Bush's Iraqi Platitudes

Mephisto said:
Since when did strong desire become a crime?
Click to expand...
I'm glad I don't have to make the decision, when the wrong one may result in megadeaths on US soil if I should have acted, and didn't.

In a world with symmetric arms capabilities, an error wasn't unthinkable.
 
Zep said:
What do you mean "when"? Did he ever get real power back? The guy was rendered politically and actually impotent after Desert Storm. Even Clinton spanked his ass a few times just to keep him in line!

Sadam was no more than a petty tyrant and the current local warlord at the top of a very small heap. He was a law unto himself and had more front than Mae West. Although the reality was he had little real power, and had to make back-door deals selling oil to his neighbours to survive.
Click to expand...

Which is precisely WHY the Bush administration went after Saddam. Reagan had Grenada, Daddy Bush had Panama and Dubya thought Iraq would be a push-over (which they SHOULD have been had there actually been a plan other than invading to find non-existant WMD).

Of course, in retrospect - it was probably a bad idea to dissolve Saddam's army and let them slip back into the shadows, it was probably a bad idea to concentrate solely on the search for WMD while the budding (at the time) insurgency was busy gathering TONS of explosives and small arms, it was probably a bad idea to protect the Oil Ministry while people looted the museums, it was probably a bad idea to make grandiose claims that we were freeing the Iraqi people from a ruthless tyrant who tortured them, only to open up Abu Grahib and new (secret) torture centers, it was probably a bad idea to say we're promoting freedom and justice, while our President and VP are PUSHING the case for legal torture . . .

Smart soldiers and statesmen pick the fights they feel they can win - but Bush is neither a soldier nor a statesman and there has been no question about his intellect since BEFORE he became the neo-con poster boy!
 
Mephisto said:
Which is precisely WHY the Bush administration went after Saddam. Reagan had Grenada, Daddy Bush had Panama and Dubya thought Iraq would be a push-over (which they SHOULD have been had there actually been a plan other than invading to find non-existant WMD).

Of course, in retrospect - it was probably a bad idea to dissolve Saddam's army and let them slip back into the shadows, it was probably a bad idea to concentrate solely on the search for WMD while the budding (at the time) insurgency was busy gathering TONS of explosives and small arms, it was probably a bad idea to protect the Oil Ministry while people looted the museums, it was probably a bad idea to make grandiose claims that we were freeing the Iraqi people from a ruthless tyrant who tortured them, only to open up Abu Grahib and new (secret) torture centers, it was probably a bad idea to say we're promoting freedom and justice, while our President and VP are PUSHING the case for legal torture . . .

Smart soldiers and statesmen pick the fights they feel they can win - but Bush is neither a soldier nor a statesman and there has been no question about his intellect since BEFORE he became the neo-con poster boy!
Click to expand...
Mistakes were made. No question. Had the mistakes not been made would the entire event have been a push-over? I hardly thinks so. The border is porous and people could have created an insurgency anytime they wanted. I accept some of your premises but not all of your inference.
 
RandFan said:
Mistakes were made. No question. Had the mistakes not been made would the entire event have been a push-over? I hardly thinks so. The border is porous and people could have created an insurgency anytime they wanted. I accept some of your premises but not all of your inference.
Click to expand...

Please help me understand...are you actually making the claim that the insurgency would have been just as bad under Hussein?

Please tell me that is not what you are saying.
 
hammegk said:
I'm glad I don't have to make the decision, when the wrong one may result in megadeaths on US soil if I should have acted, and didn't.

In a world with symmetric arms capabilities, an error wasn't unthinkable.
Click to expand...

Excellent point, hammegk, but Saddam's Iraq was more like the naughty little boy jumping at the apple just out of reach. Bin Laden had already attacked the U.S. successfully and is STILL at large recruiting new-improved terrorists who are more likely to find the means to incur megadeaths on U.S. soil.

Because of Bush's imperialism, today's Iraq is far more of a threat to us than under Saddam's rule. It won't be long before Bush's escapade in Iraq will cost us as many lives as the attack on the WTC. Meanwhile, our grasp on Afghanistan is slipping, the Taliban are regrouping and although the Iraqi people are enjoying their first elections they haven't turned a blind eye toward all our own human-rights abuses.
 
Mark said:
Please help me understand...are you actually making the claim that the insurgency would have been just as bad under Hussein?

Please tell me that is not what you are saying.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry Mark but for the life of me I'm not sure where you got this. Mepisto suggests that had Bush done things differently before, during and shortly after the invasion things would have been much different. He said "push-over". While I concede that lives could have been saved and things could have been much better it would not have been a push-over and there very likely would have been an insurgency.
 
