Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Go ahead and link to those who claimed that Saddam was a victim, then.

Cycloptichorn

I dont know who said that,but you and I both know there are people on here that have claimed that Iraq never attacked the US.
Are you going to deny that?

I haven't seen anyone post that Iraqi forces have never fired on US forces before. I have seen allegations that prior to the beginning of the Iraq war, Iraq did not initiate hostilities against the US, and that's true.

Cycloptichorn

Shooting at planes patroling the no fly zone isn't a hostile act?

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Go ahead and link to those who claimed that Saddam was a victim, then.

Cycloptichorn

I dont know who said that,but you and I both know there are people on here that have claimed that Iraq never attacked the US.
Are you going to deny that?

I haven't seen anyone post that Iraqi forces have never fired on US forces before. I have seen allegations that prior to the beginning of the Iraq war, Iraq did not initiate hostilities against the US, and that's true.

Cycloptichorn

Shooting at planes patroling the no fly zone isn't a hostile act?

Nope. It isn't as if those no-fly zones weren't over Iraqi soil.

It may count as the Iraqis repudiating their previous agreements with the US (A completely different argument) but I doubt that you would say that the US attacked Mexico if they flew jets over our land in a fashion which we didn't agree with.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Go ahead and link to those who claimed that Saddam was a victim, then.

Cycloptichorn

I dont know who said that,but you and I both know there are people on here that have claimed that Iraq never attacked the US.
Are you going to deny that?

I haven't seen anyone post that Iraqi forces have never fired on US forces before. I have seen allegations that prior to the beginning of the Iraq war, Iraq did not initiate hostilities against the US, and that's true.

Cycloptichorn

Shooting at planes patroling the no fly zone isn't a hostile act?

Yes, it is a hostile act - even though no planes were actually hit, as far I remember. I might be wrong. And it's still a hostile act.

And, baldimo, do you think it was a sufficient reason for the invasion of Iraq in 2003? Or do you think that hostile acts of that scope actually justify the invasion of a country?

0 Replies

old europe, in a post two pages back, made some excellent points. However, I don't agree with them for reasons that have not yet been addressed in this discussion.

In the first place, in any democracy, the rhetoric used to lead a nation into war only rarely relates accurately to the real motivations for the war itself. Lies and distortion are the rule: not the exception. This observation also applies, sometimes to a lesser degree, to largely authoritarian systems of government as well. History abounds with examples of this fundamental principle, and very few counter examples can be found. Consider the justifications offered by European colonial powers for their wars of colonial expansion, or even the rhetoric used on all sides prior to World Wars I & II. In the United States this principle can be observed in our rationalizations for the War with Spain and our entry into both World wars. President Wilson knowingly acceded to British propaganda and billed our effort in 1917-18 as a "War to end Wars". (He was later foolishly duped in a Peace that ended all Peace). The record of President Roosevelt's lies and deceptions in an extended conspiracy to engage the United States in WWII is well documented. He was even reelected in 1940 after a campaign in which he promised to keep America out of the war - even as he conspired to get us in it..

Why should any knowing observer be surprised or, even worse, indignant at the existence of duplicity in the rhetoric preceding our entry into the war with Iraq?

old europe's stated assurances that he would have supported firm international action to force Saddam to prove he had no WMDs sounds very fine. However it utterly ignores the salient fact that no such action was possible. France in particular opposed any action to thwart Saddam. The potential economic component to their motivation was clear enough - the deal Chirac signed with Saddam for the development of the Mosul oil fields; the huge sales of military hardware (huge caches of crew served weapons, all of very recent French manufacture were found throughout Iraq); and finally rather compelling evidence of large payoffs to French politicians - all give the lie to this notion. Chancellor Schroeder of Germany also, apparently for his own political purposes in a close-fought election, made very clear his opposition to any coordinated action. The endemic corruption found in the oil for food program was a vivid demonstration of the corruption and venality infesting the "international community" that presumes to judge us now. The truth is that before our invasion there was not even international support for the continuation of the economic sanctions against the Iraqi regime, much less increased pressure.

The calculations of the danger presented by saddam by the U.S. Administration were based not on his then present capability, but rather on what he might have soon have after the economic sanctions were lifted and his oil revenues resumed. Saddam had already demonstrated his ability to influence our staunch allies through money and payoffs, and the prospects after the expected removal of the sanctions looked grim. Subsequently uncovered facts have confirmed the likely accuracy of these fears.

