Pages: 1 2
Ugh. Look, Bush did not invade Iraq, we were in a cease fire. We were still at war with them. Second, Jimmy Carter perceived Iran a bigger threat than Iraq, so he "hooked them up" so to speak. Jimmy also armed the Taliban in order to defeat Russia in the cold war.EVieira wrote:
Nothing the UN could have done would have stopped Bush from invading Iraq, after all his premisse was the WMDs that never existed. And since Bush's handling of things is the biggest fuck up of all, I don't see how you can even try to say the UN could have made things better.
On a side note, it is always good to remember that the US was the one who supplied Saddams chemical weapons in the first place, back in the Iran-Iraq war. Thats just about the biggest fuck up ever...
Last edited by usmarine2007 (2006-11-27 11:39:04)
I could well be wrong, but I'd always heard that it was Reagan that did that? Or was it the both of them?usmarine2007 wrote:
Ugh. Look, Bush did not invade Iraq, we were in a cease fire. We were still at war with them. Second, Jimmy Carter perceived Iran a bigger threat than Iraq, so he "hooked them up" so to speak. Jimmy also armed the Taliban in order to defeat Russia in the cold war.EVieira wrote:
Nothing the UN could have done would have stopped Bush from invading Iraq, after all his premisse was the WMDs that never existed. And since Bush's handling of things is the biggest fuck up of all, I don't see how you can even try to say the UN could have made things better.
On a side note, it is always good to remember that the US was the one who supplied Saddams chemical weapons in the first place, back in the Iran-Iraq war. Thats just about the biggest fuck up ever...
I dosen't matter if tecnically it was Bush, or Bush senior, or whoever was the first who had the bright idea of taking down Saddam. The biggest fuck up still is Bush handling of things. Until someone fucks up even bigger in the middle-east, Bush will be the one on top.usmarine2007 wrote:
Ugh. Look, Bush did not invade Iraq, we were in a cease fire. We were still at war with them. Second, Jimmy Carter perceived Iran a bigger threat than Iraq, so he "hooked them up" so to speak. Jimmy also armed the Taliban in order to defeat Russia in the cold war.EVieira wrote:
Nothing the UN could have done would have stopped Bush from invading Iraq, after all his premisse was the WMDs that never existed. And since Bush's handling of things is the biggest fuck up of all, I don't see how you can even try to say the UN could have made things better.
On a side note, it is always good to remember that the US was the one who supplied Saddams chemical weapons in the first place, back in the Iran-Iraq war. Thats just about the biggest fuck up ever...
Maybe not. The UN also said this time not to go to Bagdad, but this time Bush or whoever didn't listlen. Look were we are now...usmarine2007 wrote:
And goddammit, it was the UN who said we could not go to Baghdad during the first Gulf war, so yes, the UN could have done things better.
What are you talking about? He invaded Kuwait...remember? or were you even born yet?EVieira wrote:
I dosen't matter if tecnically it was Bush, or Bush senior, or whoever was the first who had the bright idea of taking down Saddam. The biggest fuck up still is Bush handling of things. Until someone fucks up even bigger in the middle-east, Bush will be the one on top.usmarine2007 wrote:
Ugh. Look, Bush did not invade Iraq, we were in a cease fire. We were still at war with them. Second, Jimmy Carter perceived Iran a bigger threat than Iraq, so he "hooked them up" so to speak. Jimmy also armed the Taliban in order to defeat Russia in the cold war.EVieira wrote:
Nothing the UN could have done would have stopped Bush from invading Iraq, after all his premisse was the WMDs that never existed. And since Bush's handling of things is the biggest fuck up of all, I don't see how you can even try to say the UN could have made things better.
On a side note, it is always good to remember that the US was the one who supplied Saddams chemical weapons in the first place, back in the Iran-Iraq war. Thats just about the biggest fuck up ever...Maybe not. The UN also said this time not to go to Bagdad, but this time Bush or whoever didn't listlen. Look were we are now...usmarine2007 wrote:
And goddammit, it was the UN who said we could not go to Baghdad during the first Gulf war, so yes, the UN could have done things better.
....so since we were technically at war (although not declared lawfully by congress means it was an exercise of the war powers act which requires accountability, very specific financial backing of congress, and limits carefully describing the range of force to be used), then surely Bush invaded Iraq to finish the job dad did by liberating Kuwait. Oh wait, Bush Sr. just cut and run (as did Cheney and Rumsfeld) because only an idiot would invade the country of Iraq.usmarine2007 wrote:
Ugh. Look, Bush did not invade Iraq, we were in a cease fire. We were still at war with them.EVieira wrote:
Nothing the UN could have done would have stopped Bush from invading Iraq, after all his premisse was the WMDs that never existed. And since Bush's handling of things is the biggest fuck up of all, I don't see how you can even try to say the UN could have made things better.
On a side note, it is always good to remember that the US was the one who supplied Saddams chemical weapons in the first place, back in the Iran-Iraq war. Thats just about the biggest fuck up ever...
Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-11-27 12:09:09)
You're quite right, it doesn't matter. What does matter is why Bush made such a different decision to his father based on the same evidence. When questioned on why troops did not take Baghdad Bush Snr responded that it would have turned the war into an unwinable guerilla war, shame his son did not foresee the exact same problem.EVieira wrote:
I dosen't matter if tecnically it was Bush, or Bush senior, or whoever was the first who had the bright idea of taking down Saddam. The biggest fuck up still is Bush handling of things. Until someone fucks up even bigger in the middle-east, Bush will be the one on top.usmarine2007 wrote:
Ugh. Look, Bush did not invade Iraq, we were in a cease fire. We were still at war with them. Second, Jimmy Carter perceived Iran a bigger threat than Iraq, so he "hooked them up" so to speak. Jimmy also armed the Taliban in order to defeat Russia in the cold war.EVieira wrote:
Nothing the UN could have done would have stopped Bush from invading Iraq, after all his premisse was the WMDs that never existed. And since Bush's handling of things is the biggest fuck up of all, I don't see how you can even try to say the UN could have made things better.
On a side note, it is always good to remember that the US was the one who supplied Saddams chemical weapons in the first place, back in the Iran-Iraq war. Thats just about the biggest fuck up ever...
What? They did not invade Baghdad because they feared all the Arab countries in the coalition would leave.Bertster7 wrote:
You're quite right, it doesn't matter. What does matter is why Bush made such a different decision to his father based on the same evidence. When questioned on why troops did not take Baghdad Bush Snr responded that it would have turned the war into an unwinable guerilla war, shame his son did not foresee the exact same problem.EVieira wrote:
I dosen't matter if tecnically it was Bush, or Bush senior, or whoever was the first who had the bright idea of taking down Saddam. The biggest fuck up still is Bush handling of things. Until someone fucks up even bigger in the middle-east, Bush will be the one on top.usmarine2007 wrote:
Ugh. Look, Bush did not invade Iraq, we were in a cease fire. We were still at war with them. Second, Jimmy Carter perceived Iran a bigger threat than Iraq, so he "hooked them up" so to speak. Jimmy also armed the Taliban in order to defeat Russia in the cold war.
lol, not even close. that's an "additional" reason not to invade, but it was not what our leaders said..it was not a possibility. Even though they had a massive force 5x what is in Iraq now, they didn't dare try to take on the full amount of iraq's forces. I've seen the quotes all over the liberal world saying why they couldn't invade iraq.usmarine2007 wrote:
What? They did not invade Baghdad because they feared all the Arab countries in the coalition would leave.Bertster7 wrote:
You're quite right, it doesn't matter. What does matter is why Bush made such a different decision to his father based on the same evidence. When questioned on why troops did not take Baghdad Bush Snr responded that it would have turned the war into an unwinable guerilla war, shame his son did not foresee the exact same problem.EVieira wrote:
I dosen't matter if tecnically it was Bush, or Bush senior, or whoever was the first who had the bright idea of taking down Saddam. The biggest fuck up still is Bush handling of things. Until someone fucks up even bigger in the middle-east, Bush will be the one on top.
Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-11-27 12:20:02)
But we did invade Iraq.IRONCHEF wrote:
lol, not even close. that's an "additional" reason not to invade, but it was not what our leaders said..it was not a possibility. Even though they had a massive force 5x what is in Iraq now, they didn't dare try to take on the full amount of iraq's forces. I've seen the quotes all over the liberal world saying why they couldn't invade iraq.usmarine2007 wrote:
What? They did not invade Baghdad because they feared all the Arab countries in the coalition would leave.Bertster7 wrote:
You're quite right, it doesn't matter. What does matter is why Bush made such a different decision to his father based on the same evidence. When questioned on why troops did not take Baghdad Bush Snr responded that it would have turned the war into an unwinable guerilla war, shame his son did not foresee the exact same problem.
As for an official reason..the war powers act Bush Sr. evoked was to LIBERATE KUWAIT. NO language in that invocation that hinted at invading Iraq..because they knew before the invasion that they could not launch a war with Iraq.
Where did all that wisdom go? Surely he'd listen to his dad, cheney, rumsfeld, baker, powell, and others who have half a brain...but no.
Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-11-27 12:28:24)
...and then we had to sit back and watch Saddam slaughter the kurds.IRONCHEF wrote:
..pursuing Kuwait's occupiers with the intention of repulsion..not occupation. big diff there. be reasonable..the '91 war was not meant to invade Iraq but to repel iraqis from kuwait.
What does that have to do with the UN after the first Gulf War? And who the hell is GW II?Pug wrote:
Chef - what is your version of GW II - Electric Buggalo? Specifically ALL the reasons why we have troops in Iraq now.
My guess is it doesn't match up with what was originally proposed.
Last edited by usmarine2007 (2006-11-27 12:42:42)
Misinterpretation perhaps?IRONCHEF wrote:
Where did all that wisdom go? Surely he'd listen to his dad, cheney, rumsfeld, baker, powell, and others who have half a brain...but no.
No, "misunderinterpretation."Pug wrote:
Misinterpretation perhaps?IRONCHEF wrote:
Where did all that wisdom go? Surely he'd listen to his dad, cheney, rumsfeld, baker, powell, and others who have half a brain...but no.
Last edited by Pug (2006-11-27 13:06:11)
You think you could stay on topic?Pug wrote:
Strategery
Edit:
Couldn't even spell that right.
+1 Does anyone have any links to where UN troops actually engaged in combat and accomplished something useful? Seems as though they either sit and do nothing while a real army goes in or they go in alone and stand around to get themselves shot.kilgoretrout wrote:
When has the UN ever not failed?
Pages: 1 2