1,748 Days since the Declaration Of "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

[jillian]

Well, yeah he wasn't a threat except that he had already invaded two neighboring countries, shot at our planes on a regular basis, and continually rattled his saber.

Your later statements don't mesh with you WMD statement. Of course he could effectuate his desires where WMDs or concerned. He had the purchase power in black gold.

Saddam DID suppress his own people.

Saddam DID practice genocide against both Kurds and Shia.

Saddam did violate the UN Resolutions and the resloutions that followed saying "this is the very, very, very, very, etc last warning." On that alone, both Clinton had Bush had every right to resume hostilities.

One can argue whether we had the "right" or whether it was the intelligent thing to do. Or whether in doing a cost/benefit analysis, the investment we have made in lives and resources and our wealth justified it.

And no one will disagree with you that Saddam was a bad guy. But we've been in bed with bad guys before. Look at what's going on with Musharrif. And we don't make the decision to intervene with respect to every bad guy in the world. Therefore, there had to be another piece of the equation. I think there were two: I think Saddam threatening our oil supplies and our economy was a good enough reason to take certain steps. But the second reason was that 9/11 had happened and Bush and the neo-cons wanted to show you "don't mess with Texas" and Saddam was as good a target as any.

This is all well and good, but not given as a reason for invasion, so only supposition makes it one.

We draw conclusions from actions and circumstances all the time, whether someone says something outright or not.

While not out of the realm of mathematical possibility, it's still supported by nothing but guesswork. There is no evidence to lead to this conclusion.

And I think a preponderance of the evidence leads to my conclusion and that of many others. At least if it were the reason, I'd say, ok... well, at least it wasn't all about some macho show (however badly the follow up was effectuated).

I don't disagree with you on this; however, I don't see that as the reason Iraq was invaded either.

The way I see it, but for the oil, we wouldn't be playing in that neck of the woods. Kind of a sine qua non.

 

[Dr Grump]

I think, jillian, that the Bush Administration knew that the protection of the oil supply WAS an illegitimate reason to go to war, so they had to make up some reasons.

Bingo to a degree. I don't think they thought it was illegitimate. I think they THOUGHT the US public would think it was illegitimate. I cannot for one millisecond see GW addressing the US public during a State of the Nation speech going "My fellow Americans, we are going to invade Iraq to secure its oil reserves so as not to cause hyper inflation and affect the western world's monetary system etc etc". That would not do, because the US public (especially it's moral majority) wants righteous reasons, not monetary ones (actully it doesn't really care, but perception is important). So it rambles on about WMDs. Not only does this solve the moral dilemma, it gives the opposition no ammo! After all, who would dare oppose the destruction of a terrorist-supporting regime (other than terrorist-supporting sympathisers!)?? Of course GW knew it was about oil. M14 is just using the "He didn't say it, therefore it cannot be true" scenario. It's a bit like Vietnam - that was all about saving the democractic south from the despotic north! Of course the fact that the south was corrupt as hell had nothing to do with it! Nor the domino affect (which came out later)...lol..

Do not think for one minute M14 is naive. He is one of those "I know better than all of you" types. He thinks he is smarter than anybody else because people don't overtly say what they mean......lol.
IE? In his world, if Hitler NEVER said he hated Jews, then Hitler never hated Jews....you get the picture....

Yeah, ole M14.....he's one real smart cookie...<wink>

 

[Diuretic]

See.. I think they thought it just wasn't "sellable". But protecting our economy and our oil supply is a legitimate interest, IMO.

War is always about economic interests, but in this case a democracy invaded and occupied another country solely to grab its oil reserves. That's what happened.

The lies had to be told. But there were two audiences for the lies.

One audience was the international community (ie the rest of us). We had to be convinced that the invasion and occupation wasn't about getting the oil.

The lies told to the American people were to cover up the real reason for putting military personnel in harm's way. "I'm sorry ma'am but your son was killed so we could make sure our commercial interests got Iraq's oil."

 

[Dr Grump]

The way I see it, but for the oil, we wouldn't be playing in that neck of the woods. Kind of a sine qua non.

