Topic: Bush's War???

[Demon67]

I shouldn't open my mouth but, any of the world wide support for America before and after 9/11 was squandered by Bush for whatever reasons and for that he should be reviled, as far as the invasion of Iraq goes Bush's little clique has made the world get really twitchy over the possability that they might be invaded for equally flimsy reasons and that people is going to make dealing with the rest of the world more difficult for you, I would suspect, for you as country, that it would be in your best interests, long term to hold a crimes against humanity enquiry or trial.
Bill the demon

[edbikerii]

Yes, Dan, when I posted the article (in its entirety) I was aware that some of the events in the lengthy saga of Iraqi chemical, biological and nuclear weapons seem inappropriate if you ignore more than two decades of documented Iraqi violations that preceded them.  However, I posted the entire history for intelligent people to get the WHOLE STORY before making up their minds.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4996218

[DammitDan]

Ed, let me give you an example of what you're doing.  You're not arguing a point, you're just throwing evidence at us and saying, "See, look at this evidence, I must be right!" without actually pointing out any SUPPORTING evidence for your claim.

It would be like me giving you this:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf

And then saying, "If you were intelligent enough then you would see that I'm obviously correct."  No page numbers, no quotes, just evidence and no claim.

Like I said, the "video" you provided is trying to make a link between the 1998 speeches about chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction (which yes, we all know he HAD them and USED them) and the 2002 intelligence that Bush based this war on of advanced nuclear development in Iraq, which was a (not so) vital threat to our national security.  Posting a 4 page timeline and saying, "Just look at it, and if you don't see then you're an idiot" doesn't make your case.

[edbikerii]

OK, Dan, let me make this very simple:

Saddam Hussein and his government had a long history (more than twenty years) of manufacturing and using chemical and biological agents against their enemies and even against innocent Iraqi civilians (the Kurds).  He had worked on a nuclear program that could have potentially been used to produce nuclear weapons.  He had launched rockets against our allies.  He and his government repeatedly violated the terms of various WMD agreements and they deliberately tried to sidestep the inspectors several times.  All of these things are facts.  Unless you can dispute any of these, then we need to simply accept them as facts and move on.

I may not be the smartest guy in the world, but based on that long history of producing, hiding and killing people with those weapons, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this guy and his government was dangerous, and it was only a matter of time before he started all over again.

Ed, let me give you an example of what you're doing.  You're not arguing a point, you're just throwing evidence at us and saying, "See, look at this evidence, I must be right!" without actually pointing out any SUPPORTING evidence for your claim.

It would be like me giving you this:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf

And then saying, "If you were intelligent enough then you would see that I'm obviously correct."  No page numbers, no quotes, just evidence and no claim.

Like I said, the "video" you provided is trying to make a link between the 1998 speeches about chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction (which yes, we all know he HAD them and USED them) and the 2002 intelligence that Bush based this war on of advanced nuclear development in Iraq, which was a (not so) vital threat to our national security.  Posting a 4 page timeline and saying, "Just look at it, and if you don't see then you're an idiot" doesn't make your case.

[DammitDan]

And none of the reasons you stated were the main reason why we went to war with Iraq.

Saddam Hussein was an awful human being.  He didn't deserve to live, much less have power.  But "being a bad guy" by itself does not give us the right to invade a sovereign nation.  So there had to be a bigger reason:

NUCLEAR THREAT!  Iraq is so incredibly close to developingnuclear technologythat weneedto invadethemnow forthesafetyof ourCHILDREN!  OMGZORZ!

But it turns out that the nuclear threat was fabricated.  No evidence was found while the inspectors were there, and no evidence was found after we invaded their country.  But that didn't matter, because Bush, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Services, pushed the "Go Button" regardless of the validity of this "nuclear threat" intelligence.  Saddam has done it before, and he'll do it again, right?

But remember, a "pre-emptive strike" from one side could also be seen as a "blatant act of imperialist aggression" from the other. 

[edbikerii]

Saddam had no nukes in Iraq huh?

The first time:

Israel Attacks ::: June 7, 1981
Israeli warplanes make a surprise attack on the French-built Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad. Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin says that his country had to act before Iraq could successfully build a nuclear weapon to use against the Jewish state. Saddam Hussein's Iraqi government says the reactor was not part of a plan to build nuclear weapons.

