True lies--Bush--n--War

Originally posted by: Believe

Do you believe President George W. Bush's decision to initiate war in Iraq will be the greatest and most costly blunder in American history??? There are so many greatest and most costly blunders by america that i would say its one of the greatest and most costly blunder😆..... I think US shall be tried for invasion in Iraq because they are unable to find the mass destructive weapons that was the base reason of the invasion😊 Is CIA had evidence Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction is Fake?? You mean they had evidence that Iraq possessed no weapons??? then what was the basis of the war and invasion??? Do you support If Iran War happen? if yes why? if no why? It is based on reasoning.... US dont have authority to call war on Iran though, it can be UN.... Also if reason for any war is holding of mass destructive weapons then they themselves shall destroy their stock of such weapons.... i just think so many times, how nice world would be without invention of this weapons😃 If US can panish Saddam for war crime/Killing innocents, Who will panish Bush?? UN shall punish not only bush but each and every higher authorities involved in this attack and hang them till death, just like the iraq court did with saddam😊 just chill vinu's

Originally posted by: sareg

Lets consider a scenario

You are entrusted with the security of a bunch of folks, there is someone who doesnt like the way you do things, so he is aiding everyone who wishes to harm you physically or economically(you know like K-serials 😉 ) or the people whom you are entrusted to protect

now he is less powerful than you, but is on the way to becoming powerful enough to hurt you directly

the fun part is he never leaves any tracks behind that he aided those who actually harm you

now while you still have the strength will you go and give him a slap?

will you engage him in a discussion and perhaps change the way you do things and do more things like him 😆

You will warn him of severe consequences if he does it again(ala Indian Govt and Pakistan 😉 )

whatever are your answers, apply it to Mr Bush 😉

😆😆😆 very nicely explained dude😆

Originally posted by: sareg

Lets consider a scenario

You are entrusted with the security of a bunch of folks, there is someone who doesnt like the way you do things, so he is aiding everyone who wishes to harm you physically or economically(you know like K-serials 😉 ) or the people whom you are entrusted to protect

now he is less powerful than you, but is on the way to becoming powerful enough to hurt you directly

the fun part is he never leaves any tracks behind that he aided those who actually harm you

now while you still have the strength will you go and give him a slap?

will you engage him in a discussion and perhaps change the way you do things and do more things like him 😆

You will warn him of severe consequences if he does it again(ala Indian Govt and Pakistan 😉 )

whatever are your answers, apply it to Mr Bush 😉

Originally posted by: sareg

Lets consider a scenario

You are entrusted with the security of a bunch of folks, there is someone who doesnt like the way you do things, so he is aiding everyone who wishes to harm you physically or economically(you know like K-serials 😉 ) or the people whom you are entrusted to protect

now he is less powerful than you, but is on the way to becoming powerful enough to hurt you directly

the fun part is he never leaves any tracks behind that he aided those who actually harm you

now while you still have the strength will you go and give him a slap?

will you engage him in a discussion and perhaps change the way you do things and do more things like him 😆

You will warn him of severe consequences if he does it again(ala Indian Govt and Pakistan 😉 )

whatever are your answers, apply it to Mr Bush 😉

tht was simply superb sareg😆 so now i know what K serial is all about... and also that it not only influenced Indian rural woman but bush too😆

