Bush Administration's latest excuse...

[Spiffor]

Thanks for your answers Imran. At least you are clear (even though I don't know how Saddam was "dangerous" if WMDs were deemed an excuse to attack him)

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I have a question for pro-war people here :

- do you sincerely think WMDs were the first motivation of the administration to attack Iraq, or one of the most important reasons ?

- do you think the liberation of the Iraqi people was the major aim of the administration when attacking ?

- If not, did you think so before the beginning of the war ?

Thanks

- No.

- No.

- No.


Bush's motive is clearly to remove a guy he doesn't like. Bushist foreign policy is pretty simple.

[Berzerker]

Elijah -

It is somewhat naive imo to claim that the true motivations were anything other than money (oil and arms) and political gain at home.

I don't buy it, the US is not going to steal the oil. That would just help push fence-sitting Muslims to join the terrorist movement and anger alot more people. I believe 9/11 created the fear that regime's like Saddam's would develop nukes and arrange for terrorists to plant one in Washington DC or New York. I didn't buy that one either since Saddam, while being evil, wasn't crazy enough to ensure his own demise by being tied to such a plot. But that doesn't mean people in the Bush administration were required to share my lack of concern.

I think you guys should give US forces some time to look for the WMD.

[Whaleboy]

" Bush's motive is clearly to remove a guy he doesn't like. Bushist foreign policy is pretty simple"

Im doomed!!!

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Iran, Syria, N. Korea, take your pick

How about Mexico?

[oedo]

Bush's motive is clearly to remove a guy he doesn't like. Bushist foreign policy is pretty simple.

uh, oh. Bush doen´t like Chirac and Schröder, too.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior


- No.

- No.

- No.


Bush's motive is clearly to remove a guy he doesn't like. Bushist foreign policy is pretty simple.

And you support Bush removing people on the grounds he doesn't like them? Be serious.

Anyway, by agreeing to the above you seem to have scotched any possibility of defending the war as a just war.

[Whaleboy]

"I don't buy it, the US is not going to steal the oil"

True, theyre not going to steal it, theyre going to buy it and the money will go into the trust fund. Saddam was stockpiling oil for decades, release that glut of oil on the market at once, the oil prices slump, then companies negotiate contracts at that lower price. Its what I'd do in that position. The US gets the added bonus of undermining OPEC somewhat. To be honest, I think the US has been terrified of oil shortages since the 70's, ah hello!! Iraq has the worlds second largest reserves.....

Needless to say, burning oil creates environmental havoc (global warming et al) especially when one considers the byproducts.

[Whaleboy]

In all seriousness, he does seem to be persecuting (one way or another) those he does not liked. Someone fell from the subjective tree!

[Spiffor]

Jag :
Thank you too.

Don't you feel a little awkward with Bush and his cronies using excuses to justify the war to the population, or do you think this propaganda / lies were a necessary evil ?

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Agathon


And you support Bush removing people on the grounds he doesn't like them? Be serious.

Anyway, by agreeing to the above you seem to have scotched any possibility of defending the war as a just war.

I don't like him either. You don't like him. Nobody likes him. I think that is a plenty good reason. I am being serious. The liberation is also an excellent side effect.

[Whaleboy]

Was the war a necessary evil? Not if one can counter the arguments for it. I have done so to myself and hopefully to others, thus to me, it was a wholly unnecessary evil (I use the word evil reluctantly, unlike bush).

It would appear that the ad hoc arguments we will no doubt face now are the excuses for an unnecessary evil, justified to the population, like I been saying, cloaked in the flag to "sweeten the pill". Problem is that wrapped up in the flag, the American people think its candy. Problem is that GWB is a stranger....

[Berzerker]

Elijah -

True, theyre not going to steal it, theyre going to buy it and the money will go into the trust fund.

Then let us hope it won't be like the Social Security and Highway "trust funds".

Saddam was stockpiling oil for decades, release that glut of oil on the market at once, the oil prices slump, then companies negotiate contracts at that lower price.

Where are these stockpiles?

Needless to say, burning oil creates environmental havoc (global warming et al) especially when one considers the byproducts.

Buy a horse, just don't step in the by-product.

[Dinner]

Carbon copy JW answers under my name (that would be no to all three).

I was for toppling Saddam and but that was based primarily upon the sanctions were stirring up much of the Arab world against the west in general and the US in particular. It was clear the sanctions could never be removed as long as Saddam was in power ergo...

Sure, they will be an up tick in terrorism short term (meaning next 5 years or so) but I believe that in time that will fade were as another 10 years of sanctions would have caused more and more Arabs to turn against us. Then of course there is the added issue of me being a Machiavellian who believes dictators who cross us should meet a very public and very bad end.

[Berzerker]

Problem is that wrapped up in the flag, the American people think its candy. Problem is that GWB is a stranger....

Nice line.