Bush scarier that Kim Jong-il: UK poll

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

1) So, according to your argument, it is okay to ignore the UN and most of the nations in the world to go after someone for ignoring the UN and most of the nations in the world. That's interesting. Thanks for clearing that up.

2) How can you assure me of anything if you don't know? I am not aware of a single source that would put the Iraqi civilian death toll that is attributable to our illegal invasion of that country below several tens of thousands. The only numbers I am aware of are either around 50,000 or around 650,000 depending on what is actually counted. Either source confirms, though, that the death tolls are rising and that they have been on that rising trend ever since Bush gave the orders to march in which he had no right or reason to do.

3) Intent? So, starting an unjustified, illegal and needless war causing tens of thousands of deaths is okay as long as there's a positive intent behind it? Tell that to those Iraqis that lost their husbands, wifes, parents, children and siblings as a result of our attack on their country. You know, the other guys I pictured with our war mongering President follow that same line of BS argument that you put forth for doing all the bad things they're doing.

1. Ignoring the U.N. was the correct thing to do. Saddam had two members of the security council France and Germany in his back pocket. "oil for food program" Saddam thought he would'nt be touched. Bush gave Saddam and his humanitarian sons 48 hours to leave. there are holes all over your U.N. argument.

2. There you go again BLAMING Bush for ALL the DEATHS in Iraq. I beleive most of the civilians have been killed by insurgents from Syria and Iran and the lovely Saddam ( before he was taken out) If you left your door unlocked and someone entered your house and did damage who get's the BLAME? according to your theory "YOU WOULD BE" so so LAME!

3. Answer's to 1 and 2 negate all the comments of #3

1) Keep wanting to have it both ways, don't you? Either the UN and it's mandates are important or they are not. If they are, then we shouldn't have invaded without proper mandate. If they aren't, then Saddam had nothing to pay attention to. Take your pick and stick with it. The problem with the UN is that some nations (that's not only the US) want to respect it only when they can use it to further their own policy agendas while others are held to the Charter all the time. That's not going to work.

2) Insurgents from other countires, eh? Where were they prior to March 19, 2003?

3) The tens of thousands are dead and they shouldn't be. Intent is debatable. It's also irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's just that simple.

ETA: Learn to work the quotes for crying out loud!

Edited November 5, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Carol&Marc 0]

1) So, according to your argument, it is okay to ignore the UN and most of the nations in the world to go after someone for ignoring the UN and most of the nations in the world. That's interesting. Thanks for clearing that up.

2) How can you assure me of anything if you don't know? I am not aware of a single source that would put the Iraqi civilian death toll that is attributable to our illegal invasion of that country below several tens of thousands. The only numbers I am aware of are either around 50,000 or around 650,000 depending on what is actually counted. Either source confirms, though, that the death tolls are rising and that they have been on that rising trend ever since Bush gave the orders to march in which he had no right or reason to do.

3) Intent? So, starting an unjustified, illegal and needless war causing tens of thousands of deaths is okay as long as there's a positive intent behind it? Tell that to those Iraqis that lost their husbands, wifes, parents, children and siblings as a result of our attack on their country. You know, the other guys I pictured with our war mongering President follow that same line of BS argument that you put forth for doing all the bad things they're doing.

1. Ignoring the U.N. was the correct thing to do. Saddam had two members of the security council France and Germany in his back pocket. "oil for food program" Saddam thought he would'nt be touched. Bush gave Saddam and his humanitarian sons 48 hours to leave. there are holes all over your U.N. argument.

2. There you go again BLAMING Bush for ALL the DEATHS in Iraq. I beleive most of the civilians have been killed by insurgents from Syria and Iran and the lovely Saddam ( before he was taken out) If you left your door unlocked and someone entered your house and did damage who get's the BLAME? according to your theory "YOU WOULD BE" so so LAME!

3. Answer's to 1 and 2 negate all the comments of #3

1) Keep wanting to have it both ways, don't you? Either the UN and it's mandates are important or they are not. If they are, then we shouldn't have invaded without proper mandate. If they aren't, then Saddam had nothing to pay attention to. Take your pick and stick with it. The problem with the UN is that some nations (that's not only the US) want to respect it only when they can use it to further their own policy agendas while others are held to the Charter all the time. That's not going to work.

