Bush Compares Iraq to Vietnam...Finally

[Patroklos]

It can be agreed direct comparions (unqualified) are not accurate in the least.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by CyberShy

For making the WMD argument the only argument that counts for an Iraq invasion, that's true.

You know, it doesn't become true just because you repeat it endlessly. You didn't make any real argument so far here that explains how Europe or anyone else did what you say. Maybe you can enlighten us how anyone could trick the world's only superpower into that WMD argument.

And if it's so easy to influence US policy from outside I think the world would look totally different today....

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by CyberShy

Do you actually think that if US troops were removed from SA in 2000, OBL would have just stopped and not gone after the US? Really?

Yes, back in 2000 that would have let him focus back on his battle against the corrupted regimes in the muslim countries.
That's what Al Qaida was all about to begin with. To battle the muslim dictators who joined forces with the great satan.

Wow... sorry, but I think that's incredibly naive. Especially since even if all of US's troops were pulled from the ME (and Kuwait wouldn't have wanted that anyway), we still be supporting Isreal and "corrupted regimes" like SA and Egypt.

[Patroklos]

Maybe you can enlighten us how anyone could trick the world's only superpower into that WMD argument.

Maybe you can explain how almost every speech until we had to try and get the UN/Europe onboard listed WMDs as a bullet among a laundry list of reasons to go to war. The WMD was elevated for PR purposes to get the fence sitters on board. Doesn't mean the other reasons disappeared (or were any less important) because we found one that resonated to a targeted audience more.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Maybe you can explain how almost every speech until we had to try and get the UN/Europe onboard listed WMDs as a bullet among a laundry list of reasons to go to war. The WMD was elevated for PR purposes to get the fence sitters on board. Doesn't mean the other reasons disappeared (or were any less important) because we found one that resonated to a targeted audience more.

Bush's ultimatum speech doesn't give a laundry list of reasons, at least not that important as the WMD issue. He mentions other points, but they are clearly secondary, given how the WMD threat is described and mentioned several times there.

As for Europe, it was clear at some point that only some Euro countries would participate anyway, so I doubt the US was under illusions that some more speeches could change that. And I would be surprised if many speeches were primarily made for an non-American audience anyway. The impression at the time was that the US would do what it thinks it has to do, and not care much about what anyone else in the world thinks.

[Patroklos]

Bush's ultimatum speech doesn't give a laundry list of reasons, at least not that important as the WMD issue. He mentions other points, but they are clearly secondary, given how the WMD threat is described and mentioned several times there.

He did give a laundry list, as you just stated yourself

In any case the ultimatum speech was made at the very end of the convincing campaign. As stated, anyone who was going to be brought into his camp by the other arguements were already onboard, the WMD was to get the fence siters which is why it was trumpeted in the end. If he thought the economic security angle would have worked better, I am sure Bush would have gone with that one.

[Robert]

Originally posted by BeBro


You know, it doesn't become true just because you repeat it endlessly. You didn't make any real argument so far here that explains how Europe or anyone else did what you say. Maybe you can enlighten us how anyone could trick the world's only superpower into that WMD argument.

And if it's so easy to influence US policy from outside I think the world would look totally different today....

I have given arguments.
1. I've said that the regime-change was there since Clinton (1995 or something)
2. I've given the argument that the european countries never accepted the regime change thing.

And about 'tricking a superpower'...
It's not tricking in, it's trying to get the other nations on board.
to the USA the WMD wasn't that important, they wanted to invade Iraq with or without WMD (and eventually did)

For Europe/Russia, they would only join the attack on Iraq if there was proof that Iraq still had WMD or was producing it.

The WMD argument was thé argument for Europe, that's why they didn't join in the end.
It was not for the USA, that's why they still invaded Iraq in the end.

[Robert]

Wow... sorry, but I think that's incredibly naive. Especially since even if all of US's troops were pulled from the ME (and Kuwait wouldn't have wanted that anyway), we still be supporting Isreal and "corrupted regimes" like SA and Egypt.

