Another Bush Lie

“We'd either all love, or hate, Rush Limbaugh!! lol!!”

“C bat, as stated before I was for the war but not based on revolving reasons but simply because he is (I pray for "he was") a murdering cock sucker. This one has many levels of purpose the most important in my mind is it puts the other MidEastern thug dictators on notice. It says, “Hey, we went into Iraq on shaky reasoning. If you give us a REAL reason we’ll wipe our a$$es with you.”. Do they still hate us? Hell ya. They will hate us until the end of time. But they do respect us more now as apposed to when Clinton was in office (I have to give Klee-toris his Clinton reference).”

“Mutt, which interests are you referring to that were in direct conflict with removing hussein from power and putting in a multinational peackeeping force?”

“It's A Trick!

Nigal's just trying to lure you in.”

“which interests are you referring to that were in direct conflict

Obviously their goal of becoming a polar power. Surely you've read something about this?”

“Dang! Tilt ousted me! I sure ended up making a crappy Rush foot soldier. I couldn't even maintain operational secrecy!”

“"Obviously their goal of becoming a polar power."

They were going to go to war with Santa to take over the north pole?”

“I've read plenty about this, but with a multinational force in Iraq, they would have much less to fear, now wouldn't they? It would be a more level playing field from their points of view, and they might believe they have a chance at the OPEC conversion to the Euro they so crave (though we could keep this from happening on a purely economic basis). The buildup to this would have taken much more time, and would have entailed a much more delicate form of statesmanship than showed by the Bush administration.

The things we gain from this are numerous, and we wouldn't have the sole cost of reconstruction.

Yes, I believe that not being able to get the UN security council to allocate troops to the Iraq regime change invasion was a sign of incompetence on the Bush Admin's part.”

“This is my no means basis for war, but Nigal made a good point. We will be hated (and targeted) whether we go to war or stay home and make brownies. If we do nothing they hate us and have contempt for us. We made a strong point, "we will come after you". Bush stated that and backed it up. Because he's a loose cannon cowboy? No, because it would be deadly dangerous not to.”

“I've read plenty about this, but with a multinational force in Iraq, they would have much less to fear, now wouldn't they?

There's the flaw in your reasoning. No, of course no one believed for a second that their inclusion in the allied force would somehow even the playing field, as it was obvious from the beginning the U.S. would be by far the most influential force after the war.

Yes, I believe that not being able to get the UN security council to allocate troops to the Iraq regime change invasion was a sign of incompetence on the Bush Admin's part

If you mean Bush shouldn't have gone to the UN in the first place, then I agree.”

“If we do nothing they hate us and have contempt for us.

That does not explain: why Iraq? There were and are, IMO, other areas of the world in more urgent need of American attention.”

“Why Iraq? I agree that there are other places in need of American attention, but Iran is a significant threat to our security. First Afghanistan is aided in becoming a democracy, then Iraq, with Iran sitting right in the middle. The people of Iran see this, and they want democracy too.”

“There's the flaw in your reasoning. No, of course no one believed for a second that their inclusion in the allied force would somehow even the playing field, as it was obvious from the beginning the U.S. would be by far the most influential force after the war

Obviously. We have the biggest stick. The thing is that we also have the biggest carrot, as mentioned above. We only needed to convince them that it was in theri best interests to have a contingent in rebuilding - not that they should be an equal player.

I think we sit on opposite sides of the fence on this one.”

“Squeeze the head of the snake”

“Why Iraq? I agree that there are other places in need of American attention, but Iran is a significant threat to our security. First Afghanistan is aided in becoming a democracy, then Iraq, with Iran sitting right in the middle. The people of Iran see this, and they want democracy too."
c bat
12:30:36 PM
11/14/03

This is a good case for refashioning the middle east, but not a good case for unilateral action.”

“We only needed to convince them that it was in theri best interests to have a contingent in rebuilding - not that they should be an equal player

Still flawed. France knew that even if they had some influence in post-war Iraq, it would not change the fact that a successful war would strengthen the U.S.'s global position immensely. This is the last thing they wanted to see happen, as they have pretensions of becoming a counter-weight to American power. So, they were immovable in the UN (hoping against hope that somehow that would stop or delay the U.S.), but more importantly they tried to develop stronger ties to other nations that also opposed the war in a bid to raise their global stature. Of course, it backfired.”

“First Afghanistan is aided in becoming a democracy, then Iraq

LOL! That's rich. I don't know why you would think such a thing, but it does illustrate the flaw in your argument.”

