Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Interactive
Hold the bull**** train right there..
First off, in the way early 90's Saddam did have WMD's and a ton of them. He was lobbing scuds at the Israelis and the we wouldn't let Israel retaliate. He had WMD's in the late 90's when he kicked the UN inspectors out, he had WMD's in 2002 when he let them back in. Now we're having to use a bit of effort to find them now. Whys that? Because Bush gave him way too much time, Syria rings a bell...
I believe you mentioned earlier that the USA does not have the right to go tell everyone what to do. Well then the UN does? Now you're going to say the UN is allowed to do that because it's a bunch of countries collectively. Which is true, excluding the fact that there is always some at the top with supreme control, which just happens to be that freak from Africa. The UN needs to shut the hell up and the USA needs to kick them out and stop giving the UN money (Which Bush has initiated, thankfully).
Winning the election? Total bull****. You're from the UK as I understand? Well here in the USA we have this thing called the electoral college. Basically there's 2 votes in each state. This is to prevent something like say California being able to decide the whole election for the rest of the country due to their high capita. Now for some reason the Democrats are begining to scream about this, even though this is what greatly helped Clinton in the 96 election against Bob Dole...
What's funny is you call him a fool. He's only a fool because you don't agree with him, so what does that make you?
Lying to his own people? Well it's funny you mention that, because the CIA (which is headed up by the former CEO of Citibank) is the one IIRC that told Bush about the whole WMD thing. The blame should actually be shifted to them more than Bush (if there really is any justified blame). By the way, do we not remember a particular President who was getting head and then lied about it on National TV? Or how about smoking pot? or or...
|
I believe Bill Hicks had it right when he did his sketch on arms trade around the world the basic gist being..." how do you know they have these weapons?............Oh well we checked the receipts!!
We all know he HAD them cos we all know we sold them to him(i use we as a collective for America/UK),and the point is when he HAD them then.He definitely didn't have then this time and that was the reason we went and got him.
Saying that Bush was given false information that led him to war is dodgy ground too,because Bush had made his mind up that at all cost Saddam had to go (after9/11) so it wouldn't surprise me that the President and his 'Advisor's' put a great deal of pressure on the secret services to get any sort of proof that he was a dangerous man,in their haste they came up with a document that was proved wrong.
You quite neatly skipped around my point that UN was a good enough body to listen to when they said that Saddam needed attention,but an invalid body when they wont back you up in war.
You may well have a system that doesn't allow California to do whatever whenever but the fact remains,Bush's win was controversial and no one will know if the result was accurate or not.
So the fact you have had Liars in the whitehouse before does not mean you should put up with another one for another term( ican't believe you didn't mention Nixon too).
You seem a proud American and it baffles me why you would want someone who makes and breaks rules as he see's fit(a bit like Saddam),has little concern if he is telling the whole truth to his OWN people( a bit like Saddam),cant declare he won his last election totally without doubt( a bit like Saddam,do you remember the vote he won 100% of the vote!!), and who makes decisions that could put his nation and people in grave danger,while he is surrounded by tight security( a bit like..blah blah).
I am not really party political in this debate i am just shocked that Americans are so willing to have Bush back.
(great debate by the way!!! Love it!!!)