Bush Administration's latest excuse... - Page 3

Spiffor · May 28, 2003, 21:14

Thanks for your answers Imran. At least you are clear (even though I don't know how Saddam was "dangerous" if WMDs were deemed an excuse to attack him)

Jaguar · May 28, 2003, 21:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
I have a question for pro-war people here :

- do you sincerely think WMDs were the first motivation of the administration to attack Iraq, or one of the most important reasons ?

- do you think the liberation of the Iraqi people was the major aim of the administration when attacking ?

- If not, did you think so before the beginning of the war ?

Thanks

- No.

- No.

- No.

Bush's motive is clearly to remove a guy he doesn't like. Bushist foreign policy is pretty simple.

Berzerker · May 28, 2003, 21:17

Elijah -

Quote:

It is somewhat naive imo to claim that the true motivations were anything other than money (oil and arms) and political gain at home.

I don't buy it, the US is not going to steal the oil. That would just help push fence-sitting Muslims to join the terrorist movement and anger alot more people. I believe 9/11 created the fear that regime's like Saddam's would develop nukes and arrange for terrorists to plant one in Washington DC or New York. I didn't buy that one either since Saddam, while being evil, wasn't crazy enough to ensure his own demise by being tied to such a plot. But that doesn't mean people in the Bush administration were required to share my lack of concern.

I think you guys should give US forces some time to look for the WMD.

Whaleboy · May 28, 2003, 21:17

" Bush's motive is clearly to remove a guy he doesn't like. Bushist foreign policy is pretty simple"

Im doomed!!!

Oerdin · May 28, 2003, 21:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
Iran, Syria, N. Korea, take your pick

How about Mexico?

oedo · May 28, 2003, 21:18

Quote:

Bush's motive is clearly to remove a guy he doesn't like. Bushist foreign policy is pretty simple.

uh, oh. Bush doen´t like Chirac and Schröder, too.

Agathon · May 28, 2003, 21:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

- No.

- No.

- No.

Bush's motive is clearly to remove a guy he doesn't like. Bushist foreign policy is pretty simple.

And you support Bush removing people on the grounds he doesn't like them? Be serious.

Anyway, by agreeing to the above you seem to have scotched any possibility of defending the war as a just war.

Whaleboy · May 28, 2003, 21:20

"I don't buy it, the US is not going to steal the oil"

True, theyre not going to steal it, theyre going to buy it and the money will go into the trust fund. Saddam was stockpiling oil for decades, release that glut of oil on the market at once, the oil prices slump, then companies negotiate contracts at that lower price. Its what I'd do in that position. The US gets the added bonus of undermining OPEC somewhat. To be honest, I think the US has been terrified of oil shortages since the 70's, ah hello!! Iraq has the worlds second largest reserves.....

Needless to say, burning oil creates environmental havoc (global warming et al) especially when one considers the byproducts.

Whaleboy · May 28, 2003, 21:21

In all seriousness, he does seem to be persecuting (one way or another) those he does not liked. Someone fell from the subjective tree!

Spiffor · May 28, 2003, 21:22

Jag :
Thank you too.

Don't you feel a little awkward with Bush and his cronies using excuses to justify the war to the population, or do you think this propaganda / lies were a necessary evil ?

Jaguar · May 28, 2003, 21:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon

And you support Bush removing people on the grounds he doesn't like them? Be serious.

Anyway, by agreeing to the above you seem to have scotched any possibility of defending the war as a just war.

I don't like him either. You don't like him. Nobody likes him. I think that is a plenty good reason. I am being serious. The liberation is also an excellent side effect.

Whaleboy · May 28, 2003, 21:25

Was the war a necessary evil? Not if one can counter the arguments for it. I have done so to myself and hopefully to others, thus to me, it was a wholly unnecessary evil (I use the word evil reluctantly, unlike bush).

It would appear that the ad hoc arguments we will no doubt face now are the excuses for an unnecessary evil, justified to the population, like I been saying, cloaked in the flag to "sweeten the pill". Problem is that wrapped up in the flag, the American people think its candy. Problem is that GWB is a stranger....

Berzerker · May 28, 2003, 21:26

Elijah -

Quote:

True, theyre not going to steal it, theyre going to buy it and the money will go into the trust fund.

Then let us hope it won't be like the Social Security and Highway "trust funds".

Quote:

Saddam was stockpiling oil for decades, release that glut of oil on the market at once, the oil prices slump, then companies negotiate contracts at that lower price.

Where are these stockpiles?

Quote:

Needless to say, burning oil creates environmental havoc (global warming et al) especially when one considers the byproducts.

Buy a horse, just don't step in the by-product.

Oerdin · May 28, 2003, 21:28

Carbon copy JW answers under my name (that would be no to all three).

I was for toppling Saddam and but that was based primarily upon the sanctions were stirring up much of the Arab world against the west in general and the US in particular. It was clear the sanctions could never be removed as long as Saddam was in power ergo...

Sure, they will be an up tick in terrorism short term (meaning next 5 years or so) but I believe that in time that will fade were as another 10 years of sanctions would have caused more and more Arabs to turn against us. Then of course there is the added issue of me being a Machiavellian who believes dictators who cross us should meet a very public and very bad end.

Berzerker · May 28, 2003, 21:28

Quote:

Problem is that wrapped up in the flag, the American people think its candy. Problem is that GWB is a stranger....

Nice line.

Whaleboy · May 28, 2003, 21:30

"Where are these stockpiles?"

