NationStates Jolt Archive

So when Bush and Blair claim that the focus was on Afghanistan first, bear in mind that only nine days after 9-11 they had already agreed to go to war with Iraq immediately thereafter. Which means that the promises to do the job properly in Afghanistan were also BS. They knew they were moving on right after.

The conversation was recalled and reported by Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British Ambassador to Washington, who was at the dinner when Blair became the first foreign leader to visit America after 11 September, Blair told Bush he should not get distracted from the war on terror's initial goal - dealing with the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Bush, claims Meyer, replied by saying: 'I agree with you, Tony. We must deal with this first. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq.'

The agreement was made, and the war was on.

source 1 (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=508178)
Source 2 (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1185407,00.html)

And of further interest (from the second link), it turns out that the French were told about it, and told Bush up front that their country would not support this war. They were firm on that and gave Bush the out to just go ahead using 1441 as the excuse and that they would stand by silently, but that if a second resolution was asked for that they would have to refuse to go along with it.

So all the personal attacks and freedom fries petty juvenille BS that went on was simply a purile front on an issue that GW knew France's position on. Schoolyard politics of the most infantile kind.

Oh, and if you believe that the news out of Iraq is not spun. Do bear in mind that Bush 'n Co. have stacked the deck by filling the Coalition Press office with their own campaign workers, political appointees, and staffers who are told to send out "good news" stories. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=2&u=/ap/20040404/ap_on_go_pr_wh/running_on_iraq_1)

Why does anyone believe anything this guy says regarding Iraq. He has changed his stories and reasons for this war more times than I've changed my undies. He went in for the simple reason that he always wanted to. WMD or not. Terror ties or not. Didn't matter. He WANTED this war.

And now we are all paying for it. Some more than others as ten more American families learned this week.

-Z-

Hun, I don't think people like to argue with you any more..lol you usually make them leave looking rather stupid..lol.. It's nice to have the truth on your side, isn't it :P

Not that I care. Besides, it is a gamble for the war on terror, but if we win it, it'll be phenomenal. If we are able to set up a successful democracy in Iraq, the influence will spread. Afghanistan can't do that, because it is considered in the Muslim World too distant and poor to have an impact on their lives. But anyhow, if the Middle East becomes more representitive, it'll give fundementalism less appeal. If, however, Iraq does descend into chaos, God help us. But right now, it's too early to tell. They need to stand on their own in order for consequences like these to happen.

Hah! You're incorrect. Bush mentioned plans to invade Iraq since his first week in office. The whole bull with the terrorists of 9/11 (whom Mr. Hussein had no affiliation to) was just an excuse for an otherwise naiive public.

Why not go a little further? Clinton decided the US policy would be to change the regime in Iraq, back in 1998.

Bottom line, everytime you libs bring this up, you open yourselves for:
Would you rather have left Saddam Hussein in power?

Answer that one.

I guess this debunks the whole 'war was pre-determined before 9/11' crap

Hah! You're incorrect. Bush mentioned plans to invade Iraq since his first week in office. The whole bull with the terrorists of 9/11 (whom Mr. Hussein had no affiliation to) was just an excuse for an otherwise naiive public.

I think you've missed the point.. now of course Zeppistan can correct me if I'm wrong.. but we all know that Bush had Iraq on his personal agenda even before he took office, no one disputes that (well, except the really stupid and blind).. but what my husband is trying to show you here.. is exactly when it was decided to actually follow through. Proving that Bush never intended to let UN inspectors do their work, nor give Saddam a chance to comply with 1441. It proves that Bush himself knew and lied. See, up and until this past week.. we have known that the reasons given to go to war were bogus.. but Bush and co. have tried to pass it off to bad Intel. This proves that not only did Bush plan it and execute it, he now undeniably lied about it.

That's a rather huge piece of news. Yes, any one with an IQ over 40 knew it.. but there was never any evidence to prove it, till now :P

I guess this debunks the whole 'war was pre-determined before 9/11' crap

C'mon, Ray...you oughta know better than that! The Libs will find a way to have their cake ("the plan was to go into Iraq from 9/11") and eat it too ("the Bush guys have been planning since 1/20/01")

I guess this debunks the whole 'war was pre-determined before 9/11' crap

No. It just sets the timeline on when he enlisted Tony Blair's aid on this matter.

Unless you think he just suddenly said "I know! Lets go after Iraq!" nine days after 9-11 despite all evidence pointing to Al Qaeda.

Mind you - your argument works too as far as it being a hasty judgment without waiting for little details like ... facts.

All this does is put testimony in place that this war had nothing to do with ANYTHING GW has claimed it did. 9-20 was not in the timeframe of when he had insisted on compliance with 1441. 9-20 was not in the timeframe at which he should have been thinking about anything but going after the people who perpetrated that crime against humanity.

But he was. Even then Al Qaeda was not the primary issue for GW. Iraq was.

Frankly, I think most Americans would have wanted him to actually focus on going after the people that attacked you. He, apparently, had other plans.

The way some, like somebody I could mention above, try to paint people against the war as Sadam Apologists I should point out that by supporting GW on losing focus on the real enemy I could equally be calling you Al Qaeda apologists.

-Z-

Bottom line, everytime you libs bring this up, you open yourselves for:
Would you rather have left Saddam Hussein in power?

Answer that one.

I'd rather GW had finished what he started in Afghanistan and taken care of Al Qaeda and not left that country to slip back into near-anarchy where the poppy was the primary export.

I'd rather the US hadn't blocked every UN resolution against Saddam when he actually DID have WMD and was actually using them. Instead, they just helped him aim better and gave him helicopters to attack the Kurds with.

Now there is the hope that Iraq will wind up a better place than when Saddam was in power, but that is an outcome very much in doubt.

If the Shi'ites take power and punish the Sunnis will they be any better than Saddam? Or just equal despots with the opposite group as the targets.

If the country fractures into civil war - will that be an improvement?

And if North Korea builds a sizeable nuclear arsenal to go with their ICBM's in the time that GW is bogged down in Iraq, has that made you safer?

Nobody liked Saddam. So don't try and throw that in my face. However the President's primary job is to safeguard America - not to waste lives and hundreds of billions of dollars on adventurism unrelated to actual existing threats to your country when those threats are clear and pressing. Contrary to what you probably think – I’m all for hunting down and destroying terrorist groups wherever they exist. Saddam never qualified on that count.

And in case you haven't noticed: 100,000+ people in Iraq and GW successfully found the guy that didn't run a terrorist organization that attacked you.

A few thousand people in Afghanistan and Osama still walks free.


Is that the way you wanted things to work out?

Answer that one.

-Z-

Thank god there are good liberals on this forum! I too hear that phrase constantly in a debate over Iraq. Before the war "finished" all i heard from conservatives was about how Saddam was threatening the US with his WMD, and now in their political hole over this war all they have left is a squeaky "you must love Saddam!" to defend this travesty of humanitarian violations.

I will never understand the psychology of people like that, especially in the face of so much death with more death to come.

Thank god there are good liberals on this forum! I too hear that phrase constantly in a debate over Iraq. Before the war "finished" all i heard from conservatives was about how Saddam was threatening the US with his WMD, and now in their political hole over this war all they have left is a squeaky "you must love Saddam!" to defend this travesty of humanitarian violations.

I will never understand the psychology of people like that, especially in the face of so much death with more death to come.

Hey, it's like I was telling Zeppistan.. you can literally take some people by the hand, turn their face to point to the sky and tell them it's blue.. they will still close their eyes and scream it's green.. ;)

Why not go a little further? Clinton decided the US policy would be to change the regime in Iraq, back in 1998.
He did? Do you have a source for that?

Bottom line, everytime you libs bring this up, you open yourselves for:
Would you rather have left Saddam Hussein in power?

Answer that one.
That would be up to the people of Iraq to decide on their own.

Although it is nice to see Saddam out of power, I do not believe that the US should have removed him illegally, while killing many innocent men, women and children in the process, and leaving the country in a shambles.

They probably had another 5 dozen wars planned right after 9/11. What makes this case any different? Because we did it? Yeah that would make sense.

Why not go a little further? Clinton decided the US policy would be to change the regime in Iraq, back in 1998.

Bottom line, everytime you libs bring this up, you open yourselves for:
Would you rather have left Saddam Hussein in power?

