In his memoirs, "A World Transformed," written five years ago, the elder President Bush wrote the following to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human
and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We
would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq....
There was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of
our principles. Furthermore, we had been consciously trying to set a
pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in
and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations'
mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response
to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion
route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power
in a bitterly hostile land."

wvucrazed Wrote:In his memoirs, "A World Transformed," written five years ago, the elder President Bush wrote the following to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human
and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We
would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq....
There was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of
our principles. Furthermore, we had been consciously trying to set a
pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in
and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations'
mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response
to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion
route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power
in a bitterly hostile land."

While I didn't always agree with this politics, I could at least respect the elder Bush as an intelligent man.

I just wish he would have done the intelligent thing and helped his son get a job cleaning the latrine where he belongs.

Do you fight WWII with Civil War tactics? No. One has nothing to do with the other. This "analogy" you set forth is therefore moot. We weren't worried about him then in the way we were worried about him 2 years ago. ......and it was a stipulation by the coalition that we not take out Saddam for their support in '91.

RebelKev Wrote:Do you fight WWII with Civil War tactics? No. One has nothing to do with the other. This "analogy" you set forth is therefore moot. We weren't worried about him then in the way we were worried about him 2 years ago. ......and it was a stipulation by the coalition that we not take out Saddam for their support in '91.

It's not moot in the least.

Saddam was a much greater threat in the 80's and early 90's, when he had weapons (and of course, when we were supporting him).

In recent years, he's been completely handcuffed by sanctions, inspectors, and the eyes of the Western world. He couldn't sneeze without the exact date and time of the most recent kleenex purchase being reported in Washington.

Roberto Gato Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:Do you fight WWII with Civil War tactics? No. One has nothing to do with the other. This "analogy" you set forth is therefore moot. We weren't worried about him then in the way we were worried about him 2 years ago. ......and it was a stipulation by the coalition that we not take out Saddam for their support in '91.

It's not moot in the least.

Saddam was a much greater threat in the 80's and early 90's, when he had weapons (and of course, when we were supporting him).

In recent years, he's been completely handcuffed by sanctions, inspectors, and the eyes of the Western world. He couldn't sneeze without the exact date and time of the most recent kleenex purchase being reported in Washington.

Right...which is why he was able to refuse inspections for a lengthy period of time...because the "West" had such a tight grasp on him :rolleyes:

And trust me, the world was a much different place when Desert Storm happened...and when Bush Sr made that decision and wrote his book.

Life is not in a vacuum, so taking something out of context like that and trying to apply it to today's realities is really a waste of time. And I will mention this again...Sadaam agreed to inspections and then refused them. If he had played by the rules that he had agreed to, he'd still be sitting in his palace, torturing and executing his political/cultural enemies with the blessing of the UN.

9/11 did not change anything about the realities in Iraq, or the validity of Bush's statement because, as we all know (and some don't want to admit), Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

Bush Sr. has never once come out in support of Jr's war in Iraq. He hasn't condemned it because he doesn't want to undermine his son, but he does not support it. When asked specifically about whether or not he approves, his answer has been "no comment".

As Roberto Gato posted, Saddam was far less of a threat when we invaded than when the elder Bush made the statements in his book.

wvucrazed Wrote:9/11 did not change anything about the realities in Iraq, or the validity of Bush's statement because, as we all know (and some don't want to admit), Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

I'm amazed that someone can post something like this.

9/11 changed EVERYTHING about how we have to deal with national defense. Terrorism renders the idea of containment useless because terrorists aren't nations.

No one has ever stated that Iraq was involved in 9/11. However 9/11 showed that terrorists and the countries that give them harbor, which Iraq did, cannot be left to sponsor terrorist activities. The intentions of terrorists combined with the resources of a nation like Iraq are a dangerous thing. And in a post 9/11 world such things cannot be allowed to remain.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

wvucrazed Wrote:9/11 did not change anything about the realities in Iraq, or the validity of Bush's statement because, as we all know (and some don't want to admit), Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

I'm amazed that someone can post something like this.

