Bush 'planned Iraq war pre-9/11'

[Mr. Harley]

This debate seems to miss something though. Mr. Bush is, by his own admission, a born-again Christian. He is also sure of his righteousness. Any person with that paradigm is going to parse everything he gets into a good-evil us-them world view, it's appears to be almost inevitable from real world cases (and definitely the case on Bush - ask diplomats how much damage his Axis of Evil speech did). This is how Bush can FEEL he is helping make the world safer by eliminating Sadam, instead of dealing with the Wahabe extremists and Saudi Arabia exporting it through funding Madrasses that push this most intolerant form of Islam. It's how he can go after Saddam, when North Korea has shot down jumbo jets full of civilians, kidnapped civilians off beaches, and exported missle/nuclear technology world wide. There is no finesse in his world view, he has PRINCIPLES. The man is as big a fool as Jimmy Carter, but much more dangerous.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by TCO
actually I think there may be something to the criticism of Bush as not generating enough debate or looking at subtleties that much. I think it is one of his flaws.

Best post of the thread.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Ned
However, Rumsfeld's vision has won two wars in record time and with very few casualties. As they say, there is no substitute for victory.

What wars?

Oh, let me guess, you believe Bush when he says Iraq is over and won. And you also believe Afghanistan is a stable and prosperous democracy.

Both wars have hardly even started, but in typical short sighted, short attention spanned American fashion, you think they are over.

TWO YEARS FROM NOW soldiers will still be dying daily in Iraq, mark my words.

[Colonâ„¢]

And we're back to the worn out chatter.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Colon


Best post of the thread.

"Rusted mortarshells are not a nuke" is the best post ever.

P.s. Ming, just ban me. It's better for you, Mark, the posters...and my career.

[TCO]

I think there were people in the administration itching to take on Saddam and people who just viewed him as one of the dangers/issues to be dealt with. Much like Bosnia with the previous administration. (They even came to power advocating a less interventionist policy...then took on the policy of the administration before...had internal divisions...and then went in...and then flailed around for a while before prevailing.)

Heard on the news that Bush said his opinion was pretty similar to the previous administration in terms of wanting regime change. 9-11 made him more willing to act on that feeling.

---------------------------

I am in favor of the intervention, and I think many of the naysayers (but not all) are more motivated by US envy/resentment (that they've had for a while...what I call the "little brother complex" than concern on the action itself.

----------------------------

One small thing that bothered me when I heard about it was that Bush quizzed his commanders hours before the war started and asked them a straightup "do you have any reservations?" I think this is a rather meaningless action and kind of chilling to debate. But I guess he can run his internal arrangements as he sees fit. It's a hell of a job to take care of and every person in it has had to come up with some way to handle the hugeness of it. Bush likes to keep things rather crisp. It would be overcrisp for me. But then I've always thought that a lot of policies can turn on details.

[TCO]

Originally posted by NeOmega


What wars?

Oh, let me guess, you believe Bush when he says Iraq is over and won. And you also believe Afghanistan is a stable and prosperous democracy.

Both wars have hardly even started, but in typical short sighted, short attention spanned American fashion, you think they are over.

TWO YEARS FROM NOW soldiers will still be dying daily in Iraq, mark my words.

You have come up with an entirely new definition for winning a war if you mean changing the society to love the American way. This is a nobe goal and we will see how it plays out. But the wars were won. The countires previous leaders were ousted. And that has had a noticeable effect on other dictators. And this has value in and of itself. Even if the countries devolve into statelessness (and I hope they do not), there is a defintie benefit inshowing dictators that there is a stick for them when they cross us.

[Ted Striker]

USA!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned
shawn, Rumsfeld was Times original pick of person of the year. But when they interviewed him, he suggested that they choose instead the American soldier.

That tells you a little about the man, does it not?

Yes, he's good at PR.

Ned, you're WAY too trusting.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Verto
Breaking News: FDR planned US involvement in World War II pre-12/7 !!!!

Yes he did. But not against Japan it was against Germany.

[Patroklos]

It was both.

[Mr. Harley]

TCO, your statement about wars, and success, only applies to wars fought in self-defense, i.e. Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden. The situation with Iraq is substantially different. Once war becomes an instrument of policy, then you have to guage it's success on the final result. Note I am using success instead of victory. I still insist that even with wars of defense the end result is critical, because even after you "defeat" the enemy, you want do not what them to become an even greater threat in the future. That is why WW1 was a failure, while WW2 was a success. Even then, WW2 was only a qualified success, because people forgot the threat assessments prior to the war concerning Stalinism, and millions of people paid for that error.

Let's evaluate Iraq. If Bush's policy was regime change, without paying any attention to what resulted afterwards, then the man is a fool and learned nothing from history. If the policy was to "create a democratic government," then his administration is full of ignoramuses. In the Mideast you can have a "democratic" theocracy that is more dangerous to US interests than a monster like Saddam, fomenting terrorism and instability in surrounding areas necessary to US economic interests - world oil markets anyone?

If the policy is to create a stable democratic government friendly to US interests, the final result is still in serious doubt. Look at the recent Shia rioting in the south, fomented by that 29 year old cleric whose name escapes me. If this is the policy of the Bush adminstration, then they have taken many foolish steps, engaged in counter-productive activity, and overall the conditions to achieve this result are deteriorating. Now if the policy was regime change, coupled with a domestic policy distractor, than he has been successful. There is an excellent chance however that the costs of that policy, especially ignoring the very real possibility of a Shia theocracy in Iraq with the resulting instability as the Suni and Kurds engage in an armed resistance, will harm the long-term interests of the US and cause an increase in terror recruiting against us.

[TCO]

And I am saying that the goal can be different from occupying or changing the country. It could be purely punitive towards leaders who annoy us. As such it has an effect on other leaders not to annoy us.

At least consider this as a possibility.

[Mr. Harley]

TCO, that would be such a short-sited, historically ignorant viewpoint that I would hope the leader of the world's last military superpower (for now) would understand that the consequences of such a goal could make matters even worse. If Bush had such a goal, with a vague plan for democracy afterwards, I repeat, the man is a fool. The consequences of it may increase terrorism, and make the Middle East less stable - an armed Kurdish resistance (they made off with the heavy weapons abandoned by the Iraqi army) in the North, Turkey intervening because of this, Iran involved in support of the Shia government, Suni's coming to the aid of their embattled brethren in the center, and extremists using it as a club to recruit terrorists because "it's all the fault of the Great Satan." What a successful undertaking.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by TCO
You have come up with an entirely new definition for winning a war if you mean changing the society to love the American way. This is a nobe goal and we will see how it plays out. But the wars were won. The countires previous leaders were ousted. And that has had a noticeable effect on other dictators. And this has value in and of itself. Even if the countries devolve into statelessness (and I hope they do not), there is a defintie benefit inshowing dictators that there is a stick for them when they cross us.

I haven't come up with a new definition.... the Iraqi insurgents have. And you are a blind man if you think the war in Iraq is over. It has just begun.

As far as your two-bit psychology is concerned:
1) I am an american, hard to envy myself, aye?
2) I care not only about American casualties, but also Iraqi casualties, in fact, all people who have died in this war are a tragedy in my eyes.

RE: Rummy

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

This think tank's members include Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, **** Cheney just to name a few.

American World Domination is in their minds justified, because America is so darn good, or to quote the website:

The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership

Hell yeah Bush wanted to invade Iraq since the day he took office, look at who he chose for his cabinent! Old Gulf War people, and **** Cheny as VP. It was so obvious, yet even I was naive enough to miss it.