Spilled Milk
I'm tired of talking about it, but I'm writing this post anyway. The United States had NO BUSINESS invading Iraq. Are there really people out there who still think otherwise? I don't want to unilaterally pull troops out of there - at this point that would do more harm than good - but I want EVERYONE to admit it was a terrible, idiotic mistake, and I want Bush fired. Get a real leader at the helm of this country. PLEASE!!!
The credible argument against Bush's reasons for turning his back on the UN and world opinion to invade Iraq is that all of them - each and every reason - could be applied to numerous other countries. It seems rather "convenient" that Iraq was the one out of at least a dozen nations that Bush chose to invade. It made it look conspicuously like he had ulterior motives - which the Halliburton thing further exasperated.
Weapons of mass destruction? Do we even need to go there?? Like I said, that litmus test could be applied to NUMEROUS other countries including Pakistan and North Korea. On top of that, IRAQ DIDN'T HAVE ANY WMD, just like the UN told us!
Al Qaeda training camps? What about Pakistan, Iran, England, the United States, Egypt, & Saudi Arabia? They've all got them too. We could go on and on discrediting every solitary reason Bush had for going in there. The bottom line is, the only logical motive for invading had to be his oil interests, and probably because he had a vendetta to fulfill since his daddy went in. It's that simple. It's not a leftist conspiracy theory, it's not communist propaganda, it is just common sense - something that has become virtually extinct in our federal government.
This is the type of "leadership" Bush has shown throughout his presidency in almost all matters. He cannot lead effectively because his administration is filled with Bush family corporate cronies and he has an overwhelming sense of entitlement and foolish pride.
We're seeing more and more true conservatives turn their back in disgust at this administration because they see Bush & Co. only stand for corruption and indifference. If only the dems could have put a more realistic alternative up in last year's election (instead of "Bush Lite"). Maybe then we would be seeing a modicum of change right now instead of more of the same. Regardless of whether you voted for the man or not, the entire country should join most of the rest of the world in feeling betrayed and left behind by this administration of jackals. If only partisan loyalty wasn't so strong, then we would probably stand a chance of impeaching this monster and getting someone with morals that aren't mere sound bites and lip service. I am a proud American, and as such I hang my head in shame of our leadership. With any luck, when we look back at the debacle of George W. Bush's eight years in office, we will be so appalled that we start to embrace diplomacy and strive for real world peace, instead of acting through short-sightedness, fear and greed. With any luck we'll get a person with integrity in office. Wouldn't that be nice for a change?
The credible argument against Bush's reasons for turning his back on the UN and world opinion to invade Iraq is that all of them - each and every reason - could be applied to numerous other countries. It seems rather "convenient" that Iraq was the one out of at least a dozen nations that Bush chose to invade. It made it look conspicuously like he had ulterior motives - which the Halliburton thing further exasperated.
Weapons of mass destruction? Do we even need to go there?? Like I said, that litmus test could be applied to NUMEROUS other countries including Pakistan and North Korea. On top of that, IRAQ DIDN'T HAVE ANY WMD, just like the UN told us!
Al Qaeda training camps? What about Pakistan, Iran, England, the United States, Egypt, & Saudi Arabia? They've all got them too. We could go on and on discrediting every solitary reason Bush had for going in there. The bottom line is, the only logical motive for invading had to be his oil interests, and probably because he had a vendetta to fulfill since his daddy went in. It's that simple. It's not a leftist conspiracy theory, it's not communist propaganda, it is just common sense - something that has become virtually extinct in our federal government.
This is the type of "leadership" Bush has shown throughout his presidency in almost all matters. He cannot lead effectively because his administration is filled with Bush family corporate cronies and he has an overwhelming sense of entitlement and foolish pride.
We're seeing more and more true conservatives turn their back in disgust at this administration because they see Bush & Co. only stand for corruption and indifference. If only the dems could have put a more realistic alternative up in last year's election (instead of "Bush Lite"). Maybe then we would be seeing a modicum of change right now instead of more of the same. Regardless of whether you voted for the man or not, the entire country should join most of the rest of the world in feeling betrayed and left behind by this administration of jackals. If only partisan loyalty wasn't so strong, then we would probably stand a chance of impeaching this monster and getting someone with morals that aren't mere sound bites and lip service. I am a proud American, and as such I hang my head in shame of our leadership. With any luck, when we look back at the debacle of George W. Bush's eight years in office, we will be so appalled that we start to embrace diplomacy and strive for real world peace, instead of acting through short-sightedness, fear and greed. With any luck we'll get a person with integrity in office. Wouldn't that be nice for a change?
posted by Smorgasbord at 4:13 PM
13 Comments:
The credible argument against Bush's reasons for turning his back on the UN and world opinion to invade Iraq is that all of them - each and every reason - could be applied to numerous other countries.
