Was Bush Right?
 

Ok, I saw this discussion on another board. Well, a mailing list I'm on. And I thought I'd throw it to the intellectual sharks of the TFP:

So, against all predictions, the Iraqi elections had
very high turn-out with little violence and no
accusations of foul play. US troops kept themselves
out of sight, Arab news channels gave positive and
optimistic coverage and in general everyone seems
pleasently surprised at how well the whole thing
went.

Bush claimed that democracy in Iraq would make the
invasion worthwhile. Does this prove him right? Is
there merit to his "domino theory" of democracy in
the Middle East? Was this worth 15,000 lives? (not a
rhetorical question).

Was the anti-war movement wrong?

I'll kick off the discussion with another question: DOes it really matter? Is the point of the exercise to have a side in the global debate that's right, or to supprt that Iraqi people in their choice? This guy Says it far better than I. Hope you have BugMeNot or an NYTimes subscription...

As largely a Bush supporter I can't say that this alone makes him right. As stated here many times on the board this is a step, a ginourmous step, in the right direction. I can only hope that things get better from here on out like I know they can, at this point we are passing the ball out of our court and into the Iraqi's. You also can't look at this as an end, this is only the beginning. In less then a year the Iraqi's will go back to the election booths with a constitution drawn up, and they will be electing permanent officials. Also hopefully within a year, after the establishment of a constitution I'm hoping the Iraqi's will have a bigger a better permanent security force in place so we can start bringing our boys and girls home.

No, the reasons they presented to go to war were faulty and will remain faulty.
Only the future can tell if the election will be successful or if we will have another weak goverment with a bunch of warlords (like afghanistan).
When the US troops are gone and they had their first election on their own (without help) than you can talk about success (a "free" and democratic goverment) or failure (some theocratic asshole)


BTW: You don't even have the results of this election, how can you start talking about success now? What if this election was won by some islamic theocrats?

I must say I was supprised how smooth the elections seemed to go (except for the low turnouts in the Sunni dominated areas). Maybe there is hope for new peacefull democratic Iraq. If that eventually happens, I'd say Bush was (somewhat) right and the anti-war movement was wrong. But there's still a LONG way to go, so I wouldn't jump to any conclusions just two days after the election.

Besides, I have always felt that the anti-war movement (atleast in Europe) is not really an anti-war movement (in the pacifistic sense) as much as a movement against American unilateralism and increasing global dominance.

People seem to forget that Iraq has had elections before and Saddam Hussein was "elected" as a result of them.

Hopefully things won't turn out that way again, but who knows?

Even a broken watch is right twice a day.

We'll see, this was the start of a long process to create a constitution for Iraq. There is a long way to go.

Why would this NOT be a success? If the Islamic Theocrats were democratically elected who are you to say it's wrong?

Sure it might not be the best thing for Bush but if that is what the Iraqi people voted...


I still don't think you can say the "anti-war" people were wrong. Morally it is wrong to have a preemptive war... It is also wrong to force a political direction upon another sovreign nation, regardless of the outcome.

There is not a chance that the U.S. would have ever gone to war had we known then what we do now. Neither conservatives nor democrats would have supported it.

As Kerry said, it is the wrong war in the wrong place. Bush was wrong regardless of the outcome of the elections.

As most Europeans seem to understand better than the U.S., wars have a terrible human cost. They are justified only as a last resort, in response to an immediate, terrible threat.

Our soldiers exist to defend our freedom. Our soldiers are not Iraqis. They should not die so that Iraqis can have an election.

Put in context...........This alone does not create a justification for the destruction and death we have inflicted on these people (and our own).
That said I am quite pleased with the reported results, but am quite aware we are seeing only the rose tinted side of this election, as we are meant to see it. I am cautious, but hopeful that this is a step in the right direction, as it would lay the ground work for a withdrawal of our troops. Perhaps Bush was right in this.......I hope so, as he has a less than acceptable track record thus far.

Swiped from Daily Kos...

I don't think a single day tells us one way or the other. The general trends of the insurgency lead me to be pessimistic.

So I suppose John Kerry was blowing smoke out of his ass back in 1998 in and around Desert Fox right? Oh and he didn't vote for Gulf War II either... Oh that's right he did, he voted for it, before he voted against it.

And God bless the Europeans and their governments. I can't imagine what type of place Iraq would be if had not been for them illegally enabling him for all those long years while his people suffered... :rolleyes:

Also Charlatan, I think it's pretty ridiculous that you assert that preemption is immoral. One of a national governments, more importantly America's, main purposes is to provide for "common defence", at least that's what the constitution states. I would think that if down the line, the government had credible information to act on and didn't, and American citizens died, that would be immoral.

The anti-war movement wasn't anything to do with whether or not there should be elections so it's not appropriate to ask this question in relation to that article. The anti-war movement did get many things right - there were no wmd, saddam was not a threat to the west, the war will lead to more terrorism/civil conflict etc - but the hawks had the better propaganda.

this is sarcasm, right? It's not a real election if theres only one name on the ballot.

But they didn't have credible information did they?

Let's face it... no nation is really going to attack the US are they? Not and expect to come out of it on top. Terrorists, are not nations, they are groups of individuals... you cannot root them out by attaching any one nation.

The solution to terrorism is not more violence. It is fixing the root causes. But doing this is difficult and blowing things up is quick, easy and makes for good TV.

The administration acted on information that was not credible and American citizens died as a result. Is that any more moral?

You conveniently forget why Saddam came to power in the first place and perhaps you aren't aware of the help given to Saddam by the US during the Iran-Iraq war. And presumably you've not seen the photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with his chum Saddam. Some people attack the anti-war movement by asking 'Where were you when Saddam was gassing his own people?' Well plenty were demonstrating against western governments selling arms to him, but we all know what Donald Rumsfeld was up to.

Bush was given information that an attack was planned and there is some circumstantial evidence that the intelligence was acted upon, but there was an effort to cover this up. Maybe to hide shortcomings in the intelligence services or that the warnings were not fully investigated, maybe to try to hide that there was any warning at all. How immoral would you say that was?

Regardless of what he said or did any time in the past, he is still correct in saying it is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Of course, the U.S. is certainly not innocent in this regard, either.

And since the subject of the thread is the elections, let me repeat. Our soldiers are Americans, not Iraqis. Americans should not be dying so that Iraqis can have an election. No matter what the outcome of the election is, that fundamental fact is still true.

i am looking at oranges waiting for them to turn to apples.

i am thinking about the criticisms of the bush rationale for war and wondering at what point, by what means, the problems that attend that will turn into the question of "elections".


conservatives seem to have become alchemists.
everything can be turned into everything else.
so at the level of argument, there can be no non sequitors.
which explains much about their logic, here and elsewhere.

OOOOOH, I see.

So it's ok for me to bet $10k on the Super Bowl, lose, and then go back saying I really supported the other guy and deserve my money back?

Hindsight is 20/20. He cant support it, agree Saddam needs to be gotten rid of, agree'd there were WMD's. Then turn around when the political winds shift and say how wrong it is. Doesnt work like that.

Tony Blair also likes to act on dodgy intelligence.

When a majority of the British people were against the war we were told through the press that Saddam could strike at us within 45 minutes. This became one of the main influences in bringing opinion round in favour of war. The story was obviously passed to the media by the government but it later turned out that it was actually 'British interests' that could be hit - army barracks on Cyprus were suggested. This got much less attention that the original 45-minutes-from-oblivion type of headline so opinion wasn't swung back. Shortly before the war started we learned that the furthest any of Saddam's weapons could reach was about 2 miles further than UN restrictions (about 90 miles), and that was only when you remove the guidance systems to make them lighter! I didn't hear any comment about what interests we had within 92 miles of Iraq's weapons bases. In the middle of all this was the David Kelly affair and resignations at the BBC for reporting that the 45 minute claim was false and was inserted at the request of Tony Blair himself.

Eventually the 45 minute claim was dropped by the government's Joint Intelligence Committee and it emerged that the intelligence so much had been made of came from an Iraqi exile living in South London. This leads us back to the topic of the elections because his name was Iyad Allawi! Funny how it all worked out so well for him. Maybe the original headlines should have been 'Asylum seeker lies to government, gets given his own country to run.'

You'd be wrong to infer that you could do that. What you would be able to do is to bet on one team, lose your money and later say that the other team was the best. I for one would respect you for it.

I have to wonder (actually it is quite obvious) how this discussion of a possible correct action by Bush, has become a discussion of incorrect actions by Kerry. Is it possible that certain individuals have resorted to defending held positions by attacking opposition .......of course not, that would be relatively ignorant.
I am pretty Sure Kerry lost the last Election, and the person under discussion here was victorious, thus the focus on HIM and his descisions.

it is alchemy, tecoyah.
this is how it works.

Some people seem to be mistaking "credible" information for "correct" information.

This is a myth, we didn't put Saddam in power and the US comprised only 1% in the way of arms shipments.

http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstr...PRTS_73-03.pdf

I know you didn't, that's why I didn't say it, but he was the CIA's man in the Ba'ath party. Check 1963 (he bodged the assassination!): http://theinsurgent.net/index.php?vo...ticle=usterror

The point is that one day does not make all the lives lost worth it. What might make them worth it is a government in Iraq showing compassion to all ethnic and religious groups (that means you too, sunnis). What might make this worth it is for the new Iraqi government becoming it's own country, free from America in every way. What Might make this worth it is Iraq becoming a beacon for peace, and an example to all the other regimes in the area. What might make it worth it is for Iraq to lead by example, but not to incite bloody rebellions in the Middle East.

The anti-war movement was not wrong. Actually, an anti-war movement is rarely wrong. What would have happened if the anti war movement stopped Vietnam? Korea? Panama? We are better off without war. The only time we should see war happen is if it is the absolute last resort. There were better ways to go about removing Saddam from power, ways that would kill no innocent civilians or brave soldiers.

No matter what good comes out of Iraq, it matters not to the liberals. What matters to them and the haters of George W Bush is that he is wrong. Even if it means life for the iraqis is horrible, just as long as bush was wrong. Any good news from Iraq is bad news for them. What DID John Kerry say after the iraqis turned out in large numbers? "It is hard to say that something is legitimate when whole portions of the country can't vote and doesn't vote." Yeah, while in actuality... For the months preceeding this election I was posting on this board that iraqis would turn out in large numbers, that they would not be pushed around by the terrorists. And that is what happened.

All the libs can say is "no matter what the outcome it is still wrong wrong wrong. bush lied." Get over it. He didn't lie, he was misinformed on a few issues. WMD's were not the sole reason we went war anyway, there were many more reasons, and all you can do is cling on to the one thing that was not entirely accurate.

And another thing. Yes, yes the anti-war movement was wrong. It always has been. Don't you know that the anti-war movement that began in the 1960's was an idea introduced to the counter-culture from the KGB? Of course you didn't. But it was. the anti-war movement is/was nothing more than a communist weapon against America. That by infultrating the hearts and minds of the american people America might loose the vietnam war. And guess what happened.

this is the funniest thing i have seen in a long time.
i would say thanks if i could convince myself that you were joking.

ok here's a quickie, but not the only source

http://www.grecoreport.com/the_hidde...ce_rallies.htm

let me know if you need more...in fact when you are done here, why don't you just google: anti-war + communist agenda

i knew about this "information" and ANSWER.
and the backstory.
dont worry: that is one reason i found your post so funny.

there are obviously problems with your version of history:
you might start by actually think about the assymetry between a group like answer and the size of the movement against bushwar, but i doubt you will. redbaiting always has a willing audience here in the shangri-la of free speech.
and that is funny too.

Or you could just go on and ignore what the article has to say. Thats always the perfect liberal response.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

If, as predicted by Bush, the US goes into Iraq, makes short work of the defenders, finds WMD, is greeted with flowers falling from the sky and an outpouring of Iraqi love, builds a successful democracy in Iraq that acts as a beacon, causing other middle eastern states to reform and become bastions of freedom, and along the way prevents terrorism.... then I'd even forgive Bush for Ashcroft.

