Here we go again...

Brilliant idea! More soldiers for conquering the world AND lower unemployment rate.

 

Ex-actly.

To add one more (and the most important) question: why did the Bush administration tell Congress it was about WMDs?

There may be major geopolitical benefits to a change in regime in Iraq. That is yet to be seen. I would consider supporting a war based on the geopolitical and human rights benefits of removing Saddam. That is not how this war was sold to me, to the UN, and most importantly, to Congress.

Our national security depends on not only managing external threats to the nation, but also on maintaining the structure and functions of the federal system government laid out in the Constitution. Congress has already gone far enough by abrogating their duty to declare war to the executive branch. Now the executive branch deems it acceptable to mislead Congress to attain their nominal approval. By lying to Congress about these matters, the administration has undermined the balance between legislature and executive. The President does not have to reveal all intelligence to Congress (those not on the intelligence comm) but he has a sworn duty not to knowingly mislead them.

If the evidence continues the way it is, Bush has violated the spirit of the Constitution. He has only partisanship to fall back on. A sad statement indeed.

 

You're not responding to my post. There's a pragmatism to the movements (assuming they're true) of a country like Iran, where they see gaining a weapon as the ultimate protection against US invasion and a bargaining chip used for economic aid. If they have had a program (like India, China, Pakistan, and others that we have no intention of invading), it's in their best security and economic interest to finish the job as quickly as possible. Our hemming & hawing about "they signed a treatty" is totally irrelevant because they know that once they have a bomb, our stance will change.

The US convinced the Soviets to give up the socialist state? Somehow I missed those negotiations on CNN. Who was on our side of the table, Milton Friedman?

But building a nuclear weapon does not mean that Iran is going to attack the US or any of our interests. It means that they built a weapon. It's only a Western-based fear of an Islamic state that would lead someone to believe that Iran's WMD capability alone justifies a military response.

So how many minutes away were we from the Iraqi invasion?

 

First of all, Go back and actually review what the administrationactually said prior to the war. WMD was not the only reason they gave for the war. That is a myth perpetrated by those who want to use the issue to try and discredit the administration.

Even on the issue of WMD, whether or not the weapons existed, The Iraqi's were not adhering to the resolutions that were passed, and the UN even said that serious actions would be taken if the Iraqi's did not comply. Before the war, nobody knew for sure what Sadam was planning, so I don't think the admistartion was lying, because I think they honestly believed Sadam did have WMD.

Please re-read my point about the Soviet Union and how it applies. The point was there were hardline communists who believed that communism was so much better than capitalism that the use of force to apply this system was justified. The U.S. position was always, that we did not object to free people choosing to have socialistic or communist policies, but we would use our own force to prevent nations from being forced to accept communist expansion.

This is the same position we must take with Islamic extremists. We have no beef with Islam, but we will not allow them to use violence to intimidate the rest of the world.

As far as Saudia Arabia and Iran go, you are quite correct that fundamental change needs to happen in those countries. But you know what, we have to deal with the real world, not some idealistic way things should be.

A full scale take over of Saudia Arabia (or Iran as someone mentioned earlier) by the U.S. is not a realistic proposition. The removal of Sadam's tyranical rule in Iraq was a realistic option. Like I said, there has been very little opposition by the other nations in the area. A takeover of Iran or Saudia Arabia, would have meet with complete outrage by the islamic community world wide.

Like I said this is a long term project. the establishment of a free Iraq, with a well represented Islamic poulation that is free to practice their religion with the full blessing of the U.S. will disprove the lie that the west is at war with Islam.

Iraq, will be a shining example to the groups within Saudia Arabia and Iran that want to bring domocracy and freedom to those countries.

The only thing that can prevent this positive result is Americans who play into the hands of the Islamic Fundamentalists by trying to discredit our own leaders for political gain, thus causing us to pull out of Iraq before that stable free nation can be built.

