Why do you like Bush so much?
He was no danger to the U.S. (as the administration proved when they made no attempt to secure purported weapons manufacturing lcations during the war) and he was no danger to the Middle East as long as a third of his country was under direct observation and harrassment by British and U.S. air forces and he was restricted inhis ability to build an effective army.
So we have traded a toothless tiger for the general ill will of the entire region in addition to sapping our own finances at a time when our economy is not particularly healthy, while alienating numerous countries around the world at a time when we need all the intelligence cooperation we can get to combat al Qaida.
You call this the best time and a good idea?
Indeed tomndebb - it’s amazing to me how few Americans in particular realise the extent of the effectiveness of the “No Fly Zone” over northern and southern Iraq. There was at least 3 incidents a week in the final 18 months leading up to the Iraq invasion.
Iraq’s ability to mount even the tiniest military threat under such circumstances was non existent. The real surprise for me is that so few Amerians are aware of how restrictive the “No Fly Zone” policy really was. It proved to be a remarkably impressive military tool over a decade or more.
Similarly surprising is how poorly the average American is aware of the extent of the work the UN and its weapons inspectors were carrying out in Iraq before their efforts were deliberately crippled (as Tomndebb pointed out a few pages ago) by US and UK “policy” based on evidence from propaganda, not reality. Utterly worthless, much like some of the “arguments” from propaganda we’ve had to suffer in this thread.
Indeed, practically all the rubbish spewed by Monty2_2001 and those like him was refuted (what could be refuted, that is – rabid snarling is another matter) by a number of us before the Iraq war even started, and it has been systematically refuted for the benefit of the factually impaired ever since.
It’s very concerning when stupidity-driven loyalty to a label such as Democratic or Republican takes the place of reasoned and supported argument. It’s nice to see with how much patience the problem was addressed.
I think your analogy more or less spells it out... Saddam was a toothless tiger and the War against Al-Qaeda is a war of the Inteligence Arena and International Cooperation.
Radon the Bush Administration or several members (Wolfie and Rummy) already had Iraq as a target BEFORE 9/11… and the negative outcomes of the Iraq War were VERY VERY avoidable.
True about the speculation… but NOT attacking Iraq would CERTAINLY NOT fan Arab pride and nationalism to a high pitch. Also invading Iraq is solving a different sort of problem that is Iraq… but possibly making the terrorist one worse.
I disagree that the US aggressive policy is temporary. They are calling for occupation of Iraq as a base to invade other Arab countries that dont fall in line. You dont make a show of strength like Iraq expecting everyone to fold their games in the first round... while Bush is in command expect more aggressive "scare em or invade em" maneuvers. These neo cons really think it works... and its easier than fighting the elusive Al Qaeda.You still are. The US sent a lot of military supplies to the British Empire. Do you need a list of countries of each side of WW2? You pick out precisely one, and claim this proves something.
Good grief. What sort of thinking process is that?
Following the atrocity of 9/11, the US should attack somebody who had nothing to do with it. This would show Bush went ‘the extra mile’ 
, and trick the US voters into thinking Bush was doing something about terrorism.
And what evidence is that?
And if Bush did know about a secret nuclear program, why didn’t he act sooner?
You make a lot of these claims (Bush is worried Saddam will ally with Al-Quaeda). Is Bush worried that the UK will turn on the US? We’ve got nukes, and diplomatic immunity to deliver them. By your ‘reasoning’, when will Bush invade the UK?
I shudder by what you call reasonable.
SO why wasn’t Saddam removed a decade ago?
And why is the best time when there is no threat?
And why ignore world opinion?
This is your concept of statesmanship?
No I wouldn’t.
of course I wouldn’t sell them weapons of mass destruction, like Donald Rumsfeld did.
I would have let the UN weapons inspectors disarm them, unlike Bush.
And I would prosecute them in the International Courts, unlike Bush who wouldn’t sign up to that.
Yes it might. It will also make everyone else nervous. What if Bush decides you are a threat - that you ‘might’ want to attack the US? Apparently Bush won’t invade if you have nukes, so buy some now. Do you really think this ‘strategy’ makes the World safer?!
