Bush scarier that Kim Jong-il: UK poll

[mybackpages 0]

In addition, had the United States really wanted the oil (and had no intention of freeing the Iraqi people and seeting up a democratic government), then it could've destroyed Saddam Hussein's regime, and razed Iraq to the ground, leaving only the oil fields standing. How difficult do you think that would've been? Not very, I can tell you. Sure, the international community wouldn't have been happy about it, but what could it have done? Absolutely nothing. The United States could've very easily demolish Iraq and slaughtered it's citizenry in one fell swoop. Such an act would've been far more timely, much cheaper, and cost less American lives.

You underestimate the influence of the international community especialy that of our allies as well as the expectation of the American public to what the US government can get away with. The US may hold the power spot in the world, but it does not operate in a vacuum.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As for starting a justified war in a way consistent with international conventions, treaties and obligations, read up on it in the Charter of the UN to which the US is a signatory. Bush trampled on that document by invading Iraq w/o proper mandate.

survey says......screw the un

Well, if the administration feels that way about it then it should a) have worked towards a US withdrawl from that organization and b ) quit pretending that anything can get accomplished within it's framework. What is the US doing sending an ambassador and sitting on the Security Council if the UN is worth nothing? There's just no consistenty in that regard whatsoever with Bush and the Bushies.

Edited November 6, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Carol&Marc 0]

As for starting a justified war in a way consistent with international conventions, treaties and obligations, read up on it in the Charter of the UN to which the US is a signatory. Bush trampled on that document by invading Iraq w/o proper mandate.

survey says......screw the un

Well, if the administration feels that way about it then it should a) have worked towards a US withdrawl from that organization and b ) quit pretending that anything can get accomplished within it's framework. What is the US doing sending an ambassador and sitting on the Security Council if the UN is worth nothing? There's just no consistenty in that regard whatsoever with Bush and the Bushies.

The U.S. is this very moment showing how impotent the U.N. is with the Iran, N. Korea episode. round and round we go on the merry go round.

[Carol&Marc 0]

I think some people really need a new plan of attack. Getting on Halliburton's case is a ridiculous, if not childish, tactic.

It just so happens that Halliburton is one of the leading oil companies in the entire world. It should also be noted that Halliburton wasn't the only oil company in the region. British Petroleom, Schlumberger, Baker Hughes, Flowserve, Fisher-Rosemount, and the Royal Dutch/Shell Group also had their hands in Iraq. However, because Vice President ####### Cheney was the head of Halliburton, that company gets all of the negative press.

That oil is vital to the well-being of the Iraqi people. I know many here -- and probably around the world -- figure the United States went in to "protect and acquire the oil fields." Well, here's the deal about that: President George W. Bush could've made a business contract with Saddam Hussein for that oil. It would've taken a lot less time, money and manpower than this war. I'm sure it could've been done at least somewhat discreetly as well, with only a relative few actually knowing about it, and therefore, Bush's poll numbers and overall popularity, would be higher. So it really wasn't in Bush's best interests to go into Iraq. He committed the U.S. military to such an action because it was the right thing to do -- at least at the time, considering the intelligence reports we had received and the plight of the average Iraqi under Saddam Hussein's rule.

Backing up a bit, I'd like to respond to Mawilson about "www.iraqbodycount.org" and why I don't think that's a credible source, nor do I view it as objective. Look at the agenda of the website itself. It's painfully obvious that it's a site built around an anti-war and anti-military spin.

Now then, to the questions posed about my original post:

1. Is it okay to ignore the United Nations? Well, once again, it's all about "intent." Saddam Hussein's intent was to continue being dictator, and a volatile murderer. Bush, on the other hand, had the intent of stopping a madman from gaining access to "weapons of mass destruction" and liberating the Iraqi people. It just so happened that WMD's didn't turn up, but his intent was still good. He didn't go in with the intent to "conquer the country and enslave the people." In fact, it was quite the opposite.

2. The death toll for Iraqi civilians is too high, I definitely agree on that. I do not agree, however, that it is the fault of the military or the United States at large. The murders committed are not by U.S. soldiers, but by terrorists and insurgents.

