Alliedassault - View Single Post

Machette · 03-27-2006, 12:19 PM

But it surely was a plan he may have used...and thinking of an idea such as that is very unethical, by my standards..Also he insisted he was going to invade Iraq even if the U.N inspectors found no nuclear weapons...and they didn't so he ended up invading Iraq with no serious justification, even though he inisited to the public that WMD's where actually there. But you see this one case of this Iraq general who wrote that controversial book stating that the weapons were moved to syria..however in a interview the general said he didn't see them being moved but rather talked to one of the pilots who flew them out..the general also said he had not seen the WMD'S during most of the 90's when he was in office. Also if everyone is to believe this case of moving WMD's why doesn't president bush use this as a example? Their must obviously be serious flaws in this mans case.

I find myself questioning why on earth Bush led his country into a war which day by day is media outlets find new evidence that his administration deceitfully led the public to a war which they said would last only a short while and there would be no insurgency among other things..I know a good cause comes along with this war, but good causes can from other ways rather than war. Bush's ultimate goal in this war was to democratize the middle east. In 2005 there were incidents in the middle east that made it seem as if his plan was working - the whole Cedar Revolution in beirut, and the elections in egypt. But now that people are loosing faith and Bush is blaming the media for their coverage one must ask himself what causes come out of this disaster?

	(#11)
Machette is Offline Major Posts: 6,413 Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: University of Guelph	03-27-2006, 12:19 PM But it surely was a plan he may have used...and thinking of an idea such as that is very unethical, by my standards..Also he insisted he was going to invade Iraq even if the U.N inspectors found no nuclear weapons...and they didn't so he ended up invading Iraq with no serious justification, even though he inisited to the public that WMD's where actually there. But you see this one case of this Iraq general who wrote that controversial book stating that the weapons were moved to syria..however in a interview the general said he didn't see them being moved but rather talked to one of the pilots who flew them out..the general also said he had not seen the WMD'S during most of the 90's when he was in office. Also if everyone is to believe this case of moving WMD's why doesn't president bush use this as a example? Their must obviously be serious flaws in this mans case. I find myself questioning why on earth Bush led his country into a war which day by day is media outlets find new evidence that his administration deceitfully led the public to a war which they said would last only a short while and there would be no insurgency among other things..I know a good cause comes along with this war, but good causes can from other ways rather than war. Bush's ultimate goal in this war was to democratize the middle east. In 2005 there were incidents in the middle east that made it seem as if his plan was working - the whole Cedar Revolution in beirut, and the elections in egypt. But now that people are loosing faith and Bush is blaming the media for their coverage one must ask himself what causes come out of this disaster?