The Bush admin is still lying to start a war - Page 10  

You're dumb.

Dear Groverat,

This thread is about Bush lying and how he should be held accountable for that. It's not about whether Iraq is better off.

I'm sure you're familiar with the justice system. If you murder somebody or take their property by deadly force it doesn't matter whether they deserved it or not. You still go to jail if justice is served correctly.

If there really was justification for going to war based on humanitarian grounds, why did Bush have to lie?

Oh... unless it's some kind of "Texas justice" you're supporting.

tonton:


I think Bush and Blair both mentioned the humanitarian issues for months before the war. Many world organizations also documented the humanitarian crisis (that the war will cure when all is said and done) for well over a decade.

I think the lack of a humanitarian case for many speaks more of the morally repugnant position those who opposed ousting Saddam put themselves in by supporting wholesale slaughter under a system of indefinite length over a short war of liberation.

I find it sad that the humanitarian cause isn't compelling to you. How inhumane the "left" has become.

If we take the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and see how many undemocratic countries that treats their citizents with equal low humanitarian standards US had to become buddies with you could make the argument that the wars have had a negative impact on the humanitarian situation. And adding to the uncertainty for the future.

I´m talking Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and I´m sure there are more.

Anders the White:


How?
We make friends with Pakistan to fight bin Laden in Afghanistan. Humanitarian situation in Afghanistan improves, Pakistan stays the same.
Or are you saying we've made the situation in Pakistan worse?

And for Iraq we got the help of... Qatar and Kuwait. People are really hurting there.


Seems like a valid argument in Afghanistan, a situation Dubya seems to have *ahem* paid less attention to than he should. Even so, I haven't seen that the humanitarian situation was anything but better overall while politically there is a weak and troubled new government.

International support would help, but we both know how the "international community" really feels about helping with no profit motive.

As far as Iraq... your argument there falls to pieces. If the most they have to worry about is how long their new government takes to take shapes then that's a night & day change for the best.

What we have done in the countries around Afghanistan is to become buddies with dictators we normally would put on ice. Pakistan as one example: An elected leader is removed by a military dictator and soon after Bush is saying that he admires his courage and leadership. Not something that sets the right standards.

With regards to Turkmenista the leadership there have a terrible track record and sanctions were put on them for that reason. Suddenly we need airports and since it have state of the art (well... at least what was considered state of the art in USSR) landing spots there we become buddie-buddie with them just when the opposition in the country was gaining strength. Not so good either.

Turkey: Not a rough state but still a state with a bad human rights record. They want to become members of EU but are unable until they come clean (Its in our charter: there are some well defined standarts EU member states have to obey). And to tell the truth we are exploiting that position to better the situation in Turkey and it works. Then Bush needs the turkish airspace in the war agaisnt Iraq and they say "well then you have to help us get into EU". Bush grabs the phone and calls his #2 puppy in europe, the prime minister of my country and tells him to work for the acceptance of turkey in the current enlargement of EU thus working against the efforts to better the human rights in Turkey.

Bases in Saudi Arabia: Not a nice country either. But the stability of the country that has american bases is more importent than the condition of it population and especially its huge portion of foreign workers. Up until lately where US is withdrawing from the country (a good desition IMO)

The "adding to the uncertainty for the future" comment was a broad comment about the action adding to the hatred against US and the west in countries like Turkmenistan, Saudi arabia and Pakistan to name a few.

I agree that the humanitarian situation have or soon will improve in Iraq (if we keep our focus on it while restraining from making it a common colony of the west) but the way we ensured it can cause worse problems in the future.

Anders the White:


I agree 100%, but it seems like that sort of thing is a necessary evil in international politics. That particular move was made to ensure stability during the Afghan war and it worked. I don't know (who does know?) how effective this alliance has been re: terrorism but maybe it has.

Our support of Musharraf is troubling, no doubt. Especially considering how weak Karzai's government is at this point, you wonder what you're getting out of it.


I'm not up-to-date on Turkmenistan, but I don't doubt what you say for a minute.

