Iraq and Bush's legacy

[Shady]

It looks like the U.S. is going to have no choice but to try to negotiate the best deal possible with the Iranian theocracy that America strengthened by removing their number one enemy - Saddam Hussein.

See, now if you had said the Iranian theocracy that America (Jimmy Carter) strengthened by removing the Shah. I could have agreed with you, and, you would have been correct.

[Black Dog]

They bombed after '91 under UN authority, when Saddam was disobeying rules he was to operate under. At the time of 2003, the UN had taken a rather pro Saddam stance, and the US was trying to build a coalition and invade with UN blessings as before. Bombing runs within Iraqi borders would have thwarted that effort.

It would be a simple matter to invoke the same authority to bomb WMD targets in Iraq during the run up. unless you feel the earlier bombing campaigns were illigitimate or indefensible. Besides, we all know the pursuit of a UN mandate was little more than window dressing.

The fact remains BD, that Iraq sent 140 fighter jets to Iran, rather than have them destroyed by US forces in '91. This is a precedent and could have been done in the run up to the US invasion of 2003. You have more faith in Saddam than I.

No, I have faith in the evidence which shows no active WMD programs after 1991. Precedent or not, there's nothing there-not just weapons, but evidence of weapons.

I don't believe he would destroy his WMD just because the UN told him to.

I believe he did, but being Saddam, felt it was in his best interests to make the U.S. believe otherwise.

[GostHacked]

BC,

Yes..you are still dodging. Insulting another nation's democratic election process will get you nowhere. There is no way for you to reconcile this dichotomy, is there?

Was never mine to begin with. But that does not mean I cannot make it mine. And it does not mean I cannot change it. Well if my truths hurt you, then .. actually I don't really care, just because of the level of concern you have displayed. Most elections around the globe are pure farces anyways, so I will insult everyone else at the same time... will that make you feel better? OH better lump Canada in there (eventhough this thread is not about Canada). This is the only way you will feel better.

About the MSM, they are the most widely available news source around. So yes, if they don't tell the truth, they are part of the problem. Not the solution.

Now you are talking in circles. The "joke" only begins and ends with George W. Bush?

The joke is a long running one. Bush's father was a part of it. You won't even admit that there was deceit in how the whole current administration carried out its plans. You won't even admit the MSM made false claims, and that is one of the reasons why it is a joke. You clearly say that whatever is on the MSM is not what the real plan was. So how else am I to take this? Pure and simple it is a joke, albeit a bad one.

The joke is that Iraq was a threat. You know it wasn't I know it wasn't. So why did the MSM along with the talking points from the Bush Administration show us a different picture. Maybe you are having problems with the definition of some of the words.

Edited June 3, 2008 by GostHacked

[gc1765]

The fact remains BD, that Iraq sent 140 fighter jets to Iran, rather than have them destroyed by US forces in '91.

Saddam did not send fighter jets to Iran so that the U.S. wouldn't find out about them. The U.S. already knew they had them, so to try to compare that to removing chemical weapons so that they wouldn't be found is comparing apples to oranges.

[sharkman]

Saddam did not send fighter jets to Iran so that the U.S. wouldn't find out about them. The U.S. already knew they had them, so to try to compare that to removing chemical weapons so that they wouldn't be found is comparing apples to oranges.

If that is the only quibble you have, I must be doing alright. The US knew Saddam possessed WMDs since Saddam had used them on Iran. But at the end of the day, no one knows if Saddam sent what was left of his WMD away or had any left either. Here we are several years later and hopefully Iraq will continue on it's way to a thriving country that can take its place among the more prosperous nations in the region.

[GostHacked]

Saddam did not send fighter jets to Iran so that the U.S. wouldn't find out about them. The U.S. already knew they had them, so to try to compare that to removing chemical weapons so that they wouldn't be found is comparing apples to oranges.

So, there was a similar incident during the first gulf war where Iraq sent fighters to Iran. Or were those people defecting seeking asylum.? Why would I send my planes to the guy who I have been fighting with for decades? Why would I send my planes to my enemy when another stonger enemy is at my doorstep. Not like Saddam threw up a white flag at all. You do realize this is lunacy. So Iraq had sent planes to Iran on two different occasions with a timespan of more than 10 years.

