The single biggest thing that Bush's wars accomplished

[8537]

[
Hussein gassed his own people....suggesting a test of WMD's.

That was well over a decade before the invasion. At the time, our response was to send Rumsfeld over to shake his hand and request he please consider stopping the practice.

Hussein gave the run around to UN inspectors...suggesting he had something to hide
Not just US...but world INTEL suggested WMD's were likely

What if we did nothing and all of this were true?

The UN inspectors were there shortly before we invaded and left b/c of our attack. Did they get a runaround? Sure. Did they also get cooperation? of course.

And if we did nothing, there's a chance he would have once again used weapons on his own people (though he hadn't done so in a decade). We knew he had no mobile weapons labs despite Powell's claims to the contrary. We knew he had no drones to launch attacks, despite Powell's claims to the contrary. And we knew that the aluminum tubes claimed to be for enriching uranium were for no such purpose.

Husseon signed a treaty with provisions. One of them was easy access for the UN inspectors.
He broke the treaty. He acted suspiciously...and after the first attack on the homeland since Pearl Harbor, our Goivernment, boithe republicans and democrats alike, were not willing to take the chance.

He had nothing to do with the first attack on our homeland since Pearl Harbor, and the administration was well aware of that fact.

I wonder what this thread would be about if, in fact, we did NOT do what we did, and instead, he gassed israel.

I wonder what this thread would be about if, in fact, we did NOT do what we did, saved thousands of American lives, saved over a trillion dollars, kept our focus on the terrorists and continued to allow inspectors and the no-fly zones to do their job.

We would be debating with the left saying that Bush dropped the ball becuase he was a whimp and the right saying he did not feel war was necessary and di not see the threat as serious.

Sort of just saying.....

That's an interesting point

 

[Jarhead]

That was well over a decade before the invasion. At the time, our response was to send Rumsfeld over to shake his hand and request he please consider stopping the practice.


The UN inspectors were there shortly before we invaded and left b/c of our attack. Did they get a runaround? Sure. Did they also get cooperation? of course.

And if we did nothing, there's a chance he would have once again used weapons on his own people (though he hadn't done so in a decade). We knew he had no mobile weapons labs despite Powell's claims to the contrary. We knew he had no drones to launch attacks, despite Powell's claims to the contrary. And we knew that the aluminum tubes claimed to be for enriching uranium were for no such purpose.

Husseon signed a treaty with provisions. One of them was easy access for the UN inspectors.
He broke the treaty. He acted suspiciously...and after the first attack on the homeland since Pearl Harbor, our Goivernment, boithe republicans and democrats alike, were not willing to take the chance.

He had nothing to do with the first attack on our homeland since Pearl Harbor, and the administration was well aware of that fact.

I wonder what this thread would be about if, in fact, we did NOT do what we did, and instead, he gassed israel.

I wonder what this thread would be about if, in fact, we did NOT do what we did, saved thousands of American lives, saved over a trillion dollars, kept our focus on the terrorists and continued to allow inspectors and the no-fly zones to do their job.

We would be debating with the left saying that Bush dropped the ball becuase he was a whimp and the right saying he did not feel war was necessary and di not see the threat as serious.

Sort of just saying.....

That's an interesting point

I mentioned the "homeland attack" thing not becuase 9-11 was related to Iraq...I mentioned it becuase we, as a country, realized that we ARE vulnerable to outside attacks...and that we can no longer sit idly by and assume that a threat is not really a threat.

Me? I saw Iraq as a threat based on the intel that we heard about including the intel from other countries. Likewise, Hussein was most certianly acting suspiciously.

And after spending 9-12 to 9-14 diggin through dust and re-bar, I was convinced that we are vulnerable to attacks form people that hate us.

Until that day? I never thought a homeland attack was possible.

 

[DiamondDave]

VIOLATION OF CEASE-FIRE... 'nuff said for grounds for finishing what should have been finished when WE were there the first time

 

[8537]

Husseon signed a treaty with provisions. One of them was easy access for the UN inspectors.
He broke the treaty. He acted suspiciously...and after the first attack on the homeland since Pearl Harbor, our Goivernment, boithe republicans and democrats alike, were not willing to take the chance.

He had nothing to do with the first attack on our homeland since Pearl Harbor, and the administration was well aware of that fact.


I wonder what this thread would be about if, in fact, we did NOT do what we did, saved thousands of American lives, saved over a trillion dollars, kept our focus on the terrorists and continued to allow inspectors and the no-fly zones to do their job.

