Murock

Would Bush Still Have Gone To War?

Recommended Posts

qawsedrftgzxcvb,

I've already named more than 1.

In addition to those I should add the Civil War (remember docking into an enemy port?).

Wrong. You haven't named a single war which America went into in order to "bridge a recession to a recovery to avert an economic depression." At this point one can only assume that either you don't understand what you yourself have written or you are just plain lying by saying that you have named the wars in question.

Hm... let's see the US had been supplying the British with materials already (not just weapons, food etc)... the US president stabbed Germany in the back (forgot to read that in your text books) I'd say I trust the US was supplying the British.

And that proves the Lusitania was carrying war materials how? Stay on point please - you continually wander off into lala land. Get your Mommy to help you if need be.

There is a piece of trivia:

Who fired the first shot.. the US or Japan and when? That should about cover it.

About covers what? Are you suggesting that we started the war with Japan?!?!? Are you serious?

CIA director George Tenet said his agency's analysts " never said there was an imminent threat."

That is not the same thing as the CIA saying that Iraq had no WMD - which is what you said. You continually try to cover up your BS with irrelevant statements and whatnot. Give it up - it's transparent. It won't work.

"Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon."

Do you not understand that this does not constitute a "false uranium claim"? The purpose of those tubes is still in dispute today.

Here is what President Bush actually said;

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,†Mr. Bush said.

To prove him wrong, thereby making his claim false, you must prove that the British government learned no such thing. And that you cannot do because the British goverment did assert this to be true.

So where are the 500 tons of WMD? Did Saddam clone himself with Romulan technology and cloak it all?

Don't be ignorant. Here again is the statement in question “Iraq had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent . . . [and] has given no evidence that [it] has destroyed them.†That statement does not say that Iraq has 500 tons of WMD. It only says that at one time they had the materials to produce WMD and have never provided evidence of having destroyed the same. That is all according to the U.N. at the time. That is not the same as saying that Iraq has 500 tons of WMD and you know it. It was and still is an accurate statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

qawsedrftgzxcvb, I dunno how you could possibly think that the North would have started the civil war to pump up the economy... Also, if supplying the Brits against the Germans was "stabbing the Germans in the back" I'd say we should definitely do it again. Do you have a point? Implying that a radio problem from Hawaii (in the 1940s) was actually a conspiracy to create an excuse to escalate war with Japan is ludicrous. Have you looked at a map lately? Hawaii is out there... With or without radio problems, the attack on Pearl Harbor was justification for escalation. You latch onto these minor nuances and you forget the larger picture. Do presidents seek justification for their actions with intelligence that is not 100% known fact? Yes they do. Does that make the choices made based on that intelligence necessarily wrong? No, it doesn't. I'm sure glad you're not president. We'd probably be sitting around with our thumbs up our asses while our enemies (and yes, we have lots of them now) start pointing nukes at us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CIA on WMD

NO WMD IN IRAQ, SAY CIA Sep 25 2003

By James Hardy, Political Editor

 

TEAMS scouring Iraq since the invasion have found no firm evidence of weapons of mass destruction, the CIA admitted last night.

The Iraq Survey Group will reach "no firm conclusions" in its initial report.

The revelation is a massive blow to George Bush and Tony Blair, who used the alleged threat from chemical and biological weapons as an excuse to invade Iraq.

CIA spokesman Bill Harlow said: "It will be just the first progress report and we expect that it will reach no firm conclusions, nor will it rule anything in or out."

In almost identical language No10 admitted: "Our clear expectation is that this interim report will not reach firm conclusions about Iraq's possession of WMD."

The 1,400 strong group, led by former UN inspector David Kay, has been searching sites across Iraq for three months

But it is believed to have found little more than computer records, documents and pictures showing that Iraq was interested in developing a WMD programme.

Mr Kay could publish his interim report in Congress next week.

BBC presenter Andrew Neil said a Bush administration source had told him the search was fruitless.

Mr Neil, who hosts the Daily Politics programme, claimed the report would dismiss suggestions that Saddam Hussein shipped his WMD arsenal to neighbouring countries.

Sources in the US have made it clear that the strongest case against Saddam is likely to be that he was developing a WMD capability designed only to tackle immediate threats. Mr Blair has repeatedly insisted that clear evidence of weapons will be found.

Labour chiefs are trying to block an emergency motion on Iraq being debated at the Labour party conference next week because they fear an embarrassing defeat.

