Reasons to vote for Bush?

[NeonBlue]

i've heard farenheit 9/11 is a load of one sided bollocks. i havnt seen it myself but i hate michael moore, what a tosser... he's out to try as hard as he possibly can to make his country look as bad as possible. even tho alot of the bollocks he spouts is blown way out of proportion. he's just a contraversial tosspot. people that listen to what he says think THEY are being the original, contraversial people... when in reality they really are just sheep. more so than people that stand up for what america beleives in. its become way too 'cool' to question a countries decisions lately, its like the tommy hillfigure of the political world.

it is very one sided...and some could say its all propaganda bull...which it very well might well be.

BUT

the stuff it shows...the evidence he tries to show you..whether its entirely true or twisted for his own means....makes u think, as they say theres no smoke without fire

i watched it with an open mind and afterwards tried to make sense of it all...it got me thinking in a big way...some of the things shown in the film could be put down to propaganda bull....but other things just didnt make sense and u had to question why he did these things

Things like :-

1) on 9/11 he was at a school and reading to the class...u see his aid come and whisper in his ear that the country is under attack.
Bush just looks dumb...u see in his eyes he hasnt a clue what to do...i would presume any normal leader would turn to the class and say sorry something has come up i have to go. Bush just carries on reading..pausing now and again to look even more dumb while his country is under attack but yet doesnt leave the school....why?

2) The Bin Larden family was apparently in Amercia at the time of the attack, but yet when they closed ALL the aiports and grounded every flight in the USA...the Bin Lardens private jet was allowed to take off and leave with the family on board....why?

Why let the prime suspects family leave your country when no other flights can, though they might not of known at the time Bin Larden was involved but still leaves the question why was this the only plane to leave in the whole of the USA...the film goes onto show reasons for this being allowed and its all tied in with money & oil contracts

3)Then theres the evidence about how Bush got into power...how the votes were seemingly fixed...and even though they recounted the votes several times, it even shows (if i remember rightly) the other bloke (cant remember his name) being accepted as President by the Senate but he needed 1 signature from a Senators State? before he could be accepted properly and sworn in...he never got this signature even though Senators said they recongised him as President..but they all apologised that they couldnt get this signature. Why?

Thats how the film shows Bush got in...due to techincalities (sp?) and to vote rigging

Apart from the above reasons the film shows more of Bushes "dirty dealings" to do with money & oil...his connections in the far east especially with the Bin Larden faimly...all this u could put down to propaganda or just pure made up bull....or truth

BUT the 3 points ive listed above made me think the most, that something isnt quite right with this President, but then again show me a political figure who is squeeky clean...i dont think 1 exsists !

but thats just my view

 

[igli]

Only good president yanks ever had was "Tricky Dick" but hes dead now

 

[Sigurd]

he makes a couple of virbal fuck ups so he should be thrown out? i reckon he handled iraq well, totally bombed the living crap outta the shithole, killed most of the bags living there, and now its a warzone so we can just sit back and laugh. at the end of the day.. who really cares what happens in iraq? really? exactly.

I care. So do my fellow human beings.

 

[Driwen]

What as opposed to "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"? and then claiming he didn't lie cos getting a BJ and whacking a cigar up her growler somehow isn't sexual relations?

as opposed to giving tax cuts to the wealthy, while saying it is meant to help the poor? (removing of estate tax for one)


and neonblue the part of the election was that the congressional people had a protest or something against the florida election and it needed a senator to sign it to make it a valid protest or something. Now the senators didnt want to sign for some reason and Gorre had to keep refusing the congress people as there wasnt a senators signature on it.
Also thing that bugged me was how someone claimed that after 9/11 bush and cheney(iirc) were asking wether Iraq was involved and rather not attacking Afghanistan. However this could be untrue.

