Turn on thread page Beta

Would anyone else agree that Bush is a complete idiot? watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by king of swords)
    That's his reason for going to war.....people have mostly been spurred on to say he was an idiot after the war started....don't get me wrong though i agree he is an idiot but isn't Blair an idiot too for not challenging Bush about what is going to happen to this oil (at this rate end up all in USA for a huge cost to anyone else who wants it)?
    Oh gosh. Open your eyes people!! Iraqis are now no longer under the torture of Saddam.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    It doesn't really matter what their method was. The result was good. So what if when they got there, they realised they had to deal with even greater crimes against humanity? They want us to be safe and they want people in Iraq to be safe. Is that such a bad thing?
    How can you say that the result was good? Saddam was put their by the CIA in the fist place it was their mess, he became powerful and they toppled him once but they could have finished him then, why wait, and i'm afraid no it is definatly not ok to change your reason for going to war!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    Most Iraqi's are very happy - I think they need the help at any rate. It is only right that after any inevitable destruction they will need to make up for the damage. You expect them just to leave the iraqis to fend for themselves?

    No one things about how horrendous it would have been if Saddam had stayed in power..
    The iraqis are happy? Have you gone there and asked them?

    If Saddam was in power, things would be working efficiently in that country. Hospitals would be working, people wouldn't have to stay awake at night in fear of their possessions being looted. The country would not be in a state of chaos like it is now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    Most Iraqi's are very happy - I think they need the help at any rate. It is only right that after any inevitable destruction they will need to make up for the damage. You expect them just to leave the iraqis to fend for themselves?

    No one things about how horrendous it would have been if Saddam had stayed in power..
    hmmmmmm i wonder if those (suicide) bombers are happy. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by king of swords)
    That's his reason for going to war.....people have mostly been spurred on to say he was an idiot after the war started....don't get me wrong though i agree he is an idiot but isn't Blair an idiot too for not challenging Bush about what is going to happen to this oil (at this rate end up all in USA for a huge cost to anyone else who wants it)?
    I didnt say hes an idiot, i dont know what he is like because i have not met him. Oil might indirectly be his reason for going to war , but maybe it is just to keep peace in the Middle East. There are multiple reasons, Oil cannot be the primary one or he would have invaded Yemen or Saudi Arabia or Chad he didn't need to invade a country in the Middle East. The oil money is going into a fund to pay american reconstruction firms, of course american firms will make some money out of the war but otherwise americans would feel why had they gone into a huge budget deficit (partially by the more than $80 billion they spent freeing Iraq from a cruel dictator). We will never know why exactly they invaded Iraq, proabaly through a multiplicity of factors but people say they support the war on freeing Iraq from a cruel dictator. However, you cannot justify war to many countires on the back of removing a "cruel" dictator. Who decides what cruel is ? Is there a number of people you have to kill or a percentage of your population or an ideology or world position that you have to follow in order to be classed as cruel. Every case is individual but people would expect them to invade all "cruel" (by western standards" regimes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychologist)
    How can you say that the result was good? Saddam was put their by the CIA in the fist place it was their mess, he became powerful and they toppled him once but they could have finished him then, why wait, and i'm afraid no it is definatly not ok to change your reason for going to war!
    The result IS good!! How can it not be? No one is being brutalised anymore...don't you realised what kind of atrocities were inflicted on the people? I don't know the history behind the thing so don't tell me any of it - main thing is Saddam had to be removed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by G4ry)
    The iraqis are happy? Have you gone there and asked them?

    If Saddam was in power, things would be working efficiently in that country. Hospitals would be working, people wouldn't have to stay awake at night in fear of their possessions being looted. The country would not be in a state of chaos like it is now.
    Hahahha. That is so ridiculous it's amusing. At least possessions are being looted and not lives!!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by G4ry)
    The iraqis are happy? Have you gone there and asked them?

    If Saddam was in power, things would be working efficiently in that country. Hospitals would be working, people wouldn't have to stay awake at night in fear of their possessions being looted. The country would not be in a state of chaos like it is now.
    People wouldn't be awake at night in fear of their posessions, they would be awake in fear of their lives, what their children say, their pretty wife or daughters, or if they were being too ostentatious with their possessions. So not much change there? or have the allied troops given a measure of protection
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by king of swords)
    hmmmmmm i wonder if those (suicide) bombers are happy. :rolleyes:
    We want the iraqi civilians to be happy. Not the suicide bombers - hopefully measures like these will REDUCE the number of suicide bombers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychologist)
    How can you say that the result was good? Saddam was put their by the CIA in the fist place it was their mess, he became powerful and they toppled him once but they could have finished him then, why wait, and i'm afraid no it is definatly not ok to change your reason for going to war!
    Saddam was armed by western companies but was backed by the USSR not hte CIA, don't quote history if you don't know what you are talking about.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    Oh gosh. Open your eyes people!! Iraqis are now no longer under the torture of Saddam.
    exactly, bush may be an idiot in the economy but might actually being doing good there too.....our economy is rising once more!

