Convince Me Our President Isn't A Terrorist

[TheBigSwigg 0]

Oh great, this again. It's cool that you ignore historical context like you do, but it gets dull after a while. OMG WE ARE A TERURIST STATE~!@#$$@#!$@

 

Explain how it's out of historical context, please.

Many of the times he talks of us terrorizing or intervining often involves some sort of Communist state being involved. When looking at the Communist States at the time (China, USSR, North Korea), Communist states tend to be militaristic and usually destroy the population with an initial purge of any dissenters. Almost ever instance of "US Terrorism" that he brings up involves the overthrowing of a Communist government. Given the previous examples, it's not too hard to see why the US worked so hard against them. Not to say they didn't work out all the time, because there were obviously failures. But to say we just put into place dictators for no reason other than to watch their countries suffer is a pretty dumb assumption.

True, but many of the dictators we put in place were as brutal or worse than the one we just took out of power. And why did we do that? Because "Communism is the Devil from Hell." Of course, as has been mentioned, it was mostly the CIA working their magic on things.

 

And yes, I know that "communist" governments are usually militaristic, and that Stalin killed more Russians than Hitler did Jews. My point is that we (being the U.S.) are sometimes a bit "too big for our britches" in our worldview.

[sfaJack 0]

Conflict of interest? Cheney isn't with Halliburton anymore and doesn't get any more money helping them than hurting the

 

It's been widely reported that he is indeed recieving profit from the company, nevermind his buddies will be reaping the benefits.

Prove it, you fucking retard.

 

It's been "widely reported" by the lunatics who don't know shit about Halliburton and are just desperately hoping that something they throw against the wall will stick to demonize Bush/Cheney.

 

Dick Cheney severed his ties to Halliburton (earlier than he was required to do so, by the way) way back in 2000 before the first election. The compensation he gets is GUARANTEED REGARDLESS OF WHETHER HALLIBURTON MAKES A SINGLE DOLLAR OR NOT. They make $100 million? He gets paid his compensation. They go bankrupt? He gets in line with the other creditors to collect his compensation.

 

Spin by the administration's fanbase to deflect the no-bid contracts. The answers to this claim are Bechtel and Schlumburger, at which point your average Bush Follower will scream "OMG THAT SOUNDZ SO FRENCH/GERMAN", at which point the proper retort is:

 

1) At this point, we'd need all the international help in Iraq that we could get.

 

2) Bechtel is HQ'ed in San Francisco. At this point you may hear "OMG HIPPIES IN A BLUE STATE", at which point you should walk away, having proved that they are insane.

Yeah, you do realize that what differentiates Halliburton from Bechtel and Schlumberger is KBR, the unit that is actually doing the work for Halliburton, right? Bechtel and Schlumberger don't have a unit like KBR.

 

Brown & Root (which is now KBR) did the work after the first Gulf War, and are now owned by Halliburton. If Halliburton didn't have KBR, they wouldn't be a player in repairing Iraq and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Dick Cheney severed his ties to Halliburton...

He had ties to Halliburton? When?...

[NoCalMike 0]

Well considering this war in Iraq was planned and written and signed by the Bush family, Cheney, Rumsfield and others in 1998, I am sure they had plans back then as to who was going to profit from the war. Oh, I am getting the year 1998 from the earlier articles on the PNAC site.

[Vyce 0]

I agree wholeheartedly with the opening post which won't come as any surprise I think.

 

Of course not, because you, like C-Bacon and Failed Mascot, are a fucking moron.

 

Jesus Christ, the stupidity of those of your ilk is just deeply unsettling to me. If I may steal / paraphrase an old line from the great fkteale,: your ability to make it through the day without someone you know stabbing you in thre throat, quite frankly, has me in some sort of Biblical awe.

[Justice 0]

It's been widely reported that he is indeed recieving profit from the company, nevermind his buddies will be reaping the benefits.

Proof?

 

Because the reasons for going to war don't add up, but rather the militaristic and imperialistic goals seem to be falling into place?

 

Yes, we love invading other countries. It gives us a real hard on to think of death and gore. Jesus, you are hopeless. The WMD reason for the War was purported by just about EVERY INTELLIGENCE AGENCY IN THE WORLD. You CAN'T dispute this. Hell, most of our intelligence came from UN Inspectors. Of course, somehow Bush knew that there were no WMDs, so he used the chance to invade and get his rich oilcrat buddies rich, right?

 

Glad you agree. Hey, amongst other sources you can find the part where the PNAC declares that they needed 'an event like Pearl Harbour' to carry out the strategies they are now.

 

Wow, if your that desperate to try and end the argument...

 

I think we are reading distinctly different strategies. They say that the US should us it's Military more actively in world affairs and in the promotion of US Goals. Somehow you've managed to twist that into a regieme of terror and corporatism spreading across the world.

