Why does Bush do this?

[taranaki]

Yet again,Bush has issued another 'final warning' to the U.N. to fallin behind the U.S. or become irrelevant.

Well,the U.N. isn't going to.Because if it allowed itself to be dictated to by a single nation,it would become irrelevant overnight.The fact that Mr.Bush has repeated his threat several times and been ignored at every turn shows hope for a civilised world.Everybody else wants a peaceful solution for this conflict.and is prepared to exhaust all such avenues before considering a military solution.Mr Bush is a small man in a position of great responsibility.He appears to be totally clueless,or worse,indifferent as to the potential consequenses of his actions ,yet totally reliant on the 'worst case scenario' of what may happen if he doesn't meddle in the Middle East.

The only scenario that I can see for Iraqi terrorist attacks on U.S. targets is when the U.S. fires first.Bush should be concetrating on the criminals who masterminded and perpetrated the WTC bombings,not abusing his position to go on a witch hunt against a small and relatively benign foe from the past.

[Monkey-Magic-S15-R]

he doesn't want to look like a tyrannt

............ last night on the bafta's a Producer of some sort of relavance in the film industry in America made a huge speach which incorporated politics and he condemned the fiasco behind the Presidential Election and then he took a stab at George Bush. He pointed out that George Bush was gaining to much power.

[YogsVR4]

I agree. He should do anything like a "final warning" to the UN. They are already an irrelevant organization. No more effort or money should be spent on it.

[taranaki]

Originally posted by YogsVR4
I agree. He should do anything like a "final warning" to the UN. They are already an irrelevant organization. No more effort or money should be spent on it.

If they were irrelevant,Bush would have started his war already.The U.N. has so far successsfully prevented an a full scale war in Iraq.That is the objective of the U.N.,and they are doing a good and effective job against a poor and defective President.


If ever the U.S. needed a change of leadership,now is not soon enough.

[Cbass]

Originally posted by Monkey-Magic-S15-R
he doesn't want to look like a tyrannt

It's a little late for that, after he seized power by having his cronies manipulate the Florida election system to bar thousands of black registered voters, on the grounds that they had names SIMILAR to those of convicts. Was it 564 votes he "won" by, or was it 546... I honestly don't remember. Insignificant compared to the estimated 10,000 legal, registered voters, 90% of whom polled Democrat, by the way, who were stripped of their right to vote by Jeb Bush, and Katherine Harris.

He has systematically stripped his people of their rights and freedoms, in the name of fighting "terrorism" which is Bushese for anyone who may pose a hurdle for US foreign interests.

Now he's going to invade ANOTHER sovereign nation, and this time, he doesn't even have proof there is any credible threat. At least in Afghanistan, he had Al Qaeda, whom he had already blamed for the September 11 attacks, even though there was no proof of this(oh, except the proof that they do have, but they just can't show us), to attack, and their "ally" the Taliban.

On Iraq, Bush doesn't have a political leg to stand on. At least when Hitler invaded Poland, it was just to get at the Russians.

[jon@af]

Originally posted by taranaki


If they were irrelevant,Bush would have started his war already.The U.N. has so far successsfully prevented an a full scale war in Iraq.That is the objective of the U.N.,and they are doing a good and effective job against a poor and defective President.


If ever the U.S. needed a change of leadership,now is not soon enough.

I agree, I would by no means call the UN worthless, because indeed war would be at hand, should they not exist. I only hope that with the election year coming upon the US that the voters will have some sense to not vote for Bush again.

[dolla_bill0913]

Do you guys even relize what is going on over there. Here is an example> U.S. planes are patroling the NO FLY ZONE, and other areas over Iraq, making sure Iraq doesnt make any attempt to attack any surrounding countries, and they are being shot at by Iraq ground to air missles, and I am not talking about a 1 time incident. I think that is an act of war, and Bush has every right to want to attack Iraq. Thats only an example, I could go on and on. Everyone wants peace and the only way to get it is to eliminate the threats against peace. Iraq doesnt listion to talk, they only understand war, dont we all remember the war with them only a couple years ago. Bush has given them plenty of time and if all the UN countries, like france, germany,etc. are afraid of Iraq, well then we dont need them. Grow some balls like the US and the Brits and dont get pushed around by terrorists. :finger:

[Darth Cypher]

Exactly! That is why we have a "no negotiation" policy with terrorists. Because if you give them what they want you open yourself up to further terrorist attacks because other groups will see that they can win in your country. saddam has bullshitted us for a long time and is using the same excuses. He got his way with the UN before and he is playing the same game again.

