President Bush Lied for War . . .

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Pmoliu, Dec 28, 2005.

  1. Dan Loney

    Dan Loney BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 10, 2000
    Cincilluminati
    Club:
    Los Angeles Sol
    Nat'l Team:
    Philippines
    Are you saying the Cold War was a fiendishly clever forty-year master strategy on the part of every American politician from Truman to Bush I?
     
  2. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    You are missing the point. Our policy towards eastern europe and the soviet union was a policy of containment. It allowed us to ultimately achieve goals without sending in hundreds of thousands of troops.

    From 1991, we were employing a policy of containment, and it was working. Notice the goose egg on the weapons of mass destruction scoreboard. Of course there are differences in the policies, but they are different situations.

    One of the primary problems with our current policy is that there is no Lech Walesa in Iraq. There was no democracy movement. So by following your "we should oust their dictator because we screwed them under George I" plan, it was inevitable that there would be chaos, that there may well be another Islamic Republic, and/or that another despot will take the place of the old one.

    Now, if you want to focus on the interests of the United States for a second, it is pretty clear that our policy was quite effective with Saddam. Now we have a big unknown.
     
  3. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Working for whom. Thousands were dying and more were unemployed and starving in Iraq. And we share the blame.
     
  4. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yes. Well at least from Reagan on.
     
  5. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    So your argument is that communism fell, NOT under the weight of an inferior economic system, but because they couldn't sustain exhorbitant defense spending (which we couldn't sustain either)? I'll remember that the next time we discuss single-payer health care.

    It's at this point that I remind people that the CIA predicted in the mid-70s, long before Reagan's defense buildup, that the Soviet Bloc would collapse in the late 80s.
     
  6. Sine Pari

    Sine Pari Member

    Oct 10, 2000
    NUNYA, BIZ

    Judging by your avatar, you're one of them yourself
     
  7. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    And millions died in Stalin's Soviet Union. Did we share the blame there too because we didn't invade?

    How about Romania? Brutal dictator there as well through the 60s and 70s.

    I'm sorry, but if you want to hang your final hat for justifying this war on "it's up to us to help the poor Iraqis" then: a) we got a lot of work ahead of us with equally deserving people around the world; and b) I am guessing Bush wouldn't have had the support for his war here at home.

    To answer your question, a policy of containment was working for us. I am concerned with us first. When we are secure, anything we can do for others is a bonus.

    Yes, Iraqis were oppressed. On some level all peoples have to take some responsibility for the government they have. Including us.
     
  8. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    My argument is not exclusive of calling the economic system of the USSR inferior. You are making things up.

    Our intellegence agencies said that it was a slam dunk that there were WMD's in Iraq. Funny, isn't it?
     
  9. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    If we say to a country that we have their back and we punk out then they totoally deserve our support. It's all about honor and integrety as a nation. hate on GWB all you want but he has not welched on any promises he has made, even if they are terrible promises.

    Probably not and that's too bad. Hence the BS reasons for invasion
     
  10. nsa

    nsa Member+

    New England Revolution
    United States
    Feb 22, 1999
    Notboston, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    One director of one intelligence agency, co-opted by BushCo badgering and manipulation, said that it was a slam dunk that there were WMD's in Iraq.

    Not funny at all.

    2177
     
  11. ElJefe

    ElJefe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 16, 1999
    Colorful Colorado
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm not saying any of that.

    I'm merely saying that they managed to throw off the chains of oppression without our sending in more than 100,000 troops.
    All of this parallels what happened in Hungary and East Germany in the '50s and in Czechoslovakia in the '60s. In those instances, people rose up against Communist oppression and only got death for their troubles, as their uprisings were eventually brutally oppressed by the Soviets.

    What support did we provide to those people other than to complain loudly at the UN and wag our finger at Khruschev and Brezhnev?
     
  12. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Absolutely none. You think maybe we shoulda? I do.

    But the difference here is that we didn't promise support. We did in Iraq and we owe the world our word when we give it.
     
  13. oman

    oman Member

    Jan 7, 2000
    South of Frisconsin
    History seems to be making a powerful argument that we should not have.

    History will show that poor policy does not become better policy just because its based on a promise.

    Just because we made a promise, and sold it based on faulty premises, does not mean that the question as to whether we are doing good is answered.

    The election has been held. We need to stop ANY talk about democracy or western values. Our sole goal should be to prop up whatever government has been put in power and getting out as soon as that government wants us to get out. And if they don't want us out, we may have to get out ourselves.
     
  14. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Completely Agree.
     
  15. Attacking Minded

    Attacking Minded New Member

    Jun 22, 2002
    I disagree and I think this shows you have not been paying attention to events in the Middle East. Yes, it's a comfortable world to live in where "we can do nothing" but it simply isn't true.


    Is democracy exclusively a Western value?
     
  16. oman

    oman Member

    Jan 7, 2000
    South of Frisconsin
    The question was weather we should have aided those under Soviet domination. In the long run, I think there is a powerful historical argument that allowing that history to take its own trajectory without military intervention was probably a good thing.

