The smarter of two Bushes

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
The first President Bushes explanation of why he didn't 'finish the job' back in 1991. Does his scenario sound familiar?


?Trying to eliminate Saddam would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. There was no viable exit strategy we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.?
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
as a guy

as a guy

that was very leery about regime change in a muslim country,it`s very hard to defend the occupation now.....although,i did see the rationale for doing it and have posted so several times on this board...

that said,the gulf war was a totally different scenario and U.N.
resolution 80 did not authorize the coalition during desert storm to remove hussein....only to extract him from kuwait....

of course the U.N. would never have authorized the removal of hussein under any circumstances...

hussein probably should have been removed from office for mercilessly declaring war on kuwait and occupying it and, when defeated, vengefully setting fire to kuwaiti oil wells, causing great economic losses.....

why did the United Nations not have hussein removed then? Because it contained many anti-american members and Islamic enemies of the united states... it also contained france and other nations that sold hundreds of millions of dollars in trade to iraq.... other U.N. members also supplied iraq with components to develop the atom bomb and develop weapons of mass destruction.

france,germany, china and russia have been reported selling to Iraq components for developing chemical and biological weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. those members with a conflict of interest would have voted against the U.S. in the U.N..... it`s obvious why ....

why are not those members who sold iraq components to develop and produce chemical and biological weapons identified and thrown out of the U.N?....... If this were done, it would mean the end of the U.N.....

why would the united states belongs to an international organization that would allow it`s members to sell weapons of mass destruction to rogue countries ...to it`s sworn enemies....to unstable dictators who would like nothing more than to harm us?....

our sovereignty does not lie in the hands of a failed world government comprised of countries whose interests align with the enemies that seek to destroy us...

if the france`s,germany`s and russia`s had not blocked us at every turn,it`s possible that saddam may have been able to have been removed without war... if there had been a united world front....as it turns out,saddam was emboldened by the support he got from these countries....


we got big problems...
 
Last edited:

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Re: as a guy

Re: as a guy

gardenweasel said:



france,germany, china and russia have been reported selling to Iraq components for developing chemical and biological weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. those members with a conflict of interest would have voted against the U.S. in the U.N..... it`s obvious why ....

why are not those members who sold iraq components to develop and produce chemical and biological weapons identified and thrown out of the U.N?.......

But Garden, that list includes us also. :shrug:

We supported Iraq in every possible way until we decided not to. America, France, Germany, China and Russia all were supporting Iraq each for their own selfish reasons(and not all that long ago). Why would it surprise anybody that when we wanted to go in a different (totally opposite) direction that all those other countries didn't follow us?
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
kosar

kosar

you are 100% right.....of course that was prior to kuwait....and the gassing of the kurds....


back in the days when iran was seen as our most dire threat in the middle east...

and of course,we didn`t help them build nuclear reactors like france and germany did...

it`s amazing how fluid and complicated the whole middle eastern morass is.....

if only we could somehow just extricate ourselves....our oil dependence......the israel issue(but,of course,to abandon israel would almost assure a second holocaust.....we are the only thing that stands between israel and extinction)......

who the f-ck would want to deal with this mess....kerry and bush both need to have their heads examined...

i`ll say this....i don`t for one minute doubt that the way that saddam ran iraq was the only way that he could possibly control the multi-factioned,militia running mullahs....... a fractionalized country that except for saddam,would more than likely have become another totalitarian theocracy...

shi`a`s...sunni`s...kurds....yazidi`s...chaldeans.....offshoots of all of the above...all wanting power....and left to their own devices,the strong would feed on the weak...


saddam brutally put down radical islamic movements in Iraq ..... wahhabism from neighboring Saudi Arabia has never established a foothold within Iraq.....

in that respect,although running iraq through brutality,he may have kept the country from tearing itself apart..

what a mess....there`s not one democracy(yes,i know we`re a republic) in the middle east....except maybe israel....

i doubt that iraq will become one...
 
Last edited:

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,489
168
63
Bowling Green Ky
borrowing Cman's post. The only diff between GW and the rest is
He's walking the walk not just talking the talk.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is amazing how the facts are unimportant to so many, and how soon they forget! (read through to the bottom!)

