Ephedrine….

Propecia. Propecia generic. Propecia side effects fre. Propecia online uk. Buy propecia. Fertility restored after ending propecia….

Where were these protests when Saddam was calling the shots?

There was an attempt on Saddam’s life in 1982 by Shiite Iraqis.

Good thing he’s in Iraq, I guess. If he were here he’d have probably been shot.

clipped from minnesotaindependent.com

While we’ve had fun looking at the social-media mashups spun off of the Bush/shoe-throwing incident, h…

alleging WMDs were there to fool people in to supporting a war aren’t mistakes at all. They’re just lies. Saddam Hussein wasn’t a threat to the U.S. worth going to war over and the legacy of Bush will be to demonstrate just that.

starfleet_dude on December 14, 2008 at 8:56 PM

None of those alledged Iraqi WMDs were ever found and you have the gall to say the sanctions failed? Now that’s what I call bullshit.

starfleet_dude on December 14, 2008 at 9:54 PM

I’m coming very late to this party and others have already responded to your various points so I’ll try to add new stuff only and be brief(ish).

There has never been any question that the Chemical weapons did exist. The only questions were about what had happened to them and where they were in 2002 … and those are the questions for which the Iraqis declined to provide trutworthy answers.

The weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq in 1998 before they considered their work complete. They were only allowed to return after the USA and UK put 100000 or more troops on the Iraqi borders; even then the Iraqi officials continued to play games.

My observation at the time was that the case for the resumption of military action against Iraq was considered sound by pretty much everybody who had been paying long term attention to the situation. By way of a personal example, I discussed the situation with many people and, without exception those who were opposed to war were really quite ignorant about the prior events.

When President Bush and Prime Minister Blair started to plan the offensive they were met by huge protests from people who had, for the most part, not been paying attention to the situation. This seemed to throw them off balance and their public arguments seemed to get rather silly as they tried to persuade a public who were substantially uninformed.

They either said, or allowed to be said, things that were peripheral to the main story and some of the stuff about WMD was just silly.

I’m also willing to concede that the egos of some of the people involved (leaders and inspectors) might have clouded their judgement.

Nonetheless, the problem was the presentation of the case for war, not the case itself which was, in my opinion, about as good as any case for war could ever be.

It seems to me that many people thought of the 2002/2003 decisions as if it were a question of war or peace. For me me it was, by 2002, a question of war now or war later; peace did not actually exist at that time and was not a realistic option for the near future.

Containing Saddam Hussein’s regime was costing us about one billion dollars a year. We could have kept on doing that for 1000 years instead of going to war in Iraq.

starfleet_dude on December 14, 2008 at 9:21 PM

There is no possibility that containment could have been maintained. By 2002 the sanctions were not holding and the world had grown tired of them. There was pressure from governments and NGOs for them to end.

With hindsight we can all see better ways of handling the situation.

What if …
(*) France and Russia hadn’t broken ranks just as the Iraqis started to get serious under international pressure, and thereby given the Iraqi regime hope that they could bluff through as they had done every time before?
(*) President Saddam Hussein had let wisdom and humility guide his decisions, instead of being guided by his pride and arrogance and need to retain power?
(*) The Iraqi regime had cared more about the development of their own nation and less about the prestige of attacking Israel?
(*) We had done deals, under the table if necessary, with President Saddam Hussein to persuade him to follow a different course whereby he kept Iraq internally quiet and we allowed him to maintain his prestige and ‘dignity’.
(*) The Arab neighbours hadn’t objected so strenuously to the continuation to completion of the conflict in 1991?

Decisions are never made with hindsight.

http://bellalu0.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/5099/

God Bless President Bush. I love and respect the man, and even though I have been laughed at by my friends and family when I say it, I would absolutely take a bullet for the man.

Abraham Lincoln was hated and derided by many when he was President, but now he is one most beloved of all, and is of the few Presidents that even children can recognize.
President George W. Bush will be (maybe not in my lifetime, but he will be) – when all the facts are presented and all the myths are dispelled about the War on Terror also among the Presidential greats.

As I said earlier, I would die for the man. God Bless President Bush.

Nuke and build a parking lot for our military.

HornetSting on December 16, 2008 at 12:40 AM

Hooray for compassionate conservatism!

Jay Leno used your joke last night.

Can you explain what right(s) the Colonies had to secede from Kingdom of Great Britain that the Southern states didn’t have when they wanted to secede from the North in 1861?

Bizarro No. 1 on December 16, 2008 at 12:02 AM

Cause…ok, poor word choice.

Neutral on the secession cause for the States War. Better to say a morally superior result happened due to the North’s victory. Emancipation would not have happened near as soon for slaves south of the Mason-Dixon had the South won.

Point taken though.

Seven Percent Solution on December 15, 2008 at 10:22 PM

Thanks for that link, we would never see that in the MSM.. God Bless our military!

Seeing how gleeful the reaction to the shoe throwing incident is in the arab world, I predict that Iraq is mired in utter chaos within 1 year. Maybe then, people will begin to understand how these cultures must be dealt with. Take the oil fields and leave the primitives, defanged, to run around the desert stabbing each other in the a$$, as they enjoy doing, anyway.

You can’t bring self-rule with individual liberty to these cultures any more than you can teach a cat to eat with a fork.

progressoverpeace on December 15, 2008 at 10:12 PM

Nuke and build a parking lot for our military.

And it was, too. The North was absolutely the agressor. It just so happens that it also had the morally superior cause.

anuts on December 15, 2008 at 12:48 PM

Can you explain what right(s) the Colonies had to secede from Kingdom of Great Britain that the Southern states didn’t have when they wanted to secede from the North in 1861?

“President George W. Bush Speaks to Troops in Iraq”

…………. that’s the American Free Press for ya!

You can’t bring self-rule with individual liberty to these cultures any more than you can teach a cat to eat with a fork.

Sensible Iraqis will understand that if that shoe were thrown at Saddam, the reporter would (probably) have been hung in the town square immediately.

mike_NC9 on December 15, 2008 at 4:08 PM

Well, the only reason he’s off the hook is that the case is so high-profile. In normal circumstances, the reporter would have been skinned alive by an elite cadre of Jewish ninjas before the second shoe hit the floor.