Bush ready to start WWIII

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by SigmaChris
The Bush family are just a bunch of public servants? They started 2 wars and who knows what would happen if Jeb ever gets elected.
You also contradict yourself saying Hilary would cause / start WWIII but then claim the terrosits would start a war then hint a woman couldn't lead us in war. Kind of sexist don't you think?
For the record, I am an independent and haven't decided on who I am voting for.
which two wars?

 

[ophiura]

Ain't freedom great?
To sit here and debate, either way, passionately or passively, denouncing or supporting a president, congress, etc?
The things we take for granted...

 

[sigmachris]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
which two wars?
The two Iraq wars errr conflicts, sorry but the Media always calls them wars so it is kind of sticks.

 

[sigmachris]

Originally Posted by mess88
both clintons live for power and nothing else. That's what make them so dangerous. You will never see Laura bush run for office. Hillary will cause ww3 if she elected. The terroist will not fear her and know that they can start the war and win. PEACE comes with Victory If you know anything about history that when a war is won peace will come shortly after. Again victory brings peace not something wrote on a piece of paper. Peace treaty do nothing. Like someone said in a song KILL THEM ALL maybe some of us need a class in the SAVAGE NATION Long live the U.S.A

Also victory doesn't always guarantee peace. Look at Germany and Napolean for example.

 

[scsinet]

Originally Posted by SigmaChris
Also victory doesn't always guarantee peace. Look at Germany and Napolean for example.
Or Saddam, while we are talking about it.
He came to power by overthrowing Abdul Rahman Arif (sp?).

 

[sigmachris]

We didn't defeat him in the first Iraq conflict we just pushed him out of Kuwait.
As for "treaties" not working, it seems we finally got Libya and Kadafi (sp) under control after years of sanctions and limited bombing.

 

[scsinet]

Originally Posted by SigmaChris
We didn't defeat him in the first Iraq conflict we just pushed him out of Kuwait.
I meant that his victory in coming to power originally by the coup didn't mean peace for Iraq... similar to Hitler, Napoleon, etc, etc.

 

[sigmachris]

Gotcha, sorry I understood that the wrong way. Good thing I am not a Middle East peace negotiator.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by SigmaChris
We didn't defeat him in the first Iraq conflict we just pushed him out of Kuwait.
As for "treaties" not working, it seems we finally got Libya and Kadafi (sp) under control after years of sanctions and limited bombing.
Maybe, just to float an idea out there, he saw what we did to sadaam and said shoot that aint gonna happen to me. I don't need nukes that bad.

 

[sigmachris]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
Maybe, just to float an idea out there, he saw what we did to sadaam and said shoot that aint gonna happen to me. I don't need nukes that bad.
I think that had a role too...face it a leader and their countrymen are either crazy or egotistical to think they could match up against the USA, England, UN and other allies.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by SigmaChris
I think that had a role too...face it a leader and their countrymen are either crazy or egotistical to think they could match up against the USA, England, UN and other allies.
In my mind, looking at the situation with Lybia, the only change was our change in policy introducing an aspect of pre-emption. And when that happened he folded.

That is good.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by SigmaChris
The two Iraq wars errr conflicts, sorry but the Media always calls them wars so it is kind of sticks.
Wow...
The first Iraq Conflict took place when Saddam, unprovoked, invaded and began to dismantle Kuwait...
As previously discussed, the second Iraq "war" began after 17 UN Resolutions, repated violations by Saddam of the peace agreement he signed, and 6 month refusal to allow weapons inspectors in.
Neither conflict was started by the USA.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Again, which two "conflicts"?
To build on this point, the "original conflict" ended as a suspention of hostilities, which would be resumed if conditions were not met. These were not met, so hostilities resumed, they are the same conflict.

 

[sigmachris]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Wow...
The first Iraq Conflict took place when Saddam, unprovoked, invaded and began to dismantle Kuwait...
As previously discussed, the second Iraq "war" began after 17 UN Resolutions, repated violations by Saddam of the peace agreement he signed, and 6 month refusal to allow weapons inspectors in.
Neither conflict was started by the USA.
I applaude us coming to the aid of Kuwait...why don't we do the same in Africa? Being the most powerful nation in the world does give us some responsibility to protect the weak, but it seems oil is what we wanted to protect more.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by SigmaChris
I applaude us coming to the aid of Kuwait...why don't we do the same in Africa? Being the most powerful nation in the world does give us some responsibility to protect the weak, but it seems oil is what we wanted to protect more.
We can happily continue this discussion, but first you need to admit your comment on the Bush family starting two wars was nothing more than rhetoric and not based any on facts... In fact it goes directly against the facts.
Frankly I'm sick of posters lobbing firebombs then switching subjects when they are proven wrong.... We've seen that a lot on this thread.
Either justify your comment or admit it was factually in error.

