Bush's Handling Of The War

[chrisfan]

Skvor -- you're right that Cheney implied a connection once or twice. But the overall administration shut him down very quickly. That's why you are full of shit when you list all those other names.

As for the atrocities - did we do all we could? No. Should we have done more? YES! But what the hell is an established policy of regime change? It is not IGNORING the situation. I would agree with you that it is not enough. But it is factually incorrect to claim we did NOTHING. Do you understand the difference? If not, perhaps you're the one who needs to brush up on things before you go claiming I'm the ignorant one.

Now forgive me if I give you a fond fuck you for the remainder of this discussion. Your utter lack of respect to anything and anyone buy you is just not worth the time wasted to communicate with you.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

Eloquently spoken from someone that I would expect who's debate style has been outed. Now you're going to cry and piss and moan and say how mean I am to you and that you're over with the discussion like a child. Man, debating with you is like dating a 14 year old girl.

I'm full of shit when I list the other names? Really? I've seen Rumsfeld make the case on Face the Nation as well as with interviews with Jim Leher on PBS. Powell also made the ascertion before the UN, you can find the transcripts online and read them and BEFORE he went before the UN, he made the same sort of implications on Fox News and CNN. Still full of shit? Hardly. The only reason why the administration has shut down anyone is because they are off base. I'd actually think more of them if they had just told the public, "fuck it because we do what we want and this is what we want to do."

I do understand the difference between something and nothing, which would explain the nothing that the US does in Darfur, Cuba, China, N. Korea, Albania, the list goes on and on. Those are all countries that we have a position of regime change on, but yet have done nothing to stop the human rights violations of a single one of those countries. Chrisfan, I'm serious on this issue, I do think that you are wrong. It was only with the Kurdish Royal Family pleaded to be reinstated into power did we do anything to help their power plight. Their gift to us was oil and we needed it plain and simple. Even that was dressed up humanitarian, but it really wasn't since the Kurdish Royal family are evil. Did we help the Iraqis' when they said if you bring revolution we will bring ourselves? Nope. We didn't. We haven't.

I don't disrespect you though Chrisfan, I just think you're funny.

[chrisfan]

"Seriously, fucking read. "


"Try to think insteadof back peddling into the something that I am not insinuating."

"Did you put your brain in a mego brain case or did you walk into a real life Men In Black minderaser?"

Your interpretaton of respect is unique to say the very least.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

Weak example, dude. I thought you already took all your toys home and it wasn't worth your time? Dude, you can't discuss anything anymore because you already went home to pet your puss. I thought you were "fuck you"ing for the rest of the debate. Where's my fuck you?

[skvorisdeadsorta]

I also hate to tell you this Chrisfan, but you brought you're attitude way before I brought any of mine.

[RocDoc]

Her 'debate-style' has been outed?
Sussed, you say?

By who's keen analysis?
Yeah. So when's Mary's 'debate style' also going to be 'outed' then?

CF is able to shut down 99% of ya's with the same damn (and usually quite calm) debate style as the great La Blaney...your 'philosophical' differences don't allow for a disagreement so a 'disconnect' is the default setting...with this disconnect is then frantically trying for any justification to rationalize her away...including flat out insults.

Yeah, it's strictly cause she's ha-ha 'funny' to you...?
Intimidated...threatened, try.

...and to me THAT is far more funny.

<sub>...and Powell's assertions were backed by Brit and US intel FED to them by Iraqi exiles and refugees whose hatred for Sodom was so great that in true 3rd World fashion, no lie was too big to feed Blair's or Bush's intel conduits. They were lied TO by those people with a BIG (and frankly justified) axe to grind.

But THEN they (the 'Coalition') fucked it up in thousands of other ways in their execution, YES!</sub>

[Galactus]

I guess "shut down" is matter of perspective...anyway yeah before the war Team Bush was pushing a connection to Iraq pretty hard. When it started becoming more clear there wasn't one it became much more insinuation though Cheney, for one, still said on more then a couple occasions there was a direct link to 9/11. Even after the White House had released offcial statments saying there was no connection to 9/11 Bush and Cheney still peddled it on the campaign trail.

