jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (52 posts)

Change? Really?

  1. BillyDRitchie profile image59
    BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago

    MARCH 19, 2011
    OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...


    MARCH 19, 2003
    BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...

    At least Bush got approval and authorization from Congress before acting.

    On the plus side, Obama is finally showing that he actually possesses a set of balls.....

    1. dingdondingdon profile image59
      dingdondingdonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The key difference here is Gaddafi, unlike the WMDs, exists.

      1. BillyDRitchie profile image59
        BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The WMDs existed as well.  What part of "Saddam used them on his own people" does the left fail to get?  You cannot use what you do not have.

        I would also go on to mention that the burden of proof was on Saddam to prove he had disarmed, as per UN resolutions.  But I'd hate to bother you with such insignificant things as facts.....

        1. kerryg profile image86
          kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          1. He used them on his own people 20 years earlier.

          2. What part of "the US sold him the WMDs he used on his own people" does the right fail to get?

          3. Several UN investigations found no WMDs - what more proof did you want?

          1. pisean282311 profile image51
            pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            and supposingly even if he had WMD , he was going to threaten iran with it which anyways is enemy of usa...he wont have harmed israel , uk and usa...secondly usa has largest number of WMD...i hope 20 years done the line , chinese bush doesnot use same excuse to bomb usa...they have money right now and would have enough might 20 years down the line...

          2. Cagsil profile image61
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Chemical weapons are not WMD's is what you're saying? Just trying to clarify. hmm

            1. Maembe profile image61
              Maembeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              People still think Iraq had WMDs?  lol

              1. Cagsil profile image61
                Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I'm not saying Iraq still has them. Please do try to keep up. wink

                1. kerryg profile image86
                  kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  "Had" is past tense, not present. wink

            2. pisean282311 profile image51
              pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              chemical , nuclear or any weapon which can cause deaths in high numbers is WMD according to me...it may be biological weapon too...but in that criteria there are 20 countries in the world which have disclosed/non disclosed WMDs...Iraq was not threat to usa...it was projected as one...WMD were not found and that is why tony is under firing lines in uk...Iraq was useless operation and it has left that region is problem...Iran , Iraq , Saudi and egpt ...these were four powers out there..Iraq is gone and now it is match between iran and saudi...bush should have known politics better than that...

              1. Cagsil profile image61
                Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I'm not agreeing with what Bush did. Was Saddam a threat? A threat to his own people and surrounding countries. A prime example- Kuwait, which needed protection from him. hmm

                1. pisean282311 profile image51
                  pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  well if we go by that logic usa would be busy with wars since many countries need protection from their neighbours...it is none of usa's business to go on protecting other countries...it is their business to protect themselves...for Iraqis?...well Iraq was better protected under saddam than what it is right now...just see what happens once usa goes....there is possibility of civil war and split of Iraq which would in turn benefit Iran...usa should stop interfering in things which it can not handle in longer run...

                  1. profile image65
                    logic,commonsenseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Well the Iraqi people were not protected from Saddam.  He killed thousands of his own countrymen with mustard gas etc.  He and his family were a cancer and needed to be removed.  The Iraqi people should have done it themselves.  If they become a satellite of Iran, they have no one to blame but themselves.  The U.S. gave them the opportunity to become self governing, some peoples can not handle that and self destruct.  If that is their destiny, whatever the U.S. has done has no affect on that.  Just because a dictator kept them safe from Iran doesn't mean it was a good thing.  It just means the inevitable was delayed.

            3. kerryg profile image86
              kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Of course they're WMDs. But all we found in Iraq were a few scattered leftovers from the 80's, most of which were degraded. We found no evidence of imminent threat or any effort to rebuild his chemical weapons program.

              1. Cagsil profile image61
                Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Rebuild? hmm

                1. kerryg profile image86
                  kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  He had one in the 80's. It got shut down. What's the question?

                  1. Cagsil profile image61
                    Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Never mind. Just the fact that you think it got shutdown and the UN provided the information is enough for me to not argue with you about it.

          3. Jim Hunter profile image60
            Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "Several UN investigations found no WMDs - what more proof did you want?"

