Why is there "anti-American" protest
when it really should be "anti-Bush"?
Hell, Bush was selected not elected..
and a good many people here think
what he's doing is wrong.

How about an "anti-UN impotency" protest? Because, you know, if they had enforced their own resolutions, the coalition would not be forced to do it in their stead.

Sure, and also the 1988-1992 Bush adm.
that had SH by the balls and then let him
slip away.

...You talk about the source... IMO Bush reminds me of a puppet with parkinson, he can't help it, I have been throwing mud lately at his advisors / lobbies who shape white house policy lately, especially Paul Wolvowitz....

Yes, the previous gulf war and the Betreyal of the Sji'its in Basra by the usa government at that time (not supporting the uprise) was really the work of another fine advisor : Collin Powell

Collin Powell (a very impressive man if you see/hear, no EXPERIENCE him speaking) believed in the policy of containment and therefore had many fights with Wolvowitz. I MUST ADMIT that this containment policy has shaped the world in a rotten way (at least the southern hemisphere) after the cold war, but only history will tell us if Wolvowitz has more vision.

Originally posted by Johnny Bravo
Sure, and also the 1988-1992 Bush adm.
that had SH by the balls and then let him
slip away. Agreed.

How about an "anti-UN impotency" protest? Because, you know, if they had enforced their own resolutions, the coalition would not be forced to do it in their stead.
Umm..i was always taught that the UNs job was to keep the peace when people felt like fighting. Isn't that why their around? So I think that by trying to buy the inspector's more time they WERE doing their job, and the majority of other countries agree with me, so there must be something to this point of view...

Originally posted by reformedtopunk
Umm..i was always taught that the UNs job was to keep the peace when people felt like fighting. Isn't that why their around? So I think that by trying to buy the inspector's more time they WERE doing their job, and the majority of other countries agree with me, so there must be something to this point of view...
If you completely ignore twelve years of failed/stalled inspections, three inspection resolutions, flagrant cease-fire violations, and a tortured and brutalized people, then yes.

"Why is there "anti-American" protest
when it really should be "anti-Bush"?'

My well-worn protest sign, retired after the invasion/occupation started, read simply "Disarm Dubya".

I'm still deciding on my next one.

If you completely ignore twelve years of failed/stalled inspections, three inspection resolutions, flagrant cease-fire violations, and a tortured and brutalized people, then yes.Why ignore it? Next time, write better resolutions. And if you're going to call for uprising, it is advisable to consider these simple points:

- Support the uprisings when they come
- Do not, after thrashing the hell out of the enemy, hand them the ability to crush the uprisings you called for as a term of the ceasefire.

Other points of advice:

- Don't focus resolutions on punishing Saddam if the purpose is really about raising a tortured and brutalized people
- Don't support a dictator like Saddam with money and equipment if tortured and brutalized people are a consideration
- Don't pretend that one bad option is the only option short of war

:m:,
Tiassa :cool: