Bush Wars: Who was right?

[righthand]

Father and son; two wars; decade apart; One was right and one was WRONG.

The fact that they were related may be important factor in this. Junior outdoing daddy. Given that senior was never accused of being dumb, then how do you explain junior. It could be ALL that alcohol alone. It kills brain cell. It could be all those wayward 'ladies'. The effects of STD often only show up later. Could explain all that tiredness, 'early-to-beds' and no work. Now don't get upset unless you have better explanations. I've left out the Roving cowboy theory - for now!

You have all seen the evidence. We have discussed how junior walks and talks. We have an expression over here '...if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, then it must be a duck.' Your convinced. Hold on, looks can be deceiving. Rove and dicky may not do ALL his thinking for him. So we need evidence. OK! That will come.

On Wed 17th 10:36 am #57, I posted on Bush gets first look at anti-war protest near ranch . It contained "the most joyful moment in any person's life is the birth of their first born. ...The worst dread of anyone must be the dead of a child. Compound that by what factor in the case of a death in a war that many consider illegal."

Well no parent could have been more chuffed than senior to see his son 'elected' president of the USA. Having been there and knowing his son, he was probably more concern than most as whether junior was up to it. And boy would he have been right to be concerned.

Excepting genocide in Sudan - maybe -, his son may turn out to be THE BIGGEST MASS MURDERER OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY and he has three years to go. So the evidence.

First Gulf War. A just war, the pope said so. No large pre-war antiwar demos. UN backing. United non-reluctant allies. Real shock and awe start. Quick sharp war. Only one major atrocity of murder of fleeing troops. No terrorists. No casulties except Brits killed by US.

Gulf two. Pope said unjust war, so not morally justified. Huge pre-war antiwar demos. NO UN backing. Very reluctant allies. 'With us, or agin us' 'Slam dunk'. Flowers. Torture icons forever. Prisons. Gulags. Gitmo. POWs. Crooked trials. Started months before official start. NO WMD. ALL LIES. HUGH casulties. HUGH Iraqi civilian casulties. Rendering. US War criminals. The Pat Tillman lies. US only above Israel on hate list. Downing St Minutes. Madrid bombings. London bombings. No electricity. Little OIL. Oil prices off the radar. Hide from old lady Sheehan. Home Land non-Security. BULLY Bolton in UN. Debt. And a lot lot more. You can argue the details and the emphases but the overall is the same. Junior fucked up. How and why.

He stopped listening to daddy. Dirty tricky dicky had him now. His alcohol addled brain left him vulnerable to grooming by the big boys. The alcohol addled brain made this easy.

When Gulf One stopped, there were many surprised. Why not continue to Bagdad? Finish off Saddam for once and all. It should be obvious that the evidence of Iraq today is the PROOF that senior was RIGHT and junior WAS, IS and WILL BE WRONG, WRONG WRONG. It should be so obvious now that the need for the sophisticated reasoning as to why senior was RIGHT now are not needed. Any the problem was the reason were over the heads of a sizable number that push junior towards destruction. They'll never get it.

Now one more big thing for the neo-cons to take on board. Once senior did not go for Bagdad then, all of Saddam's prior sins CANNOT and SHOULD be used as justification for Gulf Two. This is a deliberate confusion and woolly thinking.

Eliminate the unjustifiable 'Oil for Food' policy, and ask Iraqis would they prefer now to pre-Gulf Two. I'd bet that except for the US stooges raking in the profits, a majority would opt for pre-Gulf Two. I believe that even if that meant Saddam back, there would still be consensus for pre-Gulf Two!

08-12-05 #41 So, how would you stop the War? The Iraqi adventure for cheap oil was turned western economies near belly up. So whatever the intent starting out was, the opposite is now the case. Pre-2004 election there was dollar a gallon making bush un-electable. What are prices now. It should be firing squad and not impeachment that he's facing. Is he known to have told the truth at all. ALL LIES. And he's your president. Is there no shame left in America. You virtually hounded out of office an excellent president that obviously, the US did not deserve. The rest of the world appreciated his worth. Whatever about with ONE female, who wasn't complaining, he did not do a billionth of the harm that georgie caused you and us. If bush was assassinated tomorrow I would not shed one tear, but I'd need first to be sure that Cheney was not then president. Frying pan to fire is nothing to how much worse that it would be. So, I'll be hoping that dick gets his first before that most hated man in the world gets his. I don't expect to be lucky once never mind twice. But just so that I've explained my agenda. Those pair of bollocks can destroy my world. If Iran is attacked by the US or Israel then I believe that it's the end of the American dream. With that end is the end of western trade. The Wall Street Crash will pale. Oil may crash as who will afford it. The beneficiaries will be our numerous eastern 'friends'.

