I've been thinking recently about how incredible it is that GWB seems to be regarded quite warmly now, even among the liberals. I'm old enough to remember what the political discourse was like in his days, and rational enough to remember it accurately, and I think the 2021 view of GWB would come as quite a shock to many people from 2004.
What do people think is the reason for this change? Did he not get treated fairly in his time as a president, and now that it's history long past, the passions have cooled and the more fair evaluation takes root? Has the total war that followed his presidency normalized the very real dysfunction of the Bush years? Do people just focus on what a nice guy he seems to be, which was never in question, and not on the more divisive issues of politics?
What are the thoughts?
What makes you think he is remembered warmly?
It is just that we realize now it could get worse than him.
I'm still amazed that there has never been a real reckoning regarding the massive deception leading up to the Irak war.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 26, 2021, 03:13:49 PM
What makes you think he is remembered warmly?
It is just that we realize now it could get worse than him.
I don't know, just a feeling. I don't see too many snide tweets when he's making those cute appearances with Michelle Obama, though to be honest I'm not looking particularly hard.
Here are some harder numbers: https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/22/politics/george-w-bush-favorable-poll/index.html
He might be the worst US President of all time. He was handed the US in the strongest position it has ever been and ran it into the ground. I will never forgive him for what he did, never.
But the weird part is he always seemed like a good person despite doing incredibly horrendous immoral things as President. That weird charm has helped to rehabilitate himself, especially with Trump out there.
But not with me. Fuck him.
Quote from: celedhring on January 26, 2021, 03:15:16 PM
I'm still amazed that there has never been a real reckoning regarding the massive deception leading up to the Irak war.
Well that is the frustrating thing. When you see these people lying and cheating and doing misdeeds you hope that eventually when their falsehoods are revealed there will be a catharsis...but nope.
It's a combo of:
+ Trump resetting the bar way way way down
+ passions cooling over time, memory fading
+ the more time passes since the presidency, the more tendency to see the person rather than the President, which e.g. works to the benefit of Bush vis Cinton
+ Bush had an almost plausible evil advisors misleading the king narrative
Quote from: Valmy on January 26, 2021, 03:24:27 PM
He might be the worst US President of all time. He was handed the US in the strongest position it has ever been and ran it into the ground. I will never forgive him for what he did, never.
But the weird part is he always seemed like a good person despite doing incredibly horrendous immoral things as President. That weird charm has helped to rehabilitate himself, especially with Trump out there.
But not with me. Fuck him.
He certainly gave off the air of a nice, good, if somewhat simple guy, surrounded by malicious advisors.
he does quaint paintings and is friends with Michelle. He also came out against trump. Probably mostly time, its been 12 years.
His current favorability ratings are for him as a person, not a president. His presidency was the beginning of Trumpism. As MM and Syt point out, he seemed even at the time to be a guy in over his head, listening to the wrong people. He certainly had one of the worst administrations in history.
Kinda like US Grant.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 26, 2021, 03:31:36 PM
It's a combo of:
+ Trump resetting the bar way way way down
+ passions cooling over time, memory fading
+ the more time passes since the presidency, the more tendency to see the person rather than the President, which e.g. works to the benefit of Bush vis Cinton
+ Bush had an almost plausible evil advisors misleading the king narrative
Yeah totally agree with these.
QuoteHis current favorability ratings are for him as a person, not a president. His presidency was the beginning of Trumpism. As MM and Syt point out, he seemed even at the time to be a guy in over his head, listening to the wrong people. He certainly had one of the worst administrations in history.
Kinda like US Grant.
I thought there'd been quite a bit of revisionism around Grant's administration recently?
Seeming to be a person it would be cool to have as a neighbor helps him a lot. I still think he was a horrible, horrible president, and he really hurt the standing of the US in the eyes of the world. Many generally US-friendly people in the ROTW felt somewhat, well, "betrayed" when the US started publicly champion the systematic use of torture, and they of course had to stop supporting the US.
This thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7upgaUAcjbc
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 26, 2021, 04:34:40 PM
This thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7upgaUAcjbc
Video looks like it has been edited.
I think in regards to the Iraq war, close on we look at history as the actions of people pushing things. IE, we went to war with Iraq because Bush lied!
As you get a longer view, history tends to look at underlying factors, with the players (often) being seen as more the people shaping specifics rather then driving the broad strokes. I think the Arab Spring and other things have made people less interested in casting Iraq War 2.0 as some kind of evil plot by the NeoCons and more recognition that it was the outcome of larger forces at play. This was something that I said even at the time - Iraq was never "stable". It was a powder keg whose lid was held tightly down by a brutally authoritarian dictator. It was no more stable than Yugoslavia was under Tito, probably a lot less so in fact. Saddams antics that led to the second war was part of his need to keep the lid on that powder keg.
I suspect in the long run, nobody will look at the the second round of the Iraq war as something driven by some personalities anymore than people look at WW1 and say that it was started because the Kaiser did this or didn't do that. Even Saddam was playing to forces beyond his own control.
And yeah....Trump has certainly made everyone look one hell of a lot better. And the Shrubbery's second term was a lot better than his first (once he ejected the Anti-Christ from his cabinet).
If the larger forces at play you are referring to are the lying neo cons who caused the US to go to war, then yeah, we are in agreement.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 26, 2021, 05:24:05 PM
If the larger forces at play you are referring to are the lying neo cons who caused the US to go to war, then yeah, we are in agreement.
I knew I could count on someone to come along and insist that no, there are no other forces at play in anything other than the designated "EVIL PERSON" you need to make sure stays satisfyingly vilified.
And I was betting with someone that it would be you first. Thanks for the $10!
Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2021, 05:27:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 26, 2021, 05:24:05 PM
If the larger forces at play you are referring to are the lying neo cons who caused the US to go to war, then yeah, we are in agreement.
I knew I could count on someone to come along and insist that no, there are no other forces at play in anything other than the designated "EVIL PERSON" you need to make sure stays satisfyingly vilified.
And I was betting with someone that it would be you first. Thanks for the $10!
But the neocons in the Bush admin were largely responsible for causing the second Gulf War if only because they initiated the moves towards it. The fact that Saddam feared his internal opposition more than the West in gambling it was a bluff was in retrospect due to his weaker than suspected position in Iraq (though that was a lot to do with the sanctions of course), and which caused the final trigger for war. To be honest I think Saddam had a point.
Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2021, 04:58:17 PM
I think in regards to the Iraq war, close on we look at history as the actions of people pushing things. IE, we went to war with Iraq because Bush lied!
As you get a longer view, history tends to look at underlying factors, with the players (often) being seen as more the people shaping specifics rather then driving the broad strokes. I think the Arab Spring and other things have made people less interested in casting Iraq War 2.0 as some kind of evil plot by the NeoCons and more recognition that it was the outcome of larger forces at play. This was something that I said even at the time - Iraq was never "stable". It was a powder keg whose lid was held tightly down by a brutally authoritarian dictator. It was no more stable than Yugoslavia was under Tito, probably a lot less so in fact. Saddams antics that led to the second war was part of his need to keep the lid on that powder keg.
I suspect in the long run, nobody will look at the the second round of the Iraq war as something driven by some personalities anymore than people look at WW1 and say that it was started because the Kaiser did this or didn't do that. Even Saddam was playing to forces beyond his own control.
And yeah....Trump has certainly made everyone look one hell of a lot better. And the Shrubbery's second term was a lot better than his first (once he ejected the Anti-Christ from his cabinet).
Is the argument that the US would get militarily involved in Iraq anyway after a "natural" fall of the Saddam regime?
Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2021, 05:27:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 26, 2021, 05:24:05 PM
If the larger forces at play you are referring to are the lying neo cons who caused the US to go to war, then yeah, we are in agreement.
I knew I could count on someone to come along and insist that no, there are no other forces at play in anything other than the designated "EVIL PERSON" you need to make sure stays satisfyingly vilified.
And I was betting with someone that it would be you first. Thanks for the $10!
I call you ever time you make a post trying to downplay the US leading the world to war in the Gulf. And yes, you can count on me to continue to call bullshit on you whenever you try to do it.
Okay, time to shut down Languish.
We've finally circled back to arguing about the start of the Iraq War.
We've finally run out of topics and are repeating ourselves.
Quote from: grumbler on January 26, 2021, 04:04:34 PM
His current favorability ratings are for him as a person, not a president. His presidency was the beginning of Trumpism. As MM and Syt point out, he seemed even at the time to be a guy in over his head, listening to the wrong people. He certainly had one of the worst administrations in history.
Kinda like US Grant.