The affections of an admiring world, presumably lost by the inarticulate and belligerent Bush Administration, are themselves an illusion. We have been at times envied by the world for our wealth, and often found ourselves the hope of the underclasses of various nations, but we have never enjoyed the affection or admiration of the established political and economic classes of European or Latin American nations. The figure of the uncultured, grasping, materialistic Yankee is a stock component of 19th century literature from Russia to Argentina. We were useful to parts of Europe during the 20th century, but that was the exception to the rule. The words of the Mexican dictator Porfirio Diaz sum up the latin view .. "poor Mexico, so far from God, and so close to the United States of America".

If portions of the publics in Venezuela and Bolivia are said have become disenchanted with us it is worth recalling that they have chosen Chavez and Morales. This and their prior histories aren't much of a recommendation of their sagacity.

I agree that our policies have not been always carried out with the skill we should expect. However, I don't agree that they should have been focused exclusively on the supposed terrorist networks. These are but the manifestation of the more fundamental contradictions and social/political maladaptations of the Islamic world. They are the source of the challenge the Western World will face in the decades ahead - with or without George Bush. If your point here is that Bush's actions in Iraq have not been consistent with his "War on Terrorism" rhetoric, I am inclined to agree. However it is the rhetoric that I find deficient, not the strategy (at least not as I interpret it.)

0 Replies

old europe, That's what most people would consider "over-kill." Start a war based on being shot at.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Nope. It isn't as if those no-fly zones weren't over Iraqi soil.

I'd still call it a hostile act. If an American police officer would shoot at a Cuban diplomat while he was in the US, I would call that a hostile act, too.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Nope. It isn't as if those no-fly zones weren't over Iraqi soil.

I'd still call it a hostile act. If an American police officer would shoot at a Cuban diplomat while he was in the US, I would call that a hostile act, too.

Depends on your POV; it could easily be looked at as Defense. The cop sure would argue it that way, I guarantee.

Let me say that even if it is considered a hostile act (a point I'm willing to grant), was it a hostile Aggressive action or a hostile Defensive action? Big difference.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclops, I responded on page 154 to your post, if you'd care to continue. I apologize for the delay, but between keeping my family happy and a few other unexpetcted events of the day, I've been pretty busy.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cyclops, I responded on page 154 to your post, if you'd care to continue. I apologize for the delay, but between keeping my family happy and a few other unexpetcted events of the day, I've been pretty busy.

Thanks, don't worry about the delay. Let me review and I'll move forward.

IIRC, you wanted more specific instances of failings of Bush than the generalities I presented?

I'll go ahead and narrow it down: the 'Bush Doctrine' is a lie. His words about promoting Democracy in the ME are completely hollow. He has had critical words about how past administrations tolerated repressive regimes, the same regimes he now counts as allies. We don't put any pressure at all on Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, to be democracies. His words have been hollow from day one.

I'll respond more with links later.

Let me also say that I believe there exists a dichotomy that you may not agree with me on, and that's this: I don't believe that internet arguments are 'personal.' You, the real-life person, are most likely Brandon, not Brandon9000. When we attack each other (A2Ker's in general) the vast majority of the time we are discussing and/or attacking the constructed personalities that we all have created here.

So, my comments about you are based upon my judgment of some of the things you have written here - and that's it. To me, that isn't personal; I know that I get carried away and snap off comments, everyone does here, that aren't necessarily reflective of my persona. So please don't be personally offended when I criticize you - it is a criticism of how I perceive your persona online to be, and not of the actual 'you.'

If this distinction doesn't exist in the minds of others - something which I have always assumed - then I would be happy to discuss whether there even is a distinction or not.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

McTag wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Fine. So, state one terribly wrong thing GWB has done.

Lied.

Prove it.

Of which lie do you want proof? The Enron "Kenny-Boy" one?

The "Downing Street Memo" proves that US policy was being formed around the intention to invade Iraq and evidence was being sought (and fabricated) to justify that course of action while the charade with the UN and other foreign leaders/allies was being played out.

To take your country to war on a false prospectus is about the very worst thing a leader can do.
And when I think of the fuss you guys made over illicit sex in the Oval Office....a misdemeanour, and a crime to lie about it. But comparing the two is like the proverbial mountain and the molehill.

GWB is a war criminal and a disgrace to his office and his nation.

0 Replies

This Vanity Fair piece explains a lot (especially re: Malaki / Sadr) as well as current implementation of war plans against Iran, who is behind them and why.

