Why George W. Bush Really Invaded Iraq

not sure about the whole world but,

In the first Iraq war , Iraqi troops were invading Kuwait.

and George Sr. was an oil man and taught George Jr. the business and Saddam refused to comply with dozens of mandates from the UN that he agreed to when the war stopped, and the UN was taking the Oil for food Money and was glad France put up a block to Jr's request for help, because they had a two billion dollar contract to rebuild the oil field with French companies after the sanctions were lifted, and ...

Don't you read or remember?

... Saddam violated the terms of the cease-fire from that war. Therefore Bush didn't even need any more reason than that.

Thanks. And I'm glad you liked the article.

And you don't think you are being irrational by doing a google search on Pat Buchanan, finding the absolutely horrific history about him and what he stands for, and yet still "believe his theory is valid". Why? Because it's in agreement with what YOU want to believe?

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

TONI

So far all three responses support my claim that most humans can't engage in pure rational debate, because the emotions coming from the lymbic system of the brain are too powerful.

Consider Bush: he is trying to get the public to support a war against the world not by appealing to reason, but to emotions such as jingoism, fear, and hate. If he were to appeal strictly to reason, he would not be as successful.

In Bill Clinton's case, his manipulating method was to appeal to sentimental emotions, instead of reason.

About seven individuals have made posts.

A few replies were not emotional. You chose to respond to the rest that were, and thus stirred the pot.

As you want discussions void of emotion, then do not respond to those that clearly are born of emotion.

Even those with whom you disagree keep themselves informed. You may not care for their sources and resulting statements, but that works both ways, and for both sides.

Though you apparently consider yourself as able to rise above the fray and remain rational, by continuing to stir the pot you are, in reality, argumentative, just as guilty as those you criticize, and your limbic system is just as powerful.

Angeline


click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

emotional posts you speak of, but so far Asian American has NOT responded to PB's Racists remarks, his Hitler admiration, his desire to rewrite history and discount millions of dead Jews or anything important. I posted the link to just one editorial about him, the Google link would give dozens more.

Send PB back to Nixon's era where he came from.

I believe that there is no such thing as pure rational debate because each party has a Belief X to pursue and convince its audience, more often to distract attention from the real issues. Emotions cannot be eliminated in the process. Evidence of this may be through facial expressions, body language or words spoken.

I personally think that an excellent debate is base on strong arguments, examples and references to substantiate these arguments effectively in an intellectual manner, in addition to poise, and in which insults is not a part of it. The past Presidential Debate between President Bush and Senator John Kerry, both did their best. One way or the other, groups and individuals will be convinced and persuaded by their presentations.

More importantly, in a debate, consider your audience. Are they majority for x, minority for x and how much of those who are undecided? Expect to hear ?the boo boos and the clap claps?. At SE, you will have to discover that for yourself.

Politics is war without bloodshed (bashing and slandering), while war is politics with bloodshed. Politicians always makes promises to build a bridge even when there is no river and the Political Journalist invites you to drawn in it.

Welcome aboard Asian American.

Yes, I agree that we have inclinations for certain political ideas over another which have emotional undertones. So, perhaps I should state that what I mean is that when people deviate from "reasoned" debate and instead speak out of anger, hate, jingoism, disgust, etc. For example, consider a Neo-Conservative making the claim that he believes his deity wants him to support a law banning homosexual marriage, and also making the claim that he does not support affirmative action. Now, let's say that instead of "rationally" discussing these ideas, a Liberal instead calls him "racist" "bigoted" "homophobic" "hater" "nazi" etc. This is the type of thinking I don't support. Perhaps you can restate my beliefs in more objective terms.

>>>>Yes, I agree that we have inclinations for certain political ideas over another which have emotional undertones. So, perhaps I should state that what I mean is that when people deviate from "reasoned" debate and instead speak out of anger, hate, jingoism, disgust, etc.>>>>

And yet you give credibility and validity to nearly the icon of all of those emotions to Pat Buchanan. Nothing that comes from that man is reasonable or rational, but you continue to argue that his views are valid ones, while at the same time pointing the finger at those of us who vehemently disagree with PB accusing us of being the speakers using anger/hate/jingoism/disgust, etc. during the debate.

