The Decomposition of Modern America

Call me a hypocrite, flame me, but I just wanted to say this:

We went into Iraq saying that we would find weapons of mass destruction. We all know we haven't. Most of us feel we won't. That's old news, but has everyone noticed that we are not in fact getting flowers thrown at us by the Iraqis? Yes, that IS what they show on Fox News, but that doesn't mean it's what's happening everywhere. In fact, in most places, the Iraqis would rather want us out. There are a lot of Sadam supporters there, it's true, but that leads me to my main point:

Iraq was not involved in September 11th. 75% of Americans think that Sadam helped in the September 11th, and we have NO proof of this. There is NO proof of Sadam giving weapons, or making any deals with Al-Queda, yet still that was our original excuse for going after him, and while our fearless leader Georgie Porgie never told us that Sadam was behind 9/11, what he DID tell us definitely lead us to believe that more than a little. If you want to know my opinion, then it is this: Bush went after Sadam to take the public's eye off of the fact that we can't find Bin Laden. We even have a CD containing the information to prove it, yet somehow very few seem to know or care. I believe that if Gore were president now, and if he had gone to war with Iraq like Bush had, every day on Fox News we would see "Osama: Still at Large."

These are just my opinions, and I just KNOW I'm going to get flamed. This is the first thing worth reading (well, kind of..) I've written in a long, long time, and I know it probably isn't a good place to start.

By the way, I realize that I just LOVE to correct other people's spelling, but I've decided to stop now. It's my little way of feeling superior I guess, so I 'aint gonna do it anymore. That said, if you have a spelling correction for me, let's see if you would PM it to me. If not, you’re probably trying to feel superior just like I was.

Ah Darwin,

My dear friend, its on!

First of all, polls are mostly inaccurate so your 75% statistic could be wrong but hey we'll stick with it. Most people I know don't think Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 but that he had ties with bin laden and definitely other terrorist org.'s such as Hamas.

Secondly, how many times does it have to be explained that just because we can't find WMD's that it doesn't mean their weren't any. There are several explanations for this. There are many nations in the mideast that would take the WMD's from Saddam and hide them for him. Secondly he could have buried them (12+ Iraqi fighter jets have been found buried under the desert in Iraq, if you can hide jets that long imagine how long WMD's could be hidden for). Thirdly and most interestingly (I am not saying its true yet as the report may be false) but a story came from the AP that was run by a kuwaiti paper as well about 5 hours ago that Kuwaiti officials discovered chemical weapons being smuggled from Iraq and the destination is an unnamed European country... Sounds fishy and may not pan out but time will tell and if its true. IN YOUR FACE!

First of all if Gore was president we never would have invaded Afghanistan, he would have sat around and did the same thing clinton did when we were attacked by terrorists. He would make sure the people directly involved were captured and call it closed instead of going after the organization organizing and funding the attacks.

Darwin I love you man, but your brain is warped.

JV

Ah yes, the infamous battle of the hippos is on again. Mi amigo, indeed it is on.

All good points, and indeed all valid. But let's see here...

75% of my polls can certainly be accurate, considering the fact that I got it from 3 different sources, all of which took their own polls, with about a 3% margin of difference total. I admit to have taking the largest one AND rounding up, but I'm a Greenie; so there.

<Skips because JV is right... for now...> Unfortunetly you missed the pressing question of why we attacked Iraq; the main purpose of my post, but ah well.

If Gore was president I believe we wouldn't be investigating a possible case of our president commiting treason with one of his own cronies. The Republicans seemed to have no problem giving a seperate group for a hummer, yet treason? Naw, it's ok, we can be impartial... Ana Coulter shows us that...

Ok you want me to address war issues.

First of all if there is to be peace then the sides must abide by the peace treaty, also Saddam never signed the surrender he sent a general, not sure the legality of that and if the war ever really ended but that not the point. The point is many UN resolutions were set saying he could not do certain things due to HIS INVASION of Kuwait. He violated these time and time again. So you will say shouldn't the UN deal with this and since they decided not to shouldn't that be it? NO, the problem with the UN is the members with Vetoes can be bought or have different interests. France and Germany both already had oil contracts with Saddam and Saddam owed them a lot of money for weapons they had sold him, money they could only recoup if he stayed in power. That is why the UN is worthless but we believed that its resolutions passed were not. We asked all those that were willing to back the UN resolutions.

another reason for the attack was not that Saddam helped with 9/11 but that he has proven terrorist connections. Defectors have stated that he has met with Osama before and he contributes money to Hamas, due to our belief that he had WMD's it is in the interest of the world to make sure that they do not fall into the hands of terrorists.

