I had a better way than George Bush

[jeffperkinstech]

I thought it would have been much better if the Bush Administration would have left Saddam alone and pretended to have forgotten about him after the 9\11 attacks. Go after Afganistan and all other places Al-Queda operates (which George Bush blatently failed to do, and any report to the contrary is an out and out lie) and attack them sparadically through-out the world. This would have made Iraq a haven for surviving and fleeing Al-Queda operatives. We could have even given certain 'escape routes' to Al-Queda cells we engage in foreign countries. After a time, due to the principle of 'Terror takes the path of least resistance', there would have been a build up of the mass majority of Al-Queda in Iraq, then we could have gone to the UN and pointed out to them that a large mass of Al-Queda exsists in Iraq and that Saddam is harboring them. After that, it is of knowledgeable, and wise opinion that many of the other counties that rejected to help burden the risk and cost of the Iraq war would have done so in that instance. And it would have been a much more decisive, and devistating blow to our enemies still at large.

 

[clumzgirl]

You're pissin' into the wind, my friend. What's done is done. The relevant question is, what do we do now?

(And welcome to the forum!)

 

[jeffperkinstech]

Oh, I am not suggesting that we can use this idea to turn back time and make things right. I do not indulge in delusions of Science Fiction (but the movies can be fun!). However, it is a relavent point today that, I, a holder of the prestigous GED certificate, could put forth a more tacticlly and strageically sound plan. This comes down to expectations of leadership. If the leadership demonstrated by this Administration is to your satisfaction, I would suggest your standards are much too low. Forgive the abruptness.

 

[Psychoblues]

Jeff, I got your PM. Even as exrensive as my own military qualifications tend to indicate, I don't and have never called mission endeavors. Your ideology may be sound, it would take multitudes of feedback, however, to convince me of it.

I wasn't born a Democrat. I became one after experiencing the worst screwings of my life by the lying and otherwise secretive Republicans. But I won't belabour that subject. Go for what you know, feel, think and are compelled, Jeff. It's a personal life decision and it's your own. Can you dig it?

 

[Psychoblues]

What did I tell you a little earlier, Sir Evil? We go in circles, don't we? Sure the Dems can be corrupt and undeserving of their offices. I find it much more prevalent amongst Republicans, however, and I can qualify through experience a reasonable explanation of my propensity to believe those facts. Again, I'll spare you the details but only admonish you to pay attention to the information that is readily available to you from a variety of sources. Like sex, variety is the spice of life.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jeffperkinstech
I thought it would have been much better if the Bush Administration would have left Saddam alone and pretended to have forgotten about him after the 9\11 attacks. Go after Afganistan and all other places Al-Queda operates (which George Bush blatently failed to do, and any report to the contrary is an out and out lie) and attack them sparadically through-out the world. This would have made Iraq a haven for surviving and fleeing Al-Queda operatives. We could have even given certain 'escape routes' to Al-Queda cells we engage in foreign countries. After a time, due to the principle of 'Terror takes the path of least resistance', there would have been a build up of the mass majority of Al-Queda in Iraq, then we could have gone to the UN and pointed out to them that a large mass of Al-Queda exsists in Iraq and that Saddam is harboring them. After that, it is of knowledgeable, and wise opinion that many of the other counties that rejected to help burden the risk and cost of the Iraq war would have done so in that instance. And it would have been a much more decisive, and devistating blow to our enemies still at large.

Don't quite your day job.

 

[Zhukov]

I would imagine that terrorists would have tended to melt into Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Kashmir, Lebanon, and bordering territory that used to be part of the USSR more readily than they would have into Iraq.

Instead, by invading Iraq, we have made many of them come to us, to fight on our terms, against our military.

There is no reason to assume ignoring Iraq would have significantly increased the concentration of terrorist elements in that country. Rather, had we ignored Iraq and allowed Saddam to proceed unfettered with the chemical/biological weapons programs he was pursuing, it is likely that something very dangerous would have eventually ended up in the hands of one of the several terrorist organizations Saddam had dealings with.

It was better to deal with Iraq before it became an imminent threat.

 

[preemptingyou03]

Originally posted by Zhukov
It was better to deal with Iraq before it became an imminent threat.

What is imminent anymore? Liberals have this knack for wanting us to sit on our hands until our enemies are stronger and more capable or hurting us. They have our hands tied.

Nobody knows what imminent is in the age of terrorism. Bush has said if we wait for our enemies to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.

Dems don't understand that Saddam, in more ways than one, wanted to harm us. We must take it seriously!

