USA vs Iraq...solutions?

[Fleet 500]

Clinton did more for the democratic way of peace than Bush could ever hope to achieve. 52 million people are not liberated because you remove their government and impose your rules on them. Clinton decided the best way to work was peacefully, and it would have bore results, given time.

Obviously Bush isn't a fan of time; He wants his new country and he wants it NOW, DAMMIT!

Again, what did Clinton actually do for "peace?"
When Clinton left office, Saddam was still in power (and still torturing and murdering).

Bush didn't order Iraq invaded until he was in office for two years. That's not wanting it now!

[crisis]

Again, what did Clinton actually do for "peace?"
When Clinton left office, Saddam was still in power (and still torturing and murdering).

Bush didn't order Iraq invaded until he was in office for two years. That's not wanting it now!

You seem eager to respond to discussions about Clinton. How about my posts or am I on YOUR ignore list?

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Again, what did Clinton actually do for "peace?"
When Clinton left office, Saddam was still in power (and still torturing and murdering).

Bush didn't order Iraq invaded until he was in office for two years. That's not wanting it now!

lets see.

Clinton worked damn hard to try and ensure the "Middle East Peace Process" between Israel and Palestine went ahead.

When Bush entered the Oval office, The attacks began again, with greater ferocity.

Bush did nothing to stop it, He was too busy fighting "Real Terrorists" to worry about real civilians living under real danger.

It's when Bush began planning for Iraq that worries me; you can't prove it was two years into his tenure, and i can't prove it was before he was elected. But it was definately a planned move.

Because Clinton didn't focus on the area now regarded by Bush to be his pride of Foreign policy, he's done nothing for the Middle East?

Your logic truly astounds me.

[Fleet 500]

Statesmen is a much nicer term than the "War Mongerer" being placed upon Bush's head.

And rightly so.

See, this is what I'm talking about...
I've already pointed out that since Clinton had sent troops to more countries than any recent U.S. President, he is more of a "war-monger" than Bush going by that. And Clinton sent troops to countries such as Bosnia and Haiti without Congressional approval; Bush had Congressional approval when he ordered toops to Iraq. And Bush never ordered anything bombed to divert attention away from scandals.

I keep posting it and you guys keep ignoring it. So, you will understand if I don't keep responding to your irrational posts all of the time, right?

[Fleet 500]

lets see.

Clinton worked damn hard to try and ensure the "Middle East Peace Process" between Israel and Palestine went ahead.

When Bush entered the Oval office, The attacks began again, with greater ferocity.

Bush did nothing to stop it, He was too busy fighting "Real Terrorists" to worry about real civilians living under real danger.

It's when Bush began planning for Iraq that worries me; you can't prove it was two years into his tenure, and i can't prove it was before he was elected. But it was definately a planned move.

Because Clinton didn't focus on the area now regarded by Bush to be his pride of Foreign policy, he's done nothing for the Middle East?

Your logic truly astounds me.

Clinton may have "worked hard for it," but he did nothing to remove the cause of attacks.

What? Bush took office on Jan. 20, 2001; the war with Iraq was Mar., 2003... two years!
And (again, I am repeating what I've posted before) resuming military action in Iraq and taking out Saddam was being discussed in Congress as far back as 1998.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

See, this is what I'm talking about...
I've already pointed out that since Clinton had sent troops to more countries than any recent U.S. President, he is more of a "war-monger" than Bush going by that. And Clinton sent troops to countries such as Bosnia and Haiti without Congressional approval; Bush had Congressional approval when he ordered toops to Iraq. And Bush never ordered anything bombed to divert attention away from scandals.

I keep posting it and you guys keep ignoring it. So, you will understand if I don't keep responding to your irrational posts all of the time, right?

What i don't understand is how someone like you can, straight faced, call us irrational. It smacks of irrationality!

I've already pointed out that at least clinton went through the proper channels from troop deployment and the like. Bush simply, like a chess game, moves his troops wherever he likes, regardless of the UN or any other organisation.

The differance is, Bush does it on his free will, Clinton at least bothered with the diplomatic process that Bush was so quick to forsake when it didn't go his way; perhaps a byproduct of rubbing people the wrong way by being an arrogant man who really does think he can control the world?

Thats my opinion, take it as what you like, but seriously; Could you really call a man who bothered giving peace a chance a bigger war mongerer than someone who invades at will?

[Fleet 500]

You didnt feel the same burning need when I brought up the post with all of the US govenrment officials and CIA accusations aganst Bush.