“Perhaps the idea of democracy will fail in Afghanistan or Iraq or both. But if successful, Iran would be wedged between the two. Iranians have begun demonstrating their own desire to become a democracy.”

“I don't see France or Germany attempting to become a counter weight to American military power. Do you?

If not, and we are talking specifically about financial power, it serves the EU better to have a hand in rebuilding Iraq, and taking the resulting share of profits, which would have been another carrot we could have held up.

I think, if a plan were laid out before the individual countries of a plan for regime change, reconstruction and exit strategy. We could have brought Russia or Germany around, making France's position untenable financially.

Bluntly put, if the importance of bringing them over were better realized, it could have been done.”

“Because they’d been so weakened by the Gulf War and 12 years of sanctions that they were an easy target. Of course that runs counter to them being a threat to us - but what the heck?

I wonder if the administration really believed anyone would welcome an invasion and occupation of their country.”

“I don't see France or Germany attempting to become a counter weight to American military power. Do you?

Only in the UN. Which is why the notion of "forcing the UN to get off their a$$es" would have stalled endlessly.”

“Iranians have begun demonstrating their own desire to become a democracy.

Yes, years before a possible war with Iraq was even in the headlines. The Iranian reformers need no more convincing that democracy would be better than their theocracy. The US didn't invade Afghanistan or Iraq with fond hopes that the extremely unlikely chance of democracy taking hold would convince Iranians of something they already knew in the first place.

Afghanistan was fought as a visible retaliation for 9/11 and to disrupt the most concentrated area of AQ. Iraq was fought for hegemony and oil.”

“Yeah, what the heck? Iraq is an easy target, lets invade! You dont really believe that Violin, do you?”

“C bat, do you believe that we made the decision to invade Iraq before or after 9/11/2001?”

“No doubt. And now their fire is really getting stoked, doncha think?”

“"Iraq was fought for hegemony and oil."

You know… the more I think about it, I think you’re right on the money mutt. You don’t seem bothered by imperialistic wars but I think the majority of Americans are.”

“Not sure I uderstood your response cbat.”

“Yes c bat, I really do.”

“I believe that it was in strong consideration BEFORE 9-11. I think that 9-11 greatly accelerated the plans. Iraq may not have been, maybe never would have been a "direct" threat to US soil, in the sense that they may never have developed the technology to launch on us. Does that render Iraq a non-threat?”

“Mutt's nailed it and keeps driving it home.

My answer to the " why Iraq" questions is - nothing could have given W a better excuse to knock Iraq around than 9/11. I always felt that we were going inot Iraq when W got elected. 9/11 wrapped Iraq up in a nice, neat little bow fer Dubya and he acted on it. There was an old score to settle...”

“Replace the word "Iraq" with the word "Mexico" in your post.

I'm against our soldiers dying due to speculation of a threat.”

“the Iraqi people wanted Iraq to become a theocracy at the end of the first Gulf War, that's why we abandoned them when they revolted. They will probably not become a democracy now, because the people don't seem to want it.

If we leave Iran alone they probably will become a democracy, the young people want it. If we keep messing with the current government we may push them to stay a theocracy.

Afghanistan is still a mess.

We should have gone into Afghanistan, and we did. As for Iraq, we went into Iraq because we were played by Ahmed Chalabi. 9/11 was sponsored and financed by members of the Saudi Arabian royal family, we've yet to do anything publicly to address this. In fact the Bush administration has gone out of their way to protect them.”

“Is Al Queda a "speculated threat"?”

“Iraq was an inevitable move from the get-go with this administration. 9/11 made it an easier sell to the American people...”

“I don't remember reading about anyone on either side of the fence here say that al quada was a speculated threat...”

“All through the buildup to the war, I kept saying that if they could produce evidenc of an Iraq Al-queda link, I would support the war. That evidence doesn't exist.”

“ don't see France or Germany attempting to become a counter weight to American military power. Do you?

Well yes, actually, they would love to be, and are working toward it, although it's obviously a distant goal. So yes, the political and economical arenas are their primary foci.

If not, and we are talking specifically about financial power, it serves the EU better to have a hand in rebuilding Iraq, and taking the resulting share of profits

No, of course not - not if the US gets disproportinately more out of it, which we naturally would.

We could have brought Russia or Germany around, making France's position untenable financially.

I seriously doubt it, but it's an interesting idea. France and Germany have strongly teamed together, and Russia is hedging its bets by playing nice to both sides. So I just don't see that this would have happened.”

