Author Topic: IS Bush right? (Read 1392 times)

mosgood · « **Reply #30 on:** December 10, 2006, 05:25:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Bush war right for going into Iraq reguardless of reason

Regardless of reason it was RIGHT to invade a sovereign nation.

Why?

john9001 · « **Reply #31 on:** December 10, 2006, 05:37:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mosgood
Regardless of reason it was RIGHT to invade a sovereign nation.

Why?

saddam did not comply with the UN resolutions he signed at the cease fire of gulf war one. He was hitler without hilters industrial might.

And if you say "why don't you go after all the other hitlers in the world?", i say one hitler at a time.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #32 on:** December 10, 2006, 06:09:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mosgood
Regardless of reason it was RIGHT to invade a sovereign nation.

Why?

guess you dont read many of my posts as I have posted my reasons many times already.
Your ideals are great. and if thats the way the world worked. It would surely be a fine and honorable place to live.
Unfortunately. Those ideals do not accurately reflect the way the world is in a realistic sense

The problem with the Nay sayers is two fold.
Largely they only follow party rhetoric
And their scope of vision is small and fail to think in the broader sense or long term

in a nutshell and without going into every single detail

Repeated violations of the cease fire agreements.
Repeated firing on our aircraft enforcing the no fly zone as per the Cease fire agreement
Assasination attempt on a former President of the US
Bombing of Barracks in Saudi Arabia.
The previous 3 IMO all acts of war against the US and all directly tracable to Saddam himself

Oil for food scandal and secret deal attempts with Russia,Germany and France.
If we didnt act in our interests. They were sure to act in theirs.

You dont really delude yourself into thinking these countries were against it because of some great love for Saddam or Iraqs sovereignty do you?

Securing our national interests (read OIL)
Like it or not this country MUST always act to protect our national interests.
And if that means invading a sovereign nation. Well then thats what we have to do.
Just as every nation does
this is how the world is how the world always has been and how the world always will be.

Like it or not Oil and the the supply thereof isnt just in our national interests it IS our national interest and will be for the forseeable future.

It was a deteriorating situation we were going to have to deal with sooner or later. All you have to do is look at Iran and North Korea to see how well santions and containment policies dont work in the long term.

Santions were without question falling apart.
It was only a matter of time before they fell apart completely and we would be back to square one leaving Saddam to follow in the footsteps of North Korea and Iran.

Anyone up for invading either of those two headaches these days?
No. Much better to bite the bullet (no pun intended) and fix the small leak in the roof now rather then wait for the entire thing to collapse
And better to attack an enemy when he is at his weakest then wait for him to regain strength and have to deal with him in less favorable conditions.

BTW
Germany was a sovereign nation too

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #33 on:** December 10, 2006, 06:20:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mosgood
Regardless of reason it was RIGHT to invade a sovereign nation.
Why?

NATO attacked Yugoslavia and sent in troops during the Kosovo war... nobody had a problem with that, so apparently there are circumstances where invading a sovereign nation is right.

mosgood · « **Reply #34 on:** December 10, 2006, 10:13:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Bush war right for going into Iraq reguardless of reason

I asked why because I read this as it saying... no matter the reason it's ok to invading Iraq. In other words.. the reason didn't matter. It was just worded funny

Regarding your impression of my ideals.. I haven't expressed my opinion about this. I've asked a bunch of questions though.

For me, if we used all the excuses saddam gave us to invade Iraq because we need to secure the oil.. I think that THAT is a ligitimate reason. Your right... the oil is a national interest. The admin has dont a crappy job securing the country though and them thinking.. "They will welcome us as liberators" was banking a whole bunch on wishful thinking.

I think that since we DID spend a whole of tax dollars so far... we better have at least secured the oil for a long time.

I also wonder how nervous IRAN has to feel with the U.S. army at their doorsteps.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #35 on:** December 10, 2006, 10:32:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mosgood
I asked why because I read this as it saying... no matter the reason it's ok to invading Iraq. In other words.. the reason didn't matter. It was just worded funny

.

My bad then I misinterpreted what you were saying

Problem is. if he had said "We are going in there to secure oil for our national interests" everyone would still b screaming "no blood for oil"

Which is a line that always cracked me up.
Cause everyone would feel that way right up to the point where there is a gas shortage and lines stretch for miles at every gas station and people are shooting each other over it

Like it or not. Oil and Plastic is what makes the world go round

Vudak · « **Reply #36 on:** December 10, 2006, 10:39:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dago

Ignoring the warning signs of the imminent attack on Pearl Harbor?