The second time:

Nuclear, Chemical Weapons Programs Destroyed ::: 1994
UNSCOM completes the destruction of Iraq's known chemical weapons and production equipment. IAEA teams largely complete their mandate to neutralize Iraq's nuclear program, including the destruction of facilities Iraq had not even declared to inspectors.

The third time:

Defection and Revelation ::: Aug. 8, 1995
Hussein Kamel, the former director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation, responsible for all WMD programs, defects to Jordan. As a result, Iraq admits to a far more developed biological weapons programs than it had previously disclosed. Saddam Hussein's government also hands over documents related to its nuclear weapons program and admits to the attempted recovery of highly-enriched uranium.

More support:

The Fight Against Proliferation ::: 1997
The Additional Protocol is added to the global Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), giving IAEA inspectors more authority to investigate programs in member states. The protocol is in response to the realization that Iraq -- a NPT signatory -- had been able to move swiftly and covertly toward the construction of a nuclear weapon in the late 1980s under the treaty's previous safeguards. Inspections in the 1990s revealed that Iraq was much closer to building a nuclear weapon in the 1980s than had been suspected by IAEA officials

We all know the source.  It came from the NPR article that KK linked to, and I've posted it (in its entirety) in this thread.  Or if you prefer, you can quote the 9/11 commission report that Dan posted earlier.  It contains the same facts.

[DammitDan]

Israel Attacks ::: June 7, 1981
Israeli warplanes make a surprise attack on the French-built Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad. Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin says that his country had to act before Iraq could successfully build a nuclear weapon to use against the Jewish state. Saddam Hussein's Iraqi government says the reactor was not part of a plan to build nuclear weapons.

So Israel feared the threat of a nuclear weapon and attacked another country.  Not saying it's unjustifiable fear, but it's fear nonetheless.  And they actually attacked the country when there was solid PROOF of a nuclear program (a nuclear reactor).

The second time:
Nuclear, Chemical Weapons Programs Destroyed ::: 1994
UNSCOM completes the destruction of Iraq's known chemical weapons and production equipment. IAEA teams largely complete their mandate to neutralize Iraq's nuclear program, including the destruction of facilities Iraq had not even declared to inspectors.

In other words, they destroyed the last remnants of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction production capability.  Good.  It was also in 1994, almost 10 years before Bush Jr. invaded.

The third time:
Defection and Revelation ::: Aug. 8, 1995
Hussein Kamel, the former director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation, responsible for all WMD programs, defects to Jordan. As a result, Iraq admits to a far more developed biological weapons programs than it had previously disclosed. Saddam Hussein's government also hands over documents related to its nuclear weapons program and admits to the attempted recovery of highly-enriched uranium.

Documents do not equal nuclear weapons development programs.  And attempting recovery of uranium does not equal RECOVERING uranium.

More support:
The Fight Against Proliferation ::: 1997
The Additional Protocol is added to the global Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), giving IAEA inspectors more authority to investigate programs in member states. The protocol is in response to the realization that Iraq -- a NPT signatory -- had been able to move swiftly and covertly toward the construction of a nuclear weapon in the late 1980s under the treaty's previous safeguards. Inspections in the 1990s revealed that Iraq was much closer to building a nuclear weapon in the 1980s than had been suspected by IAEA officials

Once again, nothing to do with a modern Nuclear weapons development program.

So I reiterate:

Saddam had no nukes in Iraq huh?

No, Saddam had NO nukes in Iraq.  We invaded a sovereign country on a false premise to appease a corporate mandate of greed.

And I should hope the 9/11 commission report doesn't contain ANYTHING related to nuclear weapons in Iraq, as that was not the purpose of the commission.

[edbikerii]

OK Dan, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, then.  I guess Hillary and Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright and all those other people in the video were just lying way back in 1997 and 1998 when they suggested that Iraq needed to be stopped.

Israel Attacks ::: June 7, 1981
Israeli warplanes make a surprise attack on the French-built Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad. Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin says that his country had to act before Iraq could successfully build a nuclear weapon to use against the Jewish state. Saddam Hussein's Iraqi government says the reactor was not part of a plan to build nuclear weapons.

So Israel feared the threat of a nuclear weapon and attacked another country.  Not saying it's unjustifiable fear, but it's fear nonetheless.  And they actually attacked the country when there was solid PROOF of a nuclear program (a nuclear reactor).