As yet:
Short work of defenders: CHECK
Flowers: Nope
WMD: Nope
Successful Democracy: Nope
Wave of Reform: Nope
Terrorism become a small annoyance: Nope

He's batting 167. I'll keep you posted.

(the above list is from memory: it may have contained more or less points).

As for stevo, well, at some level, I don't trust articles relayed to me embedded in a white-supremacy editorial. The amount of slant I'd assume would be huge.

You know, things are not absolute. Bush could be right about this one thing but wrong about others. Everyone seems to be placing all their eggs in one basket.

Even in this case:

A democratic and free Iraq = Good thing BUT...
WMD - no
Threat to US - no
Remove Saddam - yes
You have to separate the issues when analyzing them and put them in their proper context. Haphazardly matching results with intentions is sloppy at best.

It is definitely a good thing that the election went "well". However, that is not the reason why we went there in the first place. Elections are sort of a happy side-effect or afterthought to an invasion gone wrong.

Anyways, we need to give any given policy time to guage its effectiveness.

I don't know about you guys, but when I protest something like a war, the last thing on my mind is the KGB or black/white race relations. John Perazzo was good to point out some flaws in the equality movement (read "The Myths That Divide Us" to understand what I'm talking about), but he does not speak on behalf of all people. War protests have been going on since before America, or the KGB, existed.

You also probably shouldn't blindly bash liberals (or conservatives, to cover all of our bases), as it doesn't make sense. Liberals and conservatives each have a wide group of opinions and beliefs within their systems. Most people would think I am a liberal, but I'm not. I'm a conservative libertarian. I am the modern equivalent to what a republican was 50 years ago.

stevo, what you probably don't realize is that you could very well be a liberal yourself! Following Bush does not necessarily make you a conservative. There isn't a certain definition for the word anymore -- some people think "conservative = republican"; some people think "conservative = opposing change"; some people think "conservative = moderate". Likewise, liberal has different meanings to different people. Both terms can represent positive or negative connotations. Responses like "Or you could just go on and ignore what the article has to say. That[']s always the perfect liberal response." are simply falling into something called a stereotype. A stereotype is a conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image. What that means is that your statement assumes that all the people in the liberal group ignores your articles as an automatic response. Actually, I'm sure there are plenty of conservatives that would be willing to dismiss an article based on many reasons. I'm sure there are people who didn't read it simply because it was long and looked tedious. Still others may have been offended or put off by you in the past, and chose to ignore it based on that. These are just two of a multitude of examples. I read the article. roachboy clearly read the article. While some stereotypes are founded partially in fact, they are unreliable. I'm sure at least one liberal would be willing to agree with your article.

I hope that helped you out.

Lets see here.

South Korea would be starving and eating their dead to survive instead of being one of the most technologically advanced in the world.

Panama would have been a drug production zone that would make Columbia's output comparable to Israel's oil output.

Vietnam would have falled much easier to the Communists, the exact same massacres would have occured that happened after we left. It would have spread to the entirety of Indo-China and Pol Pot would have been one among many who massacred millions.

Lets move past that. What would have happened if we didnt stop Saddam in the first place? Kuwait? why not Saudi Arabia? Why not move into Syria and merge the two Ba'athist governments? Why not move into Jordan? Why not assemble the multiple armies and march into Israel and finally finish off the Zionists?

We are better off without war when the world is run by good men. It's not, so war is nessisary.

This story is being linked on Drudge and I thought it fitting to be added here

What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?

I'm not really saying either way, but I thought it at least contributed to the discussion.

I feel like the lives lost in this war already make it a complete disaster. Though many claim we saved more lives by removing sadam, we sacrificed over 1000 of our guys to do so, which I don't agree with.

The only thing that could have happened that would make me concede that Bush was right is the discovery of a functional nuclear weapons lab. That essentially was the reason for the invasion. Without the overhyped threat of a "mushroom cloud" I don't think it ever would have happened.

But there never was such a lab, and we have now given up and called off the search.

So that leaves me asking: what did those 1438 U.S. soldiers die for? Why did we spend over $152 billion and counting?

For an election with a high turnout?

Oh boy. The same was said of China after WWII, but they are now the ones loaning America money. I say absolutely not to the starving theory. I'll bet that a lot less people would have died, they would have gone through the movements (same as China), and came out the other end as a unified country under the rule of a semi-communist government.

Not really. Drug production in '89 was on a steep drop because of the efforts of Noriega. Despite the fact that he was facing assassination attempts and coups incited by foreign governments, drug production actually was on the drop. That was right before the deaths of the 4,000 Panamanians at American hands.

Oy. Let's look back, shall we? This story really started way back in 1914, when England helped a small tribe free Kuwait city from the Ottoman Empire, and so under the protection of England the small country of Kuwait was born. During the next 47 years England protected the small kingdom as the Ottoman empire fell apart and became the mess we now know as the middle east. After England released Kuwait from it's protection, Iraq claimed that the territory was traditionally part of Iraq. World powers disagreed and the small kingdom, now very oil wealthy persisted.

Meanwhile, an evil dictator named Saddam Hussein rose to power in Iraq. Under Saddam Iraq became quite wealthy, mostly because in the 70's he continued to sell the USA oil, when the rest of the Arab world had an embargo against the USA. He took this money and brought electricity to the masses. He built schools, and hospitals and opened them to everyone. He also bought a lot of guns and weapons of mass destruction from the USA and from Russia and in the eighties waged war against Iran. In July of 1990 Saddam accused Kuwait of drawing oil from Iranian reserves by placing oil wells too close to their border. The United States and the UN declared this to be an arab problem and chose not to intervene. The evil Saddam decided after checking with his CIA connections who assured him that the US would not intervene*, to once again lay claim to the land known as Kuwait and in a six day nearly bloodless coop took over the small country. (Jan 1991) Six months later a UN coalition attacked the former Kuwait and after a six week battle liberated Kuwait and reestablished the kingdom. 3/3/91 Iraq signed a cease fire and the United States promised ten years protection of Kuwait. A DMZ and no fly zone was established near the southern border. 6/27/91 Claiming to have uncovered a plot to assassinate President Bush, the US resumes bombing of Iraq. 9/2/96 After being caught with his pants down in the oval office President Clinton expands the no fly zones to cover more than half the country and resumes bombing again, on the premise that Iraq is not cooperating with the UN weapon inspections . 11/21/97 Kuwait claims that US interventions are slowing the peace process and are no longer welcome. 12/16/98 US again attacks Iraq, claiming again that they have not and are not cooperating with the UN weapon inspections.


