Reborn Outcast Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Well, since its set that the US troops will be moving out of Iraq very soon, one thing has caught my eye. No Weapons Of Mass Destruction The fact that none have been found is making me quickly lose all trust that I had in the US really going to war because of WMD's. Like I said in the "Bush road plan" thread, if he doesn't admit he's wrong and show some form of humbleness, I will be very angry... notice how he's trying to downplay the whole thing. This just really ticks me off. Even if he sends weapons inspectors into Iraq again, even if he sends some US agents into there to search, the main point of the war was lost. No WMDs were found in great amounts or in any at all for that matter. Also, he had better not give any crap about the troops leaving because of international pressure and fear that the US might be taking over Iraq. Now that I look at it from another point of view, that didn't stop him from attacking in the first place did it? All this coming from someone who had full faith that Bush really did know about WMDs when he attacked... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 I was reading an article on CNN today and something caught my attention. Here is the page. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/01/nyt.weisman/ After I got about half way down I read this paragraph and I got a spark. Originally posted at CNN.COM First, and most obvious, is rewriting the political landscape in the Middle East, now that American and British troops have crushed Saddam Hussein, Israel's enemy. Americans believe that the victory gives Mr. Bush new leverage throughout the region. What is the whole war was nothing more than to give Bush leverage over the whole reason as it says above. It is already obvious the Arab nations now have a new found respect for the USA out of fear. Maybe Bush wanted to take someone out we new we could push over. Just to get everybody else in check for the rest of his plans from lower oil$$$, peace in Israel, and searching for terrorist. Iraq was just an example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 The fact that none have been found is making me quickly lose all trust that I had in the US really going to war because of WMD's. Like I said in the "Bush road plan" thread, if he doesn't admit he's wrong and show some form of humbleness, I will be very angry... notice how he's trying to downplay the whole thing. This just really ticks me off. Well, if he backs down, he'll suffer even more, as a person, so he can't. The main reason for invading Iraq is, as you said, WMD. Turns out all the anti-war protesters who wanted more inspectors were right: The reason why the inspectors found no WMDs was that there are no WMDs. The other reasons for invading Iraq are even more moronic: 1. Saddam must be taken out and punished for war crimes. Same with Kim Jong Il, Castro (Cuba could easily be invaded), and numerous other world leaders. You don't invade their countries? 2. Democracy. Same as #1. Why Iraq? So why did we really attack Iraq? Pardon me for being a conspiracy-theoretic, but I think Bush has other reasons. CJ, with all due respect, I'll like a leader who invades a country and kills tens of thousands to make an example even less. Sounds like the Empire blowing up Alderaan to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 It was just a thought. Not a well developed thought, but just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkum Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 IM american, but i dont like bush. i never did, heck,i d take clinton over bush (i cant beleive i jsut said that, im going to beat myself for saying that, jk) actaully, iraq realy wasnt a threat, we thought that they had WMD in the Gulf War, never found any. same situation here, there are none. ill give credit to bush for taking saddam out, but is it really worth it? i dont think so. being muslim myself, i dont think the region would accept democracy. all the arab countries are corrupt. the arab leaders want control and dont want to lose power, so they dont like US intervention, some may, but some may not. the arabs have been against each other since they were split up tribes. they compete over esources and they dont come together to help each other or help their region to prosterity. they just dont work together. the media paints a false picture of the arab world. they arent really united, they are all split up. they arent like europe or the us, who have organizations such as NATO to help each other. The Arab League is just a big power hungry organization, i dont think iraqi democracy could last verhy long unless the people were WILLING to have a democracy. im nto saying that arabs are losers, im just saying that they dont work together well enough to help each other and to live as a community. Besides, the big issue here is North Korea. They actaully pose a threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obi Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 I support Bush in his war with Saddam's regime. However, this new deal with Syria and Iran I do not like very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Originally posted by Arkum we thought that they had WMD in the Gulf War, never