Bush Talks To God

Yeah, science is just another religion, really. I dont really care what people belive in, just dont force it on everyone else.

 

Not all atheists are nice or think things though logicaly..If a atheist had chosen to go into Iraq.. then this would be a well thought out plan and completly logical i imagine..?.
Could it be that you don't like the dicision he made along with many other nations with varying 'beliefs'...

There is incessant debate about it: have theists or atheists historically caused more suffering and death? When you add up the numbers, opposing Stalin with Torquemada, the Chinese Revolution with the Crusades, have atheists or theists killed more, tortured more? And was Hitler a theist or an atheist, anyway?


http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/violence.html

I don'tthink not believing in a god gives you any more moral ground or brain power.. it probably makes you more willing to do things a 'godly' person would not do..but it is indvidualic i guess.. happen GWB is a christian and he speaks with god..mad in itself but many people do it... what has god told him that was 'bad'.

 

Actually Hitler went to church "maybe not often but he did"

 

More Importantly, Who Cares?..

No i am not insulting you..[it's from the link] at the end of the day it does not matter.. he still orded the deaths of millions.. Whatever he or stalin or whoever decieded not or too believe in does not change what they did or did not do.

 

For those who could read between the lines made by U.S. officials, one could tell that the U.S. was going to invade no matter what the UN did. The UN was simply a formality. I know people like to deny that, but you have to at least be willing to read between the lines. The statements coming out of the White House basically said the U.S. could invade if it wanted to, independent of the UN.


From the CNN article:

"The Bush administration reiterated its position that although it would consult with the Security Council, it is not required to get U.N. approval for U.S.-led military action if Iraq fails to comply."

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte said Iraq will be disarmed "one way or another."

Negroponte:

"If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security,"


Rummy:

"We will also continue developing humanitarian relief and reconstruction plans for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq."

.

 

Putin and leaders from other countries were concerned that the resolution might be used as an excuse for the U.S. to invade.

"The original language concerned France, Russia and China, whose representatives said such wording might be used by the U.S. as a "hidden trigger" for an attack against Iraq."

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/iraq.resolution/

.

 

well my maternal grandmother voted for him because of his religious beliefs as well.....

but she also sided with a priest (who was an accused child molestor). anyways, that priest was declothed, and she still believes that the priest did nothing wrong.

 

was there any doubt about it? Once the US sent troops to the region it was a given. The one thing that made inspection possible was the one thing that made the war inevitable. Quite ironic.

 

i think the language more than legalizes the war..


Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,



...


Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,



That legalizes it in my opinion. Whether it SHOULD have been done is another thing..

 

The complete invasion and takeover of a country and the ousting its leader can accomplish anything. It's a moot issue in that respect.

The U.S. could have carpet bombed Iraq with nuclear weapons and that would have been justified too, to some. Afterall, it could be deamed 'all means necessary'.

.

 

Resolution 678 (1990) was written up when Saddam had invaded Kuwait. At that time, the word 'restore' was used. In the resolution drawn up in 2002 'restore' was changed to 'secure' which was more appropriate because the circumstances were different than in 1990 when a war was going on. Putin and others feared that the resolution would be used as an excuse to invade. That's why they wanted the wording changed to 'secure'.

As I've said before, all of this was simply formality as far as the U.S. was concerned. The decision to invade Iraq was made shortly after 911.
.

 

This was also part of the resolution:

"Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,"

Look at the timescale also. That resolution was drafted in November 2002 and the U.S. invaded in March 2003, about a 4-month span. It was nothing but a formality.

.

 

Laughing My Fucking Ass Off