So, can we finally all admit Bush & Co. lied?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

Much better answer than "there's oil there." Now do you really think that the benifits gained are gonna offset the colossal price of the war?

That's one that nobody can prove. Assuming there's no meltdown in the ME, and everything goes as planned from a US perspective, it would be a very profitable long-term corporate pork program. (since the government/taxpayer sucks up the costs, but industry picks up the benefits*)

We already have the direct price of the war, but there's also the effects of the oil price spike on the global economy before the war started to consider. If anything goes wrong, from a long occupation, to another war, to some future disfunction in Iraq (coup, civil war after the US is out, etc.), then the payoff may never justify the costs.


* yes, increased industrial profits will yield increased tax collection, benefits to shareholders and maybe some benefits to consumers, but not fast enough to pay off the pork "investment" in a reasonable time frame. The profit here goes to the corporate beneficiaries.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

If you were Bush II, would you set back relations with France Germany and Russia, spend literally hundreds of billions of dollars, lose several dozen troops, and risk losing reelection just for a possible economic benefit that depends on 4 "ifs"? I wouldn't.

If you'd mind****ed yourself into thinking you had a handle on all the ifs, and already made a point of filtering everything you think and see and hear about Iraq to justify the action you want to take anyway, then maybe you would.

People often convince themselves there's sound rationale for what they're inclined to do anyway.

I don't think the invasion of Iraq was unjustified per se, and I'm not really sweated up about WMD's or Bush lying (I expected that anyway), but the real crux of the matter is how is this all going to play out over the next decade or so.

[Shi Huangdi]

Why are we all taking the guy in the article's words at face value?

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


If you'd mind****ed yourself into thinking you had a handle on all the ifs, and already made a point of filtering everything you think and see and hear about Iraq to justify the action you want to take anyway, then maybe you would.

Gotta love the Dubya. But you're saying that he wanted to do it anyway for a different reason, and the Economic factor was only a side effect. Which goes against the whole "its a war for oil" principle. I don't know whether you intended to mean that or not.

yikes I'm debating MtG

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Azazel
If the result of the war is good, I wouldn't be too concerned. I never cared for WoMD, anyway.

After that Neutron bomb thread you started, I find this hard to believe... or do you mean you never cared for that as a reason to remove the Saddam regime?

Anyway, of course they deceived us. Presenting arguments and not backing it up with solid facts "for security reasons" is a blatant cop out.

Contrast with the Cuban Missile crisis. Clear, blatant evidence posted in the UN.

When is the US going to realise it's run by big business for big business and the indivudial citizens mean as little to the administration as the individuals of the USSR did to the Communist Party of that country?

I'm not saying the US is the USSR, or that the situation is unchangable, or that living in the US does not have many benefits that outweigh the political farce that is misrepresented as "democracy".

But isn't it time we all started thinking about ways to improve things, rather than just falling into deep dispair?

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

If you were Bush II, would you set back relations with France Germany and Russia, spend literally hundreds of billions of dollars, lose several dozen troops, and risk losing reelection just for a possible economic benefit that depends on 4 "ifs"? I wouldn't.

I wouldn't either, but this Iraq war was the pushed by a bunch of hardcore ideologues, and why would they give a flying **** about reality?

"But you're saying that he wanted to do it anyway for a different reason, and the Economic factor was only a side effect."

That's also the view I think is the most plausible. The principle is "It's a war for who the **** knows what".

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
Saddam knew we were coming for him. He had a year to get rid of em all.

I don't doubt that Bush made up some of the WMD evidence though.

That's all I was asking. The other rationales and utilitarian excuses are off topic, as I just wanted a simple admission that Bush lied. Thank you.

BTW, antiwars, I'll tell you where the WMDs are when you tell me how we're getting oil. You seemed so sure of that a few months ago.

Can we finally all admit that Boris & Co. lied?

Find me where I made the assertion above. You won't be able to, and I will then accept your apology for insinuating that I lied. Fair enough?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Why are we all taking the guy in the article's words at face value?

