|
"Where are the Weapons?" (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ChavezHype |
| just the same they've tried to ill Saddam but he's got too many body doubles... and he's still alive! Same with Bin Laden! Man the US has slipped since Noriega. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Galapidate
Yeah, but we tried to kill Castro and failed very terribly at it. |
Hehe yes that's what I was referring to when I said undiplomatically, but my point is ... how would you get someone with the likes of Castro, Saddam, or Kim Il Jung out of power through diplomatic means? Who would you negotiate with? That's the problem with totalitarian regimes, there is really only one person to negotiate with. Then these leaders often build up a cult of leadership so much through brutality and propoganda that their grasp of control is virtually absolute. |
|
|
| Galapidate |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChavezHype
just the same they've tried to ill Saddam but he's got too many body doubles... and he's still alive! Same with Bin Laden! Man the US has slipped since Noriega. |
I know, shouldn't they be going after bin Laden also? Seriously, these leaders of terrorist groups are slipping through the cracks, and Bush doesn't seem interested in finding them at the moment, when they're the source of most of the terrorism. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Galapidate
I know, shouldn't they be going after bin Laden also? Seriously, these leaders of terrorist groups are slipping through the cracks, and Bush doesn't seem interested in finding them at the moment, when they're the source of most of the terrorism. |
We are going after Bin Laden ... the problem is is that it's near impossible to catch him. Hell we couldn't catch Rudolph in the US until he finally got sick of hiding out in the mountains. So Bush is doing the next best thing HE can think of ... that is applying pressure against states that may harbor bin laden types or fund bin laden types. That's why I believe he invaded Iraq (besides his hard on for Saddam), and that's why I think he's putting so much pressure on Syria, Iran, etc. I don't think it matters to him if Iraq had an Al-Qaeda connection or not ... in his mind, Iraq was the most hostile state to the US and an anti-US saddam would likely encourage anti-US terrorist activities. Thus he decided it was worth it to take him out. Don't know if these are his actual motivations but that's my analysis. |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
We are going after Bin Laden ... the problem is is that it's near impossible to catch him. Hell we couldn't catch Rudolph in the US until he finally got sick of hiding out in the mountains. So Bush is doing the next best thing HE can think of ... that is applying pressure against states that may harbor bin laden types or fund bin laden types. That's why I believe he invaded Iraq (besides his hard on for Saddam), and that's why I think he's putting so much pressure on Syria, Iran, etc. I don't think it matters to him if Iraq had an Al-Qaeda connection or not ... in his mind, Iraq was the most hostile state to the US and an anti-US saddam would likely encourage anti-US terrorist activities. Thus he decided it was worth it to take him out. Don't know if these are his actual motivations but that's my analysis. |
This might have been his reasoning, but he would have gone after Iraq ANYWAY. What did Iraq do to the US, exactly? Why woould he consider it a hostile state? Iran is more hostile to the US? Why didn't he just attack the Sudan where it is KNOWN that terrorists are being harbored.
Bush is a in quack with a very distoreted view of world politics. Rich Saudi Arabian princes have been known to do financial dealings with bin Laden, so why doesn't Bush just attack them? |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| ^^^ Im on the same trail. |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
Rich Saudi Arabian princes have been known to do financial dealings with bin Laden, so why doesn't Bush just attack them? |
...and there's that black,sticky substance again. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
This might have been his reasoning, but he would have gone after Iraq ANYWAY. What did Iraq do to the US, exactly? Why woould he consider it a hostile state? Iran is more hostile to the US? Why didn't he just attack the Sudan where it is KNOWN that terrorists are being harbored.
Bush is a in quack with a very distoreted view of world politics. Rich Saudi Arabian princes have been known to do financial dealings with bin Laden, so why doesn't Bush just attack them? |
Actually if 9/11 hadn't happened I don't think so. Remember, Bush was primarily elected for his domestic agenda and he didn't really have much of a foreign policy. He pretty much did virtually nothing with respects to foreign policy in 2000 and early 2001. After 9/11 however he became polar opposites and put his domestic agenda on the backburner. As for what Iraq has done to the US ... I guess there's always been a state of animosity between Iraq and the US ever since Gulf war 1, more so than Iran or Sudan. Since the 80's there's been a cooling down of sorts with regards to US-Iranian relations. There's kind of been an ongoing state of war between the US and IRaq with the establishment of the no fly zones and Iraq trying to shoot down a plane. That's why I think Bush considered Iraq as being more hostile than say Iran or Syria ... just my interpretation. |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Actually if 9/11 hadn't happened I don't think so. Remember, Bush was primarily elected for his domestic agenda and he didn't really have much of a foreign policy. He pretty much did virtually nothing with respects to foreign policy in 2000 and early 2001. After 9/11 however he became polar opposites and put his domestic agenda on the backburner. As for what Iraq has done to the US ... I guess there's always been a state of animosity between Iraq and the US ever since Gulf war 1, more so than Iran or Sudan. Since the 80's there's been a cooling down of sorts with regards to US-Iranian relations. There's kind of been an ongoing state of war between the US and IRaq with the establishment of the no fly zones and Iraq trying to shoot down a plane. That's why I think Bush considered Iraq as being more hostile than say Iran or Syria ... just my interpretation. |
OR because the Bushes and Saddam have a personal unfinished vandetta!:whip: |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| ^^^ That summs it up a bit hehehe |
|
|
| Galapidate |
| ^^Yeah, basically :D |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
OR because the Bushes and Saddam have a personal unfinished vandetta!:whip: |
agreed haha |
|
|
|
|
