-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Bush: "Fuck the facts...I STILL would have went in!"
- Thread starter MIMIC
- Start date
- Status
ConfusingJazz
Member
Makura said:
Not Iraq, they didn't support Osama.
Iraq really wasn't going to invade another country any time soon.
Iraq did not have any stockpile of chemical weapons anymore so they couldn't gas their own people anymore.
Iraq wasn't a real threat to mid-east stability as compared to disbanding the army, and letting entire cities becoming hotbeds of terrorists. The bottom line is America is $80 billion in the hole, 900 fewer Americans, 5000 more wounded soldiers, less safe at the moment with thousands of pissed off Iraqis, and the Taliban still control a third of Afghanistan (the one with the terroists responsible for 9/11) with still enough power to make a mess of the country.
So in response, the closest one to all your points is North Korea, and they don't cut it because they don't have a huge Islamic following. Would like to point out that not even Saddam made it...
Makura said:
It's sooooo typical of the US calling any atrocities they might do "isolated incidents" or "anomalies". It's never the goverment's or the army's fault it's just "an isolated group of people". Hey I can play this game too! It wasn't Saddam it was just an isolated group of his army that did these atrocities.
heavy liquid
Member
Makura said:
Wrong.
preemptive strike
pre-emptive strike n : a surprise attack that is launched in order to prevent the enemy from doing it to you
Makura said:
Oh, really? Can you support this statement? I guess George isn't doing so well with that, then...
heavy liquid said:
More to the point, can he explain THIS gem:
Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from [Osama bin Laden]. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. -President Bush, March 2002
KilledByBill
Member
The goal of "pre-emptive" war was to save American lives by forestalling terrorist attacks in the future. But then why didn't we send the 140,000 U.S. troops we have bogged down in Iraq right now to Afghanistan and Pakistan to finish of the Taliban movement and continue the hunt for Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaida fighters.
Last time I checked just over 1,000 U.S. troops have been killed in our two wars in Iraq. While over 3,000 civillians died in Al Qaida's attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Bush's administration doesn't seem to have its priorities straight.
I never said Iraq necessarily supported Osama, was going to invade another country or gas their people again.
I never said things are going great either. But I think the war was the right thing to do and I hope we continue our operations in Afghanistan until the Taliban is gone.
As far as being safer, I'd agree that were less safe and MORE people hate us now. But this was inevitable IMO. Of course it's going to inflame the terrorists more whenever we act, but what would you have us do?
I never said things are going great either. But I think the war was the right thing to do and I hope we continue our operations in Afghanistan until the Taliban is gone.
As far as being safer, I'd agree that were less safe and MORE people hate us now. But this was inevitable IMO. Of course it's going to inflame the terrorists more whenever we act, but what would you have us do?
heavy liquid said:
You're correct. I was assuming preemption was the state of being preemptive, like redemption/redemptive. My bad.
Support my statement that we still are going after Usama? Does it really need to be supported?
Heres the FBI most wanted:
http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/fugitives.htm
I don't think anybody is arguing that Saddam wasn't such a bad guy and deserved to be taken down, but attempting to explain away what, at best, could be called faulty and mistaken intelligence and, at worst, out-right lying to the American public by saying "well, it didn't matter anyway" simply reveals that there is no plan, there is no good justifiable reason, and there is no concern whatsoever for the American people.
And besides that, France and Germany can just point at the US and say "I TOLD YOU SO!" How embarassing.
That said, it's not the first time we've started wars for stupid reasons. Remember when we started a war in Guatemala in order to protect our banana supply (but really in order to remove one dictator in order to install another)? No, you probably don't, but it did happen.
And besides that, France and Germany can just point at the US and say "I TOLD YOU SO!" How embarassing.
That said, it's not the first time we've started wars for stupid reasons. Remember when we started a war in Guatemala in order to protect our banana supply (but really in order to remove one dictator in order to install another)? No, you probably don't, but it did happen.
ConfusingJazz
Member
Makura said:
These to me, are the only real reasons to actually invade another country. I believe we had nullified him as a major threat, and that invasion was no longer necessary and like using a sledge hammer on a nail (I could expand on this metaphor, but i digress).
Then why should we divert so many resources out of Afghanistan and into Iraq?
I think that the hate would not have been so great (hey, it ryhmes) if we had kept away from invasion.
I probably would have kept the status quo with iraq, with saddam increasingly becoming more like a castro. I would have supported putting in the UN inspectors, getting an international consensus not based on money, and also continue to bomb anything that would possess a threat. I believe that keeping the focus on Afghanistan would have been the correct thing to do, and destroying the home base of Osama and the Taliban. I don't think I we should have removed any troops from Afghanistan, and think that Powel's doctrine should have been used there, Win with overwhelming force instead of war on the cheap.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Makura said:
So wait... you don't think Iraq necessarily supported Al Qaeda, nor were they necessarily going to do great harm to their own or other citizens, think it was inevitable the war would make us less safe and make more hate us... so why do you think it was the right thing to do?
Cauliflower of Love
Banned
Makura said:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/03/13/Bush.news.conference/
I *think* it's in the video link.