08-13-05, 06:36 pm # 43 A major justification of the war Saddam's connection with 9/11. He MIGHT have genuinely have believed there was a connection at one time. Early evidence was that he was WRONG. He set up Commissions to delay the issue. All eventually stated there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11. For their future promotions ambassadorships etc it was in their interest to find the evidence if there was ANY. NONE. ZERO. I believe that he always knew it was a LIE. He's LYING now and he'll LIE tomorrow. The only alternative is that on TWO occasions you have 'elected' the BIGGEST GOBSHITE in History. Yes there have been Big Gobshites before in history, but not elect by 'all' the people. If he does not know that he's lying then he's brain dead. His handlers must tell him before every briefing "Please, please please don't mention Saddam and 9/11 in the same sentence." Maybe they should try some reverse psychology, but that needs a functioning brain to work. Regan had at least the excuse of old age. Is Bush just dumb?

If I have brought any insight into the war, then it down to the neo-con, who attacked me for saying something positive about senior. The way he jumped on me was like as if I had written a dirty word like Clinton. This over the top reaction gave me the clue as to the weakness of Gulf Two. So maybe out of their scutt--- some good does come.

.

[monty of ll]

I for one would not agree that the first Gulf War was a just war. It was a complete setup of Saddam to justify the destruction of Iraq's armed forces and bring Iraq back to a managable level. Just as the coming war with Iran is entirely the U.S. initiative to prevent Iran from becoming powerful enough to hold it's own in the M.E. against Israel.

Let's face some facts here folks. When a small country finally gets it's act together and starts to become powerful the U.S. will step in and prevent that country from becoming strong in it's sphere of influence. It just so happens that in Iraq where oil is essential to continuing U.S. survival, Iraq's oil resources are at the center of the conflict. If anyone can justify the Gulf War and the destruction of Iraq with the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to prevent Iraq from becoming the most powerful nation in the region then that would have to be the issue that you would have to come to terms with. When one looks at all the evidence of U.S. dirty tricks in the leadup to the Gulf War there is no possible way to see it other than a setup to destroy Iraq.

And the pattern is completely 100% consistent with all the lies and deceptions used by the U.S. to justify this latest war. Anyone not being able to understand the obvious truth should return to reading the primer on the subject, Orwell's 1984.

[righthand]

MontyI for one would not agree that the first Gulf War was a just war. It was a complete setup of Saddam to justify the destruction of Iraq's armed forces and bring Iraq back to a manageable level. Just as the coming war with Iran is entirely the U.S. initiative to prevent Iran from becoming powerful enough to hold it's own in the M.E. against Israel.

There's nothing that I would disagree within what you have written. Indeed I would go further. There seems to be a 'convention' of seeking permission of sorts off the 'majors' before invading a neighbor. Definitely Australia OK'd Indonesia's invasion of Timor. There is some evidence that Saddam first checked in with the US Ambassador before attempting to reclaim Kuwait. Did Argentina check before attempting to reclaim the Malvinas. Probable they could not trust the US, but they had signals pre-invasion of the UK's disinterest in barren islands in the South Atlantic. The only other invasions in a decade were all by the US. Don't think that they asked anyone.

OK, I've never being completely satisfied with the high motives attributed to senior for not proceeding to Baghdad. If the motives all along was to weaken Saddam, why not complete the job. Second they would elevate Iran, then as now a sworn enemy of US Imperialism.


I would like to share with you on the issue of the two Gulf Wars. As G2 is current and pressing, I'll emphasise it. How do you feel about

righthand Once senior did not go for Baghdad then, all of Saddam's prior sins CANNOT and SHOULD be used as justification for Gulf Two.

Does this make sense? About the only justification for G2 after all the earlier LIES are stripped away is Saddam was a bad man and did bad things. Yes but before G1. Show this and there is NO justification for the invasion. Ergo, illegal war=exit fast.

[dotcoma]

Quote by: righthand Pope said unjust war, so not morally justified. Huge pre-war antiwar demos. NO UN backing. Very reluctant allies

umm...

Pope says unjust..so there is no moral justification? :rolleyes: Since when does the catholic church define morals?

Also, our "reluctant allies" are being investigated for their involvement in oil for food agendas that would have surely encouraged them to try to maintain a Saddam-ruled Iraq.

Quote by: righthand NO justification for the invasion. Ergo, illegal war=exit fast.

Well I can tell you have no idea how dark the situation is. Thank god you have no authority to make any decisions. You exit and what you get is a victory for these anti-western terrorists. What will happen to the Iraqi people? Who will they blame? What will be the result? The result could be a new terrorist state with a new hotbed of recruits (Iraq). Leave before reconstruction and stabilization and you'd be a fool.

