Colin Powell speech

[2fast4u]

hehe, sorry but i just had to vent ... i read over your post again and found this:

Now we're getting the all this Anti-Bush junk as if he is the one that started it, when in fact Clinton did.

i didnt see clinton pulling 150 000 troops in the gulf, looking for military support all around the world, creating a diplomatic crisis with europe, threatening to overrule the un descisions and in fact INVADE a country. im repeating myself, but i wanted to point this out.

clinton was the one ordering a few air strikes, mostly cuz us jets were being attacked by iraq ground troops in the no-fly zone. if this was right or not - who knows but likely not. then there were some other issues that ShadowPrince pointed out. the situation was very unlike now and yet so FEW happened.

bush on the other hand is the guy wanting to overtake the whole country. this my friend is a hugeass difference.

so, sorry, no .. clinton didnt. bush does.

 

[vampireuk]

Hmmm tell me my "enlightened" friend was the man who started the first gulf war a republican? hmmmm yes?

Now the second man who is jumping on Saddam oh oh hes a republican!!!

Clinton has nothing to do with this situation at all so stop trying to pass the blame

 

[sytaylor]

He's talking about clintons appeasement, not his actions

Amusing side point: At the anti Iraq demonstrations in london someone was pictured with a sign "Peace in our time". The phrase that historically nailed appeasement as a form of diplomacy into the ground until rescent years.

(If you don't know what i'm talking about read up on chamberlains world famous "white peice of paper")

 

[2fast4u]

He's talking about clintons appeasement, not his actions

Bush really hasn't done anything yet, only made speeches.
Clinton has already launched an UNPROVOKED attack on Iraq WITHOUT any evidence and WITHOUT UN approval!
Let me refresh your memories.
Where were these peace protesters then?
Or the organizations behind the protests?
Where were the accusations of being only in it for the oil?
If these people are so devoted to avoiding war at any cost and willing to sacrifice themselves in an effort to stop it, then where were they back in 1998?
I must admit though that up until these last few posts, after a few of you came back from these propaganda fests...sorry 'peace protests', the arguments against war with iraq were well thought out.
Now we're getting the all this Anti-Bush junk as if he is the one that started it, when in fact Clinton did.
It looks to me that Bush is only picking up where Clinton left off.

like hell he does

 

[sytaylor]

ok i stand corrected, but when i blame clinton at least you know why

 

[vampireuk]

Yup is his blaming clinton for starting the entire iraq situation, of course republicans can find no wrong in their leaders so it was bound to happen

 

[Ryoga]

I never blamed Clinton for the situation. I'm just trying to point out that what Clinton said back in 1998 as justification for launching over 200 missles at Iraq, and what Bush is saying now are virtually identical. And that what people are accusing Bush of trying to do (attack without evidence, attack without UN support) Clinton has already done. Your right though that Clinton just launched airstrikes and Bush is talking about going in and removing Saddam. You mean it would be OK if Bush changed his mind about 'invasion' and decided to only launch airstrikes against Baghdad?

Hmmm tell me my "enlightened" friend was the man who started the first gulf war a republican?

No, most of them wern't even US citizens. It was the United Nations Security Counsel that started the Gulf War by passing Resolution 678 which authorized the use of force if Iraq failed to withdraw from Kuwait by midnight January 15, 1991.

BTW if 'warmonger' Bush hadn't gone to the UN to get Resolution 1441 then there wouldn't be any inspectors in Iraq.

Oh yeah, the ANWR thing.. the point is that when ANWR was created, they knew there was oil there and so set aside the section of ANWR that contained oil as special and that drilling could occur there with a single act of congress. But you make it sound like he is going to go into Yellowstone and dig up Old Faithful to get the oil.

 

[vampireuk]

BTW if 'warmonger' Bush hadn't gone to the UN to get Resolution 1441 then there wouldn't be any inspectors in Iraq.

rofl you really think he was going to go to then UN?:happy:

 

[2fast4u]

And that what people are accusing Bush of trying to do (attack without evidence, attack without UN support) Clinton has already done.

yeh, but thats not an excuse and it doesnt make the whole thing one tad better.

 

[Ryoga]

rofl you really think he was going to go to then UN?:happy:

Dosn't matter if you think he wasn't, the fact is that he did. Do you think that if Bush hadn't started talking about Iraq that France or Germany or the UK for that matter would have put the inspectors back in on their own?

yeh, but thats not an excuse and it doesnt make the whole thing one tad better.

not an excuse and not supposed to make it better. War is never a good thing, but a neccessary evil when all other options have failed. Clinton was justified in launching missles against Iraq if his goal was, as he stated, to reduce Saddam's capacity to create weapons and to get him to let the inspectors back in to oversee the disarmerment. When that failed to work, then Clinton's next step shoud have been to go in with the military and force Saddam to disarm. This is where he dropped the ball and made it look like he was only using the attack on Iraq for 'other things' (NOW i'm blaming Clinton). Bush is picking up the ball where it was dropped and continuing along the line of consequences for Saddam's continued defiance. From reading some of the posts here you would think that this whole situation is Bush's fault, that the only reason he's doing it is for Iraq's oil, and that Saddam has no weapons. Latest news is that the long range missles that the inspectors have already found that are in violation and have said must be destroyed, Saddam, in an interview w/Dan Rather, says that he will not destroy. Instead he wants to debate Bush. The question is whether Saddam is disarming on his own or not. Yes or no. True or false. There is nothing to debate.

