Ridiculous freakout over healthcare

[HAL 9000 96]

All I can add is that incongruous, hysterical arguments that have little do to with the actual analysis being conducted right now don't make much sense. There really IS a ridiculous freak out over this issue. My suggestion for those that want to use these arguments is to break down what they're looking at into smaller, more manageable sets of data so they don't get lost.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Yeah, it's just Bush's fault

Saddam was USING chemical and biological weapons on the Kurds in 1998...

In 2002 Congressional Democrats were duped by the bad information pushed by the Bush administration, and not shown the contrary information that Saddam no longer had WMD's.

So yeah, Bush wanted war in Iraq for his own purposes. Yes, Bush's fault.

[alienlovechild 75]

And this proves what, exactly?

You had no idea anything happen during Clinton's watch on Iraq. This also shows a consistent hostility to Iraq for 8 years without a Bush in office.

The international law angle holds water as long as the US is a signatory to the UN Charter. Besides, if it doesn't hold water, then there wasn't a state of war with Iraq - it was the UN's defense of it's member Kuwait - the UN Security Council's decision - that brought us operation Desert Storm not some act of Congress. But keep re-writing history for yourself if it makes you feel better. Just don't expect anyone to buy into this nonsense.

Being a signatory to the UN means nothing as most nations are UN members and there are been several conflicts among them. Signing a piece of paper doesn't stop a war but you wouldn't know that one. I guess a signing a piece of paper wiping out your state would justify for you.

Secondly, the U.S. Congress provides the funds for U.S. troops and most of the UN peacekeepers. You clearly don't know that the no fly zones and UN sanctions happened after Kuwait was liberated.

Let us the know the next time post-Korean War when the UN wins a war and brings the peace.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That is what it seems like. The nation was fine sending troops out to do Bush's dirty work and get hold of the oil because he couldn't strike a deal on his own. It has lead to so many deaths, but we, as a nation, don't really even think about the civilians over there dying by our hands, but the army is still funded, aren't they? We still allow it to continue- why, because we have caused to much upset, we have no choice but to attempt putting things right. Everyday there are people dying in the streets of the US without healthcare- or worse, they have healthcare and are denied treatment because it is deemed they have 'preexisting conditions'. ####### is that?! How is that acceptable? And why are people content to let it continue? How selfish, as a nation, are we allowed to be?

Its not Bush's war its Americas war. A majority of Americans supported going to war. It was thought at that time that Saddam was a big threat and possibly had WMD.

It is Bush's war for two main reasons:

1) Bush pulled the trigger on Iraq

2) A president does not send our military into war based on public opinion - much less so if that public opinion has been geared towards support with incomplete, misleading and flat-out false information. Remember that a majority of Americans also thought that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks (flat out false) and that he posed an imminent threat to the US (flat out false). Now you go and do your research as to why Americans would have believed these two falsehoods. Start on whitehouse.gov and go back to late 2002 / early 2003 and read the transcripts of Bush's and Cheney's speeches during this time period where all the lies and mis-information is spread all across America.

Bush had Congressional approval to go to war. Now now, don't go with the 'Bush convinced the world of a lie' #######, because he doesn't and didn't control the flow of the WORLD's information. Plus, he's not capable of time travel.

I love how peeps are all 'Bush is a gormless idiot' yet at the same time credit him alone with being able to 'fool' the world.

FWIW, I think the Iraq-9/11 connection was a bit of a stretch, but we had every right to go into Iraq on separate merits anyways.

Bush didn't control the flow of the world information and he didn't fool the world - he controled the flow of information in the US and fooled much of America. Remember that the war on Iraq was not a world action nor anything the world cared to support but a dangerous, useless and illegitimate act of aggression by the US and the UK for which there is no justification within the international framework that both the US and UK are subject to. Of course, neither can be effectively sanctioned for this action as both are in a position to block any action by the international community.

Yeah, it's just Bush's fault

Sorry, I forgot that between Jan 2001 and Jan 2009, the buck somehow didn't stop in the Oval Office.

If anyone followed the very public debate that followed the massive public outrage from the British public about the UK Govt's lockstep support of Bush's war strategy, it seemed fairly clear that this is exactly what happened. The UK Govt was effectively tasked by the Bush administration with finding a rationale to justify a case for war with Iraq at the UN.

After all, Tony Blair being lampooned as "Bush's poodle" didn't exactly come out of nowhere.

Edited August 24, 2009 by Private Pike

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And this proves what, exactly?

You had no idea anything happen during Clinton's watch on Iraq. This also shows a consistent hostility to Iraq for 8 years without a Bush in office.

At what point did the Clinton take the US into a war against Iraq? Oh, that's right, it didn't.

The international law angle holds water as long as the US is a signatory to the UN Charter. Besides, if it doesn't hold water, then there wasn't a state of war with Iraq - it was the UN's defense of it's member Kuwait - the UN Security Council's decision - that brought us operation Desert Storm not some act of Congress. But keep re-writing history for yourself if it makes you feel better. Just don't expect anyone to buy into this nonsense.

Being a signatory to the UN means nothing as most nations are UN members and there are been several conflicts among them. Signing a piece of paper doesn't stop a war but you wouldn't know that one. I guess a signing a piece of paper wiping out your state would justify for you.