At the Liberal Democrat conference, foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell demanded that the Government publishes all the intelligence on which it based the case for war. He said: "There is still no credible answer to the central question of whether we went to war on a flawed prospectus because of inadequate or mishandled intelligence.

"Does anyone really believe that if these undisputed facts had been laid before Parliament and public, the Government would have garnered the necessary support for war?"

Bush administration officials were also still claiming that weapons will be found.

One senior official said they hoped Iraq's former Defence Minister - promised immunity from prosecution when he surrendered to US forces last week - would provide significant information on Iraqi weapons activities.

He claimed: "It's more and more apparent the weapons were either very hidden and we haven't found the people who know where they are - or Saddam kept an arms production capacity that could have been revived once UN inspectors left the country."

But failure to find any weapons is eroding US and British credibility as Bush and Blair seek help from the international community to rebuild Iraq.

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, in New York to appeal at the UN for support in Iraq, said: "If people want evidence, they don't have to wait for Dr Kay's report.

"What they can do is look at the volumes of reports from the UN weapons inspectors, going back over a dozen years, including the final report in March."

You haven't named a single war which America went into in order to "bridge a recession to a recovery to avert an economic depression."

That's a fact of life. Hate to break it to you. I've already states points of where it occurs. Learn to read.

The US has been suppyling the British with materials even before we joined the war.

If you even know your history you'd know Wilson sought a peace deal with the Germans and the Germans agreed. The Allies however did not. The Germans kept their end of the bargain. We couldn't convice the allies to do the same... hence the 'backstbbing'.

I dunno how you could possibly think that the North would have started the civil war to pump up the economy...

Tell me why the South wanted to succeed. Don't tell me slavery. Give me a better reason.

Implying that a radio problem from Hawaii (in the 1940s) was actually a conspiracy to create an excuse to escalate war with Japan is ludicrous.

The US tried to enter WWII many times. Germany was smart enought to back off. Japan was not.

Remember how we let UK ships repair at our ports? Remember selling 50 destroyers to the British? Remember the freeze and seizure of Nazi ships?

About covers what? Are you suggesting that we started the war with Japan?!?!? Are you serious?
Nearly 61 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, researchers say they have found evidence that the U.S. military fired the first shot against Japan with the discovery of a sunken Japanese submarine.

Dude you need to keep up with the times.

Remember the US/UK/Japan treaties after WWI? People don't attack others for no reason.

Do you not understand that this does not constitute a "false uranium claim"? The purpose of those tubes is still in dispute today.

How about this?

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/uran...flaweddocs.html

Forged Documents Detailing Uranium Sale Were Full of Errors

Just deal with it. Bush lied and you're just going along with any lies he says. Dude you need to start using your head.

To prove him wrong, thereby making his claim false, you must prove that the British government learned no such thing. And that you cannot do because the British goverment did assert this to be true.

Don't try to shift blame.

I keep asking you.

WHERE ARE THE 500 TONS OF WMD? 500 TONS OF WMD is not easy to hide.

http://www.pentagon.gov/news/Mar2003/t0330...sdabcsteph.html

SEC. RUMSFELD:  We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

So Rumsfeld knew where they were? Where is the 500 tons how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, I'm not picking on the US as being evil. Quite the opposite I believe Americans are some of the nicest people in the world... for the most part. :lol:

I however don't think any government is 'good', the US being no different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW, I'm not picking on the US as being evil. Quite the opposite I believe Americans are some of the nicest people in the world... for the most part. :lol:

I however don't think any government is 'good', the US being no different.

You are hopeless. I'm not going to waste any more of my time fooling with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

qawsedrftgzxcvb, are you Russian? You argue like a Russian. No one ever said the Iraq's had 500 tons of WMDs. They said they had the materials and equipment to produce 500 tons of WMD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon."

Do you not understand that this does not constitute a "false uranium claim"? The purpose of those tubes is still in dispute today.

Here is what President Bush actually said;

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,†Mr. Bush said.

To prove him wrong, thereby making his claim false, you must prove that the British government learned no such thing. And that you cannot do because the British goverment did assert this to be true.

Didn't you see the news show about the WMD claims a couple of weeks back? IIRC it was either 60 mins or 48 hours or one of those shows. In it, they asked the guys at Sandia National Labs, the people that design nuclear weapons for the USA, and know all there is to know about enriching uranium, whether they believed the tubes were for centrifuges. They couldn't find a single bloody scientist to say they believed that was the case. Not surprising when the tube diameters were perfectly matched to Iraqi rocket launcher systems.