Turning a blind eye to Hitlers advance accross Europe?

You ever read a few of the campaign speeches of Republicans running against Roosevelt?

"Turning a blind eye..." Yeah, ok. Atlantic Charter, Lend Lease, fireside chats about garden hoses and the whole nine. It was hardly Roosevelt's fault the American people rarely ever have the stomach to do something good until they absolutely have to.

Good thing he ignored the warning signs about Pearl Harbor... The world would be a scary place if he didn't.

john9001 · « **Reply #37 on:** December 10, 2006, 10:39:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mosgood

"They will welcome us as liberators" was banking a whole bunch on wishful thinking.

they did welcome the US troops as liberators, CNN didn't show that part.

Debonair · « **Reply #38 on:** December 11, 2006, 12:01:54 AM »

maybe they mean welcomed the way B-24s were at ploesti:O

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #39 on:** December 11, 2006, 12:27:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vudak
You ever read a few of the campaign speeches of Republicans running against Roosevelt?

"Turning a blind eye..." Yeah, ok. Atlantic Charter, Lend Lease, fireside chats about garden hoses and the whole nine. It was hardly Roosevelt's fault the American people rarely ever have the stomach to do something good until they absolutely have to.

Good thing he ignored the warning signs about Pearl Harbor... The world would be a scary place if he didn't.

and dont forget.

WWI was called "Wilsons war'
And WWII was called Roosevelts war" by the opposition.

Funny how history keeps repeating itself.

course if Clinton had invaded this would have been called "Clintons war" by the opposing party

PuckIt · « **Reply #40 on:** December 11, 2006, 08:20:47 AM »

lazs2 · « **Reply #41 on:** December 11, 2006, 08:29:57 AM »

yep... expecting humans to want to have freedom is a natural thing for most Americans.

You throw off a dictator and you expect the peoples to act like WWII era conquered and then liberated your-0-peeans. grateful (for a time at least)

How could they not? Ooooops.. they have a stone age religion that loves to go 10th century at every opportunity. They are still a band of desert tribes that all hate each other with centuries old blood fueds...

Too bad they get ahold of money and 21st century weapons once in a while.

lazs

T0J0 · « **Reply #42 on:** December 11, 2006, 12:49:36 PM »

With a couple more weeks to go before innaugeration time the new dem majority already has a plan for handling the Iraq issue called Operation Somalia.

We dropped the ball getting our troops that extra body armor, those gentlemen will need all the extra armor to protect thier backs over the next couple of years with the new majority in control...

I noticed today that the leaders of Hamas have admited to meeting with Democratic leaders in europe over the past few months which came as no surprise.. Liberals meeting with a known terrorist sponsor kinda like JFK meeting in secret with the Soviet premier back in the late 50's.....
The years go by but the treasonous behavior continues....

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #43 on:** December 11, 2006, 01:33:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
yep... expecting humans to want to have freedom is a natural thing for most Americans.

You throw off a dictator and you expect the peoples to act like WWII era conquered and then liberated your-0-peeans. grateful (for a time at least)

How could they not? Ooooops.. they have a stone age religion that loves to go 10th century at every opportunity. They are still a band of desert tribes that all hate each other with centuries old blood fueds...

Too bad they get ahold of money and 21st century weapons once in a while.

lazs

another difference is during WWI the war wasnt just taken to the armies but to the people themselves. Either intentionally or unintentionally

In both German and Japan we made war so terrible for so long that by wars end. the last thing they wanted to do was fight

Now instead of taking the war to the enemy we worry entirely too much about collateral damage.

I say, your having problems with an area. You do like Patton did in WWII. With planes and bombers circling overhead. Issue an ultimatum to the town occupants. Surrender now or we flatten the town with you in it.

If they dont surrender. Flatten the town.

We try to be too nice. To be too civilized.

War is neithernice nor civil
War is brutal. The ultimate form of butality
And that is exactly the way it should be persecuted

Nemeth · « **Reply #44 on:** December 11, 2006, 06:01:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
they did welcome the US troops as liberators, CNN didn't show that part.

BBC, CNN or any other major or even minor network showed this, because it never happened, unless u got the footage to prove me wrong...