Jump to content

Bush gets his Iraq Trophy


monsoon

Recommended Posts

If you believe there was a link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Queda then please post some real proof, or as I everyone else believes, it did not exist.

But should I bother ? Given the evident idealogical need among liberals to maintain a firewall between Iraq and Al Queda, such that any evidence is summarily rejected, wouldn't I be wasting my time ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

heckles -

It's possible that I'm missing the point. On the other hand, I've gotten the distinct impression that for the Bush admin, Iraq does indeed constitute destroying the anthill, not because Iraq has been the nexus of terrorism, but because the admin supposed (rightly so ?) that the "ants" would come running to the hill when the hill was invaded, the better to kill more ants. Bear in mind that we've not been killing just "insurgent" Iraqis.

Beyond this, I do believe one can oppose Iraq on principle. I just tire of the conspiracy theories and other arguments that arise from a prior hatred of the president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny that you tire of "conspiracy theories" yet you offer up this idea that we attacked Iraq to make it easier to kill terrorists after the war was over because they would come flocking to Iraq. Well 99.99% of the people killed in Iraq on "the other" side were Iraqis. And you just admitted these people were not terrorists under Saddam's rule so the theory is wrong.

Sorry but our actions in Iraq have not made one iota's difference in affecting Al Queda's abilities to strike targets as the attack in Spain demonstrates. Not to mention Ashcroft wanting to take away more of out civil rights so that he can better battle the threat. Bush and his cronies know this but I will give them credit for fooling many Americans into thinking Iraq was about saving us from another 9/11.

Time out: Why do I have to be in the dock ? What would you have done in the wake of 9/11 ? Now remember that Al Queda was on our case prior to Bush. Now make your case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's that idealogical firewall between Iraq and Al Queda again. And not two sentences into your alternative response to 9/11 (which sounds like a bit of a non-response).

I'll give you another shot. Remember, 3,000 Americans have just been brutally murdered - men, women, children. Aside from severing ties with SA (who've been buddy-buddy with the U.S. in general, not just with Bush), what do you do ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dale, the Bush administration has offered no credible evidence that Iraq was a terrorist threat. That's why I'm saying what I say.

Is it possible that conservatives believe Iraq is the holy grail of terrorism and no amount of logical thinking could sway you otherwise? LOL

So why should we bother arguing with you??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3,000 people were brutally murdered. Yes. It happened. Stating the obvious.

The best way of using our limited resources to combat against terrorism isn't to go after Saddam given the information we have.

Again - Saddam is a few ants, not the anthill. Too bad we wasted so much potential to protect us, if you ask me. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dale, the Bush administration has offered no credible evidence that Iraq was a terrorist threat. That's why I'm saying what I say.

Is it possible that conservatives believe Iraq is the holy grail of terrorism and no amount of logical thinking could sway you otherwise? LOL

So why should we bother arguing with you??

Oh please don't not argue with me ! :(;)

I know of no conservative who would argue that Iraq is the Holy Grail of Terrorism. I do know of conservatives who argue that Iraq was the next logical step in a grand transformational strategy for the Middle East. In short, making the Middle East less of a threat to the West. And I do believe that such conservatives could rightly chide their liberal counterparts for not paying attention. Why, have you noticed what's happening in the region ? A *relatively* free and stable Afghanistan (astonishing progress, given its history). Iraq (dramatic change, notwithstanding significant setbacks). Libya and now Syria are scrambling to mend their ways. Hell, the rapid advance on Baghdad has China rethinking its bellicose ways with Taiwan, this according to a recent Seattle Times article.

Big picture, friend. Big picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in other words, we are supposed to dominate the world with our military? Not all Americans think its our job to police the world - nor do we all think that is the solution to the problems that exist to protect us.

This goes beyond liberal and conservative.

So you are now saying that invading Baghdad is going to help Chinese relations?

And why are you ignoring people on the left who think Afghanistan was a good thing to pay attention to. Yes, Afghanistan has a central government now that is working towards self-sustaining democracy.

If you didn't notice - that was an effort put together by a real international coalition in which both sides agreed.

Iraq is an entirely different ballgame.

I think I am thinking about the BIG PICTURE.

However, you want to continue blurring the lines between Iraq and the fight against terrorism. You confuse Afghanistan with Iraq. You are forgetting that liberals by and large lined up behind Bush in Afghanistan - just as conservatives did.

