Interesting Gulf War News

[tomahawk]

Believe what you all want. Bush is an evil man and no one sees the kind of problems he is causing or all of the distractions that are being thrown around. Maybe your right and I'm wrong and bush and his oil and weapons buddies are all telling the truth. We are living in Mccarthyism and everyone has been so scared by all of these distractions and lies that we believe everything we hear. Believe in nothing. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning. Beliefs are dangerous. A non-functioning mind is clinicly dead. Believe in nothing.....................................................

 

[BoyRaisin2]

ooh-k...

 

[frogboy4]

I second that oooooookay.

 

[Drtooth]

Originally posted by frogboy4

The one fact that we keep forgetting is Saddam's plot in the 90s to assassinate former President Bush. This is a really bad guy. I think it's funny how some people choose to spend so much effort defending this man.

Well, did I say that Saddam was a victim and the real villain was Bush? NOOOO!!! Personally, Bush thinks that this is going to be like the Wizard of OZ... we defeat Saddam, and everyone is singing and dancing and such. No! They'll be brainwashed imbicilic psychos with guns, Bombs, and Anthrax coming to our door, with chants of, "Big Devil Bush has killed our leader... the same one who rapes our women, and devours smaller countries in the area."

Bush is an arrogant Cowboy,as I have said before. I mean, war and Peace are not both bad solutions, but each one has different side effects. but I'm still chilled to the bone, and this still looks to me as the end of life as we know it.

Of Course, if Bush senior was worth a D**n, we would have killed him years ago (of course, if it wasn't for him and Regan, we wouldn't be in this mess).

All I'm saying is why we have to go on this full scale war because of two pig headed world leaders fighting like little babies. i mean, Saddam does have weopons, but he wants to lie because he'll have to give them up. Bush wants him tyo leave the country because he has these weopons. yet both sides will not cooperate. HELLO!!!!! millions of years of evolution, and we still have to blow each other up?

And yes, the inspections have failed, of course the money we give them for oil does go to building bunkers and secret hiding places for these things (and tthose things as well).

Of course, Saddam is a big @%%-wipe! He lies to his people and says that he is noble and he'll fight the war to the death. if by fight, he means sitting pool side, sipping martinis, and by death, he means a ripe old age in his bunker. And what's worse, he's trying to be Mr. Allah's boy religious. like H**l he is. I mean, with Bin Laden, at least he humbled himself and lived in a cave. He actually believed in something (something sinnester and wrong! Hateful) but Saddams just some guy manipulating his mindless zombie puppet nation with religion.

"While you guys fight the great satan from your Muddy huts, I too will join the fight from my palacial manison with my 95 wives, and 300 misstresses! this is, after all a holy war"

More like a hokey war. Why the F*** do we even have people like this in charge? Does the aspect of being oppressed sound good?

F*** this planet is full of morons!!!!!

 

[frogboy4]

What does Bush being a cowboy have to do with anything? Do you have something against southerners? That comment clearly didn't belong in any constructive argument.

My post wasn't directly pointed at you. Maybe you took it that way, but breathe, man. It was a general statement.

I don't see any arrogance or stupidity in Bush, but you are entitled to your opinion. Just seems like the same type of general partisan rhetoric that was said about Clinton on other issues. I think it's petty and irrelevant. You don't have to call the other party stupid to make a point.

Former President Bush reportedly didn't want any more loss of American life when he felt he already achieved his objective of diffusing the situation in the Gulf War. I guess a lot of people weren't politically involved when he made that statement or somehow missed it. Of course, the situation has gotten worse again and Bush should have gotten rid of Saddam all those years ago. Hindsight is 20/20.

I wish the world were more of an enlightened place where issues could be resolved without war, but that is not the case. We often look at the negative side of war - and there are many terrible things to it. But we have convenient memories. War has won freedoms and dismissed evil leaders. We enjoy our freedom because of protection from our armed services who threaten war to anyone who might attack this country.

 

[MuppetsRule]

Tomahawk

Maybe if your posts weren't so blatantly biased against President Bush they would be taken a little more seriously. As it is you come across as someone who is against anything the President does. One gets the feeling that the President could walk down mainstreet U.S.A. carrying an anti-war sign and you would still complain. I truly believe that you aren't so much anti-war as you are anti-Bush. Many good arguments can be made to not go to war against Iraq and vice versa, but Bush-bashing isn't one of them.