Finally (though there are others but i'm tired) my main reason for supporting this war whether the administration promoted it as a main reason or not is the liberation of Iraqi civilians. I believe that we should as a world (not just the US as that is not fair) should take out murderous dictators whenever they arise to power. Now we are going to here that, they don't want us here, or its worse now than it was before...
My god are people twisted, hmmm electricity or being murdered and tortured.... I wonder what I would pick... As to your point that a lot of Iraqis support Saddam and want us to leave... thats rediculous they are the B'aathists (SP?) that we went to remove who cares if they want us gone. They are our enemy and the enemy of free Iraqi's.

What it comes down to, screw WMD's, screw terrorist ties, screw all the other myriad of reasons for going... It was the right thing to do and I can sleep better knowing my nation is doing what it can to aid at least one country in removing a murderous tyrant. The lefts harping on the lack of WMD's and ties to al Queda that they really don't care about human rights violations as long as they can make America and Bush look bad.

JV

BTW, here is the link to the possible WMD find in Kuwait.... Still awaiting to find out if its true or not, but if its true... man some people have some apologizing to do!!






http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.aspARTICLE_ID=34881

THAT'S "AIN'T" MORON, GUFFAW GUFFAW. Glad to hear you're done correcting people, I always feel worse when I do it, even though I think I'm doing it just to feel superior. Plus I don't think ain't is even a word... whatever.

As for all this war stuff, here's my position:

I'm not in the army, I'm in college, so I don't have to worry about being drafted or shooting or being shot. Whatever happens outside of Rochester is both unaffected by what I do and what I do is most likely unaffected by whatever happens outside of Rochester. Mainly, politics are outside of my grasp, even though a lot of people tell me I would make a good "behind the scenes" kind of guy (because we all know that the president is just a proxy). I choose to not really have an opinion on the matter, even though I may randomly spout off what I believe at a specific moment in time (usually just to become a devil's advocate, which I thoroughly enjoy doing).

I'll have to refer back to Lincoln on this one. You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time. There's no final answer to what will fix the world, there never will be, thus I say "Que sera, sera". What will be, will be.

An excellent and very true quote Dave... I knew you were a man of wisdom.

JV

I don't think America is decomposing fast enough. If you dig into a landfill, you can find newspapers that are still readable after 50 years. And if Bush is still looking for WMD's, tell him to come to Colorado. We could show him square miles worth of area contaminated with leftover shells and bomblets full of Sarin and mustard gas. Plus there are holes all over northeastern Colorado that still have nuclear missiles in them. What are they still doing there? They aren't decomposing, that's for sure. Ok, technically they are still experiencing entropy, but certainly not fast enough!

And from Nature's Way (The Far Side before it was The Far Side):

"Shhh, the Maestro is decomposing!"

I think it's obvious that the Bush administration had invading Iraq on its "to do" list long before they took office... they just had to find a way to sell it to US taxpayers and the world community. They were handed the perfect excuse on 9/11 and they've milked it for all it was worth. Bush and his cronies (especially Cheney) have willfully and deliberately implied the connection between Iraq and 9/11 all along with statements like "this war with Iraq is just one step in the war on terror that began on september 11th, 2001." Statements like that are designed to make the listener fill in the blank with the Iraq/Al Queda connection. Cheney is still doing it. Just a week or two ago he called Iraq the geographic center for terrorism. Another cleverly worded bit of tripe designed to give a false impression. It implies that terrorist groups had refuge and protection in Iraq (not true) but can be defended by saying he simply meant that Iraq is in the middle east!

The mainstream press hasn't picked up on some of the most obvious proof that the Iraq war was engineered. Many of Bush's top people (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Card, Jeb Bush, and others) were/are members of a neo-conservative think tank called "the project for a new american century." Back in 2000 they published a report called "rebuilding america's defenses" in which they advocated changing US foreign policy to one of "preemption" and to use our superior military strength to agressively promote the remaking of the middle east in our image. The report is full of interesting and frightening things, including this tidbit found on page 51 of the report...

