ALL BUSH SUPPORTERS READ THIS
Find a Conversation
| Thu, 09-02-2004 - 10:03am |
'In his memoirs, "A World Transformed," written five years ago, George Bush Sr. wrote the following to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War.
"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human
and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We
would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq....
There was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of
our principles. Furthermore, we had been consciously trying to set a
pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in
and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations'
mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response
to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion
route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power
in a bitterly hostile land."
If only his son could read.'


Pages
On November 3, we'll have relative peace again in the homeland for another few years, unless of course the Democrats refuse to accept the results of another election. These past 4 years of constant assault upon my senses by the Intolerant Left and the Associated Press have been quite enough.
W 2004!!
I'm so sick of the War on America since the leftists refused to accept that their candidate lost in 2000.
Our candidate did not lose. He got the popular vote and then the rest of the votes were NOT ALLOWED TO BE COUNTED.
If you don't believe it was just a matter of time (if they don't already have some) before nuclear weapons were put in the hands of terrorists then there is no hope for you.
So let's go to war because someone MIGHT have WMDs? Oh that's rich! And meanwhile let's ignore where the terrorist really were and let's ignore where the WMDs really ARE! Korea, China, Iran, for starters.
Donna
Renee ~~~
Renee ~~~
Donna
As I've said in other posts, there is also a clear link between the UK and terrorists. Or the States and terrorists. It's all there if you're looking for it. Osama Bin Laden studied in Cambridge (that's Cambridge UK, not Cambridge MA). The US gave Saddam weapons when they were fighting Khomeini coz they wanted him on their side. It's all politics and I object to our young men and women being sent off to die in a war that served no more purpose than Vietnam did. Yes, Saddam is out. Great. He was an evil bastard, granted. But what's next? Are they going to sort out Mugabe, who in my opinion is just as bad as Saddam if not worse? How about African nations killing white farmers just because they're white? Or China systematically removing all freedoms from the people of Hong Kong? What about the burgeoning issues between (nuclear powers) India and Pakistan, not to mention the Israel/Palestine problems. Where does it stop? And let's look at how Iraq's doing, now that we have so heroically 'liberated' it. The country is in shambles.
If terrorists want nuclear weapons, they need do nothing more than go to any country in the former Soviet Union and buy one for a few million dollars. It's that simple.
Now would you please explain how you keep preaching to us that an unborn child has no thoughts or feelings yet you're telling us to vote for John Edwards, who has made a career of channelling unborn children's thoughts and feelings from the womb?!
How can you possibly rationalize that???????
P.S. read up on the Electoral College. Popular vote is irrelevant. But of course you're going to continue repeating what Dan Rather says. Oh well.
Edited 9/3/2004 7:53 am ET ET by janeigh
I'll be generous and assume you haven't read all my posts about this since a few of them were made on threads that have been deleted.
If you have a problem with me, report it; otherwise, lay off.
CM Pat has reminded us all that according to the IVillage TOS, posts should be on-topic (ie. about political issues), and I think we should all respect that.
Renee ~~~
Edited 9/3/2004 8:19 am ET ET by cl-wrhen
Renee ~~~
Pages