NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush Wanted War, No Matter What

03feb06
US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair were ready to go to war against Iraq with or without a second United Nations resolution, it was reported today.

The allegation was based on a White House memo - which the program said it had seen - following a meeting between the two men in Washington on January 31, 2003.

In the memo Mr Bush is alleged to have said that military action against former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein would start on March 10, 2003.

The war actually started 10 days later on March 20 (almost on schedule).

Britain's Channel 4 News reported that according to the memo, Mr Bush stated that the United States would put "its full weight behind the effort to get another (UN security council)resolution " and would "twist arms" and "even threaten" to get it.

"If ultimately we fail, military action would follow anyway," Mr Bush is said to have added.
...
On the other hand, in January 2003, less than two months before the start of the military action, the two leaders did not seem persuaded that Iraq had made any material breach of United Nations resolution 1441.

During their discussion at the White House, Mr Bush is alleged to have said that the United States thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq painted in UN colours", explaining that "if Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach".

According to a high-ranking but anonymous UN source cited by Channel 4 News, it was perfectly possible to fly planes out of range of Iraqi missiles.

"Talks of Saddam firing on them suggest to some that the US was almost willing Saddam to strike out on the plane," he said.

And this is relevant to Iran how...?

And this is relevant to Iran how...?Looks like History is about to repeat itself...

link >>>
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,18026020%5E1702,00.html

History will repeat itself.

As long as human stupidity and arrogance exist, history will repeat itself.

The arrogance of the U.S. Administration confounds me. Just so I am clear.

1. The U.S. has nuclear power plants
2. The U.S. has nuclear weapons

However we are telling Iran that we will not let them have nuclear power, because we think that it might be corrupted into nuclear weapons.

They have stated that they only have ambitions for power, not weapons, believe what you want. However before we send more soldiers and taxdollars into the middle east in yet another step of imperalism, perhaps we should PROVE that they do intend to obtain nuclear weapons.

How is it justifiable to prevent hem from developeing new power sources? How can we sit here and have the things that we are willing to escalate a conflict in order to keep others from having ?

Do I personally want Iran to have nukes, or any NBC weapons? No. But I don't want us to have them either.

It is arrogance, and it is why the people of the world see us as arrogant, it is why so many people across the world detest the U.S. Our might makes right, father knows best mentality in foreign policy causes more conflict than it resolves or prevents.

(applauds) Excellent post, and well conceived points.

Looks like History is about to repeat itself...
That is not a logical argument.

Last time, the other four Permanent Members of the Security Council (other than the UK) were hardly supportive of the invasion of Iraq.

This time, they seem to be inexorably moving towards UN action on the matter of Iran.

Are you saying that Russia and China are puppets of the US?

You really need to learn more about how the world works before you post again - just remember how you thought that Abbas wasn't President of the Palestinian Authority anymore - even though his term isn't up for a few years.

The events in the world are more than just headlines.

That is not a logical argument.of Course it is..

It has always been..
It will always be..

We... Men do not always learn from our mistakes.

The arrogance of the U.S. Administration confounds me. Just so I am clear.

1. The U.S. has nuclear power plants
2. The U.S. has nuclear weapons

However we are telling Iran that we will not let them have nuclear power, because we think that it might be corrupted into nuclear weapons.

They have stated that they only have ambitions for power, not weapons, believe what you want. However before we send more soldiers and taxdollars into the middle east in yet another step of imperalism, perhaps we should PROVE that they do intend to obtain nuclear weapons.

How is it justifiable to prevent hem from developeing new power sources? How can we sit here and have the things that we are willing to escalate a conflict in order to keep others from having ?

Do I personally want Iran to have nukes, or any NBC weapons? No. But I don't want us to have them either.

It is arrogance, and it is why the people of the world see us as arrogant, it is why so many people across the world detest the U.S. Our might makes right, father knows best mentality in foreign policy causes more conflict than it resolves or prevents.

