Interesting Gulf War News

[sarah_yzma]

Originally posted by FellowWLover
Personally, I agree that UN posturing was an empty gesture. If war was certain, and it seems that it was, we should have just done it in November when the weather was cooler there and public approval was higher.

i agree 100%

Sarah

 

[EmmyMik]

Originally posted by MuppetsRule
Sorry, EmmyMik but one of the major premises in the opinion piece you cited from Sept. 2002 is that Bush and his political advisors wanted to invade Iraq so that Republicans could gain a partisan political advantage in the November 2002 elections. Obviously, that didn't happen.

The invasion of Iraq didn't happen then, but the Republicans used it to their advantage (questioning the patriotism of the Democrats who questioned). And while we're on the subject of the 2002 elections, why was it that Bush wanted to invade Iraq in September, it was something that he said needed to be done then, but as it got closer and closer to the elections he but everything on hold to campaign for Republicans? Were the Democrats more of a threat that Saddam?

Originally posted by MuppetsRule
So how can you make the assertion that Bush "rushed" to war?

I'm saying that a person rushes to war when they decide that war is the only option when it's the only option they ever look at and consider. War was the only option Bush ever considered. The only reason he waited was to drum up support.

 

[frogboy4]

Attacking the war is one thing, attacking the President and the Republican Party is another. Personally I don't like either party that much, but both are firmly behind this war. The Bush bashing just reveals special interests instead of peace. I don't find such partisan posturing to be valid and it usually causes me to peg the entire statement as fanaticism.

The President waited months for Saddam to come clean or get out. He had a lot of time and chances but was dishonest and played games. It is obvious Saddam doesn't care much about his citizens. Look at his track record. We knew Hussein wouldn't budge, so of course Bush realized war was the probable outcome. I don't see anything sinister or partisan about that.

Most recent stats report US war approval growing at 63%.

Let's not forget that whatever the method, we all really want peace in the end.

 

[Zack the Dog]

I have never bashed " Bush". "not that anyone has said i did", just the only thing i don't like about him is that he's not really inveromental friendly, i can't prove this, but this is from stuff i have heard in school, but this has nothing to do with the war...i wish and pray that there was another way, but whats that way? the war has started it's gotta be finshed and hopeful will take care of the problems, not that it will end all danger, all the problems in the world will never be sloved, hopeful this will help stop major problems.



Zachary,

 

[MuppetsRule]

My point is that much of the article on which EmmyMik bases her anti-war argument on is an opinion piece and has many, many false assertions.

1) As I mentioned, the first false assertion is that Bush wanted to invade Iraq in early October to gain partisan support for the November elections. Obviously that didn't happen.

2) Another major assertion in the article is that many former prominent Republicans opposed Bush's position on invading Iraq.
One of them mentioned regularly is former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger and that he opposed the invasion of Iraq. That is false . In an interview tonight on CNBC the former Secretary of State said as much. The interviewer asked, "You have always opposed the war, what changed?" Secretary Eagleburger responded, "I've always been misinterpreted. I have always been for the war." He also added, "The fact is that we could have stood on our heads in Lafayette Park and we weren't going to convince the rest of the world that our intentions are correct."

You really have to question the legitimacy of the other assertions and the whole article itself when most of the major assertions have been proven false. Bottom line is that you could search the internet and find opinion pieces for both sides of the argument. Anybody can create their own website and say anything they want. You really should be careful of which of these you base your argument and position on.

 

[Thijs]

The big reason for me to be against the war is that the USA think they can decide how the rest of the world should live. What's their goal? Should we all be christian and speak english, like 'normal' people do?
Of course, I saw it too, cheering people who are glad that Saddam finally leaves. But what makes you say the Iraqi people will be happy after the war. Has Afghanistan really become much better after the war?
I don't like Bush' attitude. The most disgusting is that he always ends his speeches with 'may God bless us'. So there are people dying in the name of God? Who is Bush to decide who's god is the best god. Bush is so arrogant.

 

[MuppetsRule]

Of course, I saw it too, cheering people who are glad that Saddam finally leaves.

The images of Iraqis cheering the arrival of U.S. troops have to be taken with a grain of salt. It did take place in an area of Iraq that has always been opposed to Hussein's regime.

But what makes you say the Iraqi people will be happy after the war. Has Afghanistan really become much better after the war?

The job of rebuilding Afghanistan and improving their way of life will not be accomplished in a matter of months. It will take years and is an ongoing mission. To think otherwise is simply naive.


I don't like Bush' attitude. The most disgusting is that he always ends his speeches with 'may God bless us'. So there are people dying in the name of God? Who is Bush to decide who's god is the best god. Bush is so arrogant.

At the risk of turning this into a 'seperation of church and state' debate, President Bush never indicated his god, or any particular god for that matter. In this case, God is used as a term to indicate a higher power. The phrase "May God bless America" is a term that has been used by many, many presidents for decades. How does that make President Bush arrogant as opposed to any other U.S. president? It just highlights the fact that much of this debate isn't so much about being anti-war as it is anti-Bush. (See frogboy4's post)

 

[EmmyMik]

The only up those articles was to show that back in August and September, Bush wanted war then. Never peace, never diplomacy. Just war.

Am I anti-Bush? Yes. I strongly believe that war should be the very last option for solving problems. And even then, you have to question, "Is this something that people should die for?" Bush never considered peace, only war.

I oppose this war because I questioned the information given to me. I oppose this war because deep down in my heart, I believe that peace is the better option for the world. We have no idea what repercussions might await us.

This is going to be my last post on the matter. I have said what I wanted to say. I am not going to sway anyone's mind, and no one is going to sway mine. I encourage a healthy debate, but I fear that I am getting too heated. Sometimes you just have to walk away, and this is one of those times. I have to walk away from this thread before I walk away from the board. I like you folks way too much.

Whether or not we agree with the war, I think it's safe to say that we all hope and pray that this war will end quickly, with little loss of life.

 

[MuppetsRule]

Whether or not we agree with the war, I think it's safe to say that we all hope and pray that this war will end quickly, with little loss of life.

Amen.

 

[frogboy4]

I certainly agree with that final part too. I think we all want peace as the goal. Just different ways to go about it. Would doing nothing bring about peace in the region? I don't think so. Will war bring about peace or create more hatred for the US? That's a good debate. I hope the former.