Bush Defends Iraq War Strategy(a little different)... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

albania · 12-14-2005, 03:09 PM

This is the article I bolded what interested me, I don't know what to say that probably hasn't been said on this forum already. Anyway, I appreciate that he takes some responsibility. He should have done this a long time ago.

Quote:

Bush Defends Iraq War Strategy
By Warren Vieth, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON -- President Bush said today he accepted responsibility for deciding to wage war in Iraq on the basis of faulty intelligence, but remained convinced that history would conclude he had done the right thing.

Speaking only hours before Iraqis began arriving at the polls to elect a new government, Bush acknowledged that miscalculations had occurred and mistakes were made both before and after the U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq in March, 2003.

Yet the president said he believed his decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power would be vindicated, even though Iraq did not possess the weapons of mass destruction cited as justification for the military offensive.

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president, I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq, and I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities," Bush told a group of political leaders and scholars at the nonpartisan Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington.

Even so, he said, "Given Saddam's history and the lessons of Sept. 11, my decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision. Saddam was a threat, and the American people and the world [are] better off because he is no longer in power."

The president's critics said they were still not persuaded that Bush's original decision to enter Iraq was justified, or that Thursday's elections would lead to the kind of changes that would make the United States or the Middle East safer places.

"The election could lead to a change for the better, which is everybody's hope, but it might be a step towards crisis and towards all-out civil war," Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a press conference held shortly before the president's speech.

Levin and other Democrats said the outcome would depend in part on the administration's willingness to pressure Iraq's new government to revise its constitution so minority Sunnis would feel less excluded from the political process.

Bush's speech was the last of four major policy addresses on Iraq, and reflected a new communications strategy in which the president has been more forthright in discussing some of the flawed assumptions and unexpected setbacks in the war effort.

In three previous speeches, he admitted that the training of Iraqi security forces had proved more difficult than anticipated, that postwar reconstruction had proceeded in "fits and starts," and that the initial U.S. plan for establishing a new government was not acceptable to Iraqis. In each case, he said, the United States had learned from its mistakes and adapted to changing circumstances.

Bush also acknowledged for the first time earlier this week that 30,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed as a result of the war, in addition to 2,140 U.S. military casualties.

White House officials hope the president's new candor will help counteract a steep slide in his approval ratings, which have bounced around the 40% level for several weeks, as well as declining public support for the war, which a majority of Americans have said they viewed as a mistake in recent surveys.

A poll released today by the Pew Research Center suggested that the president's bully pulpit campaign was producing mixed results. While 61% of participants said Iraqi security forces were becoming more capable and 58% saw signs of progress in establishing a democracy, 53% thought the United States was losing ground in reducing civilian casualties.

The public disenchantment appears to reflect perceptions that the administration manipulated prewar intelligence to justify its agenda, engaged in a coordinated effort to discredit its critics, and had no clear strategy for extricating U.S. troops from the suicide bombings and other terror tactics employed by insurgent forces.

Bush characterized Thursday's parliamentary elections as part of a "watershed moment in the story of freedom," as Iraqis choose 275 members from a field of 7,000 candidates to serve four-year terms in a permanent General Assembly.

But he cautioned that it might be weeks before the election winners are known, and that it would take time to form a new government. Meanwhile, the insurgents are not likely to lay down their arms and put away their bombs, he said.

"These enemies are not going to give up because of a successful election," he said. "They know that as democracy takes root in Iraq, their hateful ideology will suffer a devastating blow. So we can expect violence to continue."

Bush expressed confidence that over time, Iraq's minority Sunni Muslim population will become increasingly involved in the political process, and less inclined to support insurgents' efforts to prevent democracy from taking hold.

Many Sunnis initially declined to participate in the formation of an interim assembly and the drafting of a constitution, fearing that the new government would be dominated by Iraq's two other key ethnic groups, the Shiites and Kurds. Bush cited signs that Sunnis would be more engaged in Thursday's elections.

"As Sunnis join the political process, Iraqi democracy becomes more inclusive, and the terrorists and Saddamists are becoming marginalized," Bush said.

Bush repeated his past claims that Iraq had become the "central front" in the war on terror, and rejected assertions by his critics that the U.S. presence there was inflaming, rather than containing, the insurgency.

The establishment of a democratic Iraq would serve as "a model for the Middle East," Bush said, and "inspire reformers from Damascus to Tehran."

It would be a mistake, he said, to withdraw U.S. troops before Iraq's new government was firmly established, its economy stabilized, its infrastructure repaired, and its security forces trained.

"By helping Iraqis build a nation that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself, we will gain an ally in the war on terror and a partner for peace in the Middle East," he said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

aceventura3 · 12-14-2005, 03:47 PM

What I find laughable are the constant complaints that "...there is no plan to win the peace" as Kerry would say, but then after each milestone they say well that was good, but not good enough we need a "plan". Then asked what they would do - they say we would have a "plan". When did we publish the plan to liberate Europe during WWII? Yes, it was after the war. Wow, what a concept.

While Bush is making progress and may go down in history as the person who initiated the actions that end middle eastern conflicts and the war on terror, Democrats will still be looking for a "plan".

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-14-2005, 03:55 PM

This phenomina(sp) is known as the "Yeah, but..." democratic reasoning.

