President Bush The Smarter Has Passed Away

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It was in no wise a blunder, for three reasons:

1.  Under the UN Resolutions pertaining to the invasion, 'taking out Saddam' would have been illegal.

2.  It would have violated assurances given to other Arab countries (and to coalition members) that the US goal was ONLY to liberate Kuwait.

3.  Consequential of #2, it would have shattered US relations with ALL Arab states, resulting in the removal of your bases in those countries, and skyrocketing the price of oil.

In retrospect, not removing Saddam, rather than being a blunder, was a wise bit of statesmanship on Bush's part.

Boru

And what would the toothless UN do about it?
"Violated Assurances" is a rather large phrase for Arab countries

The UN could have done nothing about it, but that’s immaterial. The elder Bush was a pretty staunch advocate of the rule of law and a nation honouring its commitments (as opposed to the international thuggery you seem to be advocating).

I don’t really get the point of your second comment - could you expand on it?

Boru

[Amarok]

Indeed the Bush Jr model is " If we think were in the right fuck international law " That's fucking dangerous.

[Cherub786]

I don’t really get the point of your second comment - could you expand on it?

Boru

Well you said if the US went into Iraq back in the First Gulf War, it would have violated assurances given to Arab states at the time. So I said "violated assurances" is a rather large word for Arab countries to employ.
Arab states are all run by a bunch of thugs and dictators. They have no right to protest anything.

[Amarok]

Well you said if the US went into Iraq back in the First Gulf War, it would have violated assurances given to Arab states at the time. So I said "violated assurances" is a rather large word for Arab countries to employ

They still have that right 

Arab states are all run by a bunch of thugs and dictators. They have no right to protest anything.

Again that's a fucking dangerous mentality

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I don’t really get the point of your second comment - could you expand on it?

Boru

Well you said if the US went into Iraq back in the First Gulf War, it would have violated assurances given to Arab states at the time. So I said "violated assurances" is a rather large word for Arab countries to employ.
Arab states are all run by a bunch of thugs and dictators. They have no right to protest anything.

So, you seem to be saying that it is permissible for your government to lie and to break commitments made to other nations, is that correct?

Boru

[Amarok]

Well you said if the US went into Iraq back in the First Gulf War, it would have violated assurances given to Arab states at the time. So I said "violated assurances" is a rather large word for Arab countries to employ.
Arab states are all run by a bunch of thugs and dictators. They have no right to protest anything.

So, you seem to be saying that it is permissible for your government to lie and to break commitments made to other nations, is that correct?

Boru

Then use that to invade a nation

That's freaking scary

[Cherub786]

Well you said if the US went into Iraq back in the First Gulf War, it would have violated assurances given to Arab states at the time. So I said "violated assurances" is a rather large word for Arab countries to employ.
Arab states are all run by a bunch of thugs and dictators. They have no right to protest anything.

So, you seem to be saying that it is permissible for your government to lie and to break commitments made to other nations, is that correct?

Boru

Not all nations, only those regimes that themselves should be overthrown.

[Brian37]

So, you seem to be saying that it is permissible for your government to lie and to break commitments made to other nations, is that correct?

Boru

Not all nations, only those regimes that themselves should be overthrown.

Where does it stop? China is an oppressive dictatorship so is North Korea.

I hate your damned mentality. It isn't a matter of always stepping in, or never stepping in. Global diplomacy isn't that simplistic.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So, you seem to be saying that it is permissible for your government to lie and to break commitments made to other nations, is that correct?

Boru

Not all nations, only those regimes that themselves should be overthrown.

What criteria do you use for determining that?

Boru

[Amarok]

So, you seem to be saying that it is permissible for your government to lie and to break commitments made to other nations, is that correct?

Boru

Not all nations, only those regimes that themselves should be overthrown.

Which gives the whole premise of international moot and reduces it to a countries personnel sense of righteousness.

---

Every evil regime thinks their the good guys