            Oh yeah the UN, the nation members love the U.S. roll

            They would certainly be unbiased.

            1. kerryg profile image86
              kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Nevertheless, their conclusions were validated and the US's proved wrong, so what's your point?

              1. Jim Hunter profile image60
                Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                How was the U.S. proved wrong?

                Chemical weapons were found by your own admission so they were not wrong.

                1. kerryg profile image86
                  kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Right. Killing more than 4000 of our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, and wives and wounding more than 30,000 more was totally worth finding a few scattered stashes of degraded chemical weapons from before the first Gulf War. roll

                  Degraded leftovers do not constitute an imminent threat or evidence of an ongoing weapons program, which were the claims the US used to justify the invasion.

                  1. Jim Hunter profile image60
                    Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm sorry did you say they DID find WMD's?

                    Yes I believe you did.

                    Thank you.

    2. Jed Fisher profile image85
      Jed Fisherposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to think our world leaders are bowing to the will of Dr. Evil. Apparently, Dr. Evil has developed the capabilty to cause 8.0 or greater earth quakes. He also seems to own a lot of Exxon Mobile stock. Maybe there is some clue to his identity buried deep in the Wiki Leaks data base.

    3. tony0724 profile image61
      tony0724posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Doesn't matter too much. I think Libya will be the final nail in the coffin of this quasi Presidency. About the only thing I see Obama doing is using the office like he got a unlimited credit card. And Hillary should be bounced out on her large keister too. She got the ball rolling on this one.

    4. lady_love158 profile image60
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      On the minus side at least Bush had a clear mission! Obamas mission is anything but and already the coalition is falling apart amid confusion!

      1. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Obama mission is to only provide supportive measures. The reason for the falling apart of coalition forces is because they refuse to step up and take command from the U.S., who is in present command.

  2. pisean282311 profile image51
    pisean282311posted 6 years ago

    balls?well one doesnot go and fight himself/herself...so balls cannot be judged on basis of who goes for more wars...clinton had more hormone flow ...ask monica tongue

    on serious notes libya and iraq are poles apart...one has united nations sanction and backing of entire world...another was personal quest of arrogant man which had opposition of the world...libya is done because of movement of people of libya , iraq was done out of imaginary threat created by bush and his brother tony (who is facing the heat in his country and might end up being tried )...

    1. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      roll

      1. pisean282311 profile image51
        pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        ?

  3. aware profile image72
    awareposted 6 years ago

    Did anyone really think things were gonna change  ? The name on the desk is the only change .

  4. aware profile image72
    awareposted 6 years ago

    and ideas are wmds  too.

  5. aware profile image72
    awareposted 6 years ago

    Old  stockpiles of the stuff we know he had . what did he do with it?  Its buried in the sand . I still think that. Of course i could be wrong , but i could also be right. I think its  funny how if we did find one wmd  everyone would be fine with the killing of so many  people.

    1. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hey Ray, like I said, I am not defending what Bush did. Saddam was a sadist and enjoyed his iron grip on his people. wink No offense intended.

  6. aware profile image72
    awareposted 6 years ago

    No offense   taken or meant .  Civil exchange of ideas. I respect contrary thinking .

    1. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What gets me Ray, is that some people say that it's okay to blow up a building that has an evil person in it...but how do civilians who are around it not become collateral damage when it does in fact explode? hmm

  7. aware profile image72
    awareposted 6 years ago

    I  also think that if we did find w m d s  there we wouldn't be told about them because the tag on them read made in the America.
    lol i know that's a bit out there.
    Ray

    1. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hey Ray, it's not out there at all. Saddam received plenty of arms from plenty of other countries and it would not be a shock if most said- 'made in the USA' on them. lol

  8. aware profile image72
    awareposted 6 years ago

    And Cagsil  that  gets me too . as a American it makes me feel ashamed at how we use our force these days. Still we don't have a kill order on Qudaffy  .Something we should have had 30 years ago  i think.   id rather use one bullet   . and no civilian deaths. To solve the problem . than lobbing  missiles into  neighborhoods killing everyone in sight except for the one guy  that needs killing most.