*Qasim, the Iraqi leader preceding Saddam: took power in a popularly-backed coup in 1958, carried out such anti-American and anti-corporatist policies as starting the process of nationalizing foreign oil companies in Iraq, withdrawing Iraq from the US-initiated right-wing Baghdad Pact (which included another military-run, US-puppet state, i.e., Pakistan) and decriminalizing the Iraqi Communist Party. Despite these actions, and more likely because of them, he was Iraq's most popular leader. He was assassinated. Qasim was overthrown by the Baath party (with something like 9 tanks, and 850 members at the time). It is quite likely that the US was responsible for the assignation. "We came to power on a CIA train," is a direct quote from Ali Saleh Sa'adi, the Baath Party secretary general who was about to institute an unprecedented reign of terror. (http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2000/msg01267.html)

The Ba'athist coup, resulted in the return to Iraq of young fellow-Ba'athist Saddam Hussein, who had fled to Egypt after his earlier abortive attempt to assassinate Qasim. Saddam was immediately assigned to head the Al-Jihaz al-Khas, the clandestine Ba'athist Intelligence organization. As such, he was soon involved in the killing of some 5,000 communists. Saddam's rise to power had, ironically, begun on the back of a CIA-engineered coup. (http://www.spectrezine.org/war/Mendes.htm)

Also check out
http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/f...s98/saddam.htm
http://www.mafhoum.com/press2/cia276...olitics_03.htm
http://www.speakeasy.org/wfp/37/american.html
http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/pfvs/.../msg01736.html

I think your post is the most significantly overlooked one in this entire thread.

It had me laughing out loud... From my safe vantage point at a University western Canada.

I read that article earlier. I thought it was good and that some should take a lesson from it

Might want to look into the history of China after Mao won. It's not as pretty as you painted it to be.

About Kuwait, I know the history of the tribal usage by the British to break apart the Ottoman Empire. I do study Middle Eastern History.

And about your history of Iraq, you forgot to mension all the horrible things he did. Reminded me of Moore's picture of a peaceful and happy Iraq before we invaded and pissed everyone off. By this point we ALL know about how the US not only turned a blind eye to him, but gave him weapons. But that has to be looked at in the larger picture (USSR and Iran).

It is common knowledge that he was a terrible human being. It's not common knowledge that he has direct CIA ties. It was necessary to point that out in my explaination.

"WAS BUSH RIGHT?"

The "tell" for me, is the reaction of the 200,000 or so, able bodied Iraqi
ex-patriate males who reside in the U.S. In the year or more since Bush,
after finally settling on the face saving explanation that the purpose of the
U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq was to bring "freedom and democracy"
to the Iraqi people, in a "war of liberation", how many of the above described
Iraqis have joined the U.S. military, or gone home to Iraq to serve in it's
reconstituted security forces? What percentage of Iraqi ex-patriates voted
in the "election" last weekend? In the U.S., the expatriates had the opportunity to vote over a three day period.

I believe that Iraqi ex-patriates, having the recent first hand experience of
living in countries that hold free and democratic elections, clearly see Bush
and his motives for what they are. Neither they, nor I, believe that Bush is
spending $200 billion (counting the new $75 billion fund request) and
ten thousand U.S. casualties, in a selfless effort to bring democracy to Iraq.
The following is a much more likely description of Bushco's intention than
the propaganda Bush & Co. serve up.
The following was written on Jan. 21, 2005 by Frank Brodhead.
Frank Brodhead is the co-author, with Edward S. Herman, of Demonstration Elections: US-Staged Elections in the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, and El Salvador (South End Press, 1984).

Excelent post, host. That sums it up quite nicely.

That is a crock Host. Your ex-patriates aren't fighting for some noble principle, or because they know all the dubious things Bush has planned for Iraq. The Majority of them are fighting because they are scared as hell that the Shiites are going to do to them exactly what they did to the shiites. Some are fighting because they don't like an occupying force. Many aren't even Iraqi and are fighting to instill a theocracy and to battle the great satan and the zionists.

Sounds right on to me.

Sorry, mojo, you're absolutely wrong. I suggest you talk to some people from the war torn areas of the Middle East before speaking for them with such confidence. Until you get an alternate infomation source from American media, your views on this will be tainted and baseless.

I think the problem is I misread what Host wrote. My apologies. I equated Expatriates to insurgency, my mistake.

Bush went into Iraq claiming there were WMDs that treatened America and the rest of the "free world"... They didn't find any.

Bush was wrong.

The fact that a democracy *may* rise out of the ashes is a silver lining to a bad situation. It doesn't change the fact that Bush was wrong.

I'm startin to get the impression that it was coming close to the time when the sanctions on Iraq were to be lifted and the US simply did not want Saddam in power when those sanctions were lifted.

Oh, and to answer the main question of the thread (my bad lol)

Bush was wrong for the invasion. When things eventually settle down in Iraq and get back to normal it will have little to nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with the Iraqi people going back to life as usual. There will always be a terrorism problem there now, however. That won't change for a very very very long time, if ever.

Would you, or not, agree that WMD was the issue that Powell tried to sell the UN?

Would you, or not, agree that WMD was the issue that drove Bush's speech to the nation as reason to invade?

You say that WMDs were not the sole reason. And yet, at the time it happened, that's all I remember hearing about. Can you please educate me what other issues there were - AT THAT TIME?

You suggest that one thing (WMD) "was not entirely accurate". What fascinating spin. I would have said "entirely not accurate". Funny what word order can do.

Whether you want to blame faulty intelligence, or outright lies, would you, or not, agree that we have found exactly ZERO WMD?

I support Bush on his international stances, that being said, obviously I'm happy with the way Iraq is looking right now. I just hope that if things work out for the best in the long term that the naysayers will have the integrity to eat crow and give Bush the credit he deserves. If things don't work out, I will.