As much as I don't like our leaders buddying-up with naughty guys I recognize it as valid if it is to achieve a greater good.

But you'll have to go into more detail about Turkmenistan, I don't know much about it.


Wouldn't accepting Turkey make it easier for the EU to start pushing harder for human rights changes in Turkey?

Don't be exclusionary, Anders, we let Mississippi and Alabama into the US, look how much progress they've made! We've got South Carolina almost able to tolerate people who aren't white!


Hatred for the US was not in short supply pre-Afghan/Iraq.


I think making it a colony of the West would be a good thing for the human rights situation overall. I can't imagine a US/UK authority being worse than Hussein.


Anything is possible. Well... not *any*thing but you know what I mean.

A little context might be of some use here.
Prior to the coup, Nawaz Shariff has been using his overwhelming majority to accumulate powers, and to neuter any authoirity that could oppose his, like the presidency of the republic, or the supreme court and the rest of the judiciary, rendered toothless. However, there remained the army which is always an entity to vbe reckoned with in such countries, and its head Gen. Pervez Mussharraf. Musharraf was returning from an official visit in Sri Lanka, and was heading toward Karachi in a PIA regular commercial flight.
Shariff gave the control tower the strict order to refuse the Boeing, going low on fuel, landing authorisation anywhere in Pakistan. Landing in hostile India or chaotic Afghanistan was not possible either, Shariff simply wanted the plane to crash (along with Musharraf and some other two hundred passengers). Upon hearing this, Musharraf's direct underlings initiated a bloodless coup, and handed power to Musharraf on a plate after his plane finally landed in Karachi.
Rather than hastily trying Shariff and executing him as is usual in these situations, and as former military ruler, Gen. Zia Ul-Haq, did to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (father to former PM Benazir Bhutto), Musharraf had him condemend to a fourteen-years prison sentence in an anti-terrorism court, then pardoned and exiled.
So,the apprecitation expressed by the then presidential cadidate G.W. Bush, for ahhhGeneral General is quite understandable.

Musharraf has been the first ruler of Pakistan to initiate another direction than the political Islamicisation of Pakistan, begun under aforemtioned Zia Ul-Haq in the seventies, while human rights in Pakstan are very much below that in neighbouring India, it has been thus already under Nawaz Shariff, and if anyone is to blame for liquidating whatever partial demcoracy there was in nineteen-nineties' Paksitan, it's Shariff, not Musharraf.
If Pakistan has any chance to actually get off the Shari'a regime and reform itself (and I'd be surprise if it makes it, alas), it's under Pervez Musharraf, not Shariff; and don't even get me started about Benazir Bhutto, that spilt kid had propped-up the most fanatical of all fanatical Afghan groups because as she admitted it it herself It was daddy's policy, without her support the Taleban would have remained a band of local Quran-thumpers endlessly warrying against their neighbour Quran-thumping warlords.

Countries around Afghanistan were authoritarian well before the U.S. operation there, and all Western countries including from Europe or North America have correct relations (buddies) with them (except Iran, still shunned by the U.S.).
None of these countries, except China from time to time, has been to the level of oppression which was found in Iraq under Saddam Hussain.

And about Turkey, with all its faults (and there many of them), that country is way more economically developed and more democratic than Slovakia or Bulgaria (Greece when it joined, circa 1981, was far less democratic or developed than Turkey today, and is still closer to Turkey in those respects than to any other EU state). Wisdom would have had it that the EU waits till these and the other former communist countries reach a relatively passable level of both democratisation and economic development, before having them join. Now the EU will have to undergo the same kind of ordeal that Germany did and does resulting of its absorbing the Länder of the former D.D.R.
Not very smart.
And not fair toward Turkey, dismissed for reasons not all that related with either its lack of sufficient democratic or economic development (given the similar and bigger such lacks in many of those accepted as new members).

Excellent post.

No Shariff wasn´t an angel. But still he was, as you say, an overwhelming_elected leader of the country. He was ousted by a military coup.

