Iraq: The Missing Billions

Jakart wrote:

No, this war was about justice and defense for all peoples.

I applaud your sentiment, but the evidence suggests otherwise. If this were the reason for the war, then we would be engaged with many sub Saharan nations, China, Korea (North and South), Kuwait, Quatar, and most of Latin America. It certainly seems to not be about justice for the Iraqi people, who are subject to random humiliation and bodily harm at the hands of US troops.
In addition, may I remind you of Bush's numerous statements that the purposes of invasion were:
-Destroying WMDs that Hussein was in possession of. Not WMD plans, ideas or programs, but the actual weapons.
-Preventing Hussein from attackimg the US, which was an immediate threat per the administration.
-Eliminating ties to al-Quaeda and other terrorist groups that the administration implied existed, and ties to Sept 11 2001.

All of these allegations, these reasons for immediate invasions by ourselves, have proven to have been false! This war was initiated as an excercise in power projection. The planners (Wolfowitz, et al) seem to still be misreading the signs,and view this endeavor as, if not a success, then as not a complete failure. I would hope that Wolfy's students at SAIS were better able to interperet data than their dean has proven capable! I haev a feeling that in a year or so, admitting you studied under Wolfowitz will be the kiss of academic death. Already DU's SIS is downplaying their link with Rice! Shocked

0 Replies

Quote:

Here is something else I find interesting. Republicans have decided that it is best if we pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. Democrats would like Iraq to pay us back a large portion of that amount in oil revenues

Except for the many Republicans who voted in favour of loans rather than grants to Iraq. You may wish to refresh your recollection of statements by Wolfy, Perle, Rumsfeld, etc.. that thanks to Iraq's oil reserves the war would "pay for itself." Therefore, those who advocate loans are indeed following the original plan. I personally do not favour loans. We broke it, we bought it. I just hope we will do a better job than we have with Afghanistan. I am curious how much of the $87 billion will go to actual rebuilding and how much will go to Bush corporate buddies.

0 Replies

Jakart wrote:

Here is something else I find interesting. Republicans have decided that it is best if we pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. Democrats would like Iraq to pay us back a large portion of that amount in oil revenues. Hmm, I thought you were suggesting that Bush was after oil. Do not be fooled, Bush has too much integrity to do what you are suggesting.

I also finf it interesting. IMO Dems should not shaft the Iraqis just because they think the war was daft. I think the war was the worst thing america has done in my lefetime but now that we invaded the country I'm not about to get cheap on 'em.

But Hobitbob referenced something important, many of the war supporters expect the Iraqis to pay for this, which I find offensive. To invade countries and spend their money without their consent is not the smartest of tactics.

0 Replies

Jackart:

Here you go again! Inaccuracies, misconceptions, and fantasy.

Jakart wrote:

If this was a war about oil we would have settled with Kuwait. The difference is not astronomical and Kuwait has no real military presence.

Just to catch you up a bit ... Kuwait was the first Iraqi War, which we also instigated through our own CIA!!! We already own Kuwait ... your point is inaccurate and moot!

Jakart wrote:

.No, this war was about justice and defense for all peoples. To be honest, I don't care if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or not (though they do have all the necessary materials).

Wrong again - all counts!! This is fantasy! The Bush Administration has told us so many lies about this mess that they're hard to keep track of ... but here is a start!!!

1. Saddam has WOMD's. (A Bush Administration Lie!)
2. Saddam bought Nuclear Material from Niger. (A Bush Administration Lie!)
3. Saddam was buying aluminum tubing for Nuclear Uses. (A Bush Administration Lie!)
4. Saddam was a direct danger to the U.S. (A Bush Administration Lie!)
5. Saddam was a direct danger to it's neighbors. (A Bush Administration Lie!)
6. Saddam has involved in 9/11. (A Bush Administration Lie!)

Many of these points were confirmed the other night during the program on Sixty Minutes (2)]

THE MAN WHO KNEW
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60II/main3475.shtml
This war is about American Imprerialism, Control, Power, but most of all OIL!! Bush and his Cabal have sweetheart deals with Halliburton, Cheney's old firm ... and is cashing in on the invasion of Iraq for it's resources!! Only the most devout Bush apologist is not aware of this!

Jakart wrote:

Have you considered the fact that Saddam is responsible for the deaths of 2 million of his own citizens. This is horrendous, especially considering that this number is a staggering 11% of Iraq's population. One in ten people died at his hands unjustly.

