None of this was worth it.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
<<< It would make reading your posts a shorter waist of time.[/quote]
LOL!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
None of this was worth it.[/quote]
I agree with you a lot, but disagree here.
I may shock some people, but if this kind of situation arose under the Obama abomination, I mean administration, I would support that too and yes I can conceive of a military move made by my country that I would not approve of.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Demiajax wrote:
In other words, we were facing a brutal dictator with the capability to develop WMDs and the proven willingness to use them. A dictator whose regime had had, as the 9/11 Commission has documented, frequent contacts with al Qaeda.
We have no conclusive evidence that he collaborated with al Qaeda on 9/11?but also no conclusive evidence that he did not. Under those circumstances, George W. Bush acted prudently in deciding to remove this regime. He would have been imprudent not to have done so.
This paragraph is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read.
This revisionist, apologist hack just advocated putting the lives of American troops in jeopardy for a hypothetical.
The entire justification for the war was “conclusive” evidence of WMDs. Even this moron admits there wasn’t conclusive evidence.
I would say the definition of imprudent is putting the lives of American citizens directly in harm’s way for a “maybe.”
The war was based on a lie from the start, then the goal posts started to get moved - “but… but… Sadam is a really bad guy!” Great. A bad guy who poses less of a risk to international security than many other “bad guys.”
This war is completely indefensible at every level.
Actually you are giving the revisionist view of the justification for war. If you don’t believe that listen to Bush’s address to the UN. Bush essentially said that the threat posed by WMD was so great that the risk of Saddam using them was too great to ignore and he wasn’t going to wait until after Sadaam had used WMD on the US.
9/11 changed the way that America was going to deal with threats, so that instead of waiting until after a bunch of Americans had died and then reacting we were instead going to be proactive and not wait until our people had died.
Also if you bothered to learn about the findings of the Iraq study group you would know that Sadaams own people who he had put in charge of developing WMD were giving him overly optimistic progress reports because they didn’t want to let Sadaam down.
So even Sadaam thought he had WMD because that is what his people were telling him.[/quote]
So wait… what exactly was revisionist about my post?
Let me synthesize.
-
Bush’s initial major premise for going into the Iraq war was to disarm Saddam Hussein’s WMDs.
-
When it became increasingly obvious that the evidence supporting point 1 wasn’t conclusive, the idea of “freeing the Iraqi people” from Big Bad Saddam starts to get shifted to the forefront.
I’m not sure why you included that third paragraph, because it actually helps my argument. There couldn’t be conclusive evidence that Saddam had WMDs, because he didn’t.
Bush’s 2002 UN council address proves my point. The majority of it is dealing with Saddam’s alleged proliferation of WMDs, which we now know to be false.
I’ve cited three examples of Bush’s speeches below showing the shift in emphasis. I’m not really sure how any rational person can see anything different by looking at the man’s words.
The level of misrepresentation in the third speech makes my head hurt.
Bush’s initial rationale:
"BUSH: “Saddam Hussein is not disarming. He is a danger to the world. He must disarm. And that’s why I have constantly said, and the prime minister has constantly said, this issue will come to a head in a matter of weeks, not months.”
January 31st, 2003
Rationale once the war began:
"THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. American and coalition forces have begun a concerted campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein. In this war, our coalition is broad, more than 40 countries from across the globe.
Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people"
March 22, 2003
Notice the added emphasis on “FREEDOM” here, vs DISARMAMENT.
Bush: "In the images of celebrating Iraqis, we have also seen the ageless appeal of human freedom. Decades of lies and intimidation could not make the Iraqi people love their oppressors or desire their own enslavement.
Men and women in every culture need liberty like they need food, and water, and air. Everywhere that freedom arrives, humanity rejoices. And everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear.
We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes.
We have begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We are helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools.
And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave ? and we will leave behind a free Iraq.
The Battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001, and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men ? the shock troops of a hateful ideology ? gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions.
They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the “beginning of the end of America.” By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed."
Don’t kow if any of you have read the
latest version of the NATO charter but it
says something to the effect that if any
member nation “suspects” a non-member
might be preparing to attack it with WMDs
then NATO should intervene with force. Sorry I’m having to paraphrase here.
Can’t remember if I read it before or after the 911 attacks but that is a pretty sobering thought and is exactly what Bush did. With that provision being in the charter
it would seem that France and Germany would have been more supportive of our efforts.