Fighting for what's right.

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 3, 2006 15:07
VIEWED: 3499
PAGE 4 of 4

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4

CITIZEN

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 11:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
Bush the first believed he would not, and he was probably right. What do you think would have happened if Bush the first had removed Saddam in 1991? All smiles and sunshine? Some things would have been easier, but not easy. For the most part it would have looked like it looks now, maybe worse. Bush understood this.

The first gulf war was widely supported and there was no question of it being illegal. Contrast that with now, where if you accept it or not the vast majority of nations, especially the local powers, consider the action wholly illegal.

The first Gulf was supported by the UN, the local arab nations and the international community at large. Gulf war 2 is, to all practical puposes, supported by Britian and America. Those arab powers that supported 'our' side during the Gulf War are now supporting the insurgents. We don't have the backing of the UN nor the International community at large.

How, to coin a phrase, in the sphincter of hell do you think that the post war situations would have been similar?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 1:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
How, to coin a phrase, in the sphincter of hell do you think that the post war situations would have been similar?

I guess there would have been no insurgency, no Sunni Triangle, no threat of a Sunni-Shiite Civil War, no soldiers coming home in body bags, the French would have completely supported it, the UN would have backed it.

In fact, the UN wouldn’t have supported it and French would have gone ballistic, hell we just barely pushed the first Gulf War past the French veto. There still would have been an insurgency. People would still be fretting about how Bush got us stuck in Iraq for years, isolated us from our allies (i.e the French), and killed innocent Iraqis. A protracted war is a protracted war, and they create enormous ammunition for political opponents and the media. As I said, there’s no doubt that it would have been easier, but not easy. Fear of a protracted is one of, if not the, principle reasons why Bush the first did not attempt to remove Saddam Hussein.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 3:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
A protracted war is a protracted war, and they create enormous ammunition for political opponents and the media.

Okay, I get that, I guess.
My whole beef with Bush is that he used 911 to push through re-arranging the structure of the Middle East, it has everything to do with oil, and is only tangentially connected to stemming the flow of terrorism.
So if he told the truth of it straight up, it (Iraq war) would still be borderline legal, and he would still be down in the polls, still be disliked by most of the world (I talk to international students all the time, and not a ONE of them from any part of the globe has a good word for him) but at least the whole notion of 'Bush lied' wouldn't be hanging around his neck; wouldn't that be better for him?

C-C-Chrisisall *cold and wet from his return from the Bering Sea, where he had to ditch the Firefox*

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4