Bush Compares Iraq to Vietnam...Finally

[Chemical Ollie]

You didn't listen to the speech, did you?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by CyberShy

How exactly?

1. by sending troops
2. by at least supporting the invasion
or:
3. by at least giving an alternate solution that would actually work, thus not: let's do nothing and wait till things may become better

So those who didn't support a war that was based on everything else but the truth are responsible, not those who started the mess in the first place? How's life in the Nedaverse?

In the 80's there was no boycot against SH. And eventhough it wasn't smart to do, it's not as bad as the Russians (and most probably the French) who traded with Iraque during the boycot. (which may have resulted in not supporting the US invasion, only to cover their own @sses)

According to your logic none of those actions were bad at all, since - as you told us - there was no boycott. So stop whining about France and Russia/USSR (the latter being the prime weapons exporter to Iraq, not France, which was second) when others you support did the same, just on a different scale.

[Patroklos]

It is funny watching so many smart people deliberatly not understand what was said in that speech. I expected better.

But for all of you guys who predicted Iraq would be another Vietnam you still have 2,920,000 odd civilian and 54,000 odd military deaths to go. Keep hoping and praying, at this rate you will be right in 18 more years (48 years for civilians)

[Hueij]

Originally posted by Patroklos
It is funny watching so many smart people deliberatly not understand what was said in that speech. I expected better.

But for all of you guys who predicted Iraq would be another Vietnam you still have 2,920,000 odd civilian and 54,000 odd military deaths to go. Keep hoping and praying, at this rate you will be right in 18 more years (48 years for civilians)

Don't worry, we're patient...

[Berzerker]

You are aware of the big report made after the Iraque invasion, in which was stated that there were no WMD in Iraque? It's a famous report which was used to slap GWB with.

A part of that report, which was hardly cited, talked about SH's lack of WMD because the UK/USA presence in Kuweit and SA secured that he couldn't do what he wanted to do. The report also stated that SH would start building WMD as soon as the UK/USA presence in the regio would have ended.

The fact that SH didn't have WMD was BECAUSE of the USA/UK presence. And that same presence caused 9/11. That's a status quo that had to end one day.

Not to mention that it had to end one day anyway.
It's easy for France/Germany/Russia to oppose an attack on Iraque. They weren't there, doing the difficult job.

So he would have had WMD... I dont care, WMD are par for the course for that region (do we have WMD?) The WMD was the trumped up excuse to invade, this was about using Iraq as a battlefield to attract Muslim radicals sharing the AQ mentality of expelling the infidels - draining the swamp. Saddam would have done as told, we just didn't tell him what to do wrt Kuwait and he took that as permission to invade.

Though in the end, SH was an expansionistic power-hunger person who could only be contained by force.

After Kuwait where was he going?

[Patroklos]

Saddam would have done as told, we just didn't tell him what to do wrt Kuwait and he took that as permission to invade.

You are welcome to your opinion, Berz, as ridiculous as it is.

[Robert]

So those who didn't support a war that was based on everything else but the truth are responsible

The war was based on the truth.
1. Saddam was a known aggressor
2. Saddam has had the possession of WMD
3. Saddam had used WMD in the past
4. Saddam didn't want to explain what happened to his WMD
5. Saddam was a treat for the regio
6. Saddam was a cruel dictator who murdered 500.000 - 1.000.000 civilians.
7. The presence of American troops in SA caused OBL to cause 9/11. This presence was needed to contain SH.

All valid reasons.
Not to mention that there was a UN resolution that promised "Serious concequences" to SH if he wouldn't comply. He didn't comply, serious concequences resulted.

not those who started the mess in the first place?

The person who started the mess was SH, with his ba'ath party.

According to your logic none of those actions were bad at all, since - as you told us - there was no boycott.

With the knowledge we have now we know that the actions were bad.

So stop whining about France and Russia/USSR (the latter being the prime weapons exporter to Iraq, not France, which was second) when others you support did the same, just on a different scale.