Yet again, there is no evidence that Bush distorted info he received from gov't officials or the CIA. If there was, the Democrat party and all of those liberal new outlets what be reporting on it 24/7!

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Clinton may have "worked hard for it," but he did nothing to remove the cause of attacks.

What? Bush took office on Jan. 20, 2001; the war with Iraq was Mar., 2003... two years!
And (again, I am repeating what I've posted before) resuming military action in Iraq and taking out Saddam was being discussed in Congress as far back as 1998.

OTHER THAN TALKING TO BOTH SIDES! Jesus sometimes you shock me with your lack of common sense. Clinton talked to both the Israeli and Palestinian leaders to try and hammer out a solution; you can't do that without removing the cause of the attacks; hatred.

And it's not as if Bush has interfered with the West bank, or any other area regarding Israel.

And you've missed the point; it's good to see that he waited for the war, but when did he plan it?

and the 1998 Congress talks prove the point; thats 5 years they had worth of planning.

[crisis]

Yet again, there is no evidence that Bush distorted info he received from gov't officials or the CIA. If there was, the Democrat party and all of those liberal new outlets what be reporting on it 24/7!

Yes there is evidence. I posted it. Feel free to address any statements that thes people gave.

[Fleet 500]

What i don't understand is how someone like you can, straight faced, call us irrational. It smacks of irrationality!

I've already pointed out that at least clinton went through the proper channels from troop deployment and the like. Bush simply, like a chess game, moves his troops wherever he likes, regardless of the UN or any other organisation.

The differance is, Bush does it on his free will, Clinton at least bothered with the diplomatic process that Bush was so quick to forsake when it didn't go his way; perhaps a byproduct of rubbing people the wrong way by being an arrogant man who really does think he can control the world?

Thats my opinion, take it as what you like, but seriously; Could you really call a man who bothered giving peace a chance a bigger war mongerer than someone who invades at will?

I call it irrational because I post a fact, then a few posts later, you or someone else makes a claim which is untrue and I disproved with a fact!

Bush is not doing it on his free will, it does go through Congress (the same Congress that Clinton ignored when he ordered bombings in foreign countries).

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I call it irrational because I post a fact, then a few posts later, you or someone else makes a claim which is untrue and I disproved with a fact!

Bush is not doing it on his free will, it does go through Congress (the same Congress that Clinton ignored when he ordered bombings in foreign countries).

So Because Bush goes through Congress, and ignores the UN, it's ok.

But because Clinton went through both, it's bad?

Thats illogical.

What i find irrational is that you've managed to post Opinion as fact on many occasions, been proven wrong, but never admit it, and your "fact" has been disproved, but you still use it!

[Fleet 500]

Yes there is evidence. I posted it. Feel free to address any statements that thes people gave.

Where?
Didn't the official report released said that Bush did not knowingly give any false information?

[Fleet 500]

So Because Bush goes through Congress, and ignores the UN, it's ok.

But because Clinton went through both, it's bad?

Thats illogical.

What i find irrational is that you've managed to post Opinion as fact on many occasions, been proven wrong, but never admit it, and your "fact" has been disproved, but you still use it!

Clinton ordered bombings in several countries without Congressional or U.N. approval.

Bush would not have got U.N. approval because France said they would not vote "yes," and without France's yes vote, the war with Iraq would not have happened (which means thousands of Iraqis would still be in danger of being pulled out of their houses in the middle of the night to be tortured, raped and murdered). Bush, under the advice of Colin Powell, did first try going through the U.N., but for the reason I stated above, it never would have worked.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Clinton ordered bombings in several countries without Congressional or U.N. approval.

Proof?

Bush would not have got U.N. approval because France said they would not vote "yes," and without France's yes vote, the war with Iraq would not have happened (which means thousands of Iraqis would still be in danger of being pulled out of their houses in the middle of the night to be tortured, raped and murdered). Bush, under the advice of Colin Powell, did first try going through the U.N., but for the reason I stated above, it never would have worked.

So instead, they went in, with no approval except from the coalition and congress. all that happens now is those same families are searched, abused, afraid and "Pumped for information" by US troops, so long as they give the information on "where the terrorists are".

I fail to see, other than the lack of saddam, how their lives are better.

Voting does not a free country make; just look at Zimbabwe, they get to vote...

[Quiggs]

Badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger mushroom MUSHROOM.

This thread makes my head spin.