RandFan said:
Mistakes were made. No question. Had the mistakes not been made would the entire event have been a push-over? I hardly thinks so. The border is porous and people could have created an insurgency anytime they wanted. I accept some of your premises but not all of your inference.
Click to expand...

Yes, mistakes HAVE been made, and by those very people who told us (although not all of us believed them) they knew what they were doing.

Those "mistakes" have cost over 2,000 Americans their lives, yet neo-cons think nothing of laughing at a picture in a ladies magazine while failing to admit the inadequacies of their fearless leader.

You're right in that the borders of Iraq are "porous," but if YOU knew that beforehand, and I knew that beforehand, WHY do you think this, apparently transparent fact, eluded the military planners of this war?
 
RandFan said:
I'm sorry Mark but for the life of me I'm not sure where you got this. Mepisto suggests that had Bush done things differently before, during and shortly after the invasion things would have been much different. He said "push-over". While I concede that lives could have been saved and things could have been much better it would not have been a push-over and there very likely would have been an insurgency.
Click to expand...

I guess the difficulty is that, like Cleon, I regard the war itself as the biggest mistake, and the ultimate cause of the insurgency.

If I understand you correctly, your position is that the war itself was a good idea, but was not carried out well. Right?
 
Mark said:
What?!?!?!

I have to be misunderstanding your point...
Click to expand...
Bush the elder, Clinton, and many others had as policy Regime change. For many reasons Bush wanted to invade Iraq. The mistakes had to do with the ostensible WMD not the decision to go to war.
 
Mark said:
I guess the difficulty is that, like Cleon, I regard the war itself as the biggest mistake, and the ultimate cause of the insurgency.

If I understand you correctly, your position is that the war itself was a good idea...
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe that the war was a good idea. I thought that clear after years of making that point. Yes.

...but was not carried out well. Right?
Click to expand...
The war was historical in its efficency and scope. It was carried out with precision and professionalism. It would be terribly dishonest to claim that it was not carried out well. Sadly, as in nearly all battles and wars mistakes were made. Mephisto's list is by and large correct I believe. I won't minimize them but it is fair to provide context.
 
RandFan said:
Bush the elder, Clinton, and many others had as policy Regime change. For many reasons Bush wanted to invade Iraq. The mistakes had to do with the ostensible WMD not the decision to go to war.
Click to expand...

Justifying the war by bringing Clinton into it is a complete red herring. He did not invade Iraq.

To suggest that WMDs were the only mistake this administration made defies belief...even if you support the invasion, they have bungled every aspect of it from the get go. Their foolish attitude was best summed up by that "Mission Accomplished" banner. Idiots.
 
Mephisto said:
Yes, mistakes HAVE been made, and by those very people who told us (although not all of us believed them) they knew what they were doing.

Those "mistakes" have cost over 2,000 Americans their lives, yet neo-cons think nothing of laughing at a picture in a ladies magazine while failing to admit the inadequacies of their fearless leader.

You're right in that the borders of Iraq are "porous," but if YOU knew that beforehand, and I knew that beforehand, WHY do you think this, apparently transparent fact, eluded the military planners of this war?
Click to expand...
I don't think this effort possible without mistakes or loss of life. Could the life have been mitigated? Certainly. Does that mean that there could have been an invasion with zero loss of life? No.

Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, etc. made mistakes that cost people their lives.

If you believe the effort worthless then I can see how you come to your POV. I don't believe it worthless and therefore I don't share your conclusions.
 
Mark said:
Justifying the war by bringing Clinton into it is a complete red herring. He did not invade Iraq.

To suggest that WMDs were the only mistake this administration made defies belief...even if you support the invasion, they have bungled every aspect of it from the get go. Their foolish attitude was best summed up by that "Mission Accomplished" banner. Idiots.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that those were the only mistakes I'm saying that those are the ones directly related to our discussion as I see it. I'm bringing up Clinton to provide context. I think it appropriate to view Iraq with all of the evidence and not that which conveniently fits your world view. No, Clinton didn't invade Iraq. That's not the point. He wanted regime change.
 
Mark said:
Their foolish attitude was best summed up by that "Mission Accomplished" banner. Idiots.
Click to expand...
The mission to topple Saddam had been accomplished. It was a PR blunder but correct. We had set a goal to overthrow Saddam and we accomplished that misssion. THAT was the purpose of that banner. Nothing on the banner said "war over everyone can go home."

Clearly you see the worst in everything the president does in regards to this effort. Is there a point to discussing these events with you? Is it possible for you to see the world any differently than you do now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom