I think SH was:
A. Short sited.
and
B. Being that he ruled by bravado, showing any weakness at all made him vulnerable to his many enemies.
The War Plan for Iraq had be layed out long before 9/11. 9/11 just gave the Neocons the public will to follow through, even though it didn’t have anything to with Iraq, or the public’s safty from terrorist.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Or because it never happened, and you made it up.
The point of the criticism is that you are lying.
If you are going to post lies and false memories, don’t be surprised if you are not taken seriously.
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
Thats a serious accusation. I doubt you have anything to back that up except your opinion. Do you deny that Richard Clark reported that right after 9/11 he was instructed to find a way to blame Iraq?
I don’t have to take** Der Trihs** quote as 100% accurate to realize that Bush was looking for a reason to invade Iraq and wouldn’t hesitate to create one if it didn’t clearly exist.
[QUOTE=chowder]
You don’t appear to lack a perfect memory when it comes to denigrating the USA.
Look Der Trihs every reader of this board knows that you hate America and all things American, you make yourself look even more foolish and puerile when you post lies. Grow up for Gods sake
Plus what Shodan said
[/QUOTE]
**
Der Trihs** and I are usually on opposing sides of an argument and I’ve read his posts that I thought were off the deep end , but I’d like to be crystal clear on this.
As one of* every reader ,* you ** are not invited to speak for me even as a generalization and I find the tone of your post ignorant and offensive.
[QUOTE=carnivorousplant]
Sure it did. The stated aim of the war and the reason the Mide Eastern colilition joined up was to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, and it was accomplished.
Does the rest of your post imply that bin Laden was connected with Iraq?
[/QUOTE]
No, the war did not end in surrender. It was a cessation of hostilities just like the Korean war. It was followed by Operation Southern Watch and Operation Northern Watch which were launched to protect the Shiites and the Kurds.
Bin Laden’s connection to Iraq was the desire to remove Western troops from the region. The US role of world policeman in Iraq meant a troop presence with no timeline of departure from Saudi Arabia. Again, much like the Korean situation today.
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
March 18, 2003
Q** Will U.S. troops enter Iraq, no matter what, at this point?** In other words, even if Saddam Hussein, in some off chance, takes this ultimatum, leaves the country with his sons, will U.S. troops, nevertheless, enter Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President addressed that last night. And the President made clear that Saddam Hussein had 48 hours to leave, beginning at 8:00 p.m. Eastern time last night. The President also made plain to the American people that if Saddam were to leave, the American forces, coalition forces would still enter Iraq, hopefully this time peacefully, because Iraqi military would not be under orders to attack or fire back. And that way Iraq could be disarmed from possession of weapons of mass destruction.
[QUOTE=PatriotX]
MR. FLEISCHER: The President addressed that last night. And the President made clear that Saddam Hussein had 48 hours to leave, beginning at 8:00 p.m. Eastern time last night. The President also made plain to the American people that if Saddam were to leave, the American forces, coalition forces would still enter Iraq, hopefully this time peacefully, because Iraqi military would not be under orders to attack or fire back. And that way Iraq could be disarmed from possession of weapons of mass destruction.
[/QUOTE]
Close, but not quite the same, since it’s not an interview in Italy, and it’s also crazier than what I was talking about. They thought that the Iraqis wouldn’t fight against an invasion without being told to by Saddam ?
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Close, but not quite the same, since it’s not an interview in Italy, and it’s also crazier than what I was talking about. They thought that the Iraqis wouldn’t fight against an invasion without being told to by Saddam ?
[/QUOTE]
Doesn’t sound very crazy to me…YMMV I suppose. I don’t see why its automatic the Iraqi ARMY would have fought if Saddam had left the building. Perhaps you can explain why this is ‘crazy’. Or perhaps you can’t at that…who knows?
-XT
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Doesn’t sound very crazy to me…YMMV I suppose. I don’t see why its automatic the Iraqi ARMY would have fought if Saddam had left the building. Perhaps you can explain why this is ‘crazy’. Or perhaps you can’t at that…who knows?