I agree with this. Bush was not an amoral man though he did do some terrible things. He is now compared to Trump who was is a rotten human being in addition to doing terrible things. I agree that his Presidency would herald the rise of Donald Trump, but it was a reaction to Bush's failures rather than something he was deliberately doing. The American conservative movement basically died in 2008.
That's why I posted the video, as the inspiring line from GWB fit very well...DG floated a rumor, and it caused CC to ask a question. That's the trap. :P
I don't think GWB really did anything that appreciably added to the rise of Trump. You can probably trace that all the way back to Nixon and the Southern strategy. Rush Limbaugh probably had more influence on that than GW.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 26, 2021, 06:02:29 PM
I don't think GWB really did anything that appreciably added to the rise of Trump. You can probably trace that all the way back to Nixon and the Southern strategy. Rush Limbaugh probably had more influence on that than GW.
Iraq.
I don't think Iraq had much to do with Trump's rise at all. I could imagine Trumpism coming around even if it never happened.
Trump's rise stems from the Tea Party rise in the early Obama years and the GOP's fatal decision to ride the tail of that tiger.
I think the origin of Trumpism lies in the climate change debate. The first time Republicans adopted alternate facts.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 26, 2021, 06:32:29 PM
I think the origin of Trumpism lies in the climate change debate. The first time Republicans adopted alternate facts.
Love this.
Quote from: Barrister on January 26, 2021, 05:48:28 PM
Okay, time to shut down Languish.
We've finally circled back to arguing about the start of the Iraq War.
We've finally run out of topics and are repeating ourselves.
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 26, 2021, 06:32:29 PM
I think the origin of Trumpism lies in the climate change debate. The first time Republicans adopted alternate facts.
I think the first foray into alternative facts is telling everyone that decreasing taxes would increase revenue, that dates back to the 80s.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 26, 2021, 06:11:29 PM
Trump's rise stems from the Tea Party rise in the early Obama years and the GOP's fatal decision to ride the tail of that tiger.
Indeed.
Quote from: The Brain on January 26, 2021, 05:37:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2021, 04:58:17 PM
I think in regards to the Iraq war, close on we look at history as the actions of people pushing things. IE, we went to war with Iraq because Bush lied!
As you get a longer view, history tends to look at underlying factors, with the players (often) being seen as more the people shaping specifics rather then driving the broad strokes. I think the Arab Spring and other things have made people less interested in casting Iraq War 2.0 as some kind of evil plot by the NeoCons and more recognition that it was the outcome of larger forces at play. This was something that I said even at the time - Iraq was never "stable". It was a powder keg whose lid was held tightly down by a brutally authoritarian dictator. It was no more stable than Yugoslavia was under Tito, probably a lot less so in fact. Saddams antics that led to the second war was part of his need to keep the lid on that powder keg.
I suspect in the long run, nobody will look at the the second round of the Iraq war as something driven by some personalities anymore than people look at WW1 and say that it was started because the Kaiser did this or didn't do that. Even Saddam was playing to forces beyond his own control.
And yeah....Trump has certainly made everyone look one hell of a lot better. And the Shrubbery's second term was a lot better than his first (once he ejected the Anti-Christ from his cabinet).
Is the argument that the US would get militarily involved in Iraq anyway after a "natural" fall of the Saddam regime?
No, the argument is that the fall of the Saddam regime would see a war in Iraq whether the US instigated that fall or not.
I think absent the internal issues with Iraq, the Shrubbery does not start a war.
I think absent the Shrubbery, the internal issue in Iraq result in a war when Saddam is gone anyway.
The key, as I was pointing out, was not the Shrubbery, but broader issues. As is (almost) always the case in these things.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 26, 2021, 06:32:29 PM
I think the origin of Trumpism lies in the climate change debate. The first time Republicans adopted alternate facts.
...and that can be traced back to the religious rights insistence (and the GOPs taking on as a political issue in order to secure them) that creationism is a viable "alternate" fact.
But what does this have to do with the Confederates winning the Battle of Gettysburg?
Quote from: PDH on January 26, 2021, 07:04:24 PM
But what does this have to do with the Confederates winning the Battle of Gettysburg?
:lol:
Well done
Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2021, 06:59:46 PM
...and that can be traced back to the religious rights insistence (and the GOPs taking on as a political issue in order to secure them) that creationism is a viable "alternate" fact.
I considered that but ruled it out. Creationism is a case of choosing an alternate theory. Climate change is the first time IMO when Republicans said to themselves liberals believe X so Y must be true.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 26, 2021, 07:06:22 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2021, 06:59:46 PM
...and that can be traced back to the religious rights insistence (and the GOPs taking on as a political issue in order to secure them) that creationism is a viable "alternate" fact.
I considered that but ruled it out. Creationism is a case of choosing an alternate theory. Climate change is the first time IMO when Republicans said to themselves liberals believe X so Y must be true.
More alternative facts.
Creationism is not a theory, it is a religious belief founded on nothing but faith.
The roots of Trumpism go back to the Southern Strategy and the renewed support of racism to further the agenda.
There is no single point where you can say "here began Trumpism". There are multiple threads going way back. For instance one major thread goes to the Nixon administration where they popularized the idea that it's the media is biased against Republicans and that's why it looks like the US isn't making any headway in Vietnam. CBS is distorting the truth by not showing you the peaceful areas of Vietnam.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 26, 2021, 08:20:54 PM
There is no single point where you can say "here began Trumpism". There are multiple threads going way back. For instance one major thread goes to the Nixon administration where they popularized the idea that it's the media is biased against Republicans and that's why it looks like the US isn't making any headway in Vietnam. CBS is distorting the truth by not showing you the peaceful areas of Vietnam.
I had not thought of it that way, you make a very good point.
Quote from: Barrister on January 26, 2021, 05:48:28 PM
Okay, time to shut down Languish.
We've finally circled back to arguing about the start of the Iraq War.
We've finally run out of topics and are repeating ourselves.
Oh I see how it is. As soon as I come back you want to shut the place down!
My theory is that the Trump Presidency came about because the Bush Presidency convinced the Republican establishment that they should shift from opposing the Imperial Presidency to embracing it, because they could get so much shit done. The Bush Presidency was the first to postulate that the president had broad inherent powers not granted by the Constitution, and that it was the solemn duty of the President to resist all attempts by other branches of government to exert checks and balances.
The most telling feature of Trumpism, IMO, is that, in Trump, the Republican establishment had a president who wasn't as squeamish about blatantly violating the Constitution. It didn't have to be Trump, of course, but that's the way it played out.
Other elements of Trumpism are certainly attributable to the Southern Strategy and other elements argued by others, but it is the assault on all Constitutional norms that strike me as the core damage done.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 26, 2021, 08:20:54 PM
There is no single point where you can say "here began Trumpism". There are multiple threads going way back. For instance one major thread goes to the Nixon administration where they popularized the idea that it's the media is biased against Republicans and that's why it looks like the US isn't making any headway in Vietnam. CBS is distorting the truth by not showing you the peaceful areas of Vietnam.
Indeed.
I don't even think of this in terms of "what led to Trump". Trump is not the end state, or some kind of singular result, like a war or something.
Trump is one of many fruits that have come to ripen on the tree of hatred, bigotry, intolerance, rejection of democracy, and rejection of truth that has come to define modern "conservatism".
There's a very famous moment in the 08 campaign when a very fine person at a GOP rally starting shouting nonsense about Obama being a Kenyan Islamic terrorist and McCain made a point of saying no that's wrong and Obama is decent and honorable but just wrong on policy. It was a beautiful moment and exemplified McCain's character.
And then McCain lost.
When Obama became President and a bunch of "low information voters" came out demanding that government stay out of their Medicare and joined up with the very fine people and their very fine opinions about Obama's religious affiliations and citizenship, that was time for the GOP leaders to emulate McCain and steer that opposition in more productive directions. But some of them looked around licking their 08 electoral wounds and thought, yeah but McCain lost. Maybe there is some way to fuel this rage and energy further and create voter mobilization for us against this powerful Obama coalition. And in 2010 some self-proclaimed true believers got into Congress, playing with this fire either out of conviction or opportunism.
But the problem with that kind of politics is there is no logical stopping point. Once you embrace the paranoid style, the attention naturally flows to the loudest, the shrillest, and the most amoral. All roads lead to Trump.
In the short run the traditional GOP held together enough to nominate Romney but when he lost that made successive failures from the conventional wing of the part, three if you include the discredited GWB. By 2016, it wasn't just Trump - Ben Carson polled at or close to 1st for months and Ted Cruz ended up with more delegates and votes than Kasich and Rubio combined.