9/11 changed EVERYTHING about how we have to deal with national defense. Terrorism renders the idea of containment useless because terrorists aren't nations.

No one has ever stated that Iraq was involved in 9/11. However 9/11 showed that terrorists and the countries that give them harbor, which Iraq did, cannot be left to sponsor terrorist activities. The intentions of terrorists combined with the resources of a nation like Iraq are a dangerous thing. And in a post 9/11 world such things cannot be allowed to remain.

the reality is that we can't march in and attack every country that we suspect of harboring terrorists. That is simply not feasible. And Bush did make the argument that Iraq was in league w/ al Queda, which led to 9/11.

There were terrorists before 9/11. What Bush did in Afghanistan following 9/11 was exactly correct (except he should have gone in with more force). All he did in Iraq, however, was create more fervent anti-American sentiment that we will be dealing with for decades to come.

Quote:the reality is that we can't march in and attack every country that we suspect of harboring terrorists.  That is simply not feasible.

Make an example of one or two and the rest will fall in line.

Quote:And Bush did make the argument that Iraq was in league w/ al Queda, which led to 9/11.

No he did not and I challenge you to find where he did.

Quote:All he did in Iraq, however, was create more fervent anti-American sentiment that we will be dealing with for decades to come.

This is one of the more hilarious arguments liberals make. It ranks right up there with we can't go to war without the French. The argument that we can't protect ourselves because we might make other people hate us is laughable.

I've got news for you. anti-American sentiment was fervent long before we ever went into Iraq.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:the reality is that we can't march in and attack every country that we suspect of harboring terrorists.  That is simply not feasible.

Make an example of one or two and the rest will fall in line.

Quote:And Bush did make the argument that Iraq was in league w/ al Queda, which led to 9/11.

No he did not and I challenge you to find where he did.

Quote:All he did in Iraq, however, was create more fervent anti-American sentiment that we will be dealing with for decades to come.

This is one of the more hilarious arguments liberals make. It ranks right up there with we can't go to war without the French. The argument that we can't protect ourselves because we might make other people hate us is laughable.

I've got news for you. anti-American sentiment was fervent long before we ever went into Iraq.

the rest will not fall in line... how will they fall in line when Iraq is currently a quagmire, and has every liklihood of remaining that way in the forseeable future? Syria and Iran are not exactly quaking in their shoes.

I will see if I can locate Bush's specific quotes tying Iraq to 9/11. I can't search for them right now, i'm at work.


You are correct, there was anti-American sentiment before Iraq. But nowhere near as bad as it is now, especially in the middle east. There was broad support for what we did in Afghanistan in retaliation for 9/11. Iraq, however, is a different story. Opinion polls conducted in various middle eastern countries, including supposed strong ally, Egypt, have shown anti-American sentiment much higher than before the invastion of Iraq.

We have made it harder for moderate middle eastern allies/leaders to work with us, all the while whipping up anti-American hatreds into a frenzy and creating more potential terrorists than Osama could have asked for.

Quagmire. Hmmm......methinks you are listening to the wrong people. The sky is not falling.

Quote:the rest will not fall in line... 

Yeah, Libya proves that to be true huh? :rolleyes:

Quote:I will see if I can locate Bush's specific quotes tying Iraq to 9/11.  I can't search for them right now, i'm at work.

I can save you the trouble and tell you that you'll never find a single quote to back up your claim. But you go ahead and search. It's your time.

Quote:But nowhere near as bad as it is now, especially in the middle east.

And you base this on......what exactly? Was the USS Cole bombed before we went into Iraq? Were our embassies bombed before we went into Iraq? Was the WTC bombed the first time and attacked on 9/11 before we went into Iraq? Was the Marine barracks in Beirut bombed before we went into Iraq?

It's absolutely ridiculous to claim that anti-american sentiment over there is worse than it was before Iraq. I'm of the opinion that there aren't degrees of hate. Islamic facists have always hated us, and they always will, whether we're in Iraq or not.

Quote:We have made it harder for moderate middle eastern allies/leaders to work with us, all the while whipping up anti-American hatreds into a frenzy and creating more potential terrorists than Osama could have asked for.

