• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Tutu: Bush & Blair should face trial at The Hague

ArlingtonDeac said:
If you read Hide and Seek, it's pretty clear that the Bush administration was 100% committed to war in Iraq when Bush entered office, and was merely looking for evidence to allow it to happen. They used 9/11 as the lever to get public support. That said, it's also likely true that the Bush administration did believe that Iraq was hiding WMDs in violation of the UN resolutions, and that they could win a war very easily (with much the same deliberate, ignorant stupidity that was earlier exercised in Vietnam). So they ignored any evidence pointing against those conclusions and manipulated the "evidence" they did have to make the case against Iraq appear much more compelling that it really was. It was a massive leadership failure from the executive, the military, and the intelligence community.

Did they lie? Perhaps not. They truly thought that Iraq was hiding WMDs, even without evidence. Did they manipulate the truth to achieve a pre-ordained outcome? Without question. And they happened to be completely wrong. But, frankly, that wasn't a huge concern, since the war was a total success in terms of profitability to the administration's private corporate interests, which only cared about knocking over Iraq and overcharging to rebuild it. Any national security or US budgetary concern was secondary to begin with. The tax money got funneled to the right corporate interests. Cheney did his job.
Click to expand...

This.

The Iraqi regime was absolutely bluffing the world that they had WMDs. Why? To counter the Iranian threat. It was not about the US or wanting to turn airplanes into missiles or spread a Muslim caliphate. It was to check the Iranians. They had a long bloody war. They share a border and the Shiites and Sunnis fucking hate each other, with Iraq being about one third Sunni. Did Hussein want the US to believe he had them? Sure, but his primary concern was the Iranians.

But I think the evidence is clear that the Bush admin, PNAC, and Paul Wolfowitz wanted a war with Iraq for various reasons - 2nd largest untapped oil reserves in the world, remove the difficult despot, enrich defense contractors, attempt to establish another puppet in the ME to begin the domino effect Rice and the admin thought would happen.
 
WakeandBake said:
This.

The Iraqi regime was absolutely bluffing the world that they had WMDs. Why? To counter the Iranian threat. It was not about the US or wanting to turn airplanes into missiles or spread a Muslim caliphate. It was to check the Iranians. They had a long bloody war. They share a border and the Shiites and Sunnis fucking hate each other, with Iraq being about one third Sunni. Did Hussein want the US to believe he had them? Sure, but his primary concern was the Iranians.

But I think the evidence is clear that the Bush admin, PNAC, and Paul Wolfowitz wanted a war with Iraq for various reasons - 2nd largest untapped oil reserves in the world, remove the difficult despot, enrich defense contractors, attempt to establish another puppet in the ME to begin the domino effect Rice and the admin thought would happen.
Click to expand...

Clearly I haven't read the book, so good faith question here: Was Bush in the inner circle of the masterminds planning this? Or was he just the useful idiot?
 
wgaf, wars were started for more ridiculous reasons than our entry into Gulf War 2
 
bobknightfan said:
Exactly.....and what the Bush Administration did was criminal....not simply bad or misguided policy, but criminal....and those responsible should be brought to court to account for their criminal behavior and have justice for it meted out to them. This nation will be paying the price for their criminal activity for years and years to come.
Click to expand...

Hear, hear! I agree with you completely. But if Bush (either singlehandedly or as part of larger conspiracy) managed to co-opt the resources of the mightiest nation on the planet to use them (Hussein-style!!) for his own purposes while simultaneously maiming and killing innocents across the globe… (whew, I’m outta breath) AND he did so illegally, shouldn’t the institutions of said mightiest nation step forward and bring him to justice? Why would we need the World Court for that?
 
beatrix said:
Clearly I haven't read the book, so good faith question here: Was Bush in the inner circle of the masterminds planning this? Or was he just the useful idiot?
Click to expand...

This was a Cheney-Rumsfled production from the beginning. GW Bush signed off, but the mission was a carryover from the GHW Bush administration. It just took until 2002 to both get back into power and have the excuse (9/11) to act.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
This was a Cheney-Rumsfled production from the beginning. GW Bush signed off, but the mission was a carryover from the GHW Bush administration. It just took until 2002 to both get back into power and have the excuse (9/11) to act.
Click to expand...

Tottering on the abyss, are you? What pretense would Cheney / Rumsfeld have used sans-9/11? Oh wait, never mind…
 
bobknightfan said:
That's another reason why Bush & Cheney should have had to testify under oath regarding what was going on during the months prior to 9/11.
Click to expand...