Then King George the First and the CIA should not have put him in power. They knew he was a sadist killer before they gave him the keys to the throne!

Jakart wrote:

.Here is something else I find interesting. Republicans have decided that it is best if we pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. Democrats would like Iraq to pay us back a large portion of that amount in oil revenues. Hmm, I thought you were suggesting that Bush was after oil. Do not be fooled, Bush has too much integrity to do what you are suggesting.

HobitBob has already debunked this misrepresentation!

I usually try to study a little bit and make sure I have my details straight before I post!

Anon

0 Replies

Craven,

From be it from me to be absurd, so let me explain. My point was that these weren't facts made up by dubya. If these facts were indeed made up, they were made up long before dubya took the White House.
Is it possible that the facts could have been wrong, yet dubya earnestly believed them to be true? I think so. This would demonstrate incopetence to be sure, but not a desire to deceive and start a needless war.
Is it possible that the facts were dead wrong and dubya intentionally used faulty info to start this war? To be intellectual honest, one has to at least admit to the possiblilty that this is the case. I happen to think this scenario is inaccurate but am willing to be proven wrong.
Finally, is it possible that the facts are true and dubya is actually waging a just war for the defence of America? I think one has to admit this possibility as well.

0 Replies

ConstantlyQuestioning wrote:

My point was that these weren't facts made up by dubya. If these facts were indeed made up, they were made up long before dubya took the White House.

I'd draw a parallel to the Holocaust. I don't in any way equate the two events but the Protocols of Zion predated Hitler, he seized on some elements of it to justofy his actions and there is a reason Hitler is more infamous than the orifinators of those lies about Jews.

Bush is no Hitler and I reject lots of the comparisons made along those lines but the point still stands. When Clinton made dire redictions about Iraq I disagreed with him. That others have made the same allegation is little comfort to me.

Quote:

Is it possible that the facts could have been wrong, yet dubya earnestly believed them to be true? I think so. This would demonstrate incopetence to be sure, but not a desire to deceive and start a needless war.

I'm not sure if Bush belived the more dire pictures portrayed but I am sure that Bush didn't think the war was unecessary.

I am sure he saw and still sees strong validation for his decision. And herein lies a dillema in politics. Many on the left are trying to portray the war as mallicious and I think they are wrong. Bush believed and still believes in his ratiocination for war.

And this is the sad thing. Almost every large-scale atrocity in history was perpetrated by individuals who thought they were right to do so.

Quote:

Is it possible that the facts were dead wrong and dubya intentionally used faulty info to start this war? To be intellectual honest, one has to at least admit to the possiblilty that this is the case. I happen to think this scenario is inaccurate but am willing to be proven wrong.

I don't buy that either. I do think that some intel that was touted was understood to be weak and that some scenarios (mushroom clud that Rumsfeld cited) were deliverate exagerrations but I don't think they intentionally used any falsehood. For their own political survival it is unwise to set yourself up in a lie.

Quote:

Finally, is it possible that the facts are true and dubya is actually waging a just war for the defence of America? I think one has to admit this possibility as well.

Some of the charges leveled are certainly true. Others are not. I still maintain that there are WMDs in Iraq. I also maintain that there is anthrax in my buddy's farm.

What I think can safely be called false was the sense of urgency. This administration said it was too urgent a danger that the inspections couldn't have played out.

I believe this to have been demosntrated as false. It's pretty clear that Iraq was not as dire a threat as had been implied.

I don't get my rocks off on calling the administration liars, every administration lies. But this, I believe, was deliberate. The sense of urgency existed, but only because deployment can't be indefinite and because it was clear that the intel was not going to sell the war to anyone not already sold on it.

So this is my primary qualm. The urgency of the war was sold under the guise of it being necessary due to Saddam's "threat". This was untrue, and I think they knew it. The urgency was to not lose the war momentum and because once the troops were in place and they figured they'd convinced those who would be convinced they wanted to strike. Not because the threat was urgent, but because the window for war was perceived as being finite.

0 Replies

AND PRINCE CHARMING KISSED THE BEAUTIFUL SNOWHITE ... SHE WOKE UP, AND THEY RODE OFF TO HIS CASTLE AND LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER!!!

0 Replies

Craven,

After reading your post twice I can't find much to really disagree with other than I don't think inspections would have yielded any more results than they have for the past twelve years.

