Iraq can thank George Bush

[volinbham]

No argument from me here. But like you said, WMD sealed the deal. Everything else that was stated can be said about any number of countries around the world.

WMD was always what was needed to garner the support needed for quick action. It legitimized Iraq as a credible threat that needed to be dealt with immediately.

The only difference in justification was that WMD was diminished as a reason but the other reasons were there and actively promoted all the time. It's wrong to say a NEW justification (liberation) was found after the WMD situation. Liberation was always a KEY part of the justification.

 

[rjd970]

The only difference in justification was that WMD was diminished as a reason but the other reasons were there and actively promoted all the time. It's wrong to say a NEW justification (liberation) was found after the WMD situation. Liberation was always a KEY part of the justification.

Right, but pre-hostilities it was "WMD,WMD, threat, terrorism, genocide". Afterward, it has been all "liberation and free elections".

 

[therealUT]

Which countries? Who? As far as I know it was just us and Great Britain leading the WMD charge.

Our intel was corroborated by France, Germany, and Russia. Those three nations simply felt it was not justification for an invasion. The US and the UK felt it was.

 

[volinbham]

Right, but pre-hostilities it was "WMD,WMD, threat, terrorism, genocide". Afterward, it has been all "liberation and free elections".

This is where I disagree - liberation was a prominently promoted pre-hostilities. All the reasons were but WMD got the most attention. Naturally, WMD couldn't be the reason afterwards. In fact the very Neo-con strategy that was behind the war was based far more on liberation and ME transformation than WMD. WMD was just an add on to the true strategy but the true strategy was NEVER hidden and was talked about quite openly and frequently.

Suggesting that the justification significantly changed is misleading. A key reason was dropped but the other reasons were not new - they were getting prominent attention the whole time.

 

[BigPapaVol]

This is where I disagree - liberation was a prominently promoted pre-hostilities. All the reasons were but WMD got the most attention. Naturally, WMD couldn't be the reason afterwards. In fact the very Neo-con strategy that was behind the war was based far more on liberation and ME transformation than WMD. WMD was just an add on to the true strategy but the true strategy was NEVER hidden and was talked about quite openly and frequently.

Suggesting that the justification significantly changed is misleading. A key reason was dropped but the other reasons were not new - they were getting prominent attention the whole time.

I agree. The press' overwhelming WMD focus was the piece that gave the impression that it was the central focus of the effort.

 

[SavageOrangeJug]

1. Ok, we can multiply that ass & buggy count by 20 or 100 if you wish. Moot point......



2. According to Bush, "Saddam Hussein was executed after receiving a fair trial -- the kind of justice he denied the victims of his brutal regime. Fair trials were unimaginable under Saddam Hussein's tyrannical rule. It is a testament to the Iraqi people's resolve to move forward after decades of oppression that, despite his terrible crimes against his own people, Saddam Hussein received a fair trial. This would not have been possible without the Iraqi people's determination to create a society governed by the rule of law.

Link

How do you know Bush had his twitchy finger on the trap door when he flat out denies it and gives credit to the Iraqi's? Can you provide a source? Who should we believe? A President or someone livings in their parents basement drinking dad's natty light.



3. We are on a rough and unfinished peacekeeping mission, hardly over by any account. My buddy is not over there making nearly a 100K as contract military accepting flowers and love bracelets from the Iraqi's. I doubt he would agree with you that its over, but I don't have that insider info like you.



4. I guess Bush could have told Maliki to say this too...

"We will not allow Iraq to become a platform for harming the security of Iran and neighbours," Maliki said after a late-night meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki in Tehran.

"will not" are strong words.....

Link


Thats one way of sidestepping a friendly jab. Thanks!! I read the rules several years ago.

I expect nothing less than for you to declare anyone that questions your radical jibberish as a terrorist or a leftist commy b@$t@rd. That appears to be the only consistent answer you have.

I tend to be more of a radical centralist but thanks for the concern.







P.S. Thanks for the laughs.....

I'll believe what I see. Hey, if you don't like your Dad's cheap beer, get a job and move out.

Your buddy is a "security guard" there? WOW! I'll believe professional soldiers who have been there, and are there now. Your wannabe mercenary buddy doesn't impress me.