Ask the NSA and CIA. They been spying on Iraq for years using satellites that can read a newspaper headline from orbit. If anyone knows where anything is in Iraq, and if it exists, then they will. Begs the question of why they seemed to "hallucinate" these weapons. Even if they do turn up now, this debacle shows that this justification for the war was a speculation purporting to be a certainty.

If I was stockpiling oil, I'd store it in various barrels all over the country.

Spiffor · May 28, 2003, 21:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
Carbon copy JW answers under my name (that would be no to all three).

Oerdin : And as such, how do you feel about the admin's propaganda / lies ?

Jaguar · May 28, 2003, 21:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Jag :
Thank you too.

Don't you feel a little awkward with Bush and his cronies using excuses to justify the war to the population, or do you think this propaganda / lies were a necessary evil ?

It is awkward. However, people add weak reasons to make their cases seem stronger all the time. Which looks better to you?

I want to remove Saddam because
1. I don't like him

or:

I want to remove Saddam because
1. I don't like him
2. Nobody likes him
3. The Iraqi people will be freed
4. He is dangerous.

The first list is the reason that Bush really wanted Saddam removed. The second list is of the reasons that Bush used to justify the war. 2 and 3 from the second list were the reasons I supported the war.

Berzerker · May 28, 2003, 21:34

Elijah -

Quote:

Ask the NSA and CIA.

I asked you.

Imran Siddiqui · May 28, 2003, 21:35

Quote:

even though I don't know how Saddam was "dangerous" if WMDs were deemed an excuse to attack him

Dangerous in long term goals. There is evidence he was supporting terrorist groups in Palestine (with money and allowing them to use his country for shelter).

I have a feeling Bush sees the shithole that is the Mid East and wants to do something about it NOW! Invading Iraq was easy. They were being *******s and everyone knew it. Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are more difficult. We can't invade them, they are being just good enough (hiding their evil motives). You can see this by ratcheting up the rhetoric on Syria and Iran... and pulling troops out of Saudi Arabia.

What he wants is a new ME, one that can help contain the problem of terrorism, instead of helping to foster it.

The 'oil' cry is simply silly. A glut of oil on the world market, hurts his 'friends' greatly. Oil prices falling are not what the major oil players want to hear. Petroleum is a very inelastic good. The price rising and falling doesn't change consumption much, so oil companies want to keep the prices high. This is also why on rumors, prices jump. Oil companies can say 'this is going to happen', when it is actually just pretext to make more money

. If oil wasn't so inelastic, those people may have a point, but they are ignoring the economics of the situation.

Whaleboy · May 28, 2003, 21:36

Try near Mosul, as well as the fields near the south. I dont actually know for considering that I am not omnipotent. As such, its a reasonable speculation. If anyone knows, its the US intelligence service, although I'm beginning to think that thats a contradiction in terms

Whaleboy · May 28, 2003, 21:39

Wow, evil motives, anti-american plots, coverups. Methinks a little paranoia is settling in.

"OMG People dont like America!!!!..... quiet.... theyre watching you, waiting for you to fall, and as soon as your on the ground.... bang"

Was Bush locked in a dark cupboard as a child?

Cyclotron · May 28, 2003, 21:41

Quote:

Originally posted by elijah
Wow, evil motives, anti-american plots, coverups. Methinks a little paranoia is settling in.

Suddenly becoming the victim of terrorists that take thousands of lives can do that to you.

Whaleboy · May 28, 2003, 21:43

september 11th 2001. Get over it. Stop taking it out on others. It sucked, it was a terrible day. It was 20 months ago.

It is, and never was, a licence to kill, or a licence to persecute, or a licence to run around with 19th century foreign policies.

Imran Siddiqui · May 28, 2003, 21:44

Quote:

It was 20 months ago.

That ain't that long ago... and if it results in being able to help reform the entire Middle East, I'm all for using it.

Whaleboy · May 28, 2003, 21:46

Forcibly reform it? Without their consensus will or consent? Imposing ones own subjective views of government over a completely different culture, simply because it is good for that nation?

The imposition of subjectives over equal subjectives is, in my opinion, immature, imprudent, illogical, emotional, and a little egotistical.

Whaleboy · May 28, 2003, 21:48

"That ain't that long ago" A very long time in international relations.

Im getting very concerned when conservative Americans talk about reforming the entire Middle East. Is the idiocy, the subjectivity and the naivity of such a notion only obvious to me? I dont believe it for a second.

reds4ever · May 28, 2003, 21:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

It was 20 months ago.

That ain't that long ago... and if it results in being able to help reform the entire Middle East, I'm all for using it.

But do they want 'reforming'? The entire area has a history of not accepting democracy (Eygpt excepted). In the middle east power vacuums tend to be filled by dictators and/or religious zealots

Whaleboy · May 28, 2003, 21:53

They think they want reforming because they think that they have the ideal form of government and culture and that thus everybody wants to aspire to that, and are somehow being held back by evil dictators and governments and religious zealots who do things very differently to Washington. Didnt seem to occur that this is a very different culture. No matter how it seems to you internally, it should be respected in its own right when one deals with it, instead of somehow calling it "evil" and pressing "reform".

Must be 10'000 miles distance between Washington and Baghdad, but worlds apart.

Imran Siddiqui · May 28, 2003, 21:53

Quote:

But do they want 'reforming'?

I believe so. At the very least get rid of the dictators that help out of the fundy's. In the long run they would like stable democracies. I think that's clear... everyone wants that. In the short run, they'd settle for a neutral dictator (ie, doesn't have to be pro-American, but definetly cannot be anti-American).