Can't blame them though, Iraq is less then perfect and Midterms are looming.

roachboy · 12-14-2005, 03:58 PM

Quote:

While Bush is making progress and may go down in history as the person who initiated the actions that end middle eastern conflicts and the war on terror, Democrats will still be looking for a "plan"

geez--someone who goes where not even wolfowitz would.

what is really curious about the above is that it recapitulates what the same kind of extreme rightwingers used to complain about with reference to stalin--that human suffering can be trivialized in any political actions becausethe ends justify the means. 30,000 iraqis, 2200 americans dead, the credibility of teh united states shredded internationally, of the white house domestically on and on and on--but in extremerightwingland, the end is all that matters.
all the more if that end is wholly a matter of fantasy at this point.

of course, just as the "argument" in the above is not falsifiable--because it relies upon a wholly lunatic understanding of the war in iraq, its motives, its progress, its potential outcomes--so it is that the right recapitulates a stalinist logic only when it is defending one of its own.
it follows then that what justifies the iraq war for ace is the fact that george w bush launched it.
nothing else matters.

for myself, i think bush should be impeached for leading the country into war under false pretenses. there should be consequences for this magnitude of fuck up.
i would also argue the same thing had a democrat been mad enough to launch such a war.

aceventura3 · 12-14-2005, 04:55 PM

Quote:

what is really curious about the above is that it recapitulates what the same kind of extreme rightwingers used to complain about with reference to stalin--that human suffering can be trivialized in any political actions becausethe ends justify the means.

In the world I live in, when confronted with an enemy who wants to kill you, you either fight or die. I choose to fight. I don't trivialize the issue, to the contrary, you might say I take the issue too seriously because I beleive inaction will lead to more death when confronted with an enemy at war with you.

I think we were at war long before we actually invaded Iraq. Don't you agree?

Quote:

just as the "argument" in the above is not falsifiable--because it relies upon a wholly lunatic understanding of the war in iraq, its motives, its progress, its potential outcomes--so it is that the right recapitulates a stalinist logic only when it is defending one of its own.
it follows then that what justifies the iraq war for ace is the fact that george w bush launched it.
nothing else matters.

What matters to me is defending my family, my life, liberty, and property. I will not do others harm if they respect what matters to me.

The instability in the Middle East is a threat, inaction will not solve the problem. Diplomacy failed. Economic sanctions failed. Trying to be nice failed. I am open to other alternatives, but no person or party has presented one.

Altering the course of history has always taken bold unpopular actions. If we maintain the courage to address the middle east perhaps our children won't have to.

Yes, I do stand with Bush. Not because of party, but because the problem needs to be addressed.

Charlatan · 12-14-2005, 05:29 PM

Nice to see the spin is still perculating in populace.

alpha phi · 12-14-2005, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

but not good enough we need a "plan". Then asked what they would do - they say we would have a "plan". When did we publish the plan to liberate Europe during WWII? Yes, it was after the war. Wow, what a concept.

Bush to declare end to fighting in Iraq May 1 2003

Quote:

Originally Posted by linked article

US President George W Bush will declare the war in Iraq all but over tomorrow in a speech from the deck of a US aircraft carrier at sea, the White House said

It's been over 2 years......what a concept

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

In the world I live in, when confronted with an enemy who wants to kill you, you either fight or die. I choose to fight. I don't trivialize the issue, to the contrary, you might say I take the issue too seriously because I beleive inaction will lead to more death when confronted with an enemy at war with you

sounds like an insurgents point of view?

Willravel · 12-14-2005, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

In the world I live in, when confronted with an enemy who wants to kill you, you either fight or die. I choose to fight. I don't trivialize the issue, to the contrary, you might say I take the issue too seriously because I beleive inaction will lead to more death when confronted with an enemy at war with you.

When did Iraq attack the US? Were they at our shores, with WMDs and connections to terrorism? Or were they a middle Eastern country that was sitting on oil that might have ended up in China or Japan? Who attacked first, the United States or Iraq? That's what I thought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What matters to me is defending my family, my life, liberty, and property. I will not do others harm if they respect what matters to me.

Your family was in danger from Iraq?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The instability in the Middle East is a threat, inaction will not solve the problem. Diplomacy failed. Economic sanctions failed. Trying to be nice failed. I am open to other alternatives, but no person or party has presented one.

How about we leave them alone? That's an alternative. How about we take even a fraction of what we're spending on the rebuilding and spend it on research into alternate fuels? How about we fund our countries DEFENCE, not offence?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Altering the course of history has always taken bold unpopular actions. If we maintain the courage to address the middle east perhaps our children won't have to.

How does one alter the course of history? Isn't that any supposed alteration the course of history? If we use up all the oil, perhaps our kids can starve and freeze to death.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Yes, I do stand with Bush. Not because of party, but because the problem needs to be addressed.

Can you explain how we are serving to remedy the problem?

ObieX · 12-14-2005, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The instability in the Middle East is a threat, inaction will not solve the problem. Diplomacy failed. Economic sanctions failed. Trying to be nice failed. I am open to other alternatives, but no person or party has presented one.

Altering the course of history has always taken bold unpopular actions. If we maintain the courage to address the middle east perhaps our children won't have to.

Yes, I do stand with Bush. Not because of party, but because the problem needs to be addressed.

Nothing seems to solve the problems there. Other countries have gone in and tried to control the area, and they were eventually forced out or just left because it was too much trouble. The people were then left to themselves and they end up with either overly domineering dictators or an overly domineering group of religous leaders, and the people are back to square 1. And of course they wouldn't blame those leaders, or themselves.. it's always someone else. If it isnt Britain its the US, or the Jews.. never themselves.