The same tactics are being used to try to influence Americans and convince them it is necessary to attack Iran, as was used for Iraq.

We are really out of time on the impeachment idea,

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Go ahead and link to those who claimed that Saddam was a victim, then.

Cycloptichorn

I dont know who said that,but you and I both know there are people on here that have claimed that Iraq never attacked the US.
Are you going to deny that?

I haven't seen anyone post that Iraqi forces have never fired on US forces before. I have seen allegations that prior to the beginning of the Iraq war, Iraq did not initiate hostilities against the US, and that's true.

Cycloptichorn

So,this attack...

Quote:

The ship was the USS Stark,and it happened May 17,1987.
So,we now have PROOF that Iraq did attack us,no matter what some of you want to believe.
37 US Sailors died and 21 were injured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_%28FFG-31%29

Was not against the US and it was also not prior to the gulf war??

Are you really that confused about history?
Tell me,what part of the gulf War (Desert Storm) was going on when the Stark was attacked by Iraqi warplanes using exocet missiles?

Are you seriously going to deny the truth?

0 Replies

Vanity Fair wrote:

"Everything the advocates of war said would happen hasn't happened," says the president of Americans for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist, an influential conservative who backed the Iraq invasion. "And all the things the critics said would happen have happened. [The president's neoconservative advisers] are effectively saying, 'Invade Iran. Then everyone will see how smart we are.' But after you've lost x number of times at the roulette wheel, do you double-down?"

Even Grover Norquist has turned his back on Bush? Wow.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Go ahead and link to those who claimed that Saddam was a victim, then.

Cycloptichorn

I dont know who said that,but you and I both know there are people on here that have claimed that Iraq never attacked the US.
Are you going to deny that?

I haven't seen anyone post that Iraqi forces have never fired on US forces before. I have seen allegations that prior to the beginning of the Iraq war, Iraq did not initiate hostilities against the US, and that's true.

Cycloptichorn

So,this attack...

Quote:
The ship was the USS Stark,and it happened May 17,1987.
So,we now have PROOF that Iraq did attack us,no matter what some of you want to believe.
37 US Sailors died and 21 were injured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_%28FFG-31%29

Was not against the US and it was also not prior to the gulf war??

Are you really that confused about history?
Tell me,what part of the gulf War (Desert Storm) was going on when the Stark was attacked by Iraqi warplanes using exocet missiles?

Are you seriously going to deny the truth?

How long are you going to keep propping up this strawman?

When Israel sunk one of our boats, it was an attack (that shouldn't have happened) but not a provocation for war.

Just because your country was attacked (in small part, on the enemies' territory) at some point in the past doesn't mean that you have carte blanche to attack them at any point in the future.

Get serious

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclo,
YOU SAID...

Quote:

I have seen allegations that prior to the beginning of the Iraq war, Iraq did not initiate hostilities against the US, and that's true.

Now,an attack on a US navy warship,in INTERNATIONAL WATERS,is initiating hostilities.
Unless you want to claim that Japan didnt initiate hostilities when they attacked Pearl Harbor.
Thats the same logic you are using now.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Cyclo,
YOU SAID...

Quote:
I have seen allegations that prior to the beginning of the Iraq war, Iraq did not initiate hostilities against the US, and that's true.

Now,an attack on a US navy warship,in INTERNATIONAL WATERS,is initiating hostilities.
Unless you want to claim that Japan didnt initiate hostilities when they attacked Pearl Harbor.
Thats the same logic you are using now.

So in your opinion, Israel was initiating hostilities against the US when the blew up one of our ships?

Listen, I know the point you are trying to make. Try and understand mine: every attack or instance of conflict between nations isn't a provocation for war. It isn't a reason to commit your nation to a course which is super-expensive in lives and in money.

That's why we didn't declare war against Israel, and why we didn't declare war against Iraq when they shot at our planes. We didn't consider these incidents to rise to the level of 'open hostility.'

You have to use your judgment; situations are not black-and-white.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You have to use your judgment; situations are not black-and-white.

Good luck with that.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
You have to use your judgment; situations are not black-and-white.

Good luck with that.

Yep. The judgment of the liberals posting in this thread certainly requires caution for sure.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You have to use your judgment; situations are not black-and-white.

Good luck with that.

Yep. The judgment of the liberals posting in this thread certainly requires caution for sure.

I really hate it when the majority rules.

0 Replies

Just received from an Australian friend.