I hate to put you on the spot, but what in particular makes you happy about the way Iraq looks? As far as I know, tens-of-thousands are dead (both Iraqi and allied), Iraqi people are openly against the American occupation to the point of fighting back, and many of our allies are still very angry at us for going to a preemptive war on flase information. I'm honestly curious what makes you happy.

No it does not prove him right by a long shot. First of all, Bush had us go to Iraq because he "thought" (due to the intelligence he received) Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. So no on that issue, the end doesn't justify the means.

Second, a big no. The middle east is not going to say, "Oh, Iraq held elections and it looked pretty good. Let's go democratic.". We don't even know if Iraq will stay democratic (hopefully it will work and no coup occurs). The middle east is not a democratic culture, they have their governments built upon their faith (though Iraq is but the U.S. intervened).

Third, big no. Again the ends don't justify the means. Our young soilders should not have been over because their was no real threat to us. No WMDs.

Fourth, big ass NO!! We have a democratic society (exactly what were trying to build in Iraq) and we should be able to express ourselves. Especially for a war that was without merit. I don't want anyone to think I am against our soilders achieving the objective, because I feel they are to be praised greatly for sacrificing their lives for us. But it was the wrong war for them to have to do this.

Fifth, we should be on the side of the Iraqi people to achieve a democratic government. We don't need another Saddam in that region. But we need to make sure they are ready to do it on their own by the end of the year. If we stay to long resentment may grow.

Overall, yes I'm against the war and the way Bush has handled it. But I do want it to be a success just for the simple fact that the middle east may have some stabilty in the region.

Don't be ridiculous.

I'm just wondering, were you referring to my comment to the thread or the person who started the thread.

Sorry about the ambiguity. Replying to the thread title. Round about the fifth time I've seen it and temptation finally got the better of me.

As a friend of mine postd to another board I belong to,
I am not quite that hardcore about it, but I think if we succeed in Iraq, it won't be for lack of trying.

Support the troops, not the mission.

Wow. It nevery ceases to amaze me.

So if the US is so obsessed with iraqi oil, then why did we stop short of taking over Iraq in 1991? were we not so 'dependent' on oil then?

Yeah, and if you want to go on believing that the whole reason we are in iraq is to establish permanent military bases you are going to be proved wrong when its over. Do you actually think that the bush administration believes that the way to solve the terrorism problem is to build more military bases in the Arab world? Come on. You obviously don't have a mind big enough to understand that by giving people the opportunity to govern themselves and spread freedom, we can overcome terrorism. You probably make me laugh more than I make you laugh.

This is part of the attitude that gets us in trouble in the first place. Why don't you think of something greater than yourself for a change. The soldiers that have sacrificed their lives sure have.

No one thought they were a threat to America. They didn't have the ability to attack America in 1991, so if we overturned their government, we would have gotten in serious trouble. It was necessary to fabricate a threat (al Qaeda ties, WMDs) in order for people to allow us to invade and overthrow their government.

Mind sizes aside, there will be at least two American military instalations in Iraq after our troops officially pull out. We are in Iraq in order to strike fear. Remember "shock and awe"? It's pretty obvious. When we go after another "terrorist state" (based on lies), you will still be saying that we are there for legitimate reasons. Is there any line that America will cross that makes you question their motives?

Nobody fabricated anything Will. As far as Al Qaeda ties go, do you think it is coincidence that Al Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, just happened to be given refuge in Iraq after fleeing Afghanistan? Is it coincidence that he got treated in a state hospital ran by Uday? Is it coincidence that he stayed there after he got healty and an impending military strike was coming? Also you have the evidence of Iraq/Al Qaeda operating in Somalia which I won't rehash, but it's established. Sure Iraq wasn't involved in 9-11 or any current active plots with Al Qaeda, doesn't mean there weren't connections.

Secondly as far as the WMD's, I don't believe those were fabricated either. It was largely the same intelligence used in 98' with operation desert fox after we happened to find some of the Anthrax that Saddam didn't have. But yeah, the intelligence 5 years later was wrong... in so far as a smoking gun. We still found Saddam with a bunch of shit he wasn't supposed to have.

We would have gotten in serious trouble, really? by who? the UN coalition that was actually working with us? If we overthrew saddam in '91 we wouldn't have been in trouble by anyone, in fact, we probably would have had more help during the occupation.

How do you know there will be at least 2 military installations. Are you privy to such info?

As long as it is a tyrannical state, with the potential to work with terrorists then there is no line crossed. Of course there is a line that could cause me to question the govt's motives, but we have not come to it, and I don't expect us to.

Imagine a country, independant from a multilateral organization of some kind, went into another country and overthrew the government, despite the fact that there was no danger to said country. Besides, the UN coalition was trying to stop the deaths of the Kurds, not trying to take over Iraq. You know that.

We currently have 2 formal bases set up in Iraq. Don't you watch the news?

Hypothetically, what line crossed might cause you to question the governments motives? I'm honestly curious.

Just because the bases are there now, doesn't mean they are permanant...

I don't know. offer me some hypotheticals...

I'm pretty much against invading canada.

willravel, Mojo and stevo simply regurgitate the talking points that the Bushco
neocons and the Fox-Goebbels spin machine have fed them, They are incapable
of independent thought or research. Blind adherence evinces from Mojo the
curious phenomena of denial of the newer reality confirmed from Bush's own
lips.......Saddam did not co-operate with Al-Queda, and no WMD's were found
in an exhaustive and expensive post invasion search of Iraq that would
vindicate Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Powell pre-invasion rhetoric/bluster/propaganda/justification for invasion.

