GWB shows extreme class yet again.

You really have lost your mind. Obviously, you don't recall the Iraqi ambassador to the UN pleading for UN intervention to allow the weapons inspectors to finish their job. Granted, the inspectors had met with resistance in the past, but they had full access to do their job well before we attacked. Even the inspectors pleaded with the US to allow them to finish. Cooperation? Please, Brad, the Iraqis even went so far as to dispose of their Al Saied (sp?) missiles, which were NOT in UN violation. They could be modified to exceed the 96 mile limit, but had not been. It was a gesture of good will and cooperation. You talk about rhetoric? That's all you post. Do you have ANY facts? doubt it.

 

Headlines from the liberal media right? Don't you have anything usefull, or do you just like to argue?

 

you've got to be kidding right. pleading for what? an additional 13 years to comply? sorry charlie. if you'll remember the bombs didn't just drop. an ultimatum was given to the dictator of iraq, and he called W's bluff. just so happened to be holding four aces. (army, airforce, marines, navy)

 

that would be your question. same old tired liberal drama from you. whenyou are old enough, hopefully you'll understand. hopefully, for your kid's sake.

 

The inspectors were doing the best they could. Sure, GWB scared Sadaam into full cooperation, great! But after doing so, the inspectors were told by the US to clear out, abandoning the job that GWB had scared Sadaam into letting them do in the first place.
Don't say too little too late, Brad. Not when American lives are on the line. War should be the last option, and it wasn't. We were in absolutely no danger from Iraq. North Korea- yes, Al Queda- yes. Don't try to put them in the same group either. It's no secret the Sadaam and Osama were not friends or allies.

 

like teaching a pig to sing.

how many americans would die if mustard gas went into the subway in NYC? or god forbid a nuke? don't worry liberal, dubya is proctecting you too. why don't you just take comfort in that. because all you and your ilk is doing, is getting in the way at this point.

 

Very funny.

 

The comment was not over the top it was under the bottom, please try to get control of your perspective. I don't mind and even participate in a little tongue and cheek barbing.. but prefer to keep my personal insults to the invitation to kiss my A$$....

As far as being a right winger, like your Bush hating if you only see one possibility in someone that opposes your viewpoint you again have very limited perspective.

 

Your a Moron when it comes to understanding Osama (yourmoma) It would take less than 30 seconds to prove my statement BEYOND the shadow of a doubt.. THINK ABOUT IT SOME...

As far as the inspectors and the UN..

I can hear you threatening your brood of misbehaving juvenile delinquents...(surely destined for nothing more than mediocrity)

IF I HAVE TO TELL YOU TO STOP/DO IT/PUT IT AWAY/ETC.ETC. ONE MORE TIME!

Your impotent just like most of the United Nations... (it has rendered itself worthless as a world body)

 

what was the next option? wait 13 more years. just hope that it goes away? pray that saddam will find jesus?

yes, lives have been lost. but look at it this way. those lives are an investment. 300 troops? 3000 people lost their lives in one morning that had NO uniforms on. what about the next time? let me ask you this. how many iraqis have LIVED since saddam has been ousted from power? prolly more than we could fathom. how come we never hear stories of how many people ate today in iraq? or how many recieved power today for the first time in years? or that iraq's riches in oil production will actually get into the hands of the people? it is a good thing going on over there. to let it remain like it was before (if you truly are a bleeding heart liberal) would be the biggest crime.

 

I agree with that statement fully. That is exactly why I watch GWB every time he's on TV and I'm near one. I would rather see what our commander in chief has to say about anything than watch anything else. I watch in hopes that I will be able to identify with him. I simply do not agree with the majority of what he has to say. That is my right. I spend a lot of time watching the news, so that I can speak intelligently about that which I believe. My perspective is limited, yes. I am human, after all. I do dislike our president's leadership. I'm not the 1st, nor the last. So what? I just can't see the logic in invading when we did. This is mostly because of N. Korea. At the time we invaded Iraq, N. Korea was a much bigger threat. A nuclear threat. Testing missiles in the Sea of Japan.

 

DUHHHH how could I not guess that you get your news and opinion from the Television... and you think it makes you speak intelligently? I will give you credit that you recognize that GWB does provide leadership...

You assume that we are doing nothing about North Korea....

Hey read some history focus on the wars we have fought as a country... it will improve your perspective

 

You have lost all credibility, Brad.

You know what Iraq had to do with 9/11? Approximately dick. As far as homes having power, the question should be more like, "How many that had power before we attacked have their power back?"
Using 9/11 as a justification for attacking Iraq is really ignorant.

 

Come on todzuki, even your liberal uber-hero Democrat Bill Clinton believed Iraq possessed WMDs and supported invading Iraq. Pretty much blows your arguments out of the water. Here's an op-ed Clinton wrote to the Guardian two days before the war, urging Britons to support Tony Blair in removing Saddam after the failure of Resolution 1441:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,916302,00.html

Clinton wrote: "[...]if we leave Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance, there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will be lost in overthrowing Saddam.

I wish that Russia and France had supported Blair's resolution. Then, Hans Blix and his inspectors would have been given more time and supprt for their work. But that's not where we are. Blair is in a position not of his own making, because Iraq and other nations were unwilling to follow the logic of 1441.

In the post-cold war world, America and Britain have been in tough positions before: in 1998, when others wanted to lift sanctions on Iraq and we said no; in 1999 when we went into Kosovo to stop ethnic cleansing. In each case, there were voices of dissent. But the British-American partnership and the progress of the world were preserved. Now in another difficult spot, Prime Minister Blair will have to do what he believes to be right. I trust him to do that and hope that Labor MPs and the British people will too.

-Bill Clinton was the 42nd president of the United States"


-peekay

ps. I visited the Korean Demiliterized Zone (DMZ) at Panmunjom last year. North Korea clearly is NOT a threat when compared to Iraq; all they want is leverage for aid and reunification talks. They'd gladly lay down their arms for some cash (again.) In fact one of their key demands is to have a non-aggression pact with the US.

 

I have taken plenty of history courses in college. To what exactly are you referring? By the way, you don't "improve" somebody's perspective, you can alter it, you two have yet to state an intelligent, fact-based bit of evidence to make me dislike our presidents job performance any less.

 

Brad, I have no sympathy for the guy and I wish they had managed to find him. But clearly, you must be joking.

1) you make it sound like it matters to you how the Iraqi people live, to advance your argument. We know you don't.
2) Oil money will be going to a small minority. Where have you seen things done differently? You can't possibly believe what you said.
3) the power that was restored (much of it still isn't) was only lost because of the bombing. That doesn't count as improving their lives.
4) how do you know more lives were saved than lost?

Removing Saddam Hussein was a great thing, but you need to pick stronger reasons, or at least be consistent with yourself. I will be impressed when somebody says "we wanted revenge and had to take it on someone." But no politician (regardless of their sides) is ever going to say that. That's why they are politicians.

 

LOL. Are you new here?

 

no, you are right. i don't care about those things. i was trying to pull at his heartstrings, which is all he uses for judgement. i bet when he eats an omelet, he cries for the chickens that won't get to live. unknowing that not all eggs carry a chick in them.