The New Statesman | 12 February 2007

Too complex for Dubbya

Andrew Stephen

Unfortunately for the rest of the world, Rumsfeld and co never realised the Sunni-Shia division could get so complicated.

I suspect there have been two defining moments in America's long and painful education that a faraway country called Iraq never consisted simply of 27 million people yearning to be free from a dictator called Saddam Hussein. The first was in Riyadh on 25 November 2006, when King Abdullah, the oil-trading chum of the United States, last seen in Texas in April 2005 holding hands with George W Bush, "read the riot act" to Dick Cheney. He told Cheney that if US forces were to be pulled out of Iraq, Saudi Arabia would have no choice but to support the Sunni minority in Iraq. Meaning Saddam Hussein's thugs? Exactly, Cheney.

The second crucial turning point came just a few days ago, when a hitherto secret National Intelligence Estimates report on Iraq - the first such assessment since 2004, with input from the CIA, Defence Intelligence Agency and various other US spy organisations - was published quietly on a Friday when news in America was dominated by storms that had devastated parts of central Florida. The NIE foresaw the possibility of "extreme ethno-sectarian violence with debilitating intra-group clashes", leading to a "rapid deterioration with grave humanitarian, political and security consequences".

Thus, at long last, the neoconservative simplicities of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and co were shot away once and for all. "I think that the words 'civil war' oversimplify a very complex situation in Iraq," conceded Robert Gates, Rumsfeld's successor as defence secretary, in response. "I believe that there are essentially four wars going on in Iraq. One is Shia on Shia . . . the second is sectarian conflict . . . third is the insurgency . . . and fourth is al-Qaeda." Stephen Hadley, Bush's increasingly worried national security adviser, chimed in: "We need to get across the complexities of the situation we face in Iraq . . . and simple labels don't do that."

So now we know. But when it comes to Sunnis and Shias, alas, the US has a disastrous history of switching sides whenever short-term pragmatism dictates it. For example, the Reagan administration's response to the 1979 taking of 66 US marines and diplomats as hostages in Iran on the orders of the Shia cleric Ayatollah Khomeini was to bolster Khomeini's old enemy in Baghdad, the secular Sunni Saddam Hussein.

I have some brief footage from 1983 of Donald Rumsfeld, then Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East, shaking hands with Saddam. Anybody who doubts which side the US was on during the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war should read a recently declassified 1983 NIE report. It was both succinct and prophetic: "The current [Saddam] regime is likely to pursue policies more favourable to the United States than any successor regime . . . Saddam Husayn's [sic] removal could usher in an extended period of instability in Baghdad . . . any post-Saddam regime is almost certain to fall into factional fighting."

US undercover forces

Yet, exactly two decades later, Rumsfeld was spearheading the removal of Saddam, putting the Shia majority of Iraq back into the ascendancy and opening the door to Iranian expansionism. Iran, with a population of 69 million - 89 per cent of it Shia - became, overnight, a potentially far graver adversary of the United States than Iraq ever was. Last month, US troops raided an Iranian government liaison office in the Kurdish town of Irbil in Iraq, managing to enrage Kurds and Shias simultaneously. I am told that US undercover special forces are now already inside Iran, increasing the possibility of US military action against the Iranians.

No, Rummy and co never realised just how complicated this damned Shia-Sunni business really is. Goddamit, they're even feuding in places like Michigan and New Jersey and breaking the windows of each other's mosques! Current US foreign policy is to unite the latest "allies" such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, as well as Israel, against what Washington sees as the increasingly threatening coalition of Shias from Iran, Syria and Hezbollah with the Sunnis of Hamas - all of whom, of course, have been emboldened by the removal of Saddam. It's still all too much for the US media, which are content to refer to "insurgents" in Iraq - that is, anti-American baddies - without delving into the ancient divisions of Islam.

The late and much-lamented columnist Molly Ivins, who died on 31 January, wrote on 16 January 2003: "I assume we can defeat Hussein without great cost to our side (God forgive me if that is hubris). The problem is what happens after we win. The country is 20 per cent Kurd, 20 per cent Sunni and 60 per cent Shia. Can you say, 'Horrible three-way civil war?'"

Nobody in Washington, sadly, was listening to the likes of Molly then. And now, none other than the mighty US defence secretary himself is pronouncing that the Iraq calamity has already escalated into a four-way civil war.

http://www.newstatesman.com/print/200702120011

0 Replies

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know