Bush Puts a Cancer on the Presidency

[Brian]

I usually do those about twice a day... sometimes a little more.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by Ferre

As I said, Dumping Saddam is one thing, going for your own agenda another. Don't mix them up. My guess is Bush did.

I have to correct that one...typo. :wink:

I should have stated :


As I said, Dumping Saddam is one thing, going for your own agenda another. Don't mix them up. I AM SURE Bush did.

(And the whole world, apart from a few blind folks can see that, it's frikkin clear as glas!)

[GEWbert]

To GEWbert: Bush 1 didn't finish what he started, and that was problem #1. The administration is all about convenience, not good or bad. It was convenient to pull out from Iraq 1st time around, they did so. Saddam came back to power, and killed all who cheered for America. This is why no one cheers now. Iraq is fed up with "we do as we see fit".[/quote]

i think your talking about Bush Sr. and Dessert Storm? Cause if you are, you need to brush up on your history. We never invaded Iraq. Okay, yes, we did enter it, but that wasn't the goal. We only liberated Kuwait. Invading Iraq was not part of the Coalition's goals, so it didn't happen. Had the coalition wanted to, it could have been done. the fathest the Coalition went in was Al Narsiryia.

Saddam was never removed from power. he remained there, we just made him sign a treaty, which he did break, btw, as he had chemical weapons, and kicked out the weapons inspectors for a while.

[compar]

I only have one question for all you people who think that the US did such a great thing by removing Saddam. The question is why are the Iraqs killing and burning Americans at an ever increasing rate if you all did them such a great favour?

If your neighbours house really is infected with terminates of mass destruction you don't break down his door, kill his children and rip up his floors and walls. Then above all you don't stand around and pat yourself on the back for what a great humanitarian you are.

You all say Saddam killed 1000s of his own people. What was the Iraq death toll from good old George's invasion? You guys are such total hypocrites.

Read the following from Francis Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign


From Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies, page 24:

When, later in the discussion {on the evening of Sept. 11, with Bush
and his crisis advisors}, Secretary Rumsfeld noted that international law
allowed the use of force only to prevent future attacks and not for
retribution, Bush nearly bit his head off. "No," the President yelled in the
narrow conference room, "I don't care what the international lawyers say, we
are going to kick some ass."
--------------------------------
Notice that Rumsfeld was correct in his opinion: International law only
permits the use of force in self-defense, not for retribution; and
retribution is never self-defense. In addition, Rumsfeld clearly advised
Bush and his top advisers that a war against Afghanistan for retribution
would be illegal. But Bush made is quite clear that he knew his war against
Afghanistan would be illegal, that he did not care about international law
and international lawyers , and that his primary motivation for going to war
was to kick some asses of Muslims/Asians of Color in Afghanistan. So much
for the putative legality of the Bush war against Afghanistan. It is yet
another US racist war of aggression against People of Color in a Third
World Country.

And so much for those shameless legal apologists of the Bush Jr. war of
aggression against Afghanistan. They just wanted to kick some ass too--so
long as it was Muslims/Asians of Color. They are just a gang of bigots,
racists, and war-mongers.

Francis A. Boyle

[bytech]

Originally Posted by GEWbert

i think your talking about Bush Sr. and Dessert Storm? Cause if you are, you need to brush up on your history. We never invaded Iraq. Okay, yes, we did enter it, but that wasn't the goal. We only liberated Kuwait. Invading Iraq was not part of the Coalition's goals, so it didn't happen. Had the coalition wanted to, it could have been done. the fathest the Coalition went in was Al Narsiryia.

Saddam was never removed from power. he remained there, we just made him sign a treaty, which he did break, btw, as he had chemical weapons, and kicked out the weapons inspectors for a while.

Yes, I was talking about Sr. And how he knew about Saddam, and his character. At the time it didn't benefit Bush 1 to take out Saddam, even though he was darn close to doing so. Now that there are some nice kickbacks from bombing Iraq (like boosting the slow US economy), it happens. Coincidence? And I ask again, why were there no Iraqies cheering for the US troops the second time around?

