|
samboct -> RE: The Insanity of Bush Hatred (11/17/2007 12:01:37 PM)
|
Lucky-
GWB's smoking gun- the selling point of invading Iraq was the WMD- since that was the only possible weapon that constituted a serious threat (the only WMD in reality are nuclear weapons- bio and chemical weapons don't fit the definition- but that's a digression.) to the US.
Getting Congress to go along with what you propose based on lies and deceit does not transfer blame for your actions to Congress, it does however suggest that they are incompetent for failing to spot the lies and deceit. But there's a world of difference between believing a lie, and telling the lie, and your suggestion that Congress bears the blame of invading Iraq means that you've conflated the two- pretty impressive.
Let;s look at what you posted as bolstering the President's case for invasion-
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Why not let the UN decide the course of action then- it was their Security Council Resolution that was violated? To force the return of a serviceman- agreed that going to war is justified, but should only be undertaken when all else has failed- such as economic sanctions. The Kuwaitis can bellyache about their own property.
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Again- this is a UN problem- not a US problem. We're there at UN request- we should act accordingly. If we don't like how the UN is handling things- we can withdraw our troops. Calling for invasion based on assasination attempts would mean that Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cuba and others have a valid right to invade the US. If we're going to use assasination as a diplomatic tool, then other countries have that right as well.
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Huh? Gee, this claim is on par with the WMD. Pure fantasy.
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Oh please- lots of countries harbor organizations that threaten US lives- how about Italy's Red Brigade or Germany's Baader-Meinhof gang? Why are Iraqi terrorists any worse than these people? Should we have invaded Italy when the Red Brigade shoved the old fart off the Achille Lauro into the drink? What about home grown terrorists which prior to 2001, killed more US citizens than any foreign based organization?
You're making my point- this set of "demands" is about as factual as any of Hitler's half truths and lies told about invading Czechoslavakia, Poland, or France.
There is no essential difference between any of these gangs (Baader Meinhof, Red Brigade, etc.) and Al-Queda. They're all criminal organizations. And what we do with criminals is find them, arrest them, and put them in jail- which is exactly what should have happened to Osama Bin Laden. Hell, we could have had the world's largest bounty hunt on that guy's ass, and the world would have joined in. We could have put Osama on trial and hopefully put him in a cell with a few 300 lb guys named Bubba, hung like a horses, and promised time off if they teach OBL a thing or two about screwing with the USA.
So how do we get from a criminal attack to invading another country? Yeah- I know- it's some giant Muslim conspiracy- the towelheads are out to destroy us. Well, this is the same type of racist bigoted crap that landed Japanese Americans in US concentration camps.
Let's look at the difference between declaring war on Japan and eventually dropping some A bombs and invading Iraq- one action which is easy to justify- the other is impossible.
Pearl Harbor- Warplanes clearly identified as belonging to the Japanese attack our military installation with no warning. The Japanese did not deny the attack, instead presenting an ultimatum a few hours late.
9/11 Commercial aircraft owned and operated by US carriers are used in suicide attacks on US soil. Any Iraqi servicemen in sight? How about an invasion fleet? Aircraft? Submarines? Flying carpet covered in camel shit? Nope. Any declarations of war from Iraq? Gee, I guess we missed them. (Can you hear me now? Maybe they weren't using Verizon? which as an aside- seems to have taken a lot of pages from this administration.)
Post Pearl Harbor- Japanese fleet attacks US installations throughout the Pacific- kills and captures tens of thousands of servicemen and millions of civilians. US military is losing in open battles till Midway in June of '42.
Iraqi military threat post 9/11. Their navy seems to consist of a bunch of rowboats- their air force is sitting on the ground, and their army has no way to get to the US thousands of miles away since they have no navy or significant commercial shipping to speak of. Are they going to teach camels to swim across the Atlantic? The UN has investigated and found no WMD. So what exactly are they going to do to us?
End game- we drop bombs on Japan rather than invading- saves lots of US and Japanese lives. We then rebuild Japan and they don't take potshots at US troops because peace was signed with the Emperor and they honor the agreement. Most of their civil infrastructure continues to function.
In Iraq- we destroy what's left of the gov't and are left with a vicious guerilla war- and no way to end it. In a recent poll, 2/3rds of Iraqis think its OK to shoot a US soldier. Harry Truman is told that in rebuilding Europe- He could have vengeance or peace. He chose peace- which meant leaving lots of highly dubious organizations and people in place. (Most of the Gestapo- a civilian organization- were recruited from the pre existing police force. After the war, most of them just went back to their old jobs.) In invading Iraq, since we destroyed their infrastructure- we went for vengeance- and we've got a guerilla war that just won't quit. Couple that with a desire for their oil- and we're the major colonial power of the 21st century- in a world which has rejected colonialism as barbaric and expensive.
Hence hatred of Bush- it's not based on a single lie or bad judgement- but a whole house of cards full- and no end in sight.
Sam
oh yeah- the argument about WMD since it seems to be coming up yet again- 500 tons of VX is like 500 tons of ammunition. Finding a box full of rifle rounds doesn't do a lot if you haven't got a rifle and somebody to shoot it. Well, nobody's developed an effective means of weaponizing these war gases such that they kill more people than an equivalent mass of conventional explosives- hence this is fear mongering. And if there's no Iraqi military over here- what exactly are they going to do with the stuff? (Dumping it into drinking water is a fantasy- might kill a few people- on par with the anthrax scare.)
|
|
|
|
