Did the Left start the war in Iraq?? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

WyrdRich -> Did the Left start the war in Iraq?? (8/19/2006 11:29:39 AM)

         Let's go back a few years and speculate a bit.

      What if Bush was perfectly willing to bluff Saddam into folding?  I was watching the whole thing pretty closely (a little brother was sitting close to the Iraqi border) and I remember the whole dance this country went through leading up to the war.  I remember UN resolutions and clear demands that Saddam comply with them.  I remember a final demand that Saddam could avert war by going into exile.  What I wanted more than anything else was for that man and his family to get on a few airplanes full off $100 bills.  I knew it wasn't going to happen.  The same newscast spent more time reporting that elementary school teachers were leading their classes out to protest.

      The Left/Liberals had to have their fucking protest party and the media was thrilled to cover it.  They insisted on diplomacy and then created a weak position to negotiate from.  Had the United States shown a resolute and united face, I think the invasion could have been avoided.  Instead, a picture was presented to our adversaries of a decadent and divided people that wouldn't actually do it.  Hussein's last hiding place makes it pretty clear he never believed we would actually come all the way in.

      What did those idiots think was going to happen when the negotiations failed because of their sabotage???  Bush is from Texas, remember?? 

     This war was never the best option and some very dumb things have happened along the way.  Those protesters get to share the blame and the blood is on their hands as well.

     



Chaingang -> RE: Did the Left start the war in Iraq?? (8/19/2006 11:41:26 AM)

A "decadent and divided people" huh? Let me guess: you are another heavy judger and a conservative.

But let's get down to it. Don't you want to save some money? Aren't you worried about that bottom line?

Why is all of this "world police" shit the responsibility of the U.S.? I don't want to pay for that when we have matters domestic to take care of instead. I don't give a flying fuck about Iraqis dead and dying under Saddam. If they don't like it, they can revolt. If they want to live with it and seek international support, then that's ideally why the U.N. was created - to handle situations like that.

In other words, let me make it schoolyard simple for you since you appear to require that level of argument: it wasn't our fight. The U.S. was aching for a breaking and now it's getting one.

I blame people like yourself that don't understand when the fight is yours and when it isn't.



Amaros -> RE: Did the Left start the war in Iraq?? (8/19/2006 11:47:03 AM)

C'mon, this is a variation on that same old, "if nobody disagrees with us then we're right" - I mean the reason republican policies have always failed is that liberals disagreed with them, according to them. Forget it, if your policy is sound, it will work no matter what anybody says, republican policy fails because it's bad policy.

In this case, invasion was a foregone conclusion the second that it was realized the Caspian reserves didn't exist - Bush didn't even pretend to wait for Saddam to comply, that's what turned world opinion against us.

Your argument doesn't pass the smell test for me - Clinton, a liberal, bombed the crap out of them, and went on to beat Kosovo down, so Hussein has to know it was no idle threat - and this wasn't Clinton, it was Bush, a man whose father he attempted to assassinate - he knew damn well we were coming, that's why there was a week or two of token resistance, then a long, drawn out insurgency - that was the plan, it's all they could do.

The calls from the left were to wait to see if Saddam  would comply - which he did - the Bush administration simply kept making new demands, until the troops were in place, and then commenced the invasion - there was no hesitition, no negotiation phase,  we just mobilized and went in when we were ready - supposedly - Bush buying time by pretending to listen to the UN, but in the end, ignoring everything and everybody.

They were so sure it was gonna be a cakewalk they didn't even plan for any other contingency.



gooddogbenji -> RE: Did the Left start the war in Iraq?? (8/19/2006 11:48:58 AM)

That's like me being to blame for getting jumped because I didn't hand over my wallet to the guy before I knew he wanted it.

Do you think the war would have been prevented had all Americans stood behind Bush and chanted "Bomb Saddam!  Bomb Saddam!"

And had Saddam gone into exile, what would have happened?  Chaos would have broken loose, and Americans would be there policing.  Granted, we would not have been seen in quite such a bad light, but no one would have been throwing rose petals as you guys marched along, either.

Yours,


benji



WyrdRich -> RE: Did the Left start the war in Iraq?? (8/19/2006 12:10:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gooddogbenji

Do you think the war would have been prevented had all Americans stood behind Bush and chanted "Bomb Saddam!  Bomb Saddam!"


benji


        It wouldn't have hurt.  Burn a few Iraqi flags and torch mannequins labeled "Sodamn Insane."  That sort of speech is widely practiced and understood in the region. 

       A protest orgy was the worst message possible.  I'm not enough of a conspiracy nut to call it intentional but to undermine the authority of our negotiator was just spiteful and blind stupid.



