Why Bush made the "WRONG" decision.

by The Bearer of Truth Thu Feb 05, 2004 22:38

It would appear that your argument is that the Clinton administration is as cuplable as the Bush administration and that therefore the Bush administration is not culpable?

Listen, my American friend, even those that work within the CIA (like David Kay who is a CIA operative) are being forced to admit that things they told us were fact are, and were complete falsehoods.

We do not have such short memories that we forget the lies, or that we forget that you, the USA, armed Saddam Hussein, armed the Mujahideen, armed the Shah, armed the Indonesians and on and on.

This crap that you're reposting might confuse the lily-livered corrupt scum that call themselves "Democrats", but there's no point in posting it here.

Now bugger off and do some thinking.

by David C. Fri Feb 06, 2004 01:48

For an entire year EVERYONE in the non-US world asked "Where's the proof?", "Whats the rush?", "Why Iraq?", "Why now?", etc. etc. etc. When the US presented its best 'evidence' at the UN on Feb 4th, 2003 it was literally laughed at, because it was so stupid. When the British presented their best 'evidence', it turned out to be from a 10-year-old grad-school thesis copied off the Internet. The FACT that there was absolutely no evidence to support the WMD claim was saturating the world's media for a year before this war. Tens of millions of people marched against the insanity of war-for-no-reason. The signs said "Stop Creating War". The entire planet knew that the American claims were, in the words of Colin Powell on Feb 3rd 2003, "Bullshit". There is no doubt, no ambiguity, no dispute: this war was based on weak, manufactured, bogus, trumped-up excuses.

The Bush people WANTED war. They CRAVED it, LOVE it, they NEED it, they DESIRE it, they LUST for it.. It is at the core of their identity. This is very, very, very obvious to pretty much everyone in the world, and it is sick and evil.

Imagine being some poor, uneducated american military sucker in Iraq, who has watched his friends die, who has killed kids and who has lost maybe 2 legs and an arm for this bullshit. Imagine him reading David Kay's words on the cover of Newsweek this week - "We Were All Wrong". Imagine that. Imagine the tens of thousands of dead and maimed Iraqis - almost all them them entirely innocent. Imagine shrapnel in a 2-yr-old's face, imagine a grandmother dragging her intestines away from her burning home, imagine watching your spouse being shot dead by ignorant, frightened teenagers with M16s. The United States of America, my friends... Take a good look at it...

The United Stated has acted as a dispicably callous and evil thug. People who make war based on lies are war criminals. War criminals. Osama Bin Laden loves this. George Bush and his puppet masters love this. Every decent person on the planet hates it...

by paul otoole Fri Feb 06, 2004 10:36

You obviously mistake the word for something else. Seems there is a complete lack of same.The word itself suggests a prerequesite of proof in my book. AND reguardless of the rights and wrongs of illegally invading Iraq ( Clinton reserved the right to invade ?), it hasent justified the elimination of about two million Iraqi civilians.Does Bush also reserve the right to kill innocent civillians on his 'war on terror ' even if he got it wrong, even if it hasent made a dint in terrorism?. And does he still have that right, in light of the 'un-precedented rise in terrorism' following his attack?- which was predicted in both us/uk intelligence reports -but were LEFT OUT of their dossiers for war, -go figure dude.

by © Iosaf the ipsiphi Fri Feb 06, 2004 12:26

When Blair justified the war to the US Congress the event was reported on front pages across the US and world media.
This week, José Maria Aznar did likewise.
Before he spoke to his own people, he spoke to the US congress about "their war".

Compact Mr Aznar (middle 50s) accompanied by his loving wife, addressed US congress, justifying the war and asserting that any investigation of WMD now, would be irresponsible. The Press in his own country reported the news on front page. No US paper did so, in fact you have to search yesterday's US press to find even mention of yet another of Aznar's "finely pitched historic photo-moments".
The New York Times filed a madrid correspondent's report (one paragraph) on "spain rejects new investigation of WMD".

