Poll: Will Bush attack Iraq anyway?

[Thrillhouse]

Now that Iraq has allowed inspectors back in without restrictions, will Chickenhawk Georgie's bloodlust be satiated?

BTW, Bush lied to the U.N.

 

[Bluesboy2]

I certainly hope so

Nukes, thats all I have to say.

 

[Ferrophiliac]

War in Iraq

If Iraq will not allow the inspectors to really do their jobs as he did last time, YES

If Iraq allows the inspector to do their job properly, NO

If Iraq fullfills the U.N. agreements and all of them, NO

If Iraq doesn't follow through with the agreements, YES

President Bush a war hawk? So far he's only had one war, and has threatened only one more. Reagan had a lot more, Bush Sr had a few more, and Clinton had a lot more. And JFK almost ended the world over cuba in the 60's and got us in Viet Nam to begin with, was he a war hawk. Are they all war hawks. Yes I'm an independent and don't vote for any of them.

 

[Thrillhouse]

Re: War in Iraq

If Iraq will not allow the inspectors to really do their jobs as he did last time, YES

If Iraq allows the inspector to do their job properly, NO

If Iraq fullfills the U.N. agreements and all of them, NO

If Iraq doesn't follow through with the agreements, YES

President Bush a war hawk? So far he's only had one war, and has threatened only one more. Reagan had a lot more, Bush Sr had a few more, and Clinton had a lot more. And JFK almost ended the world over cuba in the 60's and got us in Viet Nam to begin with, was he a war hawk. Are they all war hawks. Yes I'm an independent and don't vote for any of them.

I didn't say "war hawk." I said "chicken hawk." That's someone who is a hawk, but was a chicken when he was needed by his country. Here's a list.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

I looked at that "Bush Lied to the U.N." article in which the author claims that "President Bush spoke to the UN General Assembly on Thursday, September 12 about the supposedly urgent need to attack Iraq. The following is a list of statements made by him that are either illogical, half-truths, or outright falsehoods, with responses to each." Here's part of that list:

1. "Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation."

Kuwait had been slant-drilling the Iraqi oil field of Rumallah as well as driving down the price of oil at a time when Iraq was in desperate need of funds to rebuild its infrastructure after the Iran-Iraq War (in which Iraq was the favored state of the US). While it is arguable whether this was justification for an invasion, this provocation is significantly less specious than that cited for, say, the American invasion of Panama seven months earlier.

This is a "lie"? I think the author is stretching things here. 12 years Iraq did invade Kuwait without provocation. It certianly is "arguable" whether slant-drilling is a justifiable reason for rolling tanks into a capital and forcing occupation and, essentially, annexing a sovereign nation.

2. "And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries
and their resources."

Satellite imagery showed no Iraqi military buildup in the border regions with Saudi Arabia in either Iraq or occupied Kuwait in September 1990, as revealed in a series of articles in the <St.Petersburg> (FL) Times in January 1991. Yet the elder President Bush fabricated this "aggression" to justify Operation Desert Shield.

Well, the "satellite imagery" thing doesn't mean anything unless Saddam was planning to immediately attack his neighbors,a nd I don't Bush or anyone was saying that. Bush said Saddam was "poised", and he certainly was. He had a mobile army, the fourth largest on earth, rich oil fields, and a belief that he was the central force in the region and a belief that he was destined to rule all that he surveyed. He most certainly was poised. Again, there's no "lie" here. Bush's speech was rhetoric, not a history paper. Tell the author to calm down. Right now. Get him on the phone.

3. "Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations."

Hussein was appeased by coalition forces. After the cease-fire of March 1991, Hussein asked for permission to fly air strikes against rebels in both the northern and southern no-fly zones of Iraq. The elder Bush granted Hussein's wish, even though the American President had publicly encouraged the Kurdish population of Iraq to rise up. Hussein brutally suppressed the rebellion.

The suppression of the Kurdish rebellion is more than a little disturbing. I believe Bush senior's rationalization was that the mission was not to topple Iraq's government, and that allowing Saddam to handle his own internal insurrection was proper, since it was emboldened by Desert Storm. In other words, Bush wanted the rebels to topple Saddam, but the U.S. was not willing to "help", and, also, unsure and wary about just what kind of administration would replace Saddam's. The whole thing stank.

But, again, going back to the U.N. speech and Bush's assertion that Saddam's agression was stopped, I again think the author is stretching it here. By "aggression" Bush is clearly referring to exansion outward, not supression inward. Again, calling this a "lie", or even a "half-truth" (which still implies lying), is splitting the finest of hairs, and not really relevant to the point of the speech.

The article goes on like this, taking phrases of rhetoric and critiquing them as if they were written-in-blood legislation, and concluding that "Bush lied to the U.N.". Silly. I submit that if you apply the same logic of critique to this article that the author applied to Bush's speech you will come to the same conclusion he did, that this article says things that are "either illogical, half-truths, or outright falsehoods".

 

[Lost Cause]

Here we go again....

Another unbiased thread, how enlightening! President Bush didn't run like other politicians we know of. He was a fucking fighter pilot in the Air National Guard. Do you know how many Guard units went to 'Nam smartass? Do you know what intelligence it takes to fly a supersonic aircraft, genius? Are you saying those that serve in Guard units are "chicken?" What a line of shit! If you're going to ask a question in a thread, at least make it objective so you don't discredit it right off.

Answer: If the "Chamberlains" in the UN drag their feet, do not acknowledge the UN Resolution 687 violations, If Sodamninsane fucks with the inspectors in any way, I would go myself to cap that crazy motherfucker!
*Have a day!

 

[HeavyStick]

BTW, Bush lied to the U.N.

you believe news coming from a donkey punch site?

 

[Lost Cause]

"Chicken" National Guard?

Yeah, the facts bear out your premise:

During the Vietnam war, almost 23,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called up for a year of active duty; some 8,700 were deployed to Vietnam.

*Most Guardsmen serve the NG units by where they live, where'd you serve?

 

[Thrillhouse]

Re: "Chicken" National Guard?

Yeah, the facts bear out your premise:

During the Vietnam war, almost 23,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called up for a year of active duty; some 8,700 were deployed to Vietnam.

*Most Guardsmen serve the NG units by where they live, where'd you serve?

Please don't misunderstand; I have the utmost respect for those who served, even more so for those who served during wartime. GWB, however, after having his rich, influential Daddy get him a (relatively) cushy postion in the NG, deserted his unit. Are you actually defending a deserter?

 

[Thrillhouse]

By the way, Colin Powell doesn't like guys like GWB.

"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country." (Colin Powell’s autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148)