    bush is a leader and he is the person that america needed after september 11.......
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSM)
    I didnt say hes an idiot, i dont know what he is like because i have not met him. Oil might indirectly be his reason for going to war , but maybe it is just to keep peace in the Middle East. There are multiple reasons, Oil cannot be the primary one or he would have invaded Yemen or Saudi Arabia or Chad he didn't need to invade a country in the Middle East. The oil money is going into a fund to pay american reconstruction firms, of course american firms will make some money out of the war but otherwise americans would feel why had they gone into a huge budget deficit (partially by the more than $80 billion they spent freeing Iraq from a cruel dictator). We will never know why exactly they invaded Iraq, proabaly through a multiplicity of factors but people say they support the war on freeing Iraq from a cruel dictator. However, you cannot justify war to many countires on the back of removing a "cruel" dictator. Who decides what cruel is ? Is there a number of people you have to kill or a percentage of your population or an ideology or world position that you have to follow in order to be classed as cruel. Every case is individual but people would expect them to invade all "cruel" (by western standards" regimes.
    I don't think anyone can really say Saddam wasn't cruel. And I don't think anyone with a heart can sit back and watch people dying in the most horrific manners.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSM)
    I didnt say hes an idiot, i dont know what he is like because i have not met him. Oil might indirectly be his reason for going to war , but maybe it is just to keep peace in the Middle East. There are multiple reasons, Oil cannot be the primary one or he would have invaded Yemen or Saudi Arabia or Chad he didn't need to invade a country in the Middle East. The oil money is going into a fund to pay american reconstruction firms, of course american firms will make some money out of the war but otherwise americans would feel why had they gone into a huge budget deficit (partially by the more than $80 billion they spent freeing Iraq from a cruel dictator). We will never know why exactly they invaded Iraq, proabaly through a multiplicity of factors but people say they support the war on freeing Iraq from a cruel dictator. However, you cannot justify war to many countires on the back of removing a "cruel" dictator. Who decides what cruel is ? Is there a number of people you have to kill or a percentage of your population or an ideology or world position that you have to follow in order to be classed as cruel. Every case is individual but people would expect them to invade all "cruel" (by western standards" regimes.
    Well i hope you're right. But he can hardly make the reason for going to war because of the oil official because of the uproar of the rest of the world, this is why he chose the easy target of Iraq because of how infamous Saddam had become.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by curryADD)
    exactly, bush may be an idiot in the economy but might actually being doing good there too.....our economy is rising once more!

    bush is a leader and he is the person that america needed after september 11.......
    It's amazing how many people forget september 11. *sigh*.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    The result IS good!! How can it not be? No one is being brutalised anymore...don't you realised what kind of atrocities were inflicted on the people? I don't know the history behind the thing so don't tell me any of it - main thing is Saddam had to be removed.
    we were idiots to put him there but it happened.........how can you say that a man that raped his opposers daughters IN FRONT OF THEM was good? how can you say that iraq is NOT better without him?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well i think the excuse was going to war was very poor as it is. The americans failed and are now trying to cover up their mistakes. You really think they care about people's liberty? I don't think they're going to be going anywhere near zimbabwe or Libya even though they have dictatorships. It's all for the oil; that's all they're interested and being the only superpower.

    Iraq is in a right state at the moment, there is no order. There is no government, the Poilice are not even trained. The only order there is in Iraq is guns.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by king of swords)
    Well i hope you're right. But he can hardly make the reason for going to war because of the oil official because of the uproar of the rest of the world, this is why he chose the easy target of Iraq because of how infamous Saddam had become.
    I don't think anyone can be in the position to say that he went for oil. That is just being overly judgemental. But I was more than happy that they went to war... because they did things which needed to be done, regardless of motive.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King of Swords)
    It was about oil
    Thats the kind of trashy statement that sells the Mirror newspaper to the un-educated.

    That war has cost both governments a fortune. They have had to increase their borrowings to pay for the war. And what will happen to the oil? Most profits will have to go to Iraq or Germany and France and all the other pacifist countries will start whinging.

    This war wasn't about the economy, in fact it ruined the economy for a while, it was political. I doubt our Tony and Dubya did it to free the world though.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by curryADD)
    we were idiots to put him there but it happened.........how can you say that a man that raped his opposers daughters IN FRONT OF THEM was good? how can you say that iraq is NOT better without him?
    Thank you You're right...if you think about it, there are so many SICKENING things he did...lots of which we still don't know because teh secrets are with the people who died.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    I don't think anyone can be in the position to say that he went for oil. That is just being overly judgemental. But I was more than happy that they went to war... because they did things which needed to be done, regardless of motive.
    Once Iraq is sorted out, I'll agree with you but until that day, I'll remain judgemental .
 
 
 
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.