I always maintained that the first energy war of the 21st century was to be _prosecuted by an entity I termed US/K ©_ .
Irish and many other readers recognised the "K" function as the UK, but missed it's additional meaning as that of the extension of US power and legitimacy in the world through the other "united" kingdom of former Hispano-empire. Which is why I always got pissed off when people thought US/K was US/UK. Of all the parties to the war which has yet to have been _prosecuted_, it is arguable that the one who has "won most" is the compact, bigoted, fifty something year old, practising catholic and friend of guitarists across the world soon to be ex-President of the Spanish Kingdom José Maria Aznar.
I certainly think he has done better than Bush, Blair or Saddam don't you?¿?
He will certainly be enjoying references to Iraq on the international supper circuit long into the future.

by Righteous Pragmatist Mon Feb 09, 2004 18:45

If I were an ordinary Iraqi and faulty intelligence about WMD percipitated the invasion and overthrowal of Saddam Hussein, I wouldn't be complaining.
I would be glad that a murderous dictator and his evil henchmen who committed unspeakable genocide against my country are now in chains or dead.
The justification that Bush and Blair used to justify the war ( that WMD existed and could be used by Saddam) before the invasion have since proved groundless.
So what?
Are the U.S. therefore obliged to let Saddam and his henchmen free and have them reinstated as the government of Iraq?

The Hard Left motivated by hysterical Anti-Americanism cannot see that removal of a fascist dictator is a GOOD thing and JUSTIFIES the 2003 Iraqi War.

I don't particularly care if Bush is replaced by the new JFK ( John Forbes Kerry). If Bush's administration will be remembered for anything he will be remembered for defeating the Taliban and flushing out Al-Qeda from Afghanistan and defeating a murderous tyrant Saddam Hussein, in the process freeing 50 million people from unmericiful tyranny with the loss of fewer than 1,000 American lives!
George W. Bush may well have been a deserter during the Vietnam War, a coke freak and alcoholic, a dodgy businessman, anti-gun control, pro-death penalty, right wng religious bigot and inarticulate ape on T.V.
BUT!!!!!
All these faults are NOTHING compared to his accomplishments in defeating religious maniacs and psychotic fascist tyrannts.

He is a flawed human being but he has done things which have made his name among the Greatest American Presidents: Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan and his own father.

by David C. Mon Feb 09, 2004 21:10

Here's a fact, Mr. Pragmatist. The United States of America is absolutely loathed by a very solid majority of people around the world, on the left, in the center and on the right. It is now the ultimate pariah state. Read the Pew Center study from last year. Read the many country-by-country studies. Read the non-US press. Talk to non-Americans (although we are often polite enough to disguise our hatred of your country in person). A global conflict is underway: The United States vs The Rest Of The World.

The 'proximate cause' of this new, but probably enduring hatred of the US is the falsity and insincerity of the reasons stated for the Iraq war, and the way that insincerity fits with the 'sterotype' of Americans in two ways. Firstly, Americans are seen, universally as very arrogant while also being very, very ignorant. 'Often wrong but never in doubt'. There are so many examples of this in Iraq and elsewhere that I don't know where to start. Secondly, Americans are profoundly racist, although this deep racism is now largely directed towards 'non-americans' instead of towards non-white Americans. The US doesn't even bother to count the innocent Iraqi civilians that it has killed, much less investigate the circumstances of their deaths. US soldiers in Iraq are under orders to 'hose down' city streets with machine gun fire when attacked. The US media ignores Iraqi civilian deaths while the non-US media tells us about their names, their lives, their surviving family members, etc. Most non-Americans care deeply about Iraqis (and other victimized people), because they see those people as being just like themselves. But to most Americans they are cattle. "So What", to quote yourself.

No doubt Saddam Hussein was a very bad man and a nut, but he was not a serious threat to other nations and he was no longer a serious threat to his own people. All of the viciousness of Hussein's regime occurred in the 1980's, with the tacit approval of the United States. Note this: Of all the players in the Iraq debacle since the 1991 war, the ONLY one who appears to have been consistently telling the truth is Saddam Hussein. Over 500,000 Iraqi children died over a decade as a result of sanctions placed on Iraq in an effort to get rid of fictions WMDs. Think about that for a minute. 500,000 children.

