Bush's new language and statments

Snowball

Originally posted by Hobbes
That might of been earlier.

The video in question had Saddam sitting down in front of the government smoking cigar saying that he found traitors in the government. He then named one guy who is escorted out by two guards and shot outside. Then he named another, some left crying others dragged out but after a few were removed the rest started getting up and chanting Saddam is cool (or whatever the translation was).

Make no mistake, SH is one evil Mofo. But the US wanting to remove him has nothing whatsoever to do with that, as they were quite happy to deal with him during the Iran war when a lot of the crap that people whine about he was doing.

nope thats the one, and yes he is one ****ed up little puppy but I belive that that was a very calculated move and thats what worries most.

Make no mistake, SH is one evil Mofo. But the US wanting to remove him has nothing whatsoever to do with that, as they were quite happy to deal with him during the Iran war when a lot of the crap that people whine about he was doing.

Being an evil mofo, has never been a reason to invade a country, nor his gasing of the Kurds. Lets face it, if he had shot them, then there wouldn't have been as much outcry, compared to his use of gas. Stalin, at the height of his power, was one of the most feared leaders in europe, with the killing of hundreds of thousands under his belt, and we never saw America invading Russia to replace him...

My opinion is this:
1) Bush needs a victory to get the american people behind him for re-election.
2) The American army get a short war to try gadgets, and get a plus promotion to their reputation. (and they get to justify their budget)
3) It keeps america's "War against Terror" moving, (even if Iraq can't afford to support terrorists.)
4) The occupation of the oilfields would be a nice bonus to american economy & Bush's ties to the oil industry.
5) It continues America's self-image as the protector of the world against any would-be aggressors (not including themselves, of course).

The Saint

I find it amusing too when people say he gassed his own people and also used gas against Iran. The three little words that they always leave out is "with their support". Before during and after these attrocities the US, UK and other western countries continued, quite happily, to send him arms. He was seen as the darling of the middle east. How attitudes change when necessary.

sceptre

Originally posted by klaz
1) Bush needs a victory to get the american people behind him for re-election.

You're right. Thing is, we've already been there just before the 1992 election. Poppy got voted out because the Americans realised that while they'd had a hell of a season out in Kuwait and brought home the pennant the economy was going down the drain at home. Moving forward to now, everyone see those federal budget deficit projections for the next five years?

Wook

I am reading a book from Michael Moore called 'stupid white man'
Highly recomended literature !! If you want to know how deep the rabidhole goes and who is Bush and Co.
It;s shocking!

btw Bush is constantly bitching about weapons of mass destruction while the USA.. did not sign the Anti Germ warfare pact that dates from 1972. (renewal)

Hobbes

Originally posted by Sand
In Saddams opinion maybe, but seeing as the kurds he deployed it against are Iraqi citizens in much the same way the most ardent republican born and raised in Derry is a UK citizen it is factually correct to say he gassed his own people.

And only just recently there was MI5 files released to the public that showed during the height of the troubles the UK was considering removing all Catholics from NI and relocating them to the republic (Not carried out as they thought it would be too much work). So treating them as a UK citizen may be factually correct, but if the person who owns the country doesn't think so then it's not really correct is it?

Actually the US did not sell WMD to Saddam at any time afaik.

Might want to go check up on it then as they did. As did the UK, France and Germany.

To help spread the blame around you might want to look into how an Italian bank bankrolled Saddams milatary machine for years. Should see some Italian protests soon, I dont think.

Ahh, spread the blame. I'm not wrong if they are wrong? I'm not saying the US is the only one to blame, but the US is the only one who's willing to upset world stability to suit itself.

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobbes
Might want to go check up on it then as they did. As did the UK, France and Germany.

I'm not sure that "sold" is the correct term. "Gave" might be more accurate.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
I'm not sure that "sold" is the correct term. "Gave" might be more accurate.

It may have been correct at the time, it's just, well, Saddam's been slow paying up.

Did we ever get paid for that beef?