Someone go back to bush's speech and pull out his major points for going to war.
Let's just look.
March 18, announcing reasons he will be using force against Iraq:
Quote:
March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President: )
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Another thing too is that the media reshapes the purpose of the war stated by the president to fit their, the media?s, agenda. Someone go back to bush's speech and pull out his major points for going to war. You'll find several others there besides WMD.
So this whole notion that WMD is the reason is a media lie.
Why is it Bush supporters try to keep this myth going? WOMD and the imminent threat are the only reasons that count. They are the only reasons that got this past the UN and the american people. They were the only reasons this war was possible.
I supported the war not giving a rat's ass about WMD. I don't necessarily agree that our nation building is needed, but someone's intervention was needed to get rid of Saddam and UN sanctions.
If we *really* wanted to get rid of Saddam, then Bush Sr. would have supported the massive revolt by the Iraqi people against Saddam's regime back in 1991 shortly after the Iraqi military had been pushed out of Kuwait. But no, he re-supplied Saddam's Republican Guard with all kinds of military hardware including helicopter gunships, and the revolution was squashed...and Saddam consequently remained in power. And why was Saddam suddenly regarded a menace, when between 1978 and 1990 he was a close ally? Some of the folk in the Bush admin are the same people in the Reagan (and Bush Sr.') administrations who were very OK with Saddam, during the time he committed his worst atrocities. You didn't give a rat's about WMD? Hmm...I recall a number of times your repetition of the "must disarm Iraq" mantra in a number of threads.
If we *really* wanted to get rid of Saddam, then Bush Sr. would have supported the massive revolt by the Iraqi people against Saddam's regime back in 1991 shortly after the Iraqi military had been pushed out of Kuwait. But no, he re-supplied Saddam's Republican Guard with all kinds of military hardware including helicopter gunships, and the revolution was squashed...and Saddam consequently remained in power. And why was Saddam suddenly regarded a menace, when between 1978 and 1990 he was a close ally? Some of the folk in the Bush admin are the same people in the Reagan (and Bush Sr.') administrations who were very OK with Saddam, during the time he committed his worst atrocities. You didn't give a rat's about WMD? Hmm...I recall a number of times your repetition of the "must disarm Iraq" mantra in a number of threads.
The biggest problem with your line of thinking is simply that Bush failed to live up to your expectations. It's foolish to think going to war was the right way or best way to end sanctions.
I don't mind if people don't care about the WMD angle, but since the rest of the excuses have proven to be about as accurate as the WMD BS going to was hasn't caused as much good as it has caused strife.
The biggest problem with your line of thinking is simply that Bush failed to live up to your expectations. It's foolish to think going to war was the right way or best way to end sanctions.
Truly it was a big mistake in my reasoning to assume that Bush would have actually prepared for the post-war rebuilding of Iraq. It just seemed like such an awfully long time preparing for the war that I was sure that at least some intelligent people working for him would have identified all, or at least most, of the post-war problems. When I found out that the antiquities community had notified the administration months before the war that they would need to quickly secure the museums to avoid looting and then to see zero effort in doing so, I knew at that moment that they would drop the ball on the entire effort.
There is so much potential profit in Iraq I find it amazing that he couldn't secure at least post-war economic support from other UN members. I recognize that it is much easier to break things than build things, but I think there is an issue of inertia here that Bush didn't comprehend.
As for the sanctions issue, I must emphasize that I am being entirely selfish in my support for the war. Just as you see people argue that their are so many regimes more worthy of overthrowing (North Korea, Iran, etc...) I am honest enough to admit that I am supporting strategic moves that benefit me and my own. The middle east is a powder keg that must be diffused, Saudi Arabia is not a true ally, and we need the oil. As it happens a stable democracy in Iraq will benefit us more than the failed policies of the past in supporting sympathetic dictators, but Iraqi well-fare is not my primary concern.
There is so much potential profit in Iraq I find it amazing that he couldn't secure at least post-war economic support from other UN members. I recognize that it is much easier to break things than build things, but I think there is an issue of inertia here that Bush didn't comprehend.
Other countries are not masochist enough to give money to the same guy who denied them any say in the game.
Everyone in their right mind could see that after Rummies cool jokes.
Quote:
The middle east is a powder keg that must be diffused, Saudi Arabia is not a true ally, and we need the oil. As it happens a stable democracy in Iraq will benefit us more than the failed policies of the past in supporting sympathetic dictators, but Iraqi well-fare is not my primary concern.
Be careful - the story about Saudi Arabia is spoonfed to you by the same spin doctors who fed you with WoMDs. SA's monarchy has a vested interest in US goodwill, that's why they even allowed bases on their soil. There are a lot of radicals in SA, but that's true of every country down there (not just the arabic ones), and the government of SA is on the Al Quaida death list as well.
Invading Iraq on false claims (about WoMDs, Al Quaida, 9/11) has dealt a deadly blow to the US's credibility in the region - and I personally doubt people down there have as short a memory as we in the west.
Invading Iraq on false claims (about WoMDs, Al Quaida, 9/11) has dealt a deadly blow to the US's credibility in the region - and I personally doubt people down there have as short a memory as we in the west.
You've got a good point there, we certainly pissed away all the amity and support from other countries after 9/11. I guess I should have amended my support to be on the condition that even if the stated reasons were lies they should damn well have been at least good enough lies to hold up.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
Someone go back to bush's speech and pull out his major points for going to war.
Let's just look.
March 18, announcing reasons he will be using force against Iraq:
March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President: )
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030319-1.html
Originally posted by Scott
Another thing too is that the media reshapes the purpose of the war stated by the president to fit their, the media?s, agenda. Someone go back to bush's speech and pull out his major points for going to war. You'll find several others there besides WMD.
