Interesting Iraq war politics


PDA






Malice
February 1, 2006, 09:03 PM
First off, let me say that I have always been VERY suspicious about the reasons we went to war in Iraq. Especialy the WMD story.

This semester I am taking a class called American Political Theory and I have a great professor named Paula J. Philbin. Its early in the semester and I already have a great deal of respect for her. Her class is great, and shes has the right idea about the way this country was designed to work, and how it contrasts to the garbage we get today.

What makes it even better, is this is her first time teaching in a long while. She has spent the last decade or so as an advisor working in the White House, with the department of defense and homeland security.

We got off on a tangent today in class discussion and got onto why the Iraq war happened. She said she was in the White House and in some of the meetings leading up to it.

One student asked, "Well, what was really going on? I mean, what was the attitude at the time as to why we were going to war?"

Her anwser suprised me. According to her, it REALLY was WMDs. Specificaly, Sadams history of using them, and the fact that UN inspectors were finding much more WMDs than he supposedly had. Also, in the months leading up to the war, sattelite photos captured convoys of 18-wheelers rushing to the Syrian boarder and back EVERY night for over a month. She said this was not classified information and has always ben miffed at the media for not reporting it.

She did admit however that there was genuine suprise in the administration as time passed and we didnt find anyhting.

Another interesting comment she made is that she got the impression that the Vice President's office seemed to be the ones who convinced Bush to move on Iraq.

Her comments have mademe re-think my opinion on the reasons we went to war. It is fun to have an insider as a teacher. :cool:

If you enjoyed reading about "Interesting Iraq war politics" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
KriegHund
February 1, 2006, 09:06 PM
Ive always considered bush an honest man.

I have not considered him particularly wise and intelligent.

The book "American Soldier" gave me a good perspective on media reporting. Read it some time.

Standing Wolf
February 1, 2006, 09:14 PM
Saddam Hussein was cunning enough to move ugly weapons into neighboring Syria?

Well, no fair!

Lone_Gunman
February 1, 2006, 09:22 PM
The Bush folks have implied that the WMD were moved out of Iraq and into Syria at some point before we invaded.

If that is the case, then why haven't they been clamoring for us to invade Syria?

If the WMD issue was serious enough to justify attacking Iraq, then is it not still serious that they are in Syria?

And if they are in Syria, why have none been used against our troops by all the foreign fighters that have come from Syria.

GoRon
February 1, 2006, 09:22 PM
The optometrist is less likely to use them than Saddam.

He probably regrets taking them now, wouldn't be surprised if there weren't some back channel agreements being made.

We don't hear much about Syria these days.

Thefabulousfink
February 1, 2006, 09:41 PM
Personally I have allways felt a little dissapointed in the Bush administration for using the WMD case as the primary one for war. I would have preferred that Bush had used real reasons that Saddam sould have been removed for.

1. He's a F***ing Murderer! This guy was the Hitler/Stalin of the Mid East, no shakey intelligence on this, it is hard fact.

2. He was giving gold to the families of Palistinian suicide bombers. And people say he didn't support terrorists, No, he just didn't support the 9/11 bombers. He did support a lot of people who would be all to happy to try a similar attack.

3. He has a history of developing and using WMDs, most of this was prior to the mid 1990's, but it shows intent. Also his actions up to the Iraq would lead a reasonable person to believe that he had WMD(he made statements that he would use them).

Now if a known murderer with a history of violence and a documented history of hatered for you shows up with his hand in his jacket, claiming to have a gun, and threatening to shoot; would you check to see if he was acctually holding a gun, tell him that he will be in big trouble if he does infact have a gun, or shoot the bastard?

KriegHund
February 1, 2006, 09:43 PM
The problem with saying "because hes a bad person" is that there are many many bad people in the world.

One thing at a time.

Thefabulousfink
February 1, 2006, 09:47 PM
And now there is one fewer.

....he's making a list and checking it twice.:evil:

shecky
February 1, 2006, 10:08 PM
And now there is one fewer.


Are there? The daily bombs going off in Iraq mus be spontaneous combustions!

Malone LaVeigh
February 1, 2006, 10:45 PM
I call BS on your prof.

We are supposed to believe that Saddam, a certifiable evil madman(TM), who had spent years of his reign amassing WMD in a bid to rule the ME (not to mention for his own protection from all of the forces that would have loved to overthrow him), made a deal with the neighboring madmen (who we know he must have held in deep respect and trust), to undertake an enormous logistical operation to move many tons of materials and equipment, and somehow they managed to pull this off immediately prior to our invasion. We must also believe he was able to order the complete dismantling of research, development, storage and deployment facilities over an area the size of California, coordinated the movement of all of that tonage across the border in a timely manner and didn't leave as much as a trace of the material or any evidence of the physical infastructure (oh, yeah, there were those 10-year-old plans buried in someone's rose garden). That his trusted evil twins in Syria haven't given a hint of their existance.

The absurdity of this whole premise is so apparent I wouldn't expect an academic, even a Bush admin one, to even try to put it over on undergrads.

Lone_Gunman
February 1, 2006, 10:50 PM
The absurdity of this whole premise is so apparent I wouldn't expect an academic, even a Bush admin one, to even try to put it over on undergrads.

Never underestimate the absurdity of idiots working in large groups.

Malice
February 2, 2006, 01:18 AM
I dont call you an idiot and expect the same.

Standing Wolf
February 2, 2006, 01:34 AM
The war against Islamic terrorist savagry was an Air Force mission. Instead of taking it on and winning the war, we've marched into yet another land war in Asia.

Lobotomy Boy
February 2, 2006, 10:35 AM
I'll give the professor the benefit of the doubt. She may well think she's telling the truth and at some level even sort of believe it herself. That's because the most effective way to lie is to tell the truth, or at least some version of the truth that a group of people have convinced themselves to buy into.