Personally, I haven't heard Bush talking about wiping out any nations lately.

ahhahahaha...It didn't even take em a long weekend! De Evel Bush did it! eets all America's fault!

Personally, I haven't heard Bush talking about wiping out any nations lately.of course not.. Bush is not even able to wipe himsef..
:D :D :p :D

hey oceandrive. you need to read scott ritter's book "iraq confidential" it will give you a much fuller understanding of just why we invaded iraq and, by example, why we will end up nuking iran.

it might be at your local library, its way worth the effort to get it and read it.

hey oceandrive. you need to read scott ritter's book "iraq confidential" it will give you a much fuller understanding of just why we invaded iraq and, by example, why we will end up nuking iran. hmm okay.

http://www.iraqconfidential.com/

of course not.. Bush is not even able to wipe himsef..
:D :D :p :D
Way to back up your (asinine) original post. You may just prove your point yet.

History will repeat itself.

As long as human stupidity and arrogance exist, history will repeat itself.

But this time who is being stupid and arrogant?

of course not.. Bush is not even able to wipe himsef :D Way to back up your (asinine) original post. You may just prove your point yet.maybe you can prove the point better than me.

cant you?

Were you to actually know what you are talking about, you would know that the UN is taking the lead in confronting Iran, Not Bush, not Blair, not every other honorable world leader you slander on a regular basis.

Facts don't bite, but don't let them get in the way of your attacking people. :rolleyes:

Were you to actually know what you are talking about...Actually.. first thing to know is.. what the hell are you talking about ???

Is that a reply to post #17 ??

hmm okay.

http://www.iraqconfidential.com/
yup. thats it.

get it and read it

its an amazing story by a man who was a UN weapons inspector. who certified that all wmd's in iraq were accounted for by 1996. who was in the room watching radar when (michael) scott speicher's plane was shot down in '91. an ex marine who fought in desert storm.

a man who has the balls to tell the truth.

Bush Wanted War, No Matter What

03feb06
US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair were ready to go to war against Iraq with or without a second United Nations resolution, it was reported today.

The allegation was based on a White House memo - which the program said it had seen - following a meeting between the two men in Washington on January 31, 2003.

In the memo Mr Bush is alleged to have said that military action against former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein would start on March 10, 2003.

The war actually started 10 days later on March 20 (almost on schedule).

Britain's Channel 4 News reported that according to the memo, Mr Bush stated that the United States would put "its full weight behind the effort to get another (UN security council)resolution " and would "twist arms" and "even threaten" to get it.

"If ultimately we fail, military action would follow anyway," Mr Bush is said to have added.
...
On the other hand, in January 2003, less than two months before the start of the military action, the two leaders did not seem persuaded that Iraq had made any material breach of United Nations resolution 1441.

During their discussion at the White House, Mr Bush is alleged to have said that the United States thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq painted in UN colours", explaining that "if Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach".

According to a high-ranking but anonymous UN source cited by Channel 4 News, it was perfectly possible to fly planes out of range of Iraqi missiles.

"Talks of Saddam firing on them suggest to some that the US was almost willing Saddam to strike out on the plane," he said.

Well, this makes me feel so fucking sorry for Saddam Hussein. Makes me forget about all the people that he murdered, oh I forgot, he didn't pull the trigger so he is innocent. Fuck OceanDrive, I think you would defend Adolf Hitler if it would make the US & its Allies look bad.

Well, this makes me feel so fucking sorry for Saddam Hussein. Makes me forget about all the people that he murdered, oh I forgot, he didn't pull the trigger so he is innocent. Fuck OceanDrive, I think you would defend Adolf Hitler if it would make the US & its Allies look bad.Why the hell should I feel sorry for Saddam?
are you a rtard or something?