 

You keep harping on the "Needs a Pearl Harbor" reference that it makes, but to a point it does make sense. We had been put into an isolationist and anti-war state after World War I, which prevented us from acting earlier on the early stages of World War II. It took Pearl Harbor to finally wake us up and realize that we actually have to act to change things. One could say the same with Islamic Terrorism: We've been fairly indifferent to what has been forming over in the Middle East for so long it took something like 9/11 to finally realize "Hey, we have to take care of this." But hey "BUSH DECLARES WAR ON ISLAM!" makes a better rallying point for your cause, doesn't it?

 

Well, that's the jist of it really.

 

*Sighs* Just making sure...

 

Oil, partly. Access of it rather than control. Hegemony? Quite.

 

See above.

 

Iraq is not in better shape, post-invasion. No one can honestly say that with a straight face. Of course some measure of aid is going to be supplied, otherwise the US would be seen literally as tyrants. I'm not saying all the soldiers there are maliciously targeting cilvians and shooting random people on the streets (although by some accounts, there have been such incidents). The intent isn't to totally wipe out as many people as possible, but to walk over as many as possible that get in the way to acheive a certain means is definetly in the cards.

 

*Calls BS* You've constantly described this war by saying "The US indiscriminately bombing innocents". Please, at least have the balls to stand by your own statements.

 

It's not in better shape in terms of infrastructure and stability, no. Dictatorships tend to create a lot of stability because, well, who is there to create instability when you've crushed any sort of resistance against you? I'm not going to say that you support the stability that Saddam created (I know you aren't dumb, just... different), but having a chance to start something better from scratch is better than tyrannic stability for a lifetime. And yes, we'll walk all over insurgents who want a return to the Baathist government to return. I'd think that'd be a good thing.

 

Sure, brush over Reagen's delivery of WMD's to Saddam. Brush over the fact they were supporting him after the gassing of the Kurds until 1990. Not that big of a deal really. But i'm strapped for time to go over the colorful US/Saddam relationship. But here's a couple of timeline's I posted before that undoubtly shows that the US didn't really help Saddam that much, heavens no. Of course if Europe does it too, than that rectifies everything though dosen't it?

 

Reagan, at worst, gave them some outdated Anthrax. The UN, after the Gulf War, never found any weapons that weren't exclusively made by Iraq itself. Again, tolken support with his war against Iran, because at the time Iran was considered to be the bigger threat. Hell, to be honest, Germany has given them more in the way of equipment to produce WMDs than we have. I have a picture of it somewhere around here, I'll post it when I find it. At any rate, though, we are hardly the ones who supported Saddam. Many, many other countries were infinitely closer to him and kept him in power more than the US.

 

"If the shoe fits"

 

Touche.

 

Except the goals here, weren't to 'help' the citizens from those evil commies. Hell, they're too stupid to vote in a proper government so we have to think for them, which of course is totally contradictory to the democracy that the US values so much. If the security of the population was really the reason that the US had to interevene in Latin America, why did they carry out attacks against the civlian population? This isn't like Iraq where they're considered 'collateral damage' soft targets were specifically targeted by aiding Contras in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama, etc.

 

Of course, you ignore the Sandistas killing and imprisoning thousans of Nicaraguans who wouldn't privatize their farms and the hundreds of attrocities committed against the coastal Indians who were dragged into the experiment. Jesus, by '83 they had over 20,000 political prisoners. I guess that's all right and good to support, right?

 

I don't think they weren't stupid enough to vote in the right people. Germany 'voted' in Hitler; they just didn't know any better. Communism has great appeal to the lower classes, but it tends to hurt them just as badly as any other form of government, if not worse due to political prosecution and the loss of what little they actually own.

 

Sorry if the world isn't as black and white as you'd want it to be, but we chose to support the side we thought would be better. Neither side was innocent in that conflict. Frankly, I'm not really a fan of the Contras. But I hardly think that the Sandistas did nothing, and hopefully you'll recognize that.

 

If that's not bad enough, the regiemes installed proved to be far worse. So if humanitarian needs were the goal why did they not intervene again and oust the dictators? Well, because it was for their best interests in the time, a communist regieme isn't going to play ball. No, the US didn't put dictators into place to watch countiries suffer, I didn't assume that. Rather, humanitarian needs were not a major concern in the long run and using the evil communist regimes excuse dosen't fly.

 

Really? Pinochet, while horrible, doesn't compare to any Communist dictator of the 20th Century. You can try and play it up, but you can't find a Communist dictatorship that didn't outdo the mistakes in US foreign policy.

 

It's not just that a Communist regieme won't play ball. It's that, as a rule, they tend to be slaughterhouses and extremely militaristic. Not only that, but look at the Cuban Missile Crisis to see why the US wouldn't want another Communist regieme in it's back yard. I don't assume that it's all for humanitarian reasons. Hardly. But do I think that, in the end, it works out better when it comes to humanitarian conditions? Hell yes. I don't approve of laying down dictatorships all over, but I can understand why the US would act when there's the possibility of a Communist regieme popping up in it's backyard.

 

Oh, and irony in that Cox and Forkum comic is quite interesting. Of course if they were at least funny, they'd have some merit. Instead the lame conservative commentary they incite is anything close to truth. In summary, activists or anyone anti-war = beatnik hippy. Good to know.