Raz is right, you can trace this all back as far as you want - back to John Birchers and Senator McCarthy, back to Father Coughlin, back to Lindy and the original America First, back to J Edgar Hoover and the Red Scares. But none of that leads inevitably to now, the 2008-10 period was a key moment, and the effect of Romney's defeat on the credibility of the traditional wing pushed it over the brink.
Quote from: grumbler on January 26, 2021, 09:08:45 PM
My theory is that the Trump Presidency came about because the Bush Presidency convinced the Republican establishment that they should shift from opposing the Imperial Presidency to embracing it, because they could get so much shit done.
The one political truism since Herbert Hoover is that the party that holds the Presidency always supports the Imperial Presidency. The 50s isolationists closed their eyes while the Dulles Bros ran their schemes, Nixon was allowed to rule imperiously until he got entangled in a grubby political burglary, the small government zealots cheered while Reagan vastly expanded the budget and sent troops and planes willy-nilly across the globe, the traditional defenders of sovereignty lined up behind GHWB's New World Order (until Clinton was in charge and then it was the turn of the peacenikky Democrats to cheer bombing the Balkans).
Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2021, 05:27:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 26, 2021, 05:24:05 PM
If the larger forces at play you are referring to are the lying neo cons who caused the US to go to war, then yeah, we are in agreement.
I knew I could count on someone to come along and insist that no, there are no other forces at play in anything other than the designated "EVIL PERSON" you need to make sure stays satisfyingly vilified.
And I was betting with someone that it would be you first. Thanks for the $10!
No way you found a sucker who'd make that bet.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 27, 2021, 01:53:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2021, 05:27:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 26, 2021, 05:24:05 PM
If the larger forces at play you are referring to are the lying neo cons who caused the US to go to war, then yeah, we are in agreement.
I knew I could count on someone to come along and insist that no, there are no other forces at play in anything other than the designated "EVIL PERSON" you need to make sure stays satisfyingly vilified.
And I was betting with someone that it would be you first. Thanks for the $10!
But he did find a sucker that believed his line, so not a total loss for him
You are a great enabler for Berkut. At least someone accepts his version of history.
Are you really that convinced that there were no other factors involved in the second Gulf War than "lying neocons"? I mean....really?
Nothing? Nothing at all? And you think 50 years from now, when objective historians are writing about this conflict, the chapter on "Lead up to the war" is just going to be 30 pages about the bullshit Bush and Cheney were feeding everyone? Because that explains the entire thing, right?
Am I nuts here? Is saying that there is more involved in the second gulf conflict than just some right wings douchebags lying about WMD intel really even controversial outside the frothing ex-MoveOn crowd?
The analysis then pointed to Bush the younger finishing up what the elder could not do, described as an obsession. The rest probably lived in neo-con lala land dreaming that the Iraqis would welcome them and that it was a first domino in a great world going-democracy domino.
So... What other pressing factors were at play?
Quote from: Berkut on January 27, 2021, 10:14:54 AM
Are you really that convinced that there were no other factors involved in the second Gulf War than "lying neocons"? I mean....really?
Nothing? Nothing at all? And you think 50 years from now, when objective historians are writing about this conflict, the chapter on "Lead up to the war" is just going to be 30 pages about the bullshit Bush and Cheney were feeding everyone? Because that explains the entire thing, right?
Am I nuts here? Is saying that there is more involved in the second gulf conflict than just some right wings douchebags lying about WMD intel really even controversial outside the frothing ex-MoveOn crowd?
Are there other factors for that particular war. No not really. If the big lie had not been told the US would have had no support from the other allies who entered the war (and particularly the UK) and the chances of the Bush administration pushing ahead alone would have been very remote.
You are conflating two things here. Your thesis seems to be not that war at that particular time was inevitable but that a war with Iraq at some point was inevitable. We will never really know the answer to that. What we do know is that the wars Bush started never really ended. The big lie brought us to where we are now.
Quote from: Berkut on January 27, 2021, 10:14:54 AM
Are you really that convinced that there were no other factors involved in the second Gulf War than "lying neocons"? I mean....really?
Nothing? Nothing at all? And you think 50 years from now, when objective historians are writing about this conflict, the chapter on "Lead up to the war" is just going to be 30 pages about the bullshit Bush and Cheney were feeding everyone? Because that explains the entire thing, right?
Am I nuts here? Is saying that there is more involved in the second gulf conflict than just some right wings douchebags lying about WMD intel really even controversial outside the frothing ex-MoveOn crowd?
You are arguing with CC. That's always a losing move. He can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2021, 06:58:16 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 26, 2021, 05:37:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2021, 04:58:17 PM
I think in regards to the Iraq war, close on we look at history as the actions of people pushing things. IE, we went to war with Iraq because Bush lied!
As you get a longer view, history tends to look at underlying factors, with the players (often) being seen as more the people shaping specifics rather then driving the broad strokes. I think the Arab Spring and other things have made people less interested in casting Iraq War 2.0 as some kind of evil plot by the NeoCons and more recognition that it was the outcome of larger forces at play. This was something that I said even at the time - Iraq was never "stable". It was a powder keg whose lid was held tightly down by a brutally authoritarian dictator. It was no more stable than Yugoslavia was under Tito, probably a lot less so in fact. Saddams antics that led to the second war was part of his need to keep the lid on that powder keg.
I suspect in the long run, nobody will look at the the second round of the Iraq war as something driven by some personalities anymore than people look at WW1 and say that it was started because the Kaiser did this or didn't do that. Even Saddam was playing to forces beyond his own control.
And yeah....Trump has certainly made everyone look one hell of a lot better. And the Shrubbery's second term was a lot better than his first (once he ejected the Anti-Christ from his cabinet).
Is the argument that the US would get militarily involved in Iraq anyway after a "natural" fall of the Saddam regime?
No, the argument is that the fall of the Saddam regime would see a war in Iraq whether the US instigated that fall or not.
I think absent the internal issues with Iraq, the Shrubbery does not start a war.
I think absent the Shrubbery, the internal issue in Iraq result in a war when Saddam is gone anyway.
The key, as I was pointing out, was not the Shrubbery, but broader issues. As is (almost) always the case in these things.
If it's a war where the US doesn't get involved then what would it matter to the US?
I'm not sure I get your point, Berkut. If what you're saying is that sooner or later US would've been involved in a war that cost us many trillions and many thousands of lives, because Iraq was just that unstable, then I don't see where that conclusion comes from. Okay, so Iraq could've become another Syria, why would we give any more shit about that than we did about Syria?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 27, 2021, 10:22:21 AM
Are there other factors for that particular war. No not really. If the big lie had not been told the US would have had no support from the other allies who entered the war (and particularly the UK) and the chances of the Bush administration pushing ahead alone would have been very remote.
You are overstating the case. The case is that Bush people manipulated and "sexed up" the intelligence to make it seem stronger and more solid then it was and to add unsupportable claims like an al-Qaeda connection to Saddam, and then took aggressive steps to silence dissenting voices, in at least one case (Plame) crossing the line into criminality.
There was some real intelligence on WMD albeit inconclusive. It's wrong to say there weren't other factors; not only were there other factors but those factors were the primary motivations for the war; Bush insiders have gone on record saying that the WMD claims were significant for public messaging but not the principal motivation for Bush's neocon-heavy security team. There is no way to no for sure, but it's quite possible that Bush would have gone to war even with less international backing.
Quote from: DGuller on January 27, 2021, 11:47:33 AM
I'm not sure I get your point, Berkut. If what you're saying is that sooner or later US would've been involved in a war that cost us many trillions and many thousands of lives, because Iraq was just that unstable, then I don't see where that conclusion comes from. Okay, so Iraq could've become another Syria, why would we give any more shit about that than we did about Syria?
We don't care about Syria because we don't see ourselves as the proximate cause of the violence there.
My point is that absent the Shrubbery pushing US involvement, the violence still happens. That the Shrubbery was involved just changed some of the actors in the play, the play was going on either way.
So when people say shit like "The Shrubbery started a war that killed 500,000 people!" I think it is hyperbolic bullshit and betrays that the people making claims like that care a LOT more about the "The SHrubbery started...." part then they do about the "....killed 500,000 people" part.
My point is that the conflict has as its basis underlying unresolved issues that were going to result in violence absent some kind of really amazing intervention, and that objective and dispassionate evaluation of Gulf War 2.0 in the future will NOT be focused on GW Bush and his sketchy ass crap about WMDs.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 27, 2021, 12:12:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 27, 2021, 10:22:21 AM
Are there other factors for that particular war. No not really. If the big lie had not been told the US would have had no support from the other allies who entered the war (and particularly the UK) and the chances of the Bush administration pushing ahead alone would have been very remote.