Yeah. Pakistan has really had trouble working with us since we went into Iraq.
:rolleyes:

wvucrazed Wrote:9/11 did not change anything about the realities in Iraq, or the validity of Bush's statement because, as we all know (and some don't want to admit), Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

Bush Sr. has never once come out in support of Jr's war in Iraq. He hasn't condemned it because he doesn't want to undermine his son, but he does not support it. When asked specifically about whether or not he approves, his answer has been "no comment".

As Roberto Gato posted, Saddam was far less of a threat when we invaded than when the elder Bush made the statements in his book.

9/11 did change the world and our relationship to it. For us to act otherwise would be foolish.

The point libs always miss with this: IF SADDAM HAD COMPLIED WITH UN RESOLUTIONS, HE WOULD STILL BE TORTURING HIS PEOPLE TODAY AND LIBS WOULD BE HAPPY.

It always amazes me that many libs want to point to UN involvment as the answer to all Iraq's problems when all the UN does is make toothless resolutions they never intend to enforce. Essentially the way I see this is the UN had their opportunity to make Saddam comply, they didn't (they just needed more time! :rolleyes: ), so the ball was out of their court, especially if they were unwilling to make Saddam comply. The fact that he didn't have what we (and the Brits) thoughT he had is a side issue for me...if he just would have complied there never would have been a problem.

So now people drag out a 5 year old quote to prove that W's Dad doesn't support the current action. Well, that's applicable.

wvucrazed Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

wvucrazed Wrote:9/11 did not change anything about the realities in Iraq, or the validity of Bush's statement because, as we all know (and some don't want to admit), Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

I'm amazed that someone can post something like this.

9/11 changed EVERYTHING about how we have to deal with national defense. Terrorism renders the idea of containment useless because terrorists aren't nations.

No one has ever stated that Iraq was involved in 9/11. However 9/11 showed that terrorists and the countries that give them harbor, which Iraq did, cannot be left to sponsor terrorist activities. The intentions of terrorists combined with the resources of a nation like Iraq are a dangerous thing. And in a post 9/11 world such things cannot be allowed to remain.

the reality is that we can't march in and attack every country that we suspect of harboring terrorists. That is simply not feasible. And Bush did make the argument that Iraq was in league w/ al Queda, which led to 9/11.

There were terrorists before 9/11. What Bush did in Afghanistan following 9/11 was exactly correct (except he should have gone in with more force). All he did in Iraq, however, was create more fervent anti-American sentiment that we will be dealing with for decades to come.

I think this is the first true debate in a long time.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:the rest will not fall in line... 

Yeah, Libya proves that to be true huh? :rolleyes:

Quote:I will see if I can locate Bush's specific quotes tying Iraq to 9/11.   I can't search for them right now, i'm at work.

I can save you the trouble and tell you that you'll never find a single quote to back up your claim. But you go ahead and search. It's your time.

Quote:But nowhere near as bad as it is now, especially in the middle east.

And you base this on......what exactly? Was the USS Cole bombed before we went into Iraq? Were our embassies bombed before we went into Iraq? Was the WTC bombed the first time and attacked on 9/11 before we went into Iraq? Was the Marine barracks in Beirut bombed before we went into Iraq?

It's absolutely ridiculous to claim that anti-american sentiment over there is worse than it was before Iraq. I'm of the opinion that there aren't degrees of hate. Islamic facists have always hated us, and they always will, whether we're in Iraq or not.

Quote:We have made it harder for moderate middle eastern allies/leaders to work with us, all the while whipping up anti-American hatreds into a frenzy and creating more potential terrorists than Osama could have asked for.

Yeah. Pakistan has really had trouble working with us since we went into Iraq.
:rolleyes:

We'll wait and see what happens with Libya... My guess is that he senses a big pay day, and would prefer normalized relations w/ the US and foreign $$$$ to ravening lunatic fanatics. I don't see many others following in his footsteps, but hey - ya never know. I'm sure Iran any day now is going to put up their hands, say WE SURRENDER, BRING ON BRITNEY SPEARS BABEEEEEE!!!