 

Aww, did I offend you? It seemed fairly true to me. Of course, we tend to differ on where the truth lies, so let's keep it there.

 

Jobber: Halliburton got the deal long before the whole "We did it, we get to rebuild" thing. They had the contract a year in advance, pending we actual invade. THAT'S when all the bitching occurred, so don't even try to pull it into that.

 

The Army went with the safe choice they've worked with before. It's not like Bechtel is being denied any contract. Please, get some decent reasons before you start bringing that sort of stuff here.

 

Swigg:

True, but many of the dictators we put in place were as brutal or worse than the one we just took out of power. And why did we do that? Because "Communism is the Devil from Hell." Of course, as has been mentioned, it was mostly the CIA working their magic on things.

 

Actually... no. In comparison, most Communist dictatorships are far more brutal when it comes to forced relocation, collectivization, and suppression of resistance and dissidence.

 

Where did someone say the CIA was at work? Maybe I totally missed it, but as a rule Communist regiemes tend to be bad because they are COMMUNIST, not because of the CIA. Just like Nazis are bad because they are NAZIS and that.

 

And yes, I know that "communist" governments are usually militaristic, and that Stalin killed more Russians than Hitler did Jews. My point is that we (being the U.S.) are sometimes a bit "too big for our britches" in our worldview.

 

I never said we don't make mistakes, but the point being made here is that the US is a selfish, heartless entity pushing over much better regiemes in place of worse ones that they could work with. I have yet to find a Communist regieme that was better than the one we put in place, which is very, very sad considering the mistakes we've made like Pinochet.

[Guest Cerebus]

Well considering this war in Iraq was planned and written and signed by the Bush family, Cheney, Rumsfield and others in 1998, I am sure they had plans back then as to who was going to profit from the war. Oh, I am getting the year 1998 from the earlier articles on the PNAC site.

You keep saying that but here's another fact about 1998 that you don't mention.

 

Congress drafted a law, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, that said:

 

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

 

This was a joint resolution signed by that other slippery Neo-Con president Clinton who had this to say:

 

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

 

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

 

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

 

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

 

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

...

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

 

While it should be noted this act specifically forbade the authorization of the armed forces to enforce its declarative clause, it was listing a specific policy of regime change three years before 9/11. And this was passed UNANIMOUSLY in the Senate.

 

So it wasn't just a cabal of neo-cons who were saying that Saddam should go in 1998, it was Congress and President Clinton too.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Well considering this war in Iraq was planned and written and signed by the Bush family, Cheney, Rumsfield and others in 1998, I am sure they had plans back then as to who was going to profit from the war.  Oh, I am getting the year 1998 from the earlier articles on the PNAC site.

You keep saying that but here's another fact about 1998 that you don't mention.

 

Congress drafted a law, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, that said:

 

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

 

This was a joint resolution signed by that other slippery Neo-Con president Clinton who had this to say:

 

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

 

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

 

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

 

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

 

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

...

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

 

While it should be noted this act specifically forbade the authorization of the armed forces to enforce its declarative clause, it was listing a specific policy of regime change three years before 9/11. And this was passed UNANIMOUSLY in the Senate.

 

So it wasn't just a cabal of neo-cons who were saying that Saddam should go in 1998, it was Congress and President Clinton too.

So then they're all evil?

[NoCalMike 0]

I like how people magically assume I somehow am this huge Clinton supporter and agreed with everything the man did just because I don't happen to care for Bush.

[Justice 0]

I like how people magically assume I somehow am this huge Clinton supporter and agreed with everything the man did just because I don't happen to care for Bush.

I think you completely missed the entire point of his posting the resolution. Perhaps he was pointing out the fact that it wasn't just some evil plan by the PNAC to invade Iraq and that the idea to change Iraq's government was fairly universal.

[TheBigSwigg 0]

Swigg:

True, but many of the dictators we put in place were as brutal or worse than the one we just took out of power. And why did we do that? Because "Communism is the Devil from Hell." Of course, as has been mentioned, it was mostly the CIA working their magic on things.

 

Actually... no. In comparison, most Communist dictatorships are far more brutal when it comes to forced relocation, collectivization, and suppression of resistance and dissidence.

 

Where did someone say the CIA was at work? Maybe I totally missed it, but as a rule Communist regiemes tend to be bad because they are COMMUNIST, not because of the CIA. Just like Nazis are bad because they are NAZIS and that.

 

My comment on the CIA had nothing to do with making the communists bad, just our decisions to maintain dictators instead of "communist" regimes. "Communist" regimes are bad because someone gets on top, and uses communism to put everyone else beneath them. Equally as bad as the dictatorships that the CIA helped keep in power.

 

 

And yes, I know that "communist" governments are usually militaristic, and that Stalin killed more Russians than Hitler did Jews. My point is that we (being the U.S.) are sometimes a bit "too big for our britches" in our worldview.