[Cbass]

Saddam Hussein is not a terrorist, and he has absolutely no links to terrorism. That's a rumour they run on CNN every hour, because if you hear it often enough, you believe it.

As for the No Fly Zones, they are not UN sanctioned, they are an act of war by the US and Britain. Every time they fly, that's an act of war. So actually, Saddam has every excuse to fire missles at them. Those "patrols" are the same planes that bomb Iraqi power and water plants, in a deliberate plan to kill Iraqi civilians and weaken the country.

[taranaki]

Originally posted by dolla_bill0913
Do you guys even relize what is going on over there. Here is an example> U.S. planes are patroling the NO FLY ZONE, and other areas over Iraq, making sure Iraq doesnt make any attempt to attack any surrounding countries, and they are being shot at by Iraq ground to air missles, and I am not talking about a 1 time incident. I think that is an act of war, and Bush has every right to want to attack Iraq. Thats only an example, I could go on and on. Everyone wants peace and the only way to get it is to eliminate the threats against peace. Iraq doesnt listion to talk, they only understand war, dont we all remember the war with them only a couple years ago. Bush has given them plenty of time and if all the UN countries, like france, germany,etc. are afraid of Iraq, well then we dont need them. Grow some balls like the US and the Brits and dont get pushed around by terrorists. :finger:

so....if the Iraqis started flying sorties across America,just to ensure that the U.S. didn't attack anyone, and dropped a few live ones onto America's arms manufacturers,missile installations,nuclear facilities and supply lines,that would be o.k. by you,would it?

The U.S. war against Iraq has been continuing under the flimsy veil of 'peacekeeping' and 'sanctions' for over ten years.I can't say that I blame the Iraqis for hating the U.S.More than ever before, the U.S. military machine looks to be out of control.Perhaps if Bush and his cohorts had seen action in a war themselves,they would not be so eager to inflict it on others,but most of the president's key people are draft dodgers.

[dolla_bill0913]

Originally posted by Cbass
Saddam Hussein is not a terrorist, and he has absolutely no links to terrorism. That's a rumour they run on CNN every hour, because if you hear it often enough, you believe it.

As for the No Fly Zones, they are not UN sanctioned, they are an act of war by the US and Britain. Every time they fly, that's an act of war. So actually, Saddam has every excuse to fire missles at them. Those "patrols" are the same planes that bomb Iraqi power and water plants, in a deliberate plan to kill Iraqi civilians and weaken the country.

Do you even remember the last war? To help you here is how it started, and as far as what you are saying, I sure would like some facts, because you dont have a clue, at the bottom you will see some statements about the NO FLY ZONE!


Starting JULY 1990 * Internal Look, a U.S. war game, shows Saudi Arabia could be defended against
Iraqi invaders, but at terrible cost.




August 2



Iraq invades Kuwait.

August 5


President Bush declares invasion "will not stand."

August 6


King Fahd meets with Richard Cheney, requests U.S. military assistance.

August 8


Initial U.S. Air force fighter planes arrive in Saudi Arabia.

August 10


John Warden first meets with Schwarzkopf in Tampa to outline proposed air
campaign.

August 28


Secret Israeli delegation flies to Washington to stress likelihood of Iraqi attack on
Israel if war begins.




September
18



Schwarzkopf asks four Army planners to begin work on ground offensive.




October 10



CENTCOM's One Corps Concept unveiled at White House.

October 21


Colin Powell flies to Riyadh to discuss offensive plans.

October 31


Bush decides to double U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia; decision kept secret until
November 8.




November
29



UN Security Council authorizes use of "all means necessary" to eject Iraq from
Kuwait.