0 Replies

Depends on what you mean by "yeild". If you meant "produce evidence of WMDs" you need to note that if there are no weaponized WMDs this is an excersise in futility to begin with.

In the very least the inspections would be successful in preventing the proliferation and deployment of WMDs and would be helpful in difficulting the aquisition of them.

But that's not why I care, long ago I contended that Iraq had WMDs but that there was none that were weaponized to the degree that they posed a threat.

I think letting the inspections run their course would have been helpful in letting the rest of the world slowly come to grips with the war plan rather than pissing them all off by ignoring their concerns. And their concrns were valid.

Another thing is that the previous inspections and measures were characterized as failures based on the premise that they had not succeded in eliminating the Iraqi WMD stocks. That is a perception that deserves challenging.

0 Replies

I think we are getting caught up on WMD. There were many reasons to take Saddam out of power. The WMD were the only reason a substantial amount of countries could agree on. We feel it isn't our problem if millions of Iraqis are executed, but if we could possibly be harmed by Saddam then we can justify a war.

I do not believe that any institution is going to tell the truth all the time. We only have to look back to pres. Johnson to see that our gov't. is not fool proof. However, I do believe that Bush thought Saddam possessed WMD. "The risk of doing nothing is a risk I am not willing to take" -pres. Bush. Would have it been better if we took the risk to do nothing? I do not think so.

0 Replies

Quote:

We feel it isn't our problem if millions of Iraqis are executed, but if we could possibly be harmed by Saddam then we can justify a war.

Why should anyone wish to "justify a war?" This posits war as a desirable event. Does anyone in their right mind think this way? War may sometimes be neccesary (WWII comes to mind, as does (in my opinion) the first gulf war, and the efforts in the Balkans in the 1990s), but it is never desirable! I find it interesting that those who called loudest for war were those who were too old, infirm, or wealthy to have to participate.

0 Replies

Jakart wrote:

I think we are getting caught up on WMD.

But there is a reason for this.

Quote:

There were many reasons to take Saddam out of power.

I agree, there were a number of reasons I had to desire Saddam's removal. There are a number of leaders whose removal I find desireable.

And every leader on earth has some who would like to have him/her removed.

Quote:

The WMD were the only reason a substantial amount of countries could agree on.

The reason is because each country has a few leaders they'd like to be rid of, and the legal obligation Iraq was bound to after their aggression was the only legal validation for the war.

To allow unprokoked invasions is dangerous, this is one of the criteria the world agreed with (for the most part).

Quote:

We feel it isn't our problem if millions of Iraqis are executed, but if we could possibly be harmed by Saddam then we can justify a war.

Again, only because those were the only legal validations. We could have tried to make a case for war on the basis of gross human rights violations. I would have preferred and supported that approach. The problem with this is that the overwhelming majority of the abuse was commited during a period in which we maintained friendly relations with Saddam.

Quote:

I do not believe that any institution is going to tell the truth all the time. We only have to look back to pres. Johnson to see that our gov't. is not fool proof.

Neither do I. I don't mind at all that politicians lie, I consider it inevitable.

Quote:

However, I do believe that Bush thought Saddam possessed WMD. "The risk of doing nothing is a risk I am not willing to take" -pres. Bush. Would have it been better if we took the risk to do nothing? I do not think so.

War supporters almost invariably characterize the choice as "do something or do nothing" and this is a very attractive rhetorical ploy. But that is also as false as it is useful. I never said I propose a solution in which doing nothing is the option chosen, and it's a bit of nearsightedness to label one's preferred option as the sole one available and everything else is "nothing".

You do not even know what I would have proposed, do you?

0 Replies

Craven,
The UN had 12 years and all they got from Saddam was delay and deception. Even with inspectors, I think he would have eventually been able to produce and deliver a WMD. Let's not forget they were kicked out for some four years. Was Saddam just hanging out smoking opium all that time? Somehow I doubt it.

Jakart,
The WMD's are an important issue, and people are right for bringing it up. I think in the end this war will prove justified. Yes there were many reasons to rid ourselves of Saddam. Hell, for me the fact the he shoots at our planes patrolling the no-fly zone was more than enough justification. But the loudest reason was that a WMD was going to eventually to be used by Saddam or given to a terrorist. I hope we weren't duped.

0 Replies

Jackart:

Jakart wrote:

However, I do believe that Bush thought Saddam possessed WMD. "The risk of doing nothing is a risk I am not willing to take" -pres. Bush. Would have it been better if we took the risk to do nothing? I do not think so.