PS: The laughs are on you, and warped views. Radical? lol: You must be pretty damn scary with that protest sign.

 

[rjd970]

This is where I disagree - liberation was a prominently promoted pre-hostilities. All the reasons were but WMD got the most attention. Naturally, WMD couldn't be the reason afterwards. In fact the very Neo-con strategy that was behind the war was based far more on liberation and ME transformation than WMD. WMD was just an add on to the true strategy but the true strategy was NEVER hidden and was talked about quite openly and frequently.

Suggesting that the justification significantly changed is misleading. A key reason was dropped but the other reasons were not new - they were getting prominent attention the whole time.

Again, without the WMD story, Iraq is no different than any other two-bit third world dictatorship that flips a bird at the U.N. The WMD connection and terrorism was central to the story, especially post 9/11 when we were all whipped up in a frenzy. All I hear now from the right is free elections and a tyrant-free country. It is not just press or media printing it, it is after-the-fact justification for a primary reason turning out to be completely false.

And I find it hard to believe that if it was more about ME transformation and liberation then the post major combat operations would have been planned a little better, with some vision on how they wanted things to take shape, and a better understanding of intra-tribal political and religious differences.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

700 tons of yellow cake!

 

[volinbham]

Again, without the WMD story, Iraq is no different than any other two-bit third world dictatorship that flips a bird at the U.N. The WMD connection and terrorism was central to the story, especially post 9/11 when we were all whipped up in a frenzy. All I hear now from the right is free elections and a tyrant-free country. It is not just press or media printing it, it is after-the-fact justification for a primary reason turning out to be completely false.

And I find it hard to believe that if it was more about ME transformation and liberation then the post major combat operations would have been planned a little better, with some vision on how they wanted things to take shape, and a better understanding of intra-tribal political and religious differences.

Go back and watch/read the administration's speeches about it. They are rife with the Neo-con strategy of ME transformation. The fact that post conflict wasn't planned well doesn't change the fact. Since the WMD didn't pan out, the emphasis was shifted to the original underlying goals of the action. Would support have been as high without the WMD portion? No. That doesn't mean the WMD was the only reason given for taking the action. The other reasons were openly stated again and again. After the fact when they are stated people claim they are new reasons. That is entirely false.

 

[rjd970]

Go back and watch/read the administration's speeches about it. They are rife with the Neo-con strategy of ME transformation. The fact that post conflict wasn't planned well doesn't change the fact. Since the WMD didn't pan out, the emphasis was shifted to the original underlying goals of the action. Would support have been as high without the WMD portion? No. That doesn't mean the WMD was the only reason given for taking the action. The other reasons were openly stated again and again. After the fact when they are stated people claim they are new reasons. That is entirely false.

The emphasis change is what I am talking about, and regardless of what is said, no way we ever step foot in Iraq without the WMD story. Terrorism and WMD would have been enough by themselves to justify Iraq. Everything else without it wouldn't have been enough (although it should be).

I still say if they were that concerned with transforming Iraq into a ME democracy, the planning would have been much better.

 

[therealUT]

The emphasis change is what I am talking about, and regardless of what is said, no way we ever step foot in Iraq without the WMD story. Terrorism and WMD would have been enough by themselves to justify Iraq. Everything else without it wouldn't have been enough (although it should be).

I still say if they were that concerned with transforming Iraq into a ME democracy, the planning would have been much better.

I am convinced that the only reason GWB pitched the WMD argument was to try to convince the security council at the UN of our justified position in invading Iraq.

If the GWB administration had known from the outset that the UN was not going to back our action, then I believe the WMD argument would have been tabled and we still would have rolled in to Iraq.

 

[rjd970]

I am convinced that the only reason GWB pitched the WMD argument was to try to convince the security council at the UN of our justified position in invading Iraq.

If the GWB administration had known from the outset that the UN was not going to back our action, then I believe the WMD argument would have been tabled and we still would have rolled in to Iraq.

This sounds like an admission that you really do believe the administration misled the country on the WMD issue, especially the first part.

Nevertheless, I don't think there is any way we go into Iraq without the WMD/Terrorism story to garner support.

 

[therealUT]

This sounds like an admission that you really do believe the administration misled the country on the WMD issue, especially the first part.

That is an interesting conclusion you came to. It was not the intended conclusion.