As for whether Bush purposely lied about the uranium in Africa, in the end it doesn't really matter whether the British government or the US government made the mistake. The fact is that there was no such purchase sought. It was false. Half the intel was coming from the Iraqi government in exile, who obviously have much to gain if the US moved into Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are hopeless. I'm not going to waste any more of my time fooling with you.

Giving up so soon? What's the matter, you great leader tured out to be a liar?

Qawsedrftgzxcvb, are you Russian? You argue like a Russian.

:blink:

A person is a person. What does it matter if I'm Russian or not?

No one ever said the Iraq's had 500 tons of WMDs. They said they had the materials and equipment to produce 500 tons of WMD.

hm...

Powell: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent." A CIA report from October, 2002

-Anyone but Bush '04.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[A person is a person. What does it matter if I'm Russian or not?
I'm just curious. You argue like a number of Russian colleagues of mine. You concede nothing. No one is ever right except you....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

qawsedrftgzxcvb,

Giving up so soon? What's the matter, you great leader tured out to be a liar?

Not at all. I have come to the conclusion that it is pointless to try and debate an issue with you. Either your command of the English language is so poor that you fail to truly understand what it is that you yourself are writing or that you are wayward village idiot who has wandered a bit too far from home. Either way there is nothing in it for me to attempt to discuss issues with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Either way there is nothing in it for me to attempt to discuss issues with you.

You gave me a good laugh Mustafa... wait a sec. That's the name of that old wrestler from ECW.

Anyhoo. It's s shame you can't handle the truth. You can't disprove the the gov lied... especially when they got caught with their pants down.

-Anybody but Bush '04.

Either your command of the English language is so poor that you fail to truly understand what it is that you yourself

Maybe you need to learn English?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think Bush would have gone to war even if he knew that Iraq did'nt have any WMD, or the CIA not knowing if Iraq did have WMD. Please Explain your answer THANK YOU

P.S- need some help on my report about this

THANKS

This is actually a somewhat interesting historical "what if?"

Politics (mostly) aside, I think that WMD and 9/11 both have to be considered when contemplating this question.

Consider: Iraq was a "thorn in the side" that even the previous admin could not completely ignore. Moreover, though it was rather low-intensity, as others here have pointed it, it was still very much a shooting war.

Consider: Prior to 9/11 the actions and activities of the current President made clear that there was an intense interest in international terrorism, Al Queda, and Iraq.

Consider: The general gist of the current administration seems to be active/proactive.

Consider: W/out the WMD "issues" (which predate the Kuwait invasion) it seems probable that Iraq itself would have been different in 2003 - indeed, an invasion by a neighbor, or a successful internal revolt seem very likely if there was no fear of WMD.

My read is that w/out 9/11 -and perhaps an Iraq that was considered to be a lesser threat WMD-wise, though still threatening enough that Iran had not invaded, or whatever - the current CIC would have pushed things in that region quite a bit. Perhaps not a direct invasion, but more than some flyovers and a couple of TLAMs.

With 9/11 we have the courageous decision to build the "Bush Doctrine". While generally considered as "pre-emptive conflict", in point of fact Iraq already was a conflict, and moreover the Doctrine itself appears to be focused more on recognizing that when faced with state/sponsored or harbored international terrorism the US is in fact in conflict. So, while the Doctrine is not correctly pre-emptive (e.g., let's nuke China before they get too big for their britches), it appears as though it does not require a specific threat such as WMD.

If we continue with the hypotheticals, it seems very clear that on the Iraq side activity was actually increasing in boldness, including moves to remove sanctions, etc. Remember: Iraq was a very public sponsor of international terrorism. If the US had responded to 9/11 etc. with weakness, it seems probable that Iraq would have increased this sponsorship, and increased sponsorship of terror attacks against the West in an increasingly public fashion.

So, what we really have in the WMD "issue" is a fairly predictable amount of battlefield noise in a conflict that was ramping up in intensity. "Fog of war", if you prefer. The conflict was there, and it was not going away. While it may not be 100% certain that an invasion was inevitable, some form of regime change was very probably on the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

qawsedrftgzxcvb,

Anyhoo. It's s shame you can't handle the truth. You can't disprove the the gov lied... especially when they got caught with their pants down.

I realize that corprophagy is your favorite pass-time but be careful not to overdo it. Indeed it appears that it has already greatly diminished your capacity for rational thought. For example - one cannot disprove a negative.

