According to you guys, he lives exclusively off of the blood of human children mixed with crude oil... and a little spicy salsa on top. First you call him nefarious, then stupid. I stop listening once the insults become mutually exclusive.
He's a puppet, a small androgynous android. He doesn't have to be smart. He just has to sit there reading children's books out loud.
Decieved? Why no! I can believe two mutually exclusive things at the same time, I'm a Christian hypocrite after all, and quite used to doublethink.
He d-d-d-does not even do that very g-good...uh...umm...I mean well, very w-well. Hell, you know what I mean. <said with a Texan drawl> - KitNyx
And, another post that begins with a reasonable question breaks down into knee-jerk Bush bashing. Another game of ad hominem, anyone? Brian: As I've argued before, the war on terror is larger than evening scores between the US and Al-Qaeda over 911. The invasion of Iraq is a legitimate part of the war on terror without Saddam being responsible for the incident that triggered that war. The statement you quote from AFP paraphrases Bush's words in a way you've neatly exploited, but Bush's actual statements are not contradictory. Go ahead and prove me wrong.
I hate to inform you but Iraq had no WMD , Iraq had no ties to Al qaeda , Iraq had no Atomic bomb programme and Iraq had no ties to 9/11 ! So explain to me then , what is Bush doing in Iraq ?
He is trying to 'fight a war against terror'. A noble cause, absolutely useless and inescapably impossible to succeed in, but noble nonetheless. My problem with the 'war on terror' is that, yes the US is one of the few countries that could try something like this, but who gets to decide which countries are the most terrorizing? The world is filled with dictators and terrorists, so who decides who we go after?
The US electorate, through elections. As I've argued before, Bush won't be starting in on any new countries (at least not overtly) for the remainder of his presidency unless extraordinary circumstances force his hand. It will be up to Hillary and her successors to decide who the US invades next.
Lord help us if Hillary becomes president... My point was that what gives the US electorate the right to decide that a country needs intervention. Should they not sort that sort of thing out themselves. What gives us the right to interfere? JLocke
It's my guess that it must somehow bolster the egoes of those to defame the president. A hobby of hypothetical superiority. A typical folly of youth.
I don't know if "right" is the right word. We don't have the "right" to send food aid to tsunami victims either. Starting a war is a decision based in ethics and morality more than in legality.
Wait a second, we went to war, because supposedly Saddam was not following UN mandates, and was basically thumbing them. Now we get into war with out the UN's approval and this is legal?. Without following UN mandates? were is the sense? BBC Real News CounterPunch Yet another source Have you read 1984? Godless
Godless, Godless, Godless, when are you going to learn that the rules don't apply to the US?! Seriously though, that is an excellent point! Twice. JLocke
The cease fire agreements that Saddam was thumbing his nose at were put in place in an effort to come to a peaceful resolution to the war. Allowing Saddam to flout those agreements, and to kill thousands of his countrymen in retribution for the failed coup attempt post 1991 was a travesty. The UN's obligation in this matter was both legal and moral, and it failed miserably on both counts. In the post 911 world, President Bush, his administration, his cabinet, and Congress decided that allowing this travesty to continue was unacceptable. The legal and moral course of action was to end Saddam's regime, with or without the UN's renewed approval.
You see so now WE can kill thousands of his countrymen... Post 911 world? Am I being ignorant thinking that the world didn't actually change that much. Sure, the US woke up to the growing threat of terrorism from extremists, but it's not like our ways of life changed. Just because a terrorist attack was made against us, should we be given the ultimate authority to go against the UN and do what we think is best, even if the rest of the world doesn't? We are doing exactly what we went against Saddam for doing. That kind of defeats the object of having the UN, which is sad because the idea of the UN is, to me, brilliant and necessary.
I think the UN has abdicated any responsibility it might have had claim to. I think the most significant changes post 911 are below the surface of everyday life. People continue to live the way they did pre 911 (more or less) but people will never passively accept a hijacking again. I think many Americans have mentally engaged the terrorist threat and have prepared themselves for the fight against terrorism in a way that they wouldn't have before 911, and terrorists will suffer for it. The sleeping giant has awoken. I think the best hope for the UN at this point is for democratic nations to band together and really push for the democratization of third world tyrannies.
Ok, well one big issue I'm having a problem with is everyone talking about "stopping terrorism" and things like that. Well, let's examine, these people are mad that the US is interfering with their affairs and think the US should stay out; so we are going to fix that by.....you guessed it, interfering with them and their affairs. JLocke