You cannot have it both ways....PB has a known history of all of those 'qualities' and you deny them heartily by giving him validity because his views mirror your own, evidently.

TONI

This is the type of thinking I don't support. Perhaps you can restate my beliefs in more objective terms. ~~~Asian American


Before I address your statement, let me introduce myself in a more concise manner ? Female, married, American/Canadian and Asian as my root. Islam is my Religion, multi-ideas are my Beliefs, and my Faith is between me and my Deity.

I did not vote for President Bush and will not in any future elections. However, he is the President and I choose to move on. My vote for future contending parties entirely depends if I am persuaded to consider what they have to offer me in the same token, being convinced thereof remains to be seen from all that was promised. In any case, I may be the undecided.

I am not particularly inclined to indulge in political debates because ?stupidity? does exist in a person who makes me bleed before my cycle is due and I can be just as stupid if I forgot to wear my thinking cap. I prefer to avoid the unnecessary stress but note that I do care to be politically informed of any past and current buzz, whether it is from the left or that of the right. More often than not, I prefer to put my opinions in creative writing (unedited of its grammars and spellings) and into multimedia arts. As far as the entirety of my political views, there?s something I am conservative and liberal about. In regards to the issue on 9-11, I am more persuaded by the conspiracy theory but not entirely convinced that it offers the absolute facts.

I am not easily convinced to support an organized agenda because it often contradicts my preference for individualism and pragmatism. I strongly oppose the War in Afghanistan and Iraq and any existing war that is taking place in any parts of the world. I condemn and denounce all forms and types of terrorism by anybody who is and are involved in the act of it.

In conclusion, please do not misunderstand that my prior response to you was specifically directed to you or anybody in general and in no way indicates that either. I am generally speaking here as I interpreted your general idea of the ?human nature?. Having been there done that, I shared my position above. As far as restating your belief in a more objective term, I can?t speak for what you believe. Your belief is just as valid as those who are passionate about theirs whether I agree or disagree. The ?boo boos and the rah rahs? is entirely up to you to discover and deal with the best of your ability if you so choose to be politically inclined with the subjects titles that you decide to share.

Thank you for your response and please continue to share what you have in mind.


CL

you and i at last have something in common...

#?stupidity? does exist in a person who makes me bleed before my cycle is due#

whereas i would say "?stupidity? does exist in a person who is a PITA and i don't have piles


.

a war against the world..."

Against the world?

We have learned things we didn't know, usually after the deaths of the Presidents over the years. Some of it I would rather not have known, as the principles were not around to respond to the accusations.

A lot of people do not believe a biography,considering them self-serving.

Over the past several administrations, the bad appears to linger more strongly than the good that was accomplished. Ammo for the next campaign.

Angeline


click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

but if thats your way to be happy beleave in those lies you seem intent on it.

you and dk and few others all belong to the crow eating leauge

were WMDs in Iraq when we invaded. Don't tell us about reality.

Dan

comment was that you still believe the WMD charade.

Dan

you refuse to let it go, admit that the majority of the WORLD believed it at that time, and you are consistently browbeating members here over the fact that BECAUSE the majority of the world BELIEVED it, anybody who accepted that belief AT THAT TIME should be persecuted over it.

AND, if there WEREN'T any, why would IRAQ officials THEMSELVES six months ago accuse the coalition of not protecting an armory that supposedly HELD those weapons based on what THEIR knowledge was?

Give this topic a rest finally.....and be happy that we DID, in fact, get to Iraq and save many more thousands of lives in the process from a tyrant. Or is that too much for even YOU to swallow and accept?

TONI

write all my posts for me, since you know the points I'm trying to make.

Unfortunately, in this case, you are absolutely mistaken as to my point.

Dan

and there was wmds were they moved since you are the "so called expert chuckle chuckle) dont mind us were trying to keep a straight face as i said that. why did the un think he had wmds??

i wont hold my breath while you read your tea leaves for an answer.

Not in so many words, of course, but it amounts to the same thing.

Thanks,

Dan