Rahm Emanuel wants you!
Find a Conversation
Rahm Emanuel wants you!
| Sat, 11-15-2008 - 3:43pm |
From a 2006 interview on his mandatory civil service plan...
I think he had it at 18, but we were saying
| Sat, 11-15-2008 - 3:43pm |
From a 2006 interview on his mandatory civil service plan...
I think he had it at 18, but we were saying
Pages
>Similarly, when Bush had to deal with Hussein, he was forced to escalate the policy as well and effectively eliminate the threat.<
>>> What threat? Hussein, we've found out, didn't have WMDs.
The US doesn't typically conduct it's national security with a time machine.
>>> And now, Iraq is a MORE dangerous place for us because we eliminated a guy who hated Islamic extremists more than he hated us. Now, Iraq is fractured and unlikely to be secure for DECADES.
Actually, Hussein was a sponsor of terrorism and there are numerous connections between Islamic extremists and Iraq, but ignoring all of that, it was widely believed that Hussein had stockpiles of WMDs and was in perpetual violation of a dozen UN resolutions and the Gulf War Cease-fire Treaty. After a decade of failed attempts to contain Hussein, Bush was left with only two alternatives...ignore the threat and continue with the failed policies, which would place our nation and allies in jeopardy, or force Iraq to comply. I'm glad, and proud, that Bush had the stones to choose the latter.
>Well, while I appreciate your 20/20 hindsight and national security expertise, apparently the President, the Congress, the UN and our allies disagreed with your assessment.<
>>> Actually, Congress HAS gone back and gone "oops."
You don't get "do-overs" in real life. The people who have "gone back and gone oops" are the gutless, scumbag Democrats who don't have the integrity to stand up for their own choices. These were the same people who pushed and pushed Clinton to "take action" and address Hussein's WMDs and nuclear weapons program in 1998. Gutless turds, every one of them.
>>> They've already seen that 1) they were fed false data gleaned from an unreliable source and 2) the proofs in the pudding. No WMDs. Nothing. Nada. Just a lot of Hussein's bluster.
As has already been proven, if they were "fed false data" then it's "data" they fed themselves. The Dems in Congress were the ones who pushed Clinton to bomb Iraq...and they were right on board a couple of years later...FOR THE EXACT SAME REASONS...to jump on the war wagon with Bush.
>>> And 4000 or so American lives lost.
Soldiers die in wars.
>>> And where were the UN forces in this?
LOL! UN forces??? ROFL!!!
>>> Oh yeah, not supporting our decision to invade Iraq.
Why would the UN forces be fighting in Iraq? They're not combat forces, and no "war vote" was every put to the UN. It'd be kind of silly if they showed up uninvited.
>>> And where are most of our allies? Pulling their butts out of Iraq as quickly as they can.
Um...right...after many years when the fighting is all but over.
>>> Patrocles, the senior G. Bush did the right thing. The junior Bush made a HUGE error that has cost American lives needlessly.
Apples and oranges. Sr. Bush was operating under the authority of a UN mandate ONLY to expel Hussein from Kuwait. He knew if he pushed it further, he was acting unilaterally, it was unlikely that Hussein could be captured and the coalition would break up. In Bush Jr's case, the INTENTION from the beginning was to disarm Iraq and a coalition was formed precisely for that purpose.
>>> Interfering in a sovereign nation's internal affairs is rarely a good idea.
I'm sure Roosevelt felt the same way when Hitler was storming across Europe.
>>> We are not a safer nation for having invaded Iraq.
I guess that explains all of the terrorist attacks that have occurred since...oops...but there haven't been any, have there?
>>> And the current high price of oil can in part be blamed upon our invasion. I recall that prior to the invasion, oil cost us a WHOLE lot less.
Aah...good thinking...we invade a country and seven years later oil prices go up so naturally the invasion must be the cause. Um...except that we don't get oil from Iraq. How does that theory work again?
>>> We've set a bad precedent.
That we'll actually defend ourselves. Heck of a good precedent.
>>> We're no longer the guys in the white hats.
LOL! I think you're world view might be a little naive.
>>> Few are going to view us as the good guys anymore, even our allies will have problems with it.
