Bush: 'Iraq should be grateful'
- Thread starter oake
- Start date
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Some folk don't live in the real world. Bush's world is one of meaningless signs and empty rhetoric.
Yossarian
Get thee behind me, Santa
Even if Iraq someday becomes the most stable, prosperous, and peaceful state in the Middle East, Bush is still going to go down in history as one of the stupidest fuckwits who ever ruled a country.
America doesn’t deserve gratitude for its actions in Iraq and it won’t receive any.
America doesn’t deserve gratitude for its actions in Iraq and it won’t receive any.
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
He and his chums are really rubbing our powerless faces in it.
They laugh and have every right to.
They laugh and have every right to.
Sweaty Betty
Hemo rising!
I really cant beleive he is that dumb and stupid...seriously
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
He's just taking the piss 'cos he knows nobody can stop him. Sickening really.
Sweaty Betty
Hemo rising!
Bernie Gunther said:
well recovered alcoholics are known for having control issues, add the delusion and denial to that, he may really think hes doing ok
......which is obviously worse
Yossarian
Get thee behind me, Santa
It could be his last stab at salvaging something from his Iraq idea - it's cost thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of seriously injured, hundreds of billions of dollars - something like $2,000 for every American, and what's he got to show his people for it?
He hasn't gained a peaceful, prosperous, American-loving Middle East - or peace, or greater security, or anything - maybe he thinks it'll be OK if he manages to get a 'thank you'. Fat chance...
He hasn't gained a peaceful, prosperous, American-loving Middle East - or peace, or greater security, or anything - maybe he thinks it'll be OK if he manages to get a 'thank you'. Fat chance...
free spirit
more tea vicar?
I'd thank him... if he put a shotgun in his mouth and pulled the trigger. tis the only honourable thing to do IMO
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Would it be better if Saddam was still running the place?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Suppose there's a highway beside a river.
On the highway, a bus driver loses control of his vehicle, swerves into the oncoming lanes, and collides head on with another bus. Dozens of people are killed.
But, as the bus swerves over, it runs over a rat that was heading to swim across the river; the rat is a carrier of plague, and had it entered the river, an epidemic would have spread through the country.
Is the accident a good or a bad thing?
Answer: it's both.
No doubt, the prosecution of the Iraq war, has been something like a bad car accident. But in the process, some good has come out of it, as well.
On the highway, a bus driver loses control of his vehicle, swerves into the oncoming lanes, and collides head on with another bus. Dozens of people are killed.
But, as the bus swerves over, it runs over a rat that was heading to swim across the river; the rat is a carrier of plague, and had it entered the river, an epidemic would have spread through the country.
Is the accident a good or a bad thing?
Answer: it's both.
No doubt, the prosecution of the Iraq war, has been something like a bad car accident. But in the process, some good has come out of it, as well.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Dandred said:
The deposing of Saddam, the breaking up of the baathists who were subjugating the shiites.
Yossarian
Get thee behind me, Santa
Johnny Canuck2 said:
I don't think the plague rat analogy works that well, as the epidemic had already been raging for more than 20 years!
It'd work better if a whole load of malarial mosquitos, Ebola-infested monkeys, and rabid bats were to come out of the luggage compartment of the crashed bus and swarm across the river, and people started asking 'Who let that drunken idiot drive the bus, anyway?'
free spirit
more tea vicar?
dunno, depends on your criteria really, but the annual civilian death rate from the chaos the invasion unleashed is surely higher than under Saddam, even if you were to blame Saddam for the deaths resulting from the years of sanctions.Johnny Canuck2 said:
I definately don't think there's a clear cut answer to that one
Yossarian
Get thee behind me, Santa
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Better for the West and for regional stability, definitely, and it’s hard to see how things could have worked out any worse for the Iraqi people. It’d certainly be better if Saddam hadn’t been removed when he was, how he was, and by who he was – efforts could have been made to work towards changing the country’s leadership in a manner that might not have resulted in chaos and a horrific civil war.
Some of what’re said to be the benefits of the invasion weren’t really the product of the invasion at all, anyway – the Kurds had already been pretty much self-governing since 1992, so its questionable of they were 'liberated' in 2003.