found any. Lol. You didn't think, you knew. Why? Well, cuz you've most likely still got the contracts from back when you were selling the stuff to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar Lol. You didn't think, you knew. Why? Well, cuz you've most likely still got the contracts from back when you were selling the stuff to him. That's a good possibility. I never heard we sold him anything bad and I know he developed his own stuff also, but we might have sold him more harmful things. Even though he was just being used by the USA at the time. Someone might have made a deal with him. Russia and France also liked selling him stuff and were doing so up until the war Russia anyway. They are good possibilities as sources of WMD as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 I've always had a big concern for America's public image in the world, which is one of the reasons why I opposed the war. Bush's attitude was/is very centric when it comes to foreign relations, and this is problematic for every American that travels overseas, be they in the military, businessmen, vacatationers, students, researchers, etc. Also, it's painful to read/hear anti-American sentiments when interacting with people of other countries or reading/viewing foreign media. Even though I agree with many of the non-Americans (not all) that post their opinions here, I still feel somewhat offended. Intellectually, I can deal with that, but that doesn't make it fun. Having said all that, I have actually been hoping that WMDs would be found so that, maybe, the world opinion might shift in our favor a bit. Ironically, I think that there is a strong possibility that something might be found that will be simply destroyed and not shared with the media. If Saddam's people had Anthrax, there is a chance that the strain could be traced to a U.S. supplyer (such as the Ames strain). That definately wouldn't look good. The same might be true of chemicals such as Serin, though I'm not sure if their chemical signatures could be connected to any source or "recipie." In "losing respect for Bush," I simply shook my head when I watched the newsclip of his Tom Cruise outfit as he landed on the aircraft carrier yesterday. A TOTAL photo opportunity meant for appearances. I can almost imagine Ari Fleisher brainstorming with his staf: "okay guys, how can we get a huge media event with the Pres in a uniform?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 WMDs was just a weak excuse for going to war. It's as obvious as it's pathetic. The war is not over yet. Why? Because USA wants to ignore he Geneve and Haague conventions - if they're still at war, they don't have to release the 9000 prisoners, and if they happen to come across Saddam they're free to shoot him, but only if they're at war at that time. No WMDs have been found. No damning evidence of terror connections have been found. Saddam has not been found. Although I'm very happy that Bush don't feel like going to war with Syria right away, they've set the precedent of going to war without just reasons. And North Korea is still looming on the horizon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais The war is not over yet. Why? Because USA wants to ignore he Geneve and Haague conventions - if they're still at war, they don't have to release the 9000 prisoners, and if they happen to come across Saddam they're free to shoot him, but only if they're at war at that time. Fascinating. I came to the exact same conclusion yesterday as I listened to Bush and Darth Rumsfeld give speaches. The announcement of an end to conflict in Afganistan comes at a time when the world wants to hear us say, "okay, were finished now." I also watched a very interesting interview with a reporter from ABC (his name eludes me at the moment) on Charlie Rose (a public television talkshow, one of the best on television). This reporter was the first American to arrive at the last site that Saddam was supposed to occupy and was bombed. It turns out that the house was missed by 50 meters or so and that Saddam escaped. The looters had found the house that was adjacent to a mistress of one of Saddam's sons. There were five phone lines going into it, about four more than MOST lucky Iraqis. The desk and other objects that were in one of his televised speaches was also there. The reporter stated that American troops NEVER arrived there to search, which led him to believe that this meant it was already known that he is still alive. Very interesting account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff38 Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Originally posted by Reborn Outcast All this coming from someone who had full faith that Bush really did know about WMDs when he attacked... I agree. I never really disliked Bush as a person I just don't think he is right for the job. I love my grandmother, she is a good sincere person but but we would all be screwed is she were the president. I don't think Bush lied directly about WMD I think he is misinformed by the people he has surrounded himself with. And this is all the proof I need that he is no longer the right man for the job. Either he is incapable of discerning the lies he is told, or he is part of them. From this perspective he should be voted out of office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rad707_Pandaz Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 WTF?! I just can't see why people don't like Bush. Clinton made tons of mistakes in the White House. NO, I'm NOT talking about the whole Lewinsky fiasco. Clinton raised taxes more than any other president in history. Clinton had the "nukes" thing in China and let's not forget the whole debacle in Somalia. 