The second time:
Nuclear, Chemical Weapons Programs Destroyed ::: 1994
UNSCOM completes the destruction of Iraq's known chemical weapons and production equipment. IAEA teams largely complete their mandate to neutralize Iraq's nuclear program, including the destruction of facilities Iraq had not even declared to inspectors.

In other words, they destroyed the last remnants of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction production capability.  Good.  It was also in 1994, almost 10 years before Bush Jr. invaded.

The third time:
Defection and Revelation ::: Aug. 8, 1995
Hussein Kamel, the former director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation, responsible for all WMD programs, defects to Jordan. As a result, Iraq admits to a far more developed biological weapons programs than it had previously disclosed. Saddam Hussein's government also hands over documents related to its nuclear weapons program and admits to the attempted recovery of highly-enriched uranium.

Documents do not equal nuclear weapons development programs.  And attempting recovery of uranium does not equal RECOVERING uranium.

More support:
The Fight Against Proliferation ::: 1997
The Additional Protocol is added to the global Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), giving IAEA inspectors more authority to investigate programs in member states. The protocol is in response to the realization that Iraq -- a NPT signatory -- had been able to move swiftly and covertly toward the construction of a nuclear weapon in the late 1980s under the treaty's previous safeguards. Inspections in the 1990s revealed that Iraq was much closer to building a nuclear weapon in the 1980s than had been suspected by IAEA officials

Once again, nothing to do with a modern Nuclear weapons development program.

So I reiterate:

Saddam had no nukes in Iraq huh?

No, Saddam had NO nukes in Iraq.  We invaded a sovereign country on a false premise to appease a corporate mandate of greed.

And I should hope the 9/11 commission report doesn't contain ANYTHING related to nuclear weapons in Iraq, as that was not the purpose of the commission.

[DammitDan]

OK Dan, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, then

I agree 

[upperlake04]

     

[racerx95]

Mr K8 chunder is wrong! if you had listened to the original broadcast of Rushs show you would have known that is was Rosie O`donnel who called for riots at the democratic convention.

[racerx95]

I guess we agree to dissagree,,and we all ride off into the sunset on our SOHCs

[Demon67]

Yeah Dan there will be bunches that hop on the band wagon of imperialist aggression, I was kind of hoping (personally) that I didn't have to listen to another decade of the old imperialist aggression retoric I seem to have listened to it for most of my life. It would be nice if the enemies of america would get a little more creative in their catch phases.
Bill the demon.

[eldar]

So racer, the link I posted was wrong? Then you post a link of your own. Come one do, I dare you. Show that my post from news source was wrong.

You wanna talk names, racerx was a half-assed band long dead!

[DammitDan]

(I think he was being sarcastic...) 

[edit]Or maybe he's not...  hmm

[racerx95]

Soooo, how bout those redwings?

[Terry in Australia]

I can't believe that with all the information available now, anyone here would still believe that invading Iraq could be justified?

4000+ American servicemen dead, 300+ coalition troops dead, 1.2 million Iraqi's dead, and for what? So we can say that we've freed Iraq of an evil dictator? Big fuucking deal!



 

[edbikerii]

Just ask these guys.

[Boost_Junkiee]

Bush is an idiot who made decisions based on his own personal convictions rather than what is right for the country. He covered up the real reason for going to Iraq by using 9/11 to invade instead of the real reason which is trying to force a country into democracy that has major corruption. He knew no one would back him if he used his true reasoning for going to war. I feel he did this so that the negotiations over oil would become easily persuaded by doing the typical politics. i.e. buying your way and using big bucks to get what you want. It is obvious that we are in an oil crisis and I feel he had the knowledge of this long before we really started to feel the pinch. Fact is even if we "win" this war what becomes of it? What did we accomplish? Besides killing thousand of troops and innocent people caught in the crossfire. Bush has done nothing for  us besides make the economy in the worst shape it has been in years, gas prices are higher than before and has steadily risen in record numbers, unemployment is on a steady rise, middle class like me feel it the most. We make too much money to qualify for any government plans but not enough to buy groceries and stay afloat. I personally have battled trying to keep the bills paid and try to stay caught up with inflation, the rise of fuel prices so I can get to work, rising groceries prices, everything costs a lot more and is rising. Hell eggs have doubled in price along with milk and other dairy products. Inflation is on a steady rise and Im not making any more money to compensate. This $1600 check I got from the government helped me very little. It just paid bills that we are behind on. Its too little too late and I am sure we borrowed that money from another country as we have been since we are now TRILLIONS in debt to other countries. He spends OUR money like a spoiled brat that he is and has no sense of his actions. He needs to get us out of this multi BILLION dollar war we don't need to fight and get to working on our economy and fix whats wrong HERE. There is no excuse for all the #$%* that is happening here like people starving, families going homeless because they can no longer afford their mortgage, people losing their jobs to overseas cheap labor, children going without health care, people going hungry in our own country and he is off trying to fix another country. How can you back something like this war with things like this going on in our own backyard!? Its time for America to open their eyes and see what happening HERE #$%* Iraq! Fix us first!