Take this example. There was no way the Bush administration was going to whip the masses into a fearful frenzy over something as abstract as the Iraqis threatening the hegemony of the petrodollar, even though that may well have been the most legitimate threat the country faced. It was much easier to use hyperbolic imagery of a vague threat that "might come in the form of a mushroom cloud." And even if the neocons were cynical enough to believe that we needed to fight a war to preserve the dollar while convincing us that it was about WMDs, they weren't good enough actors to pull it off.

The solution was to convince themselves that the war was about WMDs. Once they bought into it, at least on a superficial level, convincing most of the rest of us was easy.

bogie
February 2, 2006, 11:20 AM
Okay... Let's assume that all those Kurds, etc., just died sorta all at once, by natural causes.

Convince me.

Ezekiel
February 2, 2006, 11:46 AM
Now if a known murderer with a history of violence and a documented history of hatered for you shows up with his hand in his jacket, claiming to have a gun, and threatening to shoot; would you check to see if he was acctually holding a gun, tell him that he will be in big trouble if he does infact have a gun, or shoot the bastard?

The interesting thing with this analogy is that, if said guy is in your house and you do this, things are fine: or, at least, as "fine" as they can be when you gun someone down. If this happens on the street, and you grease him, you get charged with a homicide. Sort of screws up the analogy, no?

middy
February 2, 2006, 11:49 AM
I'm sure all those trucks going back and forth across the Syrian border were full of donuts. Syrians love donuts, doncha know...

Lone_Gunman
February 2, 2006, 01:18 PM
I dont call you an idiot and expect the same.

Who called you an idiot? I was referring the the Bush staff in general, and your professor in particular..

Master Blaster
February 2, 2006, 01:21 PM
Hmm Bash Bush use the F=word, Nothing gun related.

JohnBT
February 2, 2006, 02:10 PM
"If that is the case, then why haven't they been clamoring for us to invade Syria?"

One thing at a time. Oh, was that a rhetorical question?

John

Malone LaVeigh
February 2, 2006, 02:10 PM
The interesting thing with this analogy is that, if said guy is in your house and you do this, things are fine: or, at least, as "fine" as they can be when you gun someone down. If this happens on the street, and you grease him, you get charged with a homicide. Sort of screws up the analogy, no?
Actually, for the analogy to work, you have to go to [I]his[I] house and do the greasing.

I'm sure all those trucks going back and forth across the Syrian border were full of donuts. Syrians love donuts, doncha know...
I'm sure you've seen the pictures. Otherwise, all you would have is the second-hand word of a mid-level ex-admin academic.

middy
February 2, 2006, 03:50 PM
The photos are classified, but nobody (except you) disputes their existence. They are not proof of WMD transfer, of course, thus my donut theory...

bogie
February 2, 2006, 04:42 PM
No explanation yet for the thousands of dead Kurds in mass graves? I'm waiting...

JJpdxpinkpistols
February 2, 2006, 05:01 PM
No explanation yet for the thousands of dead Kurds in mass graves? I'm waiting...

go here, Bogie:

Stephen Pelletiere, Douglas Johnson and Lief Rosenberger, Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East (Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College, 1990), p. 52.

I think you will find that the Iranians claim at *least* partial responsibility for Halabja:

Iraq was blamed for the Halabja attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran, too, had used chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that actually killed the Kurds.

No one in the right mind claims that Iraq possessed zero WMD's throughout history. What we keep waiting to show on our TV screens are the WMD's we were assured that Saddam had, ready to hand off to terrorists.

No such thing.

I say "Lie", but others say, "Poor Intel" or "Bad Planning". Either way you cut it, it isn't the same as cheating on a cross-word puzzle or poker. Where I come from, invading foreign nations on the basis of "Poor Intel" means you might need to find a new job. Of course, the Bush-Cultists will excuse his "Poor Intel" and call me an idealogue. Er. Whatever.

bogie
February 2, 2006, 05:49 PM
Okay. I have no firearms, ammunition, or components thereof in my house.

Just to prove it, you can come look in a month.

KriegHund
February 2, 2006, 05:54 PM
Okay. I have no firearms, ammunition, or components thereof in my house.

Just to prove it, you can come look in a month.

It helps if you have personal soildiers "Guide" the inspectors, too.

JJpdxpinkpistols
February 2, 2006, 05:55 PM
Okay. I have no firearms, ammunition, or components thereof in my house.

Just to prove it, you can come look in a month.

Bogie: do you REALLY want to go down this road....AGAIN?????

Yeah? Ok...here goes:

If he gots em, show em.

No showie??????? Ok, then: No believie.

Call me simpleminded. Call me a leftie (you'd be wrong, but you can do anything you want). Call me a partisan. I kinda just like to be called "honest".

Now, if you *want* to be lied to...I have a Senator from Cali that would welcome your support as well. Oh, wait! Its not OK for her to lie? Oh, Wait...didn't we IMPEACH someone for lying? :rolleyes:

JJpdxpinkpistols
February 2, 2006, 06:15 PM
Okay. I have no firearms, ammunition, or components thereof in my house.

Just to prove it, you can come look in a month.

If I CLAIM that you have firearms, ammunition, or components in your house (and you shouldn't) isn't it my RESPONSIBILITY to prove that you did?

If I am unable to prove that you did, am i then WRONG?

In a court of law, that means my case, as the accuser (prosecutor) gets tossed out on its ear.

But in this case, we no only continued to prosecute, we have given up pretending to seek evidence.

You are a very smart person, Bogie, so I am assuming that you are having an off day. That example doesn't hold up to your usually thorough standards.

:banghead:

middy
February 2, 2006, 06:29 PM
JJpdxpinkpistols,

Congress voted for the action, and the committees had access to the same intel as the president had. So I guess they all "lied" (or were wrong, which apparently are the same thing to you).

Here are some more "liars":

Here is Clinton himself, speaking in 1998:

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program.

Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:

Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.

Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:

He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.

Finally, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained “absolutely convinced” of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.

Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A few months after Clinton and his people made the statements I have just quoted, a group of Democratic Senators, including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President

to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs.

Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House. In a letter to the new President, a number of Senators led by Bob Graham declared:

There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.

