# Fuck off Dubya, you arrogant little shit **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 2, 2004, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342 "2004-06-02T22:52:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2004, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342/181 "2004-06-05T01:46:33Z")
**RedFury** , **GorillaMan** , I see we’ve now come full circle and we’re back to the point that you people are so blinded by your disdain for and hatred of Bush and his policies that you can’t think straight and/or interpret correctly words in front of your own eyes. For \*\*GorillaMan \*\* to claim there’s no such thing as the War On Terror is ridiculous, and it’s even more ridiculous to think anyone who is cognizant of it has fallen hook, line and sinker for Bush’s line. If you truly think there’s no real war on terror, we have nothing further to discuss. You might as well want me to argue with someone claiming 2+2=5. It’s ridiculous and there’s no point in arguing it further. And **RedFury** , when I speak of Italy and Germany in terms of the war on terror, I’m speaking of them as only a couple of the countries around the globe who are battling terror on their own by searching out and arresting terrorists in their own countries, battling them face-to-face whenever it’s necessary, freezing their assets, etc. It has nothing to do with whatever Bush may be doing to try to recruit their support regarding Iraq. And with regard to the war in Iraq, certainly it is the main point of contention around the world right now, but it is far from the only facet of the war on terrorism. I don’t know if you read my previous post in response to \*\*Coldfire’s \*\* questions about how I view the war in Iraq and it’s role or potential role in regard to the terrorist threat to the U.S., but if you did you know my thinking in regard to it. Your response however makes me doubt that you’ve read it. Otherwise, there’d be no talk of “blending” Iraq into the war on terror. In short, you people are once again extrapolating all sorts of things into Bush’s statement in the OP based on what you think he really meant, what he’s really trying to do, or on your opinion of what a stupid or cunning and manipulative asshole you happen to think he is while completely missing and/or ignoring what he really said. Your posts, and your ways of thinking, only go to illustrate this further. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2004, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342/182 "2004-06-05T01:55:07Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > For \*\*GorillaMan \*\* to claim there’s no such thing as the War On Terror is ridiculous, and it’s even more ridiculous to think anyone who is cognizant of it has fallen hook, line and sinker for Bush’s line. If you truly think there’s no real war on terror, we have nothing further to discuss. You might as well want me to argue with someone claiming 2+2=5. It’s ridiculous and there’s no point in arguing it further. To clarify - obviously, there are numerous battles against terrorism throughout the world, some of which affect us directly. But it is not a war. (Have you read 1984?) > [@milroyj](#): > > His ‘club’? I’ll give you Berlusconi, but the Pope is part of his club? And Chirac? I understand Schroeder is going to be at the D-Day ceremonies, and I imagine that he and Bush will talk. He’s part of the club, too? I started this thread because Bush was comparing D-Day to TWAT. And obviously he will make as much political import of his attendance in Normandy as he possibly can. But you can guarantee there won’t be the same scenes of friendship with Chirac as we saw today with Berlusconi. And the pope is a different matter entirely - appearing subservient to JP will go down well with the Catholic voters back home. ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2004, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342/183 "2004-06-05T04:00:32Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > The grump was in fact about Bush trying to draw parallels between his own present conflicts and WW2 - and by implication, portraying himself as a great war-leader doing unquestionable good for the whole world. Some times, what with all the tangents, high-jacks, side tracks and general hostility and animosity, it’s hard to tell what the initial grump was. With our friend **Milroyj** batting clean up to **Starving** and **Debaser** I figure this thread is wholly in the toilet. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2004, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342/184 "2004-06-05T07:52:37Z")
Some who have participated in this thread have misunderstood others perhaps because they haven’t read _all_ of President Bush’s speech at the Air Force Academy graduation. He draws several parallels throughout his speech. He may have had the best of intentions in drawing these parallels, but it certainly rubbed me the wrong way. I thought that it exploited the attention and honor which is being paid to the G.I. Generation – especially the veterans – during this period. But that is my _opinion_. One thing that is made clear in the speech is that _he_ wants those who hear or read his speech to believe that _the present conflict_ refers to the war on terror – past, present and future. Parts of his speech are absolutely chilling. I don’t want to misquote him, but I believe that it was in this speech that he spoke of global first strike capabilities. If I am mistaken, then I apologize ahead of time. (And I may