Well, yeah, but it was wrong because he didn’t have the strength to keep it. If he had, it would have been right, see ? Plus, he was a towelhead, so there !
(note : this post is sarcastic, just so you know)
America’s intentions were quite clear from the beginning. They just didn’t work out.
I am reminded of the story about the guy who slips off the edge of a cliff where he would fall to a certain death if it were not because he manages to grab and hang from a bush groing out the side of the cliff. For a while he yells for help and finally a man hears him and comes over and, upon seeing him, exclaims “Thank God!”.
To which the man holding on for his life says, “Help me up! Thank the Bush, don’t thank God! God’s intentions were quite clear to me!”.
The fact that things did not work out does not mean America’s intentions were for things to end like this. That is just disingenuous. America’s intentions were quite clear.
Remind me, if you please, when exactly we invaded Saudi Arabia recently?
Them being “towel heads” who rule themselves, and all.
Which luckily you don’t even need to try to make sense since…
Of course! Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, etc, etc, etc. All of em, just patsies for nefarious Jews. Obviously, one day a bunch of Jews came up to them, told them that there was going to be war, and the leaders of the country just said “ayup, so who we invading?”
In an article published in Foreign Affairs in 2000, prior to Bush’s election, Condoleeza Rice described America’s foreign policy agenda in a post Soviet World. She described how Iraq could be a stepping stone for transforming the Middle East, but that it would require a “Pearl Harbor” type event to mobilize the public.
I’m surprised more people don’t reference that article in these discussions. They laid it all out with Iraq, exactly what they wanted to do and how they were going to try to do it. It was the February, 2000 edition of FA, but requires payment to view on line.
I have two theories:
1- He wanted to establish a permanent American base in the Middle East to help stabilize the flow of oil. Iraq best met the criteria- a central location and a military that had already been effectively neutered in the first war.
2- He did it to impress Jodie Foster.
And pretending that everyone fighting us is a jihadi is also silly. Especially the people who started fighting us after we invaded their country, and slaughtered and tortured their countrymen - the precise people we are talking about.
Luckily your strawman bears no passing resemblance to what I’ve said, and I never claimed anything even remotely similar to the absurdity that only Jihiadis fight us. But you already knew that.
Also lucky is that your previous post hasn’t vanished, and you most certainly were not talking about Iraqi partisans in specific, but the people who “They hate us for our freedoms” referred to. Its most famous initial use, in point of fact, had zero to do with Iraq and was used by Bush in September of 2001.
But never mind. I see you’ve ignored the facts I presented in favor of going back to the kind of rhetoric that is comfortable to you.
…and who, exactly, has pocketed the lion’s share of that $3 trillion?:dubious:
War is good business sense.
“Fuck Saddam. I’m taking him out.” - GWB
All else is commentary.
Could you produce some kind of credible cite for this?
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t think the two Georges hate each other. But I do believe there is a sense of rivalry between them. George W wanted to show that he was a better President than his father was. He wouldn’t just drive Saddam out of Kuwait; he’d invade Iraq and defeat him completely.
Obviously Bush the father is not going to say that. But he was and is one thousand time more intelligent, knowledgeable and statesman than his son and he has to be deeply disappointed that his son turned out to be so incompetent. I have no doubt he knows Bill Clinton was a much better president than W but, obviously, he is not going to say it.
It is hard for the average person to make sense of people willing to start a war and send our citizens to kill and be killed for the reasons listed. I don’t think things went as planned. I’m sure they hoped to have a puppet government in place long before now and reaping huge financial rewards. I’m also sure they justified it as being in America’s best interest and they knew best even if the average citizen couldn’t understand. I was convinced years ago when I read this site as well as other details. Our government has a history of forgetting our founding guiding principles when it comes to dealing with other countries.
Did that actually happen? And if it did is the amount stolen greater than the cost of the war?
So it’s just something you made up. Fair enough.
Regards,
Shodan
Regards yourself. I was not the one who said it.
Thinking over Bush senior’s statements about W over the years, I find Bosda’s inference more reasonable than say W’s claims that Saddam had WMD’s.
You bought into that lock stock and barrel, didn’t you, Shodan?
You are correct - my bad.
Of course, this might be how these kinds of things get going - one person makes it up, others repeat and defend it. You might be one of the kinds of people Bosda heard it it from.
Oh well. At least we have established it as imaginary.
Really? Which statements, specifically, that Bush Sr. has made, make you think that he despises his son?
Regards,
Shodan
In post #9 BrainGlutton cites a reference to a book that has actual documents comprising the plans and thinking behind the invasion. Those plans show utter contempt for democracy or what westerners would call normalisation of a country. Given that, I’m a little puzzled as to why it is that people in this thread feel it cogent to speculate that it was about democracy or other enlightened thinking. If you have cites that show that the material that BG has referenced is false or misleading then by all means provide them but until then why clog up this thread with your idle and apparently already discredited speculation?
There’s currently a violent insurgency in Iraq. Before the invasion, there was no significant jihadi movement in Iraq. Ergo, even allowing for some movement of jihadis into Iraq, it seem fatuous to argue other than that the insurgency is a consequence of the invasion ie it is nationalist not jihadi.
Even leaving that aside your cite doesn’t seem to support your position. In fact, it says specifically that its subject did not resent at least political freedoms. What he really evidences is an apparent distaste for a culture different to his own, to a pathological degree. You could find the same thing in any rednecked narrow minded culture. Your characterisation of that as hating you because of the freedoms you enjoy is just a characterisation derived from your own key cultural reference point, namely that US culture is all about freedom, ergo if he dislikes your culture he must dislike freedom.
**So Bush lied to get into Iraq, ok but why?
**
I don’t suppose it ever occurred to you that he didn’t.