The ONLY excuse that the US might have is that it has been temporarily hijacked by a minority of right-wing religious extremists. Remember that many more Americans voted for Gore than Bush, including in Florida. A Kerry Presidency could begin to repair the damage, but I think many billions of people on this planet will be deeply suspicious of the united states for generations.

We can all do our part to resist the US. Never buy American products. Never travel there. Voice your opinions honestly to every American you meet. Vote for politicians willing to stand up to the US. Do what you can...

by Phuq Hedd Mon Feb 09, 2004 21:54

QUOTE: Faulty intelligence can be forgiven.
ANSWER: Straight out lies deemed to be lies at the time by those within the intelligence community and deemed to be at best unconvincing by the millions that marched against war cannot be described as "faulty intelligence" with a straight face.

QUOTE: If I were an ordinary Iraqi and faulty intelligence about WMD percipitated the invasion and overthrowal of Saddam Hussein, I wouldn't be complaining.
ANSWER: The relatives of the approximately 1 million people killed (mainly) by the UN sanctions and the two illegal US assaults are complaining. They know that the dictator was a creature of the USA (especially) and Europe and that the only reason he was removed was because he wasn't compliant enough.

QUOTE: I would be glad that a murderous dictator and his evil henchmen who committed unspeakable genocide against my country are now in chains or dead.
ANSWER: From all reports that I've heard (and from common sense) people are glad that Hussein is no longer in power. They're not glad that they were oppressed for so long by a dictator armed and supported by the USA. They're not glad that the USA is attempting to impose a non-democratic "assembly" or to extract oil from them instead of paying reparations for the assault. That's why they're protesting in the street and blowing up US, Japanese, UK and Italian soldiers.

QUOTE: The justification that Bush and Blair used to justify the war ( that WMD existed and could be used by Saddam) before the invasion have since proved groundless.
ANSWER: That was indeed the justification for a _pre-emptive_ assault on Iraq. An illegal assault which occurred despite the objections of most nations and most people. An illegal and undemocratic assault not just on Iraq but upon the consensus of the world and the opinions of the majority of the citizens of most countries in the world.

QUOTE: So what?
ANSWER: So an illegal act has occurred despite the objections of the majority of people in the world. An act by which the elites have nakedly exposed their undemocratic nature and their willingness to kill ordinary people, to lie, to subvert the institutions of (representative) democracy.

QUOTE: Are the U.S. therefore obliged to let Saddam and his henchmen free and have them reinstated as the government of Iraq?
ANSWER: And this suggestion comes from where and has what to do with anything exactly? If you seriously believe that anyone has argued this (as opposed to this being merely a crude and ineffective attempt to suggest that there are only two paths possible: yours and this fictional one), then I suggest you consider the multiple possible alternatives. For example one could try the members of the Hussein regime and Bush and Blair for war crimes. One could hold the UN functionaries that supervised the Food for oil programs responsible for crimes against humanity. One could hold all the Democrats and Republicans that supported this war responsible. One could insist on the firing of the media liars that did not push harder for the truth to be reported during the jingoistic build up.

But, who am I kidding? You know all this. You've been told these things clearly by "the Hard Left" since well before 9-11 and were told them even more clearly after that. You are completely insincere.

QUOTE: The Hard Left motivated by hysterical Anti-Americanism cannot see that removal of a fascist dictator is a GOOD thing and JUSTIFIES the 2003 Iraqi War.
ANSWER: "The Hard Left" can see that the removal of a US-created dictator is a GOOD thing but that this does _not_ JUSTIFY anything. "The Hard Left" can see that there are and will be more and more dictators to server the interests of whatever capitalist nation is dominant and that this sort of thing will occur again and again.