This point needs reiterating! From the moment I saw George Bush Senior on the giggle box when Iraq invaded Kuwait I knew it was about oil. I said to anybody who would listen it was about oil. Let's not forget folks how GB senior waxed lyrical about the invasion and the moral implications. I said to anybody who would listen at the time, that if there was no oil in Kuwait, nobody would give a shit. Why didn't GW give a shit about Liberia at the time? Or any other regime under the cosh (including N Korea). What really sealed it for me was Rwanda a few years later. Sure, it was under Clinton's watch, but if you neocons want the Repub congress to take responsibility for the balanced budget, then they can take responsibility for Rwanda too. I'm thinking to myself - let's imagine Rwanda had held 10 percent, 15 percent, HELL ,even 25% of the world's oil reserves, what would have been the reaction of the Repub senate??? hhhmmmm

 

[jillian]

War is always about economic interests, but in this case a democracy invaded and occupied another country solely to grab its oil reserves. That's what happened.

The lies had to be told. But there were two audiences for the lies.

One audience was the international community (ie the rest of us). We had to be convinced that the invasion and occupation wasn't about getting the oil.

The lies told to the American people were to cover up the real reason for putting military personnel in harm's way. "I'm sorry ma'am but your son was killed so we could make sure our commercial interests got Iraq's oil."

I don't see it as "solely to grab its oil reserves". I see it as securing them. I'm not saying I agree with it or what we did. And, in fact, I don't think we should have invaded, and certainly shouldn't have done so without proper planning. But I think if the general consensus was that he was going to destroy our economic system, it could have been sold. This admin has a very low opinion of the U.S. public and hasn't been forthcoming about anything, so we don't know how it would have been approached or accepted. Transparency isn't exactly GWB's thing.

As for the soldiers dying. As opposed to dying in a civil war between shi'a and sunni? I'm not sure the distinction ultimately would have mattered.

 

[jillian]

This point needs reiterating! From the moment I saw George Bush Senior on the giggle box when Iraq invaded Kuwait I knew it was about oil. I said to anybody who would listen it was about oil. Let's not forget folks how GB senior waxed lyrical about the invasion and the moral implications. I said to anybody who would listen at the time, that if there was no oil in Kuwait, nobody would give a shit. Why didn't GW give a shit about Liberia at the time? Or any other regime under the cosh (including N Korea). What really sealed it for me was Rwanda a few years later. Sure, it was under Clinton's watch, but if you neocons want the Repub congress to take responsibility for the balanced budget, then they can take responsibility for Rwanda too. I'm thinking to myself - let's imagine Rwanda had held 10 percent, 15 percent, HELL ,even 25% of the world's oil reserves, what would have been the reaction of the Repub senate??? hhhmmmm

Exactly. All true, of course. And why the evidence leads the way it does.

 

[M14 Shooter]

To a reasonably objective person it's proof

To the reasonably objective, it proves nothing.
To card-carrying members of the "I hate Bush" club -- no proof is necessary.

 

[jillian]

To the reasonably objective, it proves nothing.
To card-carrying members of the "I hate Bush" club -- no proof is necessary.

See... this is where someone like you shows a total lack of understanding. You act as if he has comported himself in such a way that he would have gained support from the left of the aisle. After 9/11, most of us were predisposed to supporting him... .rooting for him, actually. I really wanted him to be a "compassionate conservative" who would run a "humble foreign policy" (his words, not mine). He took all that good will and sqauandered it with heavy-handed Rovian poltics and incompetence.

So as far as I'm concerned, it isn't the "I hate Bush" club, it's a rational response to someone who we see as having destroyed our standing in the world, attacked the constitution and undermined everything good that this country stands for.

Luckily he's out in 441 days.

 

[M14 Shooter]

See... this is where someone like you shows a total lack of understanding.

Yes -- HE says that securing the oil ministry before securing the art museum is 'proof enough for a reasonable person' that we went to war in Iraq for oil, and -I- suffer from a 'total lack of understanding'.



You crack me up. Please -- dont stop.

 

[jillian]

Yes -- HE says that securing the oil ministry before securing the art museum is 'proof enough for a reasonable person' that we went to war in Iraq for oil, and -I- suffer from a 'total lack of understanding'.



You crack me up. Please -- dont stop.

Good that you're still playing the black knight. Was good for my soul.

And once again, you've got nuffin' which is why you're incapable of responding to my points.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And once again, you've got nuffin' which is why you're incapable of responding to my points.