Now what is more importent: A government that supports US or democracy? Its the grand dilemma in many teories about democracy that florish in the maerican political circles: They can be contrasts.



Turkmenistan have all the potential to become the new Iraq. Its rather scary to read about the country since it sounds like iraq twenty years ago. And up until the need for runways in the war against Afghanistan the country was becoming more and more isolated from international relations as an answer to the conditions in the country. Here is a link from the state department (2000):

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/europe/turkmenistan.html

And here is a letter from Niyazov (proudly hosted at the US embassy server) at the anniversary of 9/11 thanking Bush for the great collaboration between US and Turkmenistan:

http://www.usemb-ashgabat.rpo.at/911letter.html

And if you look for it you will be able to find speaches held by Powell thanking Niyazov for the coorporation between the two countries.


If I read you right there could be three reasons for keeping Turkey out:

1) Economy, which you say would be stupid since the structure of the Turkish economy is better than of those countries we accept. I agree and Despite I´m not a fan of EU (I see it as a bad Implementation of the otherwise great idea of european unification) I´m glad that the econimical factor is not the reason.

2) The Turk/Greek problem. I think the attitude in most european countries are like "GET OVER IT ALREADY!" So even if its a huge problem for Greece and a smaller one in Brussel it would never be a reason for the general public to hold Turkey out. And a vast majority doesn´t want to accept it.

3) that leaves one reason. The human rights question. The European human right declaration has to be fulfilled to be accepted in EU and that includes things like leaving death penalty as a way of punishment (just to take one example) and Turkey hasn´t taken the nessesary steps.

4) Some in turkey claim that its the christian europe that won´t accept a muslim country. But even for me as a atheist its importent that those minimum conditions are met. Religion can not make respect for human life relative. Especially not in a union that is going to be more tight in the next few years.

If its for a fifth reason we want to keep out Turkey please state it. You have rejected the economical reason as well as the human rights one (which I claim is the right one) and I have rejected the others. If you have another please say so

One special note about this:


No. Those countries was becoming more and more isolated from the interenational society. No one was buddies with these countries before the war. And the presents of US troops will stop all development (like in Saudi Arabia) for the better.

At least we agreed that while what US did in Iraq may in the future give them a brighter life it have potentially done harm in other countries (to make an omelet...)

In Goldsteins post he is trying to say no harm was done anywhere and that simply isn´t true. The presens of troops in Pakistan and the preversion of the current "government" is not good for the citizents of pakistan. Would the american troops allow an uprising to tumble Mussharraf if the social pressure became strong enough? No because it needs stability. The same goes for Turkmenistan. And for Tajikistan even if its considerable more mudded.

Anders:


If Immanuel is representing Shariff's efforts fairly it doesn't seem like that was the exact choice. Seemed like Shariff was eroding the democracy.

Not to say that what happened was good or "right", but it's not so black and white.


And the terror attacks in SA came *after* we announced we were leaving. Kind of makes you question the terrorist motives.


Like what?


Wait... so stability isn't worth suppressing rebellion for now?

Wasn't that why we let Saddam brutally crush the Shi'ia rebellion in 1991? Wasn't that a HUGE reason for oppossing the ouster of Saddam, destabilization? Wasn't "containment" the preferred route to war?

And beside that, I don't think all rebellions are good for the people.

Should any legally elected head of government in any of the three democratic countries of which I am a citizen, dismantle one by one eevery institution able to check his power, and thus dismantle demcoracy, I'd be hoping the military does its duty and ousts the elected hack.


A democracy should be preferred, as it's shown it's more beneficial to deal with, on the long term.
In the absence or unavalaibility of democracy, better a dictator more like Anwar al-Sadat or King Hussain than one closer to Hafeth al-Assad or Saddam Hussain.
Personally, I believe demcoracies should start articulating a more coordinated global policy, aiming at fostering stability, development, and democracy as much as possible. But that'll have to wait till I make my coordinated coups in several of the main G7 powerhouses.