3. Intent is the major difference between Bush and those three maniacs pictured before in this thread. Intent is everything. Let's look at the difference between the U.S. military and terrorist groups. Both end up killing civilians. However, the intent is different. The American military doesn't INTEND to do so, and only on rare occasions and by accident, does this occur. Contrast that with terrorists and insurgents, who by all accounts, INTEND to target civilians as well as military personnel.

If you don't take intent into account, then the U.S. military is as bad as any terrorist group. If you don't take intent into account, then ANY of the WORLD's militaries are as bad as any terrorist group. We all know that isn't true and isn't the case here. Intent means a whole hell of a lot. Intent, outside of the battlefield, is the difference between First and Second Degree Murder and Manslaughter charges in a criminal court of law. So you can't tell me that intent doesn't mean anything.

As for "starting an unjustified, illegal and needless war causing tens of thousands of deaths," let me ask you a question: Just what is a "justified, legal and needed war?" Don't try romanticizing previous conflicts -- think about them historically and militarily. Practically every war we've had could've been avoided with hindsight; justification is debatable, depending who you ask and when, for every war we've had, and legal? Well, the last war that was declared by Congress was World War II -- but even then, it is fully within the legal paremeters of the President of the United States to commit troops to battle without the express permission of Congress.

So what really makes this war any different from previous wars? Not a whole lot. The real difference is that we're not reading about it in history books (or hearing about it from our relatives in the past tense) or seeing it speed by like the 1991 Gulf War, which was more of an excursion than a war. The point is that this war is no worse than any other we've had in U.S. history; it's actually not as bad as many of them.

Their FAR LEFT leanings are incapable of understanding. Their dreams of peace include picnics with Saddam with FRENCH wine,Foot bathing each other to do a little male bonding, and Granola eating contests, and of course touring the countryside in their Suburu wagon! after that busy day of love and peace they will be decapitated. Harsh? yes but the truth.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Their FAR LEFT leanings are incapable of understanding. Their dreams of peace include picnics with Saddam with FRENCH wine,Foot bathing each other to do a little male bonding, and Granola eating contests, and of course touring the countryside in their Suburu wagon! after that busy day of love and peace they will be decapitated. Harsh? yes but the truth.

Got any more flaccid stereotypes in that dumb "Un-American" brain of yours?

[Cristy 4]

Their FAR LEFT leanings are incapable of understanding. Their dreams of peace include picnics with Saddam with FRENCH wine,Foot bathing each other to do a little male bonding, and Granola eating contests, and of course touring the countryside in their Suburu wagon! after that busy day of love and peace they will be decapitated. Harsh? yes but the truth.

I don't want a picnic with him, I will be glad when they hang him. I don't drink wine it gives me a headache. I prefer vodka or mikes. I hate granola and would not drive a Suburu or any wagon. However, I don't like war or war mongers.....no matter which country they rule.

[Carol&Marc 0]

ET2004 said:

1) So, according to your argument, it is okay to ignore the UN and most of the nations in the world to go after someone for ignoring the UN and most of the nations in the world. That's interesting. Thanks for clearing that up.

2) How can you assure me of anything if you don't know? I am not aware of a single source that would put the Iraqi civilian death toll that is attributable to our illegal invasion of that country below several tens of thousands. The only numbers I am aware of are either around 50,000 or around 650,000 depending on what is actually counted. Either source confirms, though, that the death tolls are rising and that they have been on that rising trend ever since Bush gave the orders to march in which he had no right or reason to do.

3) Intent? So, starting an unjustified, illegal and needless war causing tens of thousands of deaths is okay as long as there's a positive intent behind it? Tell that to those Iraqis that lost their husbands, wifes, parents, children and siblings as a result of our attack on their country. You know, the other guys I pictured with our war mongering President follow that same line of BS argument that you put forth for doing all the bad things they're doing.