We would be debating with the left saying that Bush dropped the ball becuase he was a whimp and the right saying he did not feel war was necessary and di not see the threat as serious.

Sort of just saying.....

That's an interesting point

I mentioned the "homeland attack" thing not becuase 9-11 was related to Iraq...I mentioned it becuase we, as a country, realized that we ARE vulnerable to outside attacks...and that we can no longer sit idly by and assume that a threat is not really a threat.

Me? I saw Iraq as a threat based on the intel that we heard about including the intel from other countries. Likewise, Hussein was most certianly acting suspiciously.

And after spending 9-12 to 9-14 diggin through dust and re-bar, I was convinced that we are vulnerable to attacks form people that hate us.

Until that day? I never thought a homeland attack was possible.

ya see, this is where one of two things happens:

1. In the real world, people agree to disagree. I agree he was acting suspiciously etc...I just don't think our response was the appropriate one. thoughtful people can disagree.

or

2. On a message board, the conversation can devolve and I can call you a fascist-pinko baby killer.

I think I'll go with (1). It really boils down to how you interpret the information presented by the worldwide community and the administration. it's also probably related to how much trust you had in the administration at the time.

 

[DiamondDave]

An appropriate response to violations of cease-fire would be to continually let them get away with it with no more than a slap on the wrist?? We see how good that worked with Clinton

It was reasonable, appropriate, and justified, considering the national defense and security issue in the ME changed significantly in 2001

 

[8537]

An appropriate response to violations of cease-fire would be to continually let them get away with it with no more than a slap on the wrist?? We see how good that worked with Clinton

1. So the appropriate response to cease-fire violations is invasion?
2. What exactly was the problem with the system when Clinton was in charge? Did Iraq attack us? Did they attack someone else? What was the alleged negative outcome that makes "how good it worked with Clinton" a pejorative?

 

[DiamondDave]

An appropriate response to violations of cease-fire would be to continually let them get away with it with no more than a slap on the wrist?? We see how good that worked with Clinton

1. So the appropriate response to cease-fire violations is invasion?
2. What exactly was the problem with the system when Clinton was in charge? Did Iraq attack us? Did they attack someone else? What was the alleged negative outcome that makes "how good it worked with Clinton" a pejorative?

1. Funny.. the threats, embargoes, and occasional bombings did WHAT?

2. When terms of cease fire are violated, slaps on the wrist don't work. What was wrong is the job should have been finished. Resuming the conflict that ONLY ended because of the cease-fire agreement. But no, Clinton made us look like wishy washy pussies... The negative outcome is because we looked like pussies, other countries started taking more hard line stances against us and extremist terror organizations decided the time was ripe to take advantage... You don't show strength by taking weak stances

 

[Jarhead]

He had nothing to do with the first attack on our homeland since Pearl Harbor, and the administration was well aware of that fact.


I wonder what this thread would be about if, in fact, we did NOT do what we did, saved thousands of American lives, saved over a trillion dollars, kept our focus on the terrorists and continued to allow inspectors and the no-fly zones to do their job.



That's an interesting point

I mentioned the "homeland attack" thing not becuase 9-11 was related to Iraq...I mentioned it becuase we, as a country, realized that we ARE vulnerable to outside attacks...and that we can no longer sit idly by and assume that a threat is not really a threat.

Me? I saw Iraq as a threat based on the intel that we heard about including the intel from other countries. Likewise, Hussein was most certianly acting suspiciously.

And after spending 9-12 to 9-14 diggin through dust and re-bar, I was convinced that we are vulnerable to attacks form people that hate us.

Until that day? I never thought a homeland attack was possible.

ya see, this is where one of two things happens:

1. In the real world, people agree to disagree. I agree he was acting suspiciously etc...I just don't think our response was the appropriate one. thoughtful people can disagree.

or

2. On a message board, the conversation can devolve and I can call you a fascist-pinko baby killer.

I think I'll go with (1). It really boils down to how you interpret the information presented by the worldwide community and the administration. it's also probably related to how much trust you had in the administration at the time.

But I AM a fascist-pinko baby killer. So now you insult me by refusing to address me by what I am?

Dam liberals. Always looking to insult those that dont think like them.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The fact that nearly two years into Obama you are still crying about Bush says a lot about Obama. He isn't getting much done (positive) is he?

Hillarious.

