U.S. declined opportunity to avoid war
- Thread starter DaveB
- Start date
- Status
bountyhunter
member
A fair question: the answer is, he was running a bluff to the last minute and then caved in. There is no doubt he wanted to bail out and save his sorry @$$.
But, as to the question of liars, it raises a more relevant one:
Donald Rumsfeld made a famous speech in which he said:
"The American people can rest assured that we did everything possible to avoid this war."
Which was a lie. They did everything possible to ENSURE the war happened. The reason was that the war was never about compliance with a resolution, it was about killing Saddam Hussein for two very big reasons:
1) Texas Justice. That SOB put a hit out on GWB's daddy and that meant he had to die.
2) Make an example. We have been getting bent over the table on oil prices for decades, and a little gunboat diplomacy looked like a real good idea to the administration.
Those are the realities of it, and all the rest is just politics.
Interesting. This completely contradicts his deputy prime minister, Aziz, who has stated that Hussein fully believed that France and Russia would prevent any invasion and that even if there was a military assault, all he would have to do is ride it out until the US gave up, ala the air campaign in the Balkans. So we have his closest advisor saying Hussein never intended on capitulating, and we have you and others saying he knew the game was up.
bountyhunter
member
That violates so many rules of logic that it may be an all-time record for the Guinness Book.
But, at least it shows why there is no hope the Bush lovers will ever see the truth.
Last time I checked, the "nuclear facilities" we had satellite photos of at the UN didn't have feet and were not able to run away like OBL. We haven't found WMD's for the same reason Iraq couldn't turn them over: they didn't exist. Period.
Not to say Hussein didn't plan to build them after the inspectors left, but they did not exist YET.
bountyhunter
member
I thought you had to use the laughing smiley when you put up a joke answer. You had to be kidding, right?
Aziz is now trying to get on our good side, we have gotten his family over here and are offering him asylum..... and you are having trouble connecting that with why he would need to say whatever story dovetails in with the administration's version of the "truth"?
OK....
I mean, I can understand your confusion. It's not like Aziz has ever been known to LIE before when it was convenient......
I have a question, since the US hasn't yet found Saddam or UBL does that mean they never existed?
That was never the question. Never.
Common knowlege. He had them prior to GWI.
Not after.
GWII was sold to congress as "He has 'em now."
Lies.
db
That was never the question. Never.
Common knowlege. He had them prior to GWI.
Not after.
GWII was sold to congress as "He has 'em now."
Lies.
db
bountyhunter:
I have to agree with DaveB, only time will see which view is correct. My view is at great odds with yours. I don't believe that petty reasons motivated Bush and I don't understand how anyone can look at the map, recognize that poverty is the root cause of the Wahabi movement's hatred of the West and then fail to understand that no long term solution exists short of eliminating the oppression and relieving some of the poverty. Some will argue that a complete withdrawl from the area and the destruction of Israel would solve the problem. That certainly appeals to many in the world. The folks that died in Iraq did so fighting the war on terrorism. I have my doubts as to if a "democratic" Iraq will result, but I hope that it will and this will result in a positive change in the whole region.
I have to agree with DaveB, only time will see which view is correct. My view is at great odds with yours. I don't believe that petty reasons motivated Bush and I don't understand how anyone can look at the map, recognize that poverty is the root cause of the Wahabi movement's hatred of the West and then fail to understand that no long term solution exists short of eliminating the oppression and relieving some of the poverty. Some will argue that a complete withdrawl from the area and the destruction of Israel would solve the problem. That certainly appeals to many in the world. The folks that died in Iraq did so fighting the war on terrorism. I have my doubts as to if a "democratic" Iraq will result, but I hope that it will and this will result in a positive change in the whole region.
bountyhunter
member
Let's be honest (we can because we don't work at the White House):
The people who should have been defending the truth and sanity in congress were not ignored, rather they collapsed like wet cardboard when GWB got out the big stick that said:
Anybody who doesn't back me is a terror lover.
The democowards in congress all caved in and hid because they were afraid of looking unpatriotic. Let's admit they were accomplices.
So I guess you fall into the category of a Bush hater, and thus anything you say should be disgarded on those grounds. You see, the truth lies somewhere in between Bush loving and Bush hating. Given that you are the latter, you are by your own implication incapable of seeing the truth.