Dont take Bushs word for it. Clintons administration made a stronger case than Bush ever did.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm
The only possible justification the US had to invade Iraq was if Iraq posed a serious and immediate threat to its national security, which it in no way way did (and in retrospect, Iraq had barely any military capabilities anymore). The humanitarian reason is total BS becase a) there was no current genocide going on now, if genocide etc. was the reason for invasions they would have been invaded in years ago when that things happened b) there are many, many worse humanitarian situations where the US does nothing (see: Rwanda, Sudan) and c) the money could have been used a lot more effectivaley to save lives.
And most importantly of all, the Iraq was has made us far less safe in the future, as (after a period of goodwill/sympathy after Sept. 11th) we enraged the entire Arab world (and the rest of the world for that matter) for generation to come. Al Queda was probably quite happy with Bush's idiotic decesion, if anything.
EDIT- And considering the US violated the essence of the UN charter, the breaking of resolution excuses is total BS. Also, people forget that when the decesion to invade was being made, inspectors WERE in Iraq and were reporting that Iraq was coopertating. At that point, what the hell was the reason to invade? Just for the fuck of it? Totally unbelievable.
And most importantly of all, the Iraq was has made us far less safe in the future, as (after a period of goodwill/sympathy after Sept. 11th) we enraged the entire Arab world (and the rest of the world for that matter) for generation to come. Al Queda was probably quite happy with Bush's idiotic decesion, if anything.
EDIT- And considering the US violated the essence of the UN charter, the breaking of resolution excuses is total BS. Also, people forget that when the decesion to invade was being made, inspectors WERE in Iraq and were reporting that Iraq was coopertating. At that point, what the hell was the reason to invade? Just for the fuck of it? Totally unbelievable.
Makura said:
You are completely missing the point, to where I'm wondering if you're kidding. Let's make one thing very clear:
Bush made a case for war against Iraq; not just your run-of-the-mill war, a pre-emptive one. That qualification alone implies - no, dictates - that the country that's going to be invaded has not actively done anything to warrant such an act under normal circumstances, it means that we're going in to stop something that may happen.
Such is the case, we were supposed to find WMDs that Saddam was inevitably going to use against the United States, hence the urgency for running in to stop him. But, as we all know now, there's nothing there, arguably there hasn't been anything there since the end of the first Gulf War.
"Iraq is a clear and present danger to the United States" was the paramount argument for deposing Saddam, never lose sight of that simple fact. The mountain of evidence that we've since gathered that's proven otherwise has distilled our actions in that region to petty, generalizations that turn the Iraqi people into poltiical pawns. "Now the Iraqi people are free!" is found to be a very shallow statement to make, and it's also not entirely true given that the Saddam-less government has created what's going to be long time instability in the country, where innocent people may die from roadside bombs set by rebels instead of at the hand of Hussein and his sons.
It also slaps the face of the people of the Sudan, and every other nation in the world still run by hardliner despots with no regard for their people. What about them? When do we "free" them?
Bush's foreign policy has only made bad situations worse, put us in the sights of even more inflamed terrorists, and has probably made a healthy contribution to the increase in global terrorist activities since 2001. You want a safer world? Hey, me too. Let's kick things off by getting rid of the guy who's shooting first, asking questions second, and on top of everything else, has pretty bad aim.
You people that think Saddam and AL-Qaeda didn't have a relationship scare me.
Families of suicide bombers in Palestine were recieving $25,000. If you believe that Hezbollah and Hamas don't have links to Al-Qaeda you are insane.
They are all one loose network of religious nutjobs.
If you want more proof look at Zarqawi and read the link I posted above.
Families of suicide bombers in Palestine were recieving $25,000. If you believe that Hezbollah and Hamas don't have links to Al-Qaeda you are insane.
They are all one loose network of religious nutjobs.
If you want more proof look at Zarqawi and read the link I posted above.
ConfusingJazz
Member
Xenon said:
Thats not really an argument.
No one thinks Saddam was involved with 9/11 and it was not the reason we went to war.
Who said that?
The goal of the war was to get rid of Saddam, liberate a people and spread democracy in a region which so desperately needs it.
If we help plant tolerance and freedom in the heart of the Middle-East we might not have to. Yes, they gave the least support but they did give support. Not to mention they were least messy to take care of. Would you have preferred we invaded Iran? Hopefully starting Iraq towards democracy will cause a movement within Iran and other Middle-East countries to rid the country of terrorists themselves.
ConfusingJazz
Member
xsarien said:Neither is the rather nebulous claim that Saddam was cozy with Al Qaeda, but it seems we're all willing to let that one go.
No, thats an argument, albeit false, its still an argument. Calling something a broken record really doesn't add anything.
Bush seems to, even after the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission said otherwise. Other high-ranking members of the administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld) also repeatedly stressed such a link in the pre-war and during-war days, but grew silent after this was proven false.MSW said:
MSW said:
It's part of the underlying logic, and you have to understand my hesitence to use that word to describe anything related to our current foreign policy. The invasion of Iraq was based on the assumption that we could successfully pull off a political hat trick:
1) Depose Saddam
2) Install democracy
3) Disrupt terrorist activities in the immediate region
The problem is that you can't just run in and force democracy on a society that's been living under the thumb of a dictator for so many years. It leads to, well, what you see on the news everyday. A true democracy needs to come up from the people who live there, to rebel on their own and then maybe recieve help from outside countries.