QUOTE: I don't particularly care if Bush is replaced by the new JFK ( John Forbes Kerry). If Bush's administration will be remembered for anything he will be remembered for defeating the Taliban and flushing out Al-Qeda from Afghanistan and defeating a murderous tyrant Saddam Hussein, in the process freeing 50 million people from unmericiful tyranny with the loss of fewer than 1,000 American lives!
ANSWER: The members of the Taliban are still mostly at large and have been replaced by the equally appalling Northern Alliance who are even as we speak oppressing women, growing poppies for the export of heroin and in general carrying on in pretty much the same old way. Afghanistan is still a horrible mess compared to what it was even under the repressive Soviet supported regime. THAT is what has been brought to the women of Afghanistan by the liberating Americans.
Bush and friends will be remembered for stealing the presidential elections, destabilizing the world, shredding some of the fundamental freedoms that Americans hold dear, destroying the infrastructure of Iraq, facilitating the rise of theocratic fascism in Iraq, showing the current UN structure to be undemocratic and unusable, racking up a huge debt, supporting corporate corruption of the rankest kind and generally being one of the worst bunch of thugs we've seen.

QUOTE:George W. Bush may well have been a deserter during the Vietnam War, a coke freak and alcoholic, a dodgy businessman, anti-gun control, pro-death penalty, right wng religious bigot and inarticulate ape on T.V.
BUT!!!!!
All these faults are NOTHING compared to his accomplishments in defeating religious maniacs and psychotic fascist tyrannts.
ANSWER: He has created replacement religious maniacs and psychotic fascist tyrants. All that we've seen is the shifting of US puppets who aren't dancing properly when the strings are pulled. In their place other puppets are being selected with equally undesirable characteristics: no one but thugs can maintain the inequality the produces the wealth that the First World feeds off. To believe otherwise is to ignore history and common sense.

QUOTE:He is a flawed human being but he has done things which have made his name among the Greatest American Presidents: Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan and his own father.
ANSWER: We're all flawed human beings which is why most of "The Hard Left" are not interested in GWB: the man, his passions and pecadilloes. Instead it's more appropriate to measure his _actions_ against the yardsticks of democracy and legality. Everything else is a sideshow.

But again, I suspect that you know all that very well.

by righteous pragmatist Tue Feb 10, 2004 11:28

If war had not been fought against Saddam Hussein then he would still be in power.

What other solution was there to war?

I suppose Saddam would have been given a petition of protest from the Iraqi people?
An Interpol detective was going to produce legal papers from an International Court for the arrest of Saddam to the dictator himself and he would throw his hands up?

I frankly don't care what reasons Saddam Hussein was removed from power.
He was a murderer and a tyrant.

Equally i don't care who does the toppling as long as the Iraqi people do not have to live under his regime a day longer.

Suppose I was a white red neck racist KKK member and my house was on fire and my daughter was trapped inside I wouldn't care if the fire fighter who rescued her was a black man!

On 9/11 one of the brave passengers who tackled the hijackers of the aircraft that crashed in Pennsylvania was a very gay rugby player.
I'm rather indifferent to homosexuality and am uncomfortable with Elton John but I am glad that a brave and heroic young man sacrificed himself for others in the process saving thousands of lives.

The French have always despised the Americans and British not just recently but through out their history.
France had been defeated by Germany in 1940 and it was galling that it took the Americans and British to liberate Paris in 1944.
But!!!
Hundreds of thousands of Parisians didn't care! They were glad to be free of Hitler's Gestapo police.

In Baghdad and elsewhere through Iraq as the American, British and coalition advance passed through the country it is an undeniable fact that troops were mobbed by hordes of Iraqi civilians kissing and hugging and showering them with sweets.

by David C. Tue Feb 10, 2004 21:30

3 million people have died in eastern Congo in the last 4 years. Does the US give a shit? Of course not! Has the US done anything about Liberia other then send in a few hundred frightened troops for a week to evacuate its citizens? Of course not! Is Egypt any different from Saddam Hussain's Iraq? Of course not!

The US, under the Bush administration, cares as much about the Iraqi people as it does about the British cattle that died in the foot & mouth disease outbreak. This is clear and obvious. America *wanted* war. "Bring it on". Isn't this fun! "Let's roll!".