You are overstating the case. The case is that Bush people manipulated and "sexed up" the intelligence to make it seem stronger and more solid then it was and to add unsupportable claims like an al-Qaeda connection to Saddam, and then took aggressive steps to silence dissenting voices, in at least one case (Plame) crossing the line into criminality.
There was some real intelligence on WMD albeit inconclusive. It's wrong to say there weren't other factors; not only were there other factors but those factors were the primary motivations for the war; Bush insiders have gone on record saying that the WMD claims were significant for public messaging but not the principal motivation for Bush's neocon-heavy security team. There is no way to no for sure, but it's quite possible that Bush would have gone to war even with less international backing.
And I said this AT THE TIME.
The real argument for intervention had nothing to do with WMDs that existed today.
It was stupid to make the argument based on that, but that does not, at all, take away from the actual reasons to justify going to war.
They sure as hell were never MY reasons for supporting the war.
I supported the war because I was desperate for any means to end the sanctions which were so devastating to Iraq.
But the war was disastrously mismanaged...naturally.
Knowing some people who participated in that war though, the rank and file infantry thought they were going in to find WMDs and were greatly demoralized and angry when they discovered there were none. So if that was never the casus belli it might have been a good idea to get the army on board with the real reason for their mission.
But that would have required Dubya to be a competent and moral leader.
But even if that war had never happened he was still a horrible President for many other reasons. That was just one thing.
If on Dec. 8th Rooselevt got up and said "We should to to war with Japan because they are all a bunch of Allah worshipping suicide bombers!" that would be a dumb argument for war. If we found out later that Roosevelt KNEW that what he was saying probably wasn't even true, it might even be an illegal argument.
That doesn't take away from the rather good arguments for war that we know existed.
Now, those other arguments may not even be good arguments. But to pretend they don't even exist is just simply dishonest. And that is what the nutbars want to insist on - the war happened because Bush lied about WMDs, period, full stop.
Quote from: Valmy on January 27, 2021, 02:37:36 PM
I supported the war because I was desperate for any means to end the sanctions which were so devastating to Iraq.
But the war was disastrously mismanaged...naturally.
Knowing some people who participated in that war though, the rank and file infantry thought they were going in to find WMDs and were greatly demoralized and angry when they discovered there were none. So if that was never the casus belli it might have been a good idea to get the army on board with the real reason for their mission.
But that would have required Dubya to be a competent and moral leader.
But even if that war had never happened he was still a horrible President for many other reasons. That was just one thing.
Yup.
He sucked from the standpoint of executing on what he wanted for a variety of reasons.
But what he ACTUALLY wanted (and what the Neo-Cons wanted) was not fundamentally evil. It wasn't because Saddam dissed his dad, or because they wanted the oil, or any of that nonsense that is about 98% the "narrative" because so many people want to just imagine the worst possible motive they can for the "bad guys" so they can feel warm and fuzzy about their outrage.
The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions. Understanding that is a lot more useful than moral outrage.
Can we enumerate some of the good reasons? I don't think they're obvious to everyone, even the non-nutbars.
Quote from: The Brain on January 27, 2021, 10:43:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2021, 06:58:16 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 26, 2021, 05:37:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2021, 04:58:17 PM
I think in regards to the Iraq war, close on we look at history as the actions of people pushing things. IE, we went to war with Iraq because Bush lied!
As you get a longer view, history tends to look at underlying factors, with the players (often) being seen as more the people shaping specifics rather then driving the broad strokes. I think the Arab Spring and other things have made people less interested in casting Iraq War 2.0 as some kind of evil plot by the NeoCons and more recognition that it was the outcome of larger forces at play. This was something that I said even at the time - Iraq was never "stable". It was a powder keg whose lid was held tightly down by a brutally authoritarian dictator. It was no more stable than Yugoslavia was under Tito, probably a lot less so in fact. Saddams antics that led to the second war was part of his need to keep the lid on that powder keg.
I suspect in the long run, nobody will look at the the second round of the Iraq war as something driven by some personalities anymore than people look at WW1 and say that it was started because the Kaiser did this or didn't do that. Even Saddam was playing to forces beyond his own control.
And yeah....Trump has certainly made everyone look one hell of a lot better. And the Shrubbery's second term was a lot better than his first (once he ejected the Anti-Christ from his cabinet).
Is the argument that the US would get militarily involved in Iraq anyway after a "natural" fall of the Saddam regime?
No, the argument is that the fall of the Saddam regime would see a war in Iraq whether the US instigated that fall or not.
I think absent the internal issues with Iraq, the Shrubbery does not start a war.
I think absent the Shrubbery, the internal issue in Iraq result in a war when Saddam is gone anyway.
The key, as I was pointing out, was not the Shrubbery, but broader issues. As is (almost) always the case in these things.
If it's a war where the US doesn't get involved then what would it matter to the US?
There are lots of wars that the US is not involved in. Syria, for example.
It still matters.
And I think Syria is a pretty good model, in fact. A fundamentally unstable mess where violence and conflict might be tamped down with the threat of more violence for some time, but the violence is still there.
The Iraqi people are better off now then they were under Saddam (although they are not well off). Whether that was worth all the bloodshed, $, and the occupation of swaths of the country by ISIS can fairly be asked.
Quote from: DGuller on January 27, 2021, 02:47:46 PM
Can we enumerate some of the good reasons? I don't think they're obvious to everyone, even the non-nutbars.
"Good" being a rather relative term.
1. Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of the ceasefire, and in fact had never really shown any intention of adhering to them in good faith. This meant that the US had already sent in military build ups, he would back down, and then repeat some months later. It was time to quit screwing around and just remove him from power. Absent that option, we would likely have to simply abandon any pretense of having the mandate to restrict Iraqi sovereignty at all, and let him do as he wants.
2. (Neo-con) Iraq is actually a pretty well educated, modern society. Given then chance, it could become a model for Muslim secular governance and success. They have good natural resources, and are a reasonably wealthy country. If we take #1 as a opportunity to remove a dictator and show the region what actual democracy and the rule of law looks like, it will serve as an example to others!
3. Saddam is a loose cannon. He always has been, and he has kept Iraq in a state of constant war because he has to in order to hold onto power. Unless the coalition just constantly plays this game (see #1), he will be a long term threat to the region. Might as well get rid of him now while we have the chance, or else we will be back in 10 years once he is given the chance to start selling oil and rebuilding his military again.
4. The Saddam regime is simply evil, and is incredibly harmful to the Iraqi people who are living under what amounts to state sanctioned internal terrorism. He isn't the only one of course, but he is the only one where there is a pretty clear opportunity to do something about it.
5. While Saddam probably does not ahve a credible WMD program now, we know he has had one in the past, so it is perfectly reasonable to assume that absent militarily imposed force, he will attempt to get them in the future. Indeed, his long term security pretty much demands that he do so, therefore his even trivial violations of the agreements represent a clear justification to remove that long term threat of his desire to get WMDs the moment the international community takes his eyes off of him - which they will once he (again) calls our bluff on the threat of force.
Those are just a start. I am sure there are more, and I am sure argument can be made about whether or not they are actually "good" arguments in the first place.
They obviously rely on two things, one of which certainly was true, and one that was assumed to be true:
1. That given the crisis, if the coalition does NOT call Saddams bluff and go to war, the ability to maintain a no fly zone, military pressure, and the general "focus" on keeping Saddam nominally within the bounds of the cease fire agreement would go away. I felt strongly about this - at some point we would need to fish or cut bait. If we were never going to call him on his violations, we should just end the sanctions and go home.
2. That the US and its allies could competently remove Saddam and then manage the aftermath. This turned out to be completely untrue, and IMO, is the real knock on GWB more than his motives.
Quote from: Berkut on January 27, 2021, 02:49:18 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 27, 2021, 10:43:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2021, 06:58:16 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 26, 2021, 05:37:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 26, 2021, 04:58:17 PM
I think in regards to the Iraq war, close on we look at history as the actions of people pushing things. IE, we went to war with Iraq because Bush lied!
As you get a longer view, history tends to look at underlying factors, with the players (often) being seen as more the people shaping specifics rather then driving the broad strokes. I think the Arab Spring and other things have made people less interested in casting Iraq War 2.0 as some kind of evil plot by the NeoCons and more recognition that it was the outcome of larger forces at play. This was something that I said even at the time - Iraq was never "stable". It was a powder keg whose lid was held tightly down by a brutally authoritarian dictator. It was no more stable than Yugoslavia was under Tito, probably a lot less so in fact. Saddams antics that led to the second war was part of his need to keep the lid on that powder keg.