 

I never said we don't make mistakes, but the point being made here is that the US is a selfish, heartless entity pushing over much better regiemes in place of worse ones that they could work with. I have yet to find a Communist regieme that was better than the one we put in place, which is very, very sad considering the mistakes we've made like Pinochet.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that the US has made horrible foreign policy decisions in the past. We'll probably keep making them. That's life. But I want to make sure you know that I understand that "communist" dictatorships are bad. I understand that sometimes the US govt. is forced to pick between the lesser of two evils. But I think sometimes we'd be better served not to pick at all.

[KingPK 0]

So then they're all evil?

No, it's just that Saddam's been a fly in the ointment for a good long while, and common thinking was that if he was left unchecked for too long, it would be bad times in the Middle East (and elsewhere).

[Guest Cerebus]

I like how people magically assume I somehow am this huge Clinton supporter and agreed with everything the man did just because I don't happen to care for Bush.

I know that everytime you see the word Clinton its on a Mike post saying 'BUT YOU LEFT WING KAMUI-LOVING NAZI, CLINTON DID IT TOO~!!!!1" that wasn't the point.

 

My point was that in 1998 the PNAC thing didn't come out of the blue. It came along with a push by the ENTIRE GOVERNMENT to make regime change an official policy.

[NoCalMike 0]

I like how people magically assume I somehow am this huge Clinton supporter and agreed with everything the man did just because I don't happen to care for Bush.

I know that everytime you see the word Clinton its on a Mike post saying 'BUT YOU LEFT WING KAMUI-LOVING NAZI, CLINTON DID IT TOO~!!!!1" that wasn't the point.

 

My point was that in 1998 the PNAC thing didn't come out of the blue. It came along with a push by the ENTIRE GOVERNMENT to make regime change an official policy.

Yes, I understand this. However if that was the case, where was the government trying to make this case until after 9/11 happened and had the public by the balls when they were willing to go along with anything they said would "make us safer" It was oppurtunistic and highly manipulative. It is one thing if Bush said, "9/11 changed us, we can no longer allow anybody in any country to be oppressed, we are going to make sure everybody in the world is free from the grips of dictators/thugs/criminals etc..." but that isn't what he said, and that wasn't the bill of goods the american people were sold.

[Guest sek69]

Yes, I know the spin then was "they didn't want to pay the bill, why should they get the riches, etc etc" but it's COMPANIES your punishing for the faults of GOVERNMENT, and it looks incredibly stupid in today's hindsight since we had no clue how big of a trainwreck the rebuilding would be.

 

Well, some people knew:

 

"Once you get to Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime, a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that going to have if it's set up by the American military there? How long does the United States military have to stay there to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens once we leave?"

 

Secretary of Defense

Dick Cheney 1991

 

 

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome.

 

Former President George H.W. Bush, 1998

 

 

Clearly, these Anti-American comments prove they hate freedom.

[Guest Cerebus]

I like how people magically assume I somehow am this huge Clinton supporter and agreed with everything the man did just because I don't happen to care for Bush.

I know that everytime you see the word Clinton its on a Mike post saying 'BUT YOU LEFT WING KAMUI-LOVING NAZI, CLINTON DID IT TOO~!!!!1" that wasn't the point.

 

My point was that in 1998 the PNAC thing didn't come out of the blue. It came along with a push by the ENTIRE GOVERNMENT to make regime change an official policy.

Yes, I understand this. However if that was the case, where was the government trying to make this case until after 9/11 happened and had the public by the balls when they were willing to go along with anything they said would "make us safer" It was oppurtunistic and highly manipulative. It is one thing if Bush said, "9/11 changed us, we can no longer allow anybody in any country to be oppressed, we are going to make sure everybody in the world is free from the grips of dictators/thugs/criminals etc..." but that isn't what he said, and that wasn't the bill of goods the american people were sold.

That's b/c Bush has the diplomatic & rhetoric skills God gave a stubborn mule.

 

Conservative magazines like Weekly Standard gave much more eloquent & nuanced arguments (that often included the Iraq Liberation Act) but since they are preaching to the (wonkish) choir they got buried by most of the public.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Explain your mule analogy.

[Guest Cerebus]

That's b/c Bush has the diplomatic & rhetoric skills God gave a stubborn mule.

[Justice 0]

 

Yes, I know the spin then was "they didn't want to pay the bill, why should they get the riches, etc etc" but it's COMPANIES your punishing for the faults of GOVERNMENT, and it looks incredibly stupid in today's hindsight since we had no clue how big of a trainwreck the rebuilding would be.

 

Well, some people knew:

 

"Once you get to Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime, a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that going to have if it's set up by the American military there? How long does the United States military have to stay there to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens once we leave?"

 

Secretary of Defense

Dick Cheney 1991

 

 

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome.

 

Former President George H.W. Bush, 1998

 

 

Clearly, these Anti-American comments prove they hate freedom.

We've seen the quotes before, bud. Times change, and so must the things that are done. Does this post have a point, or do you constantly have to use other peoples words to make up for your lack of a real opinion?