 

[2fast4u]

thats not really a logical string ...

bush didnt "pick up the ball" right away after he got in office. it had to take 9/11 and a war in afghanistan before he even reacted. i can see no link between clinton launching missiles and bush preparing that invasion.

that Saddam has no weapons.

read my rant when u came in debatting again. there is no question about saddam having weapons (and i never claimed that either) - especially since the united states, europe and the ussr sold them to him, but if there is no proof about weapons of mass destruction, that they still exist. if buhs claims to have proof, where is it?

he's doing it is for Iraq's oil

im still standing straight for that point. the whole weapons debate was an excuse in the first place. besides turning to other points you have yet failed to present evidence that would make one change his mind too.

 

[2fast4u]

Dosn't matter if you think he wasn't, the fact is that he did. Do you think that if Bush hadn't started talking about Iraq that France or Germany or the UK for that matter would have put the inspectors back in on their own?

thats not an assumption. its the fact that he was merely pushed into considering the un's opinion. good job on you denying that btw.

 

[sytaylor]

im still standing straight for that point. the whole weapons debate was an excuse in the first place. besides turning to other points you have yet failed to present evidence that would make one change his mind too.

I really have to re-itterate... ok i will...

Bush could simply do a Chirac and cut a dirty deal with saddam in a hearbeat. If he wanted oil, or even control to some degree american money would be a far easier way to get it than american force which costs more in the short term and causes more problems on the international stage.

Please forget about the oil, its not the oil, its nothing to do with oil because if it was saddam is the PERFECT person to have in charge (if oil is your only goal).

 

[Ryoga]

bush didnt "pick up the ball" right away after he got in office...

OK, there is a gap. But he was coming off of an election he just barely won (don't even start there, several newspapers paid to finish the recount and came to the conclusion that Bush would have won anyway if the counts had been finished) and a mess with the plane going down over China. We have no way of knowing what his plans were for the remaining three (possibly seven) years of his term before 9/11 came and changed everything.

there is no question about saddam having weapons (and i never claimed that either)...

Sorry, didn't make myself clear. When I say weapons refering to Iraq, I mean the weapons that everyone is talking about, i.e. those specifically banned by UN resolutions, and not guns or tanks.

good job on you denying that btw.

Thanks.

 

[sytaylor]

Re: rant

well i felt like summoning all this shit up a bit, in handy layout and easy to understand for anyone ... reasons why the usa MUST invade iraq (you saw that coming, didnt you?):

REASON N0. 1: OIL

> iraq is the country with the 2nd highest ammount of oil ressources in the world, yet only touches about 1/2 of its ressources. overthrowing this government installing either a military government (as proposed) or another kind of puppet/usa-friendly government would help united states based companies to acquire large territories and build up infrastructure for oil rafineries. the control over the oil in the gulf would be theirs.

> in 2002, the united states was lacking 2,5 million barrels of oil - by DAY that is! need i point out the significance of overtaking iraq?


REASON NO. 2: REVENGE

> juniors is running (or is being run) by a junta of business partners of his daddy. the same persons who have already been there during the vietnam war and the gulf war 1991. his dad failed to overthrow saddam, now can u guess whos gonna finish the job?

An unstable leader like saddam would be far easier to cut a deal with than a UN agreed puppet. The US would be silly to over throw saddam if they just wanted oil.

If the US is missing so much oil howcome theyre all still using it in a day to day basis... Gas stations should have "Sorry no oil left" surley...

His dad didn't "fail" he just didn't go any futher because the UN had said if Saddam invaded kuwait then saddam must be stopped with force (note: this wasn't Bush seniors idea). Dubya however has seen over the last few years peoples failure to deal with saddam, and the fact that he's a damn dirty ape, but nobody cares.


...and to something someone else said
The idea that lifting sanctions will help, pleeeeeease, the country gets a tonne of food aid but do the people see it? Nope, why? SADDAM! The guy has got to go!

 

[vampireuk]

If bush was to cut a deal with saddam can you say "propaganda"

Saddam would milk it for all its worth and get bush into even more trouble.

 

[sytaylor]

At this point in history yes, but before the last 6 months or so without the media attention saddam making noise would be pretty much ignored. I'm sure he'd far rather have america as an allie than an enemy

 

[2fast4u]

im just gonna argue later ... soccer be on tv :satisfied

 

[vampireuk]

im just gonna argue later ... soccer be on tv :satisfied

It's football damnit!!:doh:

 

[2fast4u]

An unstable leader like saddam would be far easier to cut a deal with than a UN agreed puppet. The US would be silly to over throw saddam if they just wanted oil.

overthrowing saddam = oil + revenge ... daddy demands it

If the US is missing so much oil howcome theyre all still using it in a day to day basis... Gas stations should have "Sorry no oil left" surley...

you have heard about the california energy crisis right?

...and to something someone else said
The idea that lifting sanctions will help, pleeeeeease, the country gets a tonne of food aid but do the people see it? Nope, why? SADDAM! The guy has got to go!

hrm .. actually the sanctions prevent food and medication from being brought into the country .. the problem is split fifty fifty

you have just seen for yourself why the sanctions are useless. they go past saddam and hit the population cuz hes controlling everything. same thing with the food aid. saddam is a bastard, absolutely no doubt about that, but there is still no sense in keeping up sanctions that dont hurt him and make it even worse for his oppressed population.

germany, france and russia will probably face economic sanctions after the 2nd un resolution has been bashed off by their veto .. now where be that constitution..? /wanders off