28 members of his staff were in jail because they were corrupt. Even if Gore was the prez, we'd still be facing some of the same problems. 9/11 was bound to happen no matter what. We'd still probably have beat up Afghanistan. Sure, we probably would NOT have been in Iraq, but we'd still have large targets painted on our asses. With Bush, we may have some targets painted on our asses, but at least the ones with the guns are hesitant to pull the trigger. Also, if anyone here has ever been in the military, is in the military, has a loved one in, or is a military brat...you shouldn't be proud of yourself right now. Because the brave souls who have been fighting for their country, for what they believe in, for doing their damn job, the brave souls that have died...they don't deserve to be criticized like this. By saying that their Commander in Chief and their whole War in Iraq is a complete lie is like looking a soldier in the face and telling him or her that they died for nothing. Bush may not be the best president, but at least he's a hell of a lot better than what we could've had. At least he's got the balls to do what no other world leader has done today: Stand up for those who can't stand up for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 Originally posted by Rad707_Pandaz Clinton raised taxes more than any other president in history. Most of Clinton's tax increase fell on the affluent. The typical middle-class family paid only the new gas tax. Bush, on the other hand, wants to give tax breaks to the affluent. Also, most of the increase in "tax revenue" of the Clinton years reflected higher incomes, not higher taxes. So, as you can see, the whole "Clinton was a tax-monster" argument that the Republicans are so fond of pointing out to the democrats is pointless. As a share of the GDP, taxes were fairly stable under Clinton. Originally posted by Rad707_Pandaz Clinton had the "nukes" thing in China This comment is misleading... the "nukes" thing involved the legal approval for U.S. corporations to provide China with nuclear power facilities, equipment and materials. Power. Not weapons. It should be noted that the current administration appears to be behind this trade. Originally posted by Rad707_Pandaz and let's not forget the whole debacle in Somalia. I won't argue there. Somalia was a fu*ked up deal. I don't think it would have mattered what president was in the whitehouse at the time, though. Originally posted by Rad707_Pandaz 28 members of his staff were in jail because they were corrupt. And they were who....? Originally posted by Rad707_Pandaz Even if Gore was the prez, ... blah, blah, blah.. Same old rhetoric. Don't get me wrong, I tire of hearing that crap from the Democrat side, too. We don't know what Gore would have been like. I didn't think Bush would have been as bad as he is, but look what we've got. Originally posted by Rad707_Pandaz At least he's got the balls to do what no other world leader has done today: Stand up for those who can't stand up for themselves. Same old rhetoric again. So what will be the parameters of who we will and will not invade in order to "free" their people from oppression? N. Korea is far more oppressive than Iraq, according to some. They're at least even in that competition. Libya is a country with some of the fewest freedoms in the world. Is it really our responsibility to spend our tax dollars, risk our lives, and bully the rest of the world because the President seems to be a self-righteous, fundamentalist christian, with a secret agenda of economic power and personal status? I wasn't a huge Clinton fan, but care to guess what the national debt was in his last year of office? Care to guess what it is now, just a few years later? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 Also, if anyone here has ever been in the military, is in the military, has a loved one in, or is a military brat...you shouldn't be proud of yourself right now. Because the brave souls who have been fighting for their country, for what they believe in, for doing their damn job, the brave souls that have died...they don't deserve to be criticized like this. By saying that their Commander in Chief and their whole War in Iraq is a complete lie is like looking a soldier in the face and telling him or her that they died for nothing. You can support the troops and still dislike the war and the person who started it. Still, I perfectly well see your point. The problem is, we have to be allowed to speak up. If it hurts the feeling of the soldiers, well, they'll survive, they've got huge support from the majority of the American people. You can't refrain from critizing a war because the troops' feelings might get hurt. I'll finish with a good quote: Love the Soldier, Hate the Warand Love the Cause, Hate the War Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.