Dream on. All you have is misdirection, obfuscation and a utter unwillingness to even TRY to defend your claims in an intellectually honest way. You cannot address what's actually posted, so you try to change the subject.

Dont agree?

Then show this, your claim, to be true:

Truth is, it is obvious that but for oil, we'd never have gone in, regardless of whether that was the stated reason or not.

Please note that this means you need to PROVE this to be the truth, not just try to pass off your opinions as fact.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Each reason was total and complete BS. They knew that Iraq wasn't an imminent threat. They knew that whatever designs Saddam had with respect to WMD's, he couldn't effectuate them.

And yet, your democrat reps/senators voted for it also.

Its amazing how deluded the libs are on this. It REQUIRED THEIR voted into office officials to sign off on it also, yet they can totally ignore that and still blame President Bush, and they continue to make bogus claims that fly directly in the face of what the Clintons and their own elected officials are on record of having declared.

I just really dont get how this generation of libs can so completely, and on all the issues, just totally ignore so much factual information and be so myoptic about everything. They are living in a totally fabricated and delusional reallity.

Lets see now, the following list includes a previous sitting PRESIDENT and first lady, persons who have run for election to the presidency, and some who are currently seeking the office.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002


O U C H !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

iT WASNT just about the oil. We could have gotten oil from Saddam if we wanted to.

It was about securing the stability of the entire region, long term.

ultimately it is about economics, which is totally legit. We cannot stop all mass murdering situations, but we can choose to stop the ones that affect our world economic situation the most. Thats why so many other nations joined in. Dont give me that bullshit about only inconsequencial nations joining. France, Germany and Russia didnt join ONLY because they knew their illegal activities were going to be exposed, along with oil for food scandal.
Japan, Italy, Britian, Poland, Australia are hardly nations to sneeze at.

Bush didnt lie, and he laid out very substansive reasons and goals.
We have and continue to achieve those goals.
To claim they had no plan going in and have been inept at running the war is total bullshit also. Its easy for an arm chair quarterback to criticize after mistakes were made. Mistakes are made in any war.
It simply was a unique situation, yea we made mistakes, but we have modified what our strategy was/is and we are being effective now. It was impossible to have forseen exactly how the terrorists would react.
The occupation was welcomed by the IRaqi people, so those who are screaming we had no right, legally or morally, to occupy, are just TOTALLY FULL OF SHIT. To believe so, you must be delusional, myoptic, denying many facts and reality, stupid, agenda driven, overly emotional and full of hatred, bitter and foolish. You must be so selfish in your desire to have it your way, that you forgo the security of the People of America, forgo the Constitution and border on, and often cross, or support those who go into treasonous actions.
you must be willing to delude and deceive others, lie to them and lie to yourself.
You are simply vile, treasonous lumps of dog crap on my lawn.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You really are as dumb as you look! Go figure!

And yet, so many claim Im a dead ringer for a very handsome actor celebrity, who has even starred in his own movies. Go figure,,, so who is dumb here?

Not to mention what an intelligent, beautiful wife and baby, go figure, us ugly dummies must be lucky !!!

 

[eots]

blah, blah, blah, blah,,,,globalization, blah, blah, blah, globalization so we can impose our will on everyone, not just americans, blah, blah, blah, blah, globalization, blah, blah, blah, globalization....

Hey i didn't write the pnac document they did

 

[Diuretic]

I don't see it as "solely to grab its oil reserves". I see it as securing them. I'm not saying I agree with it or what we did. And, in fact, I don't think we should have invaded, and certainly shouldn't have done so without proper planning. But I think if the general consensus was that he was going to destroy our economic system, it could have been sold. This admin has a very low opinion of the U.S. public and hasn't been forthcoming about anything, so we don't know how it would have been approached or accepted. Transparency isn't exactly GWB's thing.

As for the soldiers dying. As opposed to dying in a civil war between shi'a and sunni? I'm not sure the distinction ultimately would have mattered.