SA has always been the initial interest of OBL.
He was from SA and the forming of Al Qaida started as a group against the SA (corrupted) governament.

Israel didn't become an argument for OBL untill somewhere in 2002/2003, when he learned that Israel is a good way to get more muslims on your bandwagon.
He didn't (or rarely did) mention Israel before 9/11.

Bush's ultimatum speech doesn't give a laundry list of reasons, at least not that important as the WMD issue.

the list starts with the situation in Iraq, the failure of SH to live up to the UN resolutions, and the last argument given are the WMD.

It gets a prominent place indeed in his speech, but it's still not the first argument. That it's the most important argument is your interpretation. And like Patroklos said, this was at the end, close to the war, when the fence sitters needed to be drawed into the war.

But the fence sitters could not be convinced and continued to argue the validation of the war, giving the terrorists and ba'athists a legalisation (in their eyes) reason to start their terror.

Up till today I can't be convinced that the anti-war people are happy with every casuality in Iraq and that they hated it when the USA was received in Iraq as liberators.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by CyberShy

Re-stabalise? Don't you mean de-stabalise?

There's almost always a period of destabilisation after a dictator has been removed in a nation that consists of multiple ethnical group.

Not to mention that not removing the murdering dictator because of a possible destablisiation is obviously a serious weird way of thinking.
It's like: "let's not rescue the hostagers because they may get mental problems after they're freed"

Then why did you say "re-stablise." Stablization is a common reason given for military action, but certainly not appropriate here.

I hope the world will free the North Korean people soon as well.

Bud, I wouldn't go claiming how this is all benefiting the Iraqi people at this point. Most people expect things to not significanty improve in Iraq within any forseable future.

But you want to kick the door in in NK.

[Robert]

The debate we're having right now if a good argument was used by GWB, or if he invaded based on a bad argument, right?

Does it matter what argument he used?
What matters if there were good arguments to invade Iraq.

If I'm being captured by a criminal and I'm being liberated by someone else, then I'm happy.
It doesn't matter to me if I'm being liberated because I still owed money to my liberator and he feared he'd never see it if I'd died, or if he liberated me because he cares for me.

What matters to me is that I've been liberated.

It doesn't matter if GWB used good arguments or not.
What matters is if there were good arguments to invade Iraq, used or known by GWB, or not.
What are you guys? Bureaucrats?

I still can't believe that you guys wish that the USA had never liberated Iraq.

[Robert]

Then why did you say "re-stablise." Stablization is a common reason given for military action, but certainly not appropriate here.

It'll re-stabilise eventually.
The current situation is worse then (GWB) expected, that's true, but it will stabilise. These kinds of wars will end in the end, when the women of both parties realise that the blood of their husbands and their children is not worth it.

The current situation would've most probably have happened anyway after Saddam (or his sons) (or the Ba'ath) would 've lost control on Iraq.
The ethnic problems were only growing under his regime, since he gave power to the minority, which would've (almost) always have resulted in this war in the end.

USA nor GWB are to blame for the current situation in Iraq.
They may be to blame for the fact that they could've handled things better after the invasion. Faults have obviously been made. But once again, it's impossible to not make faults, and it's difficult to do things good if you're all on your own and your 'allies' are on the side-line, making comments that only support the terrorists.

Most people expect things to not significanty improve in Iraq within any forseable future.

that's 'wishfull' pessimistic thinking.
The balkan had it's terrible wars as well, in the end the wars ended.
Not to mention that the people had a terrible time under SH's control as well.

In fact what you're saying is that living under a terrible dictator is better then living in an anarchy.
the first one gives no hope, the latter one gives hope.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by CyberShy

Then why did you say "re-stablise." Stablization is a common reason given for military action, but certainly not appropriate here.

It'll re-stabilise eventually.

Duh. You ought to consider running for political office.

The current situation is worse then (GWB) expected, that's true, but it will stabilise. These kinds of wars will end in the end, when the women of both parties realise that the blood of their husbands and their children is not worth it.

