Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Sir Joseph, Nov 5, 2002.
All of them. It's called Congress.
LOL And, yet people vote for these people. HMMMM
Let's keep a level head. If you are not talking about Iraq you should be aware that WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam were begun under Democratic regimes. Not saying their fault, just that the history of this century would indicate Republicans are more likely to maintain peace.
Recent history shows Bush Sr getting us involved in the Gulf War. History is also showing Bush Jr getting us into a war with Iraq. Fighting a war against terrorism is one thing - we were attacked on our own soil by Bin Laden and his cronies, and we bombed the shit out of them (and a few innocents, just in case). Now we're turning our sites onto Iraq, again. Why? Because he might have weapons of mass destruction? Because he's a lunatic? Because he's a loose cannon?
There are a number of world leaders that fit that description - Russia just finished using some sort of toxic gas on it's own people in an attempt to end a hostage situation, and ended up killing a good portion of them - that falls under the lunatic and loose cannon category, and their reluctance to admit what gas they uses falls under the possibility of weapons of mass destruction category - are we going after them? Not yet.
I'm sorry, but I don't feel secure putting my life in the hands of a man who's dad started something he couldn't finish - he's going to try to finish it. The fact he's got the ties he does with the oil industry makes me nervous, as well.
Before going to war with Iraq in 91 President Bush went before the U.N. and got their "permission" to go to war. The U.N. set down the rules or mandates that we were permitted to do and we did every single one of them. To do anything directly against the Hussein regime or political structure would have been a violation of the U.N. mandates which in a nutshell only gave us and the coalition nations the right to take the necessary steps to drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait and free it. We did not have a mandate to march on or take offensive action against Saddam or Baghdad. To have done so would have violated the U.N. mandates.
Unfortunately many of the current critics of the pending action against Iraq are also big fans of the U.N. However, they surprisingly seem to suffer from selective amnesia when it comes to blaming the U.S. for not finishing what it started.