Several countries pose a threat, we cannot deal with all them simultaneously, so we cannot deal with any of them? That's silly.
WMD's: Based on the intelligence available, also only one of several reasons for going in. Iraq had the responsibility for proving they disarmed, they failed to do that.
al Qaeda training camps: you seem to be admitting that, along with other countries, Iraq had them. The difference being these other countries are actively cracking down on al Qaeda. With the possible exception of Saudi Arabia. They need to be put under a little more pressure. Coincidentally, the Islamists are now attacking that government and forcing it to act in a way we want.
The bottom line is, the only logical motive for invading had to be his oil interests, and probably because he had a vendetta to fulfill since his daddy went in.
I disagree. As said before, after 9/11 threats are processed differently. Bush is consistently criticized for not correctly "interpreting the signs" and "taking action" prior to 9/11. Afterwards, he and the Administration do just that and he's criticized. Let's face it. The Middle East is a breeding ground for terrorism. Because Islam is being preached in such a way as to create terrorists. The region needs to be stabilized. Democracy is a fantastic stabilizer.
Smorgasbord, well said. You're absolutely right. Sean is wrong. He wants to believe the lie of the century.
Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, recently said in a sarcastic critique of thr Bush regime:
"You see, the facts that the US invaded Iraq on false pretenses, killed and maimed tens of thousands of Iraqis, shot down women and children in the streets, blew up Iraqis' homes, hospitals and mosques, cut Iraqis off from vital services such as water and electricity, destroyed the institutions of civil society, left half the population without means of livelihood, filled up prisons with people picked up off the streets and then tortured and humiliated them for fun and games are not facts that explain why there is an insurgency. These facts are just descriptions of collateral damage associated with America 'bringing democracy to Iraq.'" link
Sean, your comment about not attacking any countries because many posed a threat is not what I'm saying. I think, if we had to attack a country (which of course we didn't), we should have gone after one that we KNEW was threat. We KNEW, for example, that Pakistan breaded terrorists and ACTUALLY HAD WMD. We KNEW North Korea had WMD because their "brutal dictator" proudly told us.
You really don't think it's suspicious that we chose NOT to attack one of the other countries we KNEW was a threat in order to invade an oil rich country we simply THOUGHT was a threat (despite the UN and others telling us it wasn't)? It just doesn't add up to me.
No Smorg, I don't think its suspicious.
North Korea is not ideologically/religiously/culturally aligned with Islamist terrorists (by ideologically I mean NK wants more power and influence internationally, not to destroy the Western world). Iraq was. NK had neighbors who are aligned with our interests and willing and able to put pressure on NK to reverse course - most notably China. There were no such mitigating neighbors of Iraq.
As for Pakistan, that government has been working with us to stop the threat from Islamists. They are making great strides with India (last time I checked) regarding border issues. They have evidenced their support for stopping al Qaeda and for creating dialogue with India, a long time sparring partner. I don't think Pakistan needed to be invaded. If the government is toppled by extremists, yes, we should disarm them immediately.
Oh, and Shea, hospitals, mosques, and civilians were not "targeted". Our troops were severely handicapped in their attempt to fight urban warfare against non-uniformed "troops" without leveling whole neighborhoods. Which our troops have the ability to do. Yes, war creates civilian casualties. That is not the purpose of this war, and our troops are doing a very good job gaining the trust and respect of the Iraqi citizens.
But we were in the same situation with Iraq as we were with the other countries as far as "help" goes.
Yes, Pakistan was showing some willingness to help us out and China puts pressure on North Korea, but if that is our logic for not attacking those countries then what about the fact that the UN was in Iraq telling us not to invade, that they had things under control, and Saddam was not an immenent threat?
How come we conveniently ignored the UN's "help"?
Because the UN has plenty of authority, with nothing to back it up. Twelve years of sanctions, twelve years of toothless Security Council resolutions, all scoffed at by Sodom. He just bought off countries like France and Russia with oil options and plundered the "oil for food" program to build palaces while his people starved and his rape rooms and death squads roamed freely. All while playing hide-n-seek with WMD's. Nice. Really effective UN "help".
The fact is Pakistan has captured or killed many al Qaeda operatives and leaders. China's putting pressure on North Korea is significant, since they are North Korea's ally.
I think the vast majority of people in the Middle East live in poverty, fear, and ignorance. Ruled by tyrants that control vast wealth and use it to keep themselves in power. Reshaping Iraq so that the people are actually free will help pull that whole region out of the dark ages and help reduce the seeds of terrorism. Or so I believe.