This has to be seen from two perspectives. The first is the domestic US perspective. I think it would have been quite easy, in the aftermath of 9/11 (which I believe was an attempt to destroy the US economy) for the Bush Administration to tell its citizens that it was necessary to invade and occupy Iraq to grab its oil/secure it's oil to ensure the security of the US economy. Now let me pause for a moment and say I don't think grabbing/securing Iraq's oil was necessary to protect the US economy - sectional interests, yes, broader economy, no; but that's another argument I suspect. Okay getting back on point. I think the US citizenry post-9/11 would have had a resounding "hell, yes!" and the Bush Administration would have been able to take over Iraq and it's oil with the clear support of the US people.

Now the second perspective. The rest of us would have seen the US invade Iraq to get its oil. Can you imagine the reaction? It was necessary for the US to lie about the real reason for invading Iraq, not to fool the American people, but to fool - or try to - the rest of the world. To invade another country to secure its natural resources for the benefit of the invader is an immoral act as well (presumably) as being illegal under international law.

Bush had to cobble together other nations to provide him with an alibi. He needed WMD and Saddam's dictatorship as further camouflage. The leaders of the countries involved in the coalition knew it was about oil but they had to go along with the lies as well.

 

[Diuretic]

To the reasonably objective, it proves nothing.
To card-carrying members of the "I hate Bush" club -- no proof is necessary.

Can you address the point? Or is your forte making inane and irrelevant remarks? With that comment you have added exactly nothing to the debate.

 

[Diuretic]

Yes -- HE says that securing the oil ministry before securing the art museum is 'proof enough for a reasonable person' that we went to war in Iraq for oil, and -I- suffer from a 'total lack of understanding'.



You crack me up. Please -- dont stop.

I'd really prefer it if you'd address me as well, since I'm the "he" in your comment. So, put your point to me and give me the chance to support my argument.

 

[Diuretic]

And yet, your democrat reps/senators voted for it also.

Its amazing how deluded the libs are on this. It REQUIRED THEIR voted into office officials to sign off on it also, yet they can totally ignore that and still blame President Bush, and they continue to make bogus claims that fly directly in the face of what the Clintons and their own elected officials are on record of having declared.

I just really dont get how this generation of libs can so completely, and on all the issues, just totally ignore so much factual information and be so myoptic about everything. They are living in a totally fabricated and delusional reallity.

Lets see now, the following list includes a previous sitting PRESIDENT and first lady, persons who have run for election to the presidency, and some who are currently seeking the office.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002


O U C H !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wilful blindndess. The Democrats knew about the lies but it suited them politically to go along with them. Only a few stood on principle and opposed the invasion because they knew of the lies. Those who went along with it for political purposes are hypocrites and undeserving of public office.

 

[Diuretic]

iT WASNT just about the oil. We could have gotten oil from Saddam if we wanted to.

How? By asking nicely?

It was about securing the stability of the entire region, long term.

The region was stable, he invasion has made the region unstable.

ultimately it is about economics, which is totally legit. We cannot stop all mass murdering situations, but we can choose to stop the ones that affect our world economic situation the most. Thats why so many other nations joined in. Dont give me that bullshit about only inconsequencial nations joining. France, Germany and Russia didnt join ONLY because they knew their illegal activities were going to be exposed, along with oil for food scandal.
Japan, Italy, Britian, Poland, Australia are hardly nations to sneeze at.

Can you clear this up, it doesn't make sense - not having a shot at you but I don't understand your point.

Bush didnt lie, and he laid out very substansive reasons and goals.
We have and continue to achieve those goals.
To claim they had no plan going in and have been inept at running the war is total bullshit also. Its easy for an arm chair quarterback to criticize after mistakes were made. Mistakes are made in any war.
It simply was a unique situation, yea we made mistakes, but we have modified what our strategy was/is and we are being effective now. It was impossible to have forseen exactly how the terrorists would react.
The occupation was welcomed by the IRaqi people, so those who are screaming we had no right, legally or morally, to occupy, are just TOTALLY FULL OF SHIT. To believe so, you must be delusional, myoptic, denying many facts and reality, stupid, agenda driven, overly emotional and full of hatred, bitter and foolish. You must be so selfish in your desire to have it your way, that you forgo the security of the People of America, forgo the Constitution and border on, and often cross, or support those who go into treasonous actions.
you must be willing to delude and deceive others, lie to them and lie to yourself.
You are simply vile, treasonous lumps of dog crap on my lawn.

Bush lied. He is still lying. He has no credibility with most of the American people and certainly the world has an extremely low opinion of him.