[eldar]

A supersized +1!

[nickjtc]

I'm not a US resident and I agree with those sentiments, too. Mainly on the basis that if the US economy goes down the toilet ours is going to follow soon after.

[edbikerii]

Why do you blame Bush for Iraq?  Bill Clinton argued that we should go to war in Iraq long before Bush was the President:   See it for yourself.

No, we did not find the WMD that the Clintons, Albright, Edwards, Bush, etc. claimed were there.  But, we have not had any serious terrorist attacks on us since 2001.  We have thwarted many attacks both in the US and globally, but those unsuccessful attacks just don't make good headlines, huh?

If you really feel that the irrational exuberance [Alan Greenspan, 1996] of the late 90s was the basis of a "good economy", then I guess you can't help being disappointed that the technology keg ran dry and the music slowed to more rational levels.  Yes, it sucks that the ridiculous party had to stop, but it sure isn't Bush's fault.

Bush is an idiot who made decisions based on his own personal convictions rather than what is right for the country. He covered up the real reason for going to Iraq by using 9/11 to invade instead of the real reason which is trying to force a country into democracy that has major corruption. He knew no one would back him if he used his true reasoning for going to war. I feel he did this so that the negotiations over oil would become easily persuaded by doing the typical politics. i.e. buying your way and using big bucks to get what you want. It is obvious that we are in an oil crisis and I feel he had the knowledge of this long before we really started to feel the pinch. Fact is even if we "win" this war what becomes of it? What did we accomplish? Besides killing thousand of troops and innocent people caught in the crossfire. Bush has done nothing for  us besides make the economy in the worst shape it has been in years, gas prices are higher than before and has steadily risen in record numbers, unemployment is on a steady rise, middle class like me feel it the most. We make too much money to qualify for any government plans but not enough to buy groceries and stay afloat. I personally have battled trying to keep the bills paid and try to stay caught up with inflation, the rise of fuel prices so I can get to work, rising groceries prices, everything costs a lot more and is rising. Hell eggs have doubled in price along with milk and other dairy products. Inflation is on a steady rise and Im not making any more money to compensate. This $1600 check I got from the government helped me very little. It just paid bills that we are behind on. Its too little too late and I am sure we borrowed that money from another country as we have been since we are now TRILLIONS in debt to other countries. He spends OUR money like a spoiled brat that he is and has no sense of his actions. He needs to get us out of this multi BILLION dollar war we don't need to fight and get to working on our economy and fix whats wrong HERE. There is no excuse for all the #$%* that is happening here like people starving, families going homeless because they can no longer afford their mortgage, people losing their jobs to overseas cheap labor, children going without health care, people going hungry in our own country and he is off trying to fix another country. How can you back something like this war with things like this going on in our own backyard!? Its time for America to open their eyes and see what happening HERE #$%* Iraq! Fix us first!

[Uncle Ernie]

About 20 to 30% of the Americans who still support Bush are really using the old 'unite against our enemies" thing.  They are convinced they're right while following behind a Right Wing extremist (terrorist) front man who has no clue what he's done.  It's not Bush, it's the "military-industrial complex" behind him that are all getting R I C H.
The man who presided over the most boring decade in American history said it really quite well.  I suppose he was too soft spoken or not controversial enough, or something.  This speech is so prescient, it's scary.
Supporters of the present admin wil not see themselves here, of course.  