Kind of like us.
TekunoRobby
Tag of Excellence
Hmmm I thought Bush actually said fuck, damn oh well.
I don't have the time to find direct links now, but there were numerous times that the adminstration said there was a "link" between bin Laden and Hussein. In one episode of The Daily Show, they even showed clips from two different interviews with Cheney -- one stressing this link, and the other denying he had ever even said such a link existed.MSW said:
I also clearly remember Bush making a statement about the link directly after the 9/11 Commission reported otherwise. I'm sorry, but you'll have to find it yourself. Maybe someone else with more time (not to mention searching skills) will post the links for me.
This operation will be measured in 10-20 years when Iraqi Children of today enter adulthood knowing nothing other than freedom. You can't expect much to happen so soon.
The people did and do seek democracy but Saddam had such a lock down on that country it was virtually impossible. Imagine if the British had the technology and evil will to keep the America's under British rule in the 18th century. I doubt the revolutionary war would have turned out how it did.
EDIT:
human5892, saying there is a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda is different than saying there is one between Saddam and 9/11.
MSW said:
They'll probably know at least civil war, as plenty of Iraqi children will blame the United States for killing their parents or other relatives. Terrorists aren't born, they're made, and thanks to a rather wreckless campaign we've just opened up a factory in the mid-east that bin Laden could've only dreamt of.
Cauliflower of Love
Banned
They used the vulmerability of 9/11 to persuade people into surporting the invasion of Iraq. Remove 9/11 from history, and they people of the US would be like "Saddam", fuck that dude, lets leave the 80 billions dollars here at home.
1.) I think it was pretty clearly implied that the link had to do with 9/11.MSW said:
2.) Even if they weren't talking about 9/11, the 9/11 Commission found no significant link between the two men at all. The administration was clearly riled up about it, too, given that Cheney tried to take back what he had said before about it.
If we stay there and defend peace and freedom while building schools and hospitals it will be difficult to portray the USA as a cold-hearted nation that doesn't care about them.
Why on earth would you remove 9/11 from history? September 11th change life and foreign policy as we know it. You are exactly right about not having the political muscle to remove Saddam before 9/11. The attacks on our homeland are why we can't stand around and wait for more. We must be on the offensive, remove threats and change attitudes of the people dedicated to change our way of life.
People don't realize that we had a lot of diplomatic pressure on Iraq, just prior to the invasion. We could have changed things without killing one innocent person.
Again, this all goes back to Oil and Money. Like Xenon pointed, out, this is like a broken record. Of course Bush would do it all over again, because the objective wasn't to make Iraq or the US safer from terrorism (both places have gotten worse), but to make some money out of this whole situation.
Saddam's only enemies were political. Most Iraqis were safe under his rule.
You can't say that in Sudan, were being Black is getting people killed. Ah, but I guess 50,000 dead Black people is not worthy enough of our assistance. I mean, Saddam had 200 political prisoners!! OMG, the inhumanity!
While American allies have a reputation of destroying hospitals and schools in that region? While the sanctions did that very thing for 10 years in a row, prior to invasion?
Again, this all goes back to Oil and Money. Like Xenon pointed, out, this is like a broken record. Of course Bush would do it all over again, because the objective wasn't to make Iraq or the US safer from terrorism (both places have gotten worse), but to make some money out of this whole situation.
Saddam's only enemies were political. Most Iraqis were safe under his rule.
You can't say that in Sudan, were being Black is getting people killed. Ah, but I guess 50,000 dead Black people is not worthy enough of our assistance. I mean, Saddam had 200 political prisoners!! OMG, the inhumanity!
While American allies have a reputation of destroying hospitals and schools in that region? While the sanctions did that very thing for 10 years in a row, prior to invasion?
ConfusingJazz
Member
MSW said:
I think Cheney was called on it a couple times, but there is another thing. Do you know that, not just a majority, but something along the lines of 70 or 80% of Americans believe that there was an Iraqi highjacker? "Why is this?" you may ask, are we really that dense. Possibly, but it really does not help when outside influences come into play. If you actually paid attention to the news coverage leading up to the war, you would think that saddam and osama were old buddies. Every speech Bush gave, or interviews that Condi had done said something along the lines that we must prevent another 9/11. Remember 9/11. We are doing this because of 9/11. Least we forget 9/11 (as if that was really possible). Now I don't know about you, but to me, thats fucking confusing and a little bit infuriating. From what I have seen, this is what Karl Rove does best. He is really good at making people think something, but not actually say it so they can never be called on it if its proven false.
Just for you, MSW, here's some assorted links on the matter:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,1240326,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/
http://www.dangerouscitizen.com/Articles/1153.aspx
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,1240326,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/
http://www.dangerouscitizen.com/Articles/1153.aspx
- Status