    And no one said we "can do nothing", so that is a foolish statement. The issue is whether it is foolish to do something just because you can. We can take out whoever we want in the Middle East at anytime. The question is, does it make things worse? Does it foil the possible good outcome of letting them sort things out absent a long military presence and the impression that this is imperialism rather than self determination?
     
  17. Dan Loney

    Dan Loney BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 10, 2000
    Cincilluminati
    Club:
    Los Angeles Sol
    Nat'l Team:
    Philippines
    Well, we helped out the mujahdeen in Afghanistan. That, along with Walesa and Chernobyl, were probably the critical factors in pushing the USSR over. But yeah, out and out invading along the lines of China in the Korean War would have probably made "The Day After" into a documentary. Walesa was the beneficiary, and Chernobyl the result, of decades of Soviet rot, which was why Solidarity didn't go the way of Hungary in 1956. But losing in Afghanistan took the 1956/1968 options off the table, not Star Wars or the MX missile.

    What was miraculous was that Gorbachev (or whomever you wish to credit - I don't see Bush or Reagan saying "tear down this wall" as anything but grandstanding, since it was the Poles and East Germans who really laid their lives on the line, but hey, whatever floats your root beer - where was I) guided the USSR down more or less peacefully. Yeah, Armenia and Azerbaijan had a rough war to celebrate their independence, and I hate to trivialize that, but compared to what could have happened, it was trivial.

    What was not miraculous was our management of post-Communist Afghanistan. I can't really blame Bush and Reagan for this, either, since it wasn't as if Clinton or Dukakis made a big issue of this. And "something shoulda been done about the Taliban" is correct, but must be blamed on both parties during the 90's. The only public figure who really gave a damn about the Taliban was Mavis Leno.

    I declare 2006 the year of Thread Drift. Oh, and the US winning the World Cup. Over Mexico. 2-0.
     
  18. SuperTrooper

    SuperTrooper Red Card

    Dec 16, 2005
    Oz
    Ya talkin' to me? Ya talkin to me?!
    [​IMG]
     
  19. afgrijselijkheid

    Dec 29, 2002
    mokum
    Club:
    AFC Ajax
    wow... after that shrewd lashing, i'm sure no one will ever dare question saint W again
     
  20. Attacking Minded

    Attacking Minded New Member

    Jun 22, 2002
    Well they had nukes. If I remember correctly. I would suck to get nuked. That's (I'm thinking) is a reason we decided on containment.

    Who is "they" you want to "sort things out"? How do you want them to "sort things out"? By voting, right? I think it's a given that without some help, they won't have democracy. Do you really want to do business with which ever is the the most brutal strong man to come out of this "sorting out"?
     
  21. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    You really think the only reason we didn't invade and occupy eastern europe and russia is that the Soviet Union had nukes? It probably also has something to do with the American people not wanting to risk thousands of our own troops so soon after WWII.

    It also probably has something to do with the correct notion that we are not justified in going in and starting a war because we don't like the system of government in another country.

    I also think you are over-simplifying the "sort things out" part of the equation. Simply allowing people to vote does not mean that they are going to end up with anything resembling a representative form of government.

    I few flashy posters and a populist message could just as easily get another "brutal strong man" if the people have no experience with democracy.

    There is a sense of impatience with our policy that I think you capture in some of your posts. I believe that people will eventually move towards free societies, and I believe that we should help foster those movements, but we shouldn't simply go create a huge vacuum and assume that we can make everything right in their world.

    It should come from within. It may take decades, but it would be permanent. We saw it in eastern Europe, and I believe that we are seeing it in China and for that matter Iran.

    A culture that is growing, and will eventually challenge the ruling class when their time comes.
     
  22. Attacking Minded

    Attacking Minded New Member

    Jun 22, 2002
    BTW - It should have been "It would suck to get nuked." - for the record, of course.

    And,

    Yes, I think that if the USSR didn't have nukes we would have gone to war with them eventually.
     
  23. oman

    oman Member

    Jan 7, 2000
    South of Frisconsin
    You seem big on putting words into peoples mouths. There is nothing that says we have to do business with dictators and strongmen. And there is definately nothing that says tyranny needs to be dealt with with votes.

    If the Iraqi people needed fifty more years to move beyond Saddam with some semblence of autonomy, outside of a US "crusade" that may have been best.
     
  24. taosjohn

    taosjohn Member+

    Dec 23, 2004
    taos,nm
    I'm not sure enough folks on this board are old enough to remember what the 50's and early 60's were like...

    Without the MAD dynamic there would have been a war and the US wouldn't have to have initiated it. Both nations were up for it and the USSR's behavior would have been less restrained as well. A very significant portion of the US poulation wanted to do it anyway, and the MSM -- Life, Look, Time, Post--had to run periodic explanations of just how bad a nuclear exchange would get, with artist's renderings of glowing pits where Topeka used to be and pictures of Japanese radiation vics and all that...
     
  25. Rocket

    Rocket Member

    Aug 29, 1999
    Chicago
    Club:
    Everton FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Iraq's supposed nuclear weapons program is discussed in NY Times reporter James Risen's new book:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060102...sumVhCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
     

Share This Page