 

I suggest all liberals be arrested for crime of treason. Death penalty yes! If you are not with Bush, you are terrorists.

Yeah, it's all their fault!

 

Wasn't that the chief justification for invading Iraq was to get rid of Baghdad's stores of chemical and biological agents and dismantle its effort to produce a nuclear bomb?

If not, what's the excuse then?

 

This administration doesn't seem to need much outside help. They're doing a great job at it themselves.

Of course, WMD weren't the ONLY reason given, but they were are CENTRAL reason and any way you slice it (Bush lied or his advisors lied to him), the US congress and citizens got sold a bill of goods.

Strategically, the INVASION of Iraq may prove to be of monumental benefit - time will tell. Given this administrations major screw ups on the tactical aspects of this war and subsequent reconstruction (other than the superb military tactics shown by the armed services) put me on the side of the doubters.

 

Uh, how old are you? Political affiliation aside, I get the feeling you are either still in school or just not very educated.

During the Cold War, US foreign policy operated under the Truman doctrine and the containment doctrine. This basically meant that we would do everything we could to prevent the spread of communism, WHETHER IT SPREAD THROUGH DEMOCRATIC VOTE OR INSURRECTION. That's whey the history of the world war is studded with bloodbaths all over the Third World, where the US engaged in proxy wars to stamp out "communism."

Read some history: Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, etc. You will learn that we were quick to wage war and slaughter thousands, even when populations had made their choice for communism at the ballot box, not at the point of a bayonet.

[/B][/QUOTE]
This is the same position we must take with Islamic extremists. We have no beef with Islam, but we will not allow them to use violence to intimidate the rest of the world.[/B][/QUOTE]

But will we allow them to use democracy to intimidate the rest of the world?

Do you think we wouldn't mind if a country votes to become Islamic fundamentalist? You know, if they bothered to hold truly democratic elections in the Muslim world, many of the countries would vote for Bin Laden, or his ideological kin, tomorrow.

Pakistan? Bin Laden. Saudi Arabia? Bin Laden. Egypt? Bin Laden.

Notice all three of those countries are our "allies." Notice they are all dictatorships. Notice that we really don't mind that they are dictatorships. After all, we just gave Pakistan 3 billion bucks, the same amount we've been giving Egypt every year since the middle 70s.

We would mind, however, if they were democracies that suddenly -- peacefully -- voted to become Islamic fundamentalist, just as we minded when Chile voted to become socialist in 1972. What was our response to their peaceful democratic choice? We promptly helped overthrow of the newly elected president, Allende, and helped install a dictator, Pinochet, who stuck around 20 years.

You should read some history, Michael. Democracy abroad has never been a priority for America when the peoples of different countries democratically make a choice that America doesn't like.

 

How many straw men can yyou guys throw up in this discussion?

I never said anything about liberals. In fact I think the conservatives may soon start to complain about the costs of Iraq when they see their constituents to start to complain.

I don't question anyones patriotism, I only question the shortsightedness of their vews. It is no different than saying that Chamberlain played into the hands of the Nazi's

 

Agreed on the straw man, Michael, but:

Again, you seem to be comfortable with a lie that has a twelve-digit price tag in dollars and also cost hundreds of American lives and thousands of Iraqi ones.

 

Well then you would be wrong about that also. I happen to have a post graduate degree. A smarter bet would have been that I didn't major in English, as I will freely admit that I can't spell, and have poor Grammer. You guys are not answering 90% of my posts, and only pasting the little snippits that you want to take issue with, and bringing up other issues that are completely irrelevant. And What political affiliation do you think I have exactly?

Right, "everything we could."

Then how do you explain Cuba, Nicaragua
North Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, South Vietnam (I would assume "everything we could" would include the use of nukes, which some military men favored in South vietnam, but the politicians opposed), and a host of african nations.

Please quote for me an American president or other high administration official saying that it was the U.S. policy to overthrow or prevent a communist regime even if it was freely and fairly elected?

