One question of the supports of the Iraq war.

[bturk667]

I have a problem when any nation acts unilaterally on the behalf of an organization that did not give them the right to.

Bosnia? That was a NATO action, which we lead.

Economically help a country (unilaterally) and going to war (unilaterally) are two totally different things. I hope you can understand the difference, otherwise "you don't know ...jack." I did not mention how much Bush is spending in Iraq, did I?

Why must people always bring up someone else, and what they did, when talking about Bush! Bush was a coward, plain and simple! Was Clinto a coward, of course. Though I am not quite sure what one has do with the other?
If Kerry were a year or two older. Now your making me laugh! He was not a year or two older was he? Try try as you might, BUSH RAN, KERRY FOUGHT!!!!

Bush in not smarter than I give him credit for. I never gave him any kind of credit for his intelligence!

Lastly, I did not say, I wrote about the world being safer, and that being BULL$HIT! Know, did I write the WORLD did I not? You are writing about the U.S. These are to different things! They are seperate issues! I was responding to what jeskibuff wrote. I do not feel the world is safer. I do however feel that we, the U.S., are safer!

I wonder if you know jack?

[bturk667]

Out of ammunition, I doubt that. How could I possibly be when Bush is still President. As long as he is, I will have plenty of weapons!

See jeskibuff, I have no problems with Republicans, per se. I have a problem with Bush and his administration; they just happen to be Republicans. I had a problem with Clinton in a big way. Did this make me a conservative? Please, answer that question for me, please!!!

Why do I have to be objective? Why do I have to have credibilty? Bush is the one who needs to have these two things. Sadly, I feel he does not. If you do, great!

Lastly, my theories are not liberal, they are based on the facts at hand! As new facts come to light, my theories might change. This, however, will depend on those facts. I do not see the world as Liberal or Conservative, only as right and wrong. Know sometimes the facts seem to lean one way more than the other, but this does not mean I do. If this is the conclusion you came up with, well, your wrong. There are many issues where I have a decidedly Conservative stance! Again, I let the issues, facts, and my heart and mind dictate where I stand. The problem is that there are too many people in our country that let their party affiliations make up their minds for them, too bad!

Have a nice day!

[FLZapped]

I have a problem when any nation acts unilaterally on the behalf of an organization that did not give them the right to.

Uhm, what about Great Britian and the thirty-some-odd other nations that took part??

Sorry, but this unilateral talk was long ago dismissed as incorrect.

I also don't understand your point about thinking it was OK to go into Bosnia under NATO, but not Iraq under UN sanction.

While I don't agree with everything Bush has done, I'm sure in the hell not going to vote for Kerry. His rhetoric and his record are completely out of sync. Besides the fact that he is a socialist who would have the citizens of this country looking to the government for their daily existance, while gutting our military and intelligence agencies. So I will once again be crossing party lines.

-Bruce

[bturk667]

If were not involved in the war in Iraq, then how many of those nation do you think would have gone it alone? I mean, do you think they would have attacked, and gone to war with Iraq over the U.N. resolutions?

If you can not understand the difference between a Nato lead operation (in Bosnia) and us attacking Iraq without the full support of the U.N. (only using U.N. sanctions as an argument), well then, there is nothing that I could write to help you to understand the differences. Remember, we were going to attack Iraq NO MATTER WHAT THE U.N. decided. Both Bush and Powell made perfectly clear to the entire world.
One question: Do you see the difference between what Geroge W. Bush is doing in Iraq, and what his father Geroge H.W. Bush did in Iraq, and how they did it?

If you feel that you must cross party lines in the upcoming election, then by all means, go right ahead! It is your right to do so!

[JSE]

"If were not involved in the war in Iraq, then how many of those nation do you think would have gone it alone? I mean, do you think they would have attacked, and gone to war with Iraq over the U.N. resolutions? "

No they probably would not have gone into Iraq. But, you must remember that the US is the backbone of the UN. Without the US, the UN would probably crumble or at least be a non factor. I don't even think we should be a member of the UN.

Did other countries want Saddam out of power? Absolutely. Could they do anything about it without the US? Nope. There were three countries opposed to us going into Iraq. We are no learing that they had a vested interest in leaving Saddam in power. Why should we the US bow down to their wants? That's crazy.

"If you can not understand the difference between a Nato lead operation (in Bosnia) and us attacking Iraq without the full support of the U.N. (only using U.N. sanctions as an argument), well then, there is nothing that I could write to help you to understand the differences."

Do you really think NATO would have gone in without the US? I doubt it.

JSE

[bturk667]

We should have listened to Thomas Jefferson, but it is too late for that!