I still don't buy that they were being lied to, Bush has shown repeatedly he favors intel that's inline with his predetermined feelings on a given subject. If Bush was lied it's because he wanted to be lied to. The same reason the country has allowed itself to be lied to. We wanted to believe it and so we did...and now more and more are looking back and saying maybe it wasn't such a good idea.

[strat-0]

I've only skimmed this thread, and while I see some good points on both sides, most of it has been covered by these dear members several times. It just seems like so much wasted breath to me at this point to even try to post. No one ever budges in the slightest, one way or the other, despite how things unfold. Sometimes it just sounds like a broken record (younger viewers read: a faulty CD).

I put a lot of thought into the last post I made on this subject a few weeks ago at CE9, which passed without comment. Maybe I'm just too tired. I gotta say, skvor bases his points in sound history and reasoning, if I may be so bold.

[chrisfan]

What would be an example of Bush peddling it on the campaign trail? As I said, I acknowledged that Cheney alleged it a few times - and was quickly shut down. But Bush keeps being attached to it to. Other than his surrogate(s) implying it, when did HE do it?

Further, there are without question those former administration officials who have asserted that Bush was pushing for intelligence which implicated Iraq, and searching for a reality that he wanted to be true. O'Neil and Clarke are probably the most notorious two. There are also quite a few who refute those claims. How exactly do you determine that all the weight shouldbe put behind those who ... for lack of a better way to describe it ... fit within the information you want to hear about Bush?

[skvorisdeadsorta]

Roc Doc, I love you, I really do. Your music taste is really good but your political stances are ones that usually give me a good chuckle and shake my head. As far as anyone shutting me down, I hardly think that Chrisfan has done anything or the sort, though I do appreciate that you think you're some sort of Cavalry. Calm as Mary? Hardly, and though I do like her (Chrisfan, I know hard to believe) she's no Mary. None of you are as intelligent or as sweet to me as Mary, me included. Yes, Mary is my politcal crush, so to speak.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

Being from Texas I have never liked Bush. Does that mean that I am a Bush hater? No........I could go on and on about the problems that I have with Clinton, Bush the first, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, and LBJ. I would even go so far as to say that the last thing we need in office is another goddamn Texan. My problem with this government is BOTH parties and the institution in general. If a democrat was in office, I would still be against the war stating the same reasons. You're looking at about the only guy that protested Bill Clinton's appearance here (Austin) at Book People for probably and infinite amount of reasons. To me it's not a matter of Bush or whoever or liberal or conservative.

[Artknocker]

Skvor, I listen to Savage quite regularly, and I don't recall him being against the war in Iraq FROM THE START. And I don't buy his argument that Bush is a liberal (in true Savage style he tends to get a tad carried away), although Bush is certainly not conservative enough for my taste. Now, I still maintain that the main reason we went into Iraq was to protect our country. Just because it looks now like they may not have been as imminent a threat as we were led to believe does not mean we should just now cut and run. As much as I, too, would love to see the troops come home ASAP and as many of their lives spared as possible, I believe that it would be very dangerous to both us and the Iraqis if we leave Iraq while it's still so unstable. The Iraqis have to be able to fight for themselves against these damn suicide bombers and their government has to be on the right track. However, I think there is only so much we can do and after that it's in the Iraqis' hands. I don't wish for us to stay there for years and years while we lose more lives and hear cries of "occupiers" when there's more terrorists to confront in other areas of the world. When we can leave Iraq, unfortunately, we just have to trust the government on that one.

Obviously, I don't agree with our giving any kind of support to dictatorships or terrorists. I don't know how any of that was supposed to be in our best interests, except for possibly the arms-for-hostages deal. But all of that is in the past where it belongs, except hopefully as we move on from it we can learn some lessons from where we went wrong.