It comes down to one simple question. Has Sadaam Hussein disarmed as set forth in the U.N. resolution? And the answer to that is NO! All this other rhetoric (what is Bush's military record, who will profit from rebuilding Iraq, who won the election, etc.) is getting away from the point. It is thrown out there because even the anti-war people have to admit that he has not.

What has happened to the 80 litres of anthrax that Saddam posesses? No explanation. President Bush sitting down to a debate with Hussein is just proposterious. Not because you think Hussein would make Bush look like a fool, but because Hussein cannot be trusted. If you recall, in that same interview with Dan Rather, Hussein clearly stated that Iraq had no weapons that violated the U.N. resolution. What happens? A very short time later it is discovered that he has missiles that violate the range limit. Then we hear, "but he's destroying them. That's a sign of his willingness to comply". No, he lied in the first place and the only reason he began destroying them is because we found them. It is for this simple reason that giving the U.N. inspectors more time would not work. What else does he possess that he's not revealing?



To CraigD


Perhaps Americans do sometimes get caught up in the debate whether or not the U.S. should go to war against Iraq and do forget about many of our great allies such as Austalia. Sorry.

We really do appreciate your participation and support, not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan. The fact is that despite all it's military and political power the U.S. can not do it by itself. I would suggest that anybody that has plans to vacation in Paris change them and go to Sydney.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

Wow. The original post was ugly, so I deleted it before I posted it.

I just want to say how hipocritical I think it is for folks to live in this country and say Saddam needs more time when he just had 12 years, that they say we shouldn't be attacking Iraq when their leader has OPENLY SUPPORTED Bin Laden who destroyed MUCH of our freedoms, property, and lives, and that they think bashing THEIR PRESIDENT (like it or not he's YOUR President) for doing what is ultimately the right thing to do.

I'm not necessarily Pro-Bush, but I am for his decision on this war (although way too chicken to go there myself, I'm a sissy and I admit it) and the reason I am behind his decision to do it is because the men and women of our, and our allies', military are there because they BELIEVE in what they're doing and I don't want to be sitting here one day playing at MC and a bomb full of anthrax land in my lap!!

Whose side can one possibly be on when they are constantly downing their own president, their own country's perspective on things, and that is the base of their argument; and want to see our foes--the ones who kill and torture and rape and pillage and DESTROY--have more chances than they've already been given.

Do you think Saddam should still be in power? His sons? Go tell that to the woman who is now dead because she didn't want to have sex with Saddam's son. Go tell that to all those Iraqis who my college roomie saw piled up dead (after being gassed by their own leader) in a skating rink or whatever that building was. Just go back in time and live over there for the past 15 years and then when you get to today's time (IF you make it) tell us what you think then.

My opinion will never be swayed to believe that this is wrong, and that Bush is evil for doing what must be done. If you want to sit around your house while Saddam is sitting there maintaining the construction of weapons to use against you, go ahead. You're doing a great job of it anyways. I, on the other hand, don't want to be a sitting duck, and applaud our military and the decision to get those weapons kicked out of there.

What you're forgetting is that the President, without permission of the levels of government (house of congress or the senate) VOTING in agreement to go to war (per my understanding) so go write a letter to your state governor, senator, congressman and tell them.

You're either for it or against it, and it's only opinion when it comes down to it; but, I hope for the sake of our military men and women who believe in what they're doing that when, in the future they come home--the ones who DO come home--you'll be more appreciative by then and will thank them when you DON"T have biological bombs dropping on your house, anthrax laden water supplies, or terrorists slamming planes into our buildings.

 

[Luke]

Originally posted by tomahawk
We are living in Mccarthyism and everyone has been so scared by all of these distractions and lies that we believe everything we hear. Believe in nothing. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning.

Thanks but i know the whole news/tv/politics game pretty well and i'm under no illusions as to disinformation and things like that but President Bush isn't the only person involved in this war. Hans Blix was swedish (or whatever he was) and said Iraq's declaration was not a full one and they were not cooperating enough. I can see live on my TV screen the reporters and soldiers in Kuwait scrambling to put their gas masks on while Scud missiles (that Iraq apparently didn't have) rain in on them. I could probably find some really grusome pics on the net of tortured Iraqi people for you to gaze at if ya want - i don't think it was Bush who ordered that.