[Guest sek69]

The thing is, the only thing that changed in Iraq is that the Gulf War decimated their military and the sanctions ruined their economy.

 

 

If we would have invaded then like we did now, it would have been much more justified. Now it just smacks of us using Iraq as our Poland, beating up a near-defenseless country while claiming they posed a threat.

 

The use of quotes from people who were in charge then and now illustrate that they clearly knew overthrowing the government in Iraq would result in a huge fucking mess back when it would have been a more popular idea, so they had to know it would have been the same to do it now. One of the main defenses I see on talk radio is that no one could have foreseen the post-Saddam problems and that's clearly bullshit.

 

What's funny is now I'm hearing people on talk radio float the idea that "maybe Iraq needs someone like Saddam run the country". Well no shit. Like most Middle East nations, Iraq's borders were just random lines drawn on British occupied portions of the former Ottoman Empire after WWI. Borders were drawn with no thought of ethnic divisions, so three groups that hate each other (Kurds, Shia, and Sunni) were forced together in Iraq. Only someone as ruthless as Saddam could have kept that shit together for so long.

 

Democracy will never flourish in Iraq as it stands today, as a true democracy would be majority rule and that would result in a Islamic Theocracy that would end up 100x worse than Saddam. That's my main problem with the war right now, all Bush ever comes up with when asked is stale platitudes about freeing the people of Iraq when it seems the only options Iraq has is a Islamic state or having a US puppet leader, and we all know how that worked out in Iran...

[Guest Cerebus]

This bill, when passed and signed into law, is a clear commitment to a

U.S. policy replacing the Saddam Hussein regime and replacing it with a

transition to democracy. This bill is a statement that America refuses

to coexist with a regime which has used chemical weapons on its own

citizens and on neighboring countries, which has invaded its neighbors

twice without provocation, which has still not accounted for its

atrocities committed in Kuwait, which has fired ballistic missiles into

the cities of three of its neighbors, which is attempting to develop

nuclear and biological weapons, and which has brutalized and terrorized

its own citizens for thirty years. I don't see how any democratic

country could accept the existence of such a regime, but this bill says

America will not.  I will be an even prouder American when the refusal,

and commitment to materially help the Iraqi resistance, are U.S. policy.

 

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), 1998

 

You're not the only person who can take quotes out of context.

 

And its good to see that you would see freedom and liberal democracy butchered and served up at the altar of stability like...well the rest of the world.

[Guest sek69]

Neither my or your quotes are out of context. Kerry's always been pro-leadership change in Iraq.

 

Why do so many Bush fans assume that if you don't agree with Bush then you must always agree with what the Democrat says wether its Kerry or Clinton. Must be a symptom of the black-and-white worldview they seem to share.

 

Guess what, I didn't agree with everything they did either. I didn't even care for Kerry as a candidate.

 

 

And its good to see that you would see freedom and liberal democracy butchered and served up at the altar of stability like...well the rest of the world.

 

Do you really think we brought freedom and/or liberal democracy to Iraq? The only way we'll be able to have any kind of control there is to to bring the hammer down like Saddam did, which IMO, makes the whole goddamn experience redundant.

 

 

*edit*

 

I wanted to add, about that 1998 bill that Clinton signed and you quote Kerry agreeing with, when did it become the US's job to decide the acceptablity of world leaders and replace the ones we feel aren't up to snuff? Kind of sends a mixed message when we crow about bringing freedom to the world, but the people we free better pick a leader we agree with or we'll be back to overthrow them too.

[Guest Cerebus]

Neither my or your quotes are out of context. Kerry's always been pro-leadership change in Iraq.

 

Why do so many Bush fans assume that if you don't agree with Bush then you must always agree with what the Democrat says wether its Kerry or Clinton. Must be a symptom of the black-and-white worldview  they seem to share.

 

Guess what, I didn't agree with everything they did either. I didn't even care for Kerry as a candidate.

 

 

 

And its good to see that you would see freedom and liberal democracy butchered and served up at the altar of stability like...well the rest of the world.

 

Do you really think we brought freedom and/or liberal democracy to Iraq? The only way we'll be able to have any kind of control there is to to bring the hammer down like Saddam did, which IMO, makes the whole goddamn experience redundant.

 

 

*edit*

 

I wanted to add, about that 1998 bill that Clinton signed and you quote Kerry agreeing with, when did it become the US's job to decide the acceptablity of world leaders and replace the ones we feel aren't up to snuff? Kind of sends a mixed message when we crow about bringing freedom to the world, but the people we free better pick a leader we agree with or we'll be back to overthrow them too.

Neither my or your quotes are out of context. Kerry's always been pro-leadership change in Iraq.

 

Neither my or your quotes are out of context. Kerry's always been pro-leadership change in Iraq.

 

Actually, they're both out of context. That was in response to a bill that specifically forbade military takeover in Iraq and he preceeded that by saying that he specifically DID NOT want to use military force, at teh time, to remove Saddam Hussien.

