War, Casualties, Saddam, Bush, Etc.

[budullewraagh]

i heard rumors the british got him a month before iraq happened

[Phi for All]

from his memoir, "A World Transformed" by George Bush Sr. (1998)

 

Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.

And now U.S. central command chief Gen. John Abizaid that there are more areas in Iraq under rebel control today than there were last year. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=655&e=3&u=/oneworld/20040910/wl_oneworld/6573937651094806675

 

An analogy to help put this in perspective: A man, let's call him W, decides to drive on the other side of the highway to get where he's going. The other people riding with him tell him it's not a good idea and give him many good reasons not to. W's own father wrote a book and included a part about why it would be foolish. He ignores all of them and finds a way to cross the median to the other side. Immediately he's met with hostile resistance in the form on oncoming traffic. His car suffers many dings and dents, but it's the biggest, heaviest vehicle on the road and he manages to bull his way through for quite a while. The police try to tell him he is exceeding his authority and causing major damage that may not be capable of being repaired. W goes ahead and keeps driving, telling the others in his vehicle that since they've come this far and sustained this much damage already, it would be dumb to turn back now and they should stay the course.

 

So ask yourself this: Should W cross back to his own side of the highway since all the bad things his passengers predicted are now happening? Should he continue to try and bull his way forward even though the traffic ahead seems to be getting heavier and the risks even greater? Should the passengers continue to let W drive, since he's clearly shown that he doesn't listen to reason and is completely unconcerned with their safety and welfare?

[Sayonara]

It amazes me that after all the long discussions we have had about Iraq, people still think that the key to justifying the invasion and occupation of the country is their opinion of a single person.

[atinymonkey]

Do you know why Paris has so many trees?

 

So Germans could have shade.

 

Yes' date=' mock the French. It's not as if they sacrified millions of men to defend the freedom of democracy.

 

There was a time when the world believed in this country, and everyone looks to us for help.

 

I'm not clear to what you are alluding. There was a time when America fought to avoid defending freedom in WW2. If your inferring the world needed the US as it's saviour, don't forget the efforts were rated third after Russia and the UK.

 

Why dont we just pull everyone out of every country, and not help anyone anymore. Just protect our own, and clean out country of the illegals. Just completely Isolate ourselves from the world and let someone else worry about it.

 

The US did this once before, and hung up it's self proclaimed mantle of the "Worlds Policeman" after the abysmal results in Somalia. The simple fact is that the US is far away from being self sufficient. The US's trillion dollar debt prohibits it's isolation without becoming a destitute state. The US needs the world more than the world needs the US. In fact, most economies would be greatly improved without the US siphoning out funds and oil to support it's increasing consumer culture. It's economics that force the US to perform it's foreign pollicies, to protect it's assets outside the states. Without foreign assets, the US would quite literally crumble.

 

If the US performs illegal actions, they can expect countries to be antagonistic towards the policy:-

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm

 

If the US want's support as the world policeman, they have to stop breaking the law.

 

As for the Illegals, I suppose you have a point. The US should really hand back the land to the Native Americas.

[Dave]

I thought this quote from that link atinymonkey gave was quite amusing:

 

"To do this 51 days before an American election reeks of political interference."

 

Yes, a whole 51 days everyone!!! Most people will forget this within about a week, tops, I'd say. They get all the "interference" they deserve tbh.

[Treadstone]

"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

 

Thats an interesting quote....i wonder what Bush Sr. said to Bush Jr. when he first talked about going to war with iraq?

 

Nathan

[john5746]

According to Bush HE NEVER ASKED HIS DAD about invading Iraq. He referred to "higher" father. So God told him to do it?

 

I guess the US owns the rights to "fire and brimestone" these days.

[LucidDreamer]

According to Bush HE NEVER ASKED HIS DAD about invading Iraq. He referred to "higher" father. So God told him to do it?

 

I guess the US owns the rights to "fire and brimestone" these days.

 

Well we should. From what I hear Bush has a form of direct communication with God--kind of like the bat phone from Batman.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Question:

 

Why do we blame Bush for getting us into Iraq on faulty intelligence? If you had intelligence that said [country] was making WMDs, wouldn't you invade? You can't say "oh but the intelligence was not right" because he didn't know that yet. He may have started the plans long before they discovered that the intelligence was wrong or just doubtful. Couldn't it be a mistake?

