Pres. Bush was right

“I got this in an email from a friend and found verification on the web.

"We should not march into Baghdad . . . . To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero . . . assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability."

Former President, George Bush, in his 1998 book "A World Transformed", co-authored with Brent Scowcroft, Random House.”

“Ohbviously there was a context for those comments that isn't provided in the section you have quoted.

But regardless of that...isn't it a good thing that we can all learn and grow, as the world changes around us, and as new facts come to light?

Learning and adapting is part of the natural order of life, and furthermore, is certainly a requirement for leadership.

Having said all that...I don't feel entirely good about what we are doing...but I do think it is the right thing to do...sadly, I do think it is the right thing to do.”

“Actually - it seems to me that the urban war is very "winnable", and probably will be won, but at too high a cost.”

“Yes, I was about to post that the elder Bush has since changed his opinion completely.

The capture of that guerrilla group's camp in the north included quite a good deal of chemical weapon paraphrenalia and evidence. But they expect the main catch to come closer to Bahgdad.”

“You probably have more insight into this than I do ped. Given George II’s prolonged adolescence can’t this be seen as a form of teen rebellion?”

“i thought this was another April Fools Day joke thread.....”

“Personally, I think dumping Hussein and getting rid of what chemical, biological and nuclear weapons he is a worthy goal. However, war - like any other government effort - needs to be judged according to the monetary costs, the amount of force needed for successful implimentation, and the human and social costs. It's strange that people who consider themselves conservative know this when they talk about regulating business, but not when it comes to war.

I used the thread title to be a little provocative and ironic. I am still hoping that the decision to invade was right, and that I just worried too much. My hope is fading.”

“"Yes, I was about to post that the elder Bush has since changed his opinion completely."

Yes, as I said in the title - he was right.

The fact that the Iraqis haven't used any chemical, nuclear or biological weapons yet, alredy is very powerful evidence that they would only use whatever they have as a last resort.

The guerilla group that had the weapons was in the Kurdish controlled region where Hussein had no power.... they assembled whatever weapons they had in "liberated" territory.”

“We won't know for years and even then we won't know what would have happened if we hadn't invaded. I too hope it turns out all right.”

“That was awkward!

I meant that we won’t know the results of this invasion for years.”

“I feel we'll prevail, and do so convincingly. the real test for pres. bush will be after saddam is removed.

if chemical weapons aren't used, it'll be interesting to see if saddam had the insight to destroy them. if WMDs aren't found, the ramifications may be particularly damaging.”

“Yea jmitch I think the Bush presidency is riding on those two things.”

“Former President, George Bush, in his 1998..."

If it predates 9/11/02, toss it aside.”

“I mean "9/11/01”

“Seriously... this had nothing to do with 9/11.

1998 letter to Clinton

1998 letter to Gingrich and Lott”

“9/11 changed everything.
Ev-ry-thing.”

“Hey! Anybody know where Iraq's planes are??? Iran, Syria, hidden in the desert?”

“keep chanting that mantra Gojo

I think that while 9-11 can be used to justify many actions it can't be used to justify everything - Terrorism is a side issue in this war.”

“When did I mention justification?”

“So when you say 9-11 changed "Ev-ry-thing" - what were you talking about then?”

“Terrorism is a side issue in this war

b.s. this war is a direct action on terrorism. It's WMD, links to AQ, oil, liberation - those are the side issues.”

“bomb 'em all, right. We are victims now! We can lash out ev-ry-where.”

“I'm not arguing that Saddam didn't present some threat. But even once Saddam is defeated America is no safer - in fact the opposite is probably true. There has been no proven link between Saddam and Bin Laden's lot. This is about America's long-term interests.”

“long-term interests being the goal of reducing terrorism as much as possible. Iraq is about regional hegemony so the U.S. can begin to put real pressure on terrorist states.”

“Sure - I agree with that. But again I think that the direct threat of Saddam as has been outlined and the direct connections with 9/11 are a distraction.”

“outlined = overplayed”

“And I agree with that. Sorry, I obviously misinterpreted your position.”

“Anyway, I told myself i wasn't going to get involved in these political discussions any more :o)”

“But still, 9/11 is a sound justification for war in Iraq, when the resultant American geopolitical posture in the ME will facilitate the crackdown on terrorism.”

“why? you seem reasonable.”

“this war is not just about terrorism. if it is, then why are they calling it "operation Iraqi Freedom"? It is about oil. Not liberation. we are in there under the guise of "liberation", but if that is really the case, then we should be in many more countries BEFORE Iraq that have been killing, tortureing, etc. Far more people than Saddam. Um...Uganda, Rowanda, The Sudan for crying out loud!!! if you want facts, i can give them to you. but it would take up too much space here.”

“We made Osama & Saddam. We'll make more.”

“ok, just one more post. :o) a stable and comparatively cheap supply of oil for the next 20-years would be the key reason (and a justified reason - for if there's an Islamic revolution in Saudi Arabia in the next few years then all hell would break loose if the oil supply is cut) - I think tackling terrorism is important but secondary, and a factor that ensures public support. Without the oil I think the US would be happy to depart from the region entirely and leave it to its own devices - spending the cash saved defending it's own borders and on small-scale counter-terrorist operations.”

“this war is not just about terrorism. if it is, then why are they calling it "operation Iraqi Freedom"? It is about oil.

It's about all those things: oil, liberation, approval ratings, etc. But they're subsumed by the grand strategy, which is ME hegemony and restructuring.”

“two more posts :o) - ok, did I say oil for 20-years was a justifiable reason? Thinking about it I think the same ends could be achived by a different means.”

“um...no
"this war is not just about terrorism. if it is, then why are they calling it "operation Iraqi Freedom"? It is about oil. Not liberation. we are in there under the guise of "liberation", but if that is really the case, then we should be in many more countries BEFORE Iraq that have been killing, tortureing, etc. Far more people than Saddam. Um...Uganda, Rowanda, The Sudan for crying out loud!!! if you want facts, i can give them to you. but it would take up too much space here."

Punkjumper
03:11:01 PM

Patience, grasshopper -
this is only the beginning.
You might wanna pull up a chair...”

“strategic control over energy supplies also is a protection against China, too. So control of oil helps out on terrorism and the most serious long-term threat (china).”

“Look, we got all these arms which are becoming obsolete. Either we pay to dispose of them here, or we drop them elsewhere. Who better (except for Iran) than Iraq?”

“IMO, it's not about terrorism, per se.

I believe this is the beginning of a protracted war of West versus Islamic Jihad... a modern-day "Holy War".

Sweet Mother of Jesus -
If I'm right, it's gonna get uglier and uglier.

I hope I'm wrong.”

“priapus, why not sell them? We've sold Israel a bunch of obsolete materiel.”

“so, Mutt...are saying that it'll be a good thing when we take over and become the dictator of Iraq. That is what Hegemony means.”

“punk, hegemony means regional domination, and yes, this will potentially be a good thing for the U.S.”

“Some times you sell the firecrackers, some times you set 'em off. Setting off is sexier.”

“thanks, Mutt”

“for what?”

“clearing that up”

“Well I hope I did. No one is seriously considering making Iraq a colony (becoming the 'dictator' as you say).”

“i guess you're right. we'll just put another one in charge, and then have to overthrow him later too.

you'll probably say that i am reaching, but that is precisely what we have done throughout the world.”

“Setting off is sexier.

Sexy like the MOAB?:

”

“whooaaaa, now that's scary. And I ain't afraid of nuthin.”