Why didn't Bush listen

Thanks for the post Jim. Unfortunately, the administration and Republicans have failed at pointing these facts out.

All that people hear from the Liberal media is that "Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction." They aren't questioning why the Clinton administration stated he had them or why everyone else, including Saddam himself said he had them.

It's sad that people have so much hatred that they buy into the "Bush lied" mantra rather than wanting to know the truth.

Beautiful! The 'liberal media' is picking on poor, poor Mr. Bush. Oh, the logic of it all.

Defenders of the Bush faith - and BTW, why is no one associating these people with the 'anti-Christ'? - ignore the case against this administration's Iraq 'policy'.

Consider:

1) The war was basicaly unprovoked - Iraq's failure to kowtow to UN resolutions and W's rants is no provocation.

2) The Bushies ignored the critics who argued that Iraqis would resist an occupation by foreigners.

3) Bush fired and/or silenced his best military advisors and attacked without adequate planning for the occupation.

4) Bush did not wait to train the trops adequately.

5) Bush did not equip the troops adequately.

6) Bush did not finance the war adequately. Using Iraq's oil income to finance the war and the occupation was a pipe dream. And he continues to reduce taxes for the wealthiest Americans.

7) Bush ignored statements from arms inspectors that the WMD did not exist.

8) After 2+ years of occupation, we continue to get statements that are so rosy that they amount to lies.

9) He made war on Iraq, thereby strengthening Iran and Islamic fundamentalists, even while establishing Iraq as a center for developing new terrorist tactics.

10) Etc., etc., etc.

I notice that you seem to argue that Bush didn't really lie. That's far different from arguing that his policy has been competently carried out.

Regards.

Phil

Phil

Do you think that the individuals in that link are lying, misinformed or maybe something else?

Jim

The individuals in the link are not lying. Misinformed yes. However the individuals in that ad for the GOP did not unilaterally throw us in to this stupid war. Imagine if Bush would have allowed the inspectors one more month on the ground. Why he could have given even larger tax cuts to his buddies.

If you're a republican you're either rich or a fool.

I'm surpised that bush has not been assasinated by his own people.

regards,

So President Bush, like those in the video stating their support for the invasion of Iraq, were misinformed. That is unfortunate.

Jim

The way things are going i can see bush turning against europe.

regards,

And I thought that the topic was going to be why Bush did not listen to a NAIM music system...

Attacking Iraq was not a mistake. After all, the administration talked about it even before September 2001. It was a terrible miscalculated and a costly decision.

If we really had to go to war, it would have made more sense (I know, no business sense what so ever) to attack Saudia Arabia which was the source of the money, the doctrination and the peaople who participated in the 911 attack. But I guess those facts are not important at all.

Regards,
Haim

quote:

Originally posted by HR:


If we really had to go to war, it would have made more sense (I know, no business sense what so ever) to attack Saudia Arabia which was the source of the money, the doctrination and the peaople who participated in the 911 attack. But I guess those facts are not important at all.

But what would have been the sense of invading a country with only 55 years worth of proven reserves (at current rates of production)?

Just down the road there is a country with 520 years worth. Now that made sense.

I don't know why they couldn't just have taken out Sadam Hussein. Why do the evil leaders always get preferential treatment? While one is allowed to declare war on the foot soldiers and civilians with complete impunity?

Think how many lives it would save if they took out the fat git in charge of starving N Korea. Diplomacy will win them round in the end? Yeah right. How many will starve to death or die of easily preventable disease first?

What about Mugabe? He'd be a soft target and the whole crock of shit would fall into chaos overnight without his exemplary leadership. Better chaos than the organised genocide of your own people to stuff your foreign bank accounts.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nime:
I don't know why they couldn't just have taken out Sadam Hussein.

The Iranians should have definitely tried tewnty five years ago, for the purpose of terminating early the horrible Iran-Iraq war that lasted eight years (1981-1989), involved the use of chemical weapons and cost the lives of over half a million people on both sides.

It is said that Israel, after being attacked by misilles in the first Gulf War, put together a special forces team that was supposed to be flown to Iraq and kill Sadam. An accident in traing for the mission that caused the death of five soldiers put a stop at it.

Haim

What I never have understood, is why, in the First Gulf War, George Bush the Elder, stopped on the road to Bagdad. If the job had been finished then none of this would be happening now. And I suspect the terroristic aspects were not nearly so developed then as now, to take advantage of the situation. What was old G Bush (and his advisers?) thinking of at the time? They had a bridge-head in Kuwait, and all the equipment there, and a perfect justification, unlike the current set of half-truthes used to justify an invasion. It seems one of the most perverse decisions in recent history... And the repercussions roll on.

Sincerely, Fredrik

Fredrik

That was the same time as Margaret Thatcher was kicked out of power.

I am convinced that had she continued to lead the country, Saddams head would have been decomposing on a spike somewhere in the Tower of London just a few weeks later.

I miss her terribly.

Regards

Mick

She's not dead yet... is she?

Does this mean I can finally come back from exile?

"We had quite forgot the fart!" (to quote another)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
What I never have understood, is why, in the First Gulf War, George Bush the Elder, stopped on the road to Bagdad.