The brainwashed/in denial, "Bush can do no wrong" mindset cannot cope with
facts like the miniscule numbers of foreign fighters killed or captured in Iraq,
or that Al-Zarqawi is a Bushco hyped excuse to justify the needless, senseless,
and unjustified 10000 plus U.S. military casualties we have suffered as a
result of the criminal, incompetent, Bush regime's illegal, deadend, sideshow
invasion of Iraq. Bush put on a desperate show last night in a pathetic attempt to convince the citizenry that the young marine(s) who died for
nothing in Iraq, actually accomplished something noteworthy for American
security by the destruction of Fallujah, using his emotionally devastated parents as a propaganda stage prop. If Bush was motivated by anything other than his pre-election polling, why did he call a halt to the well advanced
drive against Fallujah, last april, pulling back then to allow the Iraqi insurgency to strenghthen itself and provide even more dealy resistance once
Bush could carry out the planned military agenda, with the accountability of
the Noember election behind him?
Now......ten months after the following MSNBC report was published, (back
then, bogeyman Zarqawi was credited with 700 deaths !!!!!....... he is
supposedly still alive and fomenting resistance.)
Or....is Zarqawi simply an elaborate U.S. propaganda, domestic "psy-ops"
creation of the Bushco. itself ?
willravel...... I read their parroted Bushco propaganda with amusement and
with frustrated fascination. They blindly follow an incompetent idiot president,
vehemently defending his record of total failure and contradiction:
1.)Bushco failed to respond to early August 2001 warning of possible
infrastructure attacks via hijacked airliners. Indeed, Bushco presided
over a stand down of U.S. air defenses on 9/11.

2.)Bush vowed to capture Bin Laden, and months later, with no results,
declared to the press that Bin Laden was irrelevant and "he hardly thought
about him !".

3.)Entire administration proved wrong on reasons to invade Iraq. No WMD
threat found, no Al-Qaeda ties to Saddam. Bushco simply blamed failure
and incompetence on shoddy intelligence.

4.)Bush recently awarded the nation's highest civilian medals to failed
intelligence chief Tenent, and to failed post Iraq invasion CPA authority
Bremer, the man who dissolved all existing Iraqi military and police,
botched the infrastructure rebuilding goals, and now apparently lost track
of $9 billion in oil revenues that belonged to the Iraqi people.

Through it all, these deluded Bushco supporters are steadfast in their
ignorance; their misplaced confidence still firmly committed to an idiot
war criminal and his still evolving fascist corporate/government alliance.

The problem is that the Bushco supporters make up 51% of these United States. Mojo and stevo are not by any means alone. Realty? Of course Bush was wrong. He is either one of the most incompetant people in history, or he is doing this on purpous. The problem is that the Bushco propoganda machine seemingly has seized control of the American minds. My own father, a genius by any standards, is a Bush supporter. When I ask him about why he would support such a man, he simply relpies, "I know he's screwed up, but he's the best thing we've got." WHAT? So I guess it was impossible for us to vote Democrat, or Green, or Libertarian, or Independant?! Bush wasn't even the lesser of two evils. We are under the worst administration in the history of this country, and complacency seems to be working as a blindfold hiding the firing squad of Bushco. The complacency in some combines with stubernness, and that is where the danger comes in. When someone forms opinions out of complacency, and chooses to stubornly stand by the decisions as if they were made after careful consideration, they fight for the side of "eh..whatever" with their lives. It's illogical at best. I say it's a shame, because mojo is a very intelligent person.

Of course, stevo might work for Haliburton. Heh.

Man Host, your tone of self-righteousness just really puts me off to anything you have to say, needless to say none of your articles there refute the fact that the man is actively operating in Iraq. Are you trying to assert that he is a fabrication of the US government? We sure are going through a lot of trouble to keep this lie afloat, I mean hurling grenades at voters and beheading people is tiring work.

You hit on the Zarqawi thing, but you failed to address the historical relevance of Saddam giving aid and support to Aiyam Al-Zawahiri and Al Qaeda in their operations in Somalia after the soviet defeat in Afghanistan. You know about that right host? You know right after Osama got expelled from Saudi Arabia and he took refuge in Khartorum were countries such as Iran and Iraq were training logistically and tactically and aiding finacially the beginnings of Al Qaeda in response to America's presence in the horn of Africa. Or is that all a "Bushco" fabrication too? I mean I didn't know that Bush has a time machine at his disposal where he gets the DOJ and PBS frontline to put out documents and evidence attesting to such. Hell Osama himself attests to it, but he is a figment of Bushco's imagination right?

Your blind hatred makes you willingly ignorant to reality.

:lol: that was great. haven't laughed like that yet today. I'd better keep it down or dick is going to come down the hall and smack me. better get back to work scarring the iraqi country side and embezzling millions from US tax payers. :lol: Really, I was laughing halfway through your first paragraph. Thats a good one, not even the lesser of two evils, made me laugh. :lol:

stevo - Well, I suppose I'm glad to entertain - thought that obviosuly wasn't my intention.

Do you think there were actual links from Saddam to the al Qaeda?

Do you think we found WMDs in Iraq? Do you think we were in danger from weapons that may or may not have been in Iraq at the time America attacked Iraq?

Do you think preemptive war saved us from being attacked by Saddam (specifically Saddam and the Iraqi government)?

Do you think Condelezza Rice has been 100% honest?

fibber gives the "what's up?? sign to all those chiding a dishonest gub'ment.............................................................
.........................................................................
.....damn, I wasted my lunch hour trying to think of an honest administration.

-fibber

I think there were links between Saddam and al Qaeda.

I don't think we found WMD's in Iraq because they were moved to Syria in weeks prior to the war.

I don't believe saddam would ever have attacked us personally, but I believe the possibility existed that he pass on WMD's to terrorists. He can't do that now, can he?

Do you think John Kerry has been 100% honest?

Well this is a big opinion. It would be devestating to the so called liberals if there were ties between Saddam and the al Qaeda (specifically Ossama). I'm sure your opinion is based on some great information to back up what you think, cause you wouldn't just assume there is a tie without some proof. That'd be absurd.

Hmmm...I suppose that's a possibility. The problem? We were monitoring that border like nobody's buisness before the war. We knew longbefore the war that Syria was the most likely hiding place Saddam might use. Either we were negligent in following good intel, or it didn't happen. It is possible that it got through, but not likely.

The same can be said of sooooo many countries, including France, Britan, Spain, and Russia. Most of the arms the al Qaeda and Taliban used were originally from America (I'm looking for the article, but host probably already has one). Should we have removed ourselves from power?