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

I think about Myanmar.  What if all the people marched on that dictaors compound.  Would the government shoot EVERYone?  So what?  If the choice between death is starvation or a bullet- which would YOU choose?  
Throw the bums OUT.  

Our forefathers wrote in to the Constitution a provision for protection against -well, all you gun guys know.  So what happens when we as a country lose our moral outrage and prefer blackberries over honesty and forthrightness?  Oh- it's late and I had a tough day at work and the dam kids need to be fed and I never have any time to myself and anything I do doesn't amount to a hill of beans anyway.  You know, you may laugh but I wonder if you really could put a turbo charger on your lawn mower like Tim Allen did in that one show...?

War has always been good for business and the foks ...starting to go afield here.  Read that speech.  It's not too long or anything.

[eldar]

Yeah but bush certainly has NOT made thing better. Or do you LIKE $4 a gallon? Even back in the 70s during the gas crisis, prices did not do this. I have talked to many old timers and they admit to never seeing anything like this before, even in 73. Funny how it all started after bush took office. I doubt that is a coincidence but I am sure you will find some garbage to tainted that it would make ann coulter proud, that allows you to blame clinton.

[Boost_Junkiee]

Why do you blame Bush for Iraq?  Bill Clinton argued that we should go to war in Iraq long before Bush was the President:   See it for yourself.

No, we did not find the WMD that the Clintons, Albright, Edwards, Bush, etc. claimed were there.  But, we have not had any serious terrorist attacks on us since 2001.  We have thwarted many attacks both in the US and globally, but those unsuccessful attacks just don't make good headlines, huh?

If you really feel that the irrational exuberance [Alan Greenspan, 1996] of the late 90s was the basis of a "good economy", then I guess you can't help being disappointed that the technology keg ran dry and the music slowed to more rational levels.  Yes, it sucks that the ridiculous party had to stop, but it sure isn't Bush's fault.

Don't blame bush?? I am quite apalled at that. He pulled the trigger. Saying and doing are two different things. CLinton at least helped the economy to a degree. You can link to all kinds of stuff but I don't listen to news or follow stories, I go with what I see everyday and what I live in. You must be rebublican and have money (not to attack your personal character but thats usually who are Bush supporters, if you aren't then I stand corrected) you have money to protect, you don't feel what us lower class citizens feel. You can put $100 of gas in your SUV and not flinch. Bush is lining his pockets and made a bed that the American people have to lie in. He still comes out rich and above it all while we all pay for his action. EVERYTHING is done on behalf of the almighty dollar. Money reigns over everything. Explain how the Bush family had ties with Bin Ladens family? I feel 9/11 is because of a business deal gone wrong and was payback for stepping on thier toes. Your saying he has kept terrorist out of the US? Wake up, he IS the terrorist. He makes the poor decisions and his backers don't question. Of course they (media backed by Republican$ i.e. fox news etc.) would say they are keeping the terrorist out of the US so that they can justify our retarded president actions. Everyone is bought or persuaded to beleive in this crap about why we are over there but its clear to me why. Let them try to come over here and to terristic acts. You think us americans will let somone come over here and invade us? Not likely. Let them try. I will be the first to shoot their head of their shoulders. They tool over planes with Box cutters, wow GENIUS! Maybe if they government took the threats given long before and did theier job we wouldn't be in this prediciment. But once again we have been let down by the government that we hold too high. Its all corupt. I am just sick and tired of waiting on them to do something to fix whats wrong here and I am ready for a change. You can argue with me till your blue in the face but you are the minority, I can guarantee that. So keep supporting that douchbag but remember when your bank account is dry and your pushing your SUV remember who is part of the problem and who is part of the solution. Somethings got to give and it will with an almighty blow. Just think that if we invested all this money on the US economy and fixing healthcare and supporting OUR people then on this BS war how much better off we would be? You may or may not care because you haven't felt the pinch yet but its a matter of time. It's just sad to see how blind some people can be about what is going on around them. Have you visited a food bank? Yup, middleclass folk have to go there to eat because they make too much money to get government support. Have you been to louisiana? oh ya we forgot about the thousands that are still homeless. What about the children dying here because they can't get the healthcare they need. You don't care because its not YOUR kid. Something will hit home for you and you will see. More and more people are waking up and realizing that we are getting the short end of the stick. You say its not his fault but what has he done to FIX IT? Jack S&$T!