I can tell you that invading another country without a good reason breeds bitter resentment. Why do you think Iraqis are killing US troops now? Do you know anything about the Middle East, or Norhtern Ireland?
So if being attacked by terrorists raises your Presidential approval % amongst voters, then stir up more trouble.
That is not what leadership is about.
Do you know how Hitler came to power?
Would you consider the Reichstag fire an act of leadership?
Ah, so nobody is accusing Bush of starting the war to trick the voters…
‘Too vague to analyse’?! This from a man who posts the above ‘wild hopes’?!
How about this - if US oil companies are paid to bring out the oil, then the US makes a profit. If US companies are the only ones awarded contracts to rebuild Iraq, then the US makes a profit.
Do you know about Halliburton, Bechtel etc?
Perhaps the weapons had already been destroyed. What should Saddam do then?
You would have difficulty believing something that happened? Perhaps you need to look carefully at your beliefs.
Or perhaps he had destroyed them already. Of course this would mean (gasp) that Bush was not justified in invading. Do you find that hard to believe?
Yes, those Iraqi troops sailing past the Statue of Liberty would be unstoppable.
Perhaps we should have a ban on nuclear weapons. Ah, but Bush is developing mini-nukes, so we can all sleep safely in our beds.
5 minutes on searching:
'The first contracts for rebuilding post-war Iraq have been awarded, and Vice President Dick Cheney’s old employer, Halliburton Co., is one of the early winners. ’
http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war_contracts/index.htm
‘The bidding process has been criticized for including only a handful of companies, some with substantial political clout and none of which is based outside the United States.’
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/rebuilding_iraq/index.asp
‘Halliburton Co., the oil company that was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million through two subsidiaries while he was at its helm, the Washington Post reported.’
‘Among the companies believed to be bidding are Bechtel, Fluor, Parsons, the Washington Group and Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney’s old firm.
All are experienced. But in addition, all are generous political donors — principally to Republicans.’
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq_rebuilding_contract030322.html
‘Controversies already are erupting. European governments and businesses are angry that the administration plans to award most of the money – estimates range from $20 billion to $100 billion – to U.S. companies.
One of the first major contracts was awarded to a subsidiary of Halliburton Co., a company that was run by Vice President Dick Cheney, on a no-bid basis.’
And your cite for this is?
december’s just being intentionally obtuse. He himself started a thread a few days ago about how AQ was teaming up w/ former Baathists in Iraq. He knows full well that whatever banned weapons Iraq had don’t have to be transported out of country to reach the hands of AQ. :smack:
Why dec would choose to be intentioanllly obtuse in this manner, I can only guess. Maybe he’s just trying to get you riled up.
Mega-deaths is a literally incredible scenario. If the sanctions were dropped and everyone decided to turn their backs on Iraq without peeking, it still would’ve been years til Iraq had even one bomb. The chem/bio waepons wouldn’t’ve killed millions any more that they did the last time they were used.
Hussein didn’t want to desroy the ME, he wanted to own it. Quite a large difference.
While you feel that the increase in the number of those willing to be terrorists is just speculation, you must consider that it’s professional speculation from the intel experts. That’s more meaningful than if you or I do it. It’s more akin to your doctor making a diagnosis than just a WAG. And so far, it’s being shown to be true. There’s been an increased number of people who’re willing to die to harm Americans. Not all of them are terrorists, some are merely resistance fighters.
Tne Uraqi WMDs would have to be transported out of Iraq to reach the hands of AQ in order to be used to attack the United States. The use of WMDs by al Qaeda in the US was and is a huge worry in the light of 9/11.
One has only to look to the history of the region to find glowing examples of how well these tactics have worked in the past.
Keep looking. I’m sure they’re in there somewhere.:dubious:
Fair enough. There’re however many well established smuggling routes that’re inacive use as we speak. If Hussein couldn’t shut them down with the forces and local expertise that his forces had why do you think that we have the capacity to shut them down?
Or are you denying that there’s smuggling going on in Iraq?
True. And the invasion of Iraq increased the likelihood of AQ geting a hold of whatever banned weapons Iraq may have had.
Iraq already had ingredients for dirty bombs. Somehow, they never decided to share them w/ terrorists.
Could you please provide citations for these lots of evidence?