Originally posted by: abhijit shukla

You are right. The thread has gone round and round quite a while so I will make my closing remarks.
1, Saddam was evil, he did at one time have WMDs, he did give IAEA a runaround when inspections were conducted, Iraq did not act like a country that had nothing to hide. May be they were bluffing -I have given this simily before - like DON with the empty gun. Others had no way of knowing that they were bluffing. He was also in violation of UN resolutions....so there was a technical reason to go to war. WMDs or no WMDs.
2, Although it was an intelligence failure, I do believe that Bush went to war with presumption of WMDs. I never presume people's thoughts as I am not in their head. Unless proof otherwise is available, we should take things on their face value.
3, In retrospect we can say that going to war was a mistake, Had NYC or LA been hit by a nuclear weapon, people would have said in retrospect: why didn't they get Saddam before this happened: There was no safe side to the error but this side of error was less devastating.
4, Regardless how much of a warmonger you take Bush to be, to concoct a war of this scale just to get oil or just to get even in plain sight of his people is not I believe any person who is shrewd enough to become the President would do.
5, Bush and Republicans paid price for the war, now they lost power. FIne. Buck stops at the POTUS. So be it. To take that the anger to the extreem to lose sight of the fact that the biggest villains in the story are still Saddam and AQ is a mistake.
5, War migh be responsible for 10-20% of casualties as colleteral damage (which I repeat - does not make it right) overwhelming number of casualties is caused by AQ/Irani infilterators and their cohorts. We can argue over trhe composition of these insurgents/terrorists. I have not taken census so I will take anyone's word for it...although the old and the new boss were Jordanian and Egeptian respectively. The new one says that he has 12,000 people in his command. I believe that most of those are foreigners and are more than 0.1% of the total. Regardless of who they are ...they are the ones responsible for half a million casualties of innocent Iraqi Muslims -not America or Bush.
They would pick fight with all who do not agree with them or are not subjugated by them. Regardless of location, nationality or religion.

6, Dems are in power. Great. Now what? Howard dean is already saying...we have the congress but that is not enough...we need a new president. Translation: Sorry, we will sit around and whine and keep pointing fingers just like we have for last 6 years. Thanks for joining us in hating Bus though.

On a personal note...I have taken difficult decision with honest mindframe with no clear absolutely good alternative. Things have gone wrong after taking those decesions and I have looked back and thought an thought and thought and asked everyone if I could have taken those decisions differently going forward....fortunately for me most people have told me that no, that is the best I could do or know under the circumstances. That is why I tend to give people benefit of doubt. Not everyone who takes decisions result in worsening of situation is an idiot or a villain.
There! I have said my peace. Now I retire from this thread.

Originally posted by: lighthouse

Vineet- Good job..!!! your post reminded me of another great member of DM who also put it brilliantly in another thread. I am quoting Dr AS for the benefit of all who missed this post.


http://www.india-forums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=457457&T PN=9

disagree with the thrust of this entire post.😊

we elect leaders to not only make decisions but to make the right ones. the iraq war was a total disaster. good leaders oughta have some foresight😊

we can also only take the theory of giving someone the benefit of doubt only so far. beyond a certain point, it gets to be really silly imo. by now, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence at the least that should make someone question bush's intent and pre-disposition towards going to war. politicians have gotten flayed for a lot worse, and here we are rationalizing bush's actions and motives on the theory that we have not found incontrovertible proof. what does one need? a smoking gun? great😆

and with only a thin margin in congress, there really is not much that the dems can do, when the other half of congress and the entire executive is arrayed against them. they cant even block filibusters. cant just give people a bad rap for things they dont totally control.

Originally posted by: sareg

Lets consider a scenario

You are entrusted with the security of a bunch of folks, there is someone who doesnt like the way you do things, so he is aiding everyone who wishes to harm you physically or economically(you know like K-serials 😉 ) or the people whom you are entrusted to protect

yes, that's been the propaganda. every couple of years, there's a new enemy # 1. how much of that is reality is another question. 😆

now he is less powerful than you, but is on the way to becoming powerful enough to hurt you directly

the fun part is he never leaves any tracks behind that he aided those who actually harm you

no tracks. and yet you found all the above to be true? what happened? AS's "presumption of innocence" theory doesn't hold here?😆

now while you still have the strength will you go and give him a slap?

will you engage him in a discussion and perhaps change the way you do things and do more things like him 😆

depends. if one makes more enemies by being seen as someone who goes after certain people all the time, then one has to be more careful before going around slapping folks.

in a sense, the iraq war was bad PR and propaganda for the west. made them out as too trigger-happy when it came to going after certain countries, alienating a lot of people for very little gain. if they had to incur all the cost and that bad PR, they should have then gone after countries which have been truly the epicenter of bad behavior.😊

You will warn him of severe consequences if he does it again(ala Indian Govt and Pakistan 😉 )

whatever are your answers, apply it to Mr Bush 😉