And allthough Churchill might have been bad in public speaches, I doubt he would mess up common sayings like bush can or not check what part of the world his visitor is from. However this doesnt make Bush a horrible president (it does make him a bad image for the US though, which is probably 50% of his job), his tax cuts to the wealthy and his foreign policy does (not so much as attacking Afghanistan or Iraq being bad, the reasons and how he did it was).

and bunnytwo how did clinton killed people in the balkan, there was a war and we the west tried to intervene there failed mostly (imo), but still most of the deaths werent caused by us but by the serbs/croats/bosnians/albanians.

 

[Bunnytwo]

No point in leaving the school really, nothing much he could have done, the US military system is very much based on delegation, you put the right man in the position to do the job and let him get on with it. K didn't work in this instance, but then didn't work for Pearl Harbour or on a number of occasions as well and Bush wasn't really in for long enough to be responsible for the systems in place.

No point in holding the family in US, they can't be held responsible for Bin's actions. Though they would likely have been lyched if they had of remained.

Did the Moore film go into the actions of the Clinton administration that helped lead to 911, the corruption that went on there and that they also had strong links with the Saudi's and Bin Laden and repeatedly failed to take him out, even after his first attack on the World Trade Centre. A hell of a lot of US politicians have connections of some sort with Bin Laden (both Democrat and Repulican) going back to the Afghan war against the Russians, that and the fact that he comes from a powerful Saudi family which will provide a link (if you care to look) to most major governments in the world due to arms/oil contracts etc.

Problem I have with Moore's films (apart from blatent bias) is that a lot of the so called evidence presented is flimsy at best and can't be contradicted. Bit like allegations of government conspiracy in alien abduction and all that X-files type crap.

Main point being if you want to create a conspiracy you can create one about just about anything if you are willing to look hard enough and lets face it if your making the film yourself you can present it anyhow you want and its going to be pursuasive unless you're a complete incompetant, bacause you don't have another voice pointing out the huge holes in your argument.

 

[NeonBlue]

and neonblue the part of the election was that the congressional people had a protest or something against the florida election and it needed a senator to sign it to make it a valid protest or something. Now the senators didnt want to sign for some reason and Gorre had to keep refusing the congress people as there wasnt a senators signature on it.

thats it...couldnt remember all the background on it...watched the film few weeks back, maybe should of watched it again before commenting on here.

But am still right in thinking that if they had got the signature then Bush wouldnt of been President?

Also makes u wonder why people wouldnt sign

Also thing that bugged me was how someone claimed that after 9/11 bush and cheney(iirc) were asking wether Iraq was involved and rather not attacking Afghanistan. However this could be untrue.

yeah i remember that too...they decided to turn on Iraq rather than Afghanistan and i reckon this was to do with the business they had done with the Bin Lardens & the oil contracts, so ....

(to me) they used Iraq as an escape goat and to turn the American People's attention away from the true threat (Bin Lardens) so that the oil contracts and his connections with that family werent discovered.


But this is all specualation...noone but the people involved will ever know the TRUTH...and this is always the case with politicans

 

[Bunnytwo]

and bunnytwo how did clinton killed people in the balkan, there was a war and we the west tried to intervene there failed mostly (imo), but still most of the deaths werent caused by us but by the serbs/croats/bosnians/albanians.

Clinton was on even more ropey ground for his actions in the Balkans than Bush when he invaded Iraq for a start. Don't believe Clinton any sort of UN mandate for his actions, thought was purely a Nato based operation originally and UN only came in later. Could also argue there was a oil based conspiracy as US/UK etc were under pressure to intervene from arab countries.

Clinton also ordered several bombings of Iraq in which its a certainy civilians died. His mandate for those was exactly the same as Bush's for his actions, non-compliance with UN weapons inspectors.

Exactly in the same way that Bush blamed for the deaths of Iraqis now. He killed people in the Balkans by the bombings. In order to minimise our casualties US pilots were not allowed to fly below 15000ft, at that height they could not correctly identify targets of opportunity and hence the killing of a large number of civilians through cock-ups, could also point to use of cluster bombs etc if really felt like it. If Clinton isn't/wasn't trashed for that then why the hell should Bush be held responsible for civy deaths in Iraq.