I suspect in the long run, nobody will look at the the second round of the Iraq war as something driven by some personalities anymore than people look at WW1 and say that it was started because the Kaiser did this or didn't do that. Even Saddam was playing to forces beyond his own control.
And yeah....Trump has certainly made everyone look one hell of a lot better. And the Shrubbery's second term was a lot better than his first (once he ejected the Anti-Christ from his cabinet).
Is the argument that the US would get militarily involved in Iraq anyway after a "natural" fall of the Saddam regime?
No, the argument is that the fall of the Saddam regime would see a war in Iraq whether the US instigated that fall or not.
I think absent the internal issues with Iraq, the Shrubbery does not start a war.
I think absent the Shrubbery, the internal issue in Iraq result in a war when Saddam is gone anyway.
The key, as I was pointing out, was not the Shrubbery, but broader issues. As is (almost) always the case in these things.
If it's a war where the US doesn't get involved then what would it matter to the US?
There are lots of wars that the US is not involved in. Syria, for example.
It still matters.
And I think Syria is a pretty good model, in fact. A fundamentally unstable mess where violence and conflict might be tamped down with the threat of more violence for some time, but the violence is still there.
Isn't the thread about the GWB presidency? The POTUS isn't responsible for all the world's ills.
The years leading up to 2003 witnessed a humanitarian catastrophe of truly epic proportions in the Congo. I don't recall any western government coming under heavy fire for ignoring it, and it certainly isn't what typically comes up when people now evaluate Clinton or W.
We would have been blamed for whatever happened in Iraq, because of the sanctions.
Quote from: Valmy on January 27, 2021, 02:37:36 PM
I supported the war because I was desperate for any means to end the sanctions which were so devastating to Iraq.
But the war was disastrously mismanaged...naturally.
Knowing some people who participated in that war though, the rank and file infantry thought they were going in to find WMDs and were greatly demoralized and angry when they discovered there were none. So if that was never the casus belli it might have been a good idea to get the army on board with the real reason for their mission.
But that would have required Dubya to be a competent and moral leader.
But even if that war had never happened he was still a horrible President for many other reasons. That was just one thing.
The only people who were more demoralized and angry about "no WMDs" were the guys who found the WMDs and the guys who had to dispose of them.
Quote from: grumbler on January 27, 2021, 05:17:28 PM
The only people who were more demoralized and angry about "no WMDs" were the guys who found the WMDs and the guys who had to dispose of them.
Exactly. Fantasy people.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 27, 2021, 12:12:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 27, 2021, 10:22:21 AM
Are there other factors for that particular war. No not really. If the big lie had not been told the US would have had no support from the other allies who entered the war (and particularly the UK) and the chances of the Bush administration pushing ahead alone would have been very remote.
You are overstating the case. The case is that Bush people manipulated and "sexed up" the intelligence to make it seem stronger and more solid then it was and to add unsupportable claims like an al-Qaeda connection to Saddam, and then took aggressive steps to silence dissenting voices, in at least one case (Plame) crossing the line into criminality.
There was some real intelligence on WMD albeit inconclusive. It's wrong to say there weren't other factors; not only were there other factors but those factors were the primary motivations for the war; Bush insiders have gone on record saying that the WMD claims were significant for public messaging but not the principal motivation for Bush's neocon-heavy security team. There is no way to no for sure, but it's quite possible that Bush would have gone to war even with less international backing.
So your argument is that some intelligence was then exaggerated to make the claim that the war was justified, but we should ignore the lie that caused the exaggeration. That is cutting the baloney very thin don't you think.
Quote from: Valmy on January 27, 2021, 05:36:31 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 27, 2021, 05:17:28 PM
The only people who were more demoralized and angry about "no WMDs" were the guys who found the WMDs and the guys who had to dispose of them.
Exactly. Fantasy people.
:lmfao: :D :) :huh: :(
No. Wait. You actually think that, don't you?
Oh, dear. It seems like the Trumpeters aren't the only ones with alternate facts.
You might want to check and see what reliable histories (including contemporary news media) have to say.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 27, 2021, 06:07:00 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 27, 2021, 12:12:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 27, 2021, 10:22:21 AM
Are there other factors for that particular war. No not really. If the big lie had not been told the US would have had no support from the other allies who entered the war (and particularly the UK) and the chances of the Bush administration pushing ahead alone would have been very remote.
You are overstating the case. The case is that Bush people manipulated and "sexed up" the intelligence to make it seem stronger and more solid then it was and to add unsupportable claims like an al-Qaeda connection to Saddam, and then took aggressive steps to silence dissenting voices, in at least one case (Plame) crossing the line into criminality.
There was some real intelligence on WMD albeit inconclusive. It's wrong to say there weren't other factors; not only were there other factors but those factors were the primary motivations for the war; Bush insiders have gone on record saying that the WMD claims were significant for public messaging but not the principal motivation for Bush's neocon-heavy security team. There is no way to no for sure, but it's quite possible that Bush would have gone to war even with less international backing.
So your argument is that some intelligence was then exaggerated to make the claim that the war was justified, but we should ignore the lie that caused the exaggeration. That is cutting the baloney very thin don't you think.
I'm not making an argument here, I'm stating the facts as I understand them. I definitely am not making an argument about ignoring a lie,
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 26, 2021, 06:43:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 26, 2021, 06:32:29 PM
I think the origin of Trumpism lies in the climate change debate. The first time Republicans adopted alternate facts.
I think the first foray into alternative facts is telling everyone that decreasing taxes would increase revenue, that dates back to the 80s.
there were/are economics arguments to that effect. It all depends on how it is enacted. If you reduce the taxes mostly on the very wealthy, it does not matter much, because the increase in disposable income is not specifically spent in needed infrastructure* nor in the country where the taxes are dropped.**
*19th century rich were the plant owners. Late 20th and early 21st century rich are much more diversified, including actors, entertainment figures and idle rich who don't directly produce more wealth in the coutry.
** Buying an island in the Carribean does not increase wealth in the US, nor does shopping in Dubai for the Thanksgiving week-end.
Quote from: grumbler on January 27, 2021, 09:06:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 27, 2021, 05:36:31 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 27, 2021, 05:17:28 PM
The only people who were more demoralized and angry about "no WMDs" were the guys who found the WMDs and the guys who had to dispose of them.
Exactly. Fantasy people.
:lmfao: :D :) :huh: :(
No. Wait. You actually think that, don't you?
Oh, dear. It seems like the Trumpeters aren't the only ones with alternate facts.
You might want to check and see what reliable histories (including contemporary news media) have to say.
No I don't believe that. I was just responding in kind to your trash talking.
I was reporting what soldiers who served told me.
I am aware with the weak sauce shit that was found in Iraq. Ancient shells from the Iran-Iraq War. Chemical weapons, ancient ones that were barely useful anymore. The yellow cake shit. But none of that nonsense was actually functional as a weapon. Some 1980s mustard gas was a huge threat to the United States?
Call me crazy but I don't think barely functional traces of something that might be usable as a weapon in some ideal circumstances classifies as a "weapon of mass destruction" they are barely usable as weapons. We have been over this point many many times in the many years. All the stuff we found was ancient legacy crap from the days of yore. The Iraqis did not actually have a functional WMD program when we invaded.
But instead of recognizing the practical fact and practical reality that there were no weapons that posed any threat to the United States in Iraq, we have tiresome bores clinging to the technical definition of a weapon of mass destruction. Which is not untrue but it is so misleading that it might as well be a lie.
Quote from: Valmy on January 27, 2021, 10:40:53 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 27, 2021, 09:06:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 27, 2021, 05:36:31 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 27, 2021, 05:17:28 PM
The only people who were more demoralized and angry about "no WMDs" were the guys who found the WMDs and the guys who had to dispose of them.
Exactly. Fantasy people.
:lmfao: :D :) :huh: :(
No. Wait. You actually think that, don't you?
Oh, dear. It seems like the Trumpeters aren't the only ones with alternate facts.
You might want to check and see what reliable histories (including contemporary news media) have to say.
No I don't believe that. I was just responding in kind to your trash talking.
I was reporting what soldiers who served told me.
I am aware with the weak sauce shit that was found in Iraq. Ancient shells from the Iran-Iraq War. Chemical weapons, ancient ones that were barely useful anymore. The yellow cake shit. But none of that nonsense was actually functional as a weapon. Some 1980s mustard gas was a huge threat to the United States?
Call me crazy but I don't think barely functional traces of something that might be usable as a weapon in some ideal circumstances classifies as a "weapon of mass destruction" they are barely usable as weapons. We have been over this point many many times in the many years. All the stuff we found was ancient legacy crap from the days of yore. The Iraqis did not actually have a functional WMD program when we invaded.
