Could Bush have prevented 911 & Iraq?

Way to avoid the ?

 

Now THAT is what I call a pathetic attempt at covering your ass.

 

At least he has postive rep. points now. How? I do not know.

 

I've never acted like America doesn't have nukes. I know we have nukes and that Bush is currently trying to get another nuke project funded, who the eff cares because there is no way Bush will nuke a nation.

No we won't use WMDs because to be elected president of the US you need to be an intelligent person and no intelligent person would unleash WMDs on the world because they would know what the repurcussions would be. Regular bombs and missiles do not have long lasting effects such as the nuclear fallout of a nuke or water and soil contamination from nukes, chemical warheads and biological warheads. Also one regular bombs or missile doesn't have the capability to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people at a time, therefore they are not Weapons of MASS Destruction. Most nations in the world will not use nukes because they know what will happen if they do. Even crazy leaders like Kim Jong Il and the Mullahs of Iran won't use WMDs against a country because they know that their regimes would quickly end. However, the danger of these countries having WMDs is that they can sell them to terrorists who will in turn use them because the worst thing that can happen to them is that they die and that is a good thing for them since they believe sacrificing yourself guarantees admission into heaven.

America on the other hand will not sell WMDs to terrorists so by the US, and other major nations like Israel, France, and Britain, have nukes it is not so much of a threat to anybody as it is a deterrent to other nations using WMDs against them.

 

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

Check this picture out of your hero.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm

 

Don Rumsfeld is my hero? I have never liked Rumsfeld and wish Bush would've accepted his resignations when he offered them after the Abu Grhaib incident.

In 1983 Saddam wasn't gassing his own people and he was seen as the lesser of 2 evils in his war with Iran. Saddam was/is a secularist and the Iranian Mullahs supported fundamentalist Islam and where therefore seen as a bigger threat. At the time it suited America to use Saddam as a means to an end, sure it was wrong but it wasn't the first time America has supported the wrong person

 

That one statement you made is another reason why I believe he should've been left in power. What if the new president the people of Iraq elect is a fundamentalist?

Everyone knows that Hussein is a horrible horrible man, but among the things he did not tolerate was radical islamic fundamentalists. I believe that after the first Gulf war, we were able to hold him in check and he would not have gassed his own people again, despite the many other human rights violations. It may surprise some of you to know that the United States government is not as self righteous as some believe. We support other governments that have major human rights violations (Egypt, Saudi Arabia), but because they serve our agenda, we look the other way.

 

He was the choice of a people to lead their land...Through a direct vote of the people of that land...

Hussein was not.