2) Insurgents from other countires, eh? Where were they prior to March 19, 2003?

3) The tens of thousands are dead and they shouldn't be. Intent is debatable. It's also irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's just that simple.

ETA: Learn to work the quotes for crying out loud!

I have tried as you can see but I still havent figured it out

[Ban Hammer 14,297]

Reinhard, I would also add that the atrocities for which he was charged against and found guilty of happened back when we were allies with him. We even knew that he gased the Kurds. The bushbots are never going to see things beyond black and white...except in the situations when it was convenient historically.

and i don't expect the bashbots to do anything other than bash bush for anything they can

[DeadPoolX 9]

I think some people really need a new plan of attack. Getting on Halliburton's case is a ridiculous, if not childish, tactic.

It just so happens that Halliburton is one of the leading oil companies in the entire world. It should also be noted that Halliburton wasn't the only oil company in the region. British Petroleom, Schlumberger, Baker Hughes, Flowserve, Fisher-Rosemount, and the Royal Dutch/Shell Group also had their hands in Iraq. However, because Vice President ####### Cheney was the head of Halliburton, that company gets all of the negative press.

That oil is vital to the well-being of the Iraqi people. I know many here -- and probably around the world -- figure the United States went in to "protect and acquire the oil fields." Well, here's the deal about that: President George W. Bush could've made a business contract with Saddam Hussein for that oil. It would've taken a lot less time, money and manpower than this war. I'm sure it could've been done at least somewhat discreetly as well, with only a relative few actually knowing about it, and therefore, Bush's poll numbers and overall popularity, would be higher. So it really wasn't in Bush's best interests to go into Iraq. He committed the U.S. military to such an action because it was the right thing to do -- at least at the time, considering the intelligence reports we had received and the plight of the average Iraqi under Saddam Hussein's rule.

Backing up a bit, I'd like to respond to Mawilson about "www.iraqbodycount.org" and why I don't think that's a credible source, nor do I view it as objective. Look at the agenda of the website itself. It's painfully obvious that it's a site built around an anti-war and anti-military spin.

Now then, to the questions posed about my original post:

1. Is it okay to ignore the United Nations? Well, once again, it's all about "intent." Saddam Hussein's intent was to continue being dictator, and a volatile murderer. Bush, on the other hand, had the intent of stopping a madman from gaining access to "weapons of mass destruction" and liberating the Iraqi people. It just so happened that WMD's didn't turn up, but his intent was still good. He didn't go in with the intent to "conquer the country and enslave the people." In fact, it was quite the opposite.

2. The death toll for Iraqi civilians is too high, I definitely agree on that. I do not agree, however, that it is the fault of the military or the United States at large. The murders committed are not by U.S. soldiers, but by terrorists and insurgents.

3. Intent is the major difference between Bush and those three maniacs pictured before in this thread. Intent is everything. Let's look at the difference between the U.S. military and terrorist groups. Both end up killing civilians. However, the intent is different. The American military doesn't INTEND to do so, and only on rare occasions and by accident, does this occur. Contrast that with terrorists and insurgents, who by all accounts, INTEND to target civilians as well as military personnel.

If you don't take intent into account, then the U.S. military is as bad as any terrorist group. If you don't take intent into account, then ANY of the WORLD's militaries are as bad as any terrorist group. We all know that isn't true and isn't the case here. Intent means a whole hell of a lot. Intent, outside of the battlefield, is the difference between First and Second Degree Murder and Manslaughter charges in a criminal court of law. So you can't tell me that intent doesn't mean anything.

As for "starting an unjustified, illegal and needless war causing tens of thousands of deaths," let me ask you a question: Just what is a "justified, legal and needed war?" Don't try romanticizing previous conflicts -- think about them historically and militarily. Practically every war we've had could've been avoided with hindsight; justification is debatable, depending who you ask and when, for every war we've had, and legal? Well, the last war that was declared by Congress was World War II -- but even then, it is fully within the legal paremeters of the President of the United States to commit troops to battle without the express permission of Congress.