Should or shouldn't we be a member of the U.N. is a different issue. There comes a time when every nation must look in what direction the rest of the world is going in; so we can support and help one another. These are what groups like the U.N. and NATO are all about. Somtimes they are going to do things that might not be beneficial to us. Politics on a global scale are not easy. So, if we do not like what the U.N. is doing, what, were suppose to take our ball and go home? It seems to me that we can not have it both ways.

One questions: Why does Bush now want the support, both in man power and in money, of the U.N.?

A remark to one of your statements:" Why should we the US bow down to their wants?" It is this type of attitude that lead to the 9/11attack. This very arrogance is why there are so many countries around the world that hate us, and would also like nothing more than to see harm befall us!

I not so sure if the French, Germans, and Russians wanted Saddam out of power. I'm not even sure if we are better off without him in power. Better to deal with the DEVIL you know, then to deal with the one you don not know. Remember, Saddam was not a religious man. An @$$hole and piece of $h!t, sure! Islamic extremists are a much greater threat to not only us, the Middle East, but to the entire world. The number of terrorist groups now in Iraq has never been greater. Moire and more terrorists keep pouring in. With him in power that was never really an issue. We are going to be in Iraq for the long haul!

Was there mass genocide going on in Bosnia at the time NATO sent troops?
Seems to me we had to go there, if only for humanitarian reasons, if nothing else! Yes, I know that NATO would have gone in with or with out us. They didn't have to did they? I for one am glad we went in. I have first hand knowledge of what it is like in both Kosovo and Bosnia.

Hey JSE, I supported Bush when he attacked Afghanistan. I also support him on his war against terrorism, as futile as that maybe. In fact i'm going to work for Homeland Security, part time, while I attend junior college; never too late to better yourself. Better watch what you put in those bags of yours!!! I did not support the war with Iraq! I do however think we have to stay there for the long haul. I also want them to pay us back the money that we are spending in rebuilding their country. Another area I disagree with Bush!

[JSE]

"One questions: Why does Bush now want the support, both in man power and in money, of the U.N.? "

This more a international political move. Trust me, other nations are chomping at the bit to help out in Iraq. It's big money. Look at the left's whipping post Haliburton.

"A remark to one of your statements:" Why should we the US bow down to their wants?" It is this type of attitude that lead to the 9/11attack. This very arrogance is why there are so many countries around the world that hate us, and would also like nothing more than to see harm befall us!"

I guess that's one area we fundamentally differ. I don't feel the US should "first" worry about what other countries think of us. We need to do what's best for us before we start giving into other's wants. France hates us? I can live with that.

"Was there mass genocide going on in Bosnia at the time NATO sent troops?
Seems to me we had to go there, if only for humanitarian reasons, if nothing else! Yes, I know that NATO would have gone in with or with out us. They didn't have to did they? I for one am glad we went in. I have first hand knowledge of what it is like in both Kosovo and Bosnia. "

What about the genocide that was going on in Iraq under Saddam? We are still finding massive burial sites. Why are humanitarian reasons OK for Bosnia and not Iraq? Bosnia was not threat to us.

"The number of terrorist groups now in Iraq has never been greater. Moire and more terrorists keep pouring in. With him in power that was never really an issue. We are going to be in Iraq for the long haul!"

As someone else mentioned. I am glad all those terrorist are going to Iraq. It could not have worked out any better. We have done the impossible. We have taken terrorsim to another front where our military can hunt them down and kill them. That's one of the biggest problems with terrorism. You never know when or where they will attack. We have drawn them into a country, despite media coverage, that is under our military's control.



JSE

[bturk667]

Good question! What genocide was going on in Iraq prior to our attacking? Please answer, and I want proof!

If there was any genocide going on prior, or at the time we were invading Iraq, I am sure that the President would have made us aware of them. What you are talking about happened well before we attacked them.

Do you realize how many of those people were put into those mass graves because of the fact that George H.W. Bush did not live up to his promise that he would help the ****e Muslims and Kurds in overthrowing Saddam? Most! What dio you think that George H.W. Bush thought Saddam was going to do to those who failed in their attempted to overthrow him; Say:"Better luck next time." before or after he killed them?

Now, if the President would have told the world we must get Saddam out because of his ill treatment of his people, and only that reason, well then, you would have a leg to stand on. Since he did not, try not to fall over! His major argument was not that, it was the WMD! How has that worked out for him?

You really have no clue about terrorism do you? Try to read a book or two on the subject matter. Try to become more educated before you try to write about things you do not fully understand.

Lastly, remember when Bush talked about other countries adding terrorist, and how this was grounds for us to attack them? Do you know which boarder those terrorists are cross over? Do you know what the government of that country is doing to stop the terrorists from crossing over their boarder?

Can't wait for your responses to my question. Should be fun reading!

[JSE]

"Good question! What genocide was going on in Iraq prior to our attacking? Please answer, and I want proof!"

I think you answered your own question with the whole mass grave thing?