Oh God no. I can't stand Kerry, and I didn't vote for him. I have to point out that you dodged that question completly. :confused:

Do you have any evidence to the contrary of the link between Saddam and al Qaeda? The "independent" council that investigated 9/11 said there were never and never has been any links between Saddam and al Qaeda. The WMD's comment is completely without merit, no evidence and none even close to show any truth to that comment (ends don't justify the means--no WMD's found--and that is the whole reason we went to war with Iraq). You avoided WILLRAVEL's question; John Kerry is not the president and is not on his council. How many people do you honestly think in Bush's cabinet have been 100% truthful (of course not Bush and Rice...also Rumsfeld--Abu G.)?

:thumbsup:

Speaking of evidence, your second sentence is not factual......again. For someone questioning another person's facts, you seem to have some issues of your own.

The commission's report says bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to [Saddam] Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.

"The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda."

A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994.

Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded.

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said.

Now, I am not saying that Iraq was behind 9/11. I am saying that your second sentence is completely bogus and made up.

Thanks KMA for yet again providing evidence of a link between saddam and al-qaeda. what is that, the 18th time you've posted that. I guess people only read what they want to.

As far as syria is concerned here's a link and some text from the site http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php

Oh, and as for Dr. Rice, I'm about 95% confident that she's 100% honest.

I'm 99.99% confident that you are wrong. The likelyhood that you are right is essentially nonexistent.

As to the thread question, the answer is no.

Monitoring
 

Also from that same website:

You, KMA, failed to mention that the source of the quotes you put above were from Powel, Cheny, and the rest of the Happy Fun Bush Gang. They were proven lies (or missinformation based on bad intel, whatever you choose to believe). Those were the same people that admitted that there was no credible link. Remember when Bush admitted there were no links? You did not prove anyone wrong, you simply did what Bush supporters always do: regurgitate what Bushco tells you.

Also from that site:

That report is legal gospel. If that report say it's so, it's so. There was no credible link, and I'm offended that you think that we're stupid enough to believe that site proves the Iraq Aal-Qaeda connection. Jeez.

Now wait a minute.

Where did I say that Iraq and Al Qaeda had collaborated on attacks on the U.S.?

You are a little off on this one.

I was responding to the "never never" comment from above.

While I do not think there was a lot of going on between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the "never never" comment just isn't true.

Also, the article cites the Commission's report. Where does it say that the things I quoted only came from BushCo.?

Without dragging out the book, the commission said that there had been some interactions between Iraq and Al Qaeda, not much but there were some.

You can't allow inclusion of the commission's report only if it serves your purpose (i.e., i don't see you commenting on drakers mentioning the 9/11 commission). If it is good enough for his argument, then it is good enough for mine.

I didn't bring the commission into this argument to back up some wild allegation. I used an article relating to the commission's report to debunk a comment about the report that isn't true.

<i>Bush claimed that democracy in Iraq would make the
invasion worthwhile. Does this prove him right? Is
there merit to his "domino theory" of democracy in
the Middle East? Was this worth 15,000 lives? (not a
rhetorical question).

Was the anti-war movement wrong?

I'll kick off the discussion with another question: DOes it really matter? Is the point of the exercise to have a side in the global debate that's right, or to supprt that Iraqi people in their choice? This guy Says it far better than I. Hope you have BugMeNot or an NYTimes subscription...</i>

Bush can claim the iraqi democracy is worthwhile, that doesn't make it true. I don't believe in war unless its an immediate threat, its been proven time and again that iraq wasn't. He can claim that diplomacy didn't work but I didn't see him try. Saddam sat there for 20ish years not doing anything with his power to the US but all of a sudden because George W Bush is in office he planned on it? I don't buy that for a second.

There is no domino theory to democracy in the middle east. What's the point anyway? what's wrong with dictatorships? Cuba has a dictatorship and a 100% literacy rate...i don't see the problem in that. It is not up to America to decide whether or not the people of each country want a democracy.

the anti-war movement wasn't wrong, because pre-emptive strike with minimal international backing -- causing the disruption of many of our allies -- is never excused.

the point of the excercize should be the side with the iraqi's choice but good luck on that one. We can't even side with a countries choice on economic system let alone a leader. We had to hope into vietnam because of the 'commmunist threat" and i've been trying to figure out since i was old enough to understand what politics is what the problem with 'communism' is. I happen to think it has MANY advantages over capitalism. But back to the point at hand, none of you here can confidently say that if the iraqis choose a muslim dictatorship that we're going to let it go. That's naive and blind to think that. If they're not supportive of mulitinational corporations and democratic we'll find a way right back into that country to up root it again.

This whole big thing is about Iraq being at all involved in 9/11. Iraq, despite very, very loose aquaintenences with a few members of the al Qaeda was not nearly enough to possibly link them, and espically not enough to attack Iraq. Sorry I missunderstood the goal of your post.

Huh? How do you figure it's "legal gospel"?

Hell, where the Bill of Rights says "the right of the people", some liberals claim that means "the right of the State" or "the privileges of the people".

Legal gospel? There ain't no such beast.

I made a mistake, and none other than daswig helped me out. Thank you, daswig (no sarcasm). It just goes to show you that people are unpredictable. Maybe this is the beginning of us getting along? We'll see. :thumbsup:

What I meant was that the findings put fourth by the investigation has to be in agreement with the government. Imagine the 9/11 commission said there was no link, and Bush just kept saying there was. Someone is wrong. I'll bet you it's the guy who chocked on a pretzel, not the people who launched a formal investigation.

ok let me put my own opinion forward..
Elections seem to this point fine and dandy, although I think we need to give more time for the full ramificaiton. I am worried about some of the minorities in Iraq and a sort of tyranny of the majority problem.

Bush is still wrong
this is just a (possible) silver lining
We went in the wrong way, and for the wrong reasons. Simple as that.

Now willravel I normally agree with you, but I must take exception over the getting involved in Korea. the koreans were attacked and it was a UN force that led the charge. Now when they tried to go and take N. Korea that was a little too far because they got China involved which complicated the mess. I probably would not be here if it wasn't for the US and the UN getting involved in Korea.

