Has Bush Lied? (Adam)

[Mr Spinkles]

anders said:

But the US thought they were, and so stepped in, believing that enough bombs would solve everything.

I do not think the U.S. military thought Vietnam or Korea was weak...in Vietnam our political leaders thought we could fight a war, but never go on offense. JFK and LBJ should never have sent troops to Vietnam just to sit there and absorb attacks in the South unless they were willing to invade the North and actually win.

[Ardhanariswar]

Here is my question: what do you do? Do you think you can somehow 'convince' Saddam to stop trying to get nukes/WMD's without actually using force? Would it be acceptable to you to know that Saddam had WMD's, Saddam wants to use WMD's, and we DON'T KNOW if he has them right now? Are you willing to risk another 9/11?

did they have proof that they hid wmds? no, so how can you even reason that they did? just cuz colin powell showed pitures of people moving BIG LONG things (no dirty thoughts) around the nation has nothing to do with anything.


and if the US is allowed to have those kind of weapons, why not another soverign nation?

personally i would try to give evidence that was CLEAR and go in with the UN's aproval and congress.

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by Gerani1248

did they have proof that they hid wmds? no, so how can you even reason that they did? just cuz colin powell showed pitures of people moving BIG LONG things (no dirty thoughts) around the nation has nothing to do with anything.

Here is the proof that Saddam hid his WMD's: 1) Saddam had WMD's. 2) No one knows where they are--the U.N. certainly never destroyed them.

Either they were hidden, exported, or destroyed without documentation (and perhaps without Saddam's knowledge). If they knew exactly where all of the WMD's were, then Saddam must not have hidden them very well.

and if the US is allowed to have those kind of weapons, why not another soverign nation?

First of all, Iraq was not a sovereign nation--it was a nation held hostage by a tyrannical dictator. Secondly, if we want all the nations to give up their WMD's, I think Saddam should definitely be the first one to give them up.

personally i would try to give evidence that was CLEAR and go in with the UN's aproval and congress.

Bush had the overwhelming approval of Congress, and he tried to get the U.N.'s approval. The other nations in the security council, however--France, Germany, and Russia--had an opposing agenda and would not give their approval. Approval was something the U.N. failed to give, not something Bush failed to get.

Heck, the U.N. security council voted down a measure to use force if Saddam did no cooperate fully by a deadline set over a month away! No wonder idiots like Saddam think they can get away with anything, we Western nations are a bunch of wimps. Sorry for ranting.

EDIT: I would like to add that if France, Germany, and Russia had not voted down the measure to use force, Saddam may have given in and there would not have been a war.

[Ardhanariswar]

ekk, sorry mr. sprinkles for my ignorance about the congress.


"First of all, Iraq was not a sovereign nation--it was a nation held hostage by a tyrannical dictator. Secondly, if we want all the nations to give up their WMD's, I think Saddam should definitely be the first one to give them up. "

tyrannical dictator? who are you to say that? do you have proof? remember, there are many people in tamil nadu (state in south india) lead by Jayalalitha who tortures and kills people who oppose her.

you shouldnt bring the citizens of iraq into your arguement (not saying you did), because your main focus likes in having WMD or not.


one question to you, why should the US play hero? isnt that what the middle east hates? perhaps if bush made it known to the people how much of a threat bin ladin or saddam is, people will agree and let that idea agree.

but no, soldiers bomb bagdhad, and all iraqi citizens hear about is innocent people dying.
a woman was screaming:"i wish allah will burn the homes of the soldiers (american)" its not exact words, but i think that it sends out a clear meaning from the iraqi consensus that this was unwelcome.

thats the future of iraq, an intense dislike towards the US. what bush should do know is give a messege to iraq citizens that this was the best he could do to get rid of such a leader. but no hes not.

[Mr Spinkles]

Proof that Saddam is a tyrannical dictator? Are you kidding? Two words: mass graves. You should read up on what Iraq was like under Saddam Hussein....it was not unlike George Orwell's famous 1984.

Why should the U.S. play the hero? Because, Gerani, if the free democracies of the world don't do something about injustice, no one will. The Middle East may hate us in the short run, but the fact is they are going to hate us in the short run no matter what we do. In the long run, Iraq will act as a springboard for democracy and free press in the Middle East, and when that happens, relations between the U.S. and the Mid East will improve.

There is not a consensus that we are unwelcome in Iraq. Iraqis want a democratic, free government, and feel conflicted about U.S. presence there-- check out http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/008753.html and http://cell.stanford.edu/bagelblog/archives/000470.html

Also, check out http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world...ATIONALad=true for a very informative article on how Iraqis feel about the war.

In general, there is little consensus among the Iraqis about anything, other than that their personal lives are going well and have improved since the war. Ironically, more Iraqis say that their country is not doing well than say that they personally are not doing well....which means we are losing a propoganda war with Arab media.

[Ardhanariswar]

"Proof that Saddam is a tyrannical dictator? Are you kidding? Two words: mass graves. You should read up on what Iraq was like under Saddam Hussein....it was not unlike George Orwell's famous 1984. "

theres a genocide going on in africa...
theres a civil war in sri lanka, killing several people every day...
and palestine...
gawd there is so much, dont bring up that tyranical dictator, it has no back up.


"Why should the U.S. play the hero? Because, Gerani, if the free democracies of the world don't do something about injustice, no one will. The Middle East may hate us in the short run, but the fact is they are going to hate us in the short run no matter what we do. In the long run, Iraq will act as a springboard for democracy and free press in the Middle East, and when that happens, relations between the U.S. and the Mid East will improve. "

injustices are all around the world. This is the UN's job. im sorry, the US has no rite to tell others what goverment they should be and how they should govern.



what really disheartens me is how the US does not help out in the UN. whats the point of it if the world power does not help out?

[Ardhanariswar]

if the UN never found any wmd what makes you think the US can. (they havent found any either).

[Mr Spinkles]

I am not sure I understand the first part of your post...I am aware that there are other tyrannical dictators out there besides Saddam...but that doesn't change the fact that Saddam is one also.

You're right, the U.S. needs to back the U.N., and it should be the U.N.'s job to confront injustice in the world....however, the U.N. must be willing to use force (or at least make threats to use force which can be taken seriously).

The point of the war was not to find WMD's, the point was to eliminate the threat Saddam posed. If that could have been accomplished without force (in other words, with Saddam's cooperation) I would be all for that.

I suppose we have gotten a little off topic...I do not think Bush lied, though the intelligence on Saddam's WMD program was probably exaggerated to garner more support for the war.

One last thing: people who opposed the war often bring up the fact that there is genocide, tyranny, etc. in other parts of the world. I do not understand that argument at all. Does that mean we should not confront any injustice, ever? Or do we have to take them all on simultaneously?

[Ardhanariswar]

uh no, bush first went in to find weapons. but when they didnt, bush wanted to find saddam.

[Rex]

Mr. Spinkles.

Just a thought. First off we are not a "democracy" you can call us a federal republic or constitutional republic but def. not a democracy. Thus we can't export democracy.

Also IRAQ and the other nations have been around 1000s of years, we can't even get over USAs culture difference of race from barely 200+years how in the world do we plan on wiping out culture indifferences of 1000s of years?