What i would like to know is how many republicans would be taking the stands they're taking right now if GWB were a registered democrat?

Elphaba · 12-14-2005, 06:24 PM

Quoted by Roachboy:

Quote:

for myself, i think bush should be impeached for leading the country into war under false pretenses. there should be consequences for this magnitude of fuck up.
i would also argue the same thing had a democrat been mad enough to launch such a war.

I have sincerely tried to present my beliefs in a neutral fashion, with the hope that balanced debate would be possible. Ratbastard has done a wonderful job in his new topic to keep a topic at the bipartisan level.

It simply doesn't appear possible in this forum to have an intelligent debate, and I don't have the energy to continue to convey new information that is dismissed as "fuckpoints".

My most hated word, I will now resort to: "Whatever"

albania · 12-14-2005, 06:25 PM

I probably shouldn't have made this so open ended, but let's see where it takes us. I think aceventura3's point is not that Iraq per se attacked us but that it was a part of the "war on terror". Basically a battle in a greater justified war that was first recognized with the September 11th terrorist attacks. Not necessarily so much focused on Iraq, but trying to see a bigger picture that perhaps this is only a small step into a much grander and more focused plan; the focus being the safety of Americans and the American nation from unfriendly nations.
At least that's what I get, ace you can correct me if I’m wrong.
All right I understand your point, but I’m not convinced, the facts being that Iraq has never been truly connected with the war on terror, perhaps on some level there is the argument that Iraq will bring democracy to the middle east. This is a position that is just plain uninformed, no one can know that this is what will happen.
I guess the pejorative statements against the war can be summed up in: Being in Iraq has nothing to do with the defense of America and the premises upon which we agreed to go into Iraq were categorically wrong.

shakran · 12-14-2005, 06:41 PM

What I see here is someone who is FINALLY admitting something that's been painfully obvious from the get go - that Iraq had no WMD's and that intelligence saying they did was wrong. Took him long enough, considering that's been established for over a year now.

What I also see is Bush AGAIN trying to link Iraq to 9/11, even though no connection between the two ever existed. What I FURTHER see is Bush failing to link 9/11 to Saudi Arabia, even though the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi and were trained in Saudi Arabia.

So in other words, I see 90% business as usual bullshit and 10% "oh crap, there's no way we can deny this any more, even the biggest freaking idiot on the planet won't believe us, so let's admit to it in one sentence, sandwiched in between the 90% bullshit, and then claim we've been 100% honest and good like we usually do when we get caught."

roachboy · 12-14-2005, 06:47 PM

elphaba:

i'm confused.
help please.

ObieX · 12-14-2005, 07:06 PM

I really would like to see *something* done to change the situation with Iraq. Sure the pres came forward with all this *finally*.. but what does it really matter? What has changed? What will change? I have the feeling that things will go on the way they have ben going on this whole time. The lies will continue, some of th same ones, some new ones. (The number of Iraqi troops that are actually trained and being used for example.. no one seems to actually know how many are doing what they're supposed to be doing, etc..) The party in power will hold more-or-less a unified front unless they need to shift slightly to get re-elected and that is the most we'll see when it comes to change. In the mean time people will continue to die every single day with no end in sight.

I mean.. what will happen when the Iraqi troops are finally able to get themselves going and the US pulls most of our guys out? How long will that fighting continue to range on? It would be like Northern Ireland only much much worse, and of course every other country in the region will throw their weight around and mix things up in Iraq and make things a complete mess. But we'll be out of there and unable to do anything about it. So it'll still be a huge mess, most likely worse than what we started with,a nd the problems in the region will continue on and on and on as thy always have and always will. It will never end.

I really wonder if the people who said we would be greeted with flowers on the streets really believed those words, or if they were just saying them to get us there. I mean i *KNOW* that they heard over and over from an uncountable number of sources the type of chaos that would erupt if we started a war there. They had to have known what the true situation would be like, they aren't stupid.. thse are men who have lived and breathed this stuff for most of their lives.. they're not stupid or naive. They *KNEW* what would really happen. *EVERYONE* knew what would really happen. Why did they want us there? Why did they lie so blantantly? Why are they still lying so blatantly? Why and where are they still finding support for this?

Of course its all too late now. We're there, and anyone who thinks we're leaving next year should have their head examined. Our troops will never leave that country. We're in and we're staying. We needed control over that region and this is the best control we will ever have. We need the resources there and if a few hundred thousand people have to die then that is what will happen. This is the reality of the United States of America and the world today. It's a truly horrifying reality, and sugar-coating it does no one any good.

matthew330 · 12-14-2005, 07:47 PM

"When did Iraq attack the US?" Daily, for 10 years straight, when we were patrolling the no-fly zones that the UN imposed. Our response after 8 years of that - lets pull out the weapons inspectors and let Saddam run free.

"The instability in the Middle East is a threat, inaction will not solve the problem. Diplomacy failed. Economic sanctions failed. Trying to be nice failed. I am open to other alternatives, but no person or party has presented one."

touche. "Diplomacy failed. Economic sanctions failed. Trying to be nice failed." I.E. - Dems, 1; Republicans, 0.