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton,Feb. 4,1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want toseriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of massdestruction program." - President Clinton,Feb. 17,1998

Iraq is a long way from[here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that theleaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weaponsagainst us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." -Madeline Albright,Feb 18,1998

"Hewill use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since1983." - Sandy Berger,Clinton National SecurityAdviser, Feb,18,1998

"[W]e urge you,after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution andlaws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missilestrikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed byIraq's refusal to endits weapons of mass destruction programs! ." -Letter to PresidentClinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D -MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

"Saddam Husseinhas been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technologywhich is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of theweapons inspection process." - Rep.Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec.16, 1998

"Hussein has... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction andpalaces for ! his cronies." > - Madeline Albright,Clinton Secretary of State,Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weaponsprograms. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programscontinue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddamcontinues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of alicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten theUnitedStates and our allies." -Letter to PresidentBush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) andothers, December 5,2001

"We begin withthe common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace andstability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations andis building weapons of mass destruction and the means of deliveringthem." - Sen. Carl Levin (D,MI), Sept. 19,2002

"We know thathe has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout hiscountry." - Al Gore, Sept. 23,2002

"Iraq's search forweapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assumethat it will continue for as long as Saddam is inpower." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have knownfor many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D,MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UNweapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that SaddamHussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that hehas since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biologicalwarfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclearweapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D,WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- ifnecessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal ofweapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to oursecurity." - Sen.John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to developnuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddamhas made in development of weapons of mass destruction."-Sen. Jay Rockefeller(D, WV), Oct 10,2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significantUN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical andbiological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -Rep. Henry Waxman (D,CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the fouryears since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missiledelivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort,and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however,that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity towage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton(D, NY), Oct 10,2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has,and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D,FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator,leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA),Jan. 23. 2003
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Dogs,

Bad U.S. intelligence all around, for sure. But don't forget that there were many (all?) top level UN inspectors that repeatedly said in 2002 and early 2003 that there was absolutely no evidence of WMD currently in Iraq. In our arrogance, we ignored and basically mocked these people. I guess they were right after all. :shrug:
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
DOGS THAT BARK said:
The only diff between GW and the rest is
He's walking the walk not just talking the talk.

As best as I can tell, the difference with GW is that he refused to listen to anybody but his cowboy cronies and he was hellbent on invading Iraq from the minute he was sworn in. Now he has us in a huge mess with no end in sight and with no known benefit to our country.
 

Penguinfan

Thread banned
Forum Member
Dec 5, 2001
10,393
190
0
Vanished into vortex
kosar said:
Now he has us in a huge mess with no end in sight and with no known benefit to our country.

That pretty much sums up the issue in my mind. As a lifelong republican I would certainly like to know what, if any exit plan exists to this disaster, and I am not using the word diasater lightly, that is what this has turned into, the words "Welcome to Vietnam" keep going through my head at this point. Given several opportunities last night to admit that it was a mistake to invade Iraq GW refused to, this concerns me greatly, that and hearing Rummy over and over saying we will "stay the course". Maybe that wouldn't bother me so much if we knew what the "course" was, or if I thought the powers that be knew what the "course" is. All things considered it will be tough/impossible to pull that lever in November.

Penguinfan
 

Hoops

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 10, 1999
2,706
0
0
Takes a bigger man to admit he made a mistake than one who stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the cluster**** he's led this country into.
 
Last edited:

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
that would be great move to say we made a mistake

no one knows long term ramifications of taking Iraq down....for all we know it could be worse....you can speculate all we want, but proclaiming this as a "mistake" would be stupid stupid policy

we have actually gained a lot of credibility from this action and terrorists now know we aren't screwing around and wont cut and run from them prompting emboldened repeated attacks

all wars take casualties and it is amazing how Bush is blamed for this instead of Hussein who didn't listen to 22 resolutions after never having had a treaty after the Gulf war...

all these reporters made a mockery out of the office last night asking leading and trapping quesitons....sure Bush isnt eloquent but eloquence is the not near the first thing i want in a leader.....it shoudl be obvious Bush is led by conviction and if you want a leader who bows to the slightest breeze than Kerry is your choice this November and I am sure Al Quaeda and the rest of the Islamic world will be happy for your support
 

Penguinfan

Thread banned
Forum Member
Dec 5, 2001
10,393
190
0
Vanished into vortex
dr. freeze said:

all wars take casualties and it is amazing how Bush is blamed for this instead of Hussein who didn't listen to 22 resolutions after never having had a treaty after the Gulf war...