have mentioned this earlier in the thread.) If you haven’t read the speech, it is worth your time and effort. _Open your eyes._ **Shodan** , your apology is accepted. Thanks. I believe that you were addressing two different issues in my comments. One was whether or not Bush claimed that Iraq was involved with 9/11. The other was about my perception of the meaning of _the present conflict._ It was the second issue on which you were mistaken in your representation of my views. Pax ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2004, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342/185 "2004-06-05T13:05:26Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > **Shodan** : All that rubbish you posted above boils down to this: > > “Bush never claimed that Iraq was in any way connected to the surprise attack that launched the war on terror.” > > Yet for some reason, Bush invaded Iraq anyway. Why was that, exactly? Do you really not know this, or is this a rhetorical question? The short answer is, “because Iraq failed to live up to the terms of the 1991 cease-fire”. As Bush stated very explicitly in his speech announcing the invasion: > [@](#): > > [My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. > For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all of its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991. > > Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. > > Our good faith has not been returned.]([http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/17/iraq/main544377.shtml](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/17/iraq/main544377.shtml)) You will notice that the President’s speech makes no mention of any Iraqi involvement in 9/11. Nor did any of the UN resolutions he also refers to. As I mentioned to **Coldfire** , it is possible to have more than one enemy at a time, and it is possible to have more than one reason to be enemies. Thus it is possible to include the other members of the “Axis of Evil” in the war on terror, regardless of whether or not they colluded in 9/11. > [@Zoe](#): > > One thing that is made clear in the speech is that he wants those who hear or read his speech to believe that the present conflict refers to the war on terror – past, present and future. Obviously. Yes, the “present conflict” refers to the war on terror. The war on terror includes more than simply the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Or are you disputing this? > [@Zoe](#): > > Parts of his speech are absolutely chilling. I don’t want to misquote him, but I believe that it was in this speech that he spoke of global first strike capabilities. The actual quote you may be reacting to is this: > [@](#): > > First, we are using every available tool to dismantle, disrupt and destroy terrorists and their organizations. With all the skill of our law enforcement, all the stealth of our special forces, and all the global reach of our air power, we will strike the terrorists before they can strike our people. The best way to protect America is to stay on the offensive. Funnily enough, I do not find the idea of being proactive rather than reactive to be “chilling”. Although, as I have said elsewhere, if Bush had taken sufficient steps to **prevent** 9/11, all the Bush-bashers would have been accusing him of being a fascist, and screaming for his impeachment. And **RedFury** , do you have any cites that actually demonstrate what is being claimed? What we are looking for is an actual quote in which Bush claims that Saddam was involved in planning or carrying out 9/11. If all you have is statements about evidence of connections between Iraq and other terrorist groups, that is not the same thing. Besides, such statements are not lies, but seem to have [evidence backing them up.](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121783,00.html) Unless, as I suspect, **Starving Artist** is correct, and we will simply revolve endlessly around the Bush-bashers claiming that their interpretations of what Bush “really meant” is the only possible correct one, and the plain sense of his speeches means nothing. As he mentions, simply howling that “Iraq isn’t part of the war on terror because Bush lied when he accused Saddam of planning 9/11” is silly because [ul][li]Iraq is part of the war on terror[/li][li]Bush did not accuse Saddam of planning 9/11[/li][li]Bush did not invade Iraq because Saddam was involved in planning or carrying out 9/11[/ul][/li] Nations or organizations are subjects of the war on terror if they present a terrorist threat to their neighbors, US interests, or the civilized world in general. As did Afghanistan and Iraq. As does North Korea. As did/does Libya and Iran. Therefore **all** those nations are part of the war on terror, even though only Afghanistan refused to hand bin Laden over to justice. And therefore, in answer to a question from **Coldfire** : > [@Coldfire](#): > > All right, let’s try it this way. Starving Artist, Shodan, and any other conservative may answer this. Leaving aside all partisanship, how do you feel about the Administration’s persistance to include the occupation of Iraq in the War on Terror? Do you think it’s justified? Or do you cringe, and shout at the TV that while you support the war, you don’t feel it has anything to do with TWAT? I feel it is entirely justified. Because it seems screamingly obvious that Iraq (and North Korea and Iran and Libya and others) are part of the war on terror, and deserve to be so. I cannot honestly see any reason why you want to make the distinction. If