Okay, George Bush shouldn't be hanged. But for his monumental stupidity on the Iraq issue, he ought to have the living sh*t kicked out of him. Can we all agree on that??
jwm
jwm
Should George Bush be hanged as well?
- Thread starter stinkynuts
- Start date
Agreed Dubya ought to have the living sh*t kicked out of him.jwmorrice said:
Then since Saddam's conviction and execution was based on war crimes committed in 1982 when Cheney, Rummy et al., were Allies with Saddam, as co-conspirators, Cheney, Rummy et al., along with Dubya should all be hung for this whole Iraqi debacle Team 'w' started based on LIES!
underestimating Bush
or overestimating everyone else.
You can decide.
Relatively, it's just stupid to dismiss him as a moron. He's now won two straight elections - the last one with Americans fully knowing there were no WMD's.
The fact is, WMD claims by Bush were fully consistent with claims by Clinton. The fact is, when this 2nd war started, Iraq remained not fully compliant with UN resolutions which threatened "serious actions". And the fact is Iraq went more than a decade without complying with UN resolutions. I could go on and on.
I don't see Bush as a rocket scientist. But underestimating him is as equally stupid as overestimating him.
During Clinton's terms Hussein openly flaunted non-compliance with all UN resolutions, kicking out UN inspectors. During Clinton's terms he authorized a failed airstrike at Osama bin Laden, and then dropped the issue. 9/11 occurred with Bush recently elected as a President who pledged to not get involved in international affairs.
The war has not gone well at all - if the goal was a peaceful Iraq. But it's not like Iraq was "peaceful" prior to the war. It is estimated that over 100,000 Kurdish people were killed by Hussein; countless Shiites as well. Kurdish villages were attacked with chemical weapons. The few who survived the attacks have the physical scars as proof.
Tensions and fighting between Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis predates the war; predates Bush; predates Hussein; predates you and I. Bush's failure is the failure to deliver a peaceful result - a result near impossible to deliver given the number of people on each side not interested in having such peace.
Think what you want.
or overestimating everyone else.
You can decide.
Relatively, it's just stupid to dismiss him as a moron. He's now won two straight elections - the last one with Americans fully knowing there were no WMD's.
The fact is, WMD claims by Bush were fully consistent with claims by Clinton. The fact is, when this 2nd war started, Iraq remained not fully compliant with UN resolutions which threatened "serious actions". And the fact is Iraq went more than a decade without complying with UN resolutions. I could go on and on.
I don't see Bush as a rocket scientist. But underestimating him is as equally stupid as overestimating him.
During Clinton's terms Hussein openly flaunted non-compliance with all UN resolutions, kicking out UN inspectors. During Clinton's terms he authorized a failed airstrike at Osama bin Laden, and then dropped the issue. 9/11 occurred with Bush recently elected as a President who pledged to not get involved in international affairs.
The war has not gone well at all - if the goal was a peaceful Iraq. But it's not like Iraq was "peaceful" prior to the war. It is estimated that over 100,000 Kurdish people were killed by Hussein; countless Shiites as well. Kurdish villages were attacked with chemical weapons. The few who survived the attacks have the physical scars as proof.
Tensions and fighting between Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis predates the war; predates Bush; predates Hussein; predates you and I. Bush's failure is the failure to deliver a peaceful result - a result near impossible to deliver given the number of people on each side not interested in having such peace.
Think what you want.
Good for the heart but it's not doing much for your reasoning.DonQuixote said:
And Merlot, please - a Nice Pino or Syrah would be an upgrade - have you not seen Sideways?
LOL
OTB
On a board where 64% of voters think the POTUS should be hanged? I think back to one of many great Churchill quotes "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.". This board is a great demonstration of that quote.....DonQuixote said:
OTB
PS, one for those obsessed with Bush bashing....:
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Sir Winston Churchill
or
I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the animosities he excites among his opponents.
Sir Winston Churchill
Gee, does that sound like anyone on this board ....
LOL
OTB
lost that last round eh.....DonQuixote said:
Let's see, 200m a week x 52 weeks = 10.4 billion or 2.3% of the peace time annual defense budget. We've had annual increases larger than that to send troops to Japan, South Korea and Germany to protect other countries.DonQuixote said:
Sanctions (and Saddam) were killing 35,000 children under the age of 10 every year in Iraq. The cost to children of sanctions was more than half a million - that says nothing about those killed during the two wars he started and those he and his sick sons killed in his own country. You do the math.DonQuixote said:
Doing nothing is far more expensive - ask a Rwandan.
