No he just invaded another country to try to take control of a majority of the oil in the region in 1990-1991. I was there watching when that invasion took place from an Op post under the cover of darkness. Have the night vision pictures and have the pictures from after we got thier ass out and the rape and murder they left behind... Your above comment was that of an ignorant person that has no clue of history or what the HELL your talking about. Please crawl back under your ROCK.. PGZ
Carter gets my vote for creating a train wreck of a domestic economy and his foreign policy was like a plane that hit the side of the mountain. He continues today to prove time and time again that he doesn't "GET IT"! History will put him at the bottom!
Thanks PGZ for your service! I really appreciate what you did and sorry for your injuries! You for one did something for your country!....not just talked about not doing anything! Give e'm HELL!
Also, it's pretty clear that saddam wanted everyone to believe that he had those weapons, and most of the world did believe. It's hard to be a brutal dictator and remain in power when you're perceived as being unarmed. I'm not a fan of the war in Iraq. I think there were experts who knew that Iraq wasn't really a coherent country at all but a "tribal stew"(as George Will called it in an article that was recently linked to from these forums) that was only being held together by the brutal hand of saddam. This administration apparently chose to ignore that along with other things and we now see that Iraq is on the verge of a full blown civil war(if they're not there already). But to say that the US was given no reason to invade is also wrong. Saddam was practically begging to be invaded and overthrown. It's just that us actually doing it, probably wasn't a smart move.
Saddam himself could have avoided the War if he just followed the guidelines set forth in the ceasefire and not play cat and mouse. After 9-11 took place would you have actually set back again and done nothing when threated over and over by Sadaam. 9-11 taught us not to sit and do nothing because if we do then Americans die. The only reason France and Russia didnt want us in there is because they themselves were selling illegal weapons to Iraq and that was found out after we went in. Regardless if you are Dem or Rep we are at War and a divided country only HELPS the enemy we face. Many of the people we fight are not even Iraqi but the majority of them come from Iran. The different tribes within Iraq have fought each other for years and that will never stop. The Terrorist dont want a free Iraq thats why they fight. During the 80s the same Liberals said the same thing about Reagan but as you look back on time we now see the whole picture of what he did. He won the Cold War without the US actually going to War. It was a War with money and it brought the Soviet Union down to its knees and caused FREEDOM throughout the WORLD to florish. Many years from now people will see the whole story of what Bush has done and they will THANK GOD he was the right President at the right time. PGZ
Look who's back. You crack me up. Historically towards the end of a presidency the presidents approval numbers are down. In reality number is between 38% and 42% depending on which poll you look at. Higher than Clinton's at the same time period. Also, again, historically, poll numbers are way down for the incumbant president during mid-term elections. Overall, still higher than Clinton's approval ratings during the same time period. Now what exactly is it that makes Bush "the worst President in History" in you mind? Is it because you do not like him, or can you cite some specific example that supports your claim. I'm gonna need a bit more than, because Bush is bad. Or, I just don't like him. Or, WMD's. Give me something realistic and credible.
Polls mean nothing to Bush....Its not like he's going for re-election. He has nothing gain from polls. Unlike Dems they live by the polls. PGZ
yo-yo Approval hits new low: .03% A new opinion poll contains bad news for the yo-yo family. The Newsweek poll says yo-yo's approval rating reached a new low of .03 percent, a .0000999999-point drop from August. Nearly 100 percent express overall disapproval of how yo-yo handles anything. yo-yo's rating is worse than the president's. He gets just .03 percent approval, and 99.97 percent say yo-yo should go. And for the first time, Newsweek says a majority of Americans, 98 percent, believe the yo-yo purposely misled the public about everything. The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Don't sweat it PGZ. Ferret and other's like him are the whiners who never did anything real, never served any purpose other than bitching, never volunteered anything of themselves but complacency and self loathing and fear mongering. They've never grown up, and have nothing to show for themselves accept an overt desire spread hatred and grief towards those that have and do actually do something positive.
I think this is very well said. Evidentally, Saddam's own generals didn't know he didn't have chemical weapons. He must have had this under very close wrap...and nobody knew the truth. If the Iranians and the West knew that he had no wmd then he would have been ripe to attack for years. I wonder how much thought went into the "tribal stew" issue before we attacked and certainly afterwards. It appears we didn't think through it well enough at all and did a cr@ppy job once we were there. I supported the war initially, based on the case made. Now I believe that the case was overblown, there was lots of made up "evidence"...and of course this "tribal stew" thing has totally changed everything. Its monday morning quarterbacking to question everything...but that is fair game....we need to evaluate all the time. That reminds me I gotta source an article written about Colin Powell...basically about the period leading up to his speach at the UN before we attacked Iraq. Powell was evidentally responsable for Bush taking the case to the UN (Cheney didn't think that was necessary). Rather than me write about it...its better to post the link and then make comments.
1. very clever minstrel. you must have spent all day on that crafty post 2. PGZ why exactly do you think George Bush #1 left saddam in control after the gulf war? Because he knew what a disaster it would be to remove him. 3. Just because we're against the current Iraq war doesn't mean we're against everything. The first gulf war was ok.. the afghanistan war was ok (if we follow through with it), etc. Iraq was a MISTAKE.
read the history books on occasion. bush left because the coalition would have collapsed. and bush loved his coalition. we promised the iraqi's we would remove saddam in 91. we didn't.
Plus, of course, Saddam became militarily weaker in the intervening decade. We were able to, in the long term, remove him with fewer casualties.
Under the hopes that the Americanos, his principle backers since the 1980s, will not intervene.... Actually I know more than you give me credit for. After all, it was Saddam who rang up Rummy prior to his invasion of Kuwait. The answer he got was "We [meaning Americanos] are not interested in your intra-Arab conflicts" Ah, touche. We both know that I am unlikely to do that. - MENJ