you want to insist that **only** those involved in 9/11 can possibly be spoken of as terrorists, that does not seem to be either accurate or a useful device. Terrorists are terrorists. Terrorist organizations are terrorists. Terrorist regimes are terrorists. Those who support and encourage terrorism are terrorists. al-Queda are terrorists. The Taliban were terrorists. Saddam Hussein is a terrorist. Kim is a terrorist. What is the point of saying, “No, we can’t do anything about nuclear proliferation in the Korean peninsula because Kim was not directly involved in 9/11”? People don’t stop being enemies of the US and of freedom simply because they weren’t on the 9/11 planes. Iran doesn’t stop trying to get nuclear arms because most of the hijackers were Saudis. I suspect your reaction of shouting angrily at the TV may have to do more with your dislike of Bush than a desire to be - I don’t know what, accurate maybe. But that is in common with most in this thread. A lot of Bush-bashers hate everything Bush says and does because they hate him. And therefore they misunderstand everything he says and does, because they hate him. And thus they hate him more. And that is a mistake. Because he is not always wrong. And thanks to **Starving Artist** (and **Debaser** and **milroyj** ) for carrying the thread forward while I was wasting my time working. 😉 Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2004, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342/186 "2004-06-05T13:27:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The short answer is, “because Iraq failed to live up to the terms of the 1991 cease-fire”. As Bush stated very explicitly in his speech announcing the invasion: > > > [@](#): > > > > My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. > > For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all of its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991. > > > > Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. > > > > Our good faith has not been returned. > > You will notice that the President’s speech makes no mention of any Iraqi involvement in 9/11. Nor did any of the UN resolutions he also refers to. > > As I mentioned to **Coldfire** , it is possible to have more than one enemy at a time, and it is possible to have more than one reason to be enemies. Thus it is possible to include the other members of the “Axis of Evil” in the war on terror, regardless of whether or not they colluded in 9/11. I see. Thankyou. I still seem to be missing something, though. Perhaps you could explain how Iraq falls under the “War on Terror” label. There must, surely, be some kind of link to terrorism? What is it? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2004, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342/187 "2004-06-05T15:56:43Z")
Bollocks, **Shodan**. Utter rot. The cease-fire agreement, as I am sure by now you know, was taken under UN auspices. The United States did not sign a seperate accord with Iraq, hence, Iraq had no direct treaty obligation with the US. The US is a member of the UN, not the other way round. If Canada should abrogate a fishing treaty with the US, is it your contention that Tennessee is thereby entitled to declare war on Canada? Not to mention the mildly embarassing fact that we have found no such weapons for Saddam to declare or destroy. How, precisely, would you declare or destroy an Invisible Pink Unicorn of Death? You declare, with what appears to be a straight face, that the war with Saddam was justified because of his failure to comply. How, precisely, might he have complied? Surely you are not trying to imply that if Saddam offered us documents attesting to the destruction of all such weapons that they would have been accepted at face value? How, precisely, would you have Saddam prove that he had complied? What is the correct procedure for the destruction of non-existent weapons? ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2004, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342/188 "2004-06-05T17:18:20Z")
Guess they should have hurried up and made some to destroy. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2004, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342/189 "2004-06-05T21:03:11Z")
**Starving Artist** : Hope you don’t mind if I also take a shot at refuting your arguments. The following quotes are from your post [**# 137**](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4928744&postcount=137) on page 3 of this thread. Starting here: > [@](#): > > - Secondly, many of the people on this board don’t seem to be able even to conceive of the idea that it is possible to think Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and still be in favor of our action in Iraq. The inability of the people on this board to grasp this, and to always jump to the conclusion that we think Iraq participated in 9/11 if we favor the war in Iraq, makes me feel like I’m trying to describe a one-sided coin. It just doesn’t seem possible to get through to anybody that we can think the war in Iraq is justified without thinking Iraq participated in 9/11. I explain this and explain it but it does no good.