Well, this makes me feel so fucking sorry for Saddam Hussein. Makes me forget about all the people that he murdered, oh I forgot, he didn't pull the trigger so he is innocent. Fuck OceanDrive, I think you would defend Adolf Hitler if it would make the US & its Allies look bad.
and yet, bush1 called this very same man a great friend on the united states in '90. he had already murdered manymany people. we knew full well that he was a thug. but he was OUR thug. his evil didnt bother us one bit then.

Why the hell should I feel sorry for Saddam?
are you a rtard or something?

Why are you suggesting he should still be in power then?

and yet, bush1 called this very same man a great friend on the united states in '90. he had already murdered manymany people. we knew full well that he was a thug. but he was OUR thug. his evil didnt bother us one bit then.

So you think I support dictators as long as they remain nice to the West?

Why are you suggesting he should still be in power then?use the Quote Function to prove I ever said that.

So you think I support dictators as long as they remain nice to the West?
certainly not. i dont know you well enough to say anything like that.

the united states supports evil dictators as long as they remain nice to the west.

a much more important support than any you may or may not have.

So you think I support dictators as long as they remain nice to the West?there is an Ocean of difference between:

#1) "not supporting a Dictator"

and

#2) Carpet Bombing and Napalming Cities.. killing and maiming more than 100.000 men, women and children.

use the Quote Function to prove I ever said that.

Your first post already proves it.

Your first post already proves it.read the OP again ... try to read it S-L-O-W-L-Y ;)

and then point out to the line... or the phrase that Proves I ever said that.

unless, you cant...can you?

there is an Ocean of difference between:

#1) "not supporting a Dictator"

and

#2) Carpet Bombing Cities... killing and maiming more than 100.000 men, women and children.

The number is no where near 100,000. Cities were not Carpet Bombed, if they had, millions would have died. Probably 20-35,000 Iraqis have died because of the war; Saddam killed at least a million.

But I guess you don't mind if Saddam kills his own people, right?

reread the Op... try to read it S-L-O-W-L-Y ;)

You:sniper:

The number is no where near 100,000. Cities were not Carpet Bombed, if they had, millions would have died. Probably 20-35,000 Iraqis have died because of the war; Saddam killed at least a million.

But I guess you don't mind if Saddam kills his own people, right?
what does that have to do with anything?

we didnt CARE that he killed his own people. we have NEVER cared if one of our "friends" killed their own people

we didnt go into iraq for humanitarian reasons.

what does that have to do with anything?

we didnt CARE that he killed his own people. we have NEVER cared if one of our "friends" killed their own people

we didnt go into iraq for humanitarian reasons.

We didn't go to war with Germany to save the Jews either.

The number is no where near 100,000. depends who do you choose to believe.

FYI on the 100000+... I choose not to believe the Pentagon.

You:sniper:HAHAHA.. You are pathetic. :D

depends who do you choose to believe.

FYI on the 100000+... I choose not to believe the Pentagon.

The 100 000 number was the high estimate, not the low or middle estimate of dead.

The 100 000 number was the high estimate, not the low or middle estimate of dead.still... I dont have to be part of that.. even if I never "supported the Dictator" .. even when the Neocons were suporting him.

still... I dont have to be part of that.. even if "I did not support the Dictator"

If you don't care about how many people Saddam killed, why do you care how many people the war killed?

If you don't care about how many people Saddam killed, why do you care how many people the war killed?
so its FINE as long as it us killing them and not saddam?

its FINE as long as they are starving to death because of economic sanctions?

and will it be FINE as long as when we leave its a civil war that kills millions of iraqis but none of them are killed by saddam?

so its FINE as long as it us killing them and not saddam?

its FINE as long as they are starving to death because of economic sanctions?

and will it be FINE as long as when we leave its a civil war that kills millions of iraqis but none of them are killed by saddam?

I never said it was fine, people get killed in war that is the sad truth. Those that died from the economic sanctions died as a result of Saddam. The only people who want to leave are people like you and OceanDrive, so you must think that it doesn't matter if millions die in a civil war.