Nope most of the deaths weren't caused by us in the balkans, but then if you compare the deaths in Iraq now to the deaths caused by Sadam over the years its a drop in the ocean.

Fact is in war innocents get killed.

 

[NeonBlue]

No point in leaving the school really, nothing much he could have done, the US military system is very much based on delegation, you put the right man in the position to do the job and let him get on with it. K didn't work in this instance/

i can accept that reason...but still you would think he would WANT to leave...he might of not been able to do anything...but the fact HIS country was under attack...he would of made the effort to look a least bit concerned
instead of fecking dumb

No point in holding the family in US, they can't be held responsible for Bin's actions. Though they would likely have been lyched if they had of remained.

true.,..but no other flights were allowed to leave NONE...so why was theirs?
(yeah i know its probably linked to the oil contracts..but u cant tell the American ppl that can u now)

Did the Moore film go into the actions of the Clinton administration that helped lead to 911, the corruption that went on there and that they also had strong links with the Saudi's and Bin Laden and repeatedly failed to take him out, even after his first attack on the World Trade Centre. A hell of a lot of US politicians have connections of some sort with Bin Laden (both Democrat and Repulican) going back to the Afghan war against the Russians, that and the fact that he comes from a powerful Saudi family which will provide a link (if you care to look) to most major governments in the world due to arms/oil contracts etc.

Cant remember but i think the film did mention Clinton at the beginning and some of his connections/dealings that helped lead to 9/11

Problem I have with Moore's films (apart from blatent bias) is that a lot of the so called evidence presented is flimsy at best and can't be contradicted. Bit like allegations of government conspiracy in alien abduction and all that X-files type crap.

Not seen any of his other films yet...though i have got some just havent got round to watching em...so cant really comment...but i wouldnt call the evidence in this film flimsy...it seemd pretty solid to me....bias yes...and Moore put it across that way...but like i said no smoke without fire...so still gives u something to think on

 

[NeonBlue]

on a different note...

Bush doesnt directly affect me...he might affect the UK and other countries

but...id rather get Blair out

 

[youngbaba]

sorry if this has been said before, but cba to read thread:

bush is a puppet, which is so obviously shown by his feeble level of intellignce, its amazing how the people of america dont realise it

watch faranheit 911 if youve missed the news for the last cpl of years, its an eye opener

 

[Bunnytwo]

true.,..but no other flights were allowed to leave NONE...so why was theirs?
(yeah i know its probably linked to the oil contracts..but u cant tell the American ppl that can u now)

I would guess from the family's connections the plane prob had diplomatic credentials, can't stop it as far as I'm aware. Might have just been a thing of get em out of the country quick, because there wouldnt' have been any positives in holding them, can't convict them of being the relative of a scumbag, however, if they had of held them they would of been under pressure to try and get them for something, then Bush would have been open to accusations of persecution etc. Best to get em out quick even if they didn't have a right to leave.

 

[NeonBlue]

sorry if this has been said before, but cba to read thread:

it pays to read before posting

 

[NeonBlue]

I would guess from the family's connections the plane prob had diplomatic credentials, can't stop it as far as I'm aware. Might have just been a thing of get em out of the country quick, because there wouldnt' have been any positives in holding them, can't convict them of being the relative of a scumbag, however, if they had of held them they would of been under pressure to try and get them for something, then Bush would have been open to accusations of persecution etc. Best to get em out quick even if they didn't have a right to leave.

aye thats the only conclusion i could come too...

lets em stay ...hes fooked
lets em go.... it looks dodgy

so either way he couldnt particularly win...though letting em go..his connections/contracts wouldnt come under suspicion to a great deal

 

[sibanac]

Guant Bay, can't see how could do much else. What are the options? Shoot the suckers out of hand, let them go (hope not) or keep em banged up. Either they were illegal combatants, in which case they're in the shit or they were legal combatants in which case they're POWs and they're locked up for the duration.