While Bush passifies the left with an insignificant acknowlegement thats news to noone, and they have a circle jerk over it, progress will continue - much to liberal chagrin.

albania · 12-14-2005, 08:13 PM

Maybe your points could actually be discussed if you acted in a civil manor, if no one has anything to add to this "discussion" then this thread might as well be closed. I can see that a true discussion/debate seems unattainable on this particular subject.

shakran · 12-14-2005, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albania

Maybe your points could actually be discussed if you acted in a civil manor, if no one has anything to add to this "discussion" then this thread might as well be closed. I can see that a true discussion/debate seems unattainable on this particular subject.

Who are you talking to? No one's been uncivil. Several good points have been raised by several people. If by true discussion you mean you want everyone to suddenly love Bush because he finally, grudgingly, admitted one mistake among thousands, I fear you're going to be disappointed.

cybersharp · 12-15-2005, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

In the world I live in, when confronted with an enemy who wants to kill you, you either fight or die. I choose to fight. I don't trivialize the issue, to the contrary, you might say I take the issue too seriously because I beleive inaction will lead to more death when confronted with an enemy at war with you.

I think we were at war long before we actually invaded Iraq. Don't you agree?

What matters to me is defending my family, my life, liberty, and property. I will not do others harm if they respect what matters to me.

The instability in the Middle East is a threat, inaction will not solve the problem. Diplomacy failed. Economic sanctions failed. Trying to be nice failed. I am open to other alternatives, but no person or party has presented one.

Altering the course of history has always taken bold unpopular actions. If we maintain the courage to address the middle east perhaps our children won't have to.

Yes, I do stand with Bush. Not because of party, but because the problem needs to be addressed.

You say prehape's our children wont have to, yet it will be our children that pay the bill for this not us. The middle east has been UNSTABLE for generation upon generation, Bush does not have the power to change that. Just because a person wins does not make them right, and just because we go over there and try to establish democracy while killing over 30,000 innocents it deffinantly does not mean that the end justifies the means.

Paq · 12-15-2005, 01:52 AM

honestly, stopped reading after "Given Saddam's history and the lessons of Sept. 11, my decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision. "

saddam...9/11....exactly what connection is that, really? IIRC, most of the people involved were saudi...

Almost stopped reading after: "It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president, I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq, and I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities" bc considering who he went to for his 'intelligence' and how several groups were rejected bc they were not on board with his pre-conceived notion of what was going on..well, that just makes me question him, personally. Also, the way he 'takes responsibility' is by insulting said intelligence and then showing how great he is for 'reforming our intelligence capabilities"...

Charlatan · 12-15-2005, 05:57 AM

I'm just waiting for oil to enter back into the discourse... nobody in the mainstream seems willing to discuss the 500 pound gorilla in the room that is oil

dksuddeth · 12-15-2005, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I'm just waiting for oil to enter back into the discourse... nobody in the mainstream seems willing to discuss the 500 pound gorilla in the room that is oil

what oil? where is this sudden deluge of oil that bush supposedly went to war for? I never thought I would see gas prices go over $3 a gallon.

anyway, thats off topic sorta. back to the originally scheduled program.

aceventura3 · 12-15-2005, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha phi

Bush to declare end to fighting in Iraq May 1 2003

It's been over 2 years......what a concept

sounds like an insurgents point of view?

The way "Mission Accomplished" was communicated was a mistake.

Even Kerry acknowledges two stages. Stage one, was the invasion, which was accomplished. Stage two was establishing stability, smoe still debate if this is accomplished. Stage three establishing an independent Iraqi government, in process.

My point of view is that I won't purposefully go after innocent people. Insurgents will attempt to kill anyone in hopes of intimidating, children, women, Iraqi's, fellow Muslims, people attempting to help the country, and you if they had the opportunity. To me thats a big difference, don't you agree?

Redlemon · 12-15-2005, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albania

I appreciate that he takes some responsibility. He should have done this a long time ago.

But, what does "taking responsibility" mean? Doesn't taking responsibility mean that there are consequences?

I consider this to be an empty gesture.

aceventura3 · 12-15-2005, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

When did Iraq attack the US? Were they at our shores, with WMDs and connections to terrorism? Or were they a middle Eastern country that was sitting on oil that might have ended up in China or Japan? Who attacked first, the United States or Iraq? That's what I thought.

Your family was in danger from Iraq?

How about we leave them alone? That's an alternative. How about we take even a fraction of what we're spending on the rebuilding and spend it on research into alternate fuels? How about we fund our countries DEFENCE, not offence?

How does one alter the course of history? Isn't that any supposed alteration the course of history? If we use up all the oil, perhaps our kids can starve and freeze to death.

Can you explain how we are serving to remedy the problem?

When someone says they are my enemy, when they say they want to destroy me, when they declare war against my nation, when they defy international mandates, when they have a history of killing massive numbers of their own people, when they reward sucide bomber families with $25,000, when they have a history of invading other countries, when they have a hisory of sending bomb to blow-up other countries (Remember the SCUD missles), when they try to hide the fact they may or may not have nuclear weapons, etc, etc.

:

I think its a problem.

I think it is a threat.
I dont think we can "leave them alone".
We were at war long before we actually went to war.

aceventura3 · 12-15-2005, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObieX

What i would like to know is how many republicans would be taking the stands they're taking right now if GWB were a registered democrat?

If alive I would have supported FDR during WWII. I did not support Vietnam. I have not studied the Korean war enough to make a conclusion. I supported JFK's actions during the Cuban Missle crisis. I felt Bush Sr. should have taken Iraq during Desert Storm. Party has nothing to do with my views on world conflict.

aceventura3 · 12-15-2005, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cybersharp

You say prehape's our children wont have to, yet it will be our children that pay the bill for this not us. The middle east has been UNSTABLE for generation upon generation, Bush does not have the power to change that. Just because a person wins does not make them right, and just because we go over there and try to establish democracy while killing over 30,000 innocents it deffinantly does not mean that the end justifies the means.