If you don't care about how many people Saddam killedUse the QUOTE FUNCTION to prove I ever said that. (OceanDrive ©2004-2006)
why do you care how many people the war killed?Wait a minute... What the fuck is that? What the fuck do you mean "the War killed" ???

Don't you mean to say: WE KILLED.. or OUR MEN KILLED.. or OUR HEROES KILLED.. or at least THE WAR WE STARTED.. THE WAR WE WANTED KILLED..

Soldiers paid by us (our taxes).. with Tanks and Bombs paid by us..

"One death is a tragity, 1 million deaths is a statistic" - Joseph Stalin

Thought it was fitting.

Use the QUOTE FUNCTION to prove I ever said that. (OceanDrive ©2004-2006)
Wait a minute... What the fuck is that? What the fuck do you mean "the War killed" ???

Don't you mean to say: WE KILLED.. or OUR MEN KILLED.. or OUR HEROES KILLED..

Soldiers paid by us (our taxes).. with Tanks and Bombs paid by us..

You can not possibly know how many were killed by Coalition Forces. More Iraqis have been killed by the Insurgents then by the Coalition.

You can not possibly know how many were killed by Coalition Forces. More Iraqis have been killed by the Insurgents then by the Coalition.I already told you..

I do not trust Pentagon Propaganda.

I never said it was fine, people get killed in war that is the sad truth. Those that died from the economic sanctions died as a result of Saddam. The only people who want to leave are people like you and OceanDrive, so you must think that it doesn't matter if millions die in a civil war.
i dont recall saying that i was in favor of pulling out

but

considering that we are currently training the soldiers for that pretty much inevitable civil war it might be better if we left now when not so many have been trained.

I already told you..

I do not trust Pentagon Propaganda.

Then what Propaganda do you trust?

Listen, this is what I think are the alternatives from here (all assuming Iran is really after nukes):

a) Security Council does nothing, US does nothing, Israel does nothing, Iran continues as it does now.
Then, some day Iran says it has the Bomb. Israel immediately declares that it has it too. In response, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and maybe Syria will start work on their own nukes. And then we'll have an all-nuke Middle East.

b) Security Council does nothing, Israel bombs nuclear sites.
Iran says it considers that an act of war, and considers the US just as responsible (which it may or may not be). Iran launches missiles at Israel and US Troops in Iraq and attacks Iraq. Shi'ites in numbers side with Iran, Kurdistan goes independent and the Sunnis get caught in the middle. Iraq turns into chaos, many people die and the whole point of the Iraq war is moot.

c) NATO invades. Many people die, even moreso because it is unlikely that we can actually get enough troops together, so things will largely be a big bombing campaign. Iranians like their country and will fight us hard, we don't have enough people to actually occupy the place and it'll be an ugly situation all 'round.

d) The Security Council does the sanctions, Iran gets angry and sanctions us right back. We wait, and eventually the country will reform itself.

Which do you want?

Listen, this is what I think are the alternatives from here (all assuming Iran is really after nukes):

a) Security Council does nothing, US does nothing, Israel does nothing, Iran continues as it does now.
Then, some day Iran says it has the Bomb. Israel immediately declares that it has it too. In response, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and maybe Syria will start work on their own nukes. And then we'll have an all-nuke Middle East.

b) Security Council does nothing, Israel bombs nuclear sites.
Iran says it considers that an act of war, and considers the US just as responsible (which it may or may not be). Iran launches missiles at Israel and US Troops in Iraq and attacks Iraq. Shi'ites in numbers side with Iran, Kurdistan goes independent and the Sunnis get caught in the middle. Iraq turns into chaos, many people die and the whole point of the Iraq war is moot.

c) NATO invades. Many people die, even moreso because it is unlikely that we can actually get enough troops together, so things will largely be a big bombing campaign. Iranians like their country and will fight us hard, we don't have enough people to actually occupy the place and it'll be an ugly situation all 'round.

d) The Security Council does the sanctions, Iran gets angry and sanctions us right back. We wait, and eventually the country will reform itself.