But instead of recognizing the practical fact and practical reality that there were no weapons that posed any threat to the United States in Iraq, we have tiresome bores clinging to the technical definition of a weapon of mass destruction. Which is not untrue but it is so misleading that it might as well be a lie.
No I think you're wrong there, because if you were making the point that the Iraqi WMD had some significance, he'd be making the counter argument.
Keep going guys, I feel 20 again :)
I am not interested in re-arguing the factors that led to that particular war. Hell, that would be a rather untenable argument for me to make now.
Just pointing out that there were arguments beyond the obviously bullshit WMD ones, and that just seems rather self-evidently true.
There were other reasons to engage in that conflict.
And the basic factors that made the conflict happen went far beyond neo-cons looking for get some sweet, sweet oil.
Quote from: Valmy on January 27, 2021, 10:40:53 PM
No I don't believe that. I was just responding in kind to your trash talking.
I was reporting what soldiers who served told me.
I am aware with the weak sauce shit that was found in Iraq. Ancient shells from the Iran-Iraq War. Chemical weapons, ancient ones that were barely useful anymore. The yellow cake shit. But none of that nonsense was actually functional as a weapon. Some 1980s mustard gas was a huge threat to the United States?
Call me crazy but I don't think barely functional traces of something that might be usable as a weapon in some ideal circumstances classifies as a "weapon of mass destruction" they are barely usable as weapons. We have been over this point many many times in the many years. All the stuff we found was ancient legacy crap from the days of yore. The Iraqis did not actually have a functional WMD program when we invaded.
But instead of recognizing the practical fact and practical reality that there were no weapons that posed any threat to the United States in Iraq, we have tiresome bores clinging to the technical definition of a weapon of mass destruction. Which is not untrue but it is so misleading that it might as well be a lie.
So, there were WMD, but you want to dance the Dance of the Weasel and argue that they were not really WMD-WMD, just some kind of non-WMD WMD that don't, somehow, count as WMD?
Dance away, my friend. But that's a solo dance, so I won't join you.
Quote from: mongers on January 27, 2021, 11:23:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 27, 2021, 10:40:53 PM
No I don't believe that. I was just responding in kind to your trash talking.
I was reporting what soldiers who served told me.
I am aware with the weak sauce shit that was found in Iraq. Ancient shells from the Iran-Iraq War. Chemical weapons, ancient ones that were barely useful anymore. The yellow cake shit. But none of that nonsense was actually functional as a weapon. Some 1980s mustard gas was a huge threat to the United States?
Call me crazy but I don't think barely functional traces of something that might be usable as a weapon in some ideal circumstances classifies as a "weapon of mass destruction" they are barely usable as weapons. We have been over this point many many times in the many years. All the stuff we found was ancient legacy crap from the days of yore. The Iraqis did not actually have a functional WMD program when we invaded.
But instead of recognizing the practical fact and practical reality that there were no weapons that posed any threat to the United States in Iraq, we have tiresome bores clinging to the technical definition of a weapon of mass destruction. Which is not untrue but it is so misleading that it might as well be a lie.
No I think you're wrong there, because if you were making the point that the Iraqi WMD had some significance, he'd be making the counter argument.
No one ever claimed that the war was about a threat to the US. Not even the weak-ass Shrubbery justifications for the war claimed that.
Not completely true, there were attempts to connect Saddam's security forces with 9/11.
Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2021, 06:55:51 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 27, 2021, 11:23:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 27, 2021, 10:40:53 PM
No I don't believe that. I was just responding in kind to your trash talking.
I was reporting what soldiers who served told me.
I am aware with the weak sauce shit that was found in Iraq. Ancient shells from the Iran-Iraq War. Chemical weapons, ancient ones that were barely useful anymore. The yellow cake shit. But none of that nonsense was actually functional as a weapon. Some 1980s mustard gas was a huge threat to the United States?
Call me crazy but I don't think barely functional traces of something that might be usable as a weapon in some ideal circumstances classifies as a "weapon of mass destruction" they are barely usable as weapons. We have been over this point many many times in the many years. All the stuff we found was ancient legacy crap from the days of yore. The Iraqis did not actually have a functional WMD program when we invaded.
But instead of recognizing the practical fact and practical reality that there were no weapons that posed any threat to the United States in Iraq, we have tiresome bores clinging to the technical definition of a weapon of mass destruction. Which is not untrue but it is so misleading that it might as well be a lie.
No I think you're wrong there, because if you were making the point that the Iraqi WMD had some significance, he'd be making the counter argument.
No one ever claimed that the war was about a threat to the US. Not even the weak-ass Shrubbery justifications for the war claimed that.
Jesus Christ, how many times are you going to claim this? Are you the only one that forgot the whole "let's whip up the american people in this imaginary threat so that they'll support this bogus shit"
"We Don't Want The Smoking Gun To Be A Mushroom Cloud." How many times did Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld etc. use that phrase in interviews and statements?
They ALL claimed the war was about a threat to the US.
Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2021, 06:55:51 AM
No one ever claimed that the war was about a threat to the US. Not even the weak-ass Shrubbery justifications for the war claimed that.
Quote from: DubyaThe regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.
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 duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.
Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq.
Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2021, 06:53:41 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 27, 2021, 10:40:53 PM
No I don't believe that. I was just responding in kind to your trash talking.
I was reporting what soldiers who served told me.
I am aware with the weak sauce shit that was found in Iraq. Ancient shells from the Iran-Iraq War. Chemical weapons, ancient ones that were barely useful anymore. The yellow cake shit. But none of that nonsense was actually functional as a weapon. Some 1980s mustard gas was a huge threat to the United States?
Call me crazy but I don't think barely functional traces of something that might be usable as a weapon in some ideal circumstances classifies as a "weapon of mass destruction" they are barely usable as weapons. We have been over this point many many times in the many years. All the stuff we found was ancient legacy crap from the days of yore. The Iraqis did not actually have a functional WMD program when we invaded.
But instead of recognizing the practical fact and practical reality that there were no weapons that posed any threat to the United States in Iraq, we have tiresome bores clinging to the technical definition of a weapon of mass destruction. Which is not untrue but it is so misleading that it might as well be a lie.
So, there were WMD, but you want to dance the Dance of the Weasel and argue that they were not really WMD-WMD, just some kind of non-WMD WMD that don't, somehow, count as WMD?
Dance away, my friend. But that's a solo dance, so I won't join you.
I think your use of the word "weasel" here is completely unwarranted, and honestly makes it look like you have no argument. It looks to me like you're clinging to being "technically correct" in a situation where it is very apparent to any reasonable observer that technical correctness here is very misleading in context.
Quote from: DGuller on January 28, 2021, 09:25:15 AM
Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2021, 06:53:41 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 27, 2021, 10:40:53 PM
No I don't believe that. I was just responding in kind to your trash talking.
I was reporting what soldiers who served told me.
I am aware with the weak sauce shit that was found in Iraq. Ancient shells from the Iran-Iraq War. Chemical weapons, ancient ones that were barely useful anymore. The yellow cake shit. But none of that nonsense was actually functional as a weapon. Some 1980s mustard gas was a huge threat to the United States?
Call me crazy but I don't think barely functional traces of something that might be usable as a weapon in some ideal circumstances classifies as a "weapon of mass destruction" they are barely usable as weapons. We have been over this point many many times in the many years. All the stuff we found was ancient legacy crap from the days of yore. The Iraqis did not actually have a functional WMD program when we invaded.
But instead of recognizing the practical fact and practical reality that there were no weapons that posed any threat to the United States in Iraq, we have tiresome bores clinging to the technical definition of a weapon of mass destruction. Which is not untrue but it is so misleading that it might as well be a lie.
So, there were WMD, but you want to dance the Dance of the Weasel and argue that they were not really WMD-WMD, just some kind of non-WMD WMD that don't, somehow, count as WMD?
Dance away, my friend. But that's a solo dance, so I won't join you.
I think your use of the word "weasel" here is completely unwarranted, and honestly makes it look like you have no argument. It looks to me like you're clinging to being "technically correct" in a situation where it is very apparent to any reasonable observer that technical correctness here is very misleading in context.
Actually, I look at grumblers argument and think "Yeah, I am going to board the weasel train!"
Because I would say exactly what he is contemptuously saying. That the WMD found does not in fact, count as "WMD". It is very much non-WND WND. In that it isn't what was meant when we said Saddam was not abiding by the "NO WMD!" part of the ceasefire agreement. Most actual intelligence at the time, the stuff the Bush Admin supressed when they told the CIA to go back and re-do their threat assessment said that whatever WMD was still in Iraq was very possibly not even stuff that Saddam was even aware he still had, the country was such a mess.