Senator Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Bush’s benefit what he had told Clinton some years earlier:

Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well:

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush’s opponents in his two campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002:

We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

And here is Gore again, in that same year:

Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 2002:

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force—if necessary—to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.

Perhaps most startling of all, given the rhetoric that they would later employ against Bush after the invasion of Iraq, are statements made by Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, also in 2002:

Kennedy: We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.

Byrd: The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.2

Liberal politicians like these were seconded by the mainstream media, in whose columns a very different tune would later be sung. For example, throughout the last two years of the Clinton administration, editorials in the New York Times repeatedly insisted that

without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year [and] future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again.

The Times was also skeptical of negotiations, pointing out that it was

hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as his country’s salvation.

So, too, the Washington Post, which greeted the inauguration of George W. Bush in January 2001 with the admonition that

[o]f all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous—or more urgent—than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade’s efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf [where] intelligence photos . . . show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons.3

All this should surely suffice to prove far beyond any even unreasonable doubt that Bush was telling what he believed to be the truth about Saddam’s stockpile of WMD. It also disposes of the fallback charge that Bush lied by exaggerating or hyping the intelligence presented to him. Why on earth would he have done so when the intelligence itself was so compelling that it convinced everyone who had direct access to it, and when hardly anyone in the world believed that Saddam had, as he claimed, complied with the sixteen resolutions of the Security Council demanding that he get rid of his weapons of mass destruction?

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20148

Of course, all of this will continue to be ignored by the oh-so-objective Bush-bashers so they can continue their joyful slandering of their favorite whipping-boy.

Again, I am no Bush apologist, I don't like a lot of his policies, but to blame the current situation in Iraq on him you'd have to be either shamefully ignorant or shamelessly partisan.

Malice
February 2, 2006, 07:05 PM
Hmm this is interesting.

I posted this because I had never heard anyone who was directly involved with the preperations to go to war with Iraq tell their side of the story.

I have never really been for the Iraq war. I turned 18 before the 2004 election and it was my first chance to vote. They had early voting at my high school but I abstained because I am Republican be I refused to vote for Bush after his first term.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, I just figured some of you would like to know the opinion of someone who was actualy there during the decision making process.

I still do not buy into the WMD story but hearing it from someone who I think is more inpartial than Bush or the white house media spokeseperson made me take it more seriously.

Headless Thompson Gunner
February 2, 2006, 07:22 PM
Here's yet another story about Saddam moving his WMD to Syria in the months before his invasion.

I have no idea whether or not the story is true. But I do know that this story keeps cropping up. It's about the only plausible theory that explains the contradictory facts: every possibile indicator pointed to the existence of WMD in Iraq, yet after the invasion none were found.

What I want to know is this: Why isn't this possibility investigated?

The mainstream meadia is doing it's level best to ignore what could be the single biggest news scoop of the decade. It would make for great political ammunition if the Bush Admin could prove they were right about Saddam having WMD. It would make great political ammunition for the Libs trying to make the case that Bush is incompetant. You can bet your life that the Israelis would want to know if this was true. So would the CIA and the UN, each for their own reasons.

The way I see it, all sorts of people should be clamoring to verify or refute the possibility that Saddam's WMD were moved to Syria. Yet absolutely nobody is. Hows come?

JJpdxpinkpistols
February 2, 2006, 07:33 PM
Of course, all of this will continue to be ignored by the oh-so-objective Bush-bashers so they can continue their joyful slandering of their favorite whipping-boy.

Again, I am no Bush apologist, I don't like a lot of his policies, but to blame the current situation in Iraq on him you'd have to be either shamefully ignorant or shamelessly partisan.

1. The buck stops here…and I say the egg came first. Bush presented the intelligence for going into Iraq. He asked permission to go. Furthermore, he is the HEAD OF OUR GOVERNMENT. He is the head of the CIA, he is the Commander in Chief. It is, ultimately, his responsibility. Are you suggesting that Bush is not responsible for his actions?

2. You somehow assume that I am NOT holding my legislators unaccountable for their support of this folly, and their complicit nature in those lies. That is an incorrect statement. I have and will continue to hold my elected reps feet to flame until they decide to either retire or they get dumped. A lie is a lie, is a lie. If you supported the impeachment of a president for lying, you should support the impeachment for lying, right? Or is it OK cuz he “has a good heart”??? Pfft. Poppycock.

3. your defense of bush is just plain silly: THEY said it too, so its ok!!!!! Uh…no. Again, you assume that I am just another Bush-hater (I am not—and I actually SUPPORTED going to war in Iraq). I now view him as an incompetent imbecile who is trashing the office of the President, but hey…you can support the liar all you want. Free country, blah, blah, blah.

JJpdxpinkpistols
February 2, 2006, 07:38 PM
The way I see it, all sorts of people should be clamoring to verify or refute the possibility that Saddam's WMD were moved to Syria. Yet absolutely nobody is. Hows come?

No bloody clue. They won't even LIE about it.

It would be rediculously easy to parade a flatbed truck with some barrels on it and call them "WMD's"...but no, we don't even get *that*.

Its as tho they are showing us a shiny object in the distance, expecting us to ignore the obvious in front of our faces. Whats really scary is that it seems to be working!

baffling!

middy
February 2, 2006, 07:45 PM
Vehemence is no substitute for coherence. :scrutiny:

scout26
February 2, 2006, 08:14 PM
We are supposed to believe that Saddam, a certifiable evil madman(TM), who had spent years of his reign amassing WMD in a bid to rule the ME (not to mention for his own protection from all of the forces that would have loved to overthrow him), made a deal with the neighboring madmen (who we know he must have held in deep respect and trust), to undertake an enormous logistical operation to move many tons of materials and equipment, and somehow they managed to pull this off immediately prior to our invasion. We must also believe he was able to order the complete dismantling of research, development, storage and deployment facilities over an area the size of California, coordinated the movement of all of that tonage across the border in a timely manner and didn't leave as much as a trace of the material or any evidence of the physical infastructure (oh, yeah, there were those 10-year-old plans buried in someone's rose garden). That his trusted evil twins in Syria haven't given a hint of their existance.