Cant believe people actualy fall for this shit, here is a hint "Illegal combatants" dont exist, the bush administration invented the word to get away with breaking a fuckload of international laws.
They are either civilians or military, if they are millitaty they are POW and have the rights of POW.
If they are Civilians then they are still protected by the Human rights accord.

 

[Ssera]

I would guess from the family's connections the plane prob had diplomatic credentials, can't stop it as far as I'm aware. Might have just been a thing of get em out of the country quick, because there wouldnt' have been any positives in holding them, can't convict them of being the relative of a scumbag, however, if they had of held them they would of been under pressure to try and get them for something, then Bush would have been open to accusations of persecution etc. Best to get em out quick even if they didn't have a right to leave.

Diplomatic credentials my f***ing ass. If you can invade a country while spitting in the face of the international community then you can damn well hold the familly of one of the most wanted people on the planet for a few questions. Edit: oh and in any case, wtf would a bunch of BUSINESS men have diplomatic visa's? They're not ambasadors... they're not diplomats...

But of course that would go against the interests of Bush & co. as they suckle on the Saudi nipple of oil while screwing over the American people.

As for saying that Iraq is not as bad as it seems... tell that to the families of the 1000+ dead Coalition soldiers, the families of the 5000+ coalition solidiers who have been wounded in combat and the families of the 11000+ Iraqi civilian casualties. Sure doesn't sound much when compared to say figures in the WWII but.... 90% of the dead happened AFTER the so called 'Liberation'.

 

[Ssera]

on a different note...

Bush doesnt directly affect me...he might affect the UK and other countries

but...id rather get Blair out

That's a bit like the view the USA had in WWII: "It's Europe at war, not us... let them deal with the problem."

Ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

 

[Gamah]

Gamah this right here shows that you didnt read the post at all, this thread is to educate myself!

Now please if you are going to insist on ignoring posts and just assuming things and replying, get of the thread.

I see, hearing what a bunch of daoc players has to say is really top notch education.

 

[Bunnytwo]

Cant believe people actualy fall for this shit, here is a hint "Illegal combatants" dont exist, the bush administration invented the word to get away with breaking a fuckload of international laws.
They are either civilians or military, if they are millitaty they are POW and have the rights of POW.
If they are Civilians then they are still protected by the Human rights accord.

Erm yes "Illegal combatants" do exist under the Geneva Convention and has been recognised right from WW2 at the very least onwards. A civilian (i.e not a member of the armed forces of a state) can be a legit combatant if they carry some form of uniform to distinguish them from a civilian and no a RPG, AK47 etc doesn't count, has to be some form of badge etc. If they don't they are basically screwed if they get caught, they are not I believe protected under Geneva Convention. Yep a POW does have rights, the right to a trial as to whether they can be held is not one of them.

As civilians they are not protected under the Human rights accord as I believe that one has never been ratified by the US and so isn't worth the paper its written on as far as Guantanamo is concerned.

 

[Morchaoron]

Oh, so it's ok that maaaany thousands of people die just because you think it's "fun" and so you don't die instantly!

Good argument, I guess that's how the yankees decide who to vote for aswell

God bless stupidity

evil does not equal stupidity my friend

i have other things to worry about then some president who wants to annoy primitive countries in the middle east, i dont care, not in this life...

and if i did, what should i do? whine some more here? it is irrelevant anyway whether i care or not, im no yank...

 

[Bunnytwo]

As for saying that Iraq is not as bad as it seems... tell that to the families of the 1000+ dead Coalition soldiers, the families of the 5000+ coalition solidiers who have been wounded in combat and the families of the 11000+ Iraqi civilian casualties. Sure doesn't sound much when compared to say figures in the WWII but.... 90% of the dead happened AFTER the so called 'Liberation'.

Yep sure he spat in the face of the international community, yep France, Germany and Russia being the main opponents of the war, oh and guess who had the biggest oil contracts with + had made the largest loans to Saddams regime. . . .Or did he spit in the face of the many countries that have sent troops to Iraq or provided material support to the war....You could I suppose claim that they didn't get a UN mandate explicitly authorising force but then lets face it took them 6months to get the UN to authorise force to kick the bugger outta Kuwait.