At the risk of sounding too corny: Freedom has never been free.

A price was paid for the Revolutionary War. Was it worth it?
A price was paid for the Civil War. Was it worth it?
A price was paid for WWII. Was it worth it?

Are you suggesting there will never be peace in the Middle East? If peace is possible, what is going to initiate it? I beleive peace is possible, and I beleive representative governments will lead to peace. I think the average person, anywhere in the world wants to take care of thier families, have liberty, and the ability to make the most of their lives. Those who want instability and who want to control the lives of others are loosing power

albania · 12-15-2005, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Who are you talking to? No one's been uncivil. Several good points have been raised by several people. If by true discussion you mean you want everyone to suddenly love Bush because he finally, grudgingly, admitted one mistake among thousands, I fear you're going to be disappointed.

I was referring to the post above, and I meant what I said I would rather talk about points then berate others with "jokes" that do have their place but are not civil, all these jokes do is instigate. Here's what i was specifically responding too:

Quote:

While Bush passifies the left with an insignificant acknowlegement thats news to noone, and they have a circle jerk over it, progress will continue - much to liberal chagrin.

As to your other point i don't think anyone should love Bush or hate Bush, when irrational feelings get mixed in to a political debate any shred of objectivity is thrown out of the window.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlemon

I consider this to be an empty gesture.

Maybe it is. Perhaps if he had said this much earlier it would have had some credence.

Charlatan · 12-15-2005, 09:09 AM

All this administration has done is whack a hornets nest with a stick. Left alone, you *might* have gotten stung. Using the stick has pissed off the hornets and many that would have went about there business are now actively stinging the stick wielder.

Iraq was no threat to the US.

It is interesting to note that the Iraqi sanctions were about to be lifted. European oil companies were already in negotiations for deals with the Iraqis while US companies were going to be completely left out. It's also interesting that it is US interests that are benefitting from the rebuilding of Iraq and the exploitation of its oil... rather than say, the Iraqis?

Why is it that the Iraqis, who have a lot of experience in rebuilding their infrastructure (it have been destroyed and rebuilt a few times now) aren't being permitted to rebuild their own country? Why are those contracts going to companies like Halliburton?

Why was the Cheney Energy Task Force meeting with heads of Big Oil and passing around maps of the Iraqi oil feilds in the Spring of 2001? - maps with none of the usual details like cities, roads and towns, rather it was just the oil. It wasn't meant for public consumption of course, but only came to light after a length legal fight by Judicial Watch.

This Task Force also had a chart called "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfields". It IDs 63 companies from 30 nations who were in various stages of negotiations with the Iraqi government to exploit these fields once the sanctions were lifted.

Interesting that at the same time as this Energy Task Force was meeting and exploring the oil fields of Iraq, the Administration was focused on overthrowing Hussein's regime.

It's also interesting to note that the prize in this scenario would be private ownership of Middle Eastern oil fields for the first time in many, many years.

Of course no one talks about this. It's all just "conspiracy theories". Let's not look into these questions any further.

dksuddeth · 12-15-2005, 09:17 AM

history has shown us (for those that choose not to ignore it) that leaving someone alone DOESN'T work. It didn't work for spain most recently.

when a dictator shells out 25,000 dollars to a family for a successful mass murder, it only serves to prompt more families to do it. It was only a matter of time before it hit us.

stevo · 12-15-2005, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

All this administration has done is whack a hornets nest with a stick. Left alone, you *might* have gotten stung. Using the stick has pissed off the hornets and many that would have went about there business are now actively stinging the stick wielder.

Iraq was no threat to the US.

That was Clinton's logic about bin laden. He hadn't "done" anything to the US that would justify us arresting him when the sudan offered him up. Clinton figured to just let him be and *hopefully* we won't get stung. Well you know what? we did get stung. pretty bad too. And the context in which the arguement to go into iraq was in a post 9/11 era. Bush said we have to act BEFORE there is an imminent threat, because once the threat is imminent, it is already too late. We had suspicions and intelligence at the time that pointed toward saddam having WMDs and that he had the desire to, and perhaps, the capabilities to persue nuclear weapons. So we could have sat around and hoped we didn't get stung, all the while turning a blind eye to evil, letting the butcher continue to terrorize his own people and continue to fill mass graves whenever he wanted. Or we could take the risk, go to war, over throw him, ending any chance he may have had at arming terrorist groups with WMDs, and ending his reign of evil over the people of iraq.

Apparently you would rather him stay in power, continue to kill, rape, and rob his people, all the while planning on getting back at the US for stopping him 10 years earlier.

I think we need to go into iran too. Either that or someone with some nuts (Israel) needs to.

Elphaba · 12-15-2005, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

elphaba:

i'm confused.
help please.

Smacks self upside the head

I intended to include my agreement with you. Would somebody give that guy a blowjob, so we can get the impeachment started?

Charlatan · 12-15-2005, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I think we need to go into iran too. Either that or someone with some nuts (Israel) needs to.

To rebuild the democracy that the US destroyed back in the 40s and 50s? Irony is... ironic.

I don't think there is anyone that would admit Saddam wasn't a bastard. That the world is better off without him.