I just feel the need to point out that in GW1, the vast majority of the Iraqi Air Force flew to Iran (AKA the "Flee or Die" program), a neighboring country that Iraq had spent 8 of the previous 10 years locked in mortal combat. So packing up a bunch of stuff and shipping it in the other direction and over the Syrian border is not that big of stretch of the imagination, IMHO.

So by your logic, because we only found two airplanes buried under a big pile of sand in Iraq, means that Saddam never had an Air Force ??? :rolleyes:

GoRon
February 2, 2006, 08:30 PM
If I CLAIM that you have firearms, ammunition, or components in your house (and you shouldn't) isn't it my RESPONSIBILITY to prove that you did?


Saddam was conquered in Gulf War 1. Part of the cease fire agreement was he would prove he no longer possesed or was trying to acquire WMD.

He refused to abide by the agreement and we held him accountable.

If you have a problem with that you and your fellow travellers can get together with a better plan, candidates and get elected to office.

JJpdxpinkpistols
February 2, 2006, 08:46 PM
I just feel the need to point out that in GW1, the vast majority of the Iraqi Air Force flew to Iran (AKA the "Flee or Die" program), a neighboring country that Iraq had spent 8 of the previous 10 years locked in mortal combat. So packing up a bunch of stuff and shipping it in the other direction and over the Syrian border is not that big of stretch of the imagination, IMHO.

So by your logic, because we only found two airplanes buried under a big pile of sand in Iraq, means that Saddam never had an Air Force ??? :rolleyes:

GREAT website with pics of the exhumation of the Iraqi AF:
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_247.shtml

and according to one website, even tho over 120 planes left, they still had over 200 on the ground IN IRAQ. So it was blatantly evident that they had an air force. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/air-force-equipment-intro.htm

No one claimed that Saddam never had an Air Force, but perhaps more importantly: Saddam never tried to give his Air Force to AQ (or at least no one has ever reported it...)

No one in their right mind suggests that Saddam had zero history of WMDs. We all knew he *had* WMDs-- we gave them TO him to use against IRAN (as well as an air force, btw), and in fact, most of us BELIEVED the President when he told us that Saddam had 'em, and was wanting to give 'em to AQ.

The American citizens gave the President the benefit of the doubt, gave our sons and daughters to the war effort, all we got was this IED and an "oops, bad intel"????

Simply put: All we want is to SEE them.

Once they produce the WMDs *or* apologize for the lies/bad intel/whatever, I will again believe this fool we allowed to run the country. Until then...He lost my vote and my respect. He has also earned my contempt for the dimishing of the office he holds.

As a sidenote: I got in battle after battle with my wife over this. I supported the war going in, and she did not. I never thought that a sitting President would LIE after all that Clinton went through. I never thought another President would do that after seeing the effects on the nation. Whew...was I wrong on that one????

JJpdxpinkpistols
February 2, 2006, 09:06 PM
Saddam was conquered in Gulf War 1. Part of the cease fire agreement was he would prove he no longer possesed or was trying to acquire WMD.

He refused to abide by the agreement and we held him accountable.

I suppose one could look at it that way...If one was actually *looking for accountability*. Isn't it ironic that we "held [saddam] accountable" for his dishonesty, but we give our President a pass on his?

Don't get me wrong. I hated Uday. I was a VERY happy man when he was "removed". But like a feller that got rich after his daddy died, I can be be happy with the end result, but unhappy with the road we took to get there.

Headless Thompson Gunner
February 2, 2006, 11:06 PM
No bloody clue. They won't even LIE about it.

It would be rediculously easy to parade a flatbed truck with some barrels on it and call them "WMD's"...but no, we don't even get *that*.
...

I suppose one could look at it that way...If one was actually *looking for accountability*. Isn't it ironic that we "held [saddam] accountable" for his dishonesty, but we give our President a pass on his?
...
I don't get it. In one post you complain about Bush's honesty. Then in another post you complain about Bush's dishonesty. Hmm...

If Bush is as dishonest as the libs say he is, why isn't he willing to fake the existence of some WMD in Iraq? It certainly wouldn't be hard to do. The benifits to him personally would be extraordinary. He could go down in history as the man who saved us from the post 9/11 terrorist WMD threat. He'd have carte blanche to invade another country or three for the sake of Haliburton or Big Oil or his Daddy or whatever reason de jour the libs make up.

The only thing holding him back is his conscience. Ya see, he's a fundamentally honest man.

Of course, once you accept the premise that Bush is a moral and honest man, then you have to also accept that he was probably telling the truth about expecting to find WMD in Iraq. And with that realization, all those BushHaliburtonRoveOil conspiracy theories come crashing down. The war in Iraq may really, actually, honestly be about protecting our country. Gasp!

That seems to be a bit too much for some folks to handle. Far easier to hold the contradictory view that Bush is simultaneously honest and dishonest. :rolleyes:

Lone_Gunman
February 2, 2006, 11:35 PM
If Bush is as dishonest as the libs say he is, why isn't he willing to fake the existence of some WMD in Iraq?

Because he is also really, really dumb.

GoRon
February 2, 2006, 11:39 PM
Because he is also really, really dumb

And presiding over the most diabolical administration ever. Foiling the righteous attempts to expose their conspiracies at every turn.:rolleyes:

KriegHund
February 2, 2006, 11:42 PM
If Bush is as dishonest as the libs say he is, why isn't he willing to fake the existence of some WMD in Iraq?

I've often wondered that myself.

Bottom Gun
February 2, 2006, 11:45 PM
The WMD and liberating oppressed people from a tyrant BS is nothing but smoke and mirrors. The real reason isn’t nearly so honorable.

We are in Iraq and are presently threatening Iran under the guise of nuclear weapons to save our fiat currency from destruction.

Our money has been circling the drain ever since our corrupt politicians took us off the gold standard so they could print money unencumbered by restrictive backing.
The only thing keeping our dollar afloat these days is the deal we have with the oil cartel to accept payment in petro dollars.