The US already knew the planes were in Iran because Saddam did not want to hide them. Huh?

Like BD said, there is no evidence of the manufacturing of chemial weapons, along with the absense of the chemical weapons. But the US knew they had them? And to this day cannot deliver any solid evidence to support their claims.

Wonder why Saddam did not use the chem weapons to stave off the invading force. He was more than happy to lay the chemical weapons on Kurds in his own country. So why not use them on the infidels?? I think this is something that could be discussed more.

[gc1765]

But at the end of the day, no one knows if Saddam sent what was left of his WMD away or had any left either.

Why would he do that? According to your link, Saddam sent the fighter jets to Iran so that they wouldn't be destroyed. Why would Saddam care if the U.S. found his chemical weapons? Without those weapons, Saddam knew he was a dead man - with those weapons he had his only chance of staying in power. Don't you think Saddam would have chose to stay in power?

[gc1765]

Wonder why Saddam did not use the chem weapons to stave off the invading force. He was more than happy to lay the chemical weapons on Kurds in his own country. So why not use them on the infidels?? I think this is something that could be discussed more.

Precisely my point!

[M.Dancer]

You know, there was more than one reason why chemical weapons made it to the table after the first world war....being dreadful was one of them....

Chemical weapons are very effective against sheep, cows and civilians is dusty primitive villages...they work fairly well against untrained Iranians fighting from trenches as if it was the first world war.....and they make a terrorist wet.

But against modern armies they are more trouble than they are worth. The are prone to being blown back in your face as the wind changes, they can be neutralised through defensive measures and they invite massive retaliatory action.

And those reasons as well as the horrific damage they could do if dropped by dirigibles and air ships on urban populations is why they made it to the Geneva arms talks..

[WIP]

See, now if you had said the Iranian theocracy that America (Jimmy Carter) strengthened by removing the Shah. I could have agreed with you, and, you would have been correct.

Well the Shah is ancient history now! I remember that story well, and the problems didn't begin with Carter's efforts to remove the Shah and replace him with a lackey that was supposed to appease the Iranian masses -- the problems then, just as now, is that the Carter Administration never bothered to try to get more than a superficial understanding of what was going on inside Iran. The unrest had been going on for several years, and the Shah was opposed from all sides within the country for autocratic rule, for attempts to promote the traditional Iranian religion of Zoroastrianism, for spending most of Iran's oil wealth gained during the 70's, on the military and new weapons -- this is a point that's lost on conservatives today, but even though the Shah was considered a strong U.S. ally, there was a great deal of anger because Iran was the point-man in the OPEC strategy to drive up oil prices as far as possible! The Shah was only a U.S. ally of convenience, and just like Saddam, he would have turned on the West as soon as he felt he was strong enough to achieve his goal of making Iran the regional power in the Middle East. He was intending to take military control of the Persian Gulf, which would have given him control of most of the OPEC countries' oil shipments....and of course his goal was not to provide American motorists with cheap gasoline! If the Shah's strategy was successful, we would be talking about him in the same exact terms we discuss the rule of Saddam Hussein today!

Enough of that! Carter's first mistake was trying to support the Shah at all costs early on, and only giving in to the replacement strategy after the horses were out of the barn and Ayatollah Khomeini had already made the plane ride from his exile in Paris to land right in the Iranian capital, and find no Iranian police or military units willing to challenge the Ayatollah and his supporters. In other words, the game was over even before Carter tried to depose the Shah!

But enough of disasters of the past! Let's focus on the present tsunami!

[bush_cheney2004]

...The joke is that Iraq was a threat. You know it wasn't I know it wasn't. So why did the MSM along with the talking points from the Bush Administration show us a different picture. Maybe you are having problems with the definition of some of the words.

No, th joke is that you think it even matters. The facts are rather straightforward going back to 1991: Regime Change, by any means necessary. The US/UK/AUS agreed to move on Saddam, and that was that. Not very complicated except for navel gazers wondering what happened to the USA that never existed.....except in their mind.