Since when do you define what justifies war? Realists may see the region as in need of a transformation to help prevent terror at home (by going to the source region).

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: dotcoma What will happen to the Iraqi people? Who will they blame?

I'm sure this is uppermost in the minds of the PNAC manipulators in charge. :rolleyes:

[dotcoma]

Quote by: PatrickHenry I'm sure this is uppermost in the minds of the PNAC manipulators in charge

How can you be so cynical and decided on every damn topic that has to do with Bush lol. Yes Pat, they have no concern for the population that they are losing soldiers trying to stabilize each day. The most important objective should be to create a huge ally like Iraq in the Middle East. If this is the goal then the well-being of the general public via construction would be the goal. I am not saying that we will stick to our guns and finish what we started but I hope we do.

[Gorgo]

Yes, nothing good about Gulf War I or the many years war against the people of Iraq that have followed.

[bishop]

i'm not sure i'd say either war was "right". desert storm was purely a war for oil.. who the hell knows what this last iraq war was all about.. oil? wmd? nation building? the reason for this war remains unclear, as evidenced by bush's frequent rhetorical shifts to defend his mistake.

in desert storm, though, we at least had u.n. authorization and worldwide support. it truly was an international effort, despite the fact that we were the predominant force there - because we're the most effective and other less adept militaries are incompatible with ours. it had a clear mission and was not based on lies. it had an exit strategy. with that in mind, i would say that the first war was "better" for our national interests than the second one was.

[PatrickHenry]

Agreed as a practical matter, bishop. But I am with monty in being skeptical of GW1. If bringing democracy to Iraq is so all-fired important now, how come Kuwait was restored to the Emir, a total despot after GW1?

[bishop]

i know about all the pre-war conspiracy surrounding desert storm.. true, it is definitely a murky picture. nevertheless, saddam chose to invade in an act that was a blatant violation of the u.n.'s charter. if nation's are truly sovereign, then they cannot be allowed to annex other sovereign nations.

as far as post-desert storm kuwait is concerned, we fought that war for oil, plain and simple. economic interests (in one way or another) are generally always the reason for war. the status quo favored our economic interests, so we returned kuwait back to that status after the iraqis withdrew.

[righthand]

Quote by: dotcoma Pope says unjust..so there is no moral justification? :rolleyes: Since when does the catholic church define morals?

Georgie set great store by what the pope had to say except when it didn't suit him. I could have listed out numerous other church leaders all calling it an unjust war. You will note that for the purpose of brevity , I had only noted icons, you might say. You had no difficulty with the other icons. Is it catholicism or all religion that you have a problem with? You wouldn't be anti-catholic?

So you had no problem

Huge pre-war antiwar demos. NO UN backing. Very reluctant allies. 'With us, or agin us' 'Slam dunk'. Flowers. Torture icons forever. Prisons. Gulags. Gitmo. POWs. Crooked trials. Started months before official start. NO WMD. ALL LIES. HUGH casulties. HUGH Iraqi civilian casulties. Rendering. US War criminals. The Pat Tillman lies. US only above Israel on hate list. Downing St Minutes. Madrid bombings. London bombings. No electricity. Little OIL. Oil prices off the radar. Hide from old lady Sheehan. Home Land non-Security. BULLY Bolton in UN. Debt. And a lot lot more.

All these you accept. If I'm right on all theses, by all means kick the pope.

Also, our "reluctant allies" are being investigated for their involvement in oil for food agendas that would have surely encouraged them to try to maintain a Saddam-ruled Iraq.

The whole 'food for oil' program was immoral. When it's worked out who stole the most other than the Iraqis, I'll be delighted to debate this. Of real benefit to you in the meantime is this audio/transcript.

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: or audio tape Democracy Now! John Perkins - author of "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" - who says he says he helped the U.S. cheat poor countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars by lending them more money than they could possibly repay and then taking over their economies.

Well I can tell you have no idea how dark the situation is. Thank god you have no authority to make any decisions. You exit and what you get is a victory for these anti-western terrorists. What will happen to the Iraqi people? Who will they blame? What will be the result? The result could be a new terrorist state with a new hotbed of recruits (Iraq). Leave before reconstruction and stabilization and you'd be a fool. Since when do you define what justifies war? Realists may see the region as in need of a transformation to help prevent terror at home (by going to the source region).

I have not just criticised like quite a number of posters. I have attempted to offer solutions. I started "So, how would you stop the War?" I could highlight postings but you can check your self. If the US leadership had first the interest of Iraq, then the US and lastly themselves then there is an immediate solution there. It will not be accepted as it means a partial lose and major lose of future influence in Iraq. That latter was the prime cause of the invasion. The longer the US remains, the bigger the loses all round and the harder it becomes. THE WAR IN IRAQ IS LOST.