I just don't buy the Administrations altruistic spin on things. If they are so damned altruistic, why not take out North Korea? Fix the Sudan... Hell why not go after the Chinese? Their human rights violation would make Saddam's toes curl.

The Administration was quite happy to support Saddam and look the other way on his abuses as long as he served the US business interests. As soon as he turned his back on the US and started doing what he wanted rather than what they wanted, he was a marked man.

Interestingly there are many that are making a heck of a lot of money form this adventure. Few of them are Iraqi.

Poppinjay · 12-15-2005, 09:37 AM

Um, Clinton attempted to take bin Laden out and the lynch mob in congress screamed that he was "wagging the dog".

Additionally, bin Laden is still free as a bird, but we have captured Sadam and we've killed his sons, none of whom had anything to do with 9/11, contemptible as the may be.

Sadam was in power since 60's (with our help in a 1963 coup). Now all of a sudden 2000 kids have to die because of weapons that do not exist?

stevo · 12-15-2005, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

Um, Clinton attempted to take bin Laden out and the lynch mob in congress screamed that he was "wagging the dog".

a few missles into an abandoned training camp is attempting to take him out? what do you call the refusal to take him when he was offered to us?

Quote:

Additionally, bin Laden is still free as a bird, but we have captured Sadam and we've killed his sons, none of whom had anything to do with 9/11, contemptible as the may be.

he may not be in our custody, but he is not free as a bird. I don't recall any of his little videos hitting al-jazeera lately hidden with messages for his minions to attack. Do you? And its not the fact that saddam and his sons were involved in 9/11 per say. it is all related in the fact that there is an organization out there who wants to kill all the infidels and continue to bomb our buildings. where me, my family, my friends work, shop, eat, and live. taking saddam out removes any threat that he may have potentially posed. I know those are alot of auxillary verbs, but if in the end it turns out he was not that close to arming terrorists with WMDs, its not a lost cause since the shit-head is out of power. To me it is a win-win.

Quote:

Sadam was in power since 60's (with our help in a 1963 coup). Now all of a sudden 2000 kids have to die because of weapons that do not exist?

so because of past actions, current and future actions that could correct the past should not be undertaken?? And to the more than 2,000 soldiers who have sacrificed their lives and the thousand others than have sacrificed parts of themselves, I am thankful, as many americans are. It was their choice to serve and you should respect that instead of using their sacrifice to justify your opposition.

stevo · 12-15-2005, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

To rebuild the democracy that the US destroyed back in the 40s and 50s? Irony is... ironic.

it is what it is.

Quote:

I don't think there is anyone that would admit Saddam wasn't a bastard. That the world is better off without him.

then stop complaining.

Quote:

I just don't buy the Administrations altruistic spin on things. If they are so damned altruistic, why not take out North Korea? Fix the Sudan... Hell why not go after the Chinese? Their human rights violation would make Saddam's toes curl.

so do you or don't you want the US to be the world police. Seems to me we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't so we might as well not place too much weight on what the world thinks as much as what is in our best interest, because after all they're not going to be happy with what we do anyway. You just can't please them all, you know.

Quote:

The Administration was quite happy to support Saddam and look the other way on his abuses as long as he served the US business interests. As soon as he turned his back on the US and started doing what he wanted rather than what they wanted, he was a marked man.

The Administration...you mean the Bush Administration? you lost me. I don't think our current president ever supported saddam.

Quote:

Interestingly there are many that are making a heck of a lot of money form this adventure. Few of them are Iraqi.

really? I don't think you did the math right.

Quote:

These achievements are translating into measurable progress. Iraq's economy is expected to grow by nearly 4 percent this year and accelerate to nearly 17 percent in 2006. Per capita income should soon exceed $1,000 - nearly double the level in 2003. More than 30,000 new businesses have been registered and many have set up shop. Today in Iraq there are more than three million cell phone subscribers. In 2003 there were virtually none. Iraqi students now carry laptops that connect at Internet cafes to the world's Web sites and libraries where before they had to rely on pencils, slide rules and outdated - often censored - school textbooks.

http://newsblaze.com/story/200512132...Top-Story.html Seems to me that iraqis are making billions more now than there were with saddam in power...

Charlatan · 12-15-2005, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

it is what it is.

Such a lovely koan. The shrug that goes with it is almost French in its intent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

then stop complaining.

so do you or don't you want the US to be the world police. Seems to me we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't so we might as well not place too much weight on what the world thinks as much as what is in our best interest, because after all they're not going to be happy with what we do anyway. You just can't please them all, you know.

I don't want anyone to be the "world police". I am simply trying to point out that this altruism that the Administration is using for spin is a lot of baloney.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

The Administration...you mean the Bush Administration? you lost me. I don't think our current president ever supported saddam.

No. You are right. The President would never support the man that tried to kill his daddy. But, Rumsfeld and Cheney were certainly supporting him during the Reagan Administration.

You are right. The Iraqis are doing better now that the sanctions have been lifted. Although comparing thier financial status now to what it was like under Saddam and sanctions is a bit much.

My point is... that, like many, I am highly suspicious of Cheney's involvment with Halliburton and the profits that are being made by that company's involvment in the rebuilding of Iraq. Why not just let the Iraqi's rebuild their country? It seems they've done it before. It also seems that a lot of the conflict in Iraq has to do with foreign (read: American) precense in Iraq. Why exacerbate this by importing more Americans?

StanT · 12-15-2005, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

At the risk of sounding too corny: Freedom has never been free.