Which allies are those? The ones who's current leaders got elected on pro-American platforms? Or are you referring to the many, many countries who are currently boycotting the US, refusing to send us their tourists and students and imposing sanctions on us for being "bad?" I don't know about you, but I'm really feeling the hate.
>>> Not all the information in the hands of the CIA made it to Congress. I seem to recall some Republicans in Congress who have since said had they known the full range of things then, they would not have voted for war.
The Democrats thought the information was sufficient to push Clinton to bomb Iraq only a few years before. If you read their quotes, they seemed as convinced that Iraq had WMDs and a nuclear weapons program in 1998 as they did in 2002. The UN also seemed to feel the evidence Powell showed them was pretty compelling. Interestingly, none of the other nations represented in the UNSC stood up with their own "evidence" to refute Powell's assertions.
Evidently...
message #:
18377.146 in response to 18377.137
from:
patriocles
to:
llhaesa Member Icon
date:
Nov-18 1:04 am
replies:
197
OK...here's the scenario...a country with presumed WMDs presents a threat to the US and it's allies via direct attack, or by potentially arming terrorists...
The UNSC unanimously declares this country to be a threat to international security.
You've tried a decade of failed attempts at diplomacy, containment and limited military strikes.
This rogue country has defied UN orders to disarm and disclose and refuses to allow mandated inspections.
This country is in direct violation of a cease-fire treaty, and over a dozen UN resolutions, justifying a resumption of hostilities.
What would YOU do to ensure the security of the US and it's allies?
>>> Yeah... and the Germans invaded Poland on pretext. We escalated in Vietnam on pretext.
Only if you consider trying to stop communism a "pretext."
>>> The fact that there was a war justifies nothing -
I didn't say the war itself justified anything. It's the context of the war that provides justification.
>>> an administration that planned this from the get go had it lined up, looking for an excuse.
Wow...then wasn't it great that Hussein was psychopathically defiant and played right into our clutches. LOL!
The isolated bombing is one thing, a full scale invasion quite another.
If Clinton was convinced of WMDs then, well... he didn't invade, now did he? And what changed between then and 2002? Nothing except administrations, one hell bent on war. And didn't someone post a story here not to long ago claiming Powell regretted his involvement via the UN speech?
That to me is a very powerful condemnation of what occurred.
In any case, I opposed this before it ever happened, and well...
Full length fiction: http://llhaesa.org/ (pronounced la.hay.ess.sa)
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
Nothing beyond what we were already doing.
Simple.
There was no compelling need to do what we did. Most of the world did not wish for us to invade. This was a global problem, and in fact, North Korea was and is far worse.
I don't see us invading North Korea.
Full length fiction: http://llhaesa.org/ (pronounced la.hay.ess.sa)
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
It was a pretext. Vietnam first and foremost was a war of nationalism, kicking out all foreign forces.
Ho Chi Minh was an American ally at the end of WWII, and we backed away from him for strategic reasons that had little to do with Vietnam and everything to do with France. France was facing a severe push from the far left, and we feared communists would gain power through the electoral process... so we helped boost the French economy by
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
This is an excerpt from Colin Powell's interview on Meet the Press on June 10, 2007.
GEN. POWELL:
There are some people who no matter what you say, they have it in their mind set that the Iraq invasion was justified. I assume it makes them feel better, even whan evidance proves that the PNAC decided that we needed to invade Iraq and take down Saddam. So 9/11 was their perfict excuse to get the ball rolling. The Intelligence knew both sides of the story, and Bush was told both sides, but he wanted to take out Saddam so bad he could taste it. He believed it would be a walk in the park when the others who wanted it convinced him that it could be done in "six days, six weeks, no longer than 6 months." The person who said that was clearly an idiot.
Cute Wolfwitz quote (May 03):
"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Mr Wolfowitz tells the magazine. The comments suggest that, even for the US administration, the logic that was presented for going to war may have been an empty shell. They come to light, moreover, just two days after Mr Wolfowitz's immediate boss, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, conceded for the first time that the arms might never be found." http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0530wmdexcuse.htm
And a rather telling chat with Wolfowitz back in the day (July 03):
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-07-22-wolfowitz-iraq_x.htm
Pages