Few reasons, Fredrick.

*The Arab nations on the coalition forces (Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, Eygpt, Syria and so forth) have objected to a conquer of an Arab capital. They had a lot of say then, since THEY FULLY financed the whole war!
*The Iraqi army was much larger in the 1990s, and in posession of WMD (mostly chemical) and operational delivery systems (missiles and artillery shells). No one knew how they would fight to defend their homeland, anf if they would use those WMDs.
*Urban fighting could have been very costly if the Iraqis have decided to put up a stand (see Fallujah today).
* Sadam was seen to be (what he always was) just a mad dictator that kept invading his neighbours, and no more. The mission to free Kuwait was accomplished with little losses, and no one was interested in taking any unnecessary risks without a clear outcome.
*The attempts to target Sadam individually backfired when a bunker that housed hundreds of civilians was blown up in a mistaken belief that the mad leader was spending the night there.
*Sadly, a lot of parties, including members of the coalition forces, WERE INTERESTED in keeping Sadam in power, for the simple reason that they did a lot of business with him.

Sincerely,
Haim

Dear Haim,,

Though I followed the original conflict, I don't remember these aspects being analysed at the time. Perhaps they were, and I missed it, but certainly your explanation helps me see. I do remember being amazed by it at the time. Mind there was a good deal of trade with Britain at the time as well, so it seems as much a financial decision as anything else.

There might be one fine outcome of it though, and that is it will be much more difficult to ever go into such an ill-judged (and unplanned in terms of the aftermath) adventure again.

Whatever the reasons for going in though, now Britain and the US are stuck with clearing it up, and that is going to take far longer than our esteemed leaders are ever going to admit. No early pull-out is possible without totally abandoning the moral responsibilities our leaders have brought upon us. For that let us hope that Bush goes quiet for the remains of time in office and Blair is duly voted out of office at the first oportunity. A clean sheet would be a good thing by now I would think...

Thanks for your insight, Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Fredrik

That was the same time as Margaret Thatcher was kicked out of power.

I am convinced that had she continued to lead the country, Saddams head would have been decomposing on a spike somewhere in the Tower of London just a few weeks later.

I miss her terribly.

Regards

Mick

Apparently she did good work on cream freeze chemistry.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:

Apparently she did good work on cream freeze chemistry.

Is that how her hair was done? I always wondered...

Assassinations generally have unintended consequences. It's simply not wise to play with this sort of fire.

George H. W. Bush's counselors seem to have understood that nobody likes invaders, and HW knew enough to listen to them.

Successful occupations are rare. Japan worked because the Emperor told his people to obey the conquerors. Germany worked because the Germans were so beaten and, perhaps, so ashamed of themselves.

W's advisors combine ignorance and arrogance in ways that boggle the mind.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fredrik_Fisk
There might be one fine outcome of it though, and that is it will be much more difficult to ever go into such an ill-judged (and unplanned in terms of the aftermath) adventure again.

Dear Fredrik,

I hope you are right.
They say that experience is the best teacher but that the tuition is very high...
For some reason we never seem to learn from history.

I fully agree with Phil Barry. The only occupations that work are the ones where you nuke them (Japan) or totally break their back (Germany). I do not see anyone today inflicting such a blow on another nation. 'Elegant' and 'progressive' occupations (see the Israeli occupation after 1967) never work and are not sustainable.
Best regards,

Haim

At the time of Gulf War 1 the Russians were still a major superpower and wouldn't have sat by and let us invade Iraq, one of their allies at the time. The UN mandate involving an alliance of a number of nations including Arab ones did not permit an invasion of Iraq. Bush Senior had a lot more respect for international protocol than his son - dropped to his head as a baby as it would seem.

Plus we all hoped at that time that the Baa'thist regime would have been deposed from within.

As for assassinating leaders we don't like, that is a bad idea as we have no control over their successors in such a power and tumultuous vacuum.

Yes. I see that my view of the time and ever since was wrong. Never stop learning, and that should please those who disagree with me! Nothing is actually fixed in my mind in the face of fine arguements! What would we give to have Bush the Elder as President today!

Fredrik

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Steve Toy:

[..].

Plus we all hoped at that time that the Baa'thist regime would have been deposed from within.

[...].[QUOTE]

Surely this absolutely true, and also true of the Nazi situation up to 1938. Mostly there was the hope among good people (at least till The Night of the Bloken Glass) that the Nazis and Hitler would never last. Unfortunately...

Fredrik

I am reading a very good book, recently published: Night Draws Near, Iraq's people in the shadow of America's war by Anthony Shadid who is a winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for international reporting.
He was stationed in Iraq before, during and after the invasion, and he is talking (he is fluent in Arabic) to people from all segments of the Iraqi society. You really get a good sense of what people thought, felt and hoped for.

Haim

Dear Haim,

I think I need to be better up on this as certainly the BBC and press have failed me. So would you mind saying who the publisher is, please? No doubt it will be very difficult to read, but I am chewing my way through Churchill's exhaustive six volume of the Second World War at the moment, and should finish about 2007 at the current rate!

thanks from Fredrik