A price was paid for the Revolutionary War. Was it worth it?
A price was paid for the Civil War. Was it worth it?
A price was paid for WWII. Was it worth it?

A price was paid for Viet Nam, as well. Is the situation there better or even different than if we had not been involved?

dksuddeth · 12-15-2005, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

The Administration was quite happy to support Saddam and look the other way on his abuses as long as he served the US business interests. As soon as he turned his back on the US and started doing what he wanted rather than what they wanted, he was a marked man.

how familiar are you with the Iran/Iraq war and the reasons why the US sided with saddam at the time?

Charlatan · 12-15-2005, 11:33 AM

Yes. The isolation of Iran and the spread of their brand of revolution was deemed important.

Interesting that the US then sold weapons to Iran as well. So much for isolation.

Seer666 · 12-15-2005, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha phi

Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
In the world I live in, when confronted with an enemy who wants to kill you, you either fight or die. I choose to fight. I don't trivialize the issue, to the contrary, you might say I take the issue too seriously because I beleive inaction will lead to more death when confronted with an enemy at war with you

sounds like an insurgents point of view?

No, it sounds like a HUMAN point of view. One I happen to agree with. When you boil things down, the arguments used by the insurgents and us are pretty much the same thing. the fight fo freedom, they attacked us, etc. etc.

Let's face it here, this is a situation in which there are no good guys or bad guys. We invaded them. Plain and simple. Not the move of a good guy. They blow up inocent women and children with reckless abandon in their attempts to blow us up. We kill civilians fighting while shooting at them (That it is not intentional is the only redeeming factor, and that is no comfort to the family of those killed, or the poor guy who has to live with what happened). No one here has the moral high ground as far as I can see.

I don't agree with reasons for this war as put out to us, but the simple truth is, we are there. So maybe, instead of pressing blame on this person or that party, we can all buck down, and try to get our men and woman out of there in one piece and leave behind a more stable country then found. I don't care if it's democradic or not, just as long as they no longer try to blow us or themselves up anymore.

12-14-2005, 03:55 PM	#3 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	This phenomina(sp) is known as the "Yeah, but..." democratic reasoning. Can't blame them though, Iraq is less then perfect and Midterms are looming. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

12-14-2005, 05:29 PM	#6 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Nice to see the spin is still perculating in populace. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

12-14-2005, 06:47 PM	#13 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	elphaba: i'm confused. help please. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-14-2005, 07:06 PM	#14 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	I really would like to see something done to change the situation with Iraq. Sure the pres came forward with all this finally.. but what does it really matter? What has changed? What will change? I have the feeling that things will go on the way they have ben going on this whole time. The lies will continue, some of th same ones, some new ones. (The number of Iraqi troops that are actually trained and being used for example.. no one seems to actually know how many are doing what they're supposed to be doing, etc..) The party in power will hold more-or-less a unified front unless they need to shift slightly to get re-elected and that is the most we'll see when it comes to change. In the mean time people will continue to die every single day with no end in sight. I mean.. what will happen when the Iraqi troops are finally able to get themselves going and the US pulls most of our guys out? How long will that fighting continue to range on? It would be like Northern Ireland only much much worse, and of course every other country in the region will throw their weight around and mix things up in Iraq and make things a complete mess. But we'll be out of there and unable to do anything about it. So it'll still be a huge mess, most likely worse than what we started with,a nd the problems in the region will continue on and on and on as thy always have and always will. It will never end. I really wonder if the people who said we would be greeted with flowers on the streets really believed those words, or if they were just saying them to get us there. I mean i KNOW that they heard over and over from an uncountable number of sources the type of chaos that would erupt if we started a war there. They had to have known what the true situation would be like, they aren't stupid.. thse are men who have lived and breathed this stuff for most of their lives.. they're not stupid or naive. They KNEW what would really happen. EVERYONE knew what would really happen. Why did they want us there? Why did they lie so blantantly? Why are they still lying so blatantly? Why and where are they still finding support for this? Of course its all too late now. We're there, and anyone who thinks we're leaving next year should have their head examined. Our troops will never leave that country. We're in and we're staying. We needed control over that region and this is the best control we will ever have. We need the resources there and if a few hundred thousand people have to die then that is what will happen. This is the reality of the United States of America and the world today. It's a truly horrifying reality, and sugar-coating it does no one any good. __________________ We Must Dissent.

12-15-2005, 01:52 AM	#19 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	honestly, stopped reading after "Given Saddam's history and the lessons of Sept. 11, my decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision. " saddam...9/11....exactly what connection is that, really? IIRC, most of the people involved were saudi... Almost stopped reading after: "It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president, I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq, and I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities" bc considering who he went to for his 'intelligence' and how several groups were rejected bc they were not on board with his pre-conceived notion of what was going on..well, that just makes me question him, personally. Also, the way he 'takes responsibility' is by insulting said intelligence and then showing how great he is for 'reforming our intelligence capabilities"... __________________ Live. Chris

12-14-2005, 03:47 PM	#2 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	What I find laughable are the constant complaints that "...there is no plan to win the peace" as Kerry would say, but then after each milestone they say well that was good, but not good enough we need a "plan". Then asked what they would do - they say we would have a "plan". When did we publish the plan to liberate Europe during WWII? Yes, it was after the war. Wow, what a concept. While Bush is making progress and may go down in history as the person who initiated the actions that end middle eastern conflicts and the war on terror, Democrats will still be looking for a "plan".