Why do you take Bush & Co.'s word at face value, when they've produced no evidence to back them up, and multiple intelligence sources in the U.S. and U.K. are saying, independently, that they lied?

This guy's words are corraborated across the pond (see Blair's dossier furor).

You seem eager to believe politicians and dismiss intelligence operatives. How odd.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Boddington's
What's done is done. Finding weapons is only relevant if they may in future be used against us. Finding weapons to appease liberal whiners is not on the agenda.

Let's look forward to Iraq II in Syria or Iran.

I don't think you understand the military capabilities or the popular mentalities of those countries if you think it is a good idea to occupy them.

I also invite you to look forward to the Muslim backlash before you are so proud to lick Bush's arse.

Get in, remove Saddam, setup a stable govt and get out - fair enough, a viable plan.

Crusades version 4 (or higher?) you can stick where you lick.

[Az]

After that Neutron bomb thread you started, I find this hard to believe... or do you mean you never cared for that as a reason to remove the Saddam regime?

2nd opinion. ( Unless he would start working on real WMDs, like nukes )

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

Gotta love the Dubya. But you're saying that he wanted to do it anyway for a different reason, and the Economic factor was only a side effect. Which goes against the whole "its a war for oil" principle. I don't know whether you intended to mean that or not.

yikes I'm debating MtG

Or, your primary reason is oil/economics, but that won't sell well for PR purposes, and you can't justify the purely economic risks to yourself without rationalization. So you find other excuses/reasons.

There's basically two reasons for all wars - power, or distraction from domestic issues. Almost nobody would give a **** about the ME in general if it wasn't for oil. It's the only resource they've got, but they've got the majority of the world's readily available supply, and it's essential. That's why the whole "no blood for oil" types just annoy me with their stupidity. Somebody's blood has always been shed for control of essential resources. The only thing stupider than the "it's all about oil" worldview is the people who deny that any of it is about oil.

The Dear Leader is every bit as bad as Hussein, he's far more dangeous, but he has a tougher military, he has WMDs, and he has no resources. So the cost/benefit ratio for thumping his ass to hell is a lot different.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

If you were Bush II, would you set back relations with France Germany and Russia

By antagonizing France and Germany, the two economic and political powerhouses of the EU, and isolating them whilst courting favor with the Eastern European nations, they may effectively negate their authority over the EU. A Tory I was talking to in London was thrilled with the war and the diplomatic stance against France and Germany, as it was giving the U.S. and U.K. a huge economic boon in Europe and reducing the former states' power.

Would that seem to make more sense?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

If you were Bush II, would you set back relations with France Germany and Russia, spend literally hundreds of billions of dollars, lose several dozen troops, and risk losing reelection just for a possible economic benefit that depends on 4 "ifs"? I wouldn't.

Let us look at the policiies the mental giants known as the Bush Administration have given us so far:

The rebuilding of Afganistan

Post-war Iraq

The insulting and ignoring of North Korea

The tax cuts

the PATRIOT ACT

Deployment of missile defence

Screwing the unemployed

etc.

Should it really surprise you that an Administration this ametuerish would do something this stupid?

Bush is Damien and the Manchurian Candidate all rolled up into one.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I agree with Azazel, but not for the 'liberation' aspect (who really cares, eh?). It's a nice power play. In someways kinda like Reagan with those tiny wars in Latin America saying, hey, we're big, bad, and we'll **** you up. In essense, one reason was to tell the Islamic world that we aren't just gonna putz around in Afghanistan and that's it. Secondly, it gives you a nice base in the middle of the Mid East for deployment to deal with the terrorist problem in the future, without having to actually depend on Saudi Arabia (who knows what will happen in the future when the anti-American Crown Prince ascends fully).

If we can get some nice military bases and a fairly stable government in Iraq, it'll all be worth it. I'm not exactly a utilitarian, but I always believe that the ends can justify the means .

[Boris Godunov]

Imran, that doesn't answer the question. Forgive me for employing one of Lincoln's obnoxious tactics:

Did Bush lie to us?

Yes__ No__