You've got be fucking kidding me, right? I was (lamely) trying to give AD shit that he's only a few sentences away from the real 'here there be monsters' edge of the map then you weigh in with this?
 
Ever had nonsense shouted at you by a kid hanging out the window of "the short bus?"

If you've read a bkf post, the answer is yes.
 
WakeandBake said:
This.

The Iraqi regime was absolutely bluffing the world that they had WMDs. Why? To counter the Iranian threat. It was not about the US or wanting to turn airplanes into missiles or spread a Muslim caliphate. It was to check the Iranians. They had a long bloody war. They share a border and the Shiites and Sunnis fucking hate each other, with Iraq being about one third Sunni. Did Hussein want the US to believe he had them? Sure, but his primary concern was the Iranians.

But I think the evidence is clear that the Bush admin, PNAC, and Paul Wolfowitz wanted a war with Iraq for various reasons - 2nd largest untapped oil reserves in the world, remove the difficult despot, enrich defense contractors, attempt to establish another puppet in the ME to begin the domino effect Rice and the admin thought would happen.
Click to expand...

Well if it was a bluff, it was a massive bluff and incredibly intricate for a half-rate dictator. I know people "in the know" on some of this stuff, and I can assure you that NIMA (now NGA) was not just making stuff up with those photos. Likewise, though there were attempts to destroy the paper trails for the whole WMD thing once the invasion began, we had ways of reconstituting a lot of it. Where WMDs were supposed to be or said to be, they simply weren't for the most part. We weren't just relying on our photos or on Curveball, but on the internal documentation of Saddam's government. The WMDS had either been destroyed, buried, or relocated. So while, yes, I can see the reasoning behind a big bluff on Saddam's part to keep Iran at bay, I really can only see the need for a bluff as to the size of the arsenal and not the existence of one. Now what constitutes "arsenal" is certainly a matter for debate in terms of what it took to be deemed in our national interest to intervene. We did find WMDS and materials for the manufacture of WMDs, but not nearly as many as we had anticipated and some that were antiquated. But the whole idea that this was just a ruse manufactured by the Bush admin is poppycock. This was a serious issue at the time, and one that wasn't even debated by Democrats until it became a method of undermining Bush's reelection efforts for 2004.
 
I assure you my sources are more reliable than whatever you've been reading over at Pravda, BKF.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Well if it was a bluff, it was a massive bluff and incredibly intricate for a half-rate dictator. I know people "in the know" on some of this stuff, and I can assure you that NIMA (now NGA) was not just making stuff up with those photos. Likewise, though there were attempts to destroy the paper trails for the whole WMD thing once the invasion began, we had ways of reconstituting a lot of it. Where WMDs were supposed to be or said to be, they simply weren't for the most part. We weren't just relying on our photos or on Curveball, but on the internal documentation of Saddam's government. The WMDS had either been destroyed, buried, or relocated. So while, yes, I can see the reasoning behind a big bluff on Saddam's part to keep Iran at bay, I really can only see the need for a bluff as to the size of the arsenal and not the existence of one. Now what constitutes "arsenal" is certainly a matter for debate in terms of what it took to be deemed in our national interest to intervene. We did find WMDS and materials for the manufacture of WMDs, but not nearly as many as we had anticipated and some that were antiquated. But the whole idea that this was just a ruse manufactured by the Bush admin is poppycock. This was a serious issue at the time, and one that wasn't even debated by Democrats until it became a method of undermining Bush's reelection efforts for 2004.
Click to expand...

notsomuch a ruse as a vehicle to reach a desired goal. I was basically saying that I think they believed SOMETHING was there, but they didn't really know what or as you said how much. Still pretty flimsy excuse to start a war that killed a shitload of women and children in the first days of 'shock and awe" don;t you think? I dig you are a gun guy and have a somewhat enthusiastic view of military equipment and firepower and all that, but I know you never would want to vaporize the skin off of little kids and women by the thousands unless there was an immediate threat to even more women and children. I think that's what Tutu and BKF and others are alluding to. Whether Bush/Cheney in their heart of hearts felt that thousands of innocent women and children were going to be vaporized in the immediate future we'll likely never know, but there was no evidence anything imminent was coming out of Iraq - hence the feeling it was contrived for profit, revenge, and strategy. Prolly not the best reasons to start a decade-long war that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, and cost money that could have been spent actually helping people.
 