-XT
[/QUOTE]
If Saddam et al. had left on their own volition, why would we have needed to send our military into the country at all? Wouldn’t have we just been able to let the inspectors continue looking for the WMDs? Especially since since no one would have been giving anyone orders to hide or continue hiding the weapons?
LilShieste
[QUOTE=Gangster Octopus]
While the Administration really badly wanted to go to war, there were opportunities on Saddam’s side to prevent it, I believe. Why didn’t he avail himself of those oppportunities.
[/QUOTE]
It seems like most contributions to this thread has been “sidetracked” on answering the OP’s question rather than asking for clarification or further evidence in regards to the underlying assumptions. I’m still confused on what opportunities Saddam failed to avail himself of, other than the one to simply leave the country so that the U.S. troops could come in without him there anymore. Could the OP or someone else who is voicing opinions of why Saddam did what he did please explain what alternative path you are imagining he could have taken?
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Doesn’t sound very crazy to me…YMMV I suppose. I don’t see why its automatic the Iraqi ARMY would have fought if Saddam had left the building. Perhaps you can explain why this is ‘crazy’. Or perhaps you can’t at that…who knows?
[/QUOTE]
For the same reason the Iraqis are fighting us now; they don’t like being invaded. When the enemy comes over the border - and we are and were their enemy - soldiers tend to shoot at them. Not having orders would make any resistance disjointed, but I seriously doubt they’d stand by while we took over. And the moment one commander stands up to us, there goes our nice, peaceful invasion.
Or to put it another way, do you think the US military would stand by idly if President Reagan had ordered them to let in a Russian occupying army ?
[QUOTE=jshore]
I’m still confused on what opportunities Saddam failed to avail himself of
[/QUOTE]
Well, Saddam could have prepared a 14,000 page document in response to UN resolution 1441, instead of the skimpy 12,000 pager he foisted on us. That would’ve said “I’m not playing chicken here” like nothing else. 
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
For the same reason the Iraqis are fighting us now; they don’t like being invaded. When the enemy comes over the border - and we are and were their enemy - soldiers tend to shoot at them. Not having orders would make any resistance disjointed, but I seriously doubt they’d stand by while we took over. And the moment one commander stands up to us, there goes our nice, peaceful invasion.
Or to put it another way, do you think the US military would stand by idly if President Reagan had ordered them to let in a Russian occupying army ?
[/QUOTE]
I agree, it just takes one jerk having a pot shot at a ‘friendly’ trooper and all hell breaks loose.
Personally I would be very nervous of people throwing flowers, they could contain a hand grenade.
It amazes me that the USA leadership did not understand the total impracticability of invasion. They had seen it in Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia.
[QUOTE=FRDE]
It amazes me that the USA leadership did not understand the total impracticability of invasion. They had seen it in Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed, so maybe this country in chaos was the plan?
[QUOTE=Latro]
Indeed, so maybe this country in chaos was the plan?
[/QUOTE]
Probably not, if it were then they would not have bothered putting troops on the ground - simply knocking out all infrastructure would have done the trick.
Although it might have been ‘the plan within the plan’ 
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
**
Der Trihs** and I are usually on opposing sides of an argument and I’ve read his posts that I thought were off the deep end , but I’d like to be crystal clear on this.
As one of* every reader ,* you ** are not invited to speak for me even as a generalization and I find the tone of your post ignorant and offensive.
[/QUOTE]
Apologies, I guess I should have said “some if not all”
[QUOTE=FRDE]
Probably not, if it were then they would not have bothered putting troops on the ground - simply knocking out all infrastructure would have done the trick.
Although it might have been ‘the plan within the plan’
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think you get what I meant.
Maybe, at least part of, the invasion plan was to have a period of chaos in which there is ample room for ‘reconstruction’ projects, for ‘handing out’ contracts, for aquireing rights to stuff previously owned by the state, for a pallet of bribe/reconstruction money to go missing, etc…
Gradually order would be restored and the new Iraq would be crafted along ‘Western Democratic’ standards, meaning a puppet state largely owned by US companies. Ofcourse the region is a volatile place and a strong military presence would naturally be required. To keep an eye on the democratization, can’t have them becoming too democratic and nationalise stuff again.
