Bush Compares Iraq to Vietnam...Finally

[Robert]

Duh. You ought to consider running for political office.

No, most politicians only have a short-term planning, not a long term-planning.

That's a strange POV. I don't think women, in general, ever thought this war was worth it.

Obviously, but at a certain moment it's been enough for them.

No, it's going to end when the US finally realizes that it can't win

It's not between the US and the terrorists /whatever you name them. It's between the Sunni's and the Shiites and the Kurds.

and some faction in Iraq defeats all of it's weaker enemies.

That's another possibility.
But since that's really hard to obtain, I just think that it'll be a peace eventually where every ethnical group will live in it's part of the land ,maybe even 3 independant nations (though the Turks may oppose to that).

Granted that could be 3 or 4 decades or more. Ah but yes it will EVENTUALLY RE-STABILIZE.

3 or 4 decades is way to pessimistic.

Just speculation here.

It's what the leftish said who were against the war: "Don't start a war, the land will be a mess afterwards becuase the ethnical groups hate each other."

This war would've started sooner or later.
That's not speculation, that's just the normal thing. You may call that speculation, but then I ask you to describe a situation how Iraq would've turned into a normal nation without this war between ethnical groups first.

You can't honestly consider this to be a reason to invade do you?

That wasn't the reason to invade.
I've never given that as the reason to invade.

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

Thus if the Dutch would've started to slam into each other's skulls after being liberated from the Germans in 1945 by the Canadians, then the Canadians would've been to blame for that?

If I'm being captured by some criminal, and the police frees me, and I use my freedom to murder you, then the police is to blame for the murdering on you?

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.

You have a short-term horizon.
The ME needs time to normalize, and the dethroning of SH is one of the first steps into that direction. What you want, an instant paradise, is impossible.

Yes, they end. This one doesn't show any sign of ending anytime soon.

These kinds of wars tend to end when things are worst and one party doesn't want to coninue to fight.
A war ends suddenly.
You can never predict in advance when a war like this will end.

The Iraqis don't have hope.

Yes, they do have hope. A recent poll showed that they had more hope then they used to have under SH. Sorry, I have no link.

Also, they don't hold us in higher regard than SH.

You have to ask that question to them in 20 years again. Not on this short notice.

See above. You might to reread the speech.

The part you bolded out is not an argument, it's a summary of history.

The first argument starts the line after:

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."

and directly refers to the UN resolutions.

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

I don't say that citizen can't do that.
I just say that Putin (power hunger), Schroder (elections) and Chiraq (power hunger) used selfish reasons to not go to war.

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?

I've never liked GWB that sucked himself up to the WMD people, let's start with that.
But the window dressing in itself isn't bad.
If the people only care about the WMD, then you can address their issues.

And there were big issues with Iraq and WMD.
1. Iraq had had WMD
2. Iraq had used WMD
3. Iraq had never made clear what happened to their WMD.

Those are 3 solid reasons to claim that the WMD argument, which is not the most important imho, is still a valid argument to invade Iraq.

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.

I'm glad to hear that.

[Robert]

Just another question, what should've happened back in 2003?

Keep in mind that your solution must:
- find a solution for the US/UK troops in SA
- find a solution to keep containing SH or cure SH from his power hunger
- find a solution for SH's support on terrorism in the ME (Hezbollah, ie)
- find a solution for the Iraqi people (eventually on the long term)

[PLATO]

Just a quick word on the WMD argument. Clearly WMD's were not the reason that the US wanted to war on Iraq.

However, within the existing international framework, there was no other legal reason to go to war. The US required the UN to give its legitamacy and therefore legality to the invasion. UNSC 1441 provided it (no matter how vague you feel that it was).

This was the only route that allowed the US to act unilaterally. Even a ceasefire violation argument would have required a UN response as opposed to a US response.

Therefoe, it was incumbent upon the US war aims to pull all the stops out in making the WMD argument. The only problem is that the idiots never stopped to think what to say when they actually got there and found none (among many other things they did not think through on the post invasion phase).

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by CyberShy
The part you bolded out is not an argument, it's a summary of history.

Meaningless hairsplitting. What you see as first argument...

"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."

and directly refers to the UN resolutions.

....makes only sense in light of the fact (which probably wasn't a fact) that Iraq didn't get rid of his WMD as stated at the start of the speech. And even in the part you quote WMD play the crucial role. UN resolutions were about them. The weapons inspectors where there because of them. If Saddam destroyed them, the entire thing you see as "first argument" would fall apart.