    1. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Ray, 30 years ago, it would have been okay to send a black ops team in to take care of the job. However, it is Bush Sr. who put a stop to that, when he put into effect a law that prevented the CIA from executing such an order. hmm

  9. aware profile image72
    awareposted 6 years ago

    Saddam agreed to a no fly zone  as a condition for  a  cease fire  in the first gulf war . he continually broke  that agreement    he harassed  our jets enforcing it  locking onto them   daily. that alone was  reason to  resume conflict .

  10. profile image65
    logic,commonsenseposted 6 years ago

    Let's see.......Iran invaded Iraq or was it the other way around, long before the US went in.  Iraq invaded Kuwait just for the fun of it. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, and several other countries in the last 75 years.  How many countries did Germany and Japan invade?  Great Britain invaded how many?  Spain, Portugal, France, the list goes on. Throughout history other countries have done a lot more invading than we have. For a lot worse reasons.  We rebuild them if we go in.  Yeah, I agree we should not go around invading willy nilly, but if a country, by its actions, poses a serious threat to the people of this country, then they will face the consequences.  Don't threaten us, leave us and ours alone and we'll let you alone.  That should be the standard.

  11. Evan G Rogers profile image79
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    wake up.

    Obama and Bush are the same. Gitmo's still open, we're attacking 4 countries now, instead of just 2. All of these wars were declared without a declaration of war from Congress.

    Our country is dead.

    1. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Or be-holden to someone other than America...
      I think we will find out with this Libya situation. The truth will be made clear.

    2. readytoescape profile image60
      readytoescapeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Sad commentary from our citizens, apparently many of you have forgotten who we are?

      WE are a Nation that has saved BILLIONS of lives around the world.

      Americans have fed millions of people around the world.

      Americans have freed millions of people around the world.

      Americans are always the first to provide help assistance anywhere around the world.

      Americans contribute more to charity than any other country in the world.

      More American Soldiers have bled and died for others than any other nation in the world.

      There are only two people in the world willing to fight and die for others, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier.

      The United States is the greatest Nation the world has ever seen.

      Have you forgotten who you are? You are an American. Remember it. Revel in it. And prove it every day.

      Only we can pull us down, if we forget who we are.

      1. dingdondingdon profile image59
        dingdondingdonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The statement that only American soldiers are willing to die for others is the most arrogant and disrespectful thing I've heard today. Have you forgotten the countless other nations who have fought for freedom? The French, British, Italians and Russians in WWI? The Allies in WWII? The British, French and Italians in Libya right now? How can you sit there and ignore the brave men and women who have died for others simply because they were not American?

        1. readytoescape profile image60
          readytoescapeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Let’s examine history then. Take for example WWI  & WWII both of these wars were fought under the basic guise of conquest and expansion by the initial antagonists for European imperial and colonial rivalry for wealth, power and prestige. Millions of soldiers died on both sides, millions more civilians were killed.

          While I will not disagree the soldiers of the countries you mentioned fought, they fought for the own country’s interest, whether it was for survival or for conquest, but not purely in defense of others.

          The US soldier did. 4.4 million in WW1 and 16.1 million in WWII

          This could easily be a very long and protracted debate into the historical causes, actions and reactions for the Wars, however one thing is very clear in both cases. The US had to be drawn into war and the US came to the rescue of the soon to be defeated allies.

          Lets look at Libya today.

          Whose interests are at stake? Europe’s, however I will acknowledge there are Geopolitical implications for all.

          Is the US only involved because of our “unique military capabilities?” Yes. 

          Is the US involved for Vengeance? Perhaps.

          When have any of the countries you mentioned, in modern history ever acted unilaterally on behalf of others and not for their own interests? None, that I can recall, yet I will acknowledge coalitions have become a Geopolitical necessity, yet you should concede the US is always at the forefront. 

          Are we acting because our allies need our assistance? Without doubt

          You speak of individuals, all of which are valiant. I speak, quit loudly and proudly of the principle of the American resolve and altruism; our soldiers, our military and our government and our people, combined as indomitable and vigilant guardians.

          Perhaps it is arrogant; then again have earned a certain amount of respect, we deserve it and demand it.

 
working