I am saying that the House and Senate would have approved military action against Iraq, regardless of whether or not Iraq had WMD capabilities.

Nevertheless, I don't think there is any way we go into Iraq without the WMD/Terrorism story to garner support.

It doesn't take a super majority to declare war / authorize the use of force.

 

[f1ip]

I'll believe what I see. Hey, if you don't like your Dad's cheap beer, get a job and move out.

Your buddy is a "security guard" there? WOW! I'll believe professional soldiers who have been there, and are there now. Your wannabe mercenary buddy doesn't impress me.

PS: The laughs are on you, and warped views. Radical? lol: You must be pretty damn scary with that protest sign.

Nice response to the facts.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[SavageOrangeJug]

Nice response to the facts.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Facts?

I'm sorry. I didn't realize your attempted jabs, your sheeplike leftist view, and your security guard buddy's mercenary stories were to be accepted as facts.

Shame on me for accepting the word of professional soldiers over a "radical centralist" such as yourself.

 

[f1ip]

Facts?

I'm sorry. I didn't realize your attempted jabs, your sheeplike leftist view, and your security guard buddy's mercenary stories were to be accepted as facts.

Shame on me for accepting the word of professional soldiers over a "radical centralist" such as yourself.

You really should read and think before you make such dumb comments, it shatters all credibility. I have proven your rants either to be totally false or irrevelant. You remember, the ones like "Bush is the one that hung Hussein" , "Iraq will be a forward base against Iran", and the infamous "well........Iraq had a strong military 20 years ago" comment. All you have are unintelligible remarks.

You speak of "Mercenaries in Iraq". My question is for you, just who chose to hire these contract companies such as Blackwater, Halliburton and Bechtel? I guess Bush could claim he was creating jobs by outsourcing the military.
Why would a service member want to return to Iraq with the traditional military when they can go through Blackwater and make 10X the money?

 

[MG1968]

Halliburton and Bechtel are mercenaries?

 

[therealUT]

Thats just another name for a Mercenary.

.

 

[f1ip]

Halliburton and Bechtel are mercenaries?

No, Just stating the war is outsourced along with reconstruction
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[MG1968]

No, Just stating the war is outsourced along with reconstruction
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I wasn't aware that Blackwater was sent in to perform combat missions. I know they engaged with the enemy, but not as part of an overall offensive strategy, but rather in their capacity as bodyguards and security.

 

[f1ip]

I wasn't aware that Blackwater was sent in to perform combat missions. I know they engaged with the enemy, but not as part of an overall offensive strategy, but rather in their capacity as bodyguards and security.

There have been accusations that they have been in Iran and performing a mirage of secret missions. I have no first hand knowledge to confirm nor deny.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[WA_Vol]

I never understood why Bush went to war with Iraq when he thought they had nuclear weapons when most people didn't. But with Iran, who everyone thinks does have nuclear weapons, he was willing to do nothing.

With the military looking so weak and vulnerable fighting two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I think there is a good arguement to be made that it actually made it easier for Iran to work on nuclear weapons unmolested. I guess I don't understand Bush strategic thinking there.

 

[therealUT]

Iran, who everyone thinks does have nuclear weapon

By "everyone" whom do you speak of and what hard evidence do you have? Just giving you a heads up, that you are entering a trap in which you will be labeled a hypocrite.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I never understood why Bush went to war with Iraq when he thought they had nuclear weapons when most people didn't. But with Iran, who everyone thinks does have nuclear weapons, he was willing to do nothing.

With the military looking so weak and vulnerable fighting two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I think there is a good arguement to be made that it actually made it easier for Iran to work on nuclear weapons unmolested. I guess I don't understand Bush strategic thinking there.

Weak and vulnerable?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[MG1968]

I never understood why Bush went to war with Iraq when he thought they had nuclear weapons when most people didn't. But with Iran, who everyone thinks does have nuclear weapons, he was willing to do nothing.

With the military looking so weak and vulnerable fighting two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I think there is a good arguement to be made that it actually made it easier for Iran to work on nuclear weapons unmolested. I guess I don't understand Bush strategic thinking there.

Bush never said he thought Iraq had nuclear weapons. He said that Hussein had an ongoing nuclear weapons program and that action should be taken before Iraq became an imminent threat.