A stable Iraq vs an unstable Iraq - most sensible people agree it's worth staying to finish if we can.DonQuixote said:
LOL - back into the Merlot I see.DonQuixote said:
OTB
Hmm, according to this MSNBC article, it's costing $200 million/day! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/DonQuixote said:
jwm
That actually sounds more realistic.jwmorrice said:Hmm, according to this MSNBC article, it's costing $200 million/day! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/
jwm
OTB
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.DonQuixote said:
Sir Winston Churchill
hey OTB , thanks for reminding us another list of US crimesonthebottom said:
Iraqi Sanctions and American Intentions:
Blameless Carnage? Part 1
One major reason for the animosity to U.S. troops is the lingering impact and bitter memories of the UN sanctions imposed on the Iraqis for 13 years, largely at the behest of the U.S. government. It is impossible to understand the current situation in Iraq without examining the sanctions and their toll.
...
...
Regardless of the precise number of fatalities (which will never be known), the sanctions were a key factor in inflaming Arab anger against the United States. The sanctions were initially imposed to punish Iraq for invading Kuwait and then were kept in place after the Gulf War supposedly in order to pressure Saddam to disarm.
Sanctions wreaked havoc on the Iraqi people, in part because the Pentagon intentionally destroyed Iraq’s water-treatment systems during the first U.S.-Iraq war:
A January 22, 1991, Defense Intelligence Agency report titled “Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities” noted,
Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline.... Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease.... Unless the water is purified with chlorine, epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid could occur.
George Washington University professor Thomas Nagy, who marshaled the preceding reports in an analysis in the September 2001 issue of The Progressive, concluded, The United States knew it had the capacity to devastate the water treatment system of Iraq. It knew what the consequences would be: increased outbreaks of disease and high rates of child mortality. And it was more concerned about the public relations nightmare for Washington than the actual nightmare that the sanctions created for innocent Iraqis.
Pentagon intent
A Washington Post analysis published on June 23, 1991, noted that Pentagon officials admitted that, rather than concentrating solely on military targets, the U.S. bombing campaign “sought to achieve some of their military objectives in the Persian Gulf War by disabling Iraqi society at large” and “deliberately did great harm to Iraq’s ability to support itself as an industrial society.”
The bombing campaign targeted Iraq’s electrical power system, thereby destroying the country’s ability to operate its water-treatment plants. One Pentagon official who helped plan the bombing campaign observed,
People say, “You didn’t recognize that it was going to have an effect on water or sewage.” Well, what were we trying to do with sanctions — help out the Iraqi people? No. What we were doing with the attacks on infrastructure was to accelerate the effect of the sanctions.
Col. John Warden III, deputy director of strategy for the Air Force, observed,
Saddam Hussein cannot restore his own electricity. He needs help. If there are political objectives that the UN coalition has, it can say, “Saddam, when you agree to do these things, we will allow people to come in and fix your electricity.” It gives us long-term leverage.
....
....
The U.S. government routinely and perennially vetoed delivery of goods that UN weapons inspectors had certified as posing no military benefit to Saddam. As of September 2001, the United States was blocking “nearly one-third of water and sanitation and one quarter of electricity and educational — supply contracts were on hold.” Gordon noted, “As of September 2001, nearly a billion dollars’ worth of medical-equipment contracts — for which all the information sought had been provided — was still on hold.
Read more
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0401c.asp
People defend this...absolutely laughable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jjfxp_wmaME
Just listen to the people laughing at him in the town hall. lmao
Or, as the author put it, a classic Freudian slip...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy05zj0X23M&mode=related&search=
What an idiot, you can't help but laugh. =)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jjfxp_wmaME
Just listen to the people laughing at him in the town hall. lmao
Or, as the author put it, a classic Freudian slip...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy05zj0X23M&mode=related&search=
What an idiot, you can't help but laugh. =)
Hey OTB dont forget Iraq war has strength Iran as a regional power and now the US backed sanctions has already started against Iran .
now When do you think the US should attack Iran ? ,
should US wait till Iran's millions of children starts dying because of the sanctions as history tends to repeat itself ???
and whats next on the list after Iran ????
is it World War III or had it already started ?
now When do you think the US should attack Iran ? ,
should US wait till Iran's millions of children starts dying because of the sanctions as history tends to repeat itself ???
and whats next on the list after Iran ????
is it World War III or had it already started ?
For the same reason they won't invade N Korea.neversayno said:
There's NO OIL there !!!!.....
It's all about defending OIL and the US PetroDollar!