So what really makes this war any different from previous wars? Not a whole lot. The real difference is that we're not reading about it in history books (or hearing about it from our relatives in the past tense) or seeing it speed by like the 1991 Gulf War, which was more of an excursion than a war. The point is that this war is no worse than any other we've had in U.S. history; it's actually not as bad as many of them.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

2. The death toll for Iraqi civilians is too high, I definitely agree on that. I do not agree, however, that it is the fault of the military or the United States at large. The murders committed are not by U.S. soldiers, but by terrorists and insurgents.

As for "starting an unjustified, illegal and needless war causing tens of thousands of deaths," let me ask you a question: Just what is a "justified, legal and needed war?"

Let's just touch on these two points for a second:

Whose responsibility was it to defend and secure Iraq after the previous security and defense structure was broken? I'd say it was the responsibility of the US as the invading and occupying power. The US failed miserably on that end and that is the President's responibility. The buck still stops in the Oval Office even if Mr. Bush doesn't see like to it that way.

As for starting a justified war in a way consistent with international conventions, treaties and obligations, read up on it in the Charter of the UN to which the US is a signatory. Bush trampled on that document by invading Iraq w/o proper mandate.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think some people really need a new plan of attack. Getting on Halliburton's case is a ridiculous, if not childish, tactic.

It just so happens that Halliburton is one of the leading oil companies in the entire world. It should also be noted that Halliburton wasn't the only oil company in the region. British Petroleom, Schlumberger, Baker Hughes, Flowserve, Fisher-Rosemount, and the Royal Dutch/Shell Group also had their hands in Iraq. However, because Vice President ####### Cheney was the head of Halliburton, that company gets all of the negative press.

Let's not forget that Halliburton got bad press for not only for uncompetitive contracts with the government to provide support services to US troops. Basically the Halliburton contract was accepted by the defense department without seeking any competing (cheaper) bids.

By Griff Witte

Washington Post Staff Writer

The Army is discontinuing a controversial multibillion-dollar deal with oil services giant Halliburton Co. to provide logistical support to U.S. troops worldwide, a decision that could cut deeply into the firm's dominance of government contracting in Iraq.

The choice comes after several years of attacks from critics who saw the contract as a symbol of politically connected corporations profiteering on the war.

Under the deal, Halliburton had exclusive rights to provide the military with a wide range of work that included keeping soldiers around the world fed, sheltered and in communication with friends and family back home. Government audits turned up more than $1 billion in questionable costs. Whistle-blowers told how the company charged $45 per case of soda, double-billed on meals and allowed troops to bathe in contaminated water.

Halliburton officials have denied the allegations strenuously. Army officials yesterday defended the company's performance but also acknowledged that reliance on a single contractor left the government vulnerable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6071101459.html

[Marc and Olga 0]

Now then, to the questions posed about my original post:

1. Is it okay to ignore the United Nations? Well, once again, it's all about "intent." Saddam Hussein's intent was to continue being dictator, and a volatile murderer. Bush, on the other hand, had the intent of stopping a madman from gaining access to "weapons of mass destruction" and liberating the Iraqi people. It just so happened that WMD's didn't turn up, but his intent was still good. He didn't go in with the intent to "conquer the country and enslave the people." In fact, it was quite the opposite.

So if the SOLE intent was to liberate Iraq do you really believe that the American people would have surrendered the "war on terror" on the grounds of removing a "madman"?

Somehow I doubt it, it took the claims of WMD and a link to AQ to make the war on Iraq a "popular" war... it became unpopular when both claims were proven false.

So I say to you the intent of removing a "madman" is not strong enough to justify this war on Iraq...aren't there worse "madmen" that we could have removed from power that at the time were closer to a nuclear weapons that pose a much more imminent threat to the U.S. and it's allies?

Should we have not continued the hunt for Osama Bin Ladin and allowed the U.N. weapons inspectors the time they needed to do their job?