Some people would argue that he has grabbed a load of oil and military bases and has helped destabilise and undermine various countries which will eventually be the next ones to be 'grabbed' - paving the way for american multinationals and global capitalism. Other people might see the whole thing as a proxy war which is merely part of a far wider power struggle between the US, Russia and China to establish new spheres of influence and client states (with the US being the country expanding). And you?Yossarian said:
Far more people died in the Iran/Iraq war that Saddam started.free spirit said:
If preventing deaths is a good reason to take military action then the fact that more people have died recently in the Congo and Sudan would indicate intervention there - in reality the world sits by when things like Rwanda happens: its only when vast oil reserves, overseas meddling and key regional allies are involved that the big powers start stomping on mid-sized dictators - more often they do it by proxy and indirectly. Bush isn't that different in intervening - its the style and approach taken that is his distinct contribution.
Maybe any kind of end to the dictatorship - and the loss of power by a minority - would have ended up in a civil war?Yossarian said:
There have been plenty of civil wars (eg Algeria: 1990-2000, 100,000 dead) that have dragged on through years of bloody murder and death squads, without any foreign invasion kicking them off.
Who's to say how Saddam's regime could have ended peacefully...
...but its worth noting that the shia and sunni death squads killing each other's communities would have had the same motivations (power and control) and grievances and vendettas that they do now. What makes you think they would be loving each other, simply because the americans weren't around? What makes you think that a lot of this violence isn't simply about how money, oil and political and military power is shared out amongst Iraqis themselves and that the bloodshed now is mainly the result of decades actions by Iraqis towards other Iraqis, in Iraq (not to mention centuries between Arabs, Kurds and Persians)?
nino_savatte said:
Nino, Nino, Nino,
Lisen to yourself
Lets try this
Some folk don't live in the real world. (insert Nino's name here)world is one of meaningless signs and empty retoric.
The truth is President George Bush could cure cancer , learn how to burn water, and feed all the homeless lesbian whales, and you would still hate the guy.
You undermine your positions Nino because you are so completly predictable
but then I guess that could be said about everyone here
Rentonite said:Nino, Nino, Nino,
Lisen to yourself
Lets try this
Some folk don't live in the real world. (insert Nino's name here)world is one of meaningless signs and empty retoric.
The truth is President George Bush could cure cancer , learn how to burn water, and feed all the homeless lesbian whales, and you would still hate the guy.
You undermine your positions Nino because you are so completly predictable
but then I guess that could be said about everyone here
Especially you...
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
Rentonite said:Nino, Nino, Nino,
Lisen to yourself
Lets try this
Some folk don't live in the real world. (insert Nino's name here)world is one of meaningless signs and empty retoric.
The truth is President George Bush could cure cancer , learn how to burn water, and feed all the homeless lesbian whales, and you would still hate the guy.
You undermine your positions Nino because you are so completly predictable
but then I guess that could be said about everyone here
Fair enough Rents - so please go ahead and list Dubyas great achivements in bringing peace, stability, democracy and an end to opression in the middle east.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Rentonite said:Nino, Nino, Nino,
Lisen to yourself
Lets try this
Some folk don't live in the real world. (insert Nino's name here)world is one of meaningless signs and empty retoric.
The truth is President George Bush could cure cancer , learn how to burn water, and feed all the homeless lesbian whales, and you would still hate the guy.
You undermine your positions Nino because you are so completly predictable
but then I guess that could be said about everyone here
You don't live in the real world, rentboyshite. Yours is a world full of meaningless rheotric, mindless violence and short-term memory loss.
Your poetry's shite too. Now kindly fuck off, you racist shit.
Yossarian
Get thee behind me, Santa
TeeJay said:
It’s possible that’s what could have happened – nobody’s ever going to know now – but the fact that that possibility existed just makes Bush’s decision to invade and get rid of the country’s leadership and army without any clear plan for the country afterwards look even more like one of the stupidest decisions in modern history. I’ve read that Bush didn’t even know there was a difference between Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims at the time of the Iraq invasion, and that seems pretty easy to believe.
Even if the aim was a proxy war by the US against Russian and Chinese interests, it’s still a miserable failure – it seems unlikely that any democratically elected Iraqi government will be very kindly disposed towards the US. Bush has essentially spent hundreds of billions of dollars, taken action that’s led to death of hundreds of thousands, and squandered any goodwill or sympathy the rest of the world had towards the US after 9/11, and it’s all gone to serve the best interests of Iran.
Similar threads
- Poll