By this time the liberation of Syria and/or Iran would be well underway.
Maybe the chaos turned out to be a bit too chaotic, the dead-enders a touch too effective and too stubborn to continue to the next step. Or maybe things are still going according to plan..
[QUOTE=Latro]
I don’t think you get what I meant.
Maybe, at least part of, the invasion plan was to a period of chaos in which there is ample room for ‘reconstruction’ projects, for ‘handing out’ contracts, for aquireing rights to stuff previously owned by the state, for a pallet of bribe/reconstruction money to go missing, etc…
Gradually order would be restored and the new Iraq would be crafted along ‘Western Democratic’ standards, meaning a puppet state largely owned by US companies. Ofcourse the region is a volatile place and a strong military presence would naturally be required. To keep an eye on the democratization, can’t have them becoming too democratic and nationalise stuff again.
By this time the liberation of Syria and/or Iran would be well underway.
Maybe the chaos turned out to be a bit too chaotic, the dead-enders a touch too effective and too stubborn to continue to the next step. Or maybe things are still going according to plan..
[/QUOTE]
Can’t snip that - apologies.
Nah, that requires planning - of which there is no sign, although for your hypothesis to be correct … there would be no sign.
Nice idea, one could work up a really convoluted conspiracy theory, say something like USA Big Oil conspiring with both the Shi’ite Mullahs and the equally obnoxious Wahabis organizing a USA invasion to keep their own populations from getting Westernized and squandering wealth on other than closely held Swiss bank accounts.
Of course, to religious extremists, Ba’athist Syria is the biggest threat in the area.
For a real conspiracy theory you need unlikely alliances
Sadly, my view is that people are too thick to play mind games.
[QUOTE=FRDE]
Nice idea, one could work up a really convoluted conspiracy theory, say something like USA Big Oil conspiring with both the Shi’ite Mullahs and the equally obnoxious Wahabis organizing a USA invasion to keep their own populations from getting Westernized and squandering wealth on other than closely held Swiss bank accounts.
[/QUOTE]
Not necessary for it to be that convoluted. No need for Shi’ite or other locals to be included in the conspiracy. Just bribe a couple of key people with tax money.
Suffice for Big Oil and Big Reconstruction/Big Military Suppliers to join hands with Neo Con Big Wigs.
Not a Big Conspiracy but uhm.. rather like what looks to have actually happend. The implementation of Neocon agenda and ‘hey, why not make a quick buck in the process?’.
[QUOTE=chowder]
Apologies, I guess I should have said “some if not all”
[/QUOTE]
I appreciate the apology but that’s not the entire problem.
It seems unnecessary to me to eagerly call someone a liar for posting a memory of which they have no cite. You are free to discount any vague memory that has no cite and say it’s meaningless. Taking the extra step of name calling and choosing “liar” over “mistaken” is a uncalled for personal attack. Perhaps you’ve had other discussions with **Der Trihs ** when he made some of his most outrageous claims but that’s not an excuse.
Even discarding **Der Trihs ** memory the point being made has plenty of support. Try sticking to it.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I appreciate the apology but that’s not the entire problem.
It seems unnecessary to me to eagerly call someone a liar for posting a memory of which they have no cite. You are free to discount any vague memory that has no cite and say it’s meaningless. Taking the extra step of name calling and choosing “liar” over “mistaken” is a uncalled for personal attack. Perhaps you’ve had other discussions with **Der Trihs ** when he made some of his most outrageous claims but that’s not an excuse.
Even discarding **Der Trihs ** memory the point being made has plenty of support. Try sticking to it.
[/QUOTE]
I apologised for including yourself when I said “every member”
I then echoed Shodans remarks.
Have you somehow overlooked that?
To be quite honest with you, I have crossed swords with Der Trihs on previous occasions. I do not like him for his continued attacks on America/ns.
Attacks which he makes for no appparent reason.
Yes he makes outrageous claims and when called to back them up he conveniently has no cite.
I’ll stop now before this gets really heated.