That's a strange POV. I don't think women, in general, ever thought this war was worth it. No, it's going to end when the US finally realizes that it can't win, and some faction in Iraq defeats all of it's weaker enemies. Granted that could be 3 or 4 decades or more. Ah but yes it will EVENTUALLY RE-STABILIZE.

The current situation would've most probably have happened anyway after Saddam (or his sons) (or the Ba'ath) would 've lost control on Iraq.
The ethnic problems were only growing under his regime, since he gave power to the minority, which would've (almost) always have resulted in this war in the end.

Just speculation here. You can't honestly consider this to be a reason to invade do you?

USA nor GWB are to blame for the current situation in Iraq.

If they didn't want to take blame they should have stayed the hell out of it. Yes, they are to blame.

They may be to blame for the fact that they could've handled things better after the invasion. Faults have obviously been made. But once again, it's impossible to not make faults, and it's difficult to do things good if you're all on your own and your 'allies' are on the side-line, making comments that only support the terrorists.

You don't judge by results do you? GWB told us that we should invade because it was going to make the world a better place and all that crap. He was wrong and he is to blame.

Most people expect things to not significanty improve in Iraq within any forseable future.

that's 'wishfull' pessimistic thinking.
The balkan had it's terrible wars as well, in the end the wars ended.

Yes, they end. This one doesn't show any sign of ending anytime soon. I think that's not pessimistic. It's realistic.

Not to mention that the people had a terrible time under SH's control as well.

In fact what you're saying is that living under a terrible dictator is better then living in an anarchy.
the first one gives no hope, the latter one gives hope.

The Iraqis don't have hope. Also, they don't hold us in higher regard than SH.

[BeBMan]

the list starts with the situation in Iraq, the failure of SH to live up to the UN resolutions, and the last argument given are the WMD.

First two paragraphs fro Bush's ultimatum:

"
My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned."

Bolding by me of course. Destruction of WMDs condition for ending the 1991 war, didn't happen, acc. to Bush. If that's not an argument why the war in 2003 is justified, what is it then?

The next paragraphs mention WMD - sometimes indirectly - too. Third is about threats to UN inspections - makes only sense if he meant the WMD ones. Fourth paragraph talks about "most lethal weapons", mentioning WMD explicitly shortly afterwards.

The next paragraph is the first to mention something else (history of aggression), only to return to the WMD topic again (terrorists could kill many with WMD from Iraq)

His conclusion: "The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. "

That is the central line of argumentation there, nothing else. It goes on and on and on about WMD, and WMD related points.

To this point where he says he will take military action he has hardly touched other reasons at all. Only towards the end he changes to things like "liberty and peace in that region". But the main reasons for action are the WMD arguments above that's cystal clear.

It gets a prominent place indeed in his speech, but it's still not the first argument.

See above. You might to reread the speech.

But the fence sitters could not be convinced and continued to argue the validation of the war, giving the terrorists and ba'athists a legalisation (in their eyes) reason to start their terror.

Are you telling me somehow that in modern democracies, with lots of great values which a far to numerous to cite them all here it's too much to ask for that leaders who can decide about life and death of lots of people give sound reasons for their actions, and that it would be somehow evil to point out if some reasons given are in fact only "window-dressing" (your words) for something else?

Up till today I can't be convinced that the anti-war people are happy with every casuality in Iraq and that they hated it when the USA was received in Iraq as liberators.

I don't see what this has to do with the debate about the reasons, but I'd be more than happy if the Iraq mess would turn into something better. Also, I dunno if I qualify as anti-war, I'm rather happy that I didn't had to make the decision. And personally, there were times when I believed Iraq had WMD, but then I don't have a vast intel apparatus at my disposal, and I don't decide about war or peace.

In any way I don't think that any politician should get a free ride to do anything without the public questioning his actions.

[Patroklos]

The Iraqis don't have hope. Also, they don't hold us in higher regard than SH.

These two things are consistantly proven otherwise in every poll taken.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I love the "US leaving Vietnam = Khmer Rouge" thing. Immediately historians jumped in and said the US destabilizing Cambodia, by bombing it and and sending our troops through there led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge.

Didn't Bush graduate on history?