Your right. Bush wasent CIA director during the 90's. He was CIA director from 1-30-1976 to 1-20-1977. But he was instrumental in getting Heusen arms during his tenure as CIA director as well as when he was Vice President during the 90's by getting Iraq to agree to let us put spy stations along the Iraq, Russion border. During this time we dident care that Heusen was killing thousands of his people. It only became important to Bush senior when Heusen got between Bush and his oil as I stated before.
Quote:These are poor examples. Are you paying me to store your trash? Are you paying for the beer? If not, your gonna have a war on your hands because I will look out for my house.
Yeah, but my house has weapons of mass destruction and plenty of them. Your house has a slingshot. Bring it on.
Quote:FreeDuck:
Quote:
It is possible for a country to look after it's own interest without harming the interests of others.
I don't know whwere you got the idea that It's not possible to have mutually beneficial foreign relations.
This exchange speaks for itself.
rabel22 wrote:Your right. Bush wasent CIA director during the 90's. He was CIA director from 1-30-1976 to 1-20-1977. But he was instrumental in getting Heusen arms during his tenure as CIA director as well as when he was Vice President during the 90's by getting Iraq to agree to let us put spy stations along the Iraq, Russion border. During this time we dident care that Heusen was killing thousands of his people. It only became important to Bush senior when Heusen got between Bush and his oil as I stated before.
I don't mean to nitpick but you are still getting your information wrong.
Saddam didn't take power till after Bush Sr. was out of the CIA. We didn't have any real contact with Saddam till Rumsfeld went on behalf of Regan to start diplomatic relations.
Bush wasn't VP in the 90's he was President from 88 till 91 when Clinton took office. We weren't supplying arms to Saddam during the late 80's because we knew he was not the guy we thought he was. When he attacked Kuwait in late 89 and early 90 we responded with UN approval to remove him from Kuwait. If it were a matter of oil then we wouldn't have stopped with removing him from Kuwait, we would have taken him out and taken over Iraq then. We did what the UN asked us to and stopped. If oil were the key we wouldn't have stopped and would rule Iraqi oil.
Nitpick away. It was the 1980's. Otherwise I stand by what I stated. Bush knew that Saddum was a monster when he supported sending arms into Iraq along with Regans government. They only got excited when Saddum tried to gain control of the oil in that area. Bush dident push into Iraq to free the poor citizens who were even than being murdered because he regained control of the oil in Quaite. I also stend by my statements about his 1976 to 1977 tenure in the CIA.
You can stand by it all you want but you are standing by statments that are wrong. We didn't know Saddam was a monster wehn we first started supporting him. Besides what was the difference we were trying to help stop the spread of Iran at the time who was a much greater threat in the 80's then Saddam was. I don't know if you remember your history but it was terrorists from Iran that caused a majority of the terrorist actions in the early 80's.
You are right about Bush Sr. in the CIA from 76 to 77, but how much damage can you really do in one year? Not enough to put a man in power that didn't get into power till 2 years after he left.
Quote:I don't know if you remember your history
the irony is underwhelming!
It is true he has been giving wrong facts to the debate. I can't help it if he wants to try and use revisionist history to prove an unprove able fact. I think it's funny that you can't support him either so you say something against me.
When history doesn't work for you rewrite it so that it does.
well, I guess that's just how I sound.
Baldimo wrote: "We didn't know Saddam was a monster wehn we first started supporting him."
Uh, yes we did. Saddam has always been a cruel dictator, we have always known it, but as long as he played along with us, what he did to the "poor Iraqi people" just didn't matter.
angie wrote:Baldimo wrote: "We didn't know Saddam was a monster wehn we first started supporting him."
Uh, yes we did. Saddam has always been a cruel dictator, we have always known it, but as long as he played along with us, what he did to the "poor Iraqi people" just didn't matter.
Saddam had only been in power for about 2 or 3 years when we started supporting him. How could we know in that amount of time if he was as bad as he was? We didn't deal with him all the time so we couldn't have known.
Baldimo wrote:angie wrote:Baldimo wrote: "We didn't know Saddam was a monster wehn we first started supporting him."