Now on to the subject of the anti-war protests. To generalize the entire movement that way is insulting to the movement. Yes marxists were involved, but they didn't make up the entire movement. Just like yes the anarchists protest, but they arent' the only ones. Their is such a wide spectrum of ideaologies in these sometimes very loose knit groups it is impossible to put one lable on them.

Good move!!! I agree with you agreeing with me. It's agreeable. Heh...

I should have been more specific. I did not mean it was wrong for the UN to try and save lives, but the "battle against communism" was wrong. It's always a bad idea to take lives in the name of an "-ism". Actually it's always a bad idae to take lives at all, but that's a different conversation for a different board.

Well put. I couldn't agree more.

Heh. Sounds like you've never actually seen much of the crap that Congress puts out. :) The report was written by committee. They say strange and bizarre stuff all the time. That doesn't necessarily make it so.

BTW, what do you make of the Warren Commission report on the Kennedy assassination? Lone gunman or Grassy Knoll? I've read it, and I must admit, the "magic bullet" made me laugh.

Oh I'm sure it's not true (in that most of what's going on over there is not goiing to make it to the public for some time), but Bush has to abide by the decision.

I just got done reading it. What a terrible mess. I feel a great deal of pity for Presidenbt Kennedy and his family (immediate family).

Huh? Since when? I think you're confusing the legislative and judicial branches of government. Bush no more has to "abide by the decision" of the Congress than he has to play golf with Robert "KKK" Byrd every weekend. If he wants to, he can, but if he wants to tell them to fuck off, that's his option too. A committee report from congress has NO legal authority AT ALL. It's just paper printed at taxpayer expense, and has the same legal authority as an equal quantity of toilet paper.

If you perceived disturbing parallels to the excerpts that I intend to quote,
perpetrated in your own country, by those who represent themselves as
the lawfully elected office holders of the federal executive branch, how
would you react? You mistake my outrage and incredulity for "self-rightousness and "blind hatred".

In the next post, read the actual quotes that comprised the template for
the preceding parallel contained in the quote box.

The actual quotes used in the preceding post are:
Swallowers and Enablers of the past four year of Bush Shit: WAKE THE FUCK UP AND PUT AN END TO THIS MADNESS.....NOW !!!
And......Al Zarqawi is not even listed on the FBI's "ten most wanted" or on
the "most wanted terrorists" web pages:
<a href="http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/fugitives.htm">http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/fugitives.htm</a>

As FBI director Mueller admitted publically last year:
To sum it up:
I have no way to determine if Al Zarqawi is a credible threat or has ties to
Al Qaeda. I suspect that the BUSHCO only reveals to the media the snippets
that they believe strenghtens their propaganda efforts.

There apparently is no rational basis to believe that signifigant WMD assets
were transferred to Syria or anywhere else in the days before the Iraqi
invasion.

There is no believable explanation for the Bushco announcements immediately
after 9/11 that Osama and Al Qaeda and the named individuals displayed on
the FBI website since 9/27/2001, when that scenario is hoisted up next to
Mueller's admission 8 months later that there was no physical linking evidence.
If the lying war criminals of the BUSHCO were certain enough 24 hours after
the 9/11 attacks of who was responsible, and still could produce no evidence
eight months later of the culpability of those that they had so hastily and adamantly pointed to, what is a thinking and questioning citizen to conclude?

What the fuck have these criminal propagandists been right about ? Why do
they continue to have your enthusiatic trust? Would you have given the
Medal of Freedom to Tenent or to Bremer ? What are any of you thinking?????

36 senators showed some sign of waking from their slumber. They refused to
vote for a war criminal as U.S. Attorney General. When will you stop declaring
nonsense that the BUSHCO has even abandoned in their own propaganda
pronouncements? Have you even noticed? They rescinded their belief in
hidden WMDs, or in relevant ties between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qeada, because the passage of time robbed those lies of even the potential of
future validity. Why would you continue to parrot their lies and deceptions ?

So I guess we're all in agreement then that Iraq WMDs were moved to syria before the war and by now have been disseminated across the region, most noteably into sudan. Or does someone want to pick apart my post #78

i guess if your standard for honesty is that rice might actually believe whatever the line might be on the planet bush on any given day, then i guess you'd be right, stevo.
but i have never really understood this defense from the right:

bush does not lie--he honestly believes what he says.
or: his decisions were based on erroneous information about the world.

you could say the same of psychotics.

This is a silly statement. But it got a response. *sigh*

Post 78 contains no evidence of any real merit.

Ignoring a post does not mean agreeing with it. You where ignored.

Um, that was evidence that Bin Laden asked for help, and Saddam didn't provide any.

Is Al'Qaeda asking for help from someone, and getting refused, enough to justify invasion? Heh.

Earlier the article referred to "chemical weapons". Does this WMD refer to the same kind of weapons? Or some other kind?

Secondly, this report seems to be from one uncorroborated source? Hell, I can provide you with an uncorroborated source that says the US shot down a US passanger airliner in the 90s.

One might ask if US soliders are dying for oil and the profit of the rich? If the answer is yes, they should not be dying for that.

As I just posted in a quote box directly preceding this post of yours,
and will post again below, time has revealed your premise to be lacking.
It seems to ring as hollow as any of the other Bushco WMD rhetoric when
the time came to back up the "intelligence" with actual physical evidence.
This the current media reporting on in the subject:

I need some props, too. I've posted that, along with some quotes from the 9/11 commission, a couple of times.

Hell, I even posted a picture of the airplane in the middle of the desert 20 miles south of Baghdad (with no landing strip in the vicinity) where they trained terrorists. Our "comrades" didn't think THAT was convincing, either.

Oops--I feel the urge coming on again.

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0XQA6AzQdt2*Q!RZLgC5fodsCcF8pcPuyQHWTcJwBAQZwSQEFDRezIdv5ETkUiev*DWUGcDPNh!0XLmMbAd2KGpj047cJG4KDKH6ukaiG9H95KGL1MMFaFzf9jOqkKiLvK9!58!mmCNs/photo_2.Par.0002.ImageFile.jpg?dc=4675505372460097691></img>