 

Why do so many Bush fans assume that if you don't agree with Bush then you must always agree with what the Democrat says wether its Kerry or Clinton. Must be a symptom of the black-and-white worldview  they seem to share.

 

Guess what, I didn't agree with everything they did either. I didn't even care for Kerry as a candidate.

 

I'm not a Bush fan, although I did vote for him. You confuse me pointing out your idiocy with my assumption that you like Kerry.

 

Do you really think we brought freedom and/or liberal democracy to Iraq? The only way we'll be able to have any kind of control there is to to bring the hammer down like Saddam did, which IMO, makes the whole goddamn experience redundant.

 

Too early to be unequivocally pessimistic or optimistic. I, for one, am cautiously optimistic.

 

I wanted to add, about that 1998 bill that Clinton signed and you quote Kerry agreeing with, when did it become the US's job to decide the acceptablity of world leaders and replace the ones we feel aren't up to snuff? Kind of sends a mixed message when we crow about bringing freedom to the world, but the people we free better pick a leader we agree with or we'll be back to overthrow them too.

 

Oh please. The day I roll over and lick a murdering butcher like Saddam's boot and think he has enough worth to rule over an ant hill, let alone an entire country, is the day I die.

 

You don't have to go far to find out his human rights record. If that isn't reason enough to take him out, I don't know what is.

 

And to prempt "BUT CEEREBUS, WHY DOESN'T GEORGE W HITLER TAKE DOWN EVERY MAD DICKTATOR?" let me just point out that the actions of the US government in regard to other nations is a red herring because it has no bearing on whether or not Saddam Hussien deserved to be taking down or whether or not he did commit heinous human rights violations. The hypocracy of the US government is one thing, the ethics of taking down Hussien is another.

 

Edit: Fucking Powerboard.

[Guest sek69]

The point remains that Kerry's plan for the war was pretty much the same as Bush's, only with less of the "continue to wave your dick at other countries" thing.

 

It also stands that Dick Cheney and George HW Bush both knew that overthrowing Saddam in 1991 would have been a huge mess, and nothing really changed since then to make them think doing it now would be any different.

 

There's not a John Kerry quote around that can change that.

 

We were arrogant, plain and simple.

 

Rummy wanted to invade with a small number of troops so that we'd be able to brag about getting the job done with a small group of men. Well the overthrowing part went pretty much like they planned, the aftermath is when the wheels spun off.

 

We didn't have enough guys over there to keep things calm, and now guys who should have been sent home by now are stuck there for an additonal 12-18 months.

 

We tried to win this war on the cheap and it backfired badly. Now our wonderful "I Can't Think of any Mistakes I've Made" President doesn't want to make any moves that could be interpreted as admitting Iraq is a mess, is going to just "stay the course" even when that course is barrelling towards an iceberg.

[Guest Cerebus]

You're all over the place.

 

Either you say that there was no way we could have taken down Hussien, IN 2003 not 1991, without it turning into a mess OR you say that it wouldn't have been as big of a mess if we had invaded with more men.

 

Pick one, then I can get back to you.

[Guest sek69]

I think the problem is more you not wanting to follow where I'm going than me being all over the place.

 

Overthrowing Saddam in 1991 would have resulted in a bigger mess in 1991 than it has now. Iraq hadn't been beat down for 12 years back then and it would have made for a tougher fight.

 

Once we decided we were going to invade Iraq, they didn't send enough troops to control the nation once we overthrew Saddam.

 

So in summary (why do I feel like Dana Carvey doing his GHW Bush impression?):

 

Overthrowing the Iraqi government was going to be a huge mess no matter when we did it.

 

Not sending enough troops when we did inavde made a tough job even tougher.

 

Hopefully that clears things up for you.

[Guest Cerebus]

Yes we should have had more men. But you have to remember the same generals who agitated for a much larger invasion force were the same ones who wanted a massive LAB in Afghanistan. When Bush went with the more lean DoD plan, which was supported by David Hackworth of all people, and it succeeded, it took a lot of the wind out of the pro-LAB members of the JCS & top Army leadership.

 

Also, we did obliderate the Iraqi army in a short amount of time. Unfortunately, the higher ups in the DoD, stupidly, did not anticipate the problems we do have now.

 

Still, its not entirely clear if we did have more troops the problems would receed, although certainly there were a lot of problems immidietly after Saddam's gov't was kicked out that more troops would have solved (or at least lessened).

 

BTW, I agree with you about 1991.

[Guest sek69]

My whole thing is that I don't think we should have done what we did, but since we did invade we at least should have sent enough fucking people to do the job properly.

 

That's another thing that pisses me off about Bush, he likes to play dressup and pretend he's the solider's best friend but so far he's fucked them at every turn.

 

I have tons of military folks in my family and the way Bush uses the troops like they are a bucket of those green plastic army men just pisses me the hell off.

[cbacon 0]

Yes, we love invading other countries. It gives us a real hard on to think of death and gore. Jesus, you are hopeless. The WMD reason for the War was purported by just about EVERY INTELLIGENCE AGENCY IN THE WORLD. You CAN'T dispute this. Hell, most of our intelligence came from UN Inspectors. Of course, somehow Bush knew that there were no WMDs, so he used the chance to invade and get his rich oilcrat buddies rich, right?