You didn't even make a real argument, you tied in other things that work then blended it in with Iraq - while making generalized statements including China that aren't related.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest donaltopablo

You liberals and conservatives are so sure of your conspiracy theories, you don't even realize you have them :lol:

I had a huge long post written out, but it will fall on def ears. We all give a certain amount of credit to what we believe, but I assure you, I've heard a lot of them over the last few months and some of them are the longest stretches of the truth I've heard in a while. The number of assumptions about the motivates for actions is unbelievable, yet defended like they are surely fact.

I will say this, if I had been Bush that morning I would have continued to read to those children and left with dignity too. I believe most people in his shoes would have done the same too. I seriously doubt, other than a stupid opportunity to take a cheap shot at Bush (come on, there are plenty of other things you can give him crap for), that him spending a few extra minutes in that class room to save face did not cost anyone there lives.

I'll be glad to illustrate the numerous liberal and conservative conspiracy theories that abound.

However, my favorite is the EO 13303. I've read this personally and discussed it with Marc. I'll show you how it's a conspiracy theory:

1. EO 13303 clearly refers to financial interests described by proceeds from the sale of oil and the Iraq rebuilding fund. It even clearly says 'in reference to the sale and marketing'. Sure you could make the case from the wording that if contractors torturing Iraqi's was a marketing plan to sell oil, maybe... but I doubt it. Hell, monsoon didn't even seem to think I knew what I was talking about reading the legalize, I even ask a forumer VA BAR lawyer to read it, strangely, he agreed with my assessment. Maybe you should have a lawyer look at it instead of talk radio hosts.

2. The Bush administration has yet to use EO 13303 to halt a court action, despite giving them the ability to do so

3. EO 13303 hasn't had a legit court challenge, although they are coming. Strangely, I don't see the Bush adminstration waving this around like liberals seem to think he will

So if they haven't used it, lawsuit are pending in court, and the wording does not contribute to the liberal idea that Bush has this all powerful EO... how could this be anything more than a conspiracy theory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest donaltopablo

Well if you are a real libertarian, I wouldn't think you would be into world domination for one.... So how can you support Iraq?

I'm not a hardcore or real liberterian. However, their views do fall a little more along the lines of how I think than most of the mainstream Democrats or Republicans. I'd suggest giving up trying to drop me into a major political organization, since I don't fit any of the above.

Also, I'm not into world domination, nor do I believe that one must wholehearted be conservative, support Bush, or be a war monger to believe in the Iraq war. Even though I don't agree entirely with Dale, I do agree that some people are very quick to draw a wall, and I believe a statement like that helps illustrate that you guys do that.

The fact is, there were Bin Laden related terrorists in Iraq while Saddam was in power in several ways. What conservatives don't like to mention? Most weren't under Saddam's control. What liberals don't like to mention? They existed in the thousands, supported Bin Laden's cause and recieved support from Iran. It would be difficult for conservatives to make the case straight up that Saddam supported them, because he didn't... they were anti-Saddam and operated out of an automous region. This is the type of information I believe that political sides, motivation, and the 'walls' that both liberals and conservative build illustrate how an important piece of information goes completely unnoticed in mainsteam media and politicans. The fact that Saddam had no interest/power to crack down on them puts him squarely in the category of a country that was a hurt to the war on terror. Here is more of my wall bashing, since the standard liberal response is that the war was based on WMD, which is how Bush sold it. However, if you take note of my other posts (in this thread and others), I gladly concede that the timing and reason for the war that Bush Administration gave is certainly debateable, I even mention that in an earlier post. But then again, I'm not a conservative, nor a huge Bush fan, so I have no problem calling into question the timing, manner, and support gathered for the war.

But you are correct about harcore liberterians, they actually believe in borderline isolationism and the withdrawal of US troops worldwide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest donaltopablo

Now about your question on what I would do if 3000 people were murdered. Well I would not do what Bush did during this event and go to an elementary school to read to 2nd graders about goats after being informed of the first attack. He carried on as if nothing was wrong, the Bam tower 2 is hit, then Bam the pentigon is hit. Since you are asking I would have done what I could to have prevented the deaths in the first place which would be the best course of action.

I don't usually get torqued about politics, but this one bothers me.

First of all, he was told while in the middle of reading about the attacks, not before. Or least you forget the pictures and video showing him being informed in the middle of his reading.