Iraq started selling oil for Euros. Iran plans to begin selling oil for Euros in March.
What a coincidence. That’s the same time Jorge Bush has threatened to invade that country to save the world from nuclear weapons.

We have been bullying the world into accepting our currency and thus paying for our policy of inflation for a long time now and other countries are searching for ways to back away from our money.

Gold is selling for over $570 per ounce now. Do you think that is because gold has suddenly become more valuable? NO, it is because it takes more of our failing dollars to buy an ounce of it now. Same reason prices at the gas pumps and grocery stores are higher each time you go shopping.

If Iran can show the rest of the world it can deal in currency other than the mighty US dollar without being intimidated by us, that may very well spell the beginning of the end for our money.

March will be a very interesting month.

Malone LaVeigh
February 2, 2006, 11:54 PM
...why isn't he willing to fake the existence of some WMD in Iraq? It certainly wouldn't be hard to do. ...

The only thing holding him back is his conscience. Ya see, he's a fundamentally honest man.
Oh, puh-leez. Think for a second how hard it would be to fake something like that in the middle of a war zone. Who exactly would do it? The super-secret CIA/Republican/ninja/plumbers? How many people would have to be in the loop? Probably on the order of 100. It's not like Dick Cheney could sneak over there and hide a few drums of certifiable chem/nuke/bio agents somewhere and then go to a pay phone and call the inspectors.
Of course, once you accept the premise that Bush is a moral and honest man, then you have to also accept that he was probably telling the truth about expecting to find WMD in Iraq.
It also makes it a bit difficult to accept that he might have been a little less than a model of honesty. I guess it's part of that whole "faith-based" psychology.

Finally, there is another real good reason that Bush might not be trying to hard to convince us that the WMD were there. He doesn't care what we think. He got his war, which we know he wanted from the day he took office. Being caught (which he would be) trying something like faking the WMD is the only scenario that could really have consequences that he would give a rat's keester about.

Solo
February 3, 2006, 12:06 AM
Okay... Let's assume that all those Kurds, etc., just died sorta all at once, by natural causes.

Convince me.
Its natural to die if you are hit with mustard gas.

The only thing holding him back is his conscience. Ya see, he's a fundamentally honest man.
I doubt that there has ever been an honest politician.

cbsbyte
February 3, 2006, 12:17 AM
Lets put it simple for the Bush supporters... "Bush lied people died". Enough said.
It all about oil and ego folks...so move along.

KriegHund
February 3, 2006, 12:18 AM
Why do we even talk about it?

Not like it'll solve anything...

Headless Thompson Gunner
February 3, 2006, 12:38 AM
Oh, puh-leez. Think for a second how hard it would be to fake something like that in the middle of a war zone. Who exactly would do it? The super-secret CIA/Republican/ninja/plumbers? How many people would have to be in the loop? Probably on the order of 100. It's not like Dick Cheney could sneak over there and hide a few drums of certifiable chem/nuke/bio agents somewhere and then go to a pay phone and call the inspectors.


You're operating from the same sort of logical disconnect.

In the liberal paradigm, before the invasion the whole world knew that Saddam couldn't possibly have any WMD. Then Bush came along and orchestrated a masterful conspiracy. He did the impossible: he pulled the wool over our collective eyes and convinced us all that Saddam had WMD that never existed.

Yet now you say that Bush is mysteriously unable to repeat this feat. He can't possibly orchestrate any sort of effective conspiracy. There's no way on earth he could pull the wool over our collective eyes and convince us all that Saddam had WMD that never existed.

So which is it: Does Bush have the ability to convince the world that Saddam had WMD that never existed? Or does Bush not have the ability to convince the world Saddam possessed WMD that never existed? You can't have it both ways.


It also makes it a bit difficult to accept that he might have been a little less than a model of honesty. I guess it's part of that whole "faith-based" psychology.

Finally, there is another real good reason that Bush might not be trying to hard to convince us that the WMD were there. He doesn't care what we think. He got his war, which we know he wanted from the day he took office. Being caught (which he would be) trying something like faking the WMD is the only scenario that could really have consequences that he would give a rat's keester about.
I agree with this, to a point. First, I do operate under the premise that Bush is an honest man. This isn't an article of faith, however. I take very little on faith.

Unlike certain previous Presidents, my opinion is that Bush does NOT base his actions upon what would be best for himself personally. By all appearances, Bush acts according to what he honestly believes is best for the country, despite the whatever personal consequences that may entail. I base this opinion of Bush on what I've seen Bush say and do over the past 6 or 8 years. Ain't no "faith" involved (except perhaps that I have faith in my own observations and conclusions).

If it was all an act, then I've been snookered. So be it. That's where I'm coming from. That's what I think of Bush.

I agree that Bush isn't very preoccupied with the current distaste for the war in Iraq. Bush thinks the war was the right thing to do, so he went ahead with it. He made his decision, and now he's standing by it.

This is how our system is supposed to operate. We don't live in a Democracy where the people collectively make each decision. We live in a Republic, where the people choose representatives to make decisions on our behalf.

We chose Bush to make these decisions for us. He made them. History will judge whether or not they were good decisions.

Malone LaVeigh
February 3, 2006, 01:16 AM
You're operating from the same sort of logical disconnect.

In the liberal paradigm, before the invasion the whole world knew that Saddam couldn't possibly have any WMD. Then Bush came along and orchestrated a masterful conspiracy. He did the impossible: he pulled the wool over our collective eyes and convinced us all that Saddam had WMD that never existed.

Yet now you say that Bush is mysteriously unable to repeat this feat. He can't possibly orchestrate any sort of effective conspiracy. There's no way on earth he could pull the wool over our collective eyes and convince us all that Saddam had WMD that never existed.

So which is it: Does Bush have the ability to convince the world that Saddam had WMD that never existed? Or does Bush not have the ability to convince the world Saddam possessed WMD that never existed? You can't have it both ways.
OK, now you're just being silly. There's a world of difference between the two supposed deceptions, and you either know it and are just building a ridiculous rhetorical case or... you're not applying very good reasoning.