\* Speaking for myself, I have no problem understanding this view, quite the contrary. In fact, most of the pro-war posters with whom I’ve argued over the last couple of years are well aware of the fact that Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks, and support the war for other reasons. However, as noted by **Red Fury** , 70% of the American public _does_ appear to believe that Iraq was in some way involved with 9/11. This is a separate issue from your own personal rationale for promoting the war. So is the accusation, supported by numerous examples in this thread, that this false belief is at least partially due to purposefully misleading rhetoric on the part of the administration. To quote from **Fury’s** cite: > [@](#): > > \*\* Although that belief came without prompting from Washington, Democrats and some independent experts say Bush exploited the apparent misconception by implying a link between Hussein and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the months before the war with Iraq. “The notion was reinforced by these hints, the discussions that they had about possible links with al Qaeda terrorists,” said Andrew Kohut, a pollster who leads the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press…. > > Bush’s opponents say he encouraged this misconception by linking al Qaeda to Hussein in almost every speech on Iraq. Indeed, administration officials began to hint about a Sept. 11-Hussein link soon after the attacks. In late 2001, Vice President Cheney said it was “pretty well confirmed” that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official…. > > Then, in declaring the end of major combat in Iraq on May 1, Bush linked Iraq and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 – and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men – the shock troops of a hateful ideology – gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions.” > > Moments later, Bush added: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. _We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda_, and cut off a source of terrorist funding.…”\*\* That last claim, in particular, is hard to interpret as anything other than a purposeful lie: the Hussein regime was never “allied” with al-Qaida. Continuing: > [@](#): > > **”And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. In these 19 months that changed the world, _our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense._ We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th – the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists _and their supporters_ declared war on the United States. And war is what they got."** Here, Bush is clearly linking the invasion of Iraq as a “_focused, deliberate, and proportionate_” response to 9/11, and insinuating that Iraq had in some way “supported” the attack – despite the fact, as you argue yourself, no real link exists between 9/11 and Iraq. It is entirely possible to believe in the necessity of the war against Iraq while conceding that the administration employed misleading rhetoric to garner public support for it, by the way. There are even posters here who believe that the administration was justified in deceiving the American public in this manner. > [@](#): > > - I am beginning to suspect it is just a subconscious defense mechanism on the part of the anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war proponents here. It’s far easier to ridicule me for being so stupid as to think Iraq attacked the U.S. than it is to discuss such things as what Bush really said in his speech and/or what he’s really trying to convey to the country.\* I am discussing what Bush really said in his speeches, and what he appears to be trying to convey to the country. > [@](#): > > - How do I feel about the Administration’s inclusion of Iraq in the War on Terror? > > I’m glad it has, and I feel safer as a result. Here’s why: As **Shodan** pointed out earlier in this thread, there’s a maxim that goes “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” It is my belief that a strong synergy exists among the anti-American goals of al-Qaeda and Iraq. I don’t care that they weren’t holding hands before we attacked Iraq. I care that they may very well have come together at some point with Iraq providing WMD and al-Qaeda carrying out the attacks.\* Very well, then. Let’s tease this issue apart. First, can you tell me, when you use the acronym “WMD,” what sort of “WMD” are you talking about? Were you primarily worried that Hussein’s regime would supply al-Qaida with chemical weapons, biological weapons, or nuclear weapons? Secondly, how do you square this concern with the knowledge we now have, that is to say, with the fact that we now know Iraq did not possess “WMDs”? I mean, obviously, if Iraq didn’t possess “WMDs,” then they can’t very well pass them on to al-Qaida, can they? Finally, how do you respond the expert consensus that such a scenario is highly unlikely? For example, consider this passage from [**WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications**](http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/iraqintell/home.htm), a report published by the _ **Carnegie Endowment for International Peace** _: > [@](#): > > \*\*In fact… there was no positive evidence to support the claim that Iraq would have transferred WMD or agents to terrorist groups and much evidence to counter it. > > Bin Laden and Saddam were known to detest and fear each other, the one for his radical religious beliefs and the other for his aggressively secular rule and persecution of Islamists. Bin Laden labeled the Iraqi ruler an infidel and an apostate, had offered to go to battle against him after the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and had frequently called for his overthrow. The fact that they were strategic adversaries does not rule out a tactical alliance based on a common antagonism to the United