Still, even at the time, my support for the war had little to do with that part. My support was based on the future threat of a Saddam led Iraq without any external controls on his ability to re-start a WMD program, sell his oil, and re-arm and give it all another go in ten more years. Which I thought was nearly inevitable under the existing circumstances. And in fact, I *still* think that was inevitable under those circumstances.
It is all counter factual at this point of course, but I never heard a credible counter idea to the idea of war. Saddam was basically telling the world to go fuck ourselves. He did not allow inspectors access as agreed. He acted as if he was in fact hiding WMD, or a program. He constantly challenged the no fly zones, and went on a rampage butchering his dissident factions despite the coalition bombing him when he did. He only came to the table when the US and the coalition sent in enough troops into the region to credibly threaten his removal from power.
People seem to forget all that. The US sent tens of thousands of troops to SA and Kuwait. THAT is what forced Saddam to actually let inspectors in again. What is the counter narrative? Leave those troops sitting there indefintely? Ship them back to the US, and then repeat in another 18 months? That was not going to happen. If we backed down at that point, the deal was over. When the bad guy calls your bluff and basically says "You are not serious about removing me from power" and you back down, then you are done trying to influence the situation with the threat of force.
The same thing happened in Syria. Once Assad crossed the "red line" and nothing happened, it's not like we could draw a new red line and have anyone do anything but laugh at it. At that point Assad was basically free to act as he wished.
Again, when you step back and look at it as a whole, "Well, we sent them there so might as well have a war!" is a stupid reason for a war that results in half a million people dead. But if you honestly look at how these things progress, you can appreciate that it is never anything like that. It is a series of steps, each of which makes sense in and of themselves, often motivated by perfectly reasonable and defensible ideals, that lead to a outcome nobody wanted.
There are so many examples of this in history as well. This is not a new story. Hell, WW1 is the canonical case! Nobody at the start of the process that ended in millions dead thought "Well, we mobilized! I guess we might as well have a war that is going to kill millions of our own people and even if we win absolutely destroy our country! I mean, the alternative is that we just send everyone home!"
I supported this war. In hindsight, that was clearly a mistake. When I think about why I was wrong, GWB banding his shoe on the table about WMDs doesn't even enter my calculus. It was never why I thought we should go to war, and was always pretty obviously just something (even at the time) being used to *justify* the war in a simple manner that the administration thought would sell to the American public, and *they* were not going to war for that reason either.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 28, 2021, 07:33:50 AM
Not completely true, there were attempts to connect Saddam's security forces with 9/11.
There were attempts, but neither the UN speech nor the request for AUMF made such claims. They linked SH to international terrorism in general, but not to 9/11.
The thrust was that SH was an enemy of the US, not that he posed an immediate threat to the US.
Quote from: Zoupa on January 28, 2021, 08:07:35 AM
Jesus Christ, how many times are you going to claim this? Are you the only one that forgot the whole "let's whip up the american people in this imaginary threat so that they'll support this bogus shit"
"We Don't Want The Smoking Gun To Be A Mushroom Cloud." How many times did Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld etc. use that phrase in interviews and statements?
They ALL claimed the war was about a threat to the US.
Jesus Christ, when are you just going to look at the actual evidence rather than your fevered views of "let's whip up the american people in this imaginary threat so that they'll support this bogus shit"?
The justifications claimed for the war were not that "we must attack now to stop Saddam Hussein from attacking the US," it was "we must attack now because we need to nip this WMD program in the bud before SH has the ability to threaten use of WMD if we threaten his regime."
There is no question but what the CIA and US And UK government officials "cooked the books" with regard to the actual threat SH posed and the immediacy of the threat. But we don't have to invent a new history to explain what the existing history explains quite well.
SH ironically doomed himself by refusing to allow the UN inspectors to verify that he had, in fact, effectively complied with the significant UN resolutions.
Quote from: DGuller on January 28, 2021, 09:25:15 AM
I think your use of the word "weasel" here is completely unwarranted, and honestly makes it look like you have no argument. It looks to me like you're clinging to being "technically correct" in a situation where it is very apparent to any reasonable observer that technical correctness here is very misleading in context.
The use of the word "weasel" is perfectly accurate, since the original claim was that "the rank and file infantry thought they were going in to find WMDs and were greatly demoralized and angry when they discovered there were none." When I pointed out that WMD were found and disposed of, the argument because that the people who did that were "Fantasy people."
When invited to reconfirm that only "fantasy people" ever found WMD, Valmy didn't concede that we was wrong, he just switched his argument to "they are barely usable as weapons."
That's classic weaseling, given that the point he was arguing against was simply that WMD were, indeed, found. He can't deny that, so he starts to dance.
If you want to strawman my simple observation (not an argument at all) into some "clinging to being "technically correct" in a situation where it is very apparent to any reasonable observer that technical correctness here is very misleading in context," go right ahead. Strawman arguments are no more compelling than the Dance of the Weasel.
Quote from: Berkut on January 28, 2021, 10:01:10 AM
Actually, I look at grumblers argument and think "Yeah, I am going to board the weasel train!"
What argument do you believe I made? What quote from me can you provide that includes that argument?
Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2021, 06:55:51 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 27, 2021, 11:23:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 27, 2021, 10:40:53 PM
No I don't believe that. I was just responding in kind to your trash talking.
I was reporting what soldiers who served told me.
I am aware with the weak sauce shit that was found in Iraq. Ancient shells from the Iran-Iraq War. Chemical weapons, ancient ones that were barely useful anymore. The yellow cake shit. But none of that nonsense was actually functional as a weapon. Some 1980s mustard gas was a huge threat to the United States?
Call me crazy but I don't think barely functional traces of something that might be usable as a weapon in some ideal circumstances classifies as a "weapon of mass destruction" they are barely usable as weapons. We have been over this point many many times in the many years. All the stuff we found was ancient legacy crap from the days of yore. The Iraqis did not actually have a functional WMD program when we invaded.
But instead of recognizing the practical fact and practical reality that there were no weapons that posed any threat to the United States in Iraq, we have tiresome bores clinging to the technical definition of a weapon of mass destruction. Which is not untrue but it is so misleading that it might as well be a lie.
No I think you're wrong there, because if you were making the point that the Iraqi WMD had some significance, he'd be making the counter argument.
No one ever claimed that the war was about a threat to the US. Not even the weak-ass Shrubbery justifications for the war claimed that.
I know the then President of the United States is held in low esteem, but he wasn't exactly a nobody.
And if you don't want to take the time to read all the following text of just one of the speeches Bush made at the time, which shows your position is not accurate. Just pay attention to this one thing he said.
"We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States."
QuoteTranscript: George Bush's speech on Iraq
Following is the text of an address given by President Bush in Cincinnati
Mon 7 Oct 2002 09.00 BST
44
Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight. I appreciate you all coming. Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.
The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions, its history of aggression and its drive toward an arsenal of terror.
Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's 11-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.
We must also never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September 11 2001, America felt its vulnerability even to threats that gather on the other side of the Earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat from any source that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.
Members of Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons.
Since we all agree on this goal, the issue is how best can we achieve it?
Many Americans have raised legitimate questions about the nature of the threat, about the urgency of action. Why be concerned now? About the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror and the wider war on terror.
These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration, and tonight I want to share those discussions with you.
First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place.
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States. By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique.
As a former chief weapons inspector of the UN has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime itself." Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction.
Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today - and we do - does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?
In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 litres of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for and is capable of killing millions.
We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, Sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He's ordered chemical attacks on Iran and on more than 40 villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people: more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September 11.
And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991.Yet Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons, despite international sanctions, UN demands and isolation from the civilized world.
Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles; far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work.
We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles [UAVs] that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States.
And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack. All that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it. And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups.
Over the years Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans.
Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who is responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.
We know that Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network share a common enemy: the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaida have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.
Some al-Qaida leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al-Qaida leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks.
We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September 11 Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.
Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary, confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror.
When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction, and he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them or provide them to a terror network.
Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both, and the United States military is capable of confronting both.
Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to 10 years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime had been much closer. The regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.
The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites.
That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that, despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.
The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists . . . his "nuclear mujaheddin," his nuclear holy warriors.
Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of his nuclear program in the past.
Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.
If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, he could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.
And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.
Some citizens wonder, "After 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now?"
And there's a reason. We have experienced the horror of September 11. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact they would be eager, to use biological or chemical or a nuclear weapon.
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril."
Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.
Advertisement
Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991.
The UN inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next. They forged documents, destroyed evidence and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass 12 square miles, with hundreds of structures both above and below the ground where sensitive materials could be hidden.