Turkmenistan, like most of its fellow former Soviet Stans, is basically the same local party bosses who fashioned themselves democratic leaders of the people. It seems that following the failed 1991 communist oldtimers' coup, the Stans hastily seceded form the Union to avoid the same democratisation that was taking place in russia at the time.
Many of them have the potential to become quite nasty. So they should, in my opinion, be assisted, and warned, so to encourage them to follow a path similar to that of Taiwan, or South Korea, or several Hispanophone countries of the Americas, which improved politically in the late nineteen-eighties and early nineties.



If the economic, political, and human right criteria, for admittance are set to the lowest so to accept a Slovakia or a Croatia, then there's no reasonable cause to keep Turkey out.
I believe Turkey's current levels of either human-rights, political, or economic development are below that of a First-World democracy, and so not quite ready but then so are most of the new Eastern members.
But then it seems the EU, rather than wanting to be a strictly First-World democracies' joint, had decided to be a Common Indo-European Christian Club instead, so screw them.


The EU's dishonest attitude is een in its treatment of the Cypriot question.
The small Middle-Eastern island has been told it'd be admitted in the Union, supposedly on the condition it puts an end to its ethnic conflict and initiates re-unification. However, should the two halves reach an agreement, only the Greek side will is admitted anyway!.
Greece, whose treatment of its Turkish minority in Thrace, and of its Slavic minorities in Macedonia, is far below the standards of all other current EU members including the Mediterranean ones, has no other motivation in opposing Turkey's admittance, other than because it's made of Turks.


Well, to my knowledge there's a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and then there's a European Convention on Human Rights, which are not quite the same thing.
Should the level of economic development suitable for a First-World country be reached by Turkey, a sufficient compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights is still indispensable for admittance (but perhaps Greece should be ousted for failure to comply, but they have the Parthenon and the Attalos Portico and other bibelots, and so are treated with way too much indulgence).


Former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing admitted as much.


Formally, Turkey is more secular than most countries already in the EU. Islam still has a doctrine problem with the notions of religously-neutral state and religously-neutral civil society, which are precisely what make religion tame.
That maisntream moderate Islam is less accomodating of a secualr state than the most fundamnetalist of fundamnetalist Christians, and that Islam's influence on a sizable part of Turkey's population, still very traditional, would be the only worrisome ground here. However, the actual problem they have with Turkey here, is that it's full of Muslims.


I believe as much as stated above, that Turkey is simply considered not-really European given that it is seen as fully and forever lost to Christendom since Constatinople fell in the hands of Mehmet II in 1453.


I suppose I explained why I think Turkey was rejected and some less or just as worthy candidates admitted, and what in my opinion should have been the proper route taken.

If necessary, I could clarify further.


I say many things, some of them untrue, but where fo i say no harm was done anywhere?


The presence of U.S. troops in Paksitan is insignificant, precisley for not to hinder the stability of Pakistan;s current government, which is the U.S.' biggest asset in that counbtry. that is also the reason why it keeps shower favours on Pakistan while democratic Inmdia begs to become the U.S.' premier partner in the Subcontinent

Later addition:

The American troops would not in a position to allow or disallow an uprising, and the presence of any substantial number of such troops in the country would put Paiksitan;s stability at risk. Besides, Musharraf seems to be doing fine in that department, to the satisfaction of all concerned.

As for the Central European Stans, the more significant presence of U.S. troops there, for the time being, could be likened to that in some less than palatable countries during the second half of the twentieth century (think Francoist Spain), which didn't turn all that bad after all.

I forgotten this one.


Before 1990, these countries were locked up as part of the Soviet empire. From 1990 to 2000 they certainly opened up to varying degrees, and established correct ties with lots of countries, Western, East Asian, South Asian, Muslim, even with Israel.