Answer that one.

i think i will answer this one.
Let us begin with:

PREMISE ONE: Saddam Hussein allegedly has ties to several terrorist organisations and access to various "Weapons of Mass Destruction" for more on the misuse of that definition, start another thread. Were he not a leader of such a group, his threat would be limited to public dissent, because:

PREMISE TWO: Without a large organization, covert or otherwise, an individual can pose only a very limited threat to a nation.

PREMISE THREE: An organization cannot be established, organized, or administered without strong leadership and communication.

PREMISE FOUR: HE WAS IN A FUCKING HOLE. Strong leadership and communication do not originate in dry, sandy holes in the ground, so we are forced to conclude that Saddam Hussein was not the individual directing this hypothetical threat from the time of his disappearance to the time of his capture.

Courtesy, Kids.

Why not go a little further? Clinton decided the US policy would be to change the regime in Iraq, back in 1998.
He did? Do you have a source for that?


Pan is discussing the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/0919cngr.htm). (Public Law 105-338)

However, if you actually read the text of the act it states things like:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime"

and

"... to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law."

You will note a lack of any text in that act which proposes premptive invasion. Instead, a commitment to work within the framework of international law to effect change. This fact is something that Panhandlia forgets to mention.


-Z-

[quote=Panhandlia]Bottom line, everytime you libs bring this up, you open yourselves for:
Would you rather have left Saddam Hussein in power?

Answer that one.

Nobody liked Saddam. So don't try and throw that in my face. However the President's primary job is to safeguard America - not to waste lives and hundreds of billions of dollars on adventurism unrelated to actual existing threats to your country when those threats are clear and pressing. Contrary to what you probably think – I’m all for hunting down and destroying terrorist groups wherever they exist. Saddam never qualified on that count.
I think you stated that quite well Zep!!

And in case you haven't noticed: 100,000+ people in Iraq and GW successfully found the guy that didn't run a terrorist organization that attacked you.
It also kinda enraged the rest of the Arab world to say the least.

A few thousand people in Afghanistan and Osama still walks free.
Sad but true.

Saddam kept the country a lot more stable than the US are doing atm.

Why not go a little further? Clinton decided the US policy would be to change the regime in Iraq, back in 1998.

Bottom line, everytime you libs bring this up, you open yourselves for:
Would you rather have left Saddam Hussein in power?

Answer that one.

No, we don't. That answer has always been "no." I know of very few liberals that say, "Yeah, Saddam should have stayed in... he was a good guy." Instead, they point out that we are in a frickin' war, and Saddam wasn't involved. Heck, he was violently opposed to Osama bin Laden! And while we've been in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has gotten even more unstable- the Afghani government only really exists in the area around Kabul. Elsewhere, warlords and the resurgent Taliban hold control over the area. Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden could be anywhere.

Saddam kept the country a lot more stable than the US are doing atm.

At the cost of huge loss of life, rape, and pillaging. At least on paper, Iraqi citizens have more rights than they did under Saddam (except for the women; they now have fewer rights than they did under Saddam). Of course, in reality, we shut down newspapers and TV stations in Iraq as soon as they say something we disagree with, but at least the legal fiction of free speech is in force in Iraq.

Why not go a little further? Clinton decided the US policy would be to change the regime in Iraq, back in 1998.
He did? Do you have a source for that?


Pan is discussing the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/0919cngr.htm). (Public Law 105-338)

However, if you actually read the text of the act it states things like:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime"
There is a huge difference between "should" and "would". And Clinton actually "decided" nothing then, just offered a suggestion. Suggestions are cheap, bombs cost money!!
"... to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law."
How novel, using the UN to sanction actions against Saddam. Why didn't
Mr. Bush think of that?

You will note a lack of any text in that act which proposes premptive invasion. Instead, a commitment to work within the framework of international law to effect change. This fact is something that Panhandlia forgets to mention.
Well premptive strikes can backfire. Thanks for filling me in Zep. :D

Bumped for any valid argument from the right.. any argument that makes sense.. any? any at all? Hmm didn't think so.. *sigh*

Anybody remember who trained Hussein and Bin Laden?
THE USA!
Why?
To be prepared for an URSS invation to that region.

PS: I recommend everybody to read 1984 by H.G. Wells, it's it's a science fiction book made true, just think and compare...