will you not sting me?" But the scorpion replied: "This would be stupied, for then I would drown myself." So the frog agreed to carry the scorpion. In the middle of the river, the scorpion stinged the frog. With his last breath the frog asked: "Why did you do that, now you will drown yourself?" The scorpion answered: "Don't be surprised, this is the middle east."

 

Ok, so are you being sarcastic or telling us that the middle east is dangerous?

 

i think such thoughts (from you Scrimshaw) are dangerous.

Not every Iraqi is a psychopatic djihad-proclamig religious fundamental terrorist...

think about that...

 

I don't think you read that right... He said extremist... or at least that's what I thought he meant...

 

And so I suppose all countries with Islam as the official religion is evil

and has to be destroyed.

 

Wow, no one said that should be done... I would never agree with something like that...

 

Bush is naive when he thinks he can part the world into good and bad.

 

Bush's main goal has been to remove terrorist and "bad" people, I haven't heard anything about oil in a long time so don't try and pull that one out. I personally think the world is a safer place now that Saddam is gone. Do you realize what a positive affect the war had on the world? Yes, people died, but Libya surrendered their WMD!! That is awesome! Libya has been a threat for YEARS!! The war my have been started from false information (but I don't think it was fake info created just so they could go to war...) but it helped the world a little bit for future peace. I would like world peace just as much as the next guy, but terrorism will be hard to get rid of and might require war.

 

People need to understand that you can't negociate with a terrorist (as you stated above with the frog and scorpion story). I do agree that all wars on terror should be done through the UN, but the problem with that is too many people have unwriten allies and the UN will argue war forever. I think that is why the US went in without the UN to back them up. War is the only option when fighting terrorist. It sucks, but that's our world...

[Malchik]

Sorry tyjet but it was the British who wooed Libya back and had been spending several years at it. Whether the invasion of Iraq was a hastening feature nobody can be sure, but it certainly wasn't the main reason.

 

How can you say the world is safer now?

 

The US has gone to Orange alert for the first time in decades. Here the government feels it necessary to issue every household with a book on what to do in event of a terrorist attack. This is because there are those who want to punish us for interfering in an independent state!

 

Hundreds of moderate people have been pushed closer to the extreme by it. Make a martyr and thousands flock to the cause. This is well known to anyone with an ounce of reasoning.

 

Even before Bush came to power he expressed his wish to 'get Saddam Hussein', almost certainly - though this is guesswork - because Bush senior had not done it.

 

The CIA gave Saddam his armaments, and when he bit the hand that fed him, it was like a child turning on it's parents. Needless to say 'parental' rection was over the top!

 

Who knows whether a different president would have played it differently. It's too late to worry about that now. But for whatever reason, justified or not, the invasion of Iraq has made the world a far more dangerous place.

 

If you believe otherwise you are adopting the 'ostrich' position.

[Hir_Nesta]

I would like world peace just as much as the next guy, but terrorism will be hard to get rid of and might require war.

Two IMHO disturbing things in this sentence:

 

1. World Peace: that's as possible as a square circle. It's an Illusion. It's never gonna happen. Unless every man would stop thinking, or at least think the same thing as the other one.

Peace can already be destroyed by thoughts. Just think about how many

people out there you "hate" (if you really know the weight of that word).

Think about the people who don't believe in the same thing as you.

Think about the one who stole your lunch.

 

There will never, NEVER be something like World Peace (even if you define: World peace is, when there is no more war in teh world...)

 

2. If there would be "World Peace" you could not achieve it with war.