12-14-2005, 06:25 PM	#11 (permalink)
albania Psycho	I probably shouldn't have made this so open ended, but let's see where it takes us. I think aceventura3's point is not that Iraq per se attacked us but that it was a part of the "war on terror". Basically a battle in a greater justified war that was first recognized with the September 11th terrorist attacks. Not necessarily so much focused on Iraq, but trying to see a bigger picture that perhaps this is only a small step into a much grander and more focused plan; the focus being the safety of Americans and the American nation from unfriendly nations. At least that's what I get, ace you can correct me if I’m wrong. All right I understand your point, but I’m not convinced, the facts being that Iraq has never been truly connected with the war on terror, perhaps on some level there is the argument that Iraq will bring democracy to the middle east. This is a position that is just plain uninformed, no one can know that this is what will happen. I guess the pejorative statements against the war can be summed up in: Being in Iraq has nothing to do with the defense of America and the premises upon which we agreed to go into Iraq were categorically wrong.

12-14-2005, 06:41 PM	#12 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	What I see here is someone who is FINALLY admitting something that's been painfully obvious from the get go - that Iraq had no WMD's and that intelligence saying they did was wrong. Took him long enough, considering that's been established for over a year now. What I also see is Bush AGAIN trying to link Iraq to 9/11, even though no connection between the two ever existed. What I FURTHER see is Bush failing to link 9/11 to Saudi Arabia, even though the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi and were trained in Saudi Arabia. So in other words, I see 90% business as usual bullshit and 10% "oh crap, there's no way we can deny this any more, even the biggest freaking idiot on the planet won't believe us, so let's admit to it in one sentence, sandwiched in between the 90% bullshit, and then claim we've been 100% honest and good like we usually do when we get caught."

12-14-2005, 07:47 PM	#15 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	"When did Iraq attack the US?" Daily, for 10 years straight, when we were patrolling the no-fly zones that the UN imposed. Our response after 8 years of that - lets pull out the weapons inspectors and let Saddam run free. "The instability in the Middle East is a threat, inaction will not solve the problem. Diplomacy failed. Economic sanctions failed. Trying to be nice failed. I am open to other alternatives, but no person or party has presented one." touche. "Diplomacy failed. Economic sanctions failed. Trying to be nice failed." I.E. - Dems, 1; Republicans, 0. While Bush passifies the left with an insignificant acknowlegement thats news to noone, and they have a circle jerk over it, progress will continue - much to liberal chagrin.

12-14-2005, 08:13 PM	#16 (permalink)
albania Psycho	Maybe your points could actually be discussed if you acted in a civil manor, if no one has anything to add to this "discussion" then this thread might as well be closed. I can see that a true discussion/debate seems unattainable on this particular subject.

12-15-2005, 05:57 AM	#20 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I'm just waiting for oil to enter back into the discourse... nobody in the mainstream seems willing to discuss the 500 pound gorilla in the room that is oil __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

12-15-2005, 09:09 AM	#28 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	All this administration has done is whack a hornets nest with a stick. Left alone, you might have gotten stung. Using the stick has pissed off the hornets and many that would have went about there business are now actively stinging the stick wielder. Iraq was no threat to the US. It is interesting to note that the Iraqi sanctions were about to be lifted. European oil companies were already in negotiations for deals with the Iraqis while US companies were going to be completely left out. It's also interesting that it is US interests that are benefitting from the rebuilding of Iraq and the exploitation of its oil... rather than say, the Iraqis? Why is it that the Iraqis, who have a lot of experience in rebuilding their infrastructure (it have been destroyed and rebuilt a few times now) aren't being permitted to rebuild their own country? Why are those contracts going to companies like Halliburton? Why was the Cheney Energy Task Force meeting with heads of Big Oil and passing around maps of the Iraqi oil feilds in the Spring of 2001? - maps with none of the usual details like cities, roads and towns, rather it was just the oil. It wasn't meant for public consumption of course, but only came to light after a length legal fight by Judicial Watch. This Task Force also had a chart called "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfields". It IDs 63 companies from 30 nations who were in various stages of negotiations with the Iraqi government to exploit these fields once the sanctions were lifted. Interesting that at the same time as this Energy Task Force was meeting and exploring the oil fields of Iraq, the Administration was focused on overthrowing Hussein's regime. It's also interesting to note that the prize in this scenario would be private ownership of Middle Eastern oil fields for the first time in many, many years. Of course no one talks about this. It's all just "conspiracy theories". Let's not look into these questions any further. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

12-15-2005, 09:17 AM	#29 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	history has shown us (for those that choose not to ignore it) that leaving someone alone DOESN'T work. It didn't work for spain most recently. when a dictator shells out 25,000 dollars to a family for a successful mass murder, it only serves to prompt more families to do it. It was only a matter of time before it hit us. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

12-15-2005, 09:37 AM	#33 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	Um, Clinton attempted to take bin Laden out and the lynch mob in congress screamed that he was "wagging the dog". Additionally, bin Laden is still free as a bird, but we have captured Sadam and we've killed his sons, none of whom had anything to do with 9/11, contemptible as the may be. Sadam was in power since 60's (with our help in a 1963 coup). Now all of a sudden 2000 kids have to die because of weapons that do not exist? __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

12-15-2005, 11:33 AM	#39 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Yes. The isolation of Iran and the spread of their brand of revolution was deemed important. Interesting that the US then sold weapons to Iran as well. So much for isolation. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke