Bush planned Iraq attack before becoming president

  • Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!

    Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.

Originally posted by mel
(...)
In 1990 Iraq tried to take over Kuwait for their oil. The UN lead by the US forced them out and told them they couldnt make weapons of mass destruction (sound familiar?) yet they let Saddam Hussein in control. i don't understand that at all.
(...)
Click to expand...

I think no country has the right to impose any president or political regime to other country, and perhaps thats why people dislike USA. Same thing is currently happening in Cuba and Northern Corea. I'm afraid that this can lead to a war outside the Middle East. Hope not :\

I could give a more deep opinion but this is as far as my English goes :D
 
In the given situation, I feel that a regime change.. supported by an educated population is fine.

And what do you consider 'forced'?

Meanwhile, didn't know we were doing anything in Cuba recently, other than holding embargos down on them for the past 50 years :D.

And North Korea? As far as I know we just don't want them to throw a nuke at us, forget about the whole thought over which form of government is better (people in North Korea live like shit mind you, and have no clue life can be better).

Just stuff.
 
I agree that a regime change in those countries would be positive, but what it looks like to me from this side of the Atlantic is that the US are always trying to put their nose into some countries internal afairs.

Yes I know that Human Rigths should be preserved and when they are violated that's no longer a country's internal afair, it matters to the international comunity also.

But looking to what happened in East Timor I cant find out a pattern in US interventions, as you saw US supporting Indonesia for a long time, knowing what was happening inside Timor.

Im not anti-US, I just think US should see the efects of their positions or they will keep suffering the hatred form some countries the same way that is happening now in the Middle East because of the US support to Israel.
 
Bush may not have much of a clue as to wtf is going on (or most likely he doesnt care since hes protected anyway) , but the "bad guys" seem to have it straight. im sure theyll remind the others from time to time.We wont have any wars spreading anywhere, there is no real war to spred..

There will be war in iraq though, in under a month(two months l8r then i predicted) and the terror on US and Israeli targets will escalate. Saddam will send some scuds to israel and thats the end of the midle east. Terror on a glabal scale will explode(mind the pun) ull have loadsa smaler terror actions, mostly in the US and middel east countries with large consentration of US interests and tourist locations.





/me plays Bob Dylans - Masters of war
 
if there is ever gonna be a world war 3
then september 11 lit the fuse leading to it.

in a worldwar the united states won't be held back by the media anymore. and they will bomb enemies back into the stone age.
this middle east thing is causing tensions all over the world, saddam is nothing more then a sparkplug.

war will come , and lets hope it will be a small one if it ever comes.
because if saddam bombs israel then there will be no stopping it imho
 
Missed this thread, but love to participate, albeit late.

If I were part of a group of people trying to win the elections in what ever country. I would make sure plans were in place for foreign pollecies, education, healthcare etc etc (no particular order). If the republicans hadn't done that I would have been very much surprised, no doubt the democrats also had outlines prepared like that. So what is the big news? The republicans came prepared... well that is what they should be in the first place.....

Regarding poor Sadam, hes pissed of by the USA like many others in the middle east beause the USA is so bloody annoying. The USA doesn't obey all UN resolutions, so why should Sadam? I think Sadam is a naughty person, have no doubt about that, but in Sadams shoes I would be very very annoyed. The USA can have weapons of mass destruction, have nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. But others are not allowed to have them? Weird shit. Oh well the ones in power are always right aren't they? Not that I want to see those weapons allowed for everyone, we should get rid of all of them, but the USA and also the UK are in violation of a few UN resolutions. Based upon those resolutions by the way, you can board their nuclear submarines and cause damage. They can not put you in jail for that. This is proven by a bunch of elderly ladies in the UK. Not that I want to encourage people to follow their footsteps, but the point is, the US and the UK are in violation. The point is also, that the law in the UK and higher up works. I can not imagine elderly ladies in Irak getting away with such a stunt. But I assume nobody around here knows about these ladies.... :P The story btw is piss-funny, they boared them subs sowhere up North, using a dingy at night. The subs were not guarded (!) and they smashed some control panels. They then phoned the police. They had to wait several hours before they were arrested. They argued their case all the way up to the international court of justice (I think) and simply won. FC!

This is one screwed up world we live in :nod: nobody seems to be right (gouvernments)

I hate polletics :nod:
 
You know,

I just thought of a brilliant strategy for Iraq to prevent war...

Scorched Earth was a very effective tactic in the original Gulf War, so what Saddam needs to do is get his tropps running around now, pre-positioning high explosives beside every oil well in Iraq: buried beside the well heads if possible...

Then roundup the world's media, and just come out with it:

"The US is attacking us to gain control of our Oil, nothing more. If the US or it's allies attack Iraq, we will detonate every single well head in the nation, which will take a decade to repair".

Lets face it, Iraq's infrastructure is hosed already. What would they have to use?

It's the equivelant of dropping your wallet down a drain before the mugger gets to you.

:)
 
Then of course you must assume that the sole reason the US were to go to war with Iraq is oil.

I like to believe that its not the only reason, and my opinion in the matter differs from thinking its a big reason to a smaller reason.

And supposedly between all the different treaties, I don't believe anyone supposed to have biological/chemical weapons.
 
propain, 11th september was not exactly the start in that case - that was just a small retaliation. isn't it peculiar that it's always "terrorism" as soon as another country than US strikes without warning and when there is warfare going in that US isn't involved in? isn't it peculiar that it's only "retaliation" as soon as US actually does something? 11th september = a small retaliation.

loneranger, shouldn't US attack themselfs first if no country should be allowed to have weapons of mass destruction? or are nukes ok?

to attack iraq because they might have more than conventional weapons is perhaps ok (make war against a country with the capacity to make war, but ofcourse...), but not when done by another country with more than conventional weapons... or is it ok for US to have weapons of mass destruction because they've got a democracy?

i'm not saying that iraq is no threat. i'm saying US is a much bigger threat, and then there are cowards like blair sucking bush dick at that...
 
Originally posted by LoneRanger
Then of course you must assume that the sole reason the US were to go to war with Iraq is oil.

I like to believe that its not the only reason, and my opinion in the matter differs from thinking its a big reason to a smaller reason.

And supposedly between all the different treaties, I don't believe anyone supposed to have biological/chemical weapons.
Click to expand...

LR, the US elected to not sign the Biological Weapons non-proliferation treaty, and are the only NATO country still developing Bio-Weapons.

As for only going to war over Oil? they aint doing a very good job of persauding the world that the Un inspectors are doing anything more than forward intelligence prior to invasion...
 
tnx for the bit of info ian, i knew i've heard we did something stupid like that.

anywho, although either reason really isn't quite legitimate.. it really does seem that a large reason really is using saddam as a scapegoat, 'getting rid of terrorism', etc.

if the bush administration wants some oil too, i wouldn't be surprised, which isn't to say i would approve of it in the least

edit: and fluid, we're not attacking every other single country that has weapons of mass destruction, are we? :D
 
Tbh I feel a little bad for LR-as it must be hard to come on here and have to feel like he has to defend what everyone else is attacking. But Dubya's war machine trundles on.
It's a frightening time. There is nobody in he world that is a threat to the US. Not anyone they didnt arm in the first place.
You gotta just love the way the US media villifies the Muslims tho.......I am part of the way with Wintermute on religion but damn.......left hand Islam - right hand Fundamentalist Christian.
Errr they weigh about the same! Well whad'ya know!
Lets just keep incubating that hate.
 
i beg to differ m8
it did lit the fuse, simply because now the world knows that those terrorist groups are higly organised well funded operations.
what they always saw as a minor thread turned out to be very dangerous.

the world split up in 3 parties
those who fight it
those who support it
and those who remain neutral.
 
hey, i don't like dubya.. and much of his administration is war mongerers (not to mention part of iran contra :eyeroll: )

anyways, i have to play devil's advocate. and also, its so easy for you to comment on things when you're an ocean away (not saying many of your points are wrong though)

to for the first time sort of have that thought of fright on new years or a major holiday.. that 'if' is scary.

alot of what i see on the boards is the same, idealistic stuff, which i'm not at all saying that theres anything wrong with that per se, there just isn't anyone coming from a more practical standpoint giving out suggestions on what could/should happen.

i dunno, things are screwy. i can't say i support my government as of now, although i like to think that the basis of it all is good. life isn't bad here. if you have a good administration, thing aren't so bad. i've lived 1 year under reagan (which i can't recall at all obviously), 6 years under one bush or the other and 8 under clinton. obviously some of it was timing, but clinton was a good guy imo, unfortunately couldn't keep little bill in his pants though.

BLAH

/shrugs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back