 

note: I may be totally wrong, so don't flame me for it. I admit that it may be all wrong.

[Dave]

I'm pretty much certain that the intelligence that said this was pretty dodgy in terms of reliability. After all, we're not finding any now - in fact, we're finding the complete opposite.

 

To be honest, if it was a mistake, then this just makes America look even worse, what with ignoring the UN and then proceeding to invade a country on dodgy information.

[budullewraagh]

Well we should. From what I hear Bush has a form of direct communication with God--kind of like the bat phone from Batman.

what the hell? CHRISTIANITY IS THE HIPPIE RELIGION! seriously. it's all about PEACE, LOVE PROSPERITY AND HAPPINESS!

 

? If you had intelligence that said [country] was making WMDs, wouldn't you invade?

he knew the intelligence wasnt true before the war. when he got into office he immediately tried to find a way to attack iraq. you know the conspiracy.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You didn't read all of my post. Maybe the war was already in advanced planning and it was impractical to cancel.

 

Besides, isn't Saddam evil anyways?

[Dave]

You didn't read all of my post. Maybe the war was already in advanced planning and it was impractical to cancel.

 

Besides' date=' isn't Saddam evil anyways?[/quote']

 

I don't believe that anyone would commit their entire nation to war and condemn another just simply because it's impractical. Bush is cold, but not that cold.

[budullewraagh]

heh, i wish i could believe that dave. if you read richard clarke's book, you'd understand; cheney told the cia to do everything possible to find a link between iraq and bin laden after the 9/11 attacks. when they couldnt find anything he sent a memo stating "WRONG ANSWER" and made them try again. bush had been trying to justify war before then also (refer to clarke's book)

 

Besides, isn't Saddam evil anyways?

then why not attack north korea? kim jong-il is so much worse than hussein. you cant attack a nation just because you dont like their leader. look what happened to the us

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If we attack North Korea there'll be even MORE controversy.

 

(maybe we found that North Korea has a stash of oil)

[budullewraagh]

of course. i would never endorse that; we'd get our asses kicked. they have an army of 6.3 million troops, nukes and tens of thousands of artillery pieces

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I don't agree, but I won't argue, as that's offtopic.

 

Anyways, he might have just said "let's get an evil country, which shall we kill first?" but then, after Iraq, decided that doing more was too risky.

[budullewraagh]

but you see, doing that in the first place is bloody immoral

[Phi for All]

I'm trying to find linkage to the original story that the Pentagon wanted to move into Syria after the initial invasion of Iraq. Many thought that when Israel targeted a Palestinian training camp in Syria a year ago it was a signal for the US to invade. I think the idea was to press for a total remake of the Middle East, forcing Jordan's relationship to the US to the limit and if all was successful, turn our sights on Iran.

 

Some say Bush wanted Iraq from day one in office, then saw where it might take him once he had his military advisors show him the sims and stategies. Glad he didn't get totally mad with power, look where we'd be today.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0%2C2763%2C937105%2C00.html

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030502-025522-6767r

[Sayonara]

Anyways, he might have just said "let's get an evil country, which shall we kill first?" but then, after Iraq, decided that doing more was too risky.

Iraq's "evil" now is it?

[atinymonkey]

of course. i would never endorse that; we'd get our asses kicked. they have an army of 6.3 million troops, nukes and tens of thousands of artillery pieces

 

Not to mention their big brother.

 

[Skye]

Stating now that the intelligence was flawed doesn't really help the US from looking bad, considering that a large part of the reason there was no resolution supporting the invasion was because the intelligence provided to the UN (by Powell) was unconvincing.

[Dave]

Not to mention their big brother.

 

Quite. They have ICBM's if I remember rightly.

[budullewraagh]

sorta. i heard that they could hit california but not much farther.

[john5746]

To be fair, we had a history with Saddam. He was supposed to comply with UN resolutions he had agreed to after the first butt-kicking. He wouldn't comply fully. I think Bush rushed troops there too quickly and once they were there, he felt he had to proceed.

 

I understand faulty intelligence leading to belief in WMD's. But I don't understand the immediate threat. This stuff was already in the plans since Clinton and the momentum was on our side at the time.

 

If Bush wins, he won't have to worry about re-election. I hope he doesn't try to expand the war to the next "evil empire"