Marc said:

1. Ignoring the U.N. was the correct thing to do. Saddam had two members of the security council France and Germany in his back pocket. "oil for food program" Saddam thought he would'nt be touched. Bush gave Saddam and his humanitarian sons 48 hours to leave. there are holes all over your U.N. argument.

2. There you go again BLAMING Bush for ALL the DEATHS in Iraq. I beleive most of the civilians have been killed by insurgents from Syria and Iran and the lovely Saddam ( before he was taken out) If you left your door unlocked and someone entered your house and did damage who get's the BLAME? according to your theory "YOU WOULD BE" so so LAME!

3. Answer's to 1 and 2 negate all the comments of #3

Edited November 6, 2006 by Carol&Marc

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Marc - seeing as you feel so strongly about the "far left", perhaps you'll address this now:

But since I have just answered your questions, I'd like to hear your answers to the following:

1a.) What is a liberal? And please don't give me some blanket answer but take the time to provide your own personal explication together with some concrete examples.

1b.) Why are liberals endangering America?

2.) Why was it ok to impeach Clinton over a stained dressed but not ok to even question Bush's decisions in the aftermath of 9/11?

3.) What does the Patriot Act have to do with Patriotism if it defeats the tenets of the founders?

4.) If we assume the War of Independence and the War of 1812 was fought to ensure liberty to Americans, then how can we defend any war that abridges those liberties?

5.) Why do we always need to blame foreigners for everything that is wrong with this country?

6.) Why do we view America as an anti-imperialist nation and a champion of the oppressed around the world? What does the colonial legacy tell us about America's colonialism?

[Heracles 417]

However, I don't like war or war mongers.....no matter which country they rule.

This seems to be a point which many on the left fail to understand. In an ideal world war would be ruled out. I would personally estimate that over 99% of Americans don't like war. 'No' body does but sometimes it is the only choice to save human life. Almost the same as back-burning to prevent large scale forest fires..

Does anyone seriously think we can simply sit down with the animals butchering women and children in Dufar and Congo and 'discuss' with them why it is wrong? seriously now..

Off topic, I stayed up this morning to watch a 'progressive democrat' show, in Beverly Hills, on CSPAN book events and was shocked and disturbed by the madness and the absurd hatred towards republicans and GWB..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Does anyone seriously think we can simply sit down with the animals butchering women and children in Dufar and Congo and 'discuss' with them why it is wrong? seriously now..

Well... we are aren't we?

Iraq had a militarily contained tip-pot dictator who was politically isolated from much of the rest of the middle east because of his wars with Iran and Kuwait, and not least because his government was a bastardised form of communism, in which all of the religious elements were repressed.

Somehow that represented a more worthy humanitarian cause than Darfur

What about Somalia? Which emerged from 14 years of civil war only to be ruled largely by a Taliban style militia.

[Carol&Marc 0]

Their FAR LEFT leanings are incapable of understanding. Their dreams of peace include picnics with Saddam with FRENCH wine,Foot bathing each other to do a little male bonding, and Granola eating contests, and of course touring the countryside in their Suburu wagon! after that busy day of love and peace they will be decapitated. Harsh? yes but the truth.

Got any more flaccid stereotypes in that dumb "Un-American" brain of yours?

Look between your legs! there's your flaccid un-american brain. You really dont want to get into a war of insults with me Fish!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Their FAR LEFT leanings are incapable of understanding. Their dreams of peace include picnics with Saddam with FRENCH wine,Foot bathing each other to do a little male bonding, and Granola eating contests, and of course touring the countryside in their Suburu wagon! after that busy day of love and peace they will be decapitated. Harsh? yes but the truth.

Got any more flaccid stereotypes in that dumb "Un-American" brain of yours?

Look between your legs! there's your flaccid un-american brain. You really dont want to get into a war of insults with me Fish!

"War of insults" eh? I think that's pretty much all you do, isn't it?

BTW thanks for calling me directly something that I alluded to calling you. You're not a punchline kind of guy are you?

Edited November 6, 2006 by erekose

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think some of you are missing the point.