1000+ dead and 5000+ wounded is very low casualties considering the scale of the invasion and the length of time they have been in for. Yes 1000+ is a 1000+ too many, but then they volunteered when they joined up, which is more than can be said for the Iraqi forces.

Start pulling that "so called Liberation" crap with the families of the 1000+ allied dead see how many you can do it to and still get out of the door, don't give much for your chances. Yep the media can find parents who will condemn the war, but from experience most families support family members who are serving and if that person is killed are not going to take kindly to someone pulling any of that "baby killer", "murder" "they died for no reason" type crap.

Also don't suppose you have figures on how many civilians Saddam's regime killed? Rather a lot more than the 11000+ you quote I'd imagine.

 

[Ssera]

Yep sure he spat in the face of the international community, yep France, Germany and Russia being the main opponents of the war

49 countires in the coalition (source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030327-10.html)

191 member states in the UN (source: http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html)

That's spitting in the face of the international community. Out of those 49 countries we have some such as: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Latvia, the Marshall Islands (huh?), Micronesia, Palau, Rwanda. Hmm funny, I don't see many Palau B52's flying to Iraq, or many Micronesian aircraft carriers in the Gulf...

Start pulling that "so called Liberation" crap with the families of the 1000+ allied dead see how many you can do it to and still get out of the door, don't give much for your chances. Yep the media can find parents who will condemn the war, but from experience most families support family members who are serving and if that person is killed are not going to take kindly to someone pulling any of that "baby killer", "murder" "they died for no reason" type crap.

It's one thing supporting the troops who are there (I have quite a few friends serving there as we speak) and another to accuse the government of lieing to them and sending them there under false pretence in the first place. If it was just to liberate them, then WTF are the troops still doing dieing there??? You'll say 'but who do we hand the power over too?'. Very good question, maybe someone should have thought of that BEFORE invading.

Also don't suppose you have figures on how many civilians Saddam's regime killed? Rather a lot more than the 11000+ you quote I'd imagine.

source: http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/27_saddam.html
Figures add up to about a million if you include the 8 year Iran/Iraq war which killed approx half of those. Figure of those that Saddam has directly had an influence on (secret police kidnappings, executions etc) is around 200 000. Of course these figures are approximations, if you have others please let me know.

200 000 dead in 25 years of power. 11 000 dead in one year of occupation - sorry 'liberation'. 11 000 x 25 = 275 000 oh look the figures are almost the same.

Of course figures don't mean anything because you can't compare 25 years of a regime with 1 month of war and 11 of 'liberation'.

 

[Nightchill]

Ssera, those final figures would only be meaningful in the way you've used them if the coalition was going to be there for 25 years and "had a direct influence on" 11000 deaths there for each of those 25 years.

Besides that, I perfectly agree that the post-war plan was somewhat threadbare.

Unfortunately if they left now, not only would they receive media flak for 'running away with their tails between their legs' but it'd likely make the situation worse. Eitherway, they can't win.

 

[Bunnytwo]

49 countires in the coalition (source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030327-10.html)

191 member states in the UN (source: http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html)

That's spitting in the face of the international community. Out of those 49 countries we have some such as: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Latvia, the Marshall Islands (huh?), Micronesia, Palau, Rwanda. Hmm funny, I don't see many Palau B52's flying to Iraq, or many Micronesian aircraft carriers in the Gulf...



It's one thing supporting the troops who are there (I have quite a few friends serving there as we speak) and another to accuse the government of lieing to them and sending them there under false pretence in the first place. If it was just to liberate them, then WTF are the troops still doing dieing there??? You'll say 'but who do we hand the power over too?'. Very good question, maybe someone should have thought of that BEFORE invading.



source: http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/27_saddam.html
Figures add up to about a million if you include the 8 year Iran/Iraq war which killed approx half of those. Figure of those that Saddam has directly had an influence on (secret police kidnappings, executions etc) is around 200 000. Of course these figures are approximations, if you have others please let me know.