The entire world knows how the case for war was made. It involved a lot of unsubstantiated claims about WMD, Colin Powell going to the UN and claiming our intelligence knew exactly where the WMD were, vague references to "uranium from Africa" in SOTN, and unwillingness to let the UN inspectors do their jobs. You're now claiming some moral trophy for Bush because he hasn't launched an impossible clandestine mission to plant a credible quantity of materials to justify the war. We can't have a discussion if you refuse to make sense.

telomerase
February 3, 2006, 01:59 AM
Let's not forget where the original Iraqi nerve gas came from (http://www.fff.org/comment/com0304p.asp).

We can't even stop the US government from aiding the dictators and oligarchs of the world, let alone get it to oppose them.

bogie
February 3, 2006, 02:16 AM
http://hrw.org/editorials/2003/iraq041003.htm

http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/kurdish/htdocs/his/Khaledtext.html

Headless Thompson Gunner
February 3, 2006, 02:33 AM
Those "unsubstantiated claims" were hardly unsubstaintated.

All of the world's major intelligence agencies had credible evidence of activities in Iraq that indicated the presence of WMD. It wasn't just Powel making up some unsupported stories for the UN. He (and many others at the UN) presented reasons why they believed Saddam had WMD. They didn't just pull this stuff out of their collective arses like you suggested.

The Brits don't think those references to uranium from Africa are very "vague". To this day they stand behind their intel and firmly blieve that Saddam made an attempt to purchase yellow cake from Niger.

The UN inspectors had a decade to do their job. They were thwarted by Saddam's men at every turn. How much longer should we have allowed that charade to last before admitting that UN weapons inspections weren't working?

Besides, the original cease fire agreement placed the burden upon Saddam to demonstrably destroy his WMD. He chose not to do that. He also violated just about every other tenet of the cease fire. Among other things, he attacked US and coalition forces roughly once a month, executed POWs, attempted to assassinate a US President, and on and on...

The libs say all this and more is simply a Bush lie.

Well, if Bush can manipulate foreign intelligence services simply by lying...
And if Bush can materialze volumes of evidence simply by lying...
And if Bush can force Saddam to try to buy uranium simply by lying...
And if Bush can cause Saddam to obstruct the UN inspectors simply by lying...
And if Bush can force Saddam to repeatedly violate his cease fire agreement simply by lying...

...then surely Bush can fake some WMD in Iraq simply by lying. Given that Bush is evil personified, he would have every reason in the world to do precisely that. Logical, right?

Of course this makes no sense. (At least we can agree on something :p )

The "Bush lied" reasoning [sic] has never made any sense. That's precisely the point I've been trying to make. Bush can't possibly lie WMD proof into existence. Not now, and not before the war. To claim that he can is utterly irrational!!

Malone LaVeigh
February 3, 2006, 03:02 AM
Asserting something does not make it so. The proof of the pudding is that there were people who had good arguments at the time that inspections WERE working and evidence for WMD was controversial to say the least. One side or the other was wrong, not just wrong, but shopping around for evidence to fit it's pre-concieved beliefs. Such as publishing reports by defectors who had failed lie detector tests administered by our own intelligence officials. (I'd post a link, but it's too long, and the url function doesn't seem to be working. It was in the Rolling Stone.) Such as making claims that were not proven. After the truth is out, they're trying to cloud things with ridiculous claims about massive convoys of trucks dissappearing into Syria.

How stupid do they think we are?

Got up to edit un-high road remark...

Malone LaVeigh
February 3, 2006, 03:06 AM
Here's a better link. Look at the item at the bottom of the page. Pay special attention to the last quote by Powell.

http://www.polygraph.org/inthenewsaprmay2004.htm

Iraq war partially based on bad information
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is having to do some damage control after a failed polygraph test by an Iraqi defector proved he was lying about knowing where Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological weapons facilities were. That defector was a big reason why the U.S. went to war with the Iraqi regime. Adnan Ishan Saeed al Haideri claimed he worked at chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons facilities in the Baghdad area. He was given a lie detector test and failed. When he visited Iraq with the CIA and was asked to point out the alleged facilities, he could only show authorities well-known military installations; al Haideri was unable to locate any facilities that produced weapons of mass destruction. Administration officials used Haideri’s claims of knowing the whereabouts of the facilities as one reason to go to war. It was not known if the Bush camp was aware of the lie detector test results before the war began, or if they knowingly gave Congress false information when justifying why America should go to war with Hussein. On NBC’s 'Meet the Press,' Secretary of State Colin Powell apologized for the misinformation. "It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that I am disappointed and regret it."
Source: http://www.stltoday.com. U.S. publicized Iraqi defector’s claims after he was discredited, By Jonathan S. Landay, Knight Ridder Newspapers. May 18, 2004.

Edited to add text.

gc70
February 3, 2006, 03:22 AM
Let's not forget where the original Iraqi nerve gas came from.What a ridiculous thing to claim; everyone knows Iraq had no WMD. :neener:

Seriously, we do know that Iraq had WMD because the US gave them some a long time ago. Then Iraq made some more of their own. And we do know that Iraq used WMD on the Kurds and in the war against Iran.

Here's my quandry and unanswered questions: since Iraq acquired, developed, and used WMD over a period of a number of years, when did Iraq turn over a new leaf and get rid of their WMD? And if Iraq had purged itself of WMD, why did they refuse, over a number of years, to allow the UN inspectors to prove their innocence?

So, beyond simply pronouncing the ridiculousness of "massive convoys of trucks dissappearing into Syria" just what did happen to Iraq's WMD?

SirPorl
February 3, 2006, 03:46 AM
"If Bush is as dishonest as the libs say he is, why isn't he willing to fake the existence of some WMD in Iraq?"

They already got what every first term administration wanted........a second term. No real point of the dog and pony show now is there.

SirPorl

gc70
February 3, 2006, 03:49 AM
They already got what every first term administration wanted........a second term. No real point of the dog and pony show now is there.By that logic, there is also no reason to stay in Iraq.

