And I would point out that the bill in question is no doubt a giveaway to the medical industry that if anything hurts the common people - Republican sponsored bills always are. And not being a mind reader, I’m going to judge by actions and not speculations about what they really believe; and what I see is a party that consistantly acts to benefit themselves and the corporate/religious elite, at the expense of everything and everyone else. The only evidence i see against my belief is the standard assertion that it’s just plain impossible for the Republican party leadership to be composed of bad people. It’s so impossible that believing that the Republicans are in the wrong is as silly as believing that they are lizards from space. :rolleyes:
I don’t care enough to try, and I expect nothing else but insults from a believer in God and a defender of the Republicans.
Originally, the sanctions were to be lifted when Iraq was confirmed to have no WMD and under the conditions of a continuing inspections program. This was later changed and instead linked to a policy of regime change. You are correct in stating that the deaths of ~1.5 million Iraqi people was a bipartisan effort.
From that infamous interview:
That was in 1996.
Oh horrors of horrors, what will Saddam Hussein do? Maybe he’ll look at us funny and twirl his moustache. Iraq’s neighbors were flabbergasted when the U.S. talked about Iraq being a ‘threat to the region’ in 2002/3. Ignoring the fact its army, infrastructure, and economy was in tatters, what do you think would happen if Saddam marched a couple of columns of tanks and infantry toward Iran or Saudi Arabia or whatever fantasy target we’re thinking up? The Highway of Death Part II: Electric Boogaloo, that’s what.
As for the rest of Mr. Moto’s posts, they were quite amazing, attempting to justify the wholesale invasion and occupation of a country for reasons which, in total, make no sense if one believes war is a serious matter which must only be undertaken in very grave times. I had to quickly check the calendar to make sure it wasn’t 2004, but then I realized they’re still out there, waiting. Maybe next he’ll talk about how we must invade Iran because they did the international equivalent of jaywalking.
To about the same extent that those who wrote letters urging clemency wrt Scooter Libby’s sentencing (or columns supporting a Presidential pardon) were supporting perjury in Washington, D.C.
You know, we’ve been over this ground a million times, but the same stuff seems to keep coming up from the same people, no matter how many times it’s been swatted down.
“By whom?” is the key question here. There’s a world of difference between being willing to provide moral support (and a limited amount of covert practical support) for an internal coup attempt, and mounting a full-scale invasion and occupation. To suggest that the U.S.’ policy of supporting regime change in Iraq in any way justified the invasion is completely bogus.
People have supplied this refutation here over and over again during the past five years, yet “what about our policy of regime change?” keeps on popping up. Kindly be shut up of this particular bullshit argument.
I offer it as particular refutation of arguments I see around here all of the time:
SDMB common argument #1 - The war with Iraq sprang solely from the neoconservative mind, was motivated by oil, or was motivated by revenge This argument completely ignores the history of our dealings with Iraq since 1990, including the first Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration.
SDMB common argument #2 - Iraq was well contained Certainly false. Not only did Oil for Food afford the Hussein regime massive amounts of money to keep the rudiments of a WMD program in place, it also allowed him to buy influence on a global scale. Furthermore, support for the sanctions against Iraq was fading among the UN member states, and the sanctions likely would have fallen soon. Once they did, there would have been nothing to stop Hussein from pursuing the program on a large scale, which he certainly would have done.
SDMB common argument #2 - Iraq was abiding by the requirement to disarm when we went to war Patently false. The report filed by the Iraqi government on December 7, 2002 was a reworking of previously filed (and rejected) information. Hans Bliz rejected it, and so did the UN Security Council. At no time after this did they demonstrate full compliance - only public relations moves purposely designed to avert war.
Whether it was wise or not to go to war can be endlessly debated. But we ought to cease debating it on these particular points, given the facts as they stand.
He had no WMD’s, he had no WMD program, he had no means to reconstitute one, his army was a joke and he was destroying missiles even as the attack started.
This does not mean that war was an inevitable or necessary step. The Clinton administration did not invade Iraq. Nothing had changed in Iraq that suggested that invasion at that time was needed.
From Colin Powell, 15 May 2001: “The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn’t have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained.”
There is no single shred of evidence that the sanctions would have inevitably fallen. If it was the case that support for sanctions was failing, it makes no logical or rational sense to suggest that the appropriate response is war. A simple diplomatic effort to enhance the support for the containment effort that Colin Powell said was “reasonably successful” would have been more appropriate and more successful.
This very obviously and very conveniently leaves out the fact that Iraq was very open and compliant with the inspections that occurred after December 7th, 2002. If you find the words of Hans Blix compelling, why do you stop at December, 2002? Here is what he said in January, 2003:
Your view of the facts is so skewed that it raises, for me, serious questions about you. I’m not sure what to make of your so very, very selective assessment of the facts and your very strange and obviously exceptionally biased interpretation of them.
Do *you * have any proof at all that Saddam’s regime had *any * military capability that represented a *real * threat at the time Bush went to war with him anyway?
Or is this just more lame rationalization to avoid confronting the monstrosity of what you’ve done?
Pearl Harbor Dec 7. Germany declares war against us Dec.11. I missed when Sadaam declared war. You are the last to see how Iraq was all bs. They were not a threat to us or their neighbors.
Irrelevant. The state of the sanctions regime has no bearing on a decision to go to war immediately, can’t wait, must do it NOW etc etc.
Only war criminals would try to justify it on those grounds. Desperate, flailing about war criminals in utter denial.
Your posts, this pathetic thrashing around for some, for any shred of justification no matter how threadbare are actually quite sad. You do realise that don’t you?
Just admit it was wrong in conception and execution and follow-up. You’ll feel better for it.
This would make total sense if the failure of the sanctions, in and of itself, would present a ‘grave and gathering threat,’ in Bush’s lingo. It doesn’t. To confuse it with a casus belli is patently ridiculous.
What so many of these arguments amount to is, “Saddam Hussein, in some way, shape, or form, was a baaaaad boy. And if someone named Saddam Hussein is a baaaaad boy, we have no choice but to invade and occupy his country.”
They come down to something even more basic: Simple denial. “I was for it at the time, I can’t admit the possibility of having been fooled because that would make me a fool, I can’t admit the possibility of having done or supported something evil because I’m one of the good guys by self-definition. Therefore I *was * right and what I supported *was * good, therefore that’s what the facts *did and do * support.” IOW, the usual rationalization process that humans are often prone to, but usually stop after the first few ten thousand lost lives.
gonzomax, odd that you should bring up Pearl Harbor without pointing out that Mr. Moto’s “argument” is the same one the Japanese used. But at least he hasn’t tried another favorite of the rationalizers, the one about how we had all those troops over there and we just had to give them something to do other than wait. Other Dopers have tried that on us before, though.
Why not, um, go get Zarqawi? Or, um, send the Marines *into * Tora Bora with Bin Laden pinned down there? Is there a reason other than needing boogiemen to scare us with?