I'll get off the lib thing--fair enough--if we can agree that conservatives can have pretty diverse opinions as well.

P.S. The enemy of my enemy is my friend...makes sense to me.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

Art, I do agree that there are some conservatives out there that I do find diverse. While I think at times Pat Buchanan is a nut job, his views on CAFTA are right on. That is definitely something that I can agree with. As far as the Savage thing, I actually heard him say on his show a couple of weeks ago that he "has had misgivings on the war since day one".

I'm sorry, Art, and every one knows how I feel, I just don't believe that invading Iraq helped my freedom at all. Now, if you really look at this from a military strategy, all those involved in country (Iraq) will tell you that they are NOT there for the freedom of the Iraqi's. There are there to bring the fight to the Terrorists and they happen to be doing it at a central location. This is another reason why I am against the war. They knew going in that operation was going to be drawing in all of the seditious elements of the region and hopefully to contain it, all the while giving the impression that the Iraqi people are just being used as a convenient shield. I honestly think that the Iraqi people are the furthest thing from the minds of the military and the administration. I think if the administration would just outright say it, they might get a little more respect. As far as the "government has to be on the right track", does that track include their own or the track that lies in our self-interest? Bush has been puffing his chest out worrying about the people electing a constitution with an Islamic basis. Why would this be such a bad thing? We have a Christian based constitution but we also respect the religions of others in the first amendment. I find this being a find example of "our democracy or the highway" kind of antics that is opposed to the idea of democracy all together.

"P.S. The enemy of my enemy is my friend...makes sense to me."
On this front I have to disagree with you again. We befriended and trained Bin Laden and the Tali-ban (although think about this, horrible as the Tali-ban was, with their strict religious beliefs the poppy production was almost non-existent during their rule of Afghanistan) to "defeat" the Soviets. We provided Saddam Hussein with Gas, Missiles, Tanks, and Rifles to put and end to the Iran/Iraq conflict. We have even let the known associates of despots like that of Pol Pot and his cronies seek asylum in this country. No, no, no.....I think we could have avoided many sticky things if we had done a little more research on the kinds of "friends" we're making just because of their dislike for one of our enemies.

[kmc]

In my opinion, it takes a willfully naive belief in the current administration to believe that Dick Cheney's campaign of misinformation in the build up to war was not the intention of our government. I remember still the Bush press conferences when he asserted, upon questioning, that Iraq and 9/11 were separate entities. He might as well have been patting Dick Cheney on the back.

Moreover, it must be emphasized that, even though the President might not have specifically mentioned Iraq as the perpetrator for September 11th, the mention of Iraq as the central front in the War on Terror when "terror" in the American mind equaled the events of September 11th is to, at a very base level at least, correlate the two in the "eager for revenge" American mind. Take that for what it's worth, but there are polls and numbers to prove that a large faction of Americans equate Saddam with the falling of the twin towers. Certainly, the liberal media has done a lot to solidify that state.

A broader question: as I've been reading certain philosophies of war a certain question comes to mind of whether or not any sort of permanent peace can be won through the subjugation of your enemies, to whit: a strong argument can be made that the wars fought in the 20th century had as their cause the previous war, i.e., without World War I, we might not have had World War II, and maybe no Cold War and its respective incidents, and maybe no post Cold War Arab world empowered by the superpowers to wreak havok on the western world.

Can a war in Iraq truly keep us safe from terrorism, or can it, at best, stall the inevitable next terrible world event?

[Artknocker]

No, Skv, I mean bin Laden was Saddam's friend because they're both our enemy.

I actually heard him say on his show a couple of weeks ago that he "has had misgivings on the war since day one".
Well, that's easy for him to say NOW, isn't it?

I personally don't care if their government is Islamic (wouldn't it naturally be Islamic considering what region of the world they're in?)--I just care that it's free of association with terrorists. That's in our interest (again, why we're over there in the first place), but also in theirs as well. Now whether you can have an Islamic government in Iraq without there being terrorist ties is the issue.