So this whole notion that WMD is the reason is a media lie.
Why is it Bush supporters try to keep this myth going? WOMD and the imminent threat are the only reasons that count. They are the only reasons that got this past the UN and the american people. They were the only reasons this war was possible.
Originally posted by groverat
I supported the war not giving a rat's ass about WMD. I don't necessarily agree that our nation building is needed, but someone's intervention was needed to get rid of Saddam and UN sanctions.
If we *really* wanted to get rid of Saddam, then Bush Sr. would have supported the massive revolt by the Iraqi people against Saddam's regime back in 1991 shortly after the Iraqi military had been pushed out of Kuwait. But no, he re-supplied Saddam's Republican Guard with all kinds of military hardware including helicopter gunships, and the revolution was squashed...and Saddam consequently remained in power. And why was Saddam suddenly regarded a menace, when between 1978 and 1990 he was a close ally? Some of the folk in the Bush admin are the same people in the Reagan (and Bush Sr.') administrations who were very OK with Saddam, during the time he committed his worst atrocities. You didn't give a rat's about WMD? Hmm...I recall a number of times your repetition of the "must disarm Iraq" mantra in a number of threads.
Originally posted by sammi jo
If we *really* wanted to get rid of Saddam, then Bush Sr. would have supported the massive revolt by the Iraqi people against Saddam's regime back in 1991 shortly after the Iraqi military had been pushed out of Kuwait. But no, he re-supplied Saddam's Republican Guard with all kinds of military hardware including helicopter gunships, and the revolution was squashed...and Saddam consequently remained in power. And why was Saddam suddenly regarded a menace, when between 1978 and 1990 he was a close ally? Some of the folk in the Bush admin are the same people in the Reagan (and Bush Sr.') administrations who were very OK with Saddam, during the time he committed his worst atrocities. You didn't give a rat's about WMD? Hmm...I recall a number of times your repetition of the "must disarm Iraq" mantra in a number of threads.
Yup!
The biggest problem with your line of thinking is simply that Bush failed to live up to your expectations. It's foolish to think going to war was the right way or best way to end sanctions.
I don't mind if people don't care about the WMD angle, but since the rest of the excuses have proven to be about as accurate as the WMD BS going to was hasn't caused as much good as it has caused strife.
Originally posted by bunge
Nordstrodamus,
The biggest problem with your line of thinking is simply that Bush failed to live up to your expectations. It's foolish to think going to war was the right way or best way to end sanctions.
Truly it was a big mistake in my reasoning to assume that Bush would have actually prepared for the post-war rebuilding of Iraq. It just seemed like such an awfully long time preparing for the war that I was sure that at least some intelligent people working for him would have identified all, or at least most, of the post-war problems. When I found out that the antiquities community had notified the administration months before the war that they would need to quickly secure the museums to avoid looting and then to see zero effort in doing so, I knew at that moment that they would drop the ball on the entire effort.
There is so much potential profit in Iraq I find it amazing that he couldn't secure at least post-war economic support from other UN members. I recognize that it is much easier to break things than build things, but I think there is an issue of inertia here that Bush didn't comprehend.
As for the sanctions issue, I must emphasize that I am being entirely selfish in my support for the war. Just as you see people argue that their are so many regimes more worthy of overthrowing (North Korea, Iran, etc...) I am honest enough to admit that I am supporting strategic moves that benefit me and my own. The middle east is a powder keg that must be diffused, Saudi Arabia is not a true ally, and we need the oil. As it happens a stable democracy in Iraq will benefit us more than the failed policies of the past in supporting sympathetic dictators, but Iraqi well-fare is not my primary concern.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe...ook/index.html
Ain't that a hell of a note!
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
There is so much potential profit in Iraq I find it amazing that he couldn't secure at least post-war economic support from other UN members. I recognize that it is much easier to break things than build things, but I think there is an issue of inertia here that Bush didn't comprehend.
Other countries are not masochist enough to give money to the same guy who denied them any say in the game.
Everyone in their right mind could see that after Rummies cool jokes.
The middle east is a powder keg that must be diffused, Saudi Arabia is not a true ally, and we need the oil. As it happens a stable democracy in Iraq will benefit us more than the failed policies of the past in supporting sympathetic dictators, but Iraqi well-fare is not my primary concern.
Be careful - the story about Saudi Arabia is spoonfed to you by the same spin doctors who fed you with WoMDs. SA's monarchy has a vested interest in US goodwill, that's why they even allowed bases on their soil. There are a lot of radicals in SA, but that's true of every country down there (not just the arabic ones), and the government of SA is on the Al Quaida death list as well.
Invading Iraq on false claims (about WoMDs, Al Quaida, 9/11) has dealt a deadly blow to the US's credibility in the region - and I personally doubt people down there have as short a memory as we in the west.
Originally posted by Smircle
Invading Iraq on false claims (about WoMDs, Al Quaida, 9/11) has dealt a deadly blow to the US's credibility in the region - and I personally doubt people down there have as short a memory as we in the west.
You've got a good point there, we certainly pissed away all the amity and support from other countries after 9/11. I guess I should have amended my support to be on the condition that even if the stated reasons were lies they should damn well have been at least good enough lies to hold up.
Originally posted by jimmac
And now the plot thickens.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe...ook/index.html
Ain't that a hell of a note!
Thickens? Jesus christ, it's some ****ing dense shit.
Treason. That's what I smell in the waters.
Originally posted by groverat
I supported the war not giving a rat's ass about WMD.
me to. And guess what, I still don't give a rat's ass.
Originally posted by nx7oe
me to. And guess what, I still don't give a rat's ass.
This sort of thing is sounding pretty hollow now days.