In Summary
Iraq: Fail
Afgan: Fail
War on Terror: Fail
Current Administration: Fail
Iraq: Fail
Afgan: Fail
War on Terror: Fail
Current Administration: Fail
I can't think of anything.Vax wrote:
Do you consider that there may have been some historical event, some sea change in the security picture that happened some time between '94 and 2003 ?
Some major event that might have changed the thinking Cheney and others were doing WRT Iraq ?
I suppose its all easy to explain when you see who is making all the money and who they are connected to. Unless of course its just a coincidence that the people who lied and talked the world into this war have connections with the people now making a packet off it. Paid with, with young men's lives. Disgusting yet historically that's how its always been.
Isn't the USA in huge amounts of debt since Bush took over and started the War of Terror?
I wonder who is making all money on the interest of this debt. Central reserve? who is operated by who? Genuine question.
Isn't the USA in huge amounts of debt since Bush took over and started the War of Terror?
I wonder who is making all money on the interest of this debt. Central reserve? who is operated by who? Genuine question.
I already explained it, the attacks on American soil changed the conventional thinking on Iraq...previous to that the idea was that containment(with occasional bombing) was working, after the attack, that was no longer acceptable.Dilbert_X wrote:
The chaos was set in motion by failing to send in enough troops and failing to secure the Iraqi army's weapons.The chaos was set in motion by a whole series of bad moves/ decisions that came later, after the fall, and during the occupation; the initial operation was a success.
Rumsfeld's 'vision' was little more than that.
Further dumb decisions later, disbanding the army, de-Baathification, were either the actions of a very very stupid man acting with no intelligent oversight or deliberate and pre-planned. Take your pick.Obviously - how is this related to Iraq?Do you consider that there may have been some historical event, some sea change in the security picture that happened some time between '94 and 2003 ?Then explain if you can Cheney's foreknowledge of the likely 'quagmire' and a total lack on his part of any steps taken to reduce the likelihood?And I'm sorry but you and the OP are kind of bordering on the insane if you think that anyone really wants chaos death and destruction so they can "go fix it again" just to make their profits higher.
How would you know what Rumsfeld's thinking was, you refuse to read anything about it.
I gave you some resources to research the stuff you are trying to understand; none of the books I recommended are pro-bush or pro war. If you want to learn about it, I urge you to read and research; if you just want to repeat the same ignorant opinions over and over, fine, but don't expect to be taken seriously.
I am not pretending the Iraq war was a great plan that was well executed, far from it -- those books explain how it became the disaster it did
I am taking issue with the armchair theories that you guys advanced that "the end goal was chaos"
The plan after 9/11 was to initiate a military solution in the ME. Afghanistan and the (in)actions of Saddam made them the most obvious place to start.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
If that really is the case, then that's horribly flawed logic. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.Vax wrote:
I already explained it, the attacks on American soil changed the conventional thinking on Iraq...previous to that the idea was that containment(with occasional bombing) was working, after the attack, that was no longer acceptable.
If I'm wrong about the chaos thing, then the only other explanation is that this administration is ridiculously myopic and incompetent. I'm not sure which is worse.Vax wrote:
I am taking issue with the armchair theories that you guys advanced that "the end goal was chaos"
Afghanistan, yes. Saddam, no. If you think about it, invading Iraq only accomplished one thing for sure -- it strengthened Iran. Saddam was Iran's biggest foe in the region, or at least tied with Israel for that title.Kmarion wrote:
The plan after 9/11 was to initiate a military solution in the ME. Afghanistan and the (in)actions of Saddam made them the most obvious place to start.
Canada and Mexico are cashing in as well. Canada the most. Saudi second, Mexico running third. Actually over 50% of our imports are from non OPEC sources.
9/11 happened on bush's watch. If you are president, and something of that magnitude happens, don't you start to become much more cognizant of all other possible threats ? Now, I will agree that their rhetoric was not clear enough, but it was not about Saddam himself being the threat, it was the spectre of this 'new' stateless organization(who just demonstrated that they had every intention of attacking the US on our soil) having access to weaponry Saddam was thought to have. Bush did say this a few times, but I think they were irresponsible about some things they said too, there had to be a reason so many americans came to think that Iraq did have something to do with 9/11, when that was not the case.Turquoise wrote:
If that really is the case, then that's horribly flawed logic. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.Vax wrote:
I already explained it, the attacks on American soil changed the conventional thinking on Iraq...previous to that the idea was that containment(with occasional bombing) was working, after the attack, that was no longer acceptable.