Originally posted by frogboy4
Former President Bush reportedly didn't want any more loss of American life when he felt he already achieved his objective of diffusing the situation in the Gulf War. I guess a lot of people weren't politically involved when he made that statement or somehow missed it.

Yeah but it was a cooked up statement for the media though - they would have loved to take Saddam out, in fact they did make an attempt or two. Once the Iraqi's were out of Kuwait he had to stop because if he had tried to openly assasinate Saddam the arab parts of the coalition would have fallen apart because that was the main thing they were tetchy about and he had to give promises to in order to get middle east support for the first war.
Anyway that was what John Major said on Larry King the other night when asked the question, and he was the British leader at the time. I wish as you say, they had done the job properly the first time around.

 

[SgtPepper]

More From Terry Jones

OK, George, make with the friendly bombs

Observer Worldview
The Bush files - Observer special

Terry Jones
Sunday February 17, 2002
The Observer

To prevent terrorism by dropping bombs on Iraq is such an obvious idea that I can't think why no one has thought of it before. It's so simple. If only the UK had done something similar in Northern Ireland, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today.
The moment the IRA blew up the Horseguards' bandstand, the Government should have declared its own War on Terrorism. It should have immediately demanded that the Irish government hand over Gerry Adams. If they refused to do so - or quibbled about needing proof of his guilt - we could have told them that this was no time for prevarication and that they must hand over not only Adams but all IRA terrorists in the Republic. If they tried to stall by claiming that it was hard to tell who were IRA terrorists and who weren't, because they don't go around wearing identity badges, we would have been free to send in the bombers.

It is well known that the best way of picking out terrorists is to fly 30,000ft above the capital city of any state that harbours them and drop bombs - preferably cluster bombs. It is conceivable that the bombing of Dublin might have provoked some sort of protest, even if just from James Joyce fans, and there is at least some likelihood of increased anti-British sentiment in what remained of the city and thus a rise in the numbers of potential terrorists. But this, in itself, would have justified the tactic of bombing them in the first place. We would have nipped them in the bud, so to speak. I hope you follow the argument.

Having bombed Dublin and, perhaps, a few IRA training bogs in Tipperary, we could not have afforded to be complacent. We would have had to turn our attention to those states which had supported and funded the IRA terrorists through all these years. The main provider of funds was, of course, the USA, and this would have posed us with a bit of a problem. Where to bomb in America? It's a big place and it's by no means certain that a small country like the UK could afford enough bombs to do the whole job. It's going to cost the US billions to bomb Iraq and a lot of that is empty countryside. America, on the other hand, provides a bewildering number of targets.

Should we have bombed Washington, where the policies were formed? Or should we have concentrated on places where Irishmen are known to lurk, like New York, Boston and Philadelphia? We could have bombed any police station and fire station in most major urban centres, secure in the knowledge that we would be taking out significant numbers of IRA sympathisers. On St Patrick's Day, we could have bombed Fifth Avenue and scored a bull's-eye.

In those American cities we couldn't afford to bomb, we could have rounded up American citizens with Irish names, put bags over their heads and flown them in chains to Guernsey or Rockall, where we could have given them food packets marked 'My Kind of Meal' and exposed them to the elements with a clear conscience.

The same goes for Australia. There are thousands of people in Sydney and Melbourne alone who have actively supported Irish republicanism by sending money and good wishes back to people in the Republic, many of whom are known to be IRA members and sympathisers. A well-placed bomb or two Down Under could have taken out the ringleaders and left the world a safer place. Of course, it goes without saying that we would also have had to bomb various parts of London such as Camden Town, Lewisham and bits of Hammersmith and we should certainly have had to obliterate, if not the whole of Liverpool, at least the Scotland Road area.

And that would be it really, as far as exterminating the IRA and its supporters. Easy. The War on Terrorism provides a solution so uncomplicated, so straightforward and so gloriously simple that it baffles me why it has taken a man with the brains of George W. Bush to think of it.

So, sock it to Iraq, George. Let's make the world a safer place.

 

[frogboy4]

I half agree with you there. I believe that Saddam should have been taken out back then, but I really believe that Bush was speaking on the level about his intentions. A&E played one of the most profound interviews about his presidency where he answered some really tough questions. He also interjected why there was never a peep from him during the Clinton presidency. Yeah, it does sound like a cop-out, but hearing it from him, I take it on the level as an ultimate bad decision but one that he believed in. Ronald Regan was the actor, not Bush. LOL!