As for my statement, the point is that when you know something has existed in the past, the argument that "we haven't found it therefore it doesn't exist" is fraudulent. The point about not finding Sodom and OBL reflects the logical fallacy that you advocate: if we haven't found something, it was never there. In doing so, you have rejected the fact that: we know Sodom possessed WMD based on his usage of said items in the past; we know that pathological psychologies like his are not prone to disposing of means of power that have proven effective; we know that the alleged disposal of tons of this material, by the UN's own admission, is so poorly documented as to be incapable of belief. It is equally valid to draw from these facts that the material was well-hidden as the explanation that it was destroyed. However, your hatred for Bush means that you can't see this possibility of the former, and must adhere to the latter.
For the record, I'm not a Bush lover nor a Bush hater. I don't know where the WMDs are but based on reports (which have gotten minimal coverage) from intelligence sources familiar with the area, I'd say they were sitting in Syria, having been taken there on the convoys of vehicles spotted heading into Syria before the strikes began. But I'm equally open to the possiblity that the WMDs were destroyed. Why? Because ultimately it is irrelevant to the central question of justification. The world believed that Sodom possessed WMDs in violation of his specific agreements. It wasn't really a matter of general dispute, whether among the Democrats here who professed this belief, or even the UN who openly stated that he was in violation of his agreements. Did he bluff us? Maybe. If so, it sure backfired on him.
And the common wisdom after GWI, especially 1998 when the inspectors left, was that he still had the programs. The Democrats said so, his allies (France, Germany and Russia) didn't seriously question it, and the UN generally accepted the idea that he did.
bountyhunter
member
Yeah, that's the part that scares the crap out of many people.
The acceptable reason that the US would go to war has evolved from 1940 to now:
1) Somebody attacked the US or an ally
2) Somebody was about to attack the US or an ally
And, now you propose that a sufficient reason to go to war is:
3) We think this guy might do something bad at some time in the future to us.
If you think for a minute about what kind of world rule #3 will bring in, you will see why that concept is not acceptable.
3) We think this guy might do something bad at some time in the future to us.
If you think for a minute about what kind of world rule #3 will bring in, you will see why that concept is not acceptable.
I'm starting to see a pattern here among the folks who support W no matter what.
Take the Patriot Act (please). How many times have we read something like: "The PA doesn't hurt me, or hasn't yet, so I support it."
If we take a minute to dream about Janet Reno (for example) having PA powers - W won't be emperor forever, you know - the PA should make you pee down your leg.
Same with preemptive war - we've S*itcanned the rules,
now everybody can play like us. As long we're the only real military power in the world, well and good - after all, might makes right. Right? It's lucky for us that we'll always be the biggest kid on the block.
db
If you think for a minute about what kind of world rule #3 will bring in, you will see why that concept is not acceptable.
I'm starting to see a pattern here among the folks who support W no matter what.
Take the Patriot Act (please). How many times have we read something like: "The PA doesn't hurt me, or hasn't yet, so I support it."
If we take a minute to dream about Janet Reno (for example) having PA powers - W won't be emperor forever, you know - the PA should make you pee down your leg.
Same with preemptive war - we've S*itcanned the rules,
now everybody can play like us. As long we're the only real military power in the world, well and good - after all, might makes right. Right? It's lucky for us that we'll always be the biggest kid on the block.
db
Thank you Buzz.
All Hussein had to do was to to avoid being ousted to comply with the agreement he agreed to when he signed the cease fire agreement. He had to document that he destroyed all his WMD. He didn't do that.
And Pres. Bush never said the threat was imminent. The idea was to deal with it before it became imminent.
I am glad the battlefield now is in Iraq and now within the US.
The best I have read lately!
We had a vote last autumn about going into Iraq. The Senate decided overwhelmingly to give the president the power to go to war — and even earlier it had passed domestic legislation to crack down on terror. All the present screaming about illegality and the excesses of the Patriot Act cannot change the fact that the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary were all involved, as they should be, in the present decisions to fight in Afghanistan, Iraq, and here at home against stealthy killer-cells. We have had plenty of time for our versions of Bob Lafollette and Charles Lindbergh, who screamed long, hard, and a little dishonestly to keep America out of its two World Wars.
