When will Bush make up his mind?

Ok, before the entire Bush brigade start accusing me of being a "Bush basher" etc., this is just an opinion. I know ThomasCrowne et al are gonna take one look at the title and draw their (metaphorical) guns....

So, why is Bush being so selective of his "help" to other countries? Why has he made sure that the US has a minimal role in Liberia, even with all the violence and destruction that has/is going on,

while during an apparent "Fit of rage", he decides that Saddam Hussein is the most dangerous man on the planet and cannot even afford enough time for proper weapons inspections before rushing in and obliterating everything with all he's got. He needs to sort his mind out. He's either a crusader for World Peace as he wanted us to believe before during and after the Iraq war, or he's just another participant in the affairs of the political World, which is how it now seems.

Of course, I'm sure he'll switch back as soon as he's gathered enough rage for North Korea......There should be rules to prevent this method of picking an enemy and destroying it without warrant. Bush has proved he does not care about other nations people by not taking much interest in Liberia. Look how long it took and how much persuasion was needed even before Bush made a minimal attempt at help. So to tell us there was no ulterior motive for the War in Iraq......he must be insane.
Bush needs to decide wether or not he's going to take his War on Terror seriously.......it's not just blowing up bad guys, George, you've got responsibilitys.

Originally posted by chebob
Ok, before the entire Bush brigade start accusing me of being a "Bush basher" etc., this is just an opinion. I know ThomasCrowne et al are gonna take one look at the title and draw their (metaphorical) guns....

So, why is Bush being so selective of his "help" to other countries? Why has he made sure that the US has a minimal role in Liberia, even with all the violence and destruction that has/is going on,

while during an apparent "Fit of rage", he decides that Saddam Hussein is the most dangerous man on the planet and cannot even afford enough time for proper weapons inspections before rushing in and obliterating everything with all he's got. He needs to sort his mind out. He's either a crusader for World Peace as he wanted us to believe before during and after the Iraq war, or he's just another participant in the affairs of the political World, which is how it now seems.

Of course, I'm sure he'll switch back as soon as he's gathered enough rage for North Korea......There should be rules to prevent this method of picking an enemy and destroying it without warrant. Bush has proved he does not care about other nations people by not taking much interest in Liberia. Look how long it took and how much persuasion was needed even before Bush made a minimal attempt at help. So to tell us there was no ulterior motive for the War in Iraq......he must be insane.
Bush needs to decide wether or not he's going to take his War on Terror seriously.......it's not just blowing up bad guys, George, you've got responsibilitys.

If you don't think Sad'am Hussein was a dangerous person you need mental help. The UN had plenty of time to do their "inspections", Sad'am had 5 years to hide his banned weapons, and do you honestly believe Hans Blix and his circus were going to find them? Sad'am attacked his own people with chemical weapons so to say that he wasn't dangerous is insane. People like you are funny, you'll attack us for going to war (ex. Iraq) to defend ourselves but when we stand in the shadows on other global problems (ex. Liberia) you complain even more. And what happens if we do go into Liberia to help the peace process? We'll get the same crap "America's the police nation, you don't belong there, ect" As for the war on terrorism, we take it very seriously if you haven't noticed....

1. There was no and will not be ANY WMD IN IRAQ.. last were destroyed by UN insteptors back at 1994.. So give it a rest..!!!

2. Let me introduce to you Mr.Bush




Sadly the plant most likely has more brain than the dude from Texas..

"1. There was no and will not be ANY WMD IN IRAQ.. last were destroyed by UN insteptors back at 1994.. So give it a rest..!!!"

Uh-huh, you keep telling yourself that, if your statement is true then I'm the next PM of Great Britian

Originally posted by Midnight Mutilator


If you don't think Sad'am Hussein was a dangerous person you need mental help. The UN had plenty of time to do their "inspections", Sad'am had 5 years to hide his banned weapons, and do you honestly believe Hans Blix and his circus were going to find them? Sad'am attacked his own people with chemical weapons so to say that he wasn't dangerous is insane. People like you are funny, you'll attack us for going to war (ex. Iraq) to defend ourselves but when we stand in the shadows on other global problems (ex. Liberia) you complain even more. And what happens if we do go into Liberia to help the peace process? We'll get the same crap "America's the police nation, you don't belong there, ect" As for the war on terrorism, we take it very seriously if you haven't noticed....

Ahem......I did not say Saddam Hussein wasn't a dangerous man, but he's not the MOST dangerous, not by far......there is no proof that he had any WMD hidden away, and I doubt there will be until the government decides to plant some. NOrth Koreas leader is a threat......HE has yet to deal with him. So why the urgency of iraq? What was so terrible that it needed immediate attention? Surely not the torture of it's own people. NOrth Korea and China have yet to be attacked for this. So it leaves them with WMD, which as we know are probably non-existant. And even if they do exist, North Korea has ADMITTED having Nuclear Weapons, but I don't see Bush getting angry. Well, not half as angry as he was going to Iraq. I don't understand how G.W.Bush thinks.......how does he pick and choose who to invade? Is it like "Pin the tail on the ass?". Well, I guess that's better left unanswered, as the answer would probably give EVERYONE nightmares.....