The UN has loads of problems, but they're all unrelated to the topic at hand. There were weapons inspectors in there doing their jobs, they told us to give them more time and we said no. Now with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight we can see that they were right and we were wrong.
Yes, now that we're up to our ears in Iraq, we hope for the best. We hope that democracy sticks and other Arabs see that they can have a better life. That's the best case scenario. It still doesn't justify our hasty invasion, however. We could have done this stability in the middle east thing A LOT better. A good leader would have seen that in advance.
Where I really disagree with you is the amount of time given the inspectors. They had twelve years to verify that Iraq had disarmed. Sodom refused to provide the documentation to prove it. He played hide-n-seek with the inspectors right up until the end. And why shouldn't he? It worked for twelve years.
Heck, he kicked inspectors out for about four years, without having proved he was disarmed. That inspectors from the U.N. were asking for more time isn't compelling given the track record of Iraq and inspectors.
I support this war. I didn't want this war. I would have much preferred that our military could have stayed home and trained. Unfortunately, after 9/11, leaving Iraq in the state it was in was just unacceptable. There was even pressure to lift the sanctions on Iraq, despite the fact that Iraq had not lived up to the cease fire agreement.
And I think that's something we tend to overlook. This isn't really a "second" Gulf War. The "first" Gulf War never actually ended. A cease fire was declared. The terms of that cease fire included the disarming of Iraq, verified by U.N. inspectors. Iraq did not live up to its end of the cease fire deal, so it ended. The breach of the cease fire (after more than twelve years) was sufficient justification to go into Iraq and forcibly disarm them.
Except for the part where we had nothing to forcibly disarm. But I'm a patient man Focker.
I am willing to be patient even though I do not want to be. History will tell whether this was a good move. But I do not think history will be kind to this presidency. That is too unstable of a region and we do not have enough support. As dumb as this may sound the war in Iraq really transcends itself; even if we do stabilize that country, it will not end there. It cannot just end there. We are trying to stabilize this region, Iraq just happens to be the heart of that region, georgraphically speaking. That is what I cannot stand about this presidency- the amount of uncertainty. The greater the risk, the potential for higher return, but what is the sense of risking so many human lives to undertake so gargantuan a task that probably will not have ended by the time Bush is dead, if it continues?
"This isn't really a 'second' Gulf War. The "first" Gulf War never actually ended. A cease fire was declared." Mr. I-Can't-Spell-Saddam makes a good point there: the current Iraq war is really an escalation of events resulting from Bush Sr.'s inept bungling at the beginning. Approximately 15 years of death and destruction thanks to him and his "US takes no position" crap with his old buddy Saddam Hussein.
Wow. Are you being this obtuse on purpose? Are you trying to say there was no "moral authority" for the actions taken in the early 90's against Iraq? Let's see, we had an incredibly broad coalition and full U.N. support.
Then, when Iraq was expelled from Kuwait, we stopped. The U.S. actually showed restraint. With our broad coalition of allies, and the U.N., a cease-fire agreement was drafted.
As for your "no opinion" tripe, it was supposedly a statement made by the U.S. ambassador, not Bush Sr., during a surprise meeting with Sodom himself. And it was not "no opinion" as to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, it was, allegedly (since the transcripts of the meeting provided by Iraq have never been authenticated) an expression of "no opinion" as to the border dispute.
Or do you think the U.S. should be sticking its nose into every single local border dispute in the world? Your hindsight, at least, sure is clear.
And thanks for agreeing that this current military action is really an extension of the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait and the resultant cease-fire agreement. Pretty soon you'll realize that major intelligence services around the world believed that Iraq had WMD's. Then before you know it you'll understand how Sodom failed to comply with the terms of the cease-fire.
To be fair about non-compliance with the cease fire, it was a UN issue and the UN was handling it. UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq doing their jobs. Yes, they were thrown out a few years earlier, but Clinton responded appropriately by lobbing bombs at them (instead of taking over an entire nation) and the weapons inspectors were let back in. Since then they had been doing what they were supposed to: look for weapons.
Dubbya jumped at the first chance he had to invade the country because he's a terrible decision maker and the administration had been chomping at the bit to get in there since they first took office. The UN - whose resolutions we're talking about upholding - asked us to wait and we gave them the middle finger. It was a bad decision. And, like I said before, we now know it was a bad decision with 100% certainty because of 20/20 hindsight.
High level decision making is all about trying to choose the best possible course of action with tons of uncertainty surrounding it. There was uncertainty about Iraq, to be sure, but when you're talking about upholding UN resolutions it just makes sense that you should heed the advice of.... the UN! Bush makes up his mind far before all the facts are in for MOST of his decisions. He did it in business, he did it as governor, he does it now. He's an atrocious leader.
Post a Comment
<< Home