The world has also tried economic sanctions and watched Iraqi's billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases rather than provide for the needs of the Iraqi people.
The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities, only to see them openly rebuilt while the regime again denies they even exist.
The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people, and in the last year alone the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.
After 11 years during which we've tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.
Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the UN to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements.
Among those requirements the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under UN supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country. And these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them, so they are all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder.
And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.
The time of denying, deceiving and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself, or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.
Many nations are joining us and insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs.
And that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the UN Security Council seriously. These resolutions are very clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot whose fate is still unknown.
By taking these steps and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict.
These steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that's why two administrations - mine and President Clinton's - have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.
I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished.
If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail.
There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait, and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence.
As Americans, we want peace. We work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.
Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events.
The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear.
That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear.
This nation, in world war and in cold war, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom and help others to find freedom of their own.
Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse for world security and for the people of Iraq.
The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban.
The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army and even within his own family.
On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents had been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents had been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners had been forced to watch their own children being tortured.
America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity.
People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery, prosperity to squalor, self-government to the rule of terror and torture.
America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomen, Shia, Sunnis and others will be lifted, the long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.
Iraq is a land rich in culture and resources and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time.
If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq, at peace with its neighbors.
Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military if it proves necessary to enforce UN Security Council demands.
Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and it is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something.
Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq that his only chance - his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.
Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts and their duties.
The attacks of September 11 showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al-Qaida's plans and designs. Today, in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined and whose consequences could be far more deadly.
Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there's no refuge from our responsibilities.
We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace and lead the world to a better day.
May God bless America.
QuotePresident Bush, in a speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, on October 7, 2002, said, "[Iraq] possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.... Members of Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons."
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 28, 2021, 12:04:28 PM
I know the then President of the United States is held in low esteem, but he wasn't exactly a nobody.
And if you don't want to take the time to read all the following text of just one of the speeches Bush made at the time, which shows your position is not accurate. Just pay attention to this one thing he said.
"We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States."
Yes. That's consistent with my position. SH posed some potential future threat to the US, not a current threat. The attack didn't come because the US felt threatened by Saddam Hussein.
QuotePresident Bush, in a speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, on October 7, 2002, said, "[Iraq] possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.... Members of Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons."
Exactly as I have argued: a threat to peace (not the US) and must not be "permitted to threaten America." Current threat is to others, but we must act now to so as not to permit a future threat to the US.
I'd note that my interpretation of Bush's declared motives is not nearly as forgiving as yours.
Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2021, 10:49:51 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 28, 2021, 08:07:35 AM
Jesus Christ, how many times are you going to claim this? Are you the only one that forgot the whole "let's whip up the american people in this imaginary threat so that they'll support this bogus shit"
"We Don't Want The Smoking Gun To Be A Mushroom Cloud." How many times did Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld etc. use that phrase in interviews and statements?
They ALL claimed the war was about a threat to the US.
Jesus Christ, when are you just going to look at the actual evidence rather than your fevered views of "let's whip up the american people in this imaginary threat so that they'll support this bogus shit"?
The justifications claimed for the war were not that "we must attack now to stop Saddam Hussein from attacking the US," it was "we must attack now because we need to nip this WMD program in the bud before SH has the ability to threaten use of WMD if we threaten his regime."
There is no question but what the CIA and US And UK government officials "cooked the books" with regard to the actual threat SH posed and the immediacy of the threat. But we don't have to invent a new history to explain what the existing history explains quite well.
SH ironically doomed himself by refusing to allow the UN inspectors to verify that he had, in fact, effectively complied with the significant UN resolutions.
You keep changing the goalposts, so let me quote you verbatim:
"No one ever claimed that the war was about a threat to the US. Not even the weak-ass Shrubbery justifications for the war claimed that."
Then refer to the article posted by CC, where Bush literally spells it out "We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America".
You can keep on claiming water isn't wet of course. That's kinda your schtick at this point.
Quote from: Zoupa on January 28, 2021, 02:21:07 PM
You keep changing the goalposts, so let me quote you verbatim:
"No one ever claimed that the war was about a threat to the US. Not even the weak-ass Shrubbery justifications for the war claimed that."
Then refer to the article posted by CC, where Bush literally spells it out "We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America".
You can keep on claiming water isn't wet of course. That's kinda your schtick at this point.
The Bush quote doesn't say "the Iraqi dictator is threatening America," he's saying that the "the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America."
Permit definition (relevant to the case):
provide an opportunity or scope for (something) to take place; make possible. I interpret this to mean that Bush is saying that SH cannot be allowed to become a threat. That's consistent with the UN declaration, the AUMF request, and public statements by UK officials. None of them claimed that SH was yet an actual threat to the US, just that he cannot be allowed to become one.
Maybe it's a language barrier, but I don't see how you can stridently insist that I am wrong when all of the actual evidence says I am right.
But you stick to your schtick, facts be damned.
Well if in American English the President saying that there is a threat to the US doesn't mean there is a threat to the US, I can understand why the rest of the world misunderstood that the US went to war because of the threat to the US.
Must not be permitted and cannot be allowed to become is just not the same, sorry g. You do you.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 28, 2021, 03:05:47 PM
Well if in American English the President saying that there is a threat to the US doesn't mean there is a threat to the US, I can understand why the rest of the world misunderstood that the US went to war because of the threat to the US.
That isn't what he said, but you know that.
I'm outta the thread. You guys can do your revisionist history without me.
Classic :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2021, 04:20:26 PM
You guys can do your revisionist history without me.
Is this just a ploy for us to beg you to return, when we find out that we can't in fact do revisionist history without you?
I am annoyed that I put as much thought into my response as I did and the thread just turned into an argument about word definitions. Again.
I think there is a tendency to forget that human language is not a computer programming language. It's not going to be perfectly precise for multiple reasons, so it requires a good faith effort to understand what is being meant in order for effective communication to happen. Sometimes people are not interested in effective communication, so whipping out the dictionaries is one way to scramble it.
Moving on from WMD, and regardless of a number of other things, I think that, since there was no immediate threat to the West, going to war without first working out a realistic exit strategy and plan for its implementation was madness.
Quote from: Berkut on January 28, 2021, 04:51:07 PM
I am annoyed that I put as much thought into my response as I did and the thread just turned into an argument about word definitions. Again.
By "annoyed" you mean what, exactly?
Every time I see a thread like this I think of the "little boats" saga and laugh. So thanks for that, needed it today.
Quote from: PDH on January 28, 2021, 06:51:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 28, 2021, 04:51:07 PM
I am annoyed that I put as much thought into my response as I did and the thread just turned into an argument about word definitions. Again.
By "annoyed" you mean what, exactly?
Why are you asking him of all people what he meant? Surely you don't expect him to answer you honestly what he meant?
I do, and don't call me Surly. <_<
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 27, 2021, 10:22:21 AM
You are conflating two things here. Your thesis seems to be not that war at that particular time was inevitable but that a war with Iraq at some point was inevitable. We will never really know the answer to that. What we do know is that the wars Bush started never really ended. The big lie brought us to where we are now.
I'm of the same opinion as Berkut, actually. War with Iraq was unavoidable. Well, ok, maybe not. What I mean is, there would be trouble in Iraq at some point in the not so distant future, as the Arab Spring as proven, and then the rise of ISIS. That the US would intervene in Iraq is not a certainty; it took a lot to motivate the US in striking at Serbia, and only when the crisis was so high that it could not be ignored anymore.
There's still a strong isolationist current in America. If the modern GOP is to be believed, no one wanted to invade Iraq in 2003, except for Cheney ;)
It might not have been ISIS. It might have been something else. Maybe AQ would have gained a foothold in Iraq at some point, without the need for the US to destabilize the regime. That is an unknown. But Saddam had no one groomed to take his place, not even his son, and he wasn't eternal, and his power was not as strong as believed.
Given that, when the shit did it the fan, it was better it did with US&allied troops in there to prevent it spreading further. Which it did as soon as the US withdrew its troops.
The downside of course, is that Afghanistan is now an eternal war. That's a huge price to pay.
Quote from: HVC on January 28, 2021, 06:56:39 PM
Every time I see a thread like this I think of the "little boats" saga and laugh. So thanks for that, needed it today.
Incan torpedo boats :w00t:
But is the T-72 actually better than the Abrams?
Well, this is just like old times. :lol:
Languish is dead, long live Languish!
"In Languish arguments, whichever side may call itself the victor, there are no winners, but all are losers."
- Neville Chamberlain
So now what? An exodus to a new forum?
Quote from: Maladict on January 29, 2021, 06:00:17 AM
So now what? An exodus to a new forum?
Who the fuck are you?