200 000 dead in 25 years of power. 11 000 dead in one year of occupation - sorry 'liberation'. 11 000 x 25 = 275 000 oh look the figures are almost the same.

Of course figures don't mean anything because you can't compare 25 years of a regime with 1 month of war and 11 of 'liberation'.

And you are assuming that the 142 nations of the UN that didn't take part in the coalition opposed the war, got anything to back that one up?

You want to make a bet as to whether the allies stay in power in Iraq for 25 years? I'll take into account the dead from the attack on Iran and Kuwait as well in the figures ta in which case allies haven't killed nearly as many.

Allied troops still died in Germany after WW2 had finished, though you'd probably have condemned that one at the time. Troops still get killed occassionally in Bosnia. As for the "liberation" part that you keep going on about, yep the Iraqi people looked so hacked off when the regime got overthrown, yep of course most of the Iraqi people are fighting against the coalition. If even 1% of the Iraqi people were fighting against the coalition it would be screwed. Fact is if you invade a country you are going to get some form of guerilla action.

How exactly did they lie to the troops when they sent them in? What the WMD part? Even the French, Russians and German's etc didn't claim that Hussein hadn't got them, they all thought he did.

Plus you think the troops had a choice? They didn't have to lie to them. If it is a legal (which it was) order then the troops have to obey it, whether they agree with it or not, if they don't they can say hello to a nice spell in prison, unless they just get summary punishment. Its not a debating society where the troops get to vote as to whether they would like to go to war or not, they're professionals who signed up, if any of them thought they could pick and chose where they went into action then oh dear they screwed up. A member of my father's unit tried pulling that one got 6 years for his trouble (plus a few slaps for endangering the unit).

 

[Ssera]

Ssera, those final figures would only be meaningful in the way you've used them if the coalition was going to be there for 25 years and "had a direct influence on" 11000 deaths there for each of those 25 years.

which is what I'm saying in my last line You can't compare the 2 figures...

Unfortunately if they left now, not only would they receive media flak for 'running away with their tails between their legs' but it'd likely make the situation worse. Eitherway, they can't win.

also agreed, should have thought about it before going there...

 

[Ssera]

And you are assuming that the 142 nations of the UN that didn't take part in the coalition opposed the war, got anything to back that one up?

If there were all for it then wouldn't they have joined the coalition at least just on paper and provided logistical help if not personel? If the majority were for it, why didn't they vote?

in which case allies haven't killed nearly as many.

oh that's ok then, they haven't killed as many as he did in 25 years of being in power. Remind me again... why didn't we stop him when he first started executing people (the very same day he took power FYI)?

Fact is if you invade a country you are going to get some form of guerilla action.

liberation to invasion, we have progress.

How exactly did they lie to the troops when they sent them in? What the WMD part? Even the French, Russians and German's etc didn't claim that Hussein hadn't got them, they all thought he did.

err wtf? They wanted the weapon inspectors to spend more time looking for them because they hadn't found ANY. Bush & co. stated that there were and that they had proof, they said that Iraq posed an immediate threat to the safety of the US even though their own intelligence agencies said that wasn't the case... that is called lieing.

Plus you think the troops had a choice? They didn't have to lie to them. If it is a legal (which it was) order then the troops have to obey it, whether they agree with it or not, if they don't they can say hello to a nice spell in prison, unless they just get summary punishment. Its not a debating society where the troops get to vote as to whether they would like to go to war or not, they're professionals who signed up, if any of them thought they could pick and chose where they went into action then oh dear they screwed up. A member of my father's unit tried pulling that one got 6 years for his trouble (plus a few slaps for endangering the unit).

and where in what I've said do you see me accusing the troops? They're the ones paying the price for all the stupid decisions made in this conflict, while the people who sent them are raking in the money.