December 6



First ship carrying VII Corps equipment arrives in Saudi Arabia from Germany.




January 9



James Baker meets Tariq Aziz in Geneva in unsuccessful effort to find a peaceful
solution.

January 12


Congress authorizes use of force.

January 15


UN deadline for Iraqi withdrawal. Schwarzkopf accuses Air Force of ignoring orders
by not including Republican Guard in initial bombing sorties.

January 17
Allied attack begins at 2:38am

AND AS FOR THE NO FLY ZONE:
The United States and Britain carry out patrols of no-fly zones set
up after the 1991 Gulf War in northern and southern Iraq with the
stated intention of protecting Kurds in the north and Shiite
Muslims in the south from the Iraqi military.

Iraqi officials insist that the zones violate the country's
sovereignty and territorial integrity, and they refuse to recognize
them.

U.S. officials have cited U.N. Resolution 1441 -- the latest
disarmament resolution -- to back up the no-fly zones and
coalition response to hostile activity from the Iraqis threats against coalition aircraft monitoring compliance of the No Fly Zone.


United Nations Security Council set up the NO FLY ZONES, so what do you have to say now?

[dolla_bill0913]

Originally posted by taranaki


so....if the Iraqis started flying sorties across America,just to ensure that the U.S. didn't attack anyone, and dropped a few live ones onto America's arms manufacturers,missile installations,nuclear facilities and supply lines,that would be o.k. by you,would it?

The U.S. war against Iraq has been continuing under the flimsy veil of 'peacekeeping' and 'sanctions' for over ten years.I can't say that I blame the Iraqis for hating the U.S.More than ever before, the U.S. military machine looks to be out of control.Perhaps if Bush and his cohorts had seen action in a war themselves,they would not be so eager to inflict it on others,but most of the president's key people are draft dodgers.

I dont remember The United Statea attacking any other countries, they usually aid other countries. As for Iraq we all know why planes patrol the air space over Iraq or did you forget about the Golf War? More Opinions with no facts!

[YogsVR4]

Originally posted by dolla_bill0913
I dont remember The United Statea attacking any other countries, they usually aid other countries. As for Iraq we all know why planes patrol the air space over Iraq or did you forget about the Golf War? More Opinions with no facts!

You'll notice that kind of thing floated out by a few around here.

Originally posted by dolla_bill0913
If they were irrelevant,Bush would have started his war already.The U.N. has so far successsfully prevented an a full scale war in Iraq.That is the objective of the U.N.,and they are doing a good and effective job against a poor and defective President.

They are irrelevant. Its only being done (most likely) because Blair asked for it. The UN is doing a shitty job of holding up to their own requirement on Iraq. 12 years that they've played footsie with him.

As for our leadership. I am glad Bush is in charge. I'll be voting for him again, and you can expect another term. Makes me feel going knowing that.

[Darth Cypher]

I don't blame Iraq for firing on our aircraft. At least not in the scenario that you provided, taranaki. However, that is not the scenario that played out. We didn't surrender in a war, Iraq did. We (even the UN) put those no-fly zones there to protect the Kurds and Shiites.

saddam is very known for horboring international terrorists in the past. That is FACT. It was part of our deal with him in the Iraq/Iran war. To fight Iran (our mutual enemy) and to stop harboring international terrorists. Hell, we knew that a terrorist we were after was in Iraq (can't remember his name). This was not on CNN, this was on several educational shows.

I wasn't saying that saddam is a terrorist either, though he does support terrorism. I was saying that negotiating with terrorists (or dictators) can be a bad thing and show weakness.

Now I don't mean to start a fight or anything but I'm getting a little fucking tired about this bullshit (yeah BULLSHIT) about how the military is blatantly targeting civilian facilities and civilians themselves to "weaken a country". That is a full out insult to normal American civilians who serve (which you are claiming to have no problem with). Yes, accidents happen but we definitely don't do it on purpose. Come on!

Like I said, I'm not starting a fight and hope to have intelligent debates but I feel I have to put my foot down on that one comment.

[dolla_bill0913]

YogsVR4 why are you quoting me when I didnt say it. Taranaki said that 2nd quote, not me. I would never say that.