Secondly, the U.S. Congress provides the funds for U.S. troops and most of the UN peacekeepers. You clearly don't know that the no fly zones and UN sanctions happened after Kuwait was liberated.

Let us the know the next time post-Korean War when the UN wins a war and brings the peace.

The UN was created to change the way in which disputes and conflicts between nations are resolved. For Kuwait, it meant getting assistance from the community when Iraq illegally invaded it. Kuwait's integrity was restored and remains intact to this day. But that means nothing, of course.

Many - if not most - of the conflicts between and within nations since the creation of the UN were really proxy wars between the US and the USSR both of which were in a position to block any UN action against them leaving the system incabable of dealing with them. But that's an inconvenient reality as well, I suppose.

[Ban Hammer 14,643]

And this proves what, exactly?

You had no idea anything happen during Clinton's watch on Iraq. This also shows a consistent hostility to Iraq for 8 years without a Bush in office.

At what point did the Clinton take the US into a war against Iraq? Oh, that's right, it didn't.

he was too busy in somalia and bosnia. and still involved to a degree in iraq (google operation provide comfort - later known as operation northern watch). and yes, there was a southern iraq version too.

[HAL 9000 96]

I can't remember... were the No Fly Zones started under Bush Sr or after?

[alienlovechild 75]

At what point did the Clinton take the US into a war against Iraq? Oh, that's right, it didn't.

You don't need to declare war to drop bombs, control airspace and impose sanctions. I was in the military at the time and remember what was going on at the time even if the public didn't care. Now I know why most people weren't following the events that led up to 9/11.

Many - if not most - of the conflicts between and within nations since the creation of the UN were really proxy wars between the US and the USSR both of which were in a position to block any UN action against them leaving the system incabable of dealing with them. But that's an inconvenient reality as well, I suppose.

Ok, I'll buy that. There's idealism in the UN but the same thing happened with the League of Nations when Italy invaded

Ethiopia in 1934 and the events that followed. The major powers are the only ones who have the muscle to do something and signed agreements mean nothing unless someone can enforce it. Unfortunately, that means the U.S. as most countries can't project military power beyond their borders. Now we have most of the world against Sudan for genocide and the rest of the world will do nothing because they don't think it's worth it no matter their principles.

Edited August 24, 2009 by alienlovechild

[Ban Hammer 14,643]

I can't remember... were the No Fly Zones started under Bush Sr or after?

The Iraqi no-fly zones were a set of two separate no-fly zones (NFZs), and were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom and France after the Gulf War of 1991 to protect humanitarian operations in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south. Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones. The policy was enforced by US, UK and French aircraft patrols until France withdrew in 1998.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

[_Simpson_ 250]

That is what it seems like. The nation was fine sending troops out to do Bush's dirty work and get hold of the oil because he couldn't strike a deal on his own. It has lead to so many deaths, but we, as a nation, don't really even think about the civilians over there dying by our hands, but the army is still funded, aren't they? We still allow it to continue- why, because we have caused to much upset, we have no choice but to attempt putting things right. Everyday there are people dying in the streets of the US without healthcare- or worse, they have healthcare and are denied treatment because it is deemed they have 'preexisting conditions'. ####### is that?! How is that acceptable? And why are people content to let it continue? How selfish, as a nation, are we allowed to be?

Its not Bush's war its Americas war. A majority of Americans supported going to war. It was thought at that time that Saddam was a big threat and possibly had WMD.

It is Bush's war for two main reasons:

1) Bush pulled the trigger on Iraq

2) A president does not send our military into war based on public opinion - much less so if that public opinion has been geared towards support with incomplete, misleading and flat-out false information. Remember that a majority of Americans also thought that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks (flat out false) and that he posed an imminent threat to the US (flat out false). Now you go and do your research as to why Americans would have believed these two falsehoods. Start on whitehouse.gov and go back to late 2002 / early 2003 and read the transcripts of Bush's and Cheney's speeches during this time period where all the lies and mis-information is spread all across America.

Simply wrong in many ways.

1.) Bush couldnt of gone to war with out the approval of congress and congress would never of accepted it had they not had the people support. They had our support, the majority wanted it and to say this was Bush's war is silly. This was America's war.

2.)

A president does not send our military into war based on public opinion

Huh what of course they do if the people dont want it most likely the president will not send our military into war.

3.) I believe Bush really thought that there was WMDs in Irag and the whole oil conspiracy is just ridiculous. I think Bush was serious and passionate about the war on terrorism. So if you think he was purposely lying, let me ask you what you think his reasons were for going to war?

Sorry, but Congress did not declare any war on Iraq. They merely authorized the President to use military force as a last resort - the decision to go in w/o due cause was Bush's. Let's not re-write history.

As to your last point, Bush may have really believed that there were WMD's in Iraq but if he really thought that Iraq actually posed an imminent threat to the US or that Saddam had co-operated with AlQaeda or was somehow involved in 9/11, then that just goes to show what a moron he is. An excuse to send our military into harms way against international law it surely isn't.

Well it seems with you that because Bush made the final call and gave the military the go ahead that it was his war. Your thinking is flawed IMO, the majority of the American people wanted it and in a sense through congress gave Bush the go ahead.

Sorry but it was Americas war, I understand your POV but its just doesnt hold water IMO.

Edited August 24, 2009 by -Simpson-