Did Bush just get re-elected?

Not factual. The UN post Gulf War economic sanctions championed by the US killed over 500,000 children under the age of five (UN numbers). This is approximately ten times the number that Saddam had killed (60,000?).

 

Guess what- no more sanctions.

 

Bush used a "Saddam is bigger than life; evil dictator" message to the US people in order to go ahead (without international agreement) with the attack on Iraq. In the end, this is still about "Bush vs Saddam." The personal war. He didn't want his name to go down in history as the "family that let Saddam get away." So, he'd do anything to "get him." So, he did.

Now, catching Saddam deflates the idea of WMD and the "bigger than life" image of Saddam. We now get to see the "human" side of Saddam; a delusional, totalitarian, dictator. Nothing more, nothing less. And that's the last thing that Bush wants, politically.

But I'd be willing to accept Bush's removal from office while simultaneously getting rid of a dictator that was a big problem in the middle-easts. Talk about the best of both worlds (domestically and internationally).

Why is it that anytime we have a leader that thinks HE IS divine figure (holier than tho), we get in trouble? Bush, thinking that he's been sent by Jesus. And Saddam thinking that he's the Iraqi Messiah.

 

I was talking about the suffering caused directly by Saddam himself, not by the US sanctions.

 

It is still too early to tell, but with his main opponent Dean, I say he does have a good chance.

 

If your ridiculousness wasn't so damned entertaining, you'd be only the second member of my ignore list.

 

I think the Iraqi people blame both Saddam and the US political leaders for the death of a half million of their children.

 

And how about the UN? It was the UN and you that wanted the status quo.

 

It's about balance. Back and forth we go...You'll be eating Democratic politics soon enough.

If the conservative right-wing agenda gets too strong, the people will battle back and demand change. The same goes for national security and business, or lack of. If government gets too big, then the people will demand change in the other direction.

 

That's right. They are torn.

 

Only metaphorically. They would be literally torn if Bush didn't get rid of Saddam.

 

"Literally torn?"

But be careful. You are talking like every person in the state of Iraq was beaten and torured on a daily basis.

We did not go into Iraq for humanitarian reasons. That was just a residual.

 

By the way, if Bush had been forthright about his intentions, be it humanitarian, I would have supported it. But it's the lying and deceit that I despise. "We'll say it's for THESE reasons, but in in reality it for THOSE reasons." A lot of Bush's actions were reactionary and fear driven, not on fact, but on assumptions.

If the USA is going to be the lone superpower, we have to learn to do it will caution and wisdom. Not just blind rage. That's how you gain the international respect. And it's Bush himself, that our International allies do not respect.

Bush's methods might be "decisive." They end up looking arrogant, stubborn and narrow minded as well. I mean, if all you know how to do is *react.* Well, of course one can say that person is "decisive." It's all or nothing. Calm or rage.

 

"I think the Iraqi people blame both Saddam and the US political leaders for the death of a half million of their children."- No Worries

You're right it wasn't that bad, since it wasn't every single person.

 

Well that's your opinion. I hardly think this war was bling rage. I think supporting the status quo with regard to Iraq is blind stupidity.

 

Why am I not surprised that all T_J has to offer is barbs and meaningless one-liners?

 

Yes. But you were painting paint that exact message in your "metaphorically" reply.

If the US causes a few thousands innocent Iraqi deaths, we just chalk it up as collateral damage. But you see. They don't see it that way. They have real grievances. Not just with Saddam.

If the shoe was on the other foot. Your sister or Mother was killed in a US raid, would you just go on merrily and joyfully with your life, knowing that a foreign country was the cause of their deaths; even if their intentions were "for noble reasons?"

 

If the US inadverdently caused the death of family members while targetting Saddam and his minions then I hope I would be enlightened enough to know that the US does not deserve the blame.

 

I said, a foreign country caused the death of YOUR family. Not the US. Let's keep it in context. We want your eyes bold red with revenge.

 

Okay, so a foreign country is coming in to free me from the oppression of a tyrant that has killed many of my fellow citizens? Well I hope I would see it the same way.