 

Hopeless, according to the one that likes to claim that I believe that your country invades other countries for the sake of ‘death and gore’. Of course if I were to believe that, it would be easy to dimiss individuals such as myself for having any criticisms of US foreign policy for having that opinion. You know I don’t believe that, but you’d rather hammer down that point again and again, which is a pretty sad way to prove your point. Like I’ve said countless times, the US are invading on the basis of their own self interests and if a few thousand lives get in the way, so be it.

 

Did Bush believe there were WMDs or not? I don’t know, but it’s irrelevant anyway since that wasn’t the reason for going to war. The WMD reason was used to justify it to the public. WMD or not, Iraq would have been invaded anyway, as seen by the ever changing reasons for going to war after it was found there were no WMDs found.

 

You keep harping on the "Needs a Pearl Harbor" reference that it makes, but to a point it does make sense. We had been put into an isolationist and anti-war state after World War I, which prevented us from acting earlier on the early stages of World War II. It took Pearl Harbor to finally wake us up and realize that we actually have to act to change things.

 

Except the difference here is that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States. You cannot find a correlation between 9/11 and Iraq but if everyone is mis-led to believe that they are one in the same, then your little theory about pre-entive attack would sit well with many. 51% of your country to be exact.

 

One could say the same with Islamic Terrorism: We've been fairly indifferent to what has been forming over in the Middle East for so long it took something like 9/11 to finally realize "Hey, we have to take care of this." But hey "BUSH DECLARES WAR ON ISLAM!" makes a better rallying point for your cause, doesn't it?

 

If one were to look at the causes over the formation of the Islamic Terrorism, it might be an easier way to help deter such actions. Foreign policy over the last 30 years has helped to breed further Islamic fundamentalism and waging war on them isn’t going to help stop that process as recruitment for Al Qaeda rises. How exactly does invading Iraq help deter another 9/11, for example?

 

*Calls BS* You've constantly described this war by saying "The US indiscriminately bombing innocents". Please, at least have the balls to stand by your own statements

 

There’s a difference between ‘indiscrimnately bombing civilians’ because ‘they might be terrorists’ and the killing of civilians for the sake of doing so because they’re ‘dirty Arabs’.

 

And yes, we'll walk all over insurgents who want a return to the Baathist government to return. I'd think that'd be a good thing.

 

Except this problem wouldn’t have reached such levels had the US not supported a dictatorship in Iraq in the 80’s, nor the sanctions that led to such dependency on him. I didn’t refer to merely Ba’ath loyalists either, but it’s all groups Iraq that are being walked over, insurgents and innocents alike.

 

Reagan, at worst, gave them some outdated Anthrax. The UN, after the Gulf War, never found any weapons that weren't exclusively made by Iraq itself. Again, tolken support with his war against Iran, because at the time Iran was considered to be the bigger threat. Hell, to be honest, Germany has given them more in the way of equipment to produce WMDs than we have. I have a picture of it somewhere around here, I'll post it when I find it. At any rate, though, we are hardly the ones who supported Saddam. Many, many other countries were infinitely closer to him and kept him in power more than the US.

 

Your undermining the US-Saddam relationship here. Yes, France and Germany are to blame, i’m not doubting that but for the US to aid Saddam during his worst atrocities and also supply him with weapons during his worst human rights crimes is quite hypocritical, given the situation now.

 

After the attack on Kurds (which the US most certainly knew of) Bechtel won a contract to build massive petrochemical plants in Iraq, giving Saddam to produce chemical weapons

 

Fun Factoids:

 

 

The US spent virtually an entire decade making sure that Saddam Hussein had almost whatever he wanted… US export control policy was directed by US foreign policy as formulated by the State Department, and it was US foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

 

A 1994 US Senate report revealed that US companies were licensed by the commerce department to export a “witch's brew” of biological and chemical materials, including bacillus anthracis (which causes anthrax) and clostridium botulinum (the source of botulism). The American Type Culture Collection made 70 shipments of the anthrax bug and other pathogenic agents. The report also noted that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare facilities and chemical warhead filling equipment. US firms supplied advanced and specialised computers, lasers, testing and analysing equipment. Among the better-known companies were Hewlett Packard, Unisys, Data General and Honeywell.

 

Billions of dollars worth of raw materials, machinery and equipment, missile technology and other “dual-use” items were also supplied by West German, French, Italian, British, Swiss and Austrian corporations, with the approval of their governments (German firms even sold Iraq entire factories capable of mass-producing poison gas). Much of this was purchased with funds freed by the US CCC credits. The destination of much of this equipment was Saad 16, near Mosul in northern Iraq. Western intelligence agencies had long known that the sprawling complex was Iraq's main ballistic missile development centre.