States. However, although there have been periodic meetings between Iraqi and Al Qaeda agents, and visits by Al Qaeda agents to Baghdad, _the most intensive searching over the last two years has produced no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between Saddam’s government and Al Qaeda_. > > There were more than words for guidance. Terrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna has pointed out that the Iraqi regime had a long history of sponsoring terrorism against Israel, Kuwait, and Iran, providing money and weapons to these groups. Yet over many years Saddam did not transfer chemical, biological, or radiological materials or weapons to any of them “probably because he knew that they could one day be used against his secular regime.” > > In the judgment of U.S. intelligence, a transfer of WMD by Saddam to terrorists was likely only if he were “sufficiently desperate” in the face of an impending invasion. Even then, the NIE concluded, he would likely use his own operatives before terrorists. > > _Even without the particular relationship between Saddam and bin Laden, the notion that any government would turn over its principal security assets to people it could not control is highly dubious_. States have multiple interests and land, people, and resources to protect. They have a future. Governments that made such a transfer would put themselves at the mercy of groups that have none of these. _Terrorists would not even have to use the weapons but merely allow the transfer to become known to U.S. intelligence to call down the full wrath of the United States on the donor state, thereby opening opportunities for themselves_. Moreover, governments with the wherewithal to have acquired such weapons and the ambition to want them used are likely to have their own means of delivering them—through people who take orders. In the 1993 assassination attempt on former president George H. W. Bush, for example, Saddam relied on his own intelligence operatives. All in all, governments would have little to gain and perhaps everything to lose by giving their WMD to terrorists.\*\* Continuing to follow your line of argumentation: > [@](#): > > - I also don’t care if it turns out we don’t find WMD in Iraq, after all. It is my belief that Hussein likely either didn’t have them or moved them out of the country prior to the U.S. invasion. Either way, had we not invaded there would have been no way to stop Hussein from obtaining or developing WMD at some point, and there would have been no way to keep them from falling into the hands of al-Qaeda if Hussein and al-Qaeda were so disposed.\* In point of fact, it would appear that the US and its allies had actually been very effective in preventing Iraq from developing “WMDs” prior to the war. What leads you to believe that the continued pressure of sanctions and inspections would have been an ineffective deterrent, knowing what we know now? > [@](#): > > _Agree or not, I believe the synergy between al-Qaeda and Iraq was easily strong enough to warrant U.S. action in Iraq, especially in view of the fact that Hussein had played hide-and-seek with his weapons for years, was dishonest and known to employ every from of trickery at his disposal to try to thwart international efforts to keep him reined in._ Do you have any sort of evidence, or even expert opinion, to support this belief – or is it merely an article of faith on your part? > [@](#): > > - Secondarily, I’m very much in favor of the war as a human rights issue.\* In my opinion, the human rights issue was the only real justification for military action. But even this has to be put into perspective. As much as I abhor the suffering imposed upon Iraqis by Saddam Hussein’s regime, I do not think that I would be personally willing to risk my life to change it. I certainly would never be willing to sacrifice the life of my son. Since I’m not willing to lay my own life on the line for the sake of Iraq, it would be hypocritical for me to advocate that sacrifice to others. Still, I agree with you that this was a strong reason to take action against Iraq. > [@](#): > > - I am also in favor of the action in Iraq for the role it may eventually play in bringing peace and stability to the middle east. If a stable and functioning democratic Iraq can actually be acheived (and that is not a shoo-in), I think the repercussions throughout the Middle East will be tremendous over the decades to come. \* I doubt it. And what are the consequences if the project fails? Who will bear the brunt of those consequences? > [@](#): > > _I feel, and I suspect Bush does too, that Israel will be safer as a result of Hussein being out of power, and will therefore be more agreeable to giving back some of the land it seized in the 1967 war._ This argument is really a stretch. To begin with, Israel is probably less secure as a result of the Iraqi invasion and resulting chaos. But leaving that aside, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is not a security issue for Israel; rather, it is a religious one. > [@](#): > > - I think a democratic Iraq will have a freeing influence on the populations of many of the other countries in the region. It’s hard to watch your neighbor enjoying freedom and self-determination and not having it yourself.\* Name one historical example in which a population overthrew a repressive state apparatus, and replaced with a “open” democracy, because they were envious of a neighboring democratic state. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342.md?page=9)