Yet when war did come, at least their frenzy ceased and the nation closed ranks to defeat the enemy. So when Gen. Clark implies that President Bush knew in advance about 9/11 or when candidates Kerry and Dean insist that the effort in Iraq is characterized by deceit, illegality, and corruption, they and all those who repeat their slurs have crossed the line, and will only earn the wages of a George McClellan who likewise slandered Lincoln as a warmonger, lost the election, and then rightly ended up in bitter retirement.
It is time for Clark, Dean, Kerry and the rest either right now to advocate legislation to stop the war and bring the troops home — or to simply be quiet and support the effort of our soldiers. Any further hysteria about purpose rather than quibbling over tactics, and the American people will rightly conclude that such Democratic invective hurts America and helps its enemies, whose entire strategy of assassination and terror is aimed at appealing to the anti-war movement in the United States.
Vietnam is much evoked by the Democrats, who apparently believe the country was lost in 1973-4 when they cut off money for further support. So it is now the hour for them likewise to conjure up that time-tested Vietnam remedy by cutting off the money, bringing home the soldiers and calling it quits. If they really care about the troops at war, they must either support their efforts or bring them back — but not leave them in limbo as they damn their mission.
We are in a war and we are winning due more to the courage and superb character of our soldiers than to the popular mobilization and engagement of the American citizenry itself. We have the best military in the history of civilization, but we can still lose this war — unless we remember September 11, acknowledge the awful nature of our enemies, and always, always accept the truth that civilization itself hangs in the balance.
We had a vote last autumn about going into Iraq. The Senate decided overwhelmingly to give the president the power to go to war — and even earlier it had passed domestic legislation to crack down on terror. All the present screaming about illegality and the excesses of the Patriot Act cannot change the fact that the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary were all involved, as they should be, in the present decisions to fight in Afghanistan, Iraq, and here at home against stealthy killer-cells. We have had plenty of time for our versions of Bob Lafollette and Charles Lindbergh, who screamed long, hard, and a little dishonestly to keep America out of its two World Wars.
Yet when war did come, at least their frenzy ceased and the nation closed ranks to defeat the enemy. So when Gen. Clark implies that President Bush knew in advance about 9/11 or when candidates Kerry and Dean insist that the effort in Iraq is characterized by deceit, illegality, and corruption, they and all those who repeat their slurs have crossed the line, and will only earn the wages of a George McClellan who likewise slandered Lincoln as a warmonger, lost the election, and then rightly ended up in bitter retirement.
It is time for Clark, Dean, Kerry and the rest either right now to advocate legislation to stop the war and bring the troops home — or to simply be quiet and support the effort of our soldiers. Any further hysteria about purpose rather than quibbling over tactics, and the American people will rightly conclude that such Democratic invective hurts America and helps its enemies, whose entire strategy of assassination and terror is aimed at appealing to the anti-war movement in the United States.
Vietnam is much evoked by the Democrats, who apparently believe the country was lost in 1973-4 when they cut off money for further support. So it is now the hour for them likewise to conjure up that time-tested Vietnam remedy by cutting off the money, bringing home the soldiers and calling it quits. If they really care about the troops at war, they must either support their efforts or bring them back — but not leave them in limbo as they damn their mission.
We are in a war and we are winning due more to the courage and superb character of our soldiers than to the popular mobilization and engagement of the American citizenry itself. We have the best military in the history of civilization, but we can still lose this war — unless we remember September 11, acknowledge the awful nature of our enemies, and always, always accept the truth that civilization itself hangs in the balance.
bountyhunter
member
If you knew anybody from Texas, you would realize that taking care of somebody who tried to kill your daddy does NOT fall into a category of "petty".
That is about 1000000% over simplified. The generic hatred of the west has roots that run back to colonialism and how the Arab states were exploited by "occupiers", it has roots in religion that run back thousands of years, the US governements blind support for Israel at any cost, and probably a thousand other things which most Arabs wouldn't even agree on.
I suspect you are correct on that point.
That's nonsense. The Arabs love fighting with each other almost as much as they love fighting with Israel.
I disagree because I don't define winning the war on terrorism as killing any Arab thug who likes to throw his weight around. I define winning the WOT as:
1) Cutting the root of money that funds Al Qaeada, ie ripping the guts out of Saudi Arabia.