 

[sigmachris]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
We can happily continue this discussion, but first you need to admit your comment on the Bush family starting two wars was nothing more than rhetoric and not based any on facts... In fact it goes directly against the facts.
Frankly I'm sick of posters lobbing firebombs then switching subjects when they are proven wrong.... We'ce seen that a lot on this thread.
Either justify your comment or admit it was factually in error.
Easy there Journey...I responded to a poster claiming the Clintons were power hungry and Hilary would start WWIII put couldn't lead us in a war. I asked (a little tongue and cheek) if the Bush family were just seeking the Presidency out of their desire for public service or is there a little power appetite there? Throughout our history there have been what a half a dozen families that had multiple presidents in the family, does that make them all power hungry? It would be ironic if Hilary wins that we would have at least 24 years and possibly 28 of Presidents from only 2 families.
Also the Bush family did lead us into 2 wars / conflicts how can you not dispute that. The rationale for the conflicts could be debated, but I did not bring this up. I didn't hint that Bush picked a fight or Dubya was just finishing the war his Dad started. I just responded to a right wing "fire bomb" that I took as irresponsible and somewhat sexist. I guess if the fire bombs come from your side of the argument you just ignore them.
I have read this whole thread Journey for one reason...I am undecided on my candidate and I was enjoying hearing the left and right views of the politicians. I also see you know more history and more on the subject and that I would never win an argument. Once again as I stated in my first post, I am an independent who is undecided. Also once again, I entered this conversation opposing the irresponsible right wing fire bomb.

 

[1journeyman]

Yes and no.
First off, you are absolutely correct; You did respond to an irresponsible "right wing firebomb". I have no argument with you on that point. Feel free to call the poster out in whatever polite way you wish. I do not condone rhetoric on either side. Feel free to ask him to back up his assertions.
You cannot say, however, that your post was asking if the Bush family was power hungery. You said:
Originally Posted by SigmaChris
The Bush family are just a bunch of public servants? They started 2 wars and who knows what would happen if Jeb ever gets elected
Nowhere in that quote is there a question asked about power...

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by SigmaChris
..Also the Bush family did lead us into 2 wars / conflicts how can you not dispute that. ....
"Leading" us into conflict implies we acted first. As I pointed out, both Iraq wars were in reaction to war-acts perpetrated by Iraq.
Gulf War I-Saddam invaded an ally
Gulf War II-Saddam fired at our military, broke peace treaty, violated UN resolutions, and refused inspectors for 6 months.
If you want to be a stickler for details you could easily argue that Clinton "lead" us into the second conflict when he ordered the bombing of Iraq in 98. I wouldn't argue that point myself, as I put the full responsibility on Saddam, not us. He was given ample opportunity to turn back.

 

[sigmachris]

No I didn't mention power in my question but I intended it to be perceived from what the previous poster stated about the Clintons being power hungry...so let's take take a look at both posts put together. The point I was trying to make (and I guess it wasn't too clear) was just because a family could have multiple Presidents doesn't make them power hungry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mess88
both clintons live for power and nothing else. That's what make them so dangerous. You will never see Laura bush run for office. Hillary will cause ww3 if she elected. The terroist will not fear her and know that they can start the war and win. PEACE comes with Victory If you know anything about history that when a war is won peace will come shortly after. Again victory brings peace not something wrote on a piece of paper. Peace treaty do nothing. Like someone said in a song KILL THEM ALL maybe some of us need a class in the SAVAGE NATION Long live the U.S.A
The Bush family are just a bunch of public servants? They started 2 wars and who knows what would happen if Jeb ever gets elected.
You also contradict yourself saying Hilary would cause / start WWIII but then claim the terrosits would start a war then hint a woman couldn't lead us in war. Kind of sexist don't you think?
For the record, I am an independent and haven't decided on who I am voting for.

 

[sigmachris]

Sorry typo in the first sentence of the last post...I obmitted "didn't"...I am thinking faster than my fingers can type.