 

[Jarhead]

An appropriate response to violations of cease-fire would be to continually let them get away with it with no more than a slap on the wrist?? We see how good that worked with Clinton

1. So the appropriate response to cease-fire violations is invasion?
2. What exactly was the problem with the system when Clinton was in charge? Did Iraq attack us? Did they attack someone else? What was the alleged negative outcome that makes "how good it worked with Clinton" a pejorative?

Point 1......he was not responding to lighter tactics and continued to be in breach of the CF.

Point 2...interesting point and well said.

But I am curious.....what would we be looking for as a reason to go in there? I am curious as to what you would have deemed a valid reason to attack.

 

[Avorysuds]

For the umpteen BILLIONTH time...

Goals in Iraq
Disarming Saddam Hussein
Strike a major blow in the war on terror
Establish democracy in Iraq, keep Iraq whole and help transform the region
Intimidate other rogue nations and curb proliferation
Preserve and expand U.S. influence in the region, enhance Israel's security and facilitate resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict

All of which we have had success in, except for the end part of the last one about resolving Israeli Arab relations, which is probably never going to happen anyway.... could some things have been done better? Yep... does not take away from the fact that we have victory and had success

Your list was made up as Bush went along. The more important issue is why was it our job to do these things anyway?

To the OP, we are not out of Iraq yet, not even close so your opinion does not even matter if you can't get that very simple fact right. Obama would rather kill troops in Iraq than have the unemployment go up .1% here in the US... time to expand Afghanistan!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives will never forgive Bush for having the US military train up the ISF in record time to defeat the Progressive Supported Iranian and Soviet backed Islamic Insurgency grab at Basra.

The ISF sliced off Al Sadr at the wrist and sent him running and sent the Progressive off to the corner.

They had been crowing about how Iran was going to take over Iraq and Al Sadr was the real power there.

Fuck Mooky. Fuck American Progressives.

 

[8537]

An appropriate response to violations of cease-fire would be to continually let them get away with it with no more than a slap on the wrist?? We see how good that worked with Clinton

1. So the appropriate response to cease-fire violations is invasion?
2. What exactly was the problem with the system when Clinton was in charge? Did Iraq attack us? Did they attack someone else? What was the alleged negative outcome that makes "how good it worked with Clinton" a pejorative?

1. Funny.. the threats, embargoes, and occasional bombings did WHAT?

Let's try this again: During the Clinton administration's program of enforcing the No-fly zones etc...what was the negative outcome? Did Iraq attack someone? Did they invade another country? Did they gas their own people?

The negative outcome is because we looked like pussies, other countries started taking more hard line stances against us and extremist terror organizations decided the time was ripe to take advantage... You don't show strength by taking weak stances

Lol...you honestly believe that enforcing the no-fly zone made extremists like AQ view us as weak?

 

[California Girl]

Cali Girl,
Naturally you have to try and hide behind your suppossed "support for the troops". And of course you have to hurl invectives because it is you that has been spun.

Fuck off. You know jack shit about my 'supposed' support for the troops.

 

[8537]

But I am curious.....what would we be looking for as a reason to go in there? I am curious as to what you would have deemed a valid reason to attack.

well, I don't think we should be "looking for" a reason to invade anyone - that's my point! But I'm pretty sure that's just word choices on your part

The only valid reasons that comes to mind would be:

1. an imminent and direct threat to our livelihood that could not be prevented in any other manner.

2. an imminent and direct threat to an ally with whom we have treaty obligations (again, when no other manner of prevention is sufficient)

3. Genocide when no other manner of prevention is sufficient - but I'm very, very dubious of this one.

 

[onecut39]

Now that our combat forces are finally out of Iraq, the RepubliCONs want to claim victory. But what have we won? A democracy? Hardly, there was an election in the spring and it has not yet been resolved. It may never be resolved. The rest of our force is scheduled to leave by this time next year.

After we leave we will then find out what kind of country Iraq will be. My guess is that another strongman, another Saddam Hussein will take over. Perhaps another civil war first.

So then what have we accomplished? I mean beyond the trillion dollars spent, the over 4400 dead and tens of thousands of wounded American service people, the over 100,000 killed Iraqis, the millions of displaced Iraqis, the streangthening of Iran into the regional power, the shreading of the American image as "the good duys", what have we accomplished?

What we have demonstrated to the world is the strategic limit of the power of the United States. Dictators the world over now have a model to gauge their actions against. The blow back from this folly will be with us far into the future.

You really don't understand what Iraq was all about, do you? I don't think you do.