“Al Queda is a threat. Osama bin Laden was missed when Clinton had a chance before 9/11, and missed when Bush had a shot after 9/11. Al Queda has been forgotten by Rumsfeld”

“You know… the more I think about it, I think you’re right on the money mutt. You don’t seem bothered by imperialistic wars but I think the majority of Americans are.

Don't forget, Violin, that the main reason hegemony in the region is important is that it - combined with control over oil - gives us real leverage against the states who harbor terrorists. This isn't an imperial war. Bush wants to hand over the keys as soon as possible to the Iraqis, squash the guerrillas, and put our forces behind safe walls. We don't need an American-Arab colony - we need force and leverage in the region.”

“Who else masturbates
to the weather channel? Oh
voluptuous cloud...”

“Donman said: "9/11 was sponsored and financed by members of the Saudi Arabian royal family, we've yet to do anything publicly to address this. In fact the Bush administration has gone out of their way to protect them."

there are over 5000 Saudi Arabian princes. i agree that Saudi Arabia is a dubious ally, but the whole 9/11 thing was a bit of a wake-up call for the RULING family as well - Al Qaeda wants to take over Saudi Arabia. witness the recent bombing in Riyadh. what exactly should we do? alienate the only Arab country we're on a decent footing with?”

“I say the potential is wide open. I say stop invading the middle east, it has never worked. All you end up doing is creating religious warriors willing to die for their country and religion.

With Saudi Arabia we really need to treat the people (not the royal family) as a guerilla war, without the war part. The people there are super poor, the royal family continues to finance Wahabi Madrassas (schools) around the world. These schools are big time recruiters for terrorism. If the U.S. could get a good face in the region then we'd be better off.

Instead of giving tax breaks for people who buy large SUVs we should be giving people tax breaks for buying hybrids or using public transportation. I don't care if people still buy and use SUV's, but we need to strive to be more like Japan who has cut back on their oil consumption.
As long as we are dependent on Saudi Arabia we will never be able to effectively fight terrorism, because we will also be financing it at the same time”

“i agree with most of what you are saying, ESPECIALLY the part about reducing our dependence on oil (and especially Middle Eastern oil). but there are very few Saudis who are poor - there is a national paycheck for almost every native Saudi, drawn from oil revenues. as a result they are an idle people with too much money and time on their hands. most Saudi men have degrees in Islamic Philosphy, which render them semi-useless. so in their idleness they fall under the spell of extremists like Bin Laden. the poor are the foreigners working in the country - doing the jobs that the Saudis see themselves as above.

we give tax breaks to SUV buyers? really? no sarcasm there, i'm just surprised.”

“I wouldn't say that very fewe Saudis are poor. I post the following:

Although Saudi Arabia stood with one foot firmly placed among the most highly developed nations of the world, the other foot remained in the Third World. Almost one-third of the population live in rural areas very distant from developed urban centers, some living as nomadic and seminomadic herdsmen, and some as oasis agricultural workers. Other families were divided, caught between the devaluation of local products and the rising cost of living that accompanied development. Men went to distant towns to work as drivers, laborers, or soldiers in the Saudi Arabian National Guard, and women were left to tend family plots and livestock and raise children. Medical care and schooling were available to much of the population but were often located far from rural areas. For many rural people, lack of knowledge, a lack of incentive, illiteracy, physical distance, and bureaucratic obstacles limited access to the resources of Saudi Arabia's burgeoning society.”

“i'll have to go back and re-read my source. it discussed the nomadic tribes, but seemed to give the impression that many of the nomads wanted very much to stay that way, despite some pressures to change their traditional lifestyle.”

“tarbubble, here is a link to an article about the 'tax loophole so big you can drive a hummer through it'

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/columnists/sfl-mayo04nov04,0,1881218.column?coll=sfla-news-col”

“I couldn't find much on poverty because the Royal Family won't disclose. But I found in 1998 the average per capita income was $6,300 with %27 unemployment”

“I don't know much about it either, Don. But, from what I have managed to gather in the past, it seems that the kingdom is not very kind to its people and there doesn't seem to be much of a middle class. They seem to be either very rich or very poor. Again, none of this is carved in stone and coming from someone who is not all that well versed in Saudi culture...”

“"And what the Bush administration has done, increasing the annual depreciation cap from $25,000 to $100,000, is obscene. So much for the lip service of reducing foreign oil dependence."

thanks. i knew about the long-standing allowance for deducting a work vehicle (and the SUV abuse of it), but didn't know our Fearless Leader had increased the limit without modifying the loophole to prohibit abuse. sigh... toss one more chip into the "reasons to distrust him" pile.”

“hmmm. even the CIA's information page is pretty scant.”