"Do you realize how many of those people were put into those mass graves because of the fact that George H.W. Bush did not live up to his promise that he would help the ****e Muslims and Kurds in overthrowing Saddam?"

So now it's Bush Sr's fault that Saddam murdered, tortured, raped and gassed his own people. Ah, it's so much clearer now. I am getting the picture you don't like any BUSH? (ok, that sounds bad. I ment the Bush family)

"Now, if the President would have told the world we must get Saddam out because of his ill treatment of his people, and only that reason, well then, you would have a leg to stand on. Since he did not, try not to fall over! His major argument was not that, it was the WMD! How has that worked out for him?"

Let's see. You seem to have supported the US/NATO going into Bosnia because it was based on Humanitarian reasons. But, even though the people of Iraq were being gassed, tortured, raped, etc, it was an unjust WAR because "GW" supposedly lied to us. That does not changed the fact that the people in Iraq were suffering. Reagardless of why Bush stated we were going in, it should not change the fact that Iraq needed our help based on your comments.

It sounds like you just hate Bush and nothing he does will ever be excepted by you. It sounds like you calling the War "unjust" is based on your hatred of Bush. The reason you get taken to point so often in these forums is because most people here see you for what you are, A Bush Hater. And that's fine BUT, you let it cloud your judegment on other World issues. You say the War in Iraq was unjust, but you say the US going into Bosnia was ok? They both were in grave need of Humanitarian help.

So again, I asked you, why are humanitarian reasons OK for Bosnia and not Iraq? Even if you think the President lied to us about why we were going in, based on your recent post it still should have been OK based on humantarian reasons.

"You really have no clue about terrorism do you? Try to read a book or two on the subject matter. Try to become more educated before you try to write about things you do not fully understand."

Really, what don't I understand Mr. Homeland Security? You said I have no clue. Enlighten me! You say I need to read a book or two. What books would you recommend. Hurry up, do an Amazon search so you can tell me some.

You are always saying, "Show me proof". The proof is right in front of you. You just can't see it through those "Bush Hater" glasses you have on. Learn to look past your hatred of Bush and your opinions will be taken more seriously.


JSE

[FLZapped]

If were not involved in the war in Iraq, then how many of those nation do you think would have gone it alone? I mean, do you think they would have attacked, and gone to war with Iraq over the U.N. resolutions?

Excuse me? That has nothing to do with it, the fact is, our action was NOT unilateral, period. You can't admit that though, can you?

If you can not understand the difference between a Nato lead operation (in Bosnia) and us attacking Iraq without the full support of the U.N. (only using U.N. sanctions as an argument), well then, there is nothing that I could write to help you to understand the differences.

I understand this: either our actions were unilateral, or not - and they weren't, no matter how you try to slice it.

One question: Do you see the difference between what Geroge W. Bush is doing in Iraq, and what his father Geroge H.W. Bush did in Iraq, and how they did it?

Yeah, both followed approved UN resolutions(which is why Bush Sr. stopped when he did), had the mandate from Congress, and had formed a coalition of nations.

-Bruce

[FLZapped]

So now it's Bush Sr's fault that Saddam murdered, tortured, raped and gassed his own people. Ah, it's so much clearer now. I am getting the picture you don't like any BUSH? (ok, that sounds bad. I ment the Bush family)

It sounds like you just hate Bush and nothing he does will ever be excepted by you. I


You are always saying, "Show me proof". The proof is right in front of you. You just can't see it through those "Bush Hater" glasses you have on. Learn to look past your hatred of Bush and your opinions will be taken more seriously.


JSE

Seems to me that pretty well sums it up. He would still be pissing blood had Bush decided NOT to go into Iraq.

-Bruce

[bturk667]

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree!

[bturk667]

Why is it so hard for you to answer a question? Again, what mass genocide was going on at the time of our attack? Please answer and you facts!

Fact: Had George H. W. Bush overthrown Saddam, the people that were put into those mass graves as a result of him NOT doing so, would not have been killed and put in there!!! How can I make this claim? Because Saddam would not have been kept in power therefore he would not have been able to committe those atrocities, and the others he did later!!! This has nothing to do with hating Bush the elder, in fact I liked him! These are however the facts!

Again, reread the arguments given by Bush as to why wqe went to war. Try to stick to the facts!!!! You wrote about how you will look at the facts, do you?
How else can I put this; there WAS NO MASS GENOCIDE GOING ON AT THE TIME OF OUR UNJUST WAR5!!!

Two questions for you: Did you support the Nato action in Bosnia? Please answer!
Would you support a war against China. The biggest perpetraters of mass genocide currently going on in the world!

[bturk667]

Sums what up? Who would still be pissing blood?

[JSE]

1. "I guess we will just have to agree to disagree!"

Or not. LOL!

Have a good one. LOL!


JSE

[bturk667]

What ever!