Fair enough Dr. without busting your stones I would like an answer to 2 question:

1. How many casualties are enough?

2. What purpose are these casualties now serving?

Penguinfan
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
casualties never serve a "purpose"

missions serve purposes....the mission was to unseat Hussein after years of defiance....clearly the intelligence told us that he had weapons and from his history we know that he was a threat at using them

what gets lost in all this, is exactly that -- our mission -- number one it was to get rid of the perceived threat....now whether or not that was a threat was not really debated at the time by either side....and it is intellectually dishonest to now debate it now....

other than a few people besides the peaceniks everyone was all for going and takign care of this problem.....now all of a sudden people are pointing fingers? typical.....and it is shameful at how it has become so politicized......by the same fools who were all for going in when it was the political thing to do.....absolutely no backbone and if that is what you call leadership then you definition of a leader is different than mine

i have myself said there were reasons not to go into Iraq....but think the risks of inaction outweighed the risks of action....and if anyone was not prepared to go in there and take casualties, then you should ask yourself if you have examined history of any conflict.....

America's credibility and resolve is being put to test right now and sadly many of us are failing the test......sure it sucks to have the week we did but weeks like that have to be expected and unfortunately we do not live in a utopian world as some would think we may...

it is sickening to see all this blaming with no real viable alternatives than staying the course....at the same time when our President says we must stay the course that in itself is ridiculed

#2 how many casualties are enough? We must be dedicated to lose each and every one of our lives in defense of this country.....we were attacked on 9/11 and declared war on terrorism....we thought Iraq was part of this problem before the war almost unanimously outside of the few peaceniks who also protested going into Afghanistan (yes there were a few who were only against Iraq).......

how many casualties is never the answer when our resolve is at test....and i believe that is squarely the main issue as of right now.....yes we have oil concerns, yes we have interests in having stability in Iraq, etc. etc....but the issue mostly at stake is United States credibility and resolve because that is the only thing that these terrorists will yield to -- strength

indecision, retreat and fear are what will hamper our national security in the future.....if you cannot understand that, then you fail to have learned anything about terrorism or history
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
To bad these casualties are not here at home protecting the home lands borders. As long as it's ok to have them. The threat at our borders is greater then any that was coming from Iraq. So we protect Saudis border who does nothing to help us in Iraq. Dam were smart.
 
Last edited:

ctownguy

Life is Good
Forum Member
Jul 27, 2000
3,065
16
0
SoCal
you are one dumbass djv, welcome to the whiner list mentioned in another thread. hope your next 4 years are as miserable as you say the last 4 were:thefinger
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
I see your hospital stay was to short. They could do more work on you. Your answers as always are lacking.
 

Fat & Sassy

Large Member :)
Forum Member
Apr 8, 2004
283
2
0
56
It appears djv and eddie have just forgotten the anger they felt on 9/11. I would have liked to have heard their tone then. The link below is brutal, but we should never forget what happened. The day we become complacent is the day we will get hurt again... All it comes down to is who will get the job done. GW is not concerned with world opinion, or political repercussion.. He will protect this country against any future attacks better than a waffling, poll trending john kerry!

Might as well be speaking to Rosy O?Donnell?

Is that you Rosy?.......

http://www.twin-towers.net/index.htm

:violin:
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
FS you maynot have been around here 9/11. I was all for going to Afgan and getting the real SOB Bastered. Even if we had to invade Pakistan to go get his Ass. But then someone change the attack to Iraq. Some BS stories about nukes and all kinds of bad shit that Iraq was planning for us. Total BS. Mean while we pulled Troops out of the hunt for the real killer and we still dont have him. Oh I remember 9/11 real well. Seems someone in Wash DC was BS to think differant.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top