Bush’s already been busted for lying about the IAEA report saying that Iraq was 6 mo away from The Bomb. Even the White house has said that the report never existed. The WH, of course, said that Bush just was “muddled.” :rolleyes:
Bush was also concerned about Iraqi MiGs, (somehow), reaching the US and spraying anthrax. Just because Bush says he’s worried about it, does NOT mean that its a reasonable thing to worry about.
Drink some coffee. Or think before posting, or something.
Smuggling is less efficient than offically sanctioned trade. If Saddam or Uday or Qusay had decided to expport WMDs to al Qaeda or Hamas or al Aksa, they could have provided them by the boatload. I feel safer not depending on the good will of those three charming individuals.
First of all, this is a mere assertion, which I don’t buy. Second, as I pointed out, the invasion of Iraq eliminated the possibility of AQ getting a hold of whatever banned weapons Iraq would have had. This is why WMD programs were considered a more important reason for war than current WMD stocks.
I’m not sure as to what kind of sanctioned trade you think there can be in NB&C weapons.
It’s more than “mere assertion”. It’s the analysis of the CIA et al. It’s not my personal assertion. It’s an expert opinion. There’s not a more authoritative opinion available.
You’re, of course, free to disregard the expert analysis of our nation’s foreign intelligence agency as much as you like. Much to th edetriment of the US, the Bush Admin did. They chose to use the Office of Special Plans assessments. You know, the ones that said we’d be done to 30,000 troops in Iraq by September.
Are you positing that the immediacy for the invasion, why we couldn’t wait, was that Iraq could one day produce banned weapons and eventually find a way to ally w/ al Qaeda?
SimonX, trade in Iraqi WMDs could have been sanctioned by the Iraqi government, if it were still controlled by Saddam and his sons. That type of trade would allow a lot more WMDs to be transported than smuggling, which is against the wishes of the current Iraqi occupying force.
I’ve read the CIA statement you’re probably alluding to, and it’s filled with disclaimers. How about citing the actual CIA analysis, and we can all find out if it supports your assertion.
I don’t know what you mean by “immediacy”. We should have overthrown Saddam in 1991 IMHO. We had grounds to overthrow him throughout the 1990’s, because of his failure to fully comply with his cease-fire obligations. In particular, we had strong grounds to attack in 1998 when he kicked the UN inspectors out. GW Bush spent many months getting UN inspections re-started and trying to get UN support for military action. He finally chose to lead a coalition outside the UN.
The timing of the overthrow is less important than the desirability of doing it. We could have waited, of course, but I cannot see how waiting would have helped.
Even in the unlikely event that Hussein decided to share banned weapons w/ AQ, the tarde in these weapons would still have be done clandestinely. It would still be the subject of international sanctions and the scrutiny of international intelligence agencies world-wide.
Here’s one to start:
If we’d been willing to wait, we could’ve secured greater international cooperation, (as per the advice of GHW Bush), and lessened our burden of the invasion and subsequent reconstruction of Iraq.
I’m not sure why you cannot see how this would’ve helped.
So the time of a major invasion matters little ?! Maybe having UN approval was more important ? Maybe having avoided the war altogether ? Maybe making Iraqis more scared of the impending invasion ? Maybe TIME to make a post war plan ?
The US pissed off every country except a handful of miniscule allies and Israel. The British people and the Spaniards were none too happy either… no good saying they are “allies”. Just so Bush could show he doesnt need the UN…
Why was their a reason to hurry actually ? I dont see any… Iraq was surrounded by troops and I dont think WMD were about to get trucked out. Maybe so that they could get a second invasion (Syria?) going before the 2004 election ?
So now Bush lets US troops die in Iraq so that he doesnt have to ask the UN for help… great timing.
There was pre-war planning for the post-war period. It just was based on analyses of the Office of Special Plans that used faulty info that was derived from sources that were known to be untrustworthy.
december-
(emphasis added)
Technically this is called lying. We all know it’s an old and trusted lie, but still. And the US did attack in '98 with punitive air strikes (Which were a large part of why the UN team chose to leave)
But of course you knew that. In fact I hesitate to point it out because you’ll probably use responding to this sidetrack as cover for not answering the savaging everyone else has given your argument. Ah well, I’m an enabler.