France/Russia did do the weapon exports during the period in which UN resolutions forbid it.

Don't worry, we're patient...

eagerly patient?

The WMD was the trumped up excuse to invade

The real reason for the invasion was the cause for 9/11, the presence of US soldiers in SA.
To remove the soldiers, a regime change in Bagdad was needed.

That's allways been the prime reason for GWB to go to war, regime change.
But to get Europe/Russia on the bandwagon, he started to focus on the WMD.
Europe/Russia didn't care about regime change, since they had no troops to contain SH.
GWB made a mistake when trying to convince those who couldn't be convinced because of selfish reasons.

this was about using Iraq as a battlefield to attract Muslim radicals sharing the AQ mentality of expelling the infidels - draining the swamp

yeah, sure. And the jews flew the planes into the WTC and nobody ever landed on the moon.

Saddam would have done as told, we just didn't tell him what to do wrt Kuwait and he took that as permission to invade.

Mistakes may have been made there.

After Kuwait where was he going?

He was contained by force, like I said.
Which couldn't continue forever.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos
It is funny watching so many smart people deliberatly not understand what was said in that speech. I expected better.

I don't know how you can understand anything that Bush says. I do understand how people would be afraid of him.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The real reason for the invasion was the cause for 9/11, the presence of US soldiers in SA.
To remove the soldiers, a regime change in Bagdad was needed.

Wait... WHAT?!

So now the Iraq war was designed so that the US could get troops out of Saudi Arabia, to prevent Osama bin Laden from being mad about US troops in the Holy Land?

What exactly are you smoking and has it been made illegal yet?

I don't think I'm wrong when I say that the right wingers as well as the left wingers on this site would consider your opinion to be bat**** crazy.

[Patroklos]

I don't think I'm wrong when I say that the right wingers as well as the left wingers on this site would consider your opinion to be bat**** crazy.

I think the point is over emphasized, but it has always been a long term goal to make Iraq a stable, democratic buffer state in the area so that we could tone down our direct presence. If (big if) Iraq stabilized where would we need to keep any significant troop concentration in the Gulf? The Navy would stick around sure, but they have no footprint except for Bahrain, which we might leave behind as well.

[Robert]

You want to deny that?

You want to deny that OBL caused 9/11 b/c of the USA troops in SA?

You want to deny that it's therefor a very good reason to end the ongoing SH soap, back in 2003?

I'll not participate in your "attack the poster, not his opinon" way of debating, and encourage you to put some arguments to your "buwhaaaaa what did you smoke" kinda posts.

[Kidlicious]

Troops were never going to be removed from SA. NEVER!

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I'd actually like to see the results... though I'm afraid I was on the wrong side at that time .

Here: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=79538

As far as I can tell, I was pretty much right except for I didn't expect the US to try to ally with the Iraqi faction most closely aligned with the Iranians. Oh well, I don't think that Bush expected that at the time either, it seems that he was banking on Chalabi or something equally stupid...

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by CyberShy

So those who didn't support a war that was based on everything else but the truth are responsible

The war was based on the truth.
1. Saddam was a known aggressor
2. Saddam has had the possession of WMD
3. Saddam had used WMD in the past
4. Saddam didn't want to explain what happened to his WMD
5. Saddam was a treat for the regio
6. Saddam was a cruel dictator who murdered 500.000 - 1.000.000 civilians.
7. The presence of American troops in SA caused OBL to cause 9/11. This presence was needed to contain SH.

All valid reasons.

Nonsense. The main reason given at the time was the actual threat of WMD, which weren't found later. Most of your points were given later to provide additional justification because that main point (WMD) turned out to be a complete failure.

[Patroklos]

I very interesting read, looking back. Nice to see that almost all of the "I told you so" crowd actually were not correct in their predictions.

Alot of people talk about a new Sunni general officer dictator. Not so much.