The biggest BS arguements ever are "Saddam wasn't a terrorist" and "we should have concentrated on Osama."

Concentrated how? The media? Just because the media stopped talking about him doesn't mean we weren't concentrating on him? You can't invade a MAN.

I just can't stand the passive logic.

 

[Psychoblues]

And obviously you don't underSTAND strategy. Our troops are saved and lost according to brilliant and faulty "strategy". I'd suggest you stay in a game that you understand.

 

[jeffperkinstech]

Those would be valid points if there wern't these pesky little things that roadblock the theory of terrorists glombing together in countries like former USSR providences, Iran, and Pakistan. The USSR has already been dealing with the terrorist threat from mainly Chechniya and have even connected Al-Queda involvment in some of the attacks suffered by them. There would be no more 'soft spots' for more Al-Queda than there already are today, in fact I could see where, if my stratagy was employeed, that there would be fewer because this is one of the places that we could have sent men and matirials to assist the Russian Gov. of eradicating the terrorist threat. And before you say it, if you believe that Vladimier Putin would not have accepted US help in this, to achieve a shared goal, then you do not understand the new Ruaain way or policy toward our country. They don't want us interfering with internal matters, unless of course, there are gains to be had. And inthis endeavour there ARE gains to be had. Pakistan? Please...after 9/11 they were as obidient as dogs to our wishes and for good reason. A nuclear power that already has another nuclear powered enemy at thier border, and in desparte need of powerful friends after their successful nuclear weapons program and tests. They did, and still do, everything they can to assist us. Even if they may have contributed to the terrorist problem before 9/11, anyone who watches and knows can tell you they don't even try to skate off with any shinanigains now and are, probably the most powerful ally we have, in this endevour. Iran? OK, certainly not as cooperative and also a contributer to terrorisim before 9/11, but believe me. All recon data shows that suspected terrorist camps have been disbanded and they REALLY DO NOT want to engage the US military and have done, in an unbiased perspective, a MASTERFUL diplomatic job of keeping us somewhat appeased, while not giving us so much as to really ire thier Islamic breathren. Now you have a little something there, when you say that Al-Queda may have gone to Syria, Jordan or Lebanon. However, those countries are very small and under constant satelite suveylence (not sure how to spell that one...help?). These are also countries scared of the US might and would not want to overtly provoke us. I could see where temporary safe heaven would have been provided until we came out publically and said that we know that they are harboring terrorists and they have until said dealdline to hand them over or rebuke them all-together. Point being, I KNOW my plan would have worked. It even fits into Saddams psycology of being this mighty adversay to the US, that he would have had no qualms about taking in terrorists at this time, and the longer we would have let him the more his ego would have taken control. This could have been a clean sweep program but instead we have faulty leadership from manufactured men.
Oh and WMD's? If you still believe that Iraq has or had any since '90 then I would propose to you that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy all really do exist! C'MON! The final word on wether Saddam had WMD's or not came down (or more aptly didn't) when we entered Bagdad and they were not used upon us. If he had them then he would have used them. The ONLY thing the documents tell us about thier so called WMD's is that Saddam did want to have them again, but the people put in charge of doing so were ripping him off of millions! They would ask for money and be paid and then submit false reports and fake demonstrations. What a laugh. What is NOT a laugh, however, is my fear that Bush is going to pull out WMD's out of his magic hat sometime durning this election. Remember that big $32B package for Iraq that was passed? $100 million of that was set aside for the search for wepons of mass destruction. That is enough money to MANUFACTURE the evidence your looking for if one wanted to do so. And after the 2000 election, I KNOW that George Bush is the type of guy to do something like that. Not saying that is definately going to happen...but if it does...I told you so!
Oh and one last point. People that sit there and say things like the Liberal mind is weak and soft and the Conservative mind is tough and just and forceful doesn't know crap about history, denies reality and is suckered by most marketing machines you could ever devise. Just because Republicains decided to don big belt buckles and cowboy boots and they talk like simpletons and listen to country music (at least in public) does NOT mean they are ANYTHING LIKE YOU! In fact, I can gaurentee that most of them DON'T EVEN LIKE YOU AND PEOPLE WHO ACT LIKE THAT! It's a CON! The stongest leadership that this country has known in the last century, was from 2 Democrats (FDR who went to war dispite a popular Republican policy of Isolationism, and whos predicessor upon death dropped the bomb. Yeah, real soft there)(The other was JFK who stood his ground and risked us all in a neuclear war gambit against Russia over missiles in Cuba. Again, I can see how one might percieve that as weak. *shakes head*) the other 2 being Republicans (Teddy Rosevelt, who was the greatest Democrat the Republican party ever had and one of our best leaders EVER) (The other being Regan, who was a straightout Republican, but he stuck to his guns and, more or less, out spent the USSR into collaspe...but with one mistake...he could have ended the neuclear threat earlier, on his watch, but was too strong armed about things and messed it up. It happened anyway but it happened on George Bush Sr.'s watch)
Point being...don't be a slave monkey to cheap a cheap image. ACTIONS NOT WORDS AND ATTIRE WILL LEAD YOU TO THE TRUTH!