WakeandBake said:
notsomuch a ruse as a vehicle to reach a desired goal. I was basically saying that I think they believed SOMETHING was there, but they didn't really know what or as you said how much. Still pretty flimsy excuse to start a war that killed a shitload of women and children in the first days of 'shock and awe" don;t you think? I dig you are a gun guy and have a somewhat enthusiastic view of military equipment and firepower and all that, but I know you never would want to vaporize the skin off of little kids and women by the thousands unless there was an immediate threat to even more women and children. I think that's what Tutu and BKF and others are alluding to. Whether Bush/Cheney in their heart of hearts felt that thousands of innocent women and children were going to be vaporized in the immediate future we'll likely never know, but there was no evidence anything imminent was coming out of Iraq - hence the feeling it was contrived for profit, revenge, and strategy. Prolly not the best reasons to start a decade-long war that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, and cost money that could have been spent actually helping people.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Saddam's non-cooperation with UN inspectors was ridiculous enough to warrant the idea that he was hiding a lot. Given the post 9/11 world, action seemed to be justified. I felt then, as I feel now, that the war was about larger geopolitical goals, ones that were risky, and ones that would require a long-term commitment and discipline. I said as much on the boards at the time. The idea of a democracy smack dab in the middle of an area that was overrun by madmen was and remains appealing to me. The risk was twofold. First, that it wouldn't really succeed and the democracy we'd have would simply be our puppet, a la the Cold War. Second, that the democracy that might spawn might not be one we'd be happy with. We are seeing that now in places like Egypt, Libya, and Syria. Sometimes the devil you know is better than the one you don't. And while I do tend to believe that any democracy chosen by the people is better than a dictatorship, I still hold that US interests are paramount. Hence, I really can't get into an Arab Spring, which is inspired in part by Bush's actions in Iraq, if it's just going to create a new generation of assholes. And of course that goes back to the whole idea of whether these new democracies are going to be democracies for much longer.
 
bobknightfan said:
I know one thing. If you are privy to confidential information, unavailable to the American people, that was used to justify a preemptive war in Iraq, you are wasting your time posting on a college chatboard.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that when you question the motivations of Bush, etc, you are questioning those in the intel community who did the field work. Therefore, they would be as full of shit as the Bush admin is to you.

That is bullshit.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Fair enough. Saddam's non-cooperation with UN inspectors was ridiculous enough to warrant the idea that he was hiding a lot. Given the post 9/11 world, action seemed to be justified. I felt then, as I feel now, that the war was about larger geopolitical goals, ones that were risky, and ones that would require a long-term commitment and discipline. I said as much on the boards at the time. The idea of a democracy smack dab in the middle of an area that was overrun by madmen was and remains appealing to me. The risk was twofold. First, that it wouldn't really succeed and the democracy we'd have would simply be our puppet, a la the Cold War. Second, that the democracy that might spawn might not be one we'd be happy with. We are seeing that now in places like Egypt, Libya, and Syria. Sometimes the devil you know is better than the one you don't. And while I do tend to believe that any democracy chosen by the people is better than a dictatorship, I still hold that US interests are paramount. Hence, I really can't get into an Arab Spring, which is inspired in part by Bush's actions in Iraq, if it's just going to create a new generation of assholes. And of course that goes back to the whole idea of whether these new democracies are going to be democracies for much longer.
Click to expand...

yeah, I tend to subscribe to "be careful what you wish for" when it comes to democracy in that region. I believe in democracy and everything, but a "democracy of assholes" is pretty fucking likely. Hell, to most of the world that is what we are. (and quite frankly, take one look at our government over the past decade or so and disagree with a straight face if you can.) I guess I'm from the school of "war is the last resort - period." I know that you feel it had gotten to that point, so we will have to agree to disagree on that. I never really got the connection with 9-11 either. You said "in the post 9-11 world......" I saw them as distinctly different threats. Private groups of wealthy Muslims turning an airplane into a missile is much much different than a state delivering a nuclear weapon and detonating it. Very difficult thing to do - as we have seen with the PRNK tests. Dirty bombs were talked about some but invasion of Iraq doesn't stop that either.
But combining the two was an easy sell, right? Arabic people who "hate us and our way of life" sold like hotcakes. Cuts right to the quick, and we were jittery as fuck at the time. Americans are so busy being proud and puffing out their chests they fail to see when they are being bamboozled a lot of the time. And we generally don't understand geography and other cultures, and prefer to foist ours upon the world. Perfect combination, and Bush/Cheney decided to ride it in. I think had we stayed out we would be in a lot better shape right now as a nation.
 
Over/under on how many years this board will be reliving this shit?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top