The only reason Saudi Arabia remains such a backward mediaeval autocracy is because of the ruthless regime of the House Sa'ud and of the huge influence of extreme Wahabi clerics on the ignorant population. The only impact the presence of U.S. troop had there is that it made some Jihadis go ballistic, unbelievers soiling the holy land and all that.
These troops were there at the demand of the local royals to protect them from Saddam Hussain; and now that he's gone, they're leaving, which I believe puts the future of House Sa'ud under a big question mark.
Not that I'd lose any sleep over that.

I´m already in bed so my answer to your post must wait to tomorrow. But I´ll make a few easy points:

1) Croatia is not among the ten new countries to be accepted into EU. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta and Cyprus are the ones.
2) Valery d'Estaing is an elderly man and not the voice of europe. You can´t use him as a withness for why some states are accepted in Eu and why some aren´t. And more and more people are coming to the conclusion that it was a mistake to have him as the chairman of the group preparing the new convention. Among those over half of those politicians working on the Convention.
3) If you read the reports from the state department on Tajikistan and Turkmenistan you´ll see that the situation actually have gone in the wrong direction in the last years. Its not USSR continued but a reverse from better times in mid 90s.
5) "I say many things, some of them untrue, but where fo i say ?no harm was done anywhere??". You surely dont see any problems in US troops being anywhere. Not in former USSR republics, not in Saudi Arabia, not in pakistan. At least Groverat agreed with me (until you changed his mind )
5) Stability is key when you have to count on a friendly leaders to stay there. But I´m not gonna lose sleep over the saudi royal familys future either, soo good night

We're completely withdrawing Saudi Arabia? Please let the UP and Reuters know because I haven't seen any news of the sort.

Bunge: It's not a total removal of troops, but we're withdrawing all but about 400 people from SA. The story broke a few weeks ago.

Cheers
Scott

tsk, tsk bunge,


You are a VERY NAUGHTY BOY.

try Google News, it's yummy.

Sorry, I was misled by a piece of news (last March, I think) according to which Croatia's candidacy was backed by the EU Parliament. So it's not actually admitted yet, all the better.
But there it is: most of those new members are no more (and sometimes less) developed than Turkey whether it has to do with the economy, democracy, or human rights. The treatment of the Cyprus problem further illustrates this bias.
To precise my opinion, I believe the EU should have emphasised more on content: shaping itself as an integrated political entity, before even thinking about further enlargement. It would have given some time to develop to the eastern and southeastern European countries, so they can be more of an asset than a burden when they join. If the record of the German reunification is any indication, then the absdorbtion of so many of those relatively backward countries is going to be costly, and to make it harder to proceed with that much needed shaping of the Union.


Giscard expressed openly what is a common sentiment. Given that the new member-states are no more advanced than Turkey, the reason they're in and Turkey's out is more than obvious.
I do hope there's enough opposite sentiment to balance that.
And it's about damn time more people find out what a putz Giscard really is.


I did notice that trend, but it does not contradict the general assessment of the regimes there (often the former party apparatus), nor that it's still far better than it was in the eighties.
Internal instability, external destabilising factors (like armed fundamentalist groups), and economic uncertainties due to haphazarad reforms, led to a marasme on the second half of the decade. Similar things happened to several ther former Soviet block countries.


I see no inherent problem in such presence. Then there's the difference in scope in a massive presence of U.S. as was the case in Saudi, the more modest deployment in some Central Asian countries, and the insignificant presence as is the case in Pakistan. I don't deny problems could arise from that presence.


Goodnight.

Let's see ... does it mention complete withdrawal?

(reads link)

Nope.

Duh.

Yeah, I had heard about the reduction of troops, but not a withdrawl. Plus, the announcement of the reduction came after Al Queda announced they were going to attack in Pakistan, Morocco and Saudia Arabia.

Sure. I actually hadn't heard about any threats to attack. The spin the admin gave it was that once the Iraq war was over, and once Iraq no longer posed a serious threat to SA, there was no reason to keep the troops (what, 3500 or so?) there.

And it also helps with, you know, the fact that the US military presence there is a sore spot for lots of folks.

But as I understand it, all but about 400 will be withdrawn. Those who remain will be there sheerly for "training purposes."