 

Either your command of the English language is so poor that you fail to truly understand what it is that you yourself...

Maybe you need to learn English?

LOL is that the best that you do? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Either your command of the English language is so poor that you fail to truly understand what it is that you yourself are writing

Really?

I realize that corprophagy is your favorite pass-time

corprophagy isn't a word

My command of the English language is poor? :)

My favorite passtime is enjoying the laughter your bring me from your posts.

For example - one cannot disprove a negative.

:lol:

Amazing how limiting logic can be. Think outside the box.

LOL is that the best that you do?

This isn't childish game. You're attacking me because I made your heroic chimp of a prez look bad (sorry to chimps everywhere).

btb4 there is no credible link between 9/11 and Iraq.

In January 2004, Secretary Powell conceded that there is no “smoking-gun concrete evidence about†an connection with Iraq and Al Qaeda.

–New York Times

The Joint Congressional Committee on September 11th Report concluded that there is no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.  Committee member Max Cleeland explained “[w]hat you’ve seen here is the manipulation of intelligence for political ends.â€

-BBC News

At the same time as the release of the 9-11 Report, a former Bush intelligence official revealed that the White House knew there was no basis for the link.  Former State Dept. intelligence official Greg Thielman stated that the intelligence agencies agreed on the “lack of a meaningful connection to Al Qaeda†and reported this to the White House.â€

-BBC News

The CIA, FBI and British intelligence have found no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.  One FBI official stated that “[w]e’ve been looking at this hard for more than a year and . . . we just don’t think its there.† British intelligence reports that Hussein and fundamentalist Bin Laden are ideological enemies.

-BBC News

A review by the House Intelligence Committee found no information substantiating a direct relationship between Al Qaeda and Hussein.

-(Corn, David) The Lies of George Bush

Consider: W/out the WMD "issues" (which predate the Kuwait invasion) it seems probable that Iraq itself would have been different in 2003 - indeed, an invasion by a neighbor, or a successful internal revolt seem very likely if there was no fear of WMD.

You have failed to mention why Iraq invaded Kuwait. The invasion was wrong and so was what Kuwait did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never so much as implied that there was.

This is a topic on Iraq. If not to imply a connection, then why this statement:

Consider: Prior to 9/11 the actions and activities of the current President made clear that there was an intense interest in international terrorism, Al Queda, and Iraq.

Terrorism and Al Queda parrallel each other, Iraq doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a topic on Iraq. If not to imply a connection, then why this statement:
Consider: Prior to 9/11 the actions and activities of the current President made clear that there was an intense interest in international terrorism, Al Queda, and Iraq.

No, actually this is a topic asking the speculative question: "Would Bush still have gone to war?" It is a question about the President, and thus a review of the interests of the President.

Terrorism and Al Queda parrallel each other, Iraq doesn't.

No, actually even if there is no direct link between Al Queda and Iraq, they both share the open sponsorship of terrorism as very much something in common. Indeed, depending on how exactly one answers the question "What is Al Queda?" it may very well be the case that Al Queda is not so much a terrorist organization per se, but a non-governmental sponsor of terrorism. And the former Iraqi regime was an open governmental sponsor of terror.

As an answer to the thread the context of the attack - post 9/11, Al Queda, etc. are very much involved in the tone of the US and the President, and thus major factors in the decision to ramp up the Iraqi conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

qawsedrftgzxcvb,

corprophagy isn't a word

My mistake - it isn't a practice I care to think about much. The correct spelling by the way is -"coprophagy".

Amazing how limiting logic can be. Think outside the box.

And be an idiot like you? No thanks I'll pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, actually even if there is no direct link between Al Queda and Iraq, they both share the open sponsorship of terrorism as very much something in common.

Yes, they hate each other.

As an answer to the thread the context of the attack - post 9/11, Al Queda, etc. are very much involved in the tone of the US and the President, and thus major factors in the decision to ramp up the Iraqi conflict.

What immanent threat did Iraq pose to America?

And be an idiot like you? No thanks I'll pass.

HAHHAHA! You're the man. Calling me names because you can't refute my points. Good job. Maybe one day it'll work.

"What you seem to lack in intelligence, you make up in stupidity."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

qawsedrftgzxcvb,

HAHHAHA! You're the man. Calling me names because you can't refute my points. Good job. Maybe one day it'll work.