So in your mind the Soviet Union never gave military aid to rebels or leaders in other countries to inspire communist takeovers by any means necessary, and it was all just the U.S. fault?

So there really weren't millions of people killed by Pol Pot, and the Cubans who fled on boats from Castro's Cuba didn't really fear that they would be punished if they tried to oppose him, etc etc..

Oh yes, and you must believe that Uncle Ho was just a pacifist, and he never would have resorted to military action to take over the south. The Northen tanks rumbling through the south were just a figment of my imagination then?

You have a point with Allende, but, that certainly was not "official" policy, and I agree that that was a mistake.

You also believe that the Sandanistas held free and fair elections and never used violence to intimdate their own people?

[/B][/QUOTE]
This is the same position we must take with Islamic extremists. We have no beef with Islam, but we will not allow them to use violence to intimidate the rest of the world.[/B][/QUOTE]

No, We will allow them to spread the message of Islam in a peaceful way. And if the people of the world choose Islam as their faith then so be it.

I don't think we would, as long as they did not threaten or use violence to spread their faith.

And you know this how?

IMO I don't believe that you are correct. If the election was truly free and fair, I think the rhetoric that Bin Laden uses would be meaningless based on the fact that he could actually be elected.

I give the people of these countries much more credit than you do.

I believe in an open and democratic debate, they would be able to see that the rehetoric of the likes of Bin Laden is based on hatred and violence, not true Islam.

And where did I say the U.S. should oppose all dictatorships?

And what would you have us do, ignore every nation in the world that is not a democracy? For heaven sakes people already claim that we favor Isreal, the only real democracy in the region, to much.

Like I said, I agree that that was a mistake, but even there it is hard to classify encouraging Chilean's to overthrow their government as "everything we could do", and I think the Soviets were doing this in just about every country they could.

I have read plenty of history Parmigiano, and I don't need you telling me what to do thank you.

I never said the U.S. was perfect, or that we did not choose what we felt was the lesser of two evils and times. That is the real world, and it is not as simple as some like to make it out. But in the end, the U.S. policy opposing the Soviet Union was good for not only the U.S. but the entire free world.

The same will be true with our fight against terrorism. It will not always be simple. That is my point about Iraq. Iraq is the next step in a long journey towards removing the conditions that invite terrorism. It was the best option available to the administration at this point in time, and success their will have positive ramifications outside of Iraq.

 

Again,

I don't think there was any lie. The position prior to the war was we believed that Iraq had WMD and that they were not providing the cooperation that was necessary for us to determine whether they did or not. the U.N. agreed that Iraq was not cooperating to the extent that it should. Some felt we should have given them more time, and we felt that we had given them enough time, and that even given more time, with Sadam in power we could never be confident that he wasn't just hiding his program from us.

I thinnk the loss of any life is tragic, but like I have said here before, Iraq is the first step in a long policy to remove the conditions that lead to continual loss of innocent life through the use of terror.

 

especially good for those ex soviet republics who are now free to return to the thirld world status they are meant to enjoy.

 

I would say the ex soviet republics are more second world than third world.

Besides, are you implying they were better off under the jackboot of russian communsim?

 

yes, they were. not one of them enjoyed democracy before the soviet union anyway. communism brought education, health care, industry, and food on the table, all of which were abstractions to the bulk of the populations before. when i say thirld world, i mean they are once again fulfilling their role of supplying the west with raw materials and cheap labor. they will not be allowed to develop their own competitive economies through the same means they were developed in colonial europe or america, that is heavy subsidies, protectionism, and control of capital flow.

 

Hey CF, there are hundreds of thousands of dead lithuanian, estonian, lativan, georgian, ukrainian, and kazakh soldiers who died in communist russia's wars on the phone. Should i have them hold, or do you want to take the call?

 

Bush's Speach to the U.N. is at:

http://www.perspicacityonline.com/209/BushUNSpeech20912.htm

Here is a good summary of the strategic thiniking that the adminstration was using.

"Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time. "

The people who want to just say Bush claimed it was about WMD and there were no WMD, are oversimplifying the situation because they want to turn the political situation against Bush.

 

Did you actually read this, the first paragraph? If so, I'd have to conclude -- no offense -- that you are cognitively impaired.

 

People can read it for themselves so there is no need for your insults.

It is clear that Bush's thinking was much broader than WMD.

What does

"The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. "

Have to do with WMD?

Oh, BTW are you going to adress any of my points above, or are you simply going to hurl insults?

 

Look, the issue is simple. Just take those two paragraphs.

The first one: Bush is telling the world: Iraq is developing WMD, we must stop him or we will have horrors far greater than 9/11.

That is, WMD, the threat of Saddam having it, are listed as the main reason for needing to go to war.

SECONDARILY, Bush says that a democratic Iraq would help change the Middle East.

Yes, that's a reason too, but WMD far outweighs that reason as the main motive for going to war.

So there were other reasons, but WMD was the key reason -- and the key alleged legal basis for action that Bush presented to the UN in the speech you quote.

Another way to look at it: If Iraq poses no WMD threat, would Bush still wage war in hopes of 'democratizing' the Middle East?

Of course not. You should read Wolfowitz's interview with Vanity Fair a couple of months ago, when he says that the Admin settled on WMD as its reason because that was the easiest way to sell it at home and abroad.

You can argue that they had other reasons, but you can't argue that WMD was their main public motive -- that the threat posed by Iraq to America was too great not to act.

There is really no debate about this particular question, so

As for the Iraq "threat," here's another way to look at it: Since the White House is so convinced Iraq had WMD, and that Saddam would use it or pass it terrorists, then LOGICALLY we must be in a far more dangerous position now than before the war.

Why? Because neither Saddam nor his WMD have been seized. They are both on the loose -- and he or his successors have nothing to lose.

It's like saying there's a killer in a house and he's got a bomb and may use it, even though he's completely surrounded by security foces and could not actually do anything dangerous.

So you raid the house, kill some people inside, but somewhat don't find the killer -- or the bomb.

Does that make you safer? Hardly.

Of course, I don't believe this is such an issue, because I don't believe Saddam has WMD. After the Reagan and Bush I administration provided him with chem and bio weapons -- used at Hallabja -- so that Iran and Iraq could bleed each other silly, Washington stopped selling conventional and unconventional weapons to Saddam after the first Gulf War.

 

Please reference House Joint Resolution 114, the legislation authorizing the use of force in Iraq. Sponsored by Speaker Hastert, language largely came from the White House.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c10742nezy::


please note paragraphs 1-6, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 18

 

That jackboot russian communism was probably a lot better than the serfdom that preceeded it.

 

Maybe we can come to an agreement here.

I think WMD and the failure of Sadam to follow the U.N resolutions concerning them, was the main "justification" the administation used to convince the U.N. to support a resolution for going to war immediately, but I do not believe it was the key "motive" of the administration for going to war.

It seems to me like you are blaming the administration, because the news media has a "sound bite" mentality. If you read the whole speech you will see a far more complex rational, and a vision far beyond removing Sadam's WMD.

Like I said when I first got involved in this thread:
"You guys have all of the geopolitical savvy of a bunch of soccer fans." because people were taking seriously the notion that WMD was the "real" issue in Iraq and that we will soon be invading Iran because they might have WMD.

BTW, here is the quote from Wolfowitz in vanity fair.

http://www.thetip.org/art_Wolfowitz_Vanity_Fair__Interview361_icle.html

"Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but -- hold on one second --

(Pause)

Kellems: Sam there may be some value in clarity on the point that it may take years to get post-Saddam Iraq right. It can be easily misconstrued, especially when it comes to --


Wolfowitz: -- there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again. "

So even in that interview Wolfowitz was quick to make sure that he mentioned the other reasons.