Amaros -> RE: Did the Left start the war in Iraq?? (8/19/2006 12:25:15 PM)

There were only two major protests in the US prior to the war, both part of larger global anti-war protests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_2003_Iraq_war) - so you're saying Saddam was under the delusion that Bush might listen? I think that's unlikely, he was pretty much complying as fast as he could - he didn't comply with the demand to go into exile, and all the excuse Bush needed - and we would have simply occupied Iraq anyway at that point - like I said, it was a foregone conclusion anyway you cut it.



Amaros -> RE: Did the Left start the war in Iraq?? (8/19/2006 12:29:33 PM)

In other words, it was patently obvious to everybody else in the entire world that we were going to invade, no if's and's or but's - according to your hypothesis, Saddam was the only guy in the entire world that didn't know this.



gooddogbenji -> RE: Did the Left start the war in Iraq?? (8/19/2006 12:31:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WyrdRich

       It wouldn't have hurt.  Burn a few Iraqi flags and torch mannequins labeled "Sodamn Insane."  That sort of speech is widely practiced and understood in the region. 

      A protest orgy was the worst message possible.  I'm not enough of a conspiracy nut to call it intentional but to undermine the authority of our negotiator was just spiteful and blind stupid.



Okay, so you're saying that our leader (regardless of any other issues or situations, this could apply to almost any leader) would go not go to war if everyone wanted him to?

I see what you are saying, that had we presented a unified front, we would have been scarier, but seriously - you expect people to believe that if they support a war, it will prevent it?  It will simply give the administration the excuse later on that it was wanted by 100% of the people.

I hope this is a joke.  But either way, I don't need to listen to this drivel. 

Yours,


benji



captiveplatypus -> RE: Did the Left start the war in Iraq?? (8/19/2006 12:36:20 PM)

God I wish I weren't too sick to coherently tear this apart.



WyrdRich -> RE: Did the Left start the war in Iraq?? (8/19/2006 12:54:10 PM)

      I'd have happily settled for the treatment Clinton recieved on the way into Kosovo.  We had debate and dire predictions yes, but nobody was sending a message that we wouldn't let President Clinton do it.  Little Brother was sent in there too.

       The left placed their own values of peace and diplomacy to the side so they could run out and pretend it was 1969 all over again.  The complete fizzle of the anti-war movement, despite the best efforts of the media to keep it alive, shows how insincere it was.  A stupid party we are all paying the price for.



peterK50 -> RE: Did the Left start the war in Iraq?? (8/19/2006 1:08:29 PM)

Several books have stated that W. had his sights set on Iraq from day one. You can fill in your own reason or lack of them. Cheney manipulated intelligence, possibly related to $17 million in Halliburton stock. The rhetoric was stultifying, W. was "steadfast & resolute", just like the Captain of the Titanic with much the same result.



Amaros -> RE: Did the Left start the war in Iraq?? (8/19/2006 1:10:52 PM)

quote:

Some polls showed that Bush's 2003 State of the Union increased US support for the invasion, but other polls showed that it had little effect. [citation needed] Most polls showed that support for the invasion, depending on how the question is phrased, was at between 55-65% (58% according to CNN/USA Today, 57% according to the LA Times, and 67% according to Fox). [citation needed] However, the same polls also suggested that most Americans would still like to see more evidence against Iraq, and for UN weapons inspections to continue before making an invasion. For example, an ABC news poll reported than only 10% of Americans favored giving the inspectors less than a few weeks; 41% favored giving them a few weeks, 33% a few months, and 13% more than that. [2] A consistent pattern in the months leading up to the U.S.-led invasion was that higher percentages of the population supported the impending war in polls that offered only two options (for or against) than in polls that broke down support into three or more options given (distinguishing unconditional support for the war, opposition to the war even if weapons inspectors do their job, and support if and only if inspection crews are allowed time to investigate first). Some polls also showed that the majority of Americans believed that President Bush had made his case against Iraq. The Gallup poll, for example, found that 67% of those who watched the speech felt that the case had been made, which was a jump from 47% just prior the speech. However, many more Republicans than Democrats watched the speech, so this may not be an accurate reflection of the overall opinion of the American public. An ABC news poll found little difference in the percentage of Americans who felt that Bush has made his case for war after he had made his speech, with the percentage remaining at about 40%.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_popular_opinion_on_invasion_of_Iraq

... Which is what I remembered -  the polls at the time were pretty much in support of the war by a significant statistical margin, protests or no protests - GB decided to invade before the polls slipped again.

Ironically, massing troops for the invasion did result in Hussein complying with weapons inspections - the loaded gun to the head was a good strategy - but in deciding to invade, and botching the occupation and nation building, resulting in tieing up the military in a no win situation, we removed the same loaded gun from the heads of Iran and N. Korea, who both know damn well we don't have hte resources to invade them, and consequently can talk all the shit they want when previosly they were making friendly noises.

So, a better argument, and one that naturally, has appeared a number of places already, would be that should either or both Iran and N.Korea end up with nukes and commensurate delivery systems, it's a direct consequence of GB's invading Iraq, and botching it.