 

[preemptingyou03]

If he had them then he would have used them. The ONLY thing the documents tell us about thier so called WMD's is that Saddam did want to have them again, but the people put in charge of doing so were ripping him off of millions!

I have to disagree with you there. Our troops and intelligence have said the Iraqis ordered attacks on us with chemical weapons. That's why many soldiers had to put on the gear during the invasion.

But regardless, I think what happened was a mix of a few things...

- When Bush came into office in 2001, Hussein knew he would confront him and put inspectors in Iraq, so he started destroying the actual stockpiles of weapons, while keeping the programs active.

- When inspectors entered Iraq in 11/02, Saddam deployed whatever WMD he had remaining to Syria, for safekeeping.

- Saddam was told by France and Russia that they would veto an 18th American resolution, and Saddam thought he might have been attacked, but not to the point where his regime would end. We remember the night we started bombing Baghdad, there was footage of a shaken Saddam giving a speech to the Iraqi people...

I think Saddam knew, both pre-9/11 and post-9/11, that Bush would try to confront him one way or another, and he knew the financial ties from France and Russia would bring down popular support of Bush, so Saddam did a combination of things.

After all, Iraqi defectors have told us he hides his weapons under the ground. Many intelligence agencies thought they were there in 2002. Saddam was still playing cat and mouse. I think from 1998 until 2001, Saddam didn't do much, and then in 2001, he started to destroy his WMD.

But had the inspectors left the country, and had we not invaded, he would have continued to make them.

I still find it hard to believe that the entire world was wrong. I feel we'll find something one day. Iraq's the size of California and Baghdad's the size of LA. We might stumble across some stuff in a basement somewhere, or underneath someone's lawn.

They might be in Syria and we might have to conduct a special forces operation to get them and destroy them.

The worst case scenario, intelligence wise, is we were ALL wrong, and Saddam destroyed them, with the capability and intent on making them soon.

The threat of WMD and Saddam was real. He could have passed them off to one of the 10 terrorist groups he funded and/or sponsored.

What would have happened, had Saddam stayed in power? French and German intelligence stated Saddam would have had three nukes by 2005. Let's say Saddam would have had nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons in... hmmm... 2007. Now, what if he gave them off to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? What if he gave them off to Ansar al-Islam or Hezbollah? What if he gave them off to an al-Qaeda operative? What if a Baathist intelligence official snuck into this country with it?

What if Saddam died, and Uday took over a nuclear powered Iraq in 5-10 years? Would we want to confront that then? In 5-10 years, Iraq's going to be the gem of the region.

The combination of terror regimes, terror networks, and terror weapons is real.

 

[preemptingyou03]

I know, lol, what I'm saying is, we acted and in the span of 5-10 years, what we did will pay off, as opposed to inaction whereas we would have been greatly threatened in due time.

There is no imminent threats anymore. Either everything is imminent or nothing is.

 

[preemptingyou03]

If I were Bush, I would have laid out the case for invading Iraq must better than Bush.

 

[OCA]

Listen boys, plan or no plan the Demos were waiting in the bushes like like hyenas to pounce on anything Bush did. Even if we don't go into Iraq you don't think they would be making much more of a fuss over not finding OBL than they already are? This is payback for Bubba, although Bubba deserved every single second of his pounding.

 

[preemptingyou03]

What my point is, when did 9/11 become an "imminent threat?" April of 2001? July of 2001? Saddam was a threat. If he was an imminent or not is unknown.

 

[preemptingyou03]

The Democrat gameplan for fighting terrorism is to capture Osama and that's it. They say fighting in Iraq, Asia, Africa, Pakistan, all of our covert operations is distracting us from fighting and finding Osama. I don't know if they are saying that to attract votes, or if they truely believe that. If they really believe that, it boggles my mind our our Democratic leaders don't understand the tactics used to fight this global war. They think we can use all 150,000 troops we invaded Iraq with to invade Osama bin Laden. How can we invade a single man?