I am convinced you are an anti-American Traitor and have committed treason and subversion. I am convinced you support worldwide terrorism by a mercenary army of terrorists.

By your logic ... I have every right to track you down and kill you and your family!!

Anon

0 Replies

Anon wrote:

I am convinced you are an anti-American Traitor and have committed treason and subversion. I am convinced you support worldwide terrorism by a mercenary army of terrorists.

By your logic ... I have every right to track you down and kill you and your family!!

Anon

Anon,
That is a silly argument, and I think you know it. First of all, you have not been elected by the Electoral College to act as President thus charging you with the responsibility to ensure the security of America.
Second, there are many things to lead a semi-rational person to admit the possibility that Hussein is a threat. What leads you to suspect Jakart of being a terrorist?
A regular citizen does not have a right to attack another citizen because he suspects the other citizen of some wrong doing. A leader of a free nation such as ours does have the right and obligation to attack a rogue nation that he percieves to be a threat. Big difference between you attacking Jakart, and the US attacking Iraq. BIG difference.

0 Replies

Anon wrote:

Jackart:

Jakart wrote:
However, I do believe that Bush thought Saddam possessed WMD. "The risk of doing nothing is a risk I am not willing to take" -pres. Bush. Would have it been better if we took the risk to do nothing? I do not think so.

I am convinced you are an anti-American Traitor and have committed treason and subversion. I am convinced you support worldwide terrorism by a mercenary army of terrorists.

By your logic ... I have every right to track you down and kill you and your family!!

Anon

Well, then. Jakart would then have the ability to premptively attck you if we are going to follow this logic to it's natural conclusion.

0 Replies

Constant:

I'll just pass you back up to my post about the numerous and repeated lies told by the Bush Administration to suck an uninformed public into a war action.

Our last President was impeached for lying about having sex with a tart. What does George Bush deserve for lying to get the U.S. into a war which is getting Americans killed almost daily, and encumbering this nation for generations to come ??

Jackarts position is just a continuation of the lies and misinformation trotted out by the Bush Administration. He either does this to perpetuate the lies, or he does it out of ignorance ... it's not up to me to make a determiniation what his reasons are.

My argument that I get to hunt him down and kill him is no more silly than attacking Iraq based on nothing but lies!!

Anon

0 Replies

ConstantlyQuestioning wrote:

Craven,
Even with inspectors, I think he would have eventually been able to produce and deliver a WMD.

Well, I don;t mind a guess, I disagree with it but hey, it's a guess. But there is an issue of sovereignty, this is not country justice.

With individuals we hold our judgement to a far higher criteria. For waging wars and especially unprovoked ones the criteria should not be dismissed.

You spoke in terms of "eventually" but the war wasn't eventual and it was sold under the urgent tone of impending doom.

Thing is, making a specter is easy and where we disagree is whether a specter should be enough to invade a nation or not.

I lean toward "pinch it and see if it's real before you invade".

0 Replies

Anon wrote:

1. Saddam has WOMD's. (A Bush Administration Lie!)
2. Saddam bought Nuclear Material from Niger. (A Bush Administration Lie!)
3. Saddam was buying aluminum tubing for Nuclear Uses. (A Bush Administration Lie!)
4. Saddam was a direct danger to the U.S. (A Bush Administration Lie!)
5. Saddam was a direct danger to it's neighbors. (A Bush Administration Lie!)
6. Saddam has involved in 9/11. (A Bush Administration Lie!)

1) I bet the Kurds he gassed would disagree with you.
2) Not a lie. The worst one could accuse him of is believing false info: British Intel, who by the way still claim that this is true.
3) Those weren't aluminum tubes that were dug up in the backyard of one his scientists? Maybe he thought by burying them he could grow aluminum plants? Why else were they there?
4) See point 6.
5) I bet Kuwait, the Kurds and the bodies in the mass grave disagree with you.
6) He never claimed Iraq was involved with 9/11. He said there was evidence to suggest that Iraq and Al Queada had a relationship. That is not the same as claiming he helped with 9/11. And such a relationship IS a threat to the US.

0 Replies

Constant:

Too bad you didn't read the link ... you would be much more informed than you are!

I'll tell you the same thing I told Jackart ... Get your facts straight ... then come back and try again.

Anon

0 Replies

Iraq: The Missing Billions

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know