"The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

Don't take my word for it. Go read it yourself at www.newamericancentury.org

The authors of that paper are now in charge of our government and defense department. The war in Iraq was never about WMD. Wolfowitz himself, in an interview in a magazine (can't remember which... the new yorker or esquire or something similar) said that they picked the WMD issue to focus on because it would be the easiest to sell.

Bush and company have pretended that the war against Iraq was reactionary... responding to imminent danger. That's a bald faced lie and always has been. It was premeditated and is about an ideological war to remake the middle east in our image. Iraq was so weakened by sanctions that we knew we could roll over it with little opposition. The idea that they were a threat to us is laughable, but fear sells... and after the events of 9/11 there was plenty of fear to take advantage of and manipulate.

I urge people to VOTE!!! and remove these dangerous liers from power.

Yes! Let us replace the corrupt politicians with different corrupt politicians!

...aint that the truth, Eggy!

Thats one of the many reasons I am not very politicaly opinionated. I get more out of pissing in the wind.

Your point? I've had Iraq on my things the US should do list for a long time too. Thats not evil or plotting in itself, even nations that didn't agree with the war wanted Saddam from power.

I also think the mideast needs some change... not neccesarily in our image but less fundamentalist (now don't go ranting that not all arabs are fundmentalist muslims, I know that, thats not what i'm saying). The Kings and leaders of most of those countries live in luxery while their citizens suffer. Then they are told that its all America's fault that they suffer... Well considering some of the richest people in the world are mideast kings and princes one would think that they could use that money to aid their people but no its Americas fault. Children in many of these countries are taught to hate America in school, they are inundated that America is evil. Obviously our policies with Israel reinforce that notion though I do believe we are at least partially right in backing Israel. I believe that their should be democracy or some similar form of government the world over. If a nation fails and the people suffer let that be the peoples consequences from ruling themselves. Noone in the world should suffer from the actions of a dictator.

Iraq was key in reshaping the middle east, not in a US form, but in a more healthy form for them. Iraq used to be the hope for the mideast before Saddam took power. One of the most educated nations and wealthiest it was on track to lead the mideast, but then Saddam took power and destroyed all of that. Yes we backed him and we were wrong, but past wrong actions do not mean we can't correct them.

Thats another reason for the war in Iraq, we have guilt for some of the atrocities that Saddam committed therefore we should remove what we helped give power.

There are some in America that will never believe that this was right no matter what, so for you I pity you that you will believe that all politicians are evil and that we are out to make an empire... IT must be a very paranoid life....


JV

My point is that it's not our place to invade every country run by someone we don't like. There are plenty of countries out there that are of far greater threat and are ruled by people as bad or worse than Hussein. Do we invade them all? The arrogance that propels us to believe that we're so far superior to everyone else and that we'd be doing them a favor by overthrowing their governments and bringing them western democracy is the very reason they hate us so much. Do you think it helps the US to do things that prove to the rest of the world that we're dangerous arrogant dishonest pricks? If other countries wanted Hussein gone as much as we did then why couldn't we get anyone to support the war?

The Bush administration has done something unprecedented in the history of this country... they started a war unprovoked. They came up with the idea of preemptive war! We're going to destroy your country because we're so freakishly paranoid that we're scared you MIGHT do something to us in the future? That's insane and those are NOT the kind of people I want in control of our nuclear arsenal.

We pretend to be fighting for a safer, more secure, more stable world... at the same time we're doing more to destabilize the world than any country on earth.
We pretend this is all in response to 9/11 when less than 3,000 civilians died. How many have died in Afghanistan and Iraq since then? ten times that? a hundred times? Are our lives so much more valuable than theirs? What gives us the right? We don't have the right... so we make up false accusations, whip up false paranoia and fear, lie until we're blue in the face, all to justify our ideological arrogance.

The "War on Terror"? a hundred times more people die of the flu... a thousand times more die from diahrreah... more die in this country from poverty and lack of health care. Where are our priorities as we pour billions of dollars into bombs and rockets while our economy spirals downward. In Bush's 3 years in office he took us from the largest surplus in history to the largest deficit in history... with no end in sight. I'd rather have my children inherit a world with a saddam hussein or three in it then one where they have no hope of finding a good job, having adequate health care, and having some hope of a secure retirement. Our priorities are being set by war-mongering manipulative liars... and very much to the detriment of this country. I'd rather take my chances with the terrorists than surrender my civil liberties to the likes of George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and John Ashcroft.

Why worry about people like Hussein when the most dangerous people in the world are running our own government?

[/B]


I would have continued to debate you but you just proved you have no clue what you are talking about and just regurgitate what is fed to you by the left.

This will be my final reply to you as I debate on many forums about these same issues and I find those with views such as yours impossible to debate with and ever admit they are wrong so it is a waste of time.


BUSH DID NOTHING TO THE ECONOMY. For many reasons...

A. A president has very little to do with the economy no matter how much Clinton wants to take credit for the boom of the 90's. In clintons case the good ideas he did have were all from Greenspan whom he met with often and gave him much advice. But it is the congress that passes budgets and all other legislation that effects the economy. Thats right and who had a majority during most of Clintons reign of porn? The republicans...

B. Economies go up and down, this downturn is nothing compared to past recessions, 70's stagflation crisis? The great depression, yet is being hailed as the worst one ever by partisan bush attackers. There is such thing as an economic cycle. Things go up and then they come down, booms and recessions, its stupid to blame recessions on a president or even the congress when it is a natural occurance. The 90's were just a way too long boom and a period of a huge bubble in our market, everything was overvalued and when there is a bubble eventually people will realize things are overvalued and then the bubble bursts and you see what has happened.

C. What of the fact that the economy is actually coming back? We are in a recovery, the stock market has actually regained half of what it lost... last time i checked at least. Where are the jobs you may ask? Well jobs always, always, always lag behind in a recovery, Companies need to feel like the economy is going strong before they start hiring and expanding again. They are waiting it out and making sure this is real but you will see unemployment go down in the next year I assure you.

D. Finally even if all my above points were untrue THE ECONOMY TANKED WHILE CLINTON WAS STILL PRESIDENT! I love how everyone says Bush destroyed the economy since he's been president totally ignoring the fact that the recession started the 4th quarter of 2000 when Clinton was still president. Then there was 9/11 which noone could predict which hurt the economy more, then there were the enron etc. scandals... Who by the way were committing their crimes during Clintons reign since you love to blame all bad things on the president who is in power at the time.

Your party line spouting is so typical. Learn to think for yourself and don't repeat the same arguements word for word that the left feeds you. Perhaps I would believe that these often repeated arguements were your own if you didn't even use the exact same phrases and words that all liberals use when spouting this nonsense. Once you think for yourself and begin to believe that the GOP and Bush are not out to get everyone but just believe in different things than you I will debate with you.

See I know i'm not evil we just have different beliefs, I can respect the lefts intentions but I believe the consequences of their intentions are bad.... You believe our intentions are bad which is why the left comes off looking like morons. If you could debate the ideas and consequences rather than motives you would do much better.

JV

I hardly call starting an unnecessary war at a cost of billions of dollars when our economy is in the dumps doing nothing to the economy. I don't blame the economic downturn on Bush. It's likely it would have tanked no matter who was in office. But to squander billions when we can't afford it is beyond irresponsible, especially when the justifications for doing so were lies.

If you can ignore the fact that Bush chose to start a war we couldn't afford then I'd say you're the one spouting the party line. For the record I hate the democrats almost as much as I hate the republicans. Who caused the economic downturn in the first place isn't the point. The choices made under those circumstances are. Get it?

Understand though that in your mind it was unneccesary, other people believe differently, not just because of the administrations views either, there are many of us that thought this should have been done a long time ago.

Secondly, there are so many things we spend money on that are a waste, that are worthless yet when it comes to the military all of a sudden liberals don't want to spend???? Just for your info all the budgets suggested by democrats (i know you say you aren't one but they are the only part in the congress that more closely resemble your views) were much larger than any republican proposed budget.

It comes down to what is gov for? Look at the many theories on why governments exist and most of them state that a government is there to protect the people (military spending important), resolve disputes, and thats really it... Our government is bloated, and I agree with you that bush overspends and could do things differently. See I don't always agree with what bush does but neither am I going to rant and rave that he's a lunatic that is trying to destroy america.

I also don't find the justifications to be lies, those are your beliefs, not mine, nore the majority of America's. you and a lot of your leftist friends seem to think that because you say they are lies they are.