SirPorl
February 3, 2006, 04:00 AM
Good call.....I don't really think there is a reason to stay there. I think Team USA needs to take care of a few things at home first. Mainly doing something about our porous southern border before we go galavanting around the world playing law enforcement officer, nation builder, blah blah blah blah.

cz75bdneos22
February 3, 2006, 04:49 AM
I'll give the professor the benefit of the doubt. She may well think she's telling the truth and at some level even sort of believe it herself. That's because the most effective way to lie is to tell the truth, or at least some version of the truth that a group of people have convinced themselves to buy into.

Take this example. There was no way the Bush administration was going to whip the masses into a fearful frenzy over something as abstract as the Iraqis threatening the hegemony of the petrodollar, even though that may well have been the most legitimate threat the country faced. It was much easier to use hyperbolic imagery of a vague threat that "might come in the form of a mushroom cloud." And even if the neocons were cynical enough to believe that we needed to fight a war to preserve the dollar while convincing us that it was about WMDs, they weren't good enough actors to pull it off.

The solution was to convince themselves that the war was about WMDs. Once they bought into it, at least on a superficial level, convincing most of the rest of us was easy.

+1;)

Michigander
February 3, 2006, 10:00 AM
Why stay in Iraq now? Besides trying to maintain whatever gains we and/or the Iraqi people have acquired, I think a war in Iraq might help a Republican candidate for Prez in '08. Especially if the Dems say they will pull out ASAP. They probably won't say that (look at Kerry in '04), but if they did, it would probably solidify the Reps base and even fence-sitters might say, "well, we gotta finish the job, and it would be a waste to throw it all away now." Or maybe Bush will have us in a war with Iran by then. I remember many people telling me that they were going to vote for Bush in '04 because we were at war and they did not trust Kerry to follow-through in a respectable manner (i.e. he would run away and we'd look worse than ever).

Why wouldn't Saddam admit to disarming? Because his not-so-friendly neighbors would see just how weak he was and he'd be finished.

Why wouldn't Bush admin. claim WMDs were smuggled out of Iraq into Syria? Because then he appear as incompetent as ever. I mean how do you beat the drums of war for months with the contention that you need to rid a madman of WMDs only to allow those WMDs to be shipped to another persons of "questionable" character. Lose-lose for Bush.

I don't buy it however. I would be willing to bet the caravan' cargo was loot that Saddam was hoping to store somewhere else until after he was victorious or in case he had to flee. If I were in Syria, I'd certainly say, "sure, we'll hold on to that for you."

International inspectors would be all over any claims of WMD being discovered. They would analyze the trace elements and determine they came from the US if Bush tried to plant them. I don't believe Bush is as "stupid" as many others do. He knows exactly what he is doing. He knew he was going to war with Iraq on inaugeration day, 2000. The WMD thing was the best case he thought he had at the time. I think he should have went with the "violations of the cease-fire agreement," but then he may have been under the old UN resolutions and guidelines fromt he first GW and he didn't want that. He wanted to finish Saddam this time.

FWIW.

bogie
February 3, 2006, 11:14 AM
The interesting thing about Iraq is that we're taking probably the MOST oppressive country in the middle east, and turning it into a representative democracy. With the approval of the vast majority of the citizenry. When they're able to take care of themselves, we're outta there.

This is a message we've sent. And it has come through loud and clear. The terrorists are losing their support, and are becoming more desperate.

Interesting too - we now have a staging area should we need to go into Iran. I suspect that may have been the plan all along.

middy
February 3, 2006, 11:22 AM
The interesting thing about Iraq is that we're taking probably the MOST oppressive country in the middle east, and turning it into a representative democracy. With the approval of the vast majority of the citizenry.
But a Republican pushed for it. That makes it wrong. :rolleyes:

Malone LaVeigh
February 3, 2006, 01:27 PM
The interesting thing about Iraq is that we're taking probably the MOST oppressive country in the middle east, and turning it into a representative democracy. With the approval of the vast majority of the citizenry. When they're able to take care of themselves, we're outta there.

This is a message we've sent. And it has come through loud and clear. The terrorists are losing their support, and are becoming more desperate.

Interesting too - we now have a staging area should we need to go into Iran. I suspect that may have been the plan all along.
I guess that might all work if only Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy would get with the program.

Can't find a link for this, just the image from today's onlind Sun Herald:

Iraq recovery on hold
Insurgents disrupt water, sanitation projects
By JIM KRANEE THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Guerrilla attacks in Iraq have forced the cancellation of more than 60 percent of water and sanitation projects, in part because American intelligence failed to predict the brutal insurgency, a U.S. government audit said.
American goals to fix Iraq’s infrastructure will never be reached, mainly because insurgents have chased away contractors and forced the diversion of repair funds into security, according to an audit of the Iraqi Relief and Reconstruction Program released last week. It is the latest in a series of auditing reports being issued by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.
The rise of Iraq’s insurgency was never envisioned by U.S. officials, who originally budgeted about 9 percent of reconstruction aid for project security, the audit said.
As kidnappings, killings and sabotage drove local laborers and foreign technicians from the reconstruction program, U.S. administrators were forced to step up protection for workers.

snip

The spending diversions forced the cancellation of 60 percent of the 136 planned water and sanitation projects, including sewage, irrigation and dams. Just 49 water projects are expected to be completed, the audit says.
Of the 425 planned electric projects, 300 will be finished, meaning ambitious U.S. promises to restore Iraqi power will not be fulfilled.
Projects canceled include $1 billion for six generating plants across Iraq, which will cut back U.S.-funded increases in Iraq’s power generation capacity from a planned 3,400 megawatts to 2,109 megawatts, the report said. The stated monthly goal was 6,000 megawatts.

JJpdxpinkpistols
February 3, 2006, 02:48 PM
The interesting thing about Iraq is that we're taking probably the MOST oppressive country in the middle east, and turning it into a representative democracy. With the approval of the vast majority of the citizenry. When they're able to take care of themselves, we're outta there.