It's all intelligence.

People forget about how amazing Rumsfeld was in Afghanistan. We did, with a few thousand special forces, in a few weeks, what the Soviet Empire couldn't do in a decade.

 

[preemptingyou03]

I, too, believe we may find WMD.

 

[preemptingyou03]

Of course if we do, "Bush planted them" would be the Dem theme cry. They wouldn't accept that fact that the entire world was right about the WMD.

 

[jeffperkinstech]

WOW....seriously, you are grasping at straws. And for what? To defend a President and Administration that hates you and freedom? I will point by point go through your post.

Our troops and intelligence have said the Iraqis ordered attacks on us with chemical weapons. That's why many soldiers had to put on the gear during the invasion.

We were NEVER attacked with chemiical or biological wepons. That's a fact. If you saw something to the contrary it was ont he Sci-Fi channel. Of course our troops would have been told to don thier masks because at that time we thought he did posses them.

- When Bush came into office in 2001, Hussein knew he would confront him and put inspectors in Iraq, so he started destroying the actual stockpiles of weapons, while keeping the programs active.

- When inspectors entered Iraq in 11/02, Saddam deployed whatever WMD he had remaining to Syria, for safekeeping.

- Saddam was told by France and Russia that they would veto an 18th American resolution, and Saddam thought he might have been attacked, but not to the point where his regime would end. We remember the night we started bombing Baghdad, there was footage of a shaken Saddam giving a speech to the Iraqi people...

I think Saddam knew, both pre-9/11 and post-9/11, that Bush would try to confront him one way or another, and he knew the financial ties from France and Russia would bring down popular support of Bush, so Saddam did a combination of things.

After all, Iraqi defectors have told us he hides his weapons under the ground. Many intelligence agencies thought they were there in 2002. Saddam was still playing cat and mouse. I think from 1998 until 2001, Saddam didn't do much, and then in 2001, he started to destroy his WMD.

But had the inspectors left the country, and had we not invaded, he would have continued to make them.

You are using hearsay and conjecture to overturn offical documentation obtained fromt he enemy. The thing where I said that Saddam was getting ripped off by the poeple he put in charge to re-new his WMD program was not something I just pulled out of my, 'dark hole underneath'. It was an actual account. There were even videotapes found where Saddam is grinning and applauding what looks like a missile but is actually well put together scrap mettal. No thing more. LISTEN, this is the TRUTH.....seriously! Since shortly after the Gulf War I Iraq has NOT had, or even been CLOSE to having WMD! Get a grip.

As for the rest of your post, I agree with you, I think it's great Saddam is gone. However if you think that we will be succesfull in making Iraq a democracy you have no knowledge of it's history. That land is VERY resilient to idealogical change and I can gaurentee you that no matter who ends up having the power there when we hand it off, there WILL be another Saddam in control. Count on that.

The other point is that you should pay attention to my original posting. There was a MUCH better way to kill two birds with one stone. I know we can't change the past but we can change the future come election time. I am not going to prop Kerry here. I am only going to give you the very basic and simple truth that the leadership of George Bush is incompetent at best and most likely an evil regieme that we currently reside under. This must be changed! I know many of you do not share that view. However, give yourself the benefit of doubt. Try to clear your head of all the ways in which you think and the things you beleve steadfastly to be true and try to come at all issues of the past 4 years (including the 2000 election) and come at the information again. If you do this in a sincear and honest way, it will hit you like the flood waters from a broken dam 20 feet away from you. I have to go back to Ulysis S Grant to find a worse president. Seriously. Don't fall for the marketing ploy. If lowly old me can think of a WAY better solution than Bush and all of his staff and Cabinet, then that should be a notible marker for you that his leadership is not adequite. Your standards are dangerously too low if you have been satisfied by these last four years.

 

[preemptingyou03]

That land is VERY resilient to idealogical change and I can gaurentee you that no matter who ends up having the power there when we hand it off, there WILL be another Saddam in control. Count on that.

Like Sistani? Come on.

Look, in 1995, Saddam's brother-in-law or son-in-law defected and told us he had WMD. We FOUND them. Saddam then admitted to it and never accounted for the material he admitted to having. France, Russia, germany, Italy, Britain, (shall I go on) all thought he had WMD. Clinton, Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, all thought he had WMD. The UNSC thought he had WMD. He admitted to it. He used them. he violated resolutions 333 times.

My point is... is there any evidence (besides the lack of finding them) that Saddam didn't have WMD?