WMD's will be found. Saddam had ties to terrorist orgs. We KNOW he funded Hamas and supported their attacks on our allies (attacks on allies are enough of a reason to go to war in itself, most alliances have military aid clauses in case of attack), If he's funding Hamas, hates the US, Bin Laden hates the US... its logic that he likes Bin Laden and the fact that there were many reports that they met together once or twice. Never one did Bush or anyone in the administration say Saddam was responsible for 9/11, they said they believe he has links to Al Queda, and I would say supporting terrorism and meeting with bin laden are links. If people put those truths together and believe he had something to do with it then thats their problem. We should have finished the job the first time, and you know what the people in Iraq willl now be able to lead themselves, it may fail, it may work... either way they have that opportunity and we gave it to them.

We in america take our freedom for granted sometimes and don't value it that much, sure let them live under a dictator they don't care....

The point that it comes down to is I would respect you and your arguements a hundred times better if you argued the policies and not the moral character of the ones making them. There has not been a proven scandal or lie from the bush administration yet... Perhaps some bad intelligence they circulated but no outright lies.

MaineGOP

Did you notice that when we invaded Iraq again the soldiers had to push their way past all the garbage left around from the last Gulf war? That stuff is not decomposing fast enough either.

Just a quick question for both sides of the fence. How many of you actually still think Bush is doing a good job as President?

MU.

i don't want to repeat what Chip has said, but i agree with pretty much all of it. i'm very bothered and even a bit frightened by what has been going on under Bush. i don't mean offense to you Jon. we all have our opinions. having opinions and being free to share them is what our ideals of freedom are all about. and there are certain things that go along with our idea of freedom, notably our right to a fair trial. there is a very good reason as to why we believe in having trials and offering proof of guilt before penalizing people for their crimes, we don't want innocent people being punished.

if our goal is to share these values of freedom with the world (as it seems to be), then we cannot give up those values in our pursuit to do so. we never proved that invading Iraq was necessary. this is of course an opinion. but, i am only like one juror of a few billion. in the world's court of opinion Iraq was acquitted, and we imposed the death penalty anyway. where did our values go?

It's actually highly illogical to think that Bin Laden and Hussein would have anything to do with each other. They're ideological opposites. Bin Laden is an Islamic fundamentalist who would view Hussein as an infidel right along with the US. Hussein was a secularist.

It's obvious that the link between the two was very intentionally implied to help manipulate our anger over 9/11 into support for invading Iraq. That alone is worth impeaching Bush in my opinion. Add to that the administration continually using false intelligence well after it knew it to be false and what do you have? A dishonest government and an illegal war.

Ken Lay ruined the lives of more Americans than Hussein did and where is he now? Probably sipping martinis on a golf course somewhere. Our priorities are screwed.

As you can tell I have strong opinions on this, however I'm not a "leftist." My opinons are based on the facts as I see them without allegience to either side. I don't hold your opinions against you... I just strongly disagree with them

Considering SL has a lot of artists and leftists, i bet you will find this answer skewed, but I feel overall he is a good leader.

JV

Argh tsk tsk, the old Saddam is a secularist and Osama is a fundamentalist gag eh...

Tell me one thing though, if you were a brutal dictator that hates the US, what would your motto be? My enemies enemy is my friend.... It is actually very logical that they would work together to take down a mutual enemy. Your ideological opposite theory breaks down when you look at history, the US and Russia allied during WWII and they hated each other and were bitter opposites yet it was an alliance of neccessity just as an alliance between Osama and Saddam would be.

The key word is you think the link between the two was manipulated to make us think that. Thats your opinion. But lets get down to business whether you like it or not we've been at war since 1993 at least (the first attack i can remember) the only thing is we haven't been fighting back. Clinton decided that it was better to only arrest the people directly involved in the attacks (when he even did that) than go after Al Queda and those that sponsor terror.

As to false intelligence I don't think you are accurate there, if you are talking about there being WMD's well thats yet to be seen, if you are talking about the Uranium thing and africa, it was England who kept assuring us that it was good intelligence even after doubts arised about it.

