Bush did the right thing by going into Iraq.

Though Miss England wasn't very nice at all, no one died.

Keep it in perspective. Real torture is ridiculously sadistic stuff that will make your stomach turn inside out. Cutting off arms, ears, nuts, etc. It's sick stuff. That didnt' happen with England and her crew.
 
Bush still did the right thing by going to Iraq. Opponents of this can argue all they want, BUT THE FACT IS THE WAR IS OVER THERE INSTEAD OF OVER HERE.

Beslan could have happen here. The task that the President chose although not easy, most likely saved hundreds if not thousand of us.
 
The Lousitania could have been prevented if the US would have gone on teh attack before being dragged into WWI.

Pearl Harbor could have been prevented if we had joined Britain and France in 1939.

9/11 could have been avoided if we would have gone after Saddam back when we knew where he was AFTER he had made several other attacks.

The advantage of being attacked and then going into action is that you have a sure, proven reason for counter-attacking, where as when you do what the US is doing now and what Israel has done several times through out their short history and attacking first you have to put up with decades of debates as to whether it was right or wrong.

I wish it were always as simple as right or wrong, but sometimes their are only different degrees of wrong.
 
I don't know if what you're saying can compare to what I'm trying to illustrate.

As far as Pearl Harbor is concerened, it had already happened, nothing more could have been done about that.

Rather what I'm trying to illustrate is Japan was the one who attacked us (not Germany), but we chose to take the fight to Germany rather than have them take the fight to us.

What I'm saying is we chose to take the fight to Iraq with all the terrorist fighting us there, rather than fight us here.
 
gladius said:
I don't know if what you're saying can compare to what I'm trying to illustrate.

As far as Pearl Harbor is concerened, it had already happened, nothing more could have been done about that.

Rather what I'm trying to illustrate is Japan was the one who attacked us (not Germany), but we chose to take the fight to Germany rather than have them take the fight to us.

What I'm saying is we chose to take the fight to Iraq with all the terrorist fighting us there, rather than fight us here.
Click to expand...


you shall check "i robot" that movie.

"to prevent any hurt to human is to put every human in the cell and totally controlled by robot"

that is your guys logic will end up with.
 
You shall learn the basics of grammar and punctuation before attacking the intelligence of others.



whosewar, if you do not like a topic, do not feel that you are required to post a reply to it. You are not able to "correct" the topics that others post, either. If you want to see a particular topic that is not already up, post your own rather than trying to hijack another member's.
 
Redneck said:
You shall learn the basics of grammar and punctuation before attacking the intelligence of others.
Click to expand...

sorry for my english.. But, as long as I express my point, I donot really care about the grammer.......But thanks for reminding and I will work hard to improve my English :roll:

Just imaging American speak other languages ;)
 
whosewar2000 said:
gladius said:
I don't know if what you're saying can compare to what I'm trying to illustrate.

As far as Pearl Harbor is concerened, it had already happened, nothing more could have been done about that.

Rather what I'm trying to illustrate is Japan was the one who attacked us (not Germany), but we chose to take the fight to Germany rather than have them take the fight to us.

What I'm saying is we chose to take the fight to Iraq with all the terrorist fighting us there, rather than fight us here.
Click to expand...


you shall check "i robot" that movie.

"to prevent any hurt to human is to put every human in the cell and totally controlled by robot"

that is your guys logic will end up with.
Click to expand...

You need to get with reality, instead of learning your lessons from Hollywood fantasy.
 
gladius said:
You need to get with reality, instead of learning your lessons from Hollywood fantasy.
Click to expand...

the matter of the fact is: who has the reality?when you believe only you have reality because you think god is with you, I can just think exactly same way.
 
Hey you want an example of a bunch that thinks God is with them............The Islamic Extermists we are currently at war with.
 
gladius said:
First day of school was today, in my area at least. You could see the masses of kids and the traffic jams of the parents cars caused by all this.

I couldn't help but think, what if it was here in the US that the terrorist attacked on the kids first day of school instead of in Russia.

It was widely known that the terrorist and extremist flocked to Iraq in order to fight our troops. They saw this as a good and easy opportunity to harm the US. Who knows how many of them we killed. Each one of those we killed over there is one less that could potentialy come over here and do us harm.

I seriuosly believe that if we hadn't gone over to Iraq, some of those terrorist who got killed over there would have made plans to do some kind of strike somewhere. Out of those at least some would have picked the US as a target. If they would have been succesful, we will never know, and I'm glad.

I know we lost over a thousand troops in Iraq already. But I sincerely believe they didn't die vain. Because of them, the kids who went to school today all came home safely.
Click to expand...

Hi

The content of your post is a seperate issue from the title of the thread so I will answer them separately.

Content
The invasion of Iraq and the hostage situation in Russia have nothing to do with kids in America going to school or even being safe.

The whole post is just......odd.

You do not border a Fundamental Islamic state that you are at war with. So why the connection to Russia?

What has invading Iraq have to do with kids going to school? No one is threatning your schools. The only risk of gunfire in a US school is from a disgruntled student.

Title

Did Bush do the right thing?

I suspect some Iraq's will be better off. Some will be worse off. Certainly the war itself was very destructive and we can only hope that the USA provides suffient support to the Iraq people. It was my understanding that Iraq was a normal middle eastern dicatorship before the war. Fairly modern and providing adequate services to the majority of its citizens.

Most of the hard ships were caused my the blockade, not by Saddam. Having said that certain groups that Saddam opposed were treated terribly and their lives have improved imensly.

The issue I have is the lack of integrity of the US government. They claimed they went into the war to remove WMD. Clearly none were there. Even worse they knew none would be there, or should have known. If the USA wishes to act as a polcieman and remove "evil dicators" they they should do that. Not just pick and choose but stand up and show they have the integrity to support there international stand.

I know I for one believe my own Prime Minister John Howard (Australia) has shown himself to lack moral fibre due to his stand to support the USA in the war.

So, no, Bush did the wrong thing.
 
I believe G.Bush did the right thing for his father old Bush but he did a terrible wrong thing to invade Iraq.

Why for his father? Since when he started the war I already knew he wanted to invade Iraq to revenge for this father, why? because old Bush's portrets were painted on the entry ground of the Iraqi hotels, everyone was stepping over Bush's head, young Bush couldn't pick that, so he knew there was no WMD but he loved to believe there was WMD so he went to war to do personal revenge.

Saddam did a silly thing, he should not flame the dude Bush, since he is a cowboy type too, he wouldn't pick it, so Saddam got sacked.

Very simple, if you can read people's mind.
 
Chocobo_Blitzer said:
Brilliance, frog
Click to expand...

I hope you don't mean sarcasm :D

I watched the Bush portrets thing in CNN.

If I were Bush, I would not pick it either, it is very human, but, for personal reasons, enage a war, losing thousands own soldiers, let alone tens thousand lives in Iraq, that's mean.
 
Like I said, legally it was by no means an "illegal" war as Kofi Annan wants you to believe.
Resolution 1441 (or whatever it was) stated that non compliance would result in severe consequences, and by severe they meant force.
Did he do the right thing? Hind sight says probably not. With America's military tied down in one region, the bad boys of the rest of the world have started to trash talk and flex muscles (Iran, China and North Korea).
So in retrospect, no it wasn't the smart thing to do.
 
It's true, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are the listed bad guys.

Though if it wasn't for Taiwan and Korean issues, I would feel a lot better about snugglin' up to China.
 
walkerd said:
Did Bush do the right thing?

I suspect some Iraq's will be better off. Some will be worse off. Certainly the war itself was very destructive and we can only hope that the USA provides suffient support to the Iraq people. It was my understanding that Iraq was a normal middle eastern dicatorship before the war. Fairly modern and providing adequate services to the majority of its citizens.
Click to expand...
Just FYI, from what my cousin saw (he was over there working in a semi-military function), those people Saddam liked were given great favors and many modern things. Those he didn't like were often forced to live in Medieval circumstances with little or no benefit from modern things.

Most of the hard ships were caused my the blockade, not by Saddam. Having said that certain groups that Saddam opposed were treated terribly and their lives have improved imensly.
Click to expand...
Good point, but remember that the sanctions were UN imposed.

They claimed they went into the war to remove WMD. Clearly none were there. Even worse they knew none would be there, or should have known.
Click to expand...
The biggest load of nonsense I've heard beaten into the ground by the international community= "Saddam never had WMD and the United States knew it and invaded for no legitimate reason." His nuclear capabilities were certainly in doubt. But 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' includes chemical weapons. We know he had them. He used them on Iran and on the Kurds and we have more than enough proof on that score. There was no reason for anyone to believe that a power-hungry man like Saddam would just simply get rid of such things, but apparently he did so ... or hid them too well for anyone to find them. The real question is not whether he had them, its finding out what he did with those he had. The intelligence information for the USA, Russia, France and Britain all pointed to a significant threat in Iraq. Whatever those reports were pointing at has been very cleverly removed or sent elsewhere or it was a blatant smoke and mirrors trick by Saddam himself. The outrage of the international community is partly valid because the connection with the War on Terror and Iraq was nowhere near as obvious as Afganistan. When changing regimes ... well be prepared to catch a lot of crap no matter what.

If the USA wishes to act as a polcieman and remove "evil dicators" they they should do that. Not just pick and choose but stand up and show they have the integrity to support there international stand.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. I'm not crazy about the idea of the United States playing policeman, but at the same time, the world has generally been better off for it. The current outrage on the part of the international community will make it hard for the United States to continue to fill such a role in the future.

I know I for one believe my own Prime Minister John Howard (Australia) has shown himself to lack moral fibre due to his stand to support the USA in the war.

So, no, Bush did the wrong thing.
Click to expand...
Mostly a product of bad information. Its a legit mistake at best, and it really hasn't made the world any worse off. Also (and everyone fails to take note of this fact) the number 1 funder of terrorism worldwide is no longer in power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top