That if US invades it.. The China will rush to their rescue.. and also China WILL TAKE OVER TAIWAN.. So.. if US wages a war against NK it will end up losing SK and Taiwan.. even Japan and some other ASIAN PUPPETS maybe.. that is why Bush chooses to ignore Korea.. US cant hold China back and that is a fact.

Originally posted by Midnight Mutilator
"1. There was no and will not be ANY WMD IN IRAQ.. last were destroyed by UN insteptors back at 1994.. So give it a rest..!!!"

Uh-huh, you keep telling yourself that, if your statement is true then I'm the next PM of Great Britian

Maybe you should be the next PM of BG.. GB!!! at least you are doing better job lying than that amateur Blair..

But seriously.. there werent any WMD.. after 1994.. Belive me!

[Edited on 14-8-2003 by Uninen]

Sad'am admitted it himself he still had WMD in 1998; so I think we should take it he had them right? Why lie about having banned weapons? I don't think he was that insane enough to "want" his country taken over. As for NK, we are still trying to deal with them diplomatically, we can obviously just invade them but we're trying to settle the situation diplomatically first.

Uninen

Your OBL avatar is a brave (and foolhardy) presentation, but it looks in need of dialysis... the meter reading with the red flags seems to say so.

Sorry to interrupt the flow of dialogue here, I offer some information that has yet to be raised in this thread.

Bush has proved he does not care about other nations people by not taking much interest in Liberia. Look how long it took and how much persuasion was needed even before Bush made a minimal attempt at help.

It may have something to do with the diamond mining industry.... remember war is meant to be an incredibly profitable activity.

The tactics of this administration are radically unpredictable. Many have asked, when and where will the next military adventure take place? Will it be Iran, as accusations fly to and fro concerning its development of nuclear power? Will it be North Korea, which already appears to have developed nuclear bombs? Or will it be Syria, which is being denounced in both the US and Britain for developing biological and chemical weapons, for harboring Iraqi Baathists, and for funding anti-Israeli jihadists?

On the far right, some pundits have said the US should go after Saudi Arabia next. But who in their wildest imaginings could have told us last week that the US was preparing to send troops to West Africa?

So the question must be asked: Why Liberia, and why now?

What are the economic stakes in this conflict? Diamonds and gold are abundant in Liberia and neighboring Sierra Leone. Does the current US administration have allies or campaign donors who have an interest in Liberian diamonds and gold? Yes, none other than Pat Robertson and his Christian Coalition. Greg Palast reported in a recent C-Span interview that Pat Robertson is rarely seen praying off camera. However, he notes one exception. During a trip to Liberia, he told one group, before journeying to one of his mines, Lets pray for diamonds. Robertsons ties to the Bush administration and his interest in Liberian diamonds and gold have been well documented. So the question arises: What role has the Christian Coalition played in the Bush decision to send troops to Liberia at this time? Is the current instability in Liberia jeopardizing the Christian Coalitions diamond holdings? Does the instability threaten a major Bush campaign funding source?

www.hartford-hwp.com...

A provocative article.. thoughts?

MKULTRA, interesting article. Sending troops over in that area would definitely secure any leaks from occuring, especially if the US has financial gain coming from it.

The whole spreading thing seems to point to something regarding the homefront. Are they expecting huge terrorist attacks? ... or are they cocky enough to spread our troops everywhere to police the world when all hell breaks loose?

It looks good for the newspapers. Oh, we're sending people over so we can help them, we're good people, good Americans, now let us pat ourselves on the back again.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Uninen

Your OBL avatar is a brave (and foolhardy) presentation, but it looks in need of dialysis... the meter reading with the red flags seems to say so.

Yeah.. well away with OBL.. here comes the killer cat..

Seems the "UN" has a higher "agenda" in mind for the US in going into Liberia.
Here's an aspect to look at in conjunction with "current" US policy making and the greater "agenda" of others...:

"The New World Order and the Work of the United Nations"
The Aquarian Age Community:
www.aquaac.org...


This website is sponsored by the United Nations and reveals the NWO philosophies. The page which explains the work of the Aquarian Age Community, as they call themselves, has this proud quote at the header of their page at:
www.aquaac.org...


Amongst the many 'enlightening' pages in this website, one can easily find 'fascinating' articles entitled:

"The New World Order and the work of the United Nations (UN)":
www.aquaac.org...

"The World Spiritual Teacher, the Esoteric Community and the United Nations":
www.aquaac.org...

"Preparing the Way for the Reappearance of the World Spiritual Teacher, the Work of the United Nations and the World-Wide Esoteric Community":
www.aquaac.org...

Interesting reads and "implications".....

regards
seekerof

Well, it seems that the Agenda is Money and Power......what a surprise.

As for the "Age of Aquarius" group.......craziness! If this is the type of ^*$%"^ that the NWO is using to try and sway people their way......They got about as much chance of taking over the world as Cilla Black and Ben Affleck having a lovechild.

One of many chebob....one of many....

regards
seekerof