Ah ha! Accusing me of calling you names because you can't refute my points eh? What a loser. Godless people such as yourself always use such tactics when they are losing an argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Accusing me of calling you names because you can't refute my points eh?

I've already refuted your points. Start reading. I hear they got a deal on 'Hooked oh Phonics'. You seem like you can use it.

Godless people such as yourself always use such tactics when they are losing an argument.

You're the one who called me an idiot. lol

As for godless... you haven't answered the 10 questions I asked. You don't even know you OWN religion, so don't try and preach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The US tried to enter WWII many times. Germany was smart enought to back off. Japan was not.

Remember how we let UK ships repair at our ports? Remember selling 50 destroyers to the British? Remember the freeze and seizure of Nazi ships?

Hitler did act stupid at the time. Along with his mid-1941 invasion of Russia, he miscalculated by unilaterally declaring war on the US just weeks after Pearl Harbor when Germany's overall strategic position didn't necessitate the risk.

Nearly 61 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, researchers say they have found evidence that the U.S. military fired the first shot against Japan with the discovery of a sunken Japanese submarine.

This is a misrepresentation which will not absolve the Japanese for their sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. The submarine, and there were several of them, was sunk by a US destroyer just befor before the raid while it was attempting to penetrate the harbor defenses and torpedo Battleship Row. Post-war Japanese revelations of the midgets' crews and their secret pre-emptive mission have only confirmed this further.

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/HURL/midget.html

...The discovery of the midget submarine confirms the account radioed to naval command at Pearl Harbor at 6:45 am on Dec. 7, 1941 . A Japanese submarine was shot through the conning tower and then depth charged trying to enter Pearl Harbor behind a cargo ship. The crew of the attacking USS Ward , an older style four stack destroyer, saw the midget sub lifted out of the water by depth charges after firing the fatal shot from its four inch side gun. The Ward's crew were Naval reservists from St. Paul, Minnesota. Unfortunately, Naval command in Pearl Harbor ignored the Ward's report and the aerial attack began at 8 am. At the Pearl Harbor investigation, some question was made of the accuracy of the Ward's report. The Ward is now vindicated...

With assertions like these you only reveal an unwise tendency to give greater weight to weak conspiracist claims, when simpler and sounder explanations would do.

WHERE ARE THE 500 TONS OF WMD? 500 TONS OF WMD is not easy to hide.

500 tons of anything are relatively easy to hide given the resources of a large state, moreso one with huge deserts. Just ask the Japanese, who have just discovered a hundred secret chemical WMD dumpsites scattered throughout their country. And the Chinese, who are still trying to locate and destroy 700,000 Japanese chemical WMDs hidden in well-populated areas, with assistance from Japanese military and technical experts equipped with state-of-the-art detection and disposal gear. And we're not even touching on abandoned German WMDs such as those just surveyed in some Scandinavian countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hitler did act stupid at the time.

It more Hitler wasn't stupid enought to fall in FDR's traps. Alghough I wish he had. Lives of Jews could have been spare... not like FDR cared.

This is a misrepresentation which will not absolve the Japanese for their sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.

I wasn't implying the Japanese were innocent. As I said it was just a piece of trivia. Most people don't know.

On top of that Japan attacked us for a reason. There were things going on before Perl Harbor.

500 tons of anything are relatively easy to hide given the resources of a large state, moreso one with huge deserts.

remember this?

SEC. RUMSFELD:  We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

How does Rummy know where they are and they magically dissapear?

500 tons is a LOT of stuff.

Five hundred tons of gas equals one million pounds. After UNSCOM, after UNMOVIC, after the war, after the U.S. Army inspectors, after all the satellite surveillance, it is difficult in the extreme to imagine how one million pounds of anything could refuse to be located.

On March 24, 2003, in an appearance on CBS's Face the Nation, the secretary of defense stated: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established."

So what happened?

It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.

Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force - Press Interview - May 30, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz - Vanity Fair interview - May 28, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

Donald Rumsfeld - Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations  - May 27, 2003

The best I ever heard was:

"A senior intelligence official said the CIA's action was the result of 'extremely sloppy' handling of a central piece of evidence in the administration's case against then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein."

Still doesn't explain the false uranium document. Bush is a liar, as is Gore, as is Clinton, as is Kerry. However Clinton got a BJ out of his lies. Bush got my f*king friends killed for f*king oil. It wasn't easy to hear one of my friends die in Iraq.

-Anyone but Bush '04

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now