Which do you want?
id like to start with some actual diplomacy on the part of the united states.

Then what Propaganda do you trust?I prefer sources from Countries not directly involved in the war.

First: (NEUTRALS) Germany, Scandianvia,Swiss, India, Japan. Singapore, EFE, AFP, etc

Second: (WILD CARDS) :BBC, Aussie sources, etc (yes I know.. Brit Soldiers are dying in the War.. But the BBC has this "tradition")

Last: (OBVIOUS) FOX/CNN/AP , Al-Jazeera.

id like to start with some actual diplomacy on the part of the united states.
You know I have to ask what you mean by that in detail?

The Iranians are right when they say that they have the right to a program as it is now. They are under no obligation to accept anything, even if it is reasonable (like the Russian offer to enrich Uranium there). And the EU has offered a lot during the negotiations, all to no avail.

You know I have to ask what you mean by that in detail?

The Iranians are right when they say that they have the right to a program as it is now. They are under no obligation to accept anything, even if it is reasonable (like the Russian offer to enrich Uranium there). And the EU has offered a lot during the negotiations, all to no avail.
its been so long since we USED diplomacy that im not really sure that we remember how. the bush administration tends to have the "youre bad we won't talk to you" attitude toward troublesome nations.

if we went in treating the iranian negotiators with respect and actually worked the problem, we might make some headway.

i just dont see why iran would want to end up nuked. that is the road they are on and perhaps they would like a way out. im not saying its for sure, im saying that before we go to war, we need to try to prevent it.

The difference this time, different from Iraq three years ago and Iran today, is that Iran is NOT bribing member states on the UN security council, whereas Saddam was and they were voting to protect his regime. Iran is trying to go it alone, even Russia and China are looking to turn against them if they don't start making concessions.

...whereas Saddam was and they were voting to protect his regime...
I am still not convinced of that. There were cases of French ambassadors receiving funds, but I have not heard of anything regarding any of the actual decisionmakers. The decision to oppose the war would have had to come from the very, very top. Furthermore, neither German nor Russian people were bribed AFAIK.

Most of the illegal money was by companies anyway, and they came from all over. Plus, you don't want to tell me that the French will all their "Euro-Socialism" actually care whether or not some company makes extra money, do you? Apart from the fact that at least one company from a Coalition country (the Australian AWB) willingly paid money into Saddam's slush funds to do business in Iraq. The Australian government didn't care, and this is a pro-business government.

The difference this time, different from Iraq three years ago and Iran today, is that Iran is NOT bribing member states on the UN security council, whereas Saddam was and they were voting to protect his regime. Iran is trying to go it alone, even Russia and China are looking to turn against them if they don't start making concessions.

They are not yet bribes because there are no sanctions. As soon as the sanctions start then they will go right back on the payroll.

The difference this time, different from Iraq three years ago and Iran today, is that Iran is NOT bribing member states on the UN security council, whereas Saddam was and they were voting to protect his regime. Iran is trying to go it alone, even Russia and China are looking to turn against them if they don't start making concessions.
id feel better if i understood where the president of iran is coming from.

there has been some suggestion that he is posturing in order to maintain control inside of iran. nothing pulls a people together like an outside threat.

if that is the case, he isnt all that interested in finishing a nuke or in getting nuked himself. he just needs to look tough in the eyes of his people

if he is just nutz.....

id feel better if i understood where the president of iran is coming from.he is coming from the presidential Elections... he defeated the official candidate.
there has been some suggestion that he is posturing in order to maintain control inside of iran. nothing pulls a people together like an outside threat....he just needs to look tough in the eyes of his peoplemaybe.. there some of that.

he isnt all that interested in finishing a nuke or in getting nuked himself. If I was Iran I would want a Nuke... to keep the US from attacking..
and No, they are not nuts.. they do not want to commit suicide.

id feel better if i understood where the president of iran is coming from.
Maybe this helps.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,391199,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,390338,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,363755,00.html

And here is an interview with the German Foreign Minister, while we're at it.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,398290,00.html

id feel better if i understood where the president of iran is coming from.
.