The French position on the Iraq war was clearly and obviously correct. The American position on the Iraq war was clearly and obviously 'bullshit' (to quote Colin Powell) and "all wrong" (to quote David Kay).

There are so many ways the 'problem' could have been solved. UN weapons inspectors worked until they were withdrawn (not 'kicked out' ) under US threats in 1998. Hans Blix's UN inspection team was working. Hussain invited the CIA itself into Iraq to verify its compliance with UN resolutions in 2002. etc., etc., etc.

Here's a word of hope: The truth *always* wins. Right and wrong *always* become clear with time. It is inevitable. That is not a positive thing for America or for Americans. The US has spent 30 years in embarrassed shame over the Vietnam war. The fallout from Iraq will probably last for a generation also.

You sound like a poorly-educated, racist, homophobic nut. You must be American.

by Righteous pragmatist Wed Feb 11, 2004 11:33

"3 million people have died in eastern Congo in the last 4 years. Does the US give a shit? Of course not! Has the US done anything about Liberia other then send in a few hundred frightened troops for a week to evacuate its citizens? Of course not! Is Egypt any different from Saddam Hussain's Iraq? Of course not!"

Nato should of course intervene in eastern Congo and stop the slaughter which has claimed 3 million lives in the past four years.
But what will the Hard Left have to say if they did?
NEO- COLONIALISM!
In the 1960's the Hard Left opposed the very policies you now scream should be done!
"The White Man's Burden?"

Oh sorry but by the way the President has to have the approval of the American people to go to war. He got a majority of Congress to support him ( including John Kerry) in the invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam which was supported by the majority of the American people in numerous independent opinion polls.
What's happened now?
Iraq post war is a bit messy to say the least and Bush is danger from Kerry's election campaign and Americans are getting uncomfortable about a mere few hundred casualties despite one of the greatest military victories in America history!

The "few hundred frightened" troops who were sent to Liberia succeed in forcing Charles Taylor from power.
He was "frightened" into believing that an American in vasion was on the cards and fled with his tail between his legs!

True Egypt is no different from Iraq.
Mubarak is an evil dictator and i don't like America using him as a strategic ally. Neither does Bush.
Neither did we like using Saddam as a strategic ally to halt Iranian agression in the Middle East.

what do you imply when you say Egypt is a bad as Iraq?
Should the US invade Egypt?
What about multilateralism?
If Egypt is as bad Iraq therefore Iraq was as bad as Egypt?
So what what was wrong with invading Iraq?

by David C. Wed Feb 11, 2004 20:58

I don't know about the hard left, but I for one would fully and enthusiastically support a NATO invasion of eastern Congo. The US under the Bush administration, however, would not. Those people viciously fought against US humanitarian interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia and Haiti and they would fight any use of military force that was not based in greed and power. This is a fact. Read the republican rants over the Kosovo war - they are chilling...

The Bush administration lied their way to a war that they *wanted*. Half of the US population - who live in medieval ignorance due to the absence of public education - swallowed the bullshit whole. Americans believe in many things - UFO's, creationism, angels, infomercials, etc - and selling a war to them based on dramatic nonsense is a simple matter. It proves how extremely dangerous America really is. But very, very few people outside the US were sold....

The tiny US action in Liberia (following months of intense political pressure) of course had some positive effect, however Ireland, with the population of Chicago, has made a far, far greater investment in peace Liberia than the US has. (In case you don't know, there are thousands of Irish peacekeepers in Liberia, and they will be there for years. If you are an American then you will not know this). The US now reserves its power for its material interests, rather than for saving lives and doing good. They laugh at peacekeeping. They think it is for weak fools.

The US should not invade Egypt, because that would kill tens of thousands of men, women and children, which is a bad thing. Do you see how that works? Killing innocent people is bad. Saving lives is good. It's simple, really. But the people who now lead the United States believe, with barely concealed glee, that 'realism' and 'pragmatism' make it necessary to bomb and kill and maim. "Too bad about the disemboweled kid, but that's life", they say with a smile. But life is what we make it. The Americans would make it into a hell. They will not succeed.