[RVonse]

Quote by: bishop the reason for this war remains unclear, as evidenced by bush's frequent rhetorical shifts to defend his mistake.

I have often wondered the same thing it is truely a mystery. Nothing seems to make sense about this. We know all the crap we have been fed has been pure B.S. But what was the real reason. Here is my best guess and I sincerely hope I am wrong:

1. Bush was truly inspired by God or halucinating to do His bidding.
2. Most experts believe we are at peak oil which means the end of industrial civilization throughout the world. This situation might be viewed so grave and apocolyptic there would be nothing to lose by the invasion of 1 small country.

[bishop]

i tend to buy into the idea that we invaded in order to prevent iraq from pricing oil in euros.. one of the first things we did after the fall of baghdad, instead of planning to secure the country, was to completely debase the iraqi dinar and create a new currency backed by usd.. coincidence? i think not.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: bishop i tend to buy into the idea that we invaded in order to prevent iraq from pricing oil in euros.. one of the first things we did after the fall of baghdad, instead of planning to secure the country, was to completely debase the iraqi dinar and create a new currency backed by usd.. coincidence? i think not.

That would be an interesting peice of the puzzle in my opinion.


Do you remember where you got this information?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: righthand Bush Wars: Who was right?

Gult War <---> oil
Iraq War <---> oil, along with additional tasks ahead

Quote by: RVonse Most experts believe we are at peak oil which means the end of industrial civilization throughout the world. This situation might be viewed so grave and apocolyptic there would be nothing to lose by the invasion of 1 small country

You seem to be correct.
That is one of the reasons U.S. has entered Iraq for.

Quote by: bishop i tend to buy into the idea that we invaded in order to prevent iraq from pricing oil in euros.. one of the first things we did after the fall of baghdad, instead of planning to secure the country, was to completely debase the iraqi dinar and create a new currency backed by usd.. coincidence? i think not.

That is correct.
As the result, the U.S. Dollar went up (vs. Euro), for the first time since spring 2003.

One of the military key objectives was to take control and secure the Iraqi oil fields.
It was accomplished by SpecOps units, even prior U.S. military personnel enetered Baghdad.

[7 Swildo 7]

Personally I support the war against Saddam for this reason:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135652,00.html

The fact that saddam had soooo many people killed and tortured makes me creep. If this kinda stuff doesnt make u wanna stand up for those people then you are heartless and a coward.

not only that but saddam was a MAJOR threat. He deserves w/e bad happens to him. He also threatened that before he dies that he would hurl every missle he had at Israel. If he was not taken care of now he would have been later. Better to act and stop the threat before it gets here.

[bishop]

you could be my hero swildo.. rushing in like prince valiant to wherever there's trouble. where should we go next, eh? i hear lots of people are being butchered in africa.. north korea's pretty brutal. what about all those countries in central asia that end in "stan", eh? our those great regimes we support who do things like decapitate women in public...

talk about tongue in cheek. when you go to sleep happy about all the "good" we're doing, remember that this war has killed around 100,000 civilians (33 9/11's).. also remember that those wmd's he used on his own people, and the hundreds of thousands who died during the iran/iraq war - we had a big hand in their deaths.

he was no major threat whatsoever. he had no wmd's, no active wmd programs.. a second rate military that had been decimated in desert storm and was not able to reconstitute itself afterwards (along with our no-fly zones which were definitely exploited).. his army completely caved in under our attack..



the fact of the matter - something that all of you apologists ignore - is that this war was sold on the basis that saddam had wmd's and was an ally of al qaeda... both of these have turned out to be complete and utter bullshit.

[oranged]

Both gulf wars were criminal, this one is just a lot worse, this time America is honestly an empire that's trying to conquer and hold Iraq and the rest of the middle east.

[bishop]

a little harder to say the first one was difficult when the u.n. security council authorized it.. if that doesn't mean anything, then nothing does.

[lily]

RVonse wrote

1. Bush was truly inspired by God or halucinating to do His bidding. 2. Most experts believe we are at peak oil which means the end of industrial civilization throughout the world. This situation might be viewed so grave and apocolyptic there would be nothing to lose by the invasion of 1 small country.

I still think he wanted to wrap up the loose ends left by Daddy. He let it slip when he said Sadaam tried to kill his father. (Cue Star Wars music)

What really scares the shit out of me is #3 if I may?

3. He's got three years left. No re-election........oh the things he could do! What's to stop him?

Quote by: bishop

i tend to buy into the idea that we invaded in order to prevent iraq from pricing oil in euros.. one of the first things we did after the fall of baghdad, instead of planning to secure the country, was to completely debase the iraqi dinar and create a new currency backed by usd.. coincidence? i think not.

I think you're right on the money about the money.....but the oil fileds are far from secure.