I don't either. Explain it to both of us.

 

[DiamondDave]

For the umpteen BILLIONTH time...

Goals in Iraq
Disarming Saddam Hussein
Strike a major blow in the war on terror
Establish democracy in Iraq, keep Iraq whole and help transform the region
Intimidate other rogue nations and curb proliferation
Preserve and expand U.S. influence in the region, enhance Israel's security and facilitate resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict

All of which we have had success in, except for the end part of the last one about resolving Israeli Arab relations, which is probably never going to happen anyway.... could some things have been done better? Yep... does not take away from the fact that we have victory and had success

Your list was made up as Bush went along. The more important issue is why was it our job to do these things anyway?

To the OP, we are not out of Iraq yet, not even close so your opinion does not even matter if you can't get that very simple fact right. Obama would rather kill troops in Iraq than have the unemployment go up .1% here in the US... time to expand Afghanistan!!!

Why??... national security was a primary concern after 2001... and when you topple a regime, it's best not to just leave and say "good luck"... and when you can battle your enemies on soil other than your own, it is a good idea... and in general free countries with a free and democratic republic based government don't end up as enemies... it's tyrannical leaders and countries that end up becoming enemies

As for goals changing... the initial goal was to topple Saddam's regime... once that is accomplished, we then set our subsequent goals based on the situation at hand

 

[blu]

For the umpteen BILLIONTH time...

Goals in Iraq
Disarming Saddam Hussein
Strike a major blow in the war on terror
Establish democracy in Iraq, keep Iraq whole and help transform the region
Intimidate other rogue nations and curb proliferation
Preserve and expand U.S. influence in the region, enhance Israel's security and facilitate resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict

All of which we have had success in, except for the end part of the last one about resolving Israeli Arab relations, which is probably never going to happen anyway.... could some things have been done better? Yep... does not take away from the fact that we have victory and had success

you think we made isarel more secure by making iran the strongest country in the region?



god you are stupid, why don't you go slap your kid around some more

 

[DiamondDave]

1. So the appropriate response to cease-fire violations is invasion?
2. What exactly was the problem with the system when Clinton was in charge? Did Iraq attack us? Did they attack someone else? What was the alleged negative outcome that makes "how good it worked with Clinton" a pejorative?

1. Funny.. the threats, embargoes, and occasional bombings did WHAT?

Let's try this again: During the Clinton administration's program of enforcing the No-fly zones etc...what was the negative outcome? Did Iraq attack someone? Did they invade another country? Did they gas their own people?

The negative outcome is because we looked like pussies, other countries started taking more hard line stances against us and extremist terror organizations decided the time was ripe to take advantage... You don't show strength by taking weak stances

Lol...you honestly believe that enforcing the no-fly zone made extremists like AQ view us as weak?

The negative outcome is that there was no real enforcement...

Clinton - Uhhh Saddam, you did it again...
Saddam - We won't do it any more
Clinton - Uhhh Saddam, you did it again... so here's some embargos and sanctions
Saddam - We won't do it any more
Clinton - Uhhh Saddam, you did it again and he's a cruise missile on a small target
Saddam - We won't do it again
Clinton - Uhhh Saddam, you are not allowing inspections per the agreement and you violated the no-fly again
Saddam - We won't do it any more
Clinton - Uhhhh Saddam, you're still doing it
Saddam - We won't do it any more
Clinton - Uhhh Saddam, you're still doing it and here's another cruise missile
Saddam - We won't do it any more


The negative outcome is the violations of the cease fire which the cease-fire was the ONLY thing that stopped the military action the first time.... it did hurt our image on national security... making us look like pussies.... which hurt us in the long run... we did look weak in the eyes of our enemies and those who wish to do us harm... ABSO-FREAKING-LUTELY

 

[DiamondDave]

For the umpteen BILLIONTH time...

Goals in Iraq
Disarming Saddam Hussein
Strike a major blow in the war on terror
Establish democracy in Iraq, keep Iraq whole and help transform the region
Intimidate other rogue nations and curb proliferation
Preserve and expand U.S. influence in the region, enhance Israel's security and facilitate resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict

All of which we have had success in, except for the end part of the last one about resolving Israeli Arab relations, which is probably never going to happen anyway.... could some things have been done better? Yep... does not take away from the fact that we have victory and had success

you think we made isarel more secure by making iran the strongest country in the region?



god you are stupid, why don't you go slap your kid around some more

Did you read the subsequent sentence I wrote??

You buffoon