As for the US sentiment in the US being worse - by far - after the Iraq invasion... well, sorry to say, it's simply the truth.


Here's a portion of an article in Christian Science Monitor:

(the link if you would like to read the entire article):

<a href='http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0902/p06s02-wome.html' target='_blank'>http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0902/p06s02-wome.html</a>


A June poll by Zogby International in six Arab countries showed that America's already-limited esteem in the Arab world has plummeted since the invasion of Iraq. Just two years ago, Zogby found that 76 percent of Egyptians had an unfavorable impression of the US. Today, that number is 98 percent.

Though lowest in Egypt, there are similar declines throughout the region, which analysts say will cut deeply into America's ability to pursue it's objectives here. Even though governments in the region aren't generally democratic, they still have to take into account popular opinion when forming their policies towards the US. The source of most frustration appears to be US policy towards Palestinians and the invasion of Iraq.

And, yeah, ask Pakistan what an easy time they are having working w/ the US. Musharraf has had, what 2 or 3?, assasination attempts since he hooked up w/ the US in the search for Bin Laden and attack on the Taliban, and THAT was not as unpopular as the Iraq war!! How many middle eastern leaders will stick their necks out to help the US??

As for Bush tying 9/11 to Iraq.. .here are a few quotes I found with a quick internet search. Feel free to search for more if you are inclined:

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on"

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. "

"The regime has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. "

"Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. "

"He's a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. "

jjburtzel Wrote:

wvucrazed Wrote:9/11 did not change anything about the realities in Iraq, or the validity of Bush's statement because, as we all know (and some don't want to admit), Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

Bush Sr. has never once come out in support of Jr's war in Iraq.&nbsp; He hasn't condemned it because he doesn't want to undermine his son, but he does not support it.&nbsp; When asked specifically about whether or not he approves, his answer has been "no comment".&nbsp; &nbsp;

As Roberto Gato posted, Saddam was far less of a threat when we invaded than when the elder Bush made the statements in his book.

9/11 did change the world and our relationship to it. For us to act otherwise would be foolish.

The point libs always miss with this: IF SADDAM HAD COMPLIED WITH UN RESOLUTIONS, HE WOULD STILL BE TORTURING HIS PEOPLE TODAY AND LIBS WOULD BE HAPPY.

It always amazes me that many libs want to point to UN involvment as the answer to all Iraq's problems when all the UN does is make toothless resolutions they never intend to enforce. Essentially the way I see this is the UN had their opportunity to make Saddam comply, they didn't (they just needed more time! :rolleyes: ), so the ball was out of their court, especially if they were unwilling to make Saddam comply. The fact that he didn't have what we (and the Brits) thoughT he had is a side issue for me...if he just would have complied there never would have been a problem.

So now people drag out a 5 year old quote to prove that W's Dad doesn't support the current action. Well, that's applicable.

who has pointed to UN involvement as the answer to all our problems in Iraq? Certainly not me.

The US has never in its history had a policy of "pre-emption" - NEVER. What Bush did in Iraq is unprecedented in American history, pure and simple.

The neo-cons have this notion that it is somehow our duty as the world's superpower to spread our democratic ideals throughout the world, by force of military might if necessary. Would Saddam have loved to bring the US down? You betcha. Would he have dared lift a finger against the US, or Israel for that matter? NO. The reason? We would disassemble Iraq down to its foundation. Saddam was no threat. Iran is a much greater threat - why aren't we marching into Tehran right now?

Ahh... but Iran is quite a different story. Iraq was like a plum ready to be picked, and Bush had his eye on it from day 1 in office. The neo-cons think that a stable, democratic Iraq will lead to Syria, Iran and others throwing down their swords and embracing coca-cola and blue jeans. Well guess what folks - that will never happen. The same argument was made in SE Asia when we went into Vietnam, that communism would spread across the region if we didn't stop it. Well guess what - it hasn't.


We are now presiding over a dangerous 3rd world mess with more and more american dead every day, and no end in sight, with 3 factions that have no interest in an American-puppet central government.