You might read this to find out about his sect. http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_10945.shtml

Then take a look at his mentor (I'm not about try and spell it), but it will give you some insight as to why so many are concerned.

Maybe this helps.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,391199,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,390338,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,363755,00.html

And here is an interview with the German Foreign Minister, while we're at it.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,398290,00.html
thanks for the links.

my attention span is waning. ill have to read them more carefully tmorrow.

You might read this to find out about his sect.
I'm sure you noticed how it kept talking about conspiracy theorists.

You might read this to find out about his sect. http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_10945.shtml

Then take a look at his mentor (I'm not about try and spell it), but it will give you some insight as to why so many are concerned.
wow thats as freaky as george bush being one of those "whatever you call the ones that are looking forward to the apocalypse and the second coming of jesus" christian.

i hope this guy doesnt get pissed when the imam doesnt show up.

i hope this guy doesnt get pissed when the imam doesnt show up.
Don't take it too seriously, it sounds like a conspiracy theory, and that's what it says in the link.

Here's a BBC Profile of the guy, he also holds a PhD in Traffic and Transport.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4107270.stm

wow thats as freaky as george bush being one of those "whatever you call the ones that are looking forward to the apocalypse and the second coming of jesus" christian.

i hope this guy doesnt get pissed when the imam doesnt show up.

haha...I think what has em nervous though is that in his case he gets to create the chaos first and then wait on the 12th Iman. I just hope he realizes that he will be meeting him on a sea of glass if he does.

I'm sure you noticed how it kept talking about conspiracy theorists.

It only mentioned conspiracy theorists once Neu and that was in regard to the number of members and appointees of the outlawed sect in his government.

I realize you are onboard with the dude, but there's no need to try and discredit the entire article when he clearly has stated his belief in the 12th Iman. After all we can read.

I realize you are onboard with the dude, but there's no need to try and discredit the entire article when he clearly has stated his belief in the 12th Iman. After all we can read.
1) I'm not on board with anyone who denies the Holocaust. Strangely enough though, I also don't like the idea of bombing people who have nothing to do with Ahmadinejad's religion.

2) Pretty much all Shi'ites believe in the 12th Imam. It's like a Messiah, like the Jews have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Mahdi

3) You were infering that he belongs to a particular sect that believes that creating chaos and destruction will make the Messiah come. That is not proven by the article, and even the allegation that some members of government are involved with this sect is dismissed as conspiracy theory.

3) You were infering that he belongs to a particular sect that believes that creating chaos and destruction will make the Messiah come. That is not proven by the article, and even the allegation that some members of government are involved with this sect is dismissed as conspiracy theory.

He is a member of that sect Neu. He makes no bones about it. The only thing in dispute is whether or not his government is seeded with them. The allegation itself is not dismissed at all. It merely states that conspiracy theorists are not in short supply, meaning that it may or may not be true. They don't really know since it was an outlawed sect. (the main reason I do not agree with outlawing speech or political ideologies. Makes them harder to hold accountable.)

He is a member of that sect Neu. He makes no bones about it.
Which sect? Shi'ite Islam?

Nothing of the things he said are in any way outrageously different from what I would expect. They fit into the picture of a theocratic Shi'ite Muslim, who believes that if the Mahdi is to come back, we on earth better be prepared for it.

Now, I'm not an expert on Shi'ite Islam, so you might be better off asking Keruvalia, but I can tell you that this article does not prove that he is a member of this Hojjatieh Society, nor anything much like it.