Bottom line: you can't separate these parts easliy, they form a coherent line of reasoning up to the point where he says the danger will be removed. The danger he means is certainly not that Saddam has some MiG29 jets or T72 tanks - it's that Bush thinks he has WMD, that he used them before, and the probability Bush sees that these go into the hands of terrorists.

I just say that Putin (power hunger), Schroder (elections) and Chiraq (power hunger) used selfish reasons to not go to war.

Politicians are selfish, power hungry and want to win elections, I had no idea. Well, maybe only in Europe, elsewhere they're all saints... But of what relevance is that when we debate the war and its prelude itself?

[Arrian]

The only problem is that the idiots never stopped to think what to say when they actually got there and found none (among many other things they did not think through on the post invasion phase).

That's not the ONLY problem. The other problem is that it's wrong to lie your way into a war. Or if you don't like "lie" how about it's wrong to present iffy evidence as it were hard fact in order to convince people to go to war (you can apply this either to the WMDs argument or the Saddam - 9/11 connection argument). That's acting in bad faith at a minimum... in order to start a war. Bang up job

-Arrian

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Arrian


That's not the ONLY problem. The other problem is that it's wrong to lie your way into a war. Or if you don't like "lie" how about it's wrong to present iffy evidence as it were hard fact in order to convince people to go to war (you can apply this either to the WMDs argument or the Saddam - 9/11 connection argument). That's acting in bad faith at a minimum... in order to start a war. Bang up job

-Arrian

Yeah...that's probably true. It is bad form. Still, it is far from unusual. Still, everybody on the left keeps saying Bush is an idiot...maybe he believed thay had WMDs.

Of course, they may have been taken to Syria....

[Kidlicious]

I thought for sure they would find WMD, even if they had to plant them there. I guess they didn't really have to.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I thought for sure they would find WMD, even if they had to plant them there. I guess they didn't really have to.

You would think that if this administration is as sinister as they are being made out to be that they would have brought some to plant if they new they didn't have any.

[Arrian]

Actually, I always thought of that as evidence of their incompetance.

Well, no, not really. I think even they realized that they couldn't do that without the truth coming out and calculated that it was better to not find anything then be caught planting it.

I think the idea was that if they didn't find it, it would be ok because the Iraqi people would be cheering and thanking us and yay!

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by PLATO


You would think that if this administration is as sinister as they are being made out to be that they would have brought some to plant if they new they didn't have any.

I think they are that sinister, but smart enough to realize that it wasn't necessary. What were people to do about it? It's like this, "ok so we lied, you want us to pull out now, it will make a civil war."

[Agathon]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Just another question, what should've happened back in 2003?

Keep in mind that your solution must:
- find a solution for the US/UK troops in SA

They weren't needed. Don't you find it rather odd that the US and UK accuse other countries of being aggressive, yet they are the ones with their troops parked all over the place on other people's turf?

- find a solution to keep containing SH or cure SH from his power hunger

This was no longer a problem. SH was a rat in a cage. He, and everyone else, knew that the first Iraqi troops across a border would be the end of him.

- find a solution for SH's support on terrorism in the ME (Hezbollah, ie)

This was made up by our side. He gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and may have had his hands in another couple of pies, but his record on terrorism was probably the least problematic of any major ME state (with the possible exception of Jordan).

- find a solution for the Iraqi people (eventually on the long term)

It's not our business to find them a solution, but to let them sort it out themselves.

I find it hard to believe how much you still subscribe to the delusions of the discredited right.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Arrian

I think the idea was that if they didn't find it, it would be ok because the Iraqi people would be cheering and thanking us and yay!

-Arrian

Ahh yes....The Rumsfeld approach. What an idiot he turned out to be.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos


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

I'm not sure what polls you are refering too. I did a search and found a cnn poll.

www.usiraqprocon.org/pop/Resources-Polls.html#H

This poll was taken in the Spring. Results are mixed, but indicate that Iraqis are not happy, and are not opptimistic. More of them are pessimistic and think the invasion was a mistake, that is.

Here's the result of one poll if you don't want to look at all the results.

II.H.14. "Overall, do you think the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is making security in our country better, worse, or having no effect on the security situation?"
Better: 21%
Worse: 69%
No Effect: 10%
Refused/ Don't Know: -

[Kidlicious]

Another thing I noticed about those poll numbers is, although most Iraqis believe the invasion was the right thing to do, they overwelmingly disagree with US military presence there, and either a majority support or almost a majority supports attacks on US/coalition forces.

[Patroklos]

Nice polls, unfortunetly neither says...

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