"George Bush our hero!"

[kermit64]

removed (double post)

[toast]

1. Bush was never elected into office.
2. Iraq doesn't want war.
3. The people of Iraq would take Saddam over anything else.
4. America will be wooped.
5. They are in it for the oil.
6. "They war is only killing Iraq people."
7. The Iraq people don't want the U.S there.

1. Well, he's President now, so you should assume, by retroactive constitutional principles, that he was elected.

Anyway, who cares about 300 Florida votes in a country where abstention has reached such pathetic limits ? In a country where homeless people are so numerous ?

2. Complete your statement: Iraq doesn't want war with the US. Nobody wants.

3. American propaganda. 'Those people love dictatorship, for sure !' type of affirmation.

4. ?

5. Who wouldn't have been ?

6. I agree.

7. I agree. Recent Bagdad anarchy and looting + Saddam nostalgia already rising meansare bad omens for the US diplomacy.

[fryke]

Okay. I've been all over the web. It seems I have missed something important: Where is Saddam? Is he caught/dead/vanished?

I have found zillions of pages about a) "Should the UN now decide measures against the US/UK?", b) "Who is going to rebuild Iraq?" and c) "Bagdad taken..." - but I haven't found one line about Saddam.

[dlloyd]

Originally posted by MDLarson
Yes, TECHNICALLY, BUSH WON!!! You may say "Bush should not have won," or "Gore won the popular vote," but the fact still stands. Bush won Florida, which held the necessary electoral votes. The electoral college was in place, and therefore Bush technically won. Recount after recount, Bush won. Bush won the presidential race of 2000. He won. He won!!! Gore lost and Bush won.

Don't imply that I don't care about my country. I voted. I voted for Bush and he won, fair and square.

Oooooops! I meant theoretically, not technically. Wrong word
I didn't mean to imply that you did not vote, I was just mentioning the appalling level of abstention in our country.


Fryke: Outside of the Iraqi 'government' and maybe the US high command, I don't think anyone knows.
The US dropped two big 4,000+ pound bombs on a rather lavish neighborhood where Saddam and his sons were supposed to be attending a meeting sometime this week though. There is some speculation that he might have been killed, but also whether he would have permitted both of his 'powerful' sons to gather in the same place as he did.
Anyhow, it doesn't really matter anymore, does it? As long as he hasn't escaped or anything.

[fryke]

The question after your 'anyhow'-sentence is why I'm asking, really.

But then again, you're right. Now that the evil part of the US strategy (the war) has ended, I wonder how the 'good' part (the rebuilding of Iraq) will take place. And how the deconstruction of the UN will continue (and if).

[toast]

Originally posted by fryke
The question after your 'anyhow'-sentence is why I'm asking, really.

But then again, you're right. Now that the evil part of the US strategy (the war) has ended, I wonder how the 'good' part (the rebuilding of Iraq) will take place. And how the deconstruction of the UN will continue (and if).

Maybe a less religious way (vocab like 'good', 'evil' sounds there's a crusade taking place somewhere, evil being the killing and good the conversion) to say that would be to state that the easy part of liberating Iraq is over.

In military terms, the USA have never failed at invading a country. Even if history shows variable duration (short: Chili, long: Vietnam), variable damage (little: actual Iraq, heavy: hm... Vietnam again), variable support from public opinion (actual conflict is a good example), the USA have never failed, whereas some other superpowers did in the past. The USSR (Afghanistan), but also older powers such as Napoleonian France, Mogul Khans or the Roman Empire did know some military defeats.

However, history is full of examples of countries who did not turn to democracy after American intervention. Post-war Germany is a counter-example; but most Third World countries which have experienced military intervention from the US obey to this rule: bombs do not bring democracy. May this be repeated.

A metaphor for this would be to say the US have brought more fire than cement to Iraq. More to destroy than to build. I am patiently waiting to see if this opinion turns out true or not in the next months.

[Reality]

1. Bush was never elected into office.
2. Iraq doesn't want war.
3. The people of Iraq would take Saddam over anything else.
4. America will get their butt kicked.
5. They are in it for the oil.
6. "The war is only killing Iraq people."
7. The Iraq people don't want the U.S there.

Hey again, alright I made some mistakes as I'm sure you all can see I just wanted to fix those. Man it was late last night when I posted so sorry about that. I put in bold what was fixed.

[chevy]

What was the "official" reason to attack Iraq ?
Terrorism ? No (no link with al qaida)
Dictatorship ? No (tenths of other countries could have been attacked)
Petrol ? No
World dominance ? No
Revenge ? No
Internal politics ? No

So what was it that made this attack so urgent ? WMD !

My question: where are the WMD ?