Poor, poor George W. Bush – tricked into invading Iraq by those devious Democrats! :rolleyes:
Only one problem with this theory: none of those afformentioned Demmies thought that Iraq’s WMDs were enough of a concern to go to war over. As in, “What Saddam has (or might not have) isn’t enough to warrant a full-blown invasion.” Only one dipstick mistook the mountain for a molehill, and that dipstick is the one currently in the White House…
No, wrong again. You claimed that the invasion of Iraq “had nothing to do with WMDS”, but instead was based on what the Project for a New American Century was pushing. So I provided a cite showing that the Project had a great deal to say about Iraqi WMD. So you were wrong. See how it works?
Apart from Kerry, you mean? We’ve gone over this before. I suspect it won’t do any good this time either, but I’m getting used to that.
Regards,
Shodan
You keep saying it, and it still isn’t true. See how that works?
Kerry has explained his vote any number of times, bounces off like popcorn off a brick wall. Kerry voted to empower the President, to give him the backing he needed. This was a reasonable vote, one that I disagreed with then, and disagree with now. But even then, I could see a reasonable ground.
I also think that a great number of Democrats spinelessly caved under the duress of the drum-pounding Tighty Righties and their reprehensible politics of portraying any sensible restriction on Bush’s war powers as being pro-terrorist. Saddams coming to get your Momma, and he’s got nukes! It worked, it always does, the drums begin to pound, and the brains go right out the window.
Given another man in the Oval Office, and it would have been an entirely sensible vote. Given a President who had the good sense to doubt, to probe, and to compromise. Someone entirely other than GeeDubya.
We have to have a President, even one installed by legalistic chicanery. Kerry voted to trust GeeDubya, to trust that he was not fool enough, not arrogant enough, and not blind enough to press forward to a needless and futile war. He was wrong. He trusted the Fearless Misleader to be prudent and cautious. I very much doubt he would make the same mistake again, and, God willing, no such opportunity will arise.
Yes, there is. The neocon movement got started as a response to the New Left, and partly as a response to the anti Vietnam War movement. They saw our pullout of Vietnam and detente with the Soviets and Chinese as a betrayal of our values.
I didn’t say they predicted anything specific; the nature of war is such that unexpected setbacks and failures always happen. There was never a debate about whether or not there would be casualties, only about how many. Many opposed to the war were predicting tens of thousands of US dead, SH attacking Israel and spreading violence all over the middle east, a massive refugee and starvation crisis, an Iraqi civil war, etc. Those were all reasonable fears to have, IMO, but none of them have come to pass yet.
If one was of the position then that absolutely no sacrifice was worthwhile to free Iraq, then the problems you list would indeed nullify the whole enterprise. But I suspect that if you told the neocons that two years on the trade would be 1000 US casualties, higher gas prices, and a PR disaster in exchange for SH in jail and a sovereign Iraq headed for multiparty elections, they would have taken it.
Actually, that’s a very interesting question.
I would guess “not directly”. My impression is that PNAC and the neoconservatives rose in political power as a reaction to the youth cultural convulsions of the Sixties and to the Vietnam War. I suspect that, if there had been no Vietnam War, the youth cultural convulsions would still have occurred, but the US neo-con backlash against them would not have had the hard “you lost the war for us” edge and would not have been as powerful. Instead of a near-civil-war and a subsequent cultural counterrevolution, there would have been a slower cultural evolution.
Consider that many countries around the world had similar youth convulsions around the same time, but they appeared in different forms. In France it was the events of May '68. In China there was the “Cultural Revolution”. In many Western countries, there were similar cultural revolutions (music, dress, customs). But only in the United States was there the Vietnam War to fight against and for, and to harden and radicalise attitudes on both sides.
Did any other countries have a similar expansionist PNAC-style “neo-conservative” grouping appear? There is such a group in Canada, which in this, as in so many other things (including the Viewtnam War struggle itself), is strongly influenced by the United States. The Canadian neo-cons support the new Conservative party. Many actively wish to connect to Bush’s train. I am not certain whether there were large similar groups in other countries.
And after a “long march through the institutions” thay are now in power.
[sun]Edits in square brackets mine.[/sun]
That’s what I said.
I’d like the OP to tell us all what a “fundamental neo-con philosophical assumption” is. Better yet, list them all.
And yet they’d *still * have been pushing the project even *without * that. There would *still * have been an invasion in the name of creating a new, US-friendly democracy even if other pretexts for it were required in order to gain public support - and a *couple dozen * of them were, in fact, run up the flagpole by that crowd.
“See how it works?”
Here is a Wikapedia outline of neo-conservative philosophical assumptions.
The main points at issue re the OP are those listed in the following quoted section. Possibly “attitudes” vs “neo-con philosophical assumptions” would have been a better choice of words.