Uh, yes we did. Saddam has always been a cruel dictator, we have always known it, but as long as he played along with us, what he did to the "poor Iraqi people" just didn't matter.
Saddam had only been in power for about 2 or 3 years when we started supporting him. How could we know in that amount of time if he was as bad as he was? We didn't deal with him all the time so we couldn't have known.
2 or 3 years isn't long enough to watch him behave cruelly to his people and have some idea that he is a cruel dictator? How long would be long enough, then, do you think and why should we have assumed he would treat us better than his own people? Really, Baldimo, you don't think we didn't know how he behaved when we first started supporting him?
I think we ahd an idea but at the time it was the lesser of 2 evils and I would rather have supported him then the Iranians.
Than you are admitting that perhaps I do know some history? I wish I knew how to post other sites because I found one that shows that Bush knew that Saddum was a rat when he was the head of the CIA. My dates may be a little off but the innate truth of what I have posted is true. He armed Iraq in an effort to counteract Iran even though he knew that Saddum was killing thousands of his own people because they dident want his corrupt government. But than we dident care. Now we need an enemy that can be seen to cover the fact that our war against terriosts is going poorly. We should have stayed in Afganistan and destroyed Al Queda. Now they have regrouped and are stronger than ever. The Bush crowd screwed up in spades. Admit it.
You Bush hatin' conspiracy buffs don't need facts (or a dictionary) to take you off your target. A decade of worldwide terror underwritten by these Islamo-facist nation-states makes no never-mind and the proven fact that they have declared intentions to arm and use weapons of mass destruction against non-muslim countries (including us) is discounted as fate that is our due, that we have brought on ourselves. Right? Are we missing anything?
Will the last one out turn out the lights?
I am neither a Bush hater nor a conspiracy buff, but I believe Bush has acted unwisely and put us in more danger vis a vis the terrorism threat than would be the case had he taken a multilateral, diplomatic approach. Lest you incorrectly interpret my remark to suggest that I am opposed to unilateral action under any circumstances, I assure you that when an imminent danger is present and confirmed and/or when there has been a direct attack against us by (again) a confirmed source, I would most definitely support our right to defend ourselves, unilaterally or otherwise.
The fact is, this war against terror cannot be fought or won alone, and it was both unwise and counter-effective, given no substantiated imminent threat, to alienate our allies because of disrespect and arrogance. Bush's actions have made us less safe, and have strengthened our opponents and fueled their ranks for years to come. We need someone with the skills to work the international crowd to our advantage, to re-generate respect for us by respecting others, to develop and use well-thought plans for global interaction, military and otherwise.
Bush has failed miserably at all of these tasks.
You're fooling yourself if you think we Bush opponents are soft, "off target", and/or unpatriotic. We love our country and are willing to stand up for all it represents when necessary. Bush would like people to think he has cornered the market on strength and patriotism. IMO, nothing could be further from the truth.
Angie
You put it just right. Wish I had your communication skills.
Thanks!
I find when a person speaks from the heart, the message always comes through.
Take it from a fellow conservative: we had no business in Iraq
Im republican in most views but Bush was wrong to go to Iraq.
Baldimo: First you state that you can't know if he's a cruel dictator if you've only been able to observe him for a year or 2. Then you state he's the lesser of two evils. Seems you're trying to support Bush as stubborn as Moore said Bush was lying. But he wasn't, right? He was just incompetent. Nothing malicious about it you say?
'Oooops, guess there's nothing there, I've been misinformed. Not my fault I listened to everybody(including the voices in my head saying it's for the good of christianity and MONEH!) that had something to gain in going to Iraq and kicking some, harmless to the US as stated in earlier press conferences in (feb and again on the news in august I believe), dictator where there happens to be a problem with the pipeline. Forget the other dictators. Forget the ones where we have nothing to gain, or countries that could pose a real threat. We don't _know_ if, whatever's out of the middle east and in the rest of Asia, has weapons of mass destruction (oh, let's say nuclear capability, do some research). We didn't deliver and dismantle(!) there.'
Well, I guess if you can make a mistake like that, it's understandable that you can't make up if the guy is going to terrorize his country if that's how he got the power in the first place (do you even know how saddam came to be a dictator?).