BTW, did anyone else hear that one of the targets in SA was a fairly well-known CIA front? I seem to remember hearing this (perhaps on NPR), and I *think* the person said that it either was or is a front. Anyway.

Sorry, wrong again giant. Ari no longer works for the White House so no matter what he ever said or when he said it, we have to pretend that he never represented the President.

Don't you understand obfuscation?

heh. It looks like that's going to be the case for a bunch of people. Karen Hughes, Ari, CT Whitman, the entire original economic team....

Looks like the night of the long knives or something.

I don't see how Fleischer's statement disputes what you quoted me as saying.


Tell me, were Bush & Blair *not* making the humanitarian case for months?

Does Fleischer saying that mean that Bush & Blair didn't actually say all of that stuff about the atrocities of Hussein?

Interesting...

giant:


I am not disputing what Fleischer said at all. I'm just talking about the things Bush and Blair had been saying for months before the war.

I'm wondering this, does Fleischer saying that mean that Bush & Blair no longer made appeals about the humanitarian issue, because that's what you quoted me as saying.

You didn't quote me as saying what the war was "about" because I don't know what the war was "about". To claim to know the internal motivations of GeeDub is never something I claimed to know.

So what the hell is your point? How is posting that quote from Fleischer a refutation of what you quoted me as saying?

Anyone remember Scott Ritter? He was the the former weapons inspector who claimed that Iraq was all but disarmed and no longer represented a threat, re. WMD. The Bush administration dissed him from here to the Mississippi and back, and the media predictably followed suit, and he all but disappeared from public view.

Looks like he was the man who was telling the truth. Yes, the Bush admin was lying to start a war.

SJO:


Once effective inspection regimes have been terminated Iraq will be able to reconstitute the entirety of its former nuclear, chemical, and ballistic missile delivery system capabilities within a period of six months.
- Scott Ritter, testimony to Congress in September of 1998

Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.
- Scott Ritter, December 1998 in New Republic


Yep, quite the trustworthy source. An asshole pedophile who also happens to be a liar and a media whore.

Well said!

giant:


Funny, democracy in America has worked quite well without 100% knowledge of the internal motivations of presidents or other high-level decision-makers.


Again, does Fleischer's statement negate everything Bush and Blair had said before about Saddam? Is the WoMD issue not linked inextricably with Saddam?

Use already existing threads, people.

The BBC ran a nice piece on the reasons for the war.

Read it here.

perl was on the PBS news with Jim Lehrer discussing the 'information' prior to the war and the possibility that the WMD angle was politicized. There were other speakers, all of whom were right of center or maybe just center.

Perl got absurdly touchy when the mere pssibility of politicization was brought up . . . . but it was clearly obviouse that he had no idea what it meant that information could and wouldbe, of necessity, chosen from a particular perspective, and, when done so by politicians it would be used to serve a particular purpose = politicization.

He is such a major hypocrit . . . .

the speakers had to walk on eggshells rather than blare out: the war had ulterior motives!! Why? because he doth protest too much

Ulterior motives:

some of them having to do with your Pax Americana document

others having to do with profit for American Companies like yours Mr Perl (before its obviouseness made him quite his post)

others having to do with long term strategy as far as our position in the region and in relation to Saudi Arabia

and yes, some having to do with oil . . . .

There are also some of the real good (besides some listed above) benefits which were never really points of motivation with our government. If they had been then we would have never backed Saddam for the length of time that we did: namely, all the reasons that groverat backed teh war: the liberation of the Iraqi people. Not an issue in the realpolitik of the admin merely a propaganda tool . . . and its not my cynicism that says this its the cynicicm of politicians that says it.


They could have pushed more on all of these issues up front,
but no, they lied to us.

Now the debate spins the issue as a matter of the Integrity of Information.
but the real issue
is the integrity of our own government's relationship to truth.

(I love America and Americans (except scott and SDW) I hate to see us look like brutes who lie in order to take things and maintain power
when what we should have done is be straight forward and take things and maintain power and admit it)