You might get the impression that I'm against the war full stop and that I think that Saddam should still be in power. I'm not, the world is a better place with Saddam, but there's a thousand different ways we could of got rid of him without causing the s**tstorm that we now have. This administration has completely tarnished the image of the USA in the world and will cause more problems than there were before it all started. And who's going to pay the price for all of this in your opinion? Bush & co or your average US citizen just trying to make ends meet?

 

[Bunnytwo]

If there were all for it then wouldn't they have joined the coalition at least just on paper and provided logistical help if not personel? If the majority were for it, why didn't they vote?

oh that's ok then, they haven't killed as many as he did in 25 years of being in power. Remind me again... why didn't we stop him when he first started executing people (the very same day he took power FYI)?

liberation to invasion, we have progress.

err wtf? They wanted the weapon inspectors to spend more time looking for them because they hadn't found ANY. Bush & co. stated that there were and that they had proof, they said that Iraq posed an immediate threat to the safety of the US even though their own intelligence agencies said that wasn't the case... that is called lieing.

and where in what I've said do you see me accusing the troops? They're the ones paying the price for all the stupid decisions made in this conflict, while the people who sent them are raking in the money.

You might get the impression that I'm against the war full stop and that I think that Saddam should still be in power. I'm not, the world is a better place with Saddam, but there's a thousand different ways we could of got rid of him without causing the s**tstorm that we now have. This administration has completely tarnished the image of the USA in the world and will cause more problems than there were before it all started. And who's going to pay the price for all of this in your opinion? Bush & co or your average US citizen just trying to make ends meet?

So because a country didn't send troops or provide logistical support you assume they were opposed? Could just as easily turn that on its head and claim that those countries that didn't come out and demand that the coalition didn't attack supported it, though I won't cos would be just as groundless. And by the same standard you use If they were all against it why didn't they vote condemning it?

Do tell what are the 1000 different ways that they could get Saddam out. Assassination? Have everybody up in arms about that one. Sanctions? Yep they were working and its not like the Iraqi people were the only ones who suffered from that. Support internal opposition? Yeh right. DO tell what would have worked, saying "pretty please will you leave"?

Yes of course should have given the weapons inspectors more time because of course this time Saddam was going to let them do their job. OMFG so in the what 12 odd years since the first Gulf War that the inspectors were blocked and harrassed this time he was going to comply.

Didn't say you were accusing the troops, you said that they had been lied to, I said nobody needed to lie to the troops as they had to do what they were told.

Ah why didn't we stop Saddam as soon as he got into power? Wow if go on that one of taking out a regime that kills its own people we're going to be going to war with a hell of a lot of the coutries of the world. The 1000+ dead is gonna be a drop in the ocean to what would happen if followed that suggestion of yours.

As for Saddam posing an immediate threat. Depends how you define it. Was Saddam capable of lauching ICBMs at US, nope, were there terrorist camps in Iraq, hell yep. Did Saddam have WMD, who can tell, they haven't found any conclusive proof that he did, but then again haven't seen any conclusive proof that he didn't and the argument of "well they havent found any yet" doesn't really hold upto scrutiny cos much of the equipment to produce such weapons (not nuclear) is multi-use and the actual weapons themselves are designed to be portable and as such aren't going to be hard to hide in a country the size of Iraq (face it they're still looking for the Amber Room looted by the Nazis 60 years after the end of the war).

Liberation to invasion???!!?? Don't remember using the term apart from in reference to your repeated use of "Liberation" (bet you do the quote marks bit when you talk as well). Nothing wrong with the phrase invasion as far as I'm concerned, such as Normandy Invasion 6th June 1944, perfectly happy to call it that, doesn't change what it is.

 

[NeonBlue]

That's a bit like the view the USA had in WWII: "It's Europe at war, not us... let them deal with the problem."

Ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

i aint ignoring the problem..but since i live in the UK...not much i can do about it

But just for you, next time i go over to the USA, ill go ask Bush if he would do us all a favour and resign

On a more serious not...i was merely saying in my view before i worry about the leaders of other countries...id like to have a decent leader for my own country first, since this effects more directly.

us mere plebs dont have much say in who runs what country anyways so all we can do is "talk" about it

 

[Driwen]

So because a country didn't send troops or provide logistical support you assume they were opposed? Could just as easily turn that on its head and claim that those countries that didn't come out and demand that the coalition didn't attack supported it, though I won't cos would be just as groundless. And by the same standard you use If they were all against it why didn't they vote condemning it?

uhm that list ssera posted is about who are in the coalition NOW. Which means that they want to help out and stabilize Iraq, it doesnt mean that they thought it was a good idea to go into Iraq without the UN support or with the reasons of WMD.
Netherlands helped protect Turkey with patriot missiles that was the only thing we did before Saddam was dethroned and that was because Turkey is a NATO ally.
Now the countries on that coalition lists are countries that have send support(before or after saddam was removed) or have just granted their political support. Now if a country hasnt even said that they support the war politically than they are against it or neutral about it. Now 49 countries are part of the coalition (which isnt even true), some or alot of them would have still voted no in the UN and 142 countries are not part of the coalition so would have either abstained or voted no. So the war is against the wish of the world.

Off course the thing is that as the UN works now it will never really work. However the war in Iraq about WMD's/Al Qaeda (without a good plan what to do after saddam) was not supported by it and most likely it was right. If it had been about removing Saddam than arab countries might have been friendlier and with a decent plan there would have been less trouble after Saddam.

 

[Sissyfoo]

No point in leaving the school really, nothing much he could have done, the US military system is very much based on delegation, you put the right man in the position to do the job and let him get on with it. K didn't work in this instance, but then didn't work for Pearl Harbour or on a number of occasions as well and Bush wasn't really in for long enough to be responsible for the systems in place.

No point in holding the family in US, they can't be held responsible for Bin's actions. Though they would likely have been lyched if they had of remained.

Did the Moore film go into the actions of the Clinton administration that helped lead to 911, the corruption that went on there and that they also had strong links with the Saudi's and Bin Laden and repeatedly failed to take him out, even after his first attack on the World Trade Centre. A hell of a lot of US politicians have connections of some sort with Bin Laden (both Democrat and Repulican) going back to the Afghan war against the Russians, that and the fact that he comes from a powerful Saudi family which will provide a link (if you care to look) to most major governments in the world due to arms/oil contracts etc.

Problem I have with Moore's films (apart from blatent bias) is that a lot of the so called evidence presented is flimsy at best and can't be contradicted. Bit like allegations of government conspiracy in alien abduction and all that X-files type crap.

Main point being if you want to create a conspiracy you can create one about just about anything if you are willing to look hard enough and lets face it if your making the film yourself you can present it anyhow you want and its going to be pursuasive unless you're a complete incompetant, bacause you don't have another voice pointing out the huge holes in your argument.

Okay, first off, if you are the leader of a country that has been attacked like never before you DON'T sit in a fucking school reading to kids. You make your excuses and the fuck out of there to see what is going on.

Secondly, if the family of the guy behind the biggest attack your country has ever seen is in the country, you don't let them leave. You detain them and try to find out what, if anything, they know. They may have been lynched but they should have been questioned by the authorities before they were given a free ticket out of the country.

I agree that Moore's stuff is one-sided but it is the side that the news never/rarely shows. I took all the information the same way I take the news that is presented to me by news readers; with a pinch of salt.

As for your arguments re. Clinton being a lying bish, two wrongs don't make a right. They are both bad presidents. Givf new one that *might* not be a total jerk!

 

[Driwen]

As for your arguments re. Clinton being a lying bish, two wrongs don't make a right. They are both bad presidents. Givf new one that *might* not be a total jerk!

Thing is that there is always something wrong with someone. If his politics is good, he is to intelligent, to dull, he sleeps around, seems to be stupid or just doesnt feel like an american guy. And lying and seeming stupid are actual concerns, but they seem to be preferred over having a dull or intelligent president :/.