The original reason for war were WMD, which don't exists till this day. The UN could have handled that one, without killing so many innocent people, but Bush had to go in NOW, because they are going to bomb the US any day now. 9/11 is the proof, right? Wrong. 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq. Terrorism had nothing to do with Iraq until Bush went in there and pissed off a whole bunch of people who already hated Saddam anyway.

If you are wondering why the world hates Bush and his admin, all you have to do is go to a page like http://aztlan.net/iraqichildrenhorror.htm and tell to the people in those pics "The war was justified and good". Do you think those people care what the US does now in there? Sure, Saddam did the same thing, but the UN could have removed Saddam if Bush had kept his pants on (oh wait, that's clinton, NM <g>).

Bush 2 was planning rebuilding of Iraq in the same sentance as "we are hoping to avert war". Everyone knew it would happen long before he declared war. There was no "trail", no "jury". Bush was the judge, jury, and executioner, and THAT's what is wrong with this war, Bush, and the Admin.

[Paul]

The main reason was because of the WMD, but I do not agree with you at all when you say that the UN could have handled that one. If they could have, then why were the weapons inspectors not allowed to inspect everything and taken out of the country? It was not because they thought they had completed their jobs. It was because their lives were threatened when they tried to inspect crucial areas.

As far as the Iraqis that were killed because of the US and coalition forces, yes that is a tragedy, but that is also part of the nature of war. It is not pretty and peaceful, but sometimes it is necessary to prevent more losses. I know I am not going to change the minds of a lot of people that do not see the need for war in modern society, but if it was really not needed, then sovereign nations would not spend the amount of money they do on defense. It would be unnecessary if war was never going to happen and countries did not have a need to protect themselves and their allies.

btw: There were Iraqis cheering for the US troops during this invasion (and not just at this particular moment either).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/...ry/2933629.stm

[GEWbert]

Originally Posted by bytech

Yes, I was talking about Sr. And how he knew about Saddam, and his character. At the time it didn't benefit Bush 1 to take out Saddam, even though he was darn close to doing so. Now that there are some nice kickbacks from bombing Iraq (like boosting the slow US economy), it happens. Coincidence? And I ask again, why were there no Iraqies cheering for the US troops the second time around?

You REALLY neeed to take a history class on modern america. There you would learn the Bush Sr. led the Coalition against Iraq for the SOLE purpose of getting Iraq out of Kuwait. Bush wanted to press on, but since it was not in the Security Council resolution, and since many Arab nations protested on this point, Bush agreed not do it.

It has NOTHING to do with kickbacks. yes, its an incentive to get the economy going, but not really.

Hey, also paul, good point about the cheering. The attacks are being carried out by 2 groups, the Saddam Hussein diehard supporters and the Islamic Fundamentalists. WHat happens is they start riots, and the riots get bigger. The exact same thing happened in Mogadeshu (SP?), and its because the US did NOTHING to stop them, or even respond to the event, the terrorists have seen the United States as weak. Therefore, all the attacks have been happening. If the US backs out of Iraq, its going to be hell, 9/11's happening like every day.

I think we need to put Bytech in Iraq...

[Ferre]

As I have stated before...only the blind.

[bytech]

Good closing statement Ferre. I think I've done my work here. I don't know how to explain in simpler terms than my example about being told you are purchasing a DVD player, and getting an MP3 player.

There is no WMD, Bush knew there was little or no evidence to the contrary. He sold the war on these false ideas, therefore anything after falls appart. People seem set on building on basis that do not exist in the first place. Your building on a dream. I just hope not on "The American Dream", or the world is a much scarier place than I realised. "'Peace' through supperior fire power". Can you see the flaw in that thinking?

UN workers left because the US Admin said they would start bombing Iraq. Even US troops weren't on ground when that happened, so not sure how this makes for a mark against the UN 'for pulling out'. Iraq was opening up the whole country, UN was everywhere. They needed more man power which Bush could have supplied, but he chose to bomb instead...