Saddam Hussein was just another arab dictator…more vicious than most, but with one key difference. He had:
-a need to expand his empire
-a need to found a dynasty (Uday and Qusay)
What everybody seems to forget…this guy had to kept in check by somebody…and that unpleasant duty fell to the USA and Great Britain. Keeping patrol over Iraq was costing us about $500 million/year. Plus, the sanctions could not continue…Saddam was quite willing to starve his people to death. Third, we could not risk instability in the largest oil-producing region on earth.
So, was it a good thing to remove Hussein? I think it was.
Will democracy ever come to iraq? possibly, but NONE of the surrounding regimes (except Turkey) particularly want democracy. Is Syria a democracy? Will it evolve into one? i doubt it.
I think it was a neocon’s big mistake that they thought a democracy was possible in iraq, in less than 30-40 years.However, it may well have been worse to allow the Hussein regime to continue in power…it may well have become unstable enough to have provoked an area-wide war.
You forgot “years of American political, military, and intelligence support from the Reagan Administration.” :rolleyes:
And the current fiasco in Iraq is costing us, what, $87 billion per year? Is this supposed to be an improvement?
Y’know, there are entire nations of starving people out there right now, who would look at life under Saddam as luxury by comparison with what little they have. Where’s your gung-ho enthusiasm for them?
And yet, that is exactly what we’ve got right now. Way to go, George!
That statement speaks for itself.
Right. Got it.
So, when someone digs up some of your posts that contradict this statement I assume you’ll pretend you never saw it and quit posting to the thread.
Correct?
Kinda figure. Shodan Standard Operating Procedure, after all.
I thought the neocon small-minders club had been claiming for the last year that, “It wasn’t just about WMDs!”.
-Joe, thinks Shodan missed a newsletter
Check out this piece about why neo-cons comeback and how they work:
Doesn’t answer the OP directly but gets close to show how we got here.
Sure…After all, if we end up spending, say, 4 years times this for a total of $348 billion, we’d come out ahead after a mere 700 years of having to enforce the no-fly zone et al! 
As a start:
A More Humble Hawk
By DAVID BROOKS
"Nonetheless, over the past two years many conservatives have grown increasingly exasperated with the administration‘s inability to execute its policies semicompetently. <snip>
On July 21, 2002, my colleague Robert Kagan wrote the first of several essays lamenting the administration‘s alarming lack of preparation for post-Saddam Iraq. Yet the administration seemed content to try nation-building on the cheap.<snip>
My friends at the Project for the New American Century urged the U.S. to go to the U.N. for a reconstruction resolution, to build a broad coalition to aid rebuilding and to establish a NATO-led security force. That never happened. <snip>
We hawks were wrong about many things. But in opening up the possibility for a slow trudge toward democracy, we were still right about the big thing."
I’ve been having serious problems w/ my computer. I’ve lost more information than I care to assess. It’ll have to be a bit on the list of neocons, re their Dem to Pub morph.
Thanks for the Wilkepedia link.
From the link:
This rings very true regarding neoconservatism. I am vary wary of something that no one seems to self identify with, but is used so often as an insulting label. More and more I simply see the term “neoconservative” on par with “bleeding heard liberal”. There is a definition, but not really a meaningful one, and the point of it is to insult and debase, rather than to actually identify one’s belief.
I don’t know exactly what you think you are talking about, but fortunately I can’t come up with a reason to care.
If you are saying that the primary reason for invading Iraq was not that she was violating the inspection regime and trying to get WMDs, you are mistaken. If you are claiming that there were other reasons as well, fine and I agree.
Some people can actually consider more than one factor in their decisions. Obviously not you, but there is nothing I can do about that.
Fortunately for your ability to grasp it, the point of my post is fairly simple. The idea that Iraq had WMD in the past is not an assumption, but historic fact. The assumption was that she was interfering with the inspection process because Saddam had, or wanted to obtain, WMD. This assumption was held by Clinton, Hilary, Albright, Kerry, Gore, and Bush. Since the notion was held by many who are not neo-cons, it is not solely a neo-con idea.
Have someone read the above to you and explain the hard words.
Regards,
Shodan
merijeek
[Moderator Hat ON]
merijeek, do NOT imply any posters here have a “small-mind”. Shodan, cool it on the “fortunately for your abilty to grasp it” and “explain the hard words” bit.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
But, nonetheless, the generosity of your nature compels you to answer…
This buggers the question. Whether or not this were the “primary” reason is, at least to my mind, of secondary importance when we reflect that this “reason” was, in fact, no reason at all.
Best content yourself with pointing out his deficiencies, such as you imagine them.
Only one of whom, we hasten to point out again, actually insisted on war. You remember which one, don’t you? Advise.
It appears that all your advanced vocabulary skills have done for you is to enable you to evade the point like a bullfighter evades the horns.