Amaros -> RE: Did the Left start the war in Iraq?? (8/19/2006 1:11:56 PM)

That is, by way of stupid parties and the prices one pays...



KenDckey -> RE: Did the Left start the war in Iraq?? (8/19/2006 1:23:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: peterK50

Cheney manipulated intelligence,.


My question is, if you make such a blatant accuzation, then why Hasn't Cheney been prosecuted?  Where is the proof?



philosophy -> RE: Did the Left start the war in Iraq?? (8/19/2006 1:30:35 PM)

"The Left/Liberals had to have their fucking protest party and the media was thrilled to cover it.  They insisted on diplomacy and then created a weak position to negotiate from.  Had the United States shown a resolute and united face, I think the invasion could have been avoided.  Instead, a picture was presented to our adversaries of a decadent and divided people that wouldn't actually do it.  Hussein's last hiding place makes it pretty clear he never believed we would actually come all the way in."

........absurd logic....the idea that Saddam was for one second undewr the impression that there wasn't dissent in the West is absurd........enough Iraquis were educated in the West........

As for seeing the West as decadent and divided, that is true if one takes a totalitarian view of things. We are divided, we cherish our differences and our right to express them. This is, conversely, our strength.....it means absurd ideas have to pass through the sieve of other minds........we get to criticise........

.......the underlying message of the OP seems to be 'we come to bring you democracy, and the dissenters better shut up'



WyrdRich -> RE: Did the Left start the war in Iraq?? (8/19/2006 1:52:19 PM)

    Yeah, because the only thing worse than a war is pretending you support a Republican....


    I'm not even sure a show of support would have been enough, but it wouldn't have hurt.  The Reagan retreat from Beirut, the failure to finish the job in 1991, Clinton's feeble responses to the attacks of his term, the ME may not believe we are serious until the B-52's start carpet-bombing and I dread the event that would precipitate it.



Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: Did the Left start the war in Iraq?? (8/19/2006 3:14:47 PM)

I have to say, that after all that's come out, to blame "The Left" for the Iraq War, takes a great deal of imagination.

As I recall, according to Paul O'Neill, former Bush cabinet member, as well as Richard Clarke, former Bush Counterterrorism adviser, both Paul Wolfowitz and Don Rumsfeld wanted to attack Iraq all along.  They even advocated for it in the week following the 9/11 attacks... Bush, is described as being not far behind.

I seem to recall some classified memos from British Intelligence coming out, from the post 9/11, but pre-invasion timeframe that stated that US Intelligence was being fixed around a policy of Iraq invasion... hang on... okay, here we go:
quote:

  
There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.


Then of course there was Colin Powell, the good soldier's testimony before the 9/11 commission, and in a television interview around this time - when asked point blank about for example whether Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld pushed for invasion of Iraq on the week after 9/11.  While he doesn't say yes - period, neither does he say no.  He just restates the charge in more diffuse terms and says that's what happened, e.g.,
quote:

JIM LEHRER: Is it correct to say that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were pushing for attacks on Iraq?

SECRETARY POWELL: It's correct to say that everybody at Camp David that weekend expressed their views and, as is well-known, Mr. Wolfowitz wanted to make sure that the president considered Iraq as a potential source of trouble that had to be dealt with respect to our interests around the world and with respect to terrorism.


There is are a whole pile of accounts from other sources - both inside and outside the administration saying that the invasion was predetermined and the intelligence was being fixed to justify this goal - all liars, I suppose?  Unless Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz just plainly tell under oath and also sign sworn statements that they miseld this country into a war they wanted, well then it can't be true?  The only word we should believe is of the accused?  Odd standard for inquery into wrongdoings, I'd say.



NorthernGent -> RE: Did the Left start the war in Iraq?? (8/19/2006 3:22:49 PM)

I thought all of this was finished and we all knew that the US and Britain had plans to illegally invade Iraq as far back as 2002. There are tribesmen in undiscovered, impenetrable rain forests in deepest, darkest South America who understand this - how on earth has this passed you by?

The question now is how do we get ourselves out of this mess. Personally, I'd like to see a human cull and plans are afoot.

Regards



Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: Did the Left start the war in Iraq?? (8/19/2006 3:33:02 PM)

Don't look at me - I am not the one with the thesis that "The Left" is responsible for the Iraq invasion. [&:]  I am just responding to that creative writing.



EnglishDomNW -> RE: Did the Left start the war in Iraq?? (8/19/2006 4:02:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WyrdRich

This war was never the best option and some very dumb things have happened along the way.  Those protesters get to share the blame and the blood is on their hands as well.
  


I'm not sure I follow what point you're trying to make - you condemn the protestors and partly blame them but also say the war was never the best option.  Wasn't that what the protestors were saying all along?



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875