 

Blum reported that Washington was fully aware of the likely use of this material. In 1992, a US Senate committee learned that the commerce department had deleted references to military end-use from information it sent to Congress about 68 export licences, worth more than $1 billion. In 1986, the US defence department's deputy undersecretary for trade security, Stephen Bryen, had objected to the export of an advanced computer, similar to those used in the US missile program, to Saad 16 because “of the high likelihood of military end use”. The state and commerce departments approved the sale without conditions.

 

In his book, The Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq, Kenneth Timmerman points out that several US agencies were supposed to review US exports that may be detrimental to US “national security”. However, the commerce department often did not submit exports to Hussein's Iraq for review or approved them despite objections from other government departments.”

 

“According to Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, in a December 15, 1986 article, the CIA began to secretly supply Iraq with intelligence in 1984 that was used to “calibrate” mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. Beginning in early 1985, the CIA provided Iraq with “data from sensitive US satellite reconnaissance photography … to assist Iraqi bombing raids”.

 

Iraqi chemical attacks on Iranian troops — and US assistance to Iraq — continued throughout the Iran-Iraq war. In a parallel program, the US defence department also provided intelligence and battle-planning assistance to Iraq.”

 

link

 

Also notable:

 

Bechtel (who won a bid to build a massive petrochemical plant in Iraq that would give Hussein the ability to produce chemical weapons, right after gassing the Kurds)was awarded a contract to help rebuild postwar Iraq. Of course various members of the Regean administration are apart of Bechtel now.

 

 

Of course, you ignore the Sandistas killing and imprisoning thousans of Nicaraguans who wouldn't privatize their farms and the hundreds of attrocities committed against the coastal Indians who were dragged into the experiment. Jesus, by '83 they had over 20,000 political prisoners. I guess that's all right and good to support, right?

 

Sorry if the world isn't as black and white as you'd want it to be, but we chose to support the side we thought would be better. Neither side was innocent in that conflict. Frankly, I'm not really a fan of the Contras. But I hardly think that the Sandistas did nothing, and hopefully you'll recognize that

 

Without the Sandinista rebellion, the country would not have been liberated from the Somoza dictatorship. After his removal they did wonders in turning the country around. Of course them having ties with Cuba was enough for Reagan to aid the terrorist Contras (despite the fact that Nicaragua had yet to embrace communism). Now, I’m not going to act as an apologist for the atrocities committed by the Sandinistas, because they did. But I fail to see how this excuses the acts committed by the Reagan administration during this time.

 

It should also be noted that many of the murders committed were not a result of a brutal tyranny, hell bent on surpressing the entire population, but rather against those suspected (and arguably wrongfully) of having ties to the Contras. This doesn’t excuse their actions, but the funding of the Contras and the military coup helped to present these situations. This was also mostly situated in the Atlantic Coast, and the indigenous peoples were also ones to suffer. The Sandanista government tried to rectify the situation and passed a law protecting indigenous peoples rights. Doesn’t erase their crimes, but it was a step in the right direction.

 

The means for the US to fund Contras that murdered and raped civilians, including women and children is hardly acceptable, especially after the country was getting back on it’s feet.

 

 

 

Really? Pinochet, while horrible, doesn't compare to any Communist dictator of the 20th Century. You can try and play it up, but you can't find a Communist dictatorship that didn't outdo the mistakes in US foreign policy.

 

I can’t believe you keep using this argument. Exchanging one *potential* dictator for another is all well and good? Because the death toll *might* be lower if you install another tyrant? Seriously…

 

It's not just that a Communist regieme won't play ball. It's that, as a rule, they tend to be slaughterhouses and extremely militaristic. Not only that, but look at the Cuban Missile Crisis to see why the US wouldn't want another Communist regieme in it's back yard. I don't assume that it's all for humanitarian reasons. Hardly. But do I think that, in the end, it works out better when it comes to humanitarian conditions? Hell yes. I don't approve of laying down dictatorships all over, but I can understand why the US would act when there's the possibility of a Communist regieme popping up in it's backyard.

 

Aww, did I offend you? It seemed fairly true to me. Of course, we tend to differ on where the truth lies, so let's keep it there.

 

Offend me? An interesting assumption, but no, inaccurate political satire doesn’t really irk me as much as you’d believe.

 

I have yet to find a Communist regieme that was better than the one we put in place, which is very, very sad considering the mistakes we've made like Pinochet.

 

What was the civilian casualty numbers pre-Pinochet? What about during his reign? Thank you.

 

Allende was merely removed due to his left-leaning socialist tendencies and his relationship with Cuba. To say the coup was in the best interst of Chile or any other country in Latin America is a joke.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Well, some people knew:

Yes, but now that Dick is President via puppetry act, look which direction he went in.

 

Poppa Bush's idea was the right one for the here and now and he may have been right then, but at the same time many people think if he had gone ahead that the same thing happening now wouldn't have happened because the Iraqi people were at the critical edge of turning against Saddam. When we left, those who rebelled were tortured, and everyone became much more cynical as a whole.

 

It's a coulda shoulda thing. And I'm not exactly what you'd call a Dubya supporter, either, I just tell you how I see it.