I am curious, why the president who said we will get those responsible for this (WTC), give up on the single most important person "responsible" for that terrible day (9/11), why he is "not concerned" with this person (Osama Bin ladin) for the sole INTENT of removing a "madman" (from an oil rich country), when there is at least 1 madman still in power (of a non-oil rich country). A madman that is allegedly in possession of nuclear technology and has a strong hatred of the U.S. and it's allies (one of whom is right next door...to the South)

Again, I say - Operation Iraqi Liberation was never about WMD or terror and I would be willing to bet it seriously had nothing to do with liberating the Iraqis from Saddam.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Now then, to the questions posed about my original post:

1. Is it okay to ignore the United Nations? Well, once again, it's all about "intent." Saddam Hussein's intent was to continue being dictator, and a volatile murderer. Bush, on the other hand, had the intent of stopping a madman from gaining access to "weapons of mass destruction" and liberating the Iraqi people. It just so happened that WMD's didn't turn up, but his intent was still good. He didn't go in with the intent to "conquer the country and enslave the people." In fact, it was quite the opposite.

So if the SOLE intent was to liberate Iraq do you really believe that the American people would have surrendered the "war on terror" on the grounds of removing a "madman"?

Somehow I doubt it, it took the claims of WMD and a link to AQ to make the war on Iraq a "popular" war... it became unpopular when both claims were proven false.

So I say to you the intent of removing a "madman" is not strong enough to justify this war on Iraq...aren't there worse "madmen" that we could have removed from power that at the time were closer to a nuclear weapons that pose a much more imminent threat to the U.S. and it's allies?

Should we have not continued the hunt for Osama Bin Ladin and allowed the U.N. weapons inspectors the time they needed to do their job?

I am curious, why the president who said we will get those responsible for this (WTC), give up on the single most important person "responsible" for that terrible day (9/11), why he is "not concerned" with this person (Osama Bin ladin) for the sole INTENT of removing a "madman" (from an oil rich country), when there is at least 1 madman still in power (of a non-oil rich country). A madman that is allegedly in possession of nuclear technology and has a strong hatred of the U.S. and it's allies (one of whom is right next door...to the South)

Again, I say - Operation Iraqi Liberation was never about WMD or terror and I would be willing to bet it seriously had nothing to do with liberating the Iraqis from Saddam.

Agree whole-heartedly.

The "war on terror", whatever the original intention was has become little more than an excuse to do things that were unthinkable prior to 9/11. Knocking over the anthills, if you will.

[Ban Hammer 14,297]

As for starting a justified war in a way consistent with international conventions, treaties and obligations, read up on it in the Charter of the UN to which the US is a signatory. Bush trampled on that document by invading Iraq w/o proper mandate.

survey says......screw the un

[Cristy 4]

If Dubya was only doing it to free the Iraqui people from a madman why did he wait so long and why not other countries? How about some countries in africa? Oh right....no oil.

[Heracles 417]

Marc, get a f#cking clue...sh#t your ignorance is astounding.

Hmm yes.. Coming from the guy whose source of info is based on internet articles..

Same old group of people with the same rhetorical progressive democrat ###### have proven their ignorance and how biased they really are countless times in this forum. Need I bother with examples..

Do you guys seriously think that if bush leaves and the democrats regain power the world will love America again??

Edited November 6, 2006 by Infidel

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Marc, get a f#cking clue...sh#t your ignorance is astounding.

Hmm yes.. Coming from the guy whose source of info is based on internet articles..

Same old group of people with the same rhetorical progressive democrat ###### have proven their ignorance and how biased they really are countless times in this forum. Need I bother with examples..

Do you guys seriously think that if bush leaves and the democrats regain power the world will love America again??

I think you might find that there was generally less negative sentiment towards the US, before Bush came on the scene.

[Heracles 417]

If Dubya was only doing it to free the Iraqui people from a madman why did he wait so long and why not other countries? How about some countries in africa? Oh right....no oil.

Likewise.. Fellow like minded people such as George Looney talk about poor Dafur and Congo and the atrocities being committed there against innocent women and children.

Fact is hundreds of people are being slaughtered daily there while many live their self centered, pleasure seeking, death to bush novel writing lives. Yet, if American was to declare war with the people causing these atrocities, the same group of humanitarians talking about these poor people would chant and protest No War No War! No War!

Alas we do nothing to appease them at the expense of these people lives.. Makes sense. pro-choice (aka all about me me me) and not pro-life..

I think you might find that there was generally less negative sentiment towards the US, before Bush came on the scene.

Depending on which part of the world we are talking about, I would agree. My whole point is that America as a whole loses when their is internal fighting and hatred against one another.. Where one party would like to see the leader of the other party removed, no matter what the cost..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If Dubya was only doing it to free the Iraqui people from a madman why did he wait so long and why not other countries? How about some countries in africa? Oh right....no oil.

Likewise.. Fellow like minded people such as George Looney talk about poor Dafur and Congo and the atrocities being committed there against innocent women and children.

Fact is hundreds of people are being slaughtered daily there while many live their self centered, pleasure seeking, death to bush novel writing lives. Yet, if American was to declare war with the people causing these atrocities, the same group of humanitarians talking about these poor people would chant and protest No War No War! No War!

Alas we do nothing to appease them at the expense of these people lives.. Makes sense. pro-choice (aka all about me me me) and not pro-life..

Truth is there are many despotic regimes all around the world - and we have done little or nothing about them. In fact, we have been willing not only to tolerate them but actively support them - for political and economic reasons.

As Charles did earlier you're trying to moralise something that was never justified on a moral basis to begin with. 99.99999999% of war's are fought for either self-interest or self-preservation. Usually the former. Iraq was no different.

Depending on which part of the world we are talking about, I would agree. My whole point is that America as a whole loses when their is internal fighting and hatred against one another.. Where one party would like to see the leader of the other party removed, no matter what the cost..

Considering how the guy has chosen to exercise his presidential authority, that isn't surprising either.

[DeadPoolX 9]

I think some of you are missing the point.

What's trying to be said is that even if the United States was fighting for any one of those other countries where a despot is in-charge (Africa, for instance), there are still entities within and outside the U.S. that would be screaming their heads off, shouting "no war!" and that "there's never a good reason to go to war." I've actually met people who honestly believe that there is not a single solitary reason in the world to go to war. I honestly question the sanity of these individuals. They truly believe we can "all be friends" and live a "happy happy joy joy" life together.

In addition, had the United States really wanted the oil (and had no intention of freeing the Iraqi people and seeting up a democratic government), then it could've destroyed Saddam Hussein's regime, and razed Iraq to the ground, leaving only the oil fields standing. How difficult do you think that would've been? Not very, I can tell you. Sure, the international community wouldn't have been happy about it, but what could it have done? Absolutely nothing. The United States could've very easily demolish Iraq and slaughtered it's citizenry in one fell swoop. Such an act would've been far more timely, much cheaper, and cost less American lives.

But you and I didn't see that happen. Want to know why? Because the United States isn't hell-bent on obliterating other civilizations. Furthermore, the U.S. is not run by a tin-pot dictator, but a moral man who honestly believes he has done -- and is doing -- the right thing for Americans and Iraqis. Whether or not this will be the best thing for both will be up to history to decide.

Something many should remember, however, is that time dulls all wounds, and the further removed we Americans get from our presidents, the revered most of the presidents become. Case in point: President Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was only elected president because the Democratic ticket was split in the north and south; he wasn't even on the ballot in many southern states. When Lincoln was elected, that was the "final straw" for many southerners and most southern states seceded from the United States. Contrary to what many high school (and some college) history textbooks say, Lincoln was not the famous, beloved man we know today, nor was he a gentle, peaceful man. Lincoln was actually despised throughout the north and the south -- many knew little about him, and the Republican party, and what they did know, (such as his policies of "containment of slavery" which annoyed the abolitionists and the slave holders equally) they didn't like at all. Lincoln also suspended Habeas Corpus throughout the United States and had many individuals arrested, for as little as speaking out against him. He even toyed with the idea of arresting the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for pubically disagreeing with him on an issue. The U.S. became little more than a "police state" under Lincoln's short term.

So it's quite puzzling as to how and why a president, who was so hated and did so many terrible things against his own people, is now considered one of the -- if not the single -- most "beloved and best presidents" the United States has ever had. Under this sort of delusionary practice, in a century or more, George W. Bush might be considered a great president as well. We won't know of course, we'll all be dead. However, it's interesting to think that thoughts about a person could change so dramatically over the course of time.