storm1977 0 #51 December 23, 2004 QuoteJust a thought..... but you may want to blame the people who put him (and supported him!!) in power in the first place........ you may not need too many guesses to work out who the THEY were. Yo Ho Ho..... Tony What.... The US did not PUT him in power!!! He murdered his way into power!!! And, once he took power He murdered almost all of the Iraqi cabinet to make a point to the other members. The US (as well as many countries) partially supported him mainly due to his hatered of Iran. We had no choice but to "USE" SH for help. Maybe you forget, but we needed Uncle Joe in WWII as well. Before of course we didn't need him anymore. That is the way that world Politics work!!! Always have always will. Why is Bush being friendly to Kofi Annan right now? After his butchery of the Oil-for-food program and his son's involvement? ... Why? Because the US needs the UN's help for the Iraqi elections... Trust me Bush hates Annan, probably as much as Regan hated SH, but we need eachother's help for a larger problem right now. And back then Regan needed SH help for a larger problem "IRAN". Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #52 December 23, 2004 Bush and all the people who were behind HIS war.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #53 December 23, 2004 QuoteWhat.... The US did not PUT him in power!! Dont be so defensive . I did not turn this into a US bashing thing... no where in my post did I say that the US were the cause..... I sort of suggested that you dont have to look too far [ try GOOGLE] ..... so look, do some research and find out for your self. That way you're in control. Tony (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #54 December 23, 2004 By your logic, Ron, we should be attacking Israel to stop their occupation of Jerusalem. After all, Israel has violated more UN resolutions than Iraq. Why the double standard Ron? Why are you in favor of war in Iraq, but not war in Israel? (I am not promoting war in Israel, only pointing out hypocrisy)Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #55 December 23, 2004 Quotehis network ROFLMFAOMath tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydivingwill 0 #57 December 23, 2004 To all that think this war is a mistake because of missing WMD, lack of terror ties and/or US is evil. What do you suggest? Sounds to me your logical answer would be: Withdraw all US troops and let SH out of prison. After all most of you doves are saying we should not have gone in. If not what do you suggest? Is this war that bad? Looks like we're doing great compared to other wars. 1000 killed in 2 years was 2 month in other conflicts. Far less then those killed in 9/11 and they were not expecting to fight for their lives. I love this country. I love the brave men & women that have fought and still fight to spread freedom across this planet. Seems to me we should be doing more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #58 December 23, 2004 QuoteBy your logic, Ron, we should be attacking Israel to stop their occupation of Jerusalem. OK as soon as the UN and the US Congress votes to use force, lets roll. See the UN and Congress both voted to use force...Last I checked neither has voted to go get Israel. QuoteWhy the double standard Ron? No double standard, two seperate situations. QuoteWhy are you in favor of war in Iraq, but not war in Israel? Easy the UN and Congress voted for it. I am not FOR any war, but if we say do this or else....We had better do the or else. 12 years was to long to sit and do nothing. But I understand you will not understand that."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #59 December 23, 2004 Quotethe UN and Congress both voted to use force No, they didn't. You keep saying that, and you're still wrong every time you do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #60 December 23, 2004 Quote12 years was to long to sit and do nothing. Sure is. If we were really concerned about the human rights, we would have supported the Siite uprising in Iraq that immediately followed Desert Storm. The Iraqis were ready to raise arms agains SH, but Bush failed to keep his promise of support. Why, 12 years later, why not then?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #61 December 23, 2004 QuoteNo, they didn't. You keep saying that, and you're still wrong every time you do. Really they both vote to use force. The UN had it in the last resolution (that SH ignored) and Congres while the vote was to give the Prez power still gave the go ahead... You can candy coat it as much as you like, but Congresses vote opened the use of force....They gave the go ahead."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #62 December 23, 2004 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 years was to long to sit and do nothing. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sure is. If we were really concerned about the human rights I ddin't say anything about human rights. I said he violated the resolutions...stick to the topic."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,145 #63 December 23, 2004 QuoteNow you understand how much we enjoyed Clinton Yeah, the economy prospered and there was no war in which over 1,000 Americans were killed with no end in sight.....That does get a little boring. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #64 December 23, 2004 You're still wrong. UN voted for serious consequences. Every nation voting for serous consequences has stated they didn't intend that to mean force. Congress voted to authorize the president to use force if diplomacy failed. He failed to use diplomacy, there's a difference. Candy coat it any way YOU want, but you can't post a single quote from any vote that says anyone voted to "use force". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #65 December 23, 2004 QuoteYou're still wrong. UN voted for serious consequences. Every nation voting for serous consequences has stated they didn't intend that to mean force. What do you think they meant? Maybe they meant if he didn't comply, they would pass another resolution demanding compliance. That would have been 18 instead of 17. Maybe they meant they would pay him $10. less per barrel of oil? How serious do you think SH took the U.N. considering how much they were profiting on the oil for food program? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #66 December 23, 2004 QuoteWhat do you think they meant? I don't know...why don't we ask them...oh, we did. They said it didn't mean war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #67 December 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhat do you think they meant? I don't know...why don't we ask them...oh, we did. They said it didn't mean war. So they didn't know what they meant? How do you know? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3ringheathen 0 #68 December 23, 2004 Within the constraints of the poll, I voted for Bush and us for electing him. I wanted to vote for SH first and foremost, but that option in the poll included responsibility for 911. I can't perpetuate that myth. Having said that, I'm very glad SH is out of power, but I think Bush's arrogance and lack of diplomatic skills put us in much more of a quagmire than was necessary. If say, Tony Blair were the president, I think he could have mustered a lot more international support and cooperation, and the situation might very well be more stable now. -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #69 December 23, 2004 QuoteIf say, Tony Blair were the president, That's a very interesting perspective and shows the power of selective press coverage (and spin) across the world.. cuz a lot of people over here think that he's a smarmy, slimmey tw@ and has, if anything helped to make the world more dangerous than it was before. Jingle Bells.... Tony (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3ringheathen 0 #70 December 23, 2004 Quote That's a very interesting perspective and shows the power of selective press coverage (and spin) across the world.. cuz a lot of people over here think that he's a smarmy, slimmey tw@ and has, if anything helped to make the world more dangerous than it was before. I admit I don't know a whole lot about him, my opinion is based mostly on watching a couple of speaches he's made. I couldn't help but think, if only Bush could speak like this, the world would rally to our side on this. He was vastly more articulate than Bush, and markedly less arrogant. Both useful traits for securing international respect and cooperation. Do you think the UK opinion you describe is a direct result of Blair's support of Bush? That would be my first guess. -Josh If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me* *Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #71 December 23, 2004 QuoteDo you think the UK opinion you describe is a direct result of Blair's support of Bush? Not entirely, there are probably a number of local issues that help to define our perception of him, but it has to be said that, in connection with Mr Bush, TB is seen as a bit of a poodle and appears to suck up to your president far too much. For me, this toaddying does not sit well, he is after all s'posed to be the leader of the party that has traditionally been on the left wing but now appears to many, as further Right that Kingus Kahn!(sp) But I'd be very interested to hear more about the foriegn, especially American perspective. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyontheground 0 #72 December 24, 2004 ARE YOU SERIOUS!?!? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #73 December 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhat.... The US did not PUT him in power!! Dont be so defensive . I did not turn this into a US bashing thing... no where in my post did I say that the US were the cause..... I sort of suggested that you dont have to look too far [ try GOOGLE] ..... so look, do some research and find out for your self. That way you're in control. Tony No, you didn't suggest that, and if you meant to instead of implying the USA, I would suggest being a bit more articulate. These are words being typed not spoken and it is not always easy to assume what the other person is saying. Now as to your response.... Great! I don't believe you, but great!! ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #74 December 24, 2004 QuoteYeah, the economy prospered and there was no war in which over 1,000 Americans were killed with no end in sight..... Well the economy was headed south in the last year of Clinton...So I guess that was Bush's fault? Yes, there was no war, he instead ignored the problem and made someone else clean up a mess he should have done something about."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #75 December 24, 2004 QuoteUN voted for serious consequences What ignore him for another 12 years? Get real. QuoteEvery nation voting for serous consequences has stated they didn't intend that to mean force. Then they are clearly to stupid to realized what serious consequences were. I mean what are serious consequences? "Stop, or I'll yell stop again"? QuoteCandy coat it any way YOU want, but you can't post a single quote from any vote that says anyone voted to "use force". Hell, I don't need to, you just said it. QuoteCongress voted to authorize the president to use force if diplomacy failed."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
