Bush 'planned Iraq war pre-9/11'

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
At once, Dino. Perhaps you missed that one.

You're arguing for pacing ourselves when engaging in "warmongering"?

[KrazyHorse]

Duh. All the smart hegemons are doing it.

[DinoDoc]

Smart hegemons wouldn't have gotten involved in half of the conflicts we've inserted ourselves into.

[KrazyHorse]

Got to put the fear of God into the natives once in a while. At least that's what a certain submariner friend of ours believes.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You were in Somalia in 1998?

You mean you didn't see me reporting the news for CNN in Somalia??

[KrazyHorse]

Were you the one with his head on a pike or the one whose scrotum had just been ripped off?

[MrFun]

Actually, I got my arms torn off, but then someone glued them back on for me.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Ned
Let us be clear and let us be fair: The policy régime change in Iraq was set not by George Bush, but by Bill Clinton and by a joint resolution of Congress in 1998.

Who cares!? Does Bush have to do everything Bill Clinton did? Is he just Clintons little lap dog? Blaming it on Clinton is irrelevant. Some people didn't like Clinton either, so everytime a conservative says "Well, Clinton did it! I can do it too!" I say grow up! I don't care that Clinton was stupid too! I don't care that congress was crooked and misled. I really don't care about the D's and the R's. They are both a bunch of powermongering millionaires!

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Ned
NeOmega, I think you doth protest too much. Your criticisms are entirely directed at post major combat operations.

No, you are misled. Saddam did not plan to put up much resistance, or he would not have freed all his criminals. The were released to force the US into a policing role earlier. OBL busted a nut when he found out the Americans were coming to him. Al-queada is doing the fighting.... for now. But their continued resistance will force the United States, and Bush, under intense political pressure, to continue to use heavy handed tactics.

Attacks are down 25%, but they are spreading across the country. It is only a matter of time before a true nationalist and jihadist resistance will begin. Then soldiers will start coming home 2 or 3 a day. Worse, it's cycle time. The vets leave, in come the greens... against a determined enemy.

And the cycle of violence will continue. It is pure madness to think "shocking and aweing" a nation into submission is going to prove anything except we can win the first battle. But it will not win hearts and minds. Then to come in and try to regulate with a heavy hand, there will be no pro-US government in place for long.

The Iraqi people are not fooled by who was demanding the UN sanctions. They lived through them.

The war is not over just because your president says it is. The war is over when the killing stops. Name me a war like this one, where the commander in chief proclaimed victory, and yet soldiers kept coming home in body bags by the dozens. Name ONE!

[Sava]

duh... the only thing accomplished by this revelation is that the Iraq-War-happened-because-of-9-11 dopes are proven they are wrong.

btw, I find it hilarious that once again the Repukes can only attack O'Neill by saying "sour grapes"... but yet, they aren't denying anything he's said.

kudos to whistle blowers

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


Kennedy did rely on a small number of advisors, particularly, his brother Bobby.

As confidents who opinions he trusted,,yes. As his sole filters of information form the outside world? NO. That is the point of this Ned.

Bush does seem to have two or three warring camps in his regime that are constantly vying for power and influence.

I leave it for you to figure out who they are.

There were two camps when it cames to Iraq, Powell and Armitage v Rummy and the civs. and the pentagon. And Powell, after a few minor victories, surrendered when it came ot the war. As for the post war, it has been state v Pentagon again, though powell does not seem as active. I have no idea who this third camp would be.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ned

Bush does seem to have two or three warring camps in his regime that are constantly vying for power and influence.

That was my going to be my point to GePap. In theory, a president could be surrounded by yes-men and I agree that might lead to bad decision making. That situation doesnt appear to be the case with Bush's cabinet though. Making decisions based upon news reports and the opinions of political pundits is no way to run a country either.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH
That was my going to be my point to GePap. In theory, a president could be surrounded by yes-men and I agree that might lead to bad decision making. That situation doesnt appear to be the case with Bush's cabinet though. Making decisions based upon news reports and the opinions of political pundits is no way to run a country either.

Wow, making decisions based on information is a terrible way to make decisons..stick to ideology blind of facts- much clearer.

On one issue was the Bush cabnet split- ow to go to war with Iraq vis a vi the UN. The only real disagreeing cabinet member got canned- and took acts that started this thread.

[Defiant]

Bush in his debates prior to his presidency said he was going to deal with Saddam, there is no secret there. The war with Iraq is directly related to terrorism. 15/19 terrorists came from Saudi, a home to despots along with the most of the Middle East. You have one country that is democratic in the Middle East, Siro I think you know which one that is, you have one news channel and we know how "unbiased" they are, you have an entire region virtually floating on oil, but yet their combined GNP is less than Spain, almost all the money is controlled by the Royal families and dictators, all these variables are rich to seek people, (terrorists) into thinking all their problems are because of the USA. That is why we have Middle East terrorist wanting to kill themselves because there is nothing better and they are going to to heaven to 16 virgins.
As I see it, there are two ways to change this,
1. What Bush did, take the weakest country with an @sshole for a leader and set the seeds of democracy and watch it unfold into other countries, freedom can spread if the people realize it, they sure are not accustomed to it. This will take time but it is worth it, because the alternative is
2.Colonization.

We could have gone into Mecca but we must be prepared to kill millions so I believe this is the right strategy and hopefully freedom will take hold, and this isn't an overnight operation, those of you expecting final results in a year are foolish.
And like a previous poster posted, the kills are going down in Iraq but lets see if it continues.
Don't forget this is a task never before attempted, to change a fundamental life of an entire region.

Either we deal with it now, or even more dire circumstances later.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap

Wow, making decisions based on information is a terrible way to make decisons..stick to ideology blind of facts- much clearer.

Wow, making decisions based on faulty information and the lies contained in the news media is a terrible way to make decisions.

On one issue was the Bush cabnet split- ow to go to war with Iraq vis a vi the UN. The only real disagreeing cabinet member got canned- and took acts that started this thread.

Obviously, the president should have political opponents as cabinet members so they can voice their opinions. Maybe everyones opinion should be sought after?