What's trying to be said is that even if the United States was fighting for any one of those other countries where a despot is in-charge (Africa, for instance), there are still entities within and outside the U.S. that would be screaming their heads off, shouting "no war!" and that "there's never a good reason to go to war." I've actually met people who honestly believe that there is not a single solitary reason in the world to go to war. I honestly question the sanity of these individuals. They truly believe we can "all be friends" and live a "happy happy joy joy" life together.

In addition, had the United States really wanted the oil (and had no intention of freeing the Iraqi people and seeting up a democratic government), then it could've destroyed Saddam Hussein's regime, and razed Iraq to the ground, leaving only the oil fields standing. How difficult do you think that would've been? Not very, I can tell you. Sure, the international community wouldn't have been happy about it, but what could it have done? Absolutely nothing. The United States could've very easily demolish Iraq and slaughtered it's citizenry in one fell swoop. Such an act would've been far more timely, much cheaper, and cost less American lives.

But you and I didn't see that happen. Want to know why? Because the United States isn't hell-bent on obliterating other civilizations. Furthermore, the U.S. is not run by a tin-pot dictator, but a moral man who honestly believes he has done -- and is doing -- the right thing for Americans and Iraqis. Whether or not this will be the best thing for both will be up to history to decide.

Something many should remember, however, is that time dulls all wounds, and the further removed we Americans get from our presidents, the revered most of the presidents become. Case in point: President Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was only elected president because the Democratic ticket was split in the north and south; he wasn't even on the ballot in many southern states. When Lincoln was elected, that was the "final straw" for many southerners and most southern states seceded from the United States. Contrary to what many high school (and some college) history textbooks say, Lincoln was not the famous, beloved man we know today, nor was he a gentle, peaceful man. Lincoln was actually despised throughout the north and the south -- many knew little about him, and the Republican party, and what they did know, (such as his policies of "containment of slavery" which annoyed the abolitionists and the slave holders equally) they didn't like at all. Lincoln also suspended Habeas Corpus throughout the United States and had many individuals arrested, for as little as speaking out against him. He even toyed with the idea of arresting the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for pubically disagreeing with him on an issue. The U.S. became little more than a "police state" under Lincoln's short term.

So it's quite puzzling as to how and why a president, who was so hated and did so many terrible things against his own people, is now considered one of the -- if not the single -- most "beloved and best presidents" the United States has ever had. Under this sort of delusionary practice, in a century or more, George W. Bush might be considered a great president as well. We won't know of course, we'll all be dead. However, it's interesting to think that thoughts about a person could change so dramatically over the course of time.

Is there any chance you can try to make your point or focus in on a specific point within a paragraph instead of a page long essay? You know...like in a regular conversation. No offense, but sheesh your responses are way too bloody long.

Edited November 6, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As for starting a justified war in a way consistent with international conventions, treaties and obligations, read up on it in the Charter of the UN to which the US is a signatory. Bush trampled on that document by invading Iraq w/o proper mandate.

survey says......screw the un

Well, if the administration feels that way about it then it should a) have worked towards a US withdrawl from that organization and b ) quit pretending that anything can get accomplished within it's framework. What is the US doing sending an ambassador and sitting on the Security Council if the UN is worth nothing? There's just no consistenty in that regard whatsoever with Bush and the Bushies.

The U.S. is this very moment showing how impotent the U.N. is with the Iran, N. Korea episode. round and round we go on the merry go round.

Again, you're accusing the administration of wasting precious time and endangering the safety of this nation and the world peace by engaging in the futile exercise [as you would have us believe] of working through the UN.

Your argument is so weak it can't stand for a fraction of a second.

[Ban Hammer 13,651]

Their FAR LEFT leanings are incapable of understanding. Their dreams of peace include picnics with Saddam with FRENCH wine,Foot bathing each other to do a little male bonding, and Granola eating contests, and of course touring the countryside in their Suburu wagon! after that busy day of love and peace they will be decapitated. Harsh? yes but the truth.

Got any more flaccid stereotypes in that dumb "Un-American" brain of yours?

Look between your legs! there's your flaccid un-american brain. You really dont want to get into a war of insults with me Fish!