[GostHacked]

No, th joke is that you think it even matters. The facts are rather straightforward going back to 1991: Regime Change, by any means necessary. The US/UK/AUS agreed to move on Saddam, and that was that. Not very complicated except for navel gazers wondering what happened to the USA that never existed.....except in their mind.

The shining beacon of Freedom right?

Come on dude. You know as well as I do that Bush and his cohorts played with the 'intelligence' to make it seem like a bigger threat than what it actually was. Sure regime change was on the list, but if the Bush administration had said .. well we are doing it just for Regime Change... to get someone in there that will be sympathetic to the United States, it would have failed miserably. Even with 9/11 it would have been a near impossible sell to the american population. But you needed to word it in a way to pull the fast one over the american population to support something that was never the case.

Polls near the beginning of the invasion showed that there was a majority support of the invasion by the american people. Now since all the facts and f*ckups regarding intelligence, those polls are split down the middle ....

Scenario 1

No 9/11. No anger from within the US. No real scapegoat like reason for aggression.

Scenario 2

9/11 happened, and the real reasons for aggression were stated.

Scenario 3

9/11 happened, chicken little and little boy cried loudly, but once the soother was in their mouths, they said those reasons never really mattered. Well they did but you know, lies. But then again, those reasons still might change.

Which scenario will be easier to dupe the public into a false sense of what the war is about.

If the real reasons were touted on the MSM the populous would not have supported the war. Then you would have had a big civil problem in the US AND Iraq.

So the claims about weapons of mass descruction was false but yet Bush shouted it from the rooftops. "Don't want to wait for the smoking gun to appear in a mushroom cloud" .. but again, you fail to see this. I know it does not matter to Bush or his band of criminals.

Polls don't matter, what your own citizens say don't matter.

"Things would be alot easier if there was a dictator, as long as I am the dictator." Bush.

Eventhough you support them BC, they really don't care even what you say. I see that as a problem. You will support them, but they will not support you back. Leaders you can trust?

Say one thing, do another. I will do one thing, but say something different and then change up the reasons later on. Nothing but pure deception to attain those goals. Those are the leaders you should not trust, but you are putting a lot of faith in them.

----

Hopefully you can be honest for this one question. Do you think the way the Bush administration put forth the evidence regarding Iraq and the way it was tied into 9/11.. do you think the way they did it was upfront or was it deceitful in any way? I don't suspect it, but I would like an honest answer.

[bush_cheney2004]

So the claims about weapons of mass descruction was false but yet Bush shouted it from the rooftops. "Don't want to wait for the smoking gun to appear in a mushroom cloud" .. but again, you fail to see this. I know it does not matter to Bush or his band of criminals.

And what you fail to see is that it doesn't matter. Any pretext for a desired confrontation is acceptable if it gets the job done, from false claims about genocidal Serbians to commies coming over the North Pole. The Bush administration executed policy consistent with a continuum going back to 1991, a policy which pivoted around the existence of WMD (see Operation Desert Fox and President Clinton's speech). Two prime ministers who are smarter than President Bush concurred.

Eventhough you support them BC, they really don't care even what you say. I see that as a problem. You will support them, but they will not support you back. Leaders you can trust?

What I support is the continued hegemony of the United States and western liberalism. Presidents will come and go while that objective is realized.

Ask not what your country can do for you.....JFK

Say one thing, do another. I will do one thing, but say something different and then change up the reasons later on. Nothing but pure deception to attain those goals. Those are the leaders you should not trust, but you are putting a lot of faith in them.

I trust results, not really giving a damn about political rhetoric, except as a means to an end. That's why I am careful to report the history of the United States B.B. (before Bush). America is the same as it ever was. It is very naive to judge the Bush Administration without such historical context. We have always been "Damn Americans...I hate those bastards".

Hopefully you can be honest for this one question. Do you think the way the Bush administration put forth the evidence regarding Iraq and the way it was tied into 9/11.. do you think the way they did it was upfront or was it deceitful in any way? I don't suspect it, but I would like an honest answer.

I sure hope it was as deceitful as needed to maximize the success of policy execution. That's what administrations do (and not just American ones). America did not get to be the world's lone superpower by playing fair and never telling a lie....Come on, Dude.