As to impeaching bush that is everyones dream since Clinton was impeached.... ooh get them back, which is rather childish in my mind. Impeachment is very serious and should not be tossed around lightly. The difference between Bush and Clinton is whether you agree with this war or not it was legal under our laws, Clinton broke the law. Remember the original investigation was about him dropping his pants and sexually harrassing women, and then he lied under oath. Not to mention how he silenced a woman who claimed that he raped her when he was governor by sicking the IRS on her and sending private investigators to slash her tires and winshields. There is a huge difference, you disagree with bush, not a good reason to impeach him, Clinton broke many laws.

Well thats that for now...

JV

Well there are 2 things wrong with your analysis.

First of all the world has no authority over us, remember a thing called sovereignity? It is something countries have valued a long long time and is very important yet some people seem willing to turn it over to the UN. We are an independant nation and can act as we see fit. We are supposed to be a democratic republic with the people in charge throught their representatives but some people want to take the power from the people and hand it to foreign nations.

That aside, lets look at why Iraq was acquitted in the worlds court of opinion.

First of all Iraq wasn't, they were covicted and sentenced to death but noone would pull the switch/push the button/pull the trigger what have you.

Many resolutions were passed ordering saddam to disarm and allow full access inspections which he failied to do for 12 years. Then a final resolution was passed 4 or 5? months before the war started saying he must disarm immediately or the UN will authorize force. So he was convicted and sentenced. He only started to allow inspections again once the US and Britain rattled their sabres, if not he never would have allowed them, he made the UN his little slave and laughed at them.

but why was a lot of the world against the war, lets look at it.

A. Muslim nations - hate the US already, many do not have very good human rights records themselves, many have WMD's themselves, would rather back Saddam then let the US do anything

B. France and Germany the Governments - Both have oil contracts with saddam and were selling weaponry to Saddam, some reports even have claimed that weaponry has been sold to saddam since sanctions were imposed in violation of the UN. They were owed lots of money for all of this and stood to lose money if Saddam was deposed.

C. Europe the people - It is no secret that Europe is much more liberal than the US and a lot of people believe that war is never the answer no matter what, so it doesn't matter if the war is justified or not they will protest it. Also europeans used to be the world leaders the powerful ones... It is very evident in the Foreign policy of these nations and the EU that they are trying to bond together to counter US power and regain what they once had.

So as you can see the majority of the peopel protesting this war were not protesting it because it is an unjust war (though they may even believe that themselves) but because it served their interests.

That is the problem with the UN. Nations with atrocious Human rights records head the Human Rights...(not sure what its called but the council or whatever that watches human rights in the UN), Nations that are directly involved in the war conflicts have vetoes. Its a mess. My memory is lapsing, was it russia or china that boycotted the UN in the 50's and was the only reason that the UN action against NK was allowed. That was a war that most people agree was justified and needed, and needed once again. Yet if all the veto members had been there it wouldn't have happened.

That is why I can't agree with your analysis that this war was unjust because the world said so, the world had different motives.

Dont' forget just because only 3 countries actually had troops in Iraq means that they were the only ones helping, I believe the number of countries providing logistic support, funding, equipment totaled between 16 and 20.... So no it was just the US a good portion of the world helped too.

JV

Thank you for pointing this out. It actually makes sense. Keep in mind that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" doesn't hold up well in this instance. Fundamentalists are motivated by their religious beliefs, and its unlikely they would make a deal with the devil. Why else would they strap on a bomb, walk into a crowded nightclub and blow themselves up? I think we Americans keep judging the fanatics by our own standards instead of the standards of a different mindset.

The thing that bothers me about the whole war is that we had Hussein contained, and for the most part, Iraq was no direct threat to us. Then, Bush had to stir up the pot, and go after him, instead of staying focused on Bin Laden and al Queda. Now, for those who weren't paying attention, al Queda hit us hard on 9/11, and Iraq never attacked us.

Now, we are stuck with rebuilding Iraq, our armed forces are spread thin, and the head maniac in North Korea is threatening us with nukes. Bin Laden is still free (or dead), and al Queda is plotting the next big massacre.

I will be the first to admit that I didn't vote for either Bush, but I did agree with the elder Bush's reasons for going to war. He also took the correct steps leading up to war, namely going to the UN and winning over allies. On the other hand, Dubya had to go all cowboy, piss off possible allies, and used the flimsiest of reasons to start a war. He put the whole thing on America, and now he has the temerity to come to the UN and beg for help on HIS own terms. IMHO, Bush treats our armed forces like his own little bag of plastic green army men.