This is a message we've sent. And it has come through loud and clear. The terrorists are losing their support, and are becoming more desperate.

Interesting too - we now have a staging area should we need to go into Iran. I suspect that may have been the plan all along.

...and I don't think its "interesting". I think that it is *amazing*. I support their transition to democracy 100%.

I am amazed taht it has occurred. I am a bit bothered by the "go into Iran" bit, but not cuz I don't think we should be going into Iran. The opposite, in fact. I kept thinking that the President got it wrong...mixed up his Q's and N's. Iran *is* a threat to us. Has attacked our embassy, has directly sponsored and continues to directly sponsor and train terrorists, and is *ripe* for revolution with an absolutely rotten support base for their mullahs.

I question us going into Iran FROM Iraq from a strategic point of view. There are fixed installations that both sides built up during their long war, and if we go in through Iraq, we have to negotiate those. *can* we? Oh, without question, we can. Is it the easiest way? Not by a longshot. It will be costly, and I would imagine that there are better ways.

just my thoughts.

Malone LaVeigh
February 3, 2006, 04:24 PM
1) Iraq was far from the most oppressive regime in the ME. It was a brutal dictatorship, and definitely fatal to political opposition, but it was not a place where women were stoned to death for showing their faces.

2) The "representative democracy" in this case means the majority fundamentalist Shia gets to institute a Theocracy. One friendly with Iran, BTW. Nice going.

middy
February 3, 2006, 04:48 PM
LaVeigh's answer? "Ba'athists Forever!" :)

Malone LaVeigh
February 3, 2006, 05:01 PM
LaVeigh's answer? "Ba'athists Forever!" :)
Middy's answer? "America-hating fundamentalist Moslems forever!" :)

JJpdxpinkpistols
February 3, 2006, 05:16 PM
2) The "representative democracy" in this case means the majority fundamentalist Shia gets to institute a Theocracy. One friendly with Iran, BTW. Nice going.

this brings up an interesting question...what happens when a country popularly elects a group we don't like/cannot deal with?

Examples: Palestine and Venezualla.

It looks like we are gonna be kissing off Palestine, but we can't quite kiss off Venez...they supply too much of our oil.

Hmmm...

roo_ster
February 3, 2006, 05:21 PM
Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) is an interesting malady in that it allows the sufferer to hold two beliefs which are mutually exclusive.

HTG provided a fair example with regard to the WMD issue, while ML did his best to square circles. ML is proof that we all apply differing weights to arguments of logos, pathos, & ethos.

It is my contention that GWB & his admin were convinved of the existence of WMDs in Iraq. His predecessors were convinced. So were the French, Germans, Brits, Russians, and Saddam's fellow muslim dictators. Even Scott Ritter (UN inspector) was convinced, until he was blackmailed with some naughty things he did.

So, what the prof said rings true, IMO.

As to why GWB has not proposed invading Syria, Iran, the Norks, & all other foreign bad guys; perhaps GWB & his buds are not quite the war mongers some portray thme to be. Maybe they really mean it when they think force is not the first option, but an option to use when others have failed and when the cause is important enough to warrant force.

I am not much for the touchy-feely "democratize the world" point of view. I think some folks will do well with self-rule & others will muck it up. With regard to Iraq, Iran, etc, I am pretty much in line with John Derbyshire's (http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_01_29_corner-archive.asp#089125) view. The main difference is that I do hope this exercise in self-rule in Iraq pans out. But, I know it is a hope and unsupported by history and don't over invest in it.
Andy: You are of course right that open societies are fertile soil for terrorism. The War on Terror, though, is not really a war to stamp out terrorism, a thing that probably can't be done, as our leaders very likely know. It is a war on terrorists getting nukes. ("WMD" if you like, but that is really just a synonym for nukes. Chemical and biological terrorism, in the present state of the dark arts, are minor threats by comparison.) Nukes can only be made by biggish, stable--whether under dictatorship or law--well-organized nations. Any such nation friendly to terrorists, hostile to us, and looking as if it is on the way to getting nukes, demands action.

The question is: What action? My answer would be, has always been: Attack them, smash up their assets, kill their leaders if you can, cripple their military. Then leave them in rubble and chaos. They're not going to be making any nukes in that condition. Mission accomplished. That was what I hoped we would do to Iraq, and why I supported the war. It is what I believe we should now do to Iran. The reduced-to-rubble nation might indeed "breed terrorists"; but then, as you pointed out, so might New Zealand or Spain. Rubble nations are not a threat to us. Africa has a score of them; none threatens us.

The administration has taken another course, one of "spreading American values," "building democracy," and so on. This won't work. It will end in tears. Any leaders of Iraq installed under any system we set up will be lynched by ululating mobs within a month of our departure. We can't export our system, even to small, cheap, near places like Haiti (where we have been trying for nigh on a century).

This is bad news for the many people living in the sphere of barbarism who would like a quiet, middle-class, law-governed, Western style of life, but it's not especially bad news for **us**, if we can just acknowledge it frankly and act accordingly.

Incidentally, the best argument for the proposition that democracies don't make war on each other is Spencer Weart's Never at War. Weart patiently chronicles every counterexample you could come up with, trying to prove that proposition, mainly by slicing'n'dicing the definition of "democracy" to make it fit. I wasn't 100 percent convinced; but it is clear at any rate that free nations go to war with each other only grudgingly, under exceptional circumstances, and never with the annihilatory total-war mindset.

GoRon
February 3, 2006, 08:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by middy
LaVeigh's answer? "Ba'athists Forever!"
Middy's answer? "America-hating fundamentalist Moslems forever!"

GoRons answer? Let them vote in the government that reflects what they really believe. This eliminates the pesky "collateral damage" problem you get with dictatorships.

Vote in a government that declares war on the US? Prepare to face the FULL consequences, not a politically correct half assed response.

tom barthel
February 4, 2006, 01:31 PM
Better 12 on a panel than 6 on the handles.:banghead:

If you enjoyed reading about "Interesting Iraq war politics" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!