What am I missing here? We didn't invade Iraq to punish the terrorists for 9/11, cause they didn't have anything to do with it. We didn't pre-emp ANYTHING. We've severely damaged our standing in the world, cost 1000 american lives and counting, and untold billions of dollars.

For what?

wvucrazed Wrote:As for Bush tying 9/11 to Iraq.. .here are a few quotes I found with a quick internet search.&nbsp; Feel free to search for more if you are inclined:

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on"

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. "

"The regime has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. "

"Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. "

"He's a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. "

Thanks for proving my point.

Your claim was

Quote:And Bush did make the argument that Iraq was in league w/ al Queda, which led to 9/11.

Not ONE SINGLE QUOTE you offered up makes the claim that Saddam's involvement with al queda led to 9/11.

Bush has always maintained that Iraq is part of the war on terror. And the 9/11 commission and the Senate Intellegence committe report all back up that Saddam had dealing with Al queda.

Here's a little tip for. If you want to make up lies and distortions about Bush you'd better confine them to democratic undergound. The conservatives on this board will expose them, as I just did, in a heart beat.

Checkmate.

Quote:What am I missing here? We didn't invade Iraq to punish the terrorists for 9/11, cause they didn't have anything to do with it. We didn't pre-emp ANYTHING. We've severely damaged our standing in the world, cost 1000 american lives and counting, and untold billions of dollars.

Pretty much everything.

Iraq as part of the broader war on terror and thus our need to take Saddam out has been voiced quite well numerous times on this thread. The fact that you continue to ignore them is evident of your inability to grasp the issue.

Fact: British, UN, American and Russian intellegence stated Saddam had WMD's.
Fact: Saddam was a harbor of terrorists, including al queda and a state sponsor of terrorism.
Fact: Russian intellegence informed us that Saddam was making plans to attack America.

See conservatives look at these facts and say he, let's stop them from happening. Liberals like you wring your hands about them and say, "Well, we can't do anything until they do something to us." Who cares that it's too late by then.

Your point of view, and those who share it, are exactly why liberals cannot be allowed to be in a position of leadership in this country while the war on terror is still going on.

He refused inspections demanded by the treaty.

He ousted inspectors.

Per UN Resolution 1441, any member nation could compel Iraq to comply.

We warned him.

He still refused.

We went in and took him out.


~~~~~~~~

Although there are many, many other reasons I could state, that's all I need.

I think I finally understand the GOP tactics: repeat 1+1=3 enough times, people will believe that its true.

Well the reality is that 1+1 will never = 3, and there will never be a justification for our invasion of Iraq.

Neo-Cons keep saying over and over that we had to do something about Iraq before they did something to us.

???????????

Iraq was not going to do something to us. Iraq didn't have the CAPABILITY to do something to us. And even if they did, they would never make such a foolish mistake. Saddam was interested in self-preservation and basking in his palaces. He invaded Kuwait not thinking for a second that the US would come to the Kuwaiti's defense. He was wrong. He learned his lesson. Yes, he was a blowhard and wouldn't let the inspectors do what they wanted. Yes, he tried to look big and flex his muscles and look like he was standing up to The Great Satan. But Saddam was secular. His hatred for the US and Bush was not the same fanatacism that drives al Queda.

Saddam would have stayed in his palaces for years to come. He wasn't a threat to anyone except his own people.

AH, but what about this notion that he was harboring terrorists and thus had to be taken out. Surely, THAT is justification.

Well, okay. By that rationale there are about a dozen countries we should be going after right now.

We have opened up a firestorm in Iraq that will not easily be extinguished, and stirred up more righteous anger toward American than ever has existed in our HISTORY.

Yeah, we're much safer now Saddam won't be able to get us.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:Checkmate.

LOL, I like that.

Bush said in these quotes and others that Saddam had long been in contact and in association with al Queda, gave them $$ and training and safe harbor... years BEFORE 9/11. If Saddam was supposedly buidling up and helping al Queda prior to 9/11 - - isn't the entire point that Saddam was one of the guilty parties in 9/11?

The neo-cons have tried to tie Saddam to 9/11 and al Queda at every step of the way.