Secondly, please explain how him dropping and running out of the class room would have saved any of 3,000 people? I didn't know Bush would have had time to fly to DC or NYC with a personal shoulder launch missile to shoot down the planes before they struck anything else. The fact is, despite a relatively quick response by military aircraft in the DC area, the damage had been done, the planes were already taken and there was little the President, or anyone else besides the terrorists having a change of heart at the last minute would have done. Unless of course you believe Bush knew about it ahead of time... hmm, sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Sorry, but I'm putting this one up there with some of the biggest bunch of politically motivated BS I've ever heard. Most every President, and most definitely Bush have plenty to be bashed about, I hadly think this one proves anything, motivates your political case, or illustrates even a poor judgement. As stated above, knowing what he probably knew at that moment, I would not have dropped my book and ran out of that class room either and I'd venture to say you would have not either had you actually been in his shoes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest donaltopablo

You have a libertarian link on your signature, I asked if you support the war - why - if you are really a libertarian. No walls involved.

The reason why I asked is because as a liberal - I hold libertarian-like views on social policy including war.

I probably jumped to conclusions on your reasoning, sorry about that. Talked to monsoon a few too many times :P

I do have a link and like I mention above, certainly support more of their ideals, although prehaps a less extreme version than I do the average conservative or liberal. To that end, I definitely support the libertarian party. But I don't support any party in the typical sense of party line politics. I figure that is worth explaining, since yes I do have a link to their website, even though I do not completely agree with everything there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest donaltopablo

American Airlines Flight 11 ? Boston enroute to Los Angeles

FAA Notification to NEADS 0840*

Fighter Scramble Order (Otis Air National Guard Base, Falmouth, Mass. Two F-15s) 0846**

Fighters Airborne 0852

Airline Impact Time (World Trade Center 1) 0846 (estimated)***

Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location Aircraft not airborne/153 miles

United Airlines Flight 175 ? Boston enroute to Los Angeles

FAA Notification to NEADS 0843

Fighter Scramble Order (Otis ANGB, Falmouth, Mass.

Same 2 F-15s as Flight 11) 0846

Fighters Airborne 0852

Airline Impact Time (World Trade Center 2) 0902 (estimated)

Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 8 min****/71 miles

American Flight 77 ?Dulles enroute to Los Angeles

FAA Notification to NEADS 0924

Fighter Scramble Order (Langley AFB, Hampton, Va.

2 F-16s) 0924

Fighters Airborne 0930

Airline Impact Time (Pentagon) 0937(estimated)

Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 12 min/105 miles

United Flight 93 ? Newark to San Francisco

FAA Notification to NEADS N/A *****

Fighter Scramble Order (Langley F-16s already airborne for AA Flt 77)

Fighters Airborne (Langley F-16 CAP remains in place to protect DC)

Airline Impact Time (Pennsylvania) 1003 (estimated)

Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 11 min/100 miles

(from DC F-16 CAP)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in other words, we are supposed to dominate the world with our military? Not all Americans think its our job to police the world - nor do we all think that is the solution to the problems that exist to protect us.

This goes beyond liberal and conservative.

So you are now saying that invading Baghdad is going to help Chinese relations?

And why are you ignoring people on the left who think Afghanistan was a good thing to pay attention to. Yes, Afghanistan has a central government now that is working towards self-sustaining democracy.

If you didn't notice - that was an effort put together by a real international coalition in which both sides agreed.

Iraq is an entirely different ballgame.

I think I am thinking about the BIG PICTURE.

However, you want to continue blurring the lines between Iraq and the fight against terrorism. You confuse Afghanistan with Iraq. You are forgetting that liberals by and large lined up behind Bush in Afghanistan - just as conservatives did.

You didn't even make a real argument, you tied in other things that work then blended it in with Iraq - while making generalized statements including China that aren't related.

I am saying that I'm fairly sure that the admin believes there is a relationship between terror and Iraq, and that the war was not just cooked up to make people rich. Now the Bush strategy may very well come to naught, or even make things worse, but I have no reason to believe that the war evolved out of willy-nilly warmongering.

Having said this, by way of confession, I find the idea of strategic disengagement somewhat tempting, if only because I tire of the constant carping from much of the International community. I just don't know that such a strategy is practicable in the era of terrorism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

monsoon -

I really don't think that Bush could win for losing with you, could he ?

And "I'd do what I could to prevent 9/11" just won't fly, as if one could imagine that you would have known more than the admin knew were you at the helm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heckles -

As to how Iraq may have helped with China, as I understand it, China was very much sobered by our military show of might in the operational phase of the war. I count this as a good thing. Seriously, would you rather live in a world in which an invasion of Taiwan - and therefore war between China and the U.S. - is inevitable ? Or would you rather live in a world in which China is unlikely to invade Taiwan because it fears American military might ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.