The theme used by both parties discussing Iraq before the war was about "doing something before we were attacked again" We were paranoid.
There was also the grand plan that the US was going to 'remake' the middle east, with visions of democratic, successful countries freed from their dictators with happier, globally connected populations . (read: not disgruntled disenfranchised terrorist producing populations)
Yeah, that maybe ain't going so well.
I can't really argue with that..though if that is my choice, I think i'd go with incompetent over willfully evil, to a point of trading lives for some imagined future profiteering.Turquoise wrote:
If I'm wrong about the chaos thing, then the only other explanation is that this administration is ridiculously myopic and incompetent. I'm not sure which is worse.Vax wrote:
I am taking issue with the armchair theories that you guys advanced that "the end goal was chaos"
Well... if it really is all that, then all I can say is that we're a combination of paranoid and tremendously naive.Vax wrote:
9/11 happened on bush's watch. If you are president, and something of that magnitude happens, don't you start to become much more cognizant of all other possible threats ? Now, I will agree that their rhetoric was not clear enough, but it was not about Saddam himself being the threat, it was the spectre of this 'new' stateless organization(who just demonstrated that they had every intention of attacking the US on our soil) having access to weaponry Saddam was thought to have. Bush did say this a few times, but I think they were irresponsible about some things they said too, there had to be a reason so many americans came to think that Iraq did have something to do with 9/11, when that was not the case.
The theme used by both parties discussing Iraq before the war was about "doing something before we were attacked again" We were paranoid.
There was also the grand plan that the US was going to 'remake' the middle east, with visions of democratic, successful countries freed from their dictators with happier, globally connected populations . (read: not disgruntled disenfranchised terrorist producing populations)
Yeah, that maybe ain't going so well.
Naive, overly idealistic, stubborn, subject to groupthink, valuing loyalty and partisanship over competence, shortsighted, ill prepared...
I'd say the Bush administration is all of those things. I do believe that they really did want to liberate Iraq and had high hopes for it to become democratic, even a possible future ally, (with lots of oil to boot) not a chaotic sinkhole that produces more terrorism.
I'd say the Bush administration is all of those things. I do believe that they really did want to liberate Iraq and had high hopes for it to become democratic, even a possible future ally, (with lots of oil to boot) not a chaotic sinkhole that produces more terrorism.
Maybe Bush himself felt that way, but how do you explain Cheney's characterization of it being a quagmire if we invaded? And yes, I had to dig this up again.Vax wrote:
Naive, overly idealistic, stubborn, subject to groupthink, valuing loyalty and partisanship over competence, shortsighted, ill prepared...
I'd say the Bush administration is all of those things. I do believe that they really did want to liberate Iraq and had high hopes for it to become democratic, even a possible future ally, (with lots of oil to boot) not a chaotic sinkhole that produces more terrorism.
Last edited by Turquoise (2008-06-09 19:54:29)
Well I guess I am just pointlessly repeating myself, but I think the risk vs benefit assessment changed.
He makes some dire predictions, then he says, 'how many lives was Saddam worth...not many' --he is justifying why they didn't finish the job in '91.
Move forward 9 years, and one big event later...
JMO.
Sorry I simply don't buy that they planned to destroy Iraq on purpose, and send the gov't into massive debt just so they could shift a bunch of contracts over to Halliburton, and save Israel from Saddam.
Petro politics, well, I won't disagree that OIL is/has always been involved.
He makes some dire predictions, then he says, 'how many lives was Saddam worth...not many' --he is justifying why they didn't finish the job in '91.
Move forward 9 years, and one big event later...
JMO.
Sorry I simply don't buy that they planned to destroy Iraq on purpose, and send the gov't into massive debt just so they could shift a bunch of contracts over to Halliburton, and save Israel from Saddam.
Petro politics, well, I won't disagree that OIL is/has always been involved.