punked Posted March 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 Whatever...it worked. Congress voted for regime change in 2002 based on the long history with Iraq, and Iraq was invaded in 2003. Or as Chris Rock once said, "If you make us come over there, we're bringing an ass kicking with us". Congress voted on trumped up lies. It wasn't just the world Bush lied to there BC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) Congress voted on trumped up lies. It wasn't just the world Bush lied to there BC. Nope...if you go back and read the Congressional resolution for war (2002) and Iraq Liberation Act (1998), it was a long list of Saddam's transgressions stemming from the 1991 Gulf War in addition to any WMD issues, real or imagined. George Bush didn't just show up in 2001 and invent the conflict out of thin air. As for the "world", two other prime ministers agreed and the rest didn't really matter, including Canada which we now know wanted plausible deniability while supporting the invasion. It was a shock to Canadians to find out that 'moral outrage' didn't count for a damn thing, and Canada's "allies" didn't really need them to do the dirty deed, same as in Gulf War I. Edited March 18, 2013 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 Nope...if you go back and read the Congressional resolution for war (2002) and Iraq Liberation Act (1998), it was a long list of Saddam's transgressions stemming from the 1991 Gulf War in addition to any WMD issues, real or imagined. George Bush didn't just show up in 2001 and invent the conflict out of thin air. As for the "world", two other prime ministers agreed and the rest didn't really matter, including Canada which we now know wanted plausible deniability while supporting the invasion. It was a shock to Canadians to find out that 'moral outrage' didn't count for a damn thing, and Canada's "allies" didn't really need them to do the dirty deed, same as in Gulf War I. Nope he invented the reasons for conflict out of thin air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 Nope he invented the reasons for conflict out of thin air. If you say so....remember he was 'your president'....LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 If you say so....remember he was 'your president'....LOL! Speaking of Presidents... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 If you say so....remember he was 'your president'....LOL! Sure was my President who I trusted until we all came to know better. My lying president. Powell lied and people died. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) Sure was my President who I trusted until we all came to know better. My lying president. Powell lied and people died. Sure he was (wink wink)....At the time, President Bush had the highest approval ratings of any president since such things were recorded. Saddam should have fled to Canada ! Edited March 18, 2013 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 Sock it to me ???? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoafIREAMD4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 lol...yeah...a bit out of his element. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 The Communists...particularly the NVA...could give as good as they took. No need to hold their hands. They started it, after all...and finished it. Not too shabby. The fact that the South couldn't hold on even backed by American air power, is proof that the USA shouldn't have been there at all. The puppet government in the South had little popular support and didn't deserve to be there. Only heavy airstrikes by US and VNF forces saved the day during the 1972 Year of the Rat/Easter invasion of South Viet-Nam by the North. When you say "saved the day", you mean these airstrikes killed untold numbers of people whose crime was to defend their homeland from wealthy foreign invaders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 Yes...I recall some of those Carter moments. But it was the Shah who pulled the plug on his own reign which had started in 1941 after the removal of his pro-Nazi father by Stalin and Churchill. He didn't want to escalate the crisis, apparently, after his last crack-down failed to stop the growing protests. Yes...you were there weren't you? But if that's really so how could you have overlooked that the real reason for the hatred against the Shah was due to his being installed after the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh was overthrown. Nixon was just one more of a list of monsters whose consequential actions live to haunt us to this day. So you were really there eh - like, there in spirit with the Nixon's of the west you mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 Yes...you were there weren't you? But if that's really so how could you have overlooked that the real reason for the hatred against the Shah was due to his being installed after the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh was overthrown. Nixon was just one more of a list of monsters whose consequential actions live to haunt us to this day. So you were really there eh - like, there in spirit with the Nixon's of the west you mean? The 'King of Persia' and the 'President of Iran' are two different things. Like it or not...the Shah was put on the Peacock Throne by Joseph Stalin and Winston Churchill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 President Richard M. Nixon attends Shah's funeral in Cairo (1980): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI-SzucF_1E Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 The 'King of Persia' and the 'President of Iran' are two different things. Like it or not...the Shah was put on the Peacock Throne by Joseph Stalin and Winston Churchill. Not the Shah that Carter supposedly cocked up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 The same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 The same. Yes....Nixon understood...Carter didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 Yes....Nixon understood...Carter didn't. Him 'n Kiss...good cop, bad cop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 Errr...bad cop, good cop? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 Errr...bad cop, good cop? Yeah.....bad cop, good cop. How did that work out ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 Well...it was like you better deal with Henry because Dick just wants to fire-up the B-52s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 (edited) President Truman discusses the menu with the Shah. http://www.trumanlibrary.org/photographs/view.php?id=37132 Edited March 19, 2013 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 More possible evidence Nixon is a selfish arse-wiper. On the plus side, I highly doubt anything major would have come from the peace talks, even if the US agreed to completely withdraw from Vietnam. The best thing that could have come may have been some kind of ceasefire for a short period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 More possible evidence Nixon is a selfish arse-wiper. On the plus side, I highly doubt anything major would have come from the peace talks, even if the US agreed to completely withdraw from Vietnam. The best thing that could have come may have been some kind of ceasefire for a short period. You don't seem to understand that the war didn't need the US to start or continue. The NVA had zero interest in a cease fire in 1968 or in 1972. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 That was a war created by foreign colonists that could not let go. Same thing happened with Portugal/Angola/Mozambique. The harder to let go,the bigger the loss. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 That was a war created by foreign colonists that could not let go. Same thing happened with Portugal/Angola/Mozambique. The harder to let go,the bigger the loss. WWWTT Actually, the roots of that particular conflict go back to the CID's efforts in WW2 to create partisan groups in Indochina to fight the Japanese. This is how Ho rose to the surface as a leader, etc. At first, he was VERY pro-US...but it was events in the early 50s that had the former friend branded a Communist...which he was actually not, of course. More a Nationalist with a good dash of socialism. This created the two separate camps. The French being greedy idiots came later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.