It's just a family feud ok?
"This is the guy that tried to kill my Daddy." -- words or a moron or honest admission of motive?
Bush Sr. could easily have conquered Baghdad if he had wanted to; the idea that he somehow deliberately chose not to, then waited out two Clinton administrations, then waited for his son to get into office, and then influenced major US foreign policy decisions just to satisfy a personal vendetta is so rediculous that it doesn't warrant further comment.
Don't put words in my mouth to make me seem like some conspiracy nut. Jesus. Dubya got into power by the skin of his teeth and once there seized the opportunity to attack the country led by the man who tried to kill his daddy. His father was probably sitting at home saying "you go get the bastard, son" at the time. There's no conspiracy here. That's the point of a feud -- it's illogical and idiotic behaviour because it ignores the big picture: If you attack Iraq a lot of people are going to get hurt other than the man who attacked your dad, but you just don't care because you hate the bastard.
In contrast, how about the theory (radical, I know) that as the last remaining superpower, the US feels it has an obligation to protect the other nations in the world from a rogue state that is seeking to acquire the capability to use weapons of mass destruction. Whether you think that's a misguided motivation or not, it seems the most reasonable explanation to me.
You mean, appart from the fact that a half a dozen other states have aquired nuclear weapons in the last 10 years and the US has not declared war on them? That and the fact that the term "rogue state" was made up by CNN for christ sake.
Again, could I trouble you for the inconvenience of providing the slightest shred of evidence to back up your empty rhetoric? The US decision to pursue action against Iraq under the banner of the UN is certainly not the behavior of a unilaterialist power.
No, but the action of amassing thousands of troops in the gulf against international law and rejecting every finding that the UN makes is. Bush wants war and war there will be.
It's like the difference between a scientific and a religious argument: how can Saddam convince Bush not to attack? If he says he has no WoMD, Bush says he is lying. If he says he does have WoMD, Bush will invade to "protect the other nations in the world from a rogue state". When Saddam offers to allow the CIA to join the UN in searching Iraqi facilities, the Bush administration says it is a "stunt", whilst at the same time refusing to present to the UN any supposed intelligence that the CIA has on the location of these weapons. Everyone is pandering to the wishes of Bush in an attempt to avert war.
What exactly will make you happy Mr Bush?
Bush: "Allow weapons inspectors back into the country and we wont attack you".
Saddam: "ok, no problem"
Bush: "Damn, ok, well, umm, we want a full report of all your weapons, or we'll attack!"
Saddam: "ok, here ya go"
Bush: "Damn, ok, well, we think you're a smart ass for giving us a really big report!"
Saddam: "you said everything!"
Bush: "Oh, yeah, I did didn't I. Well in that case, I think this report is too small!! After all, it doesn't include anything that we could use to justify an invasion of your country."
Saddam: "Well, that was kind of the point, we don't have anything that would justify you oppressing our people and interfering with our self-governance."
Bush: "Yes, you do, you have weapons of mass destruction, we can prove it!"
UN: "uhh.. ok then, prove it."
Bush: "Umm.. not right now. We don't want to, uhh, give up that information, because, umm, it might leak to Saddam. Yes, that's it. We cant trust the UN."
Saddam: "Then send your own CIA people to accompany the UN inspectors. We welcome you. We have nothing to hide."
Bush: "Bah! This is just a stunt. Stop complying with our requests!"
UN: "That's what they're supposed to do."
Saddam: "We don't have any weapons of mass destruction ok? And you already have our lunch money. So if this is all we'd like to get back to running our country. As you know, it has a lot of problems and we need some peace and stability here."
Bush: "Ahh huh! So you admit it!"
UN: "Admit what? I didn't see anything admitted."
Bush: "You admit that you don't have the weapons of mass destruction!"
Saddam: "That's what we've been saying all along."
Bush: "But you admit that they exist! They must be in a neighbouring country!"
UN: "All the neighbouring countries are your allies."
Bush: "Doesn't matter. That's where the weapons are, and why we will never find them and that's why you're so smug, because you _don't_ have them and you know it."
Saddam: "I'm confused."
UN: "me too."
Bush: "No, it's simple. We have to invade Iraq because they don't have weapons of mass destruction because they've got em in a neighbouring country."
UN: "You have to invade because they _don't_ have them?"
Saddam: "And if we did have em then you'd have to attack us too."
UN: "How did we ever get involved with this? When does your term end?"
Bush: "Not for another two years!!"
Gun fire is the sound of freedom.
[ Parent ]