2) Making allies among Arab states so they will start dropping a dime on the Al Qaeada people we really need to kill.
3) Stop peddling the message that Bush has been trying to paint with one brush:
"Terrorists declared war on us on 9/11, and now we have taken the war to them."
BULLCRAP. Now we have invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, run by a leader who actually hated OBL and Al Qaeada, and now that he's gone, it's turned into an Al Qaeada playground and US forces shooting gallery.
bountyhunter:
I agree that blaming poverty is an oversimplification, but it is a reasonable place to start. I would like to think that there is some hope of ridding the planet of this threat and turning the desert to glass doesn't seem to be a good option...you are not suggesting this.
I'm 50/50 on Bush, but I do think that putting thousands of lives at risk to avenge an abortive assasination is petty. I hope for better in our leaders.
There is no level of support for Israel that will be viewed as acceptable in that region.
The "royal family" in S.A. is a major problem. Of course, there are many factions, but they have financed radical educational institutions around the world, including over five thousand "schools" in Pakistan. It is to their benefit that anger is directed outside of the country.
I don't believe that you have any long term solution. I do agree that much of the problem rests in Saudi Arabia, but to mess with them overtly would bring major religious complications. I don't believe that we will be able to take out the Saudi influence directly, but deals with Russia and perhaps Iraq with regards to oil will send a good message. If the Iraqi people begin to prosper, that will not go without notice in the rest of the region. Our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are key to a long term solution. You can kill these bad guys, but others will replace them. You must change the environment and that is what Bush intends to do. I hope that he acheives his goals. If he fails, I want to know what plan "B" might be. What other approach gets to the basis of the problem? This problem is now enlarged by the realization that technologies invented sixty years ago are beginning to spread without control. This may, in the end, be the death of us all. It is hard to believe that the nuclear/biological genie can be kept out of the hands of our enemies. I think that we can only hope to delay the day that we fail to deter, or eliminate such an attack.
Lastly, Bush has utterly failed to keep the public abreast of what he is trying to do. I think that this fact makes him fair game. If he can't convince you that he is fighting for our interests, why not think that he is evening things up for daddy?
I agree that blaming poverty is an oversimplification, but it is a reasonable place to start. I would like to think that there is some hope of ridding the planet of this threat and turning the desert to glass doesn't seem to be a good option...you are not suggesting this.
I'm 50/50 on Bush, but I do think that putting thousands of lives at risk to avenge an abortive assasination is petty. I hope for better in our leaders.
There is no level of support for Israel that will be viewed as acceptable in that region.
The "royal family" in S.A. is a major problem. Of course, there are many factions, but they have financed radical educational institutions around the world, including over five thousand "schools" in Pakistan. It is to their benefit that anger is directed outside of the country.
I don't believe that you have any long term solution. I do agree that much of the problem rests in Saudi Arabia, but to mess with them overtly would bring major religious complications. I don't believe that we will be able to take out the Saudi influence directly, but deals with Russia and perhaps Iraq with regards to oil will send a good message. If the Iraqi people begin to prosper, that will not go without notice in the rest of the region. Our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are key to a long term solution. You can kill these bad guys, but others will replace them. You must change the environment and that is what Bush intends to do. I hope that he acheives his goals. If he fails, I want to know what plan "B" might be. What other approach gets to the basis of the problem? This problem is now enlarged by the realization that technologies invented sixty years ago are beginning to spread without control. This may, in the end, be the death of us all. It is hard to believe that the nuclear/biological genie can be kept out of the hands of our enemies. I think that we can only hope to delay the day that we fail to deter, or eliminate such an attack.
Lastly, Bush has utterly failed to keep the public abreast of what he is trying to do. I think that this fact makes him fair game. If he can't convince you that he is fighting for our interests, why not think that he is evening things up for daddy?
Sorry, had to retrieve this for this topic:
I am surprised that Sean Penn did not come back with this backchannel offer to avoid the war as he went there to get the truth.
As noted earlier, we "avoided" the Japanese backchannel offers of surrender because the terms were known and not open to negotiation. Saddam should crack a book.
I am surprised that Sean Penn did not come back with this backchannel offer to avoid the war as he went there to get the truth.
As noted earlier, we "avoided" the Japanese backchannel offers of surrender because the terms were known and not open to negotiation. Saddam should crack a book.
- Status
