They had been let back after the US had decided to set up a democracy there. Frankly, he kicked them out, and the deal was they stayed there or Saddam was kicked out, as I remember.
There was one such resolution, yes. And I had already said that as well. Of course, you do realise that:
A) That that resolution was pretty damned old, and that clearly the UN did not support that resolution anymore. Which means that the USA was acting on its own intent, ignoring the sovereignity of the UN and the duties for which the UN had been instated, and ignoring the fact that there is no rule saying "you can't change your mind."
B) Ehh..no. They had been let back after the US started to make some more threats. Not after the USA had unilaterally decided to kick Saddam out.
A) Yep. And he used WMD. Guilty.
B) By that definition, we should not have gone into Gulf War 1.
C) He was an idiot. OR atleast insane. I'm not sure there is an argument about that. He really wanted power above all other things, and, frankly, WMD for him would be a savior.
D) You may have a point here, but at first he simply was not cooperating at all. And by the time he was, our mind was made up.
E) Well, why don't we argue about weather or not the Kurds in the north dead because of Saddam are dead or not?
He had used WMD 13 years before, yes. Not a day beforehand. There was no evidence whatsoever that there were WMD, the weapons inspectors did not come back with any kind of result, and the presentation given before the security council was ambiguous and inconclusive, this was admitted by Colin Powell himself not so long ago. In short: there was no proof that he was guilty, and therefore Bush also ignored the foundation of modern law. Bush is looking better by the minute.
B)No, because the UN had been actively involved there, had given out a new resolution which it supported, and Bush Sr. followed that resolution by the letter, and there was no controversy about the validity of that resolution. Here, however, there was no such thing as an international effort, or support from the UN. This was different.
C) No, he was not an idiot. He, like many other men, desired power. And he did everything to retain that power. That makes him an immoral fuck, but not an idiot. Whether or not WMD would still have been a saviour for him remains to be undecided, especialy since that was the alleged reason why the USA attacked him.
D) Wrong. Your mind was not made up. Bush at some point threatened to invade Iraq, with a deadline and everything, but Iraq had already been cooperating long before that.
And besides that, "our mind was made up" isn't really a good reason to go kill people, now is it?
E)Ugh. There is a difference betweenhaving WMd now, and having them thirteen years ago, CCR, and you know that. Stop trying to evade the facts and face them.
He actually is good at proporganda. And alot of people belived that Saddam had wepons.
This is a slippery sloap, and alot of Republicans admit that. But I frankly think that Bush was wrong, but the action was right.
THANK YOU! That was what this was about. I stated that Bush had been lying in response to Kotario saying that he would vote for Bush because at least Bush was honest.
The justification of the war is a different matter, I don't think I would've opposed the war if Bush had gone by the security council, had waited for those weapons inspectors, and has said that he simply wanted Saddam away (which is good).
Then you need to get back on your medication, you are hearing things again.
The only thing I have heard from lefties these past few months is "I love the troops, they are great, but the war is bad bad mean mean". Remember, the Democratic Left created an entire generation of scarred Vietnam veterans by demonizing soldiers as BABY KILLERS.
The past few months is not the same as right after the war started. Pay attention to the time.
And yes, that may have happened in Vietnam, although soldiers weren't all behaving well there either, but that does not warrant a nation to just say to everyone "shut up, we don't need criticism because we are at war."
That could lead to a lot of nasty things, where the public simply doesn't wish to say things because the boys are at the front line.
Using the word straigten about the murder of 3,000 people is not appropriate.
I bet he has. I don't have numbers, but it's not that unlikely. The bombing in a Bali disco itself came pretty close.
The bombing of the Bali disco was not 3,000 people, but, IIRC, 200. Not even close. Plus, most were Australian, and therefore, not really likely to be muslim.
But this is all unimportant.
Fuck you. Reagen baisically put an end to the cold war while the Left was bitching about the creation of a Handmaiden like world. They where very frankly wrong in every respect, and Reagen frankly saved the world from nuclear oblivion.
BWAHAAA! Now you're doing it yourself. "Reagan saved the world from nuclear oblivion."
Frankly, I think it was more due to Mikhail Gorbatchov and Boris Jeltsin that the cold war was ended, not due to Reagan, who, IIRC, had even given the order to strike Russia with nukes several times, usually at night in a very confused state of mind. (these orders were all ignored by his generals, luckily). Although this could've been Nixon instead of Reagan, I can't clearly remember.
What I do know, however, is that Reagan suffered from a huge amount of scandals, bad judgement calls, completely fucked up statements. And still no-one besides Republicans thinks Regan was a good president. That is a fact.
That's true, but I don't remember Coulter writing something along the line of anything that cerial killer producing-Atwood wrote.
Neither do I. Then again, I don't read anything of Coulter's or Atwood's.
By the way, serial-killer-producing? Could you explain yourself?