Comments like "this is the worst day of war" when eight US soldiers were killed back a few months ago are a total give away of Bush's limited IQ and respect. So many more Iraqie people who didn't sign on for war died every day, and when 8 guys that signed up for it die, "it is the worst day of the war". Yep, Bush's value of human life and freedom. Ignorant, arrogant, and so very much like Bush in every other area.

[Ferre]

Imagine what would happen when someone bombed a full church here in the west? EVEN at war?

The Americans are always bragging about how efficent their weapons are so this was no accident :

FALLUJAH, Iraq - U.S. Marines in a fierce battle for this Sunni Muslim stronghold fired rockets that hit a mosque filled with people Wednesday, and witnesses said as many as 40 people were killed.

The fighting in Fallujah and neighboring Ramadi, where commanders confirmed 12 Marines were killed late Tuesday, was part of an intensified and spreading uprising involving both Sunni and Shiites stretching from Kirkuk in the north to near Basra in the south.

An Associated Press reporter in Fallujah saw cars ferrying the bodies from the mosque, which witnesses said had been hit by three missiles. There was no immediate confirmation of casualties.

more :

Yahoo News (A.P.)

Even if they didn't have a reason for a holy war...THEY DO NOW!!

My god, I'm wondering what I'm going to have to listen to now as an excuse for this discusting war crime.

07.04.2004
urgent news from iraq / from Eman Khammas ofOccupation Watch Center
Urgent.. urgent.. action needed...... forwarding mail to the list of
World Tribunal on Iraq
Ayse Berktay
-------------------------------
forwarding the mail from Ms Eman of Occupation Watch Center in Bagdad
through Mr. Asai Kenji, a journalist in Japan.
akira
******************************************
Iraqi cities are being sieged and bombed by missiles and tanks. Sadr,
Adamiya, Kufa, Falloja, Shula and others. Civilians are being killed.
The high way to Falluja is closed. News from Falluja say that bodies
are lying in the streets, no ambullances, no water, no electricity.
Journalists are not allowed in, cameras are smashed. They say this
will go on for days. pls help.
Eman
_______________________________________________
1502europe-coordination Mailingliste
JPBerlin - Mailbox und Politischer Provider
1502europe-coordination@ilpostino.jpberlin.de
http://listi.jpberlin.de/mailman/lis...e-coordination

[Ferre]

Journalists are not allowed in, cameras are smashed.

Land of the free.

[compar]

I know it won't do anything to convince all you republican red necks but read this article. At least someone in your country can see the obvious.

[John Scott]

Even if they didn't have a reason for a holy war...THEY DO NOW!!

Um, hello? They were doing the holy war thing long before we liberated their sorry a** country. Did you miss the last 30 years of Middle East history? Did you miss Lebanon's embassy bombing? And 9/11?

And the years of fighting betwwen Iraq and Iran and every other country over there? Every one of those countries needs a swift kick in the arse.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by compar

I know it won't do anything to convince all you republican red necks but read this article. At least someone in your country can see the obvious.

These are this "someones" very first statements in a supposed serious article:

Quote: George Bush's press conference on April 13 was a scary performance.

Not because his second sentence was ungrammatical: "This has been tough weeks in that country."

Not because he pronounced "instigated" as "instikated" in his fourth sentence. End quote.


Grammar and pronunciation?


uh em ... I stopped reading right there ..

Bob, surely you can dig up a more mature "someone" than that .... I mean... really .. .. heh ..

[compar]

Originally Posted by Atom

uh em ... I stopped reading right there ..

That's exactly right. Stop reading because who knows you might actually learn something. And that would never do. What if it conflicted with your life long prejudices.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by compar

That's exactly right. Stop reading because who knows you might actually learn something. And that would never do. What if it conflicted with your life long prejudices.

True... good point, Bob.. I gotta protect my prejudices. :wink:

Learn something? ... but ..... what if what I learned, was counter to what you believe? ... hmmm ... would it be ok to learn then?

Well ... yeah... I guess it would actually ... what fun is life without someone to disagree with?..

Like I said... good point..