Political trends

[OldGreyEagle]

So, what if George Bush never did go to war against Iran. And Saddan Hussein did have the weapons of mass desctruction that the world said he had and he implied he had. The UN passed what was it, 18 Final Resolution for him to honor the peace treaty that ended the war caused by Iraqs invasion of Kuwait and he refused and all that happened.

 

And Bush does nothing for 8 years and leaves and the country is so-so. Not a real economic boom going on, but not a recession either. And in the first year of the next president's administration Iraq backs a terrorist attack that makes 9-11 look like a minor bump in the road, or for that matter, just the same.

 

What would Bush's legacy be then? What information would come out that "everyone knew" or that Bush knew and did nothing about it?

 

Would not W be reviled because he "knew" and did nothing? He did something, he was wrong, but an act of commission is better than one of omission

(This message has been edited by oldgreyeagle)

[packsaddle]

Did I miss a war somewhere? Did we actually go to war with Iran?

[Sentinel947]

I won't make a decision till I see them debate, and if I'm not semi satisfied with one of them, I'll vote for Johnson, since I know he can't win.

[OldGreyEagle]

If grammar is important, correct speliing even more so

 

Iraq, not Iran.

[Peregrinator]

If one wants to make the argument that he intentionally said these things in order to better connect with a barely-literate public, I guess I have to admit that possibility.

 

I don't think he was trying to connect with a "barely-literate public" but rather that segment of the public that has a deep distrust of intelligentia and academia. Sure, probably some of those folks are barely literate, but I think the same can be said of people who implicitly trust whatever scientists and academics tell them. It's frankly amazing to me that a Yalie was able to accomplish this.

[packsaddle]

I was, just a moment ago, staring at a "Michele Bachman for MN" banner at the bottom of the page. Talk about simple pleasures...

 

OGE, I was hoping that was the case but you DID spell it correctly once in that post AND when I type, the 'n' is on my right hand and the 'q' is the little finger of my left hand. I just wasn't sure this wasn't some kind of Freudian thing expressing itself.

 

The Iraq war was really about oil. WMD was the Flavor Aid that we (me included) drank.

[moosetracker]

Yeap.. The warning signs that Iraq was building WMD was based on intelligence we supposibly had on them.. That intelligence was falsified and made up, by the Bush administration to fool the public into backing this decision..

 

Therefore the "what if" theroy doesn't hold water..

 

More likely, it is this.. What if, we had not indicatiors that Iraq was building WMD, and Bush just stated one day, clear out of the blue.. "I'm bored... Let's start a war with Iraq"..(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[OldGreyEagle]

Then why did the UN keep passing final resolutions?

[moosetracker]

They relied on the intellegence information, which was provided by the USA, which was manufactured.. Same as the American people..

 

If someone tells you to stop doing something your not doing, how do you stop? When they again tell you to stop doing it.. Now what are you suppose to stop?

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

The peace treaty that ended the first Iraq war called for UN weapon inspectors to visit the country. Iraq refused, it was this refusal, this not following the Peace treaty that lead to the UN resolutions. If Iraq did not have anything to hide, why did they refuse the UM inspectors access to the country? If Saddam thought that he would be seen as a hero for standing up to the UN by refusing the UN weapons inspectors entry into his country, he was also betting the Western World would not have the guts to follow up with all the resolutions.

 

Now, lets not cloud the issue, what was my first intent with this line of thinking?

 

What would Bush's legacy be if he did nothing and they did have weapons of mass destructions and used the to kill Americans?

 

We will never know but I do know what would have happened had he done nothing

[Sentinel947]

Furthermore, Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism, funneling money to Al Qaeda and other anti American groups. Iraq also had a large stockpile of chemical weapons, which Saddam used on the Kurds.

 

Genocide, + Chemical Weapons+ Nuclear Ambition+ Prior Aggression+ Not allowing nuclear inspectors= reasonable assumption Saddam is up to no good.

 

So that is one option, or one could say "Bush was bored and attacked Iraq."

 

Which is a more reasonable conclusion?

 

Moosetracker: what reason would Bush have to attack Iraq? Really now. Oil? Attacking Oil rich countries merely increases the price, as the defending forces tend to destroy it rather than allow the enemy to have it. Case in Point. Saddam's forces burned lots of their oil refinerys as the Americans invaded.

 

Again, besides the fact that the CIA, Bush Administraion, British Mi6 and Russian Spetnaz were all wrong about the fact Saddam had Weapons, what leads you to believe Bush willfully lied to Americans and the world, instead of being mislead by inaccurate intelligence reports?(This message has been edited by Sentinel947)

[packsaddle]

If you want to argue that the entire thing was a pack of lies, I'm good with that. But Bush said there was "no doubt". And THAT is an absolute statement as far as I'm concerned. There WAS doubt. Plenty of it. And Bush and his cabinet knew there was doubt. And THAT constituted a lie.

[OldGreyEagle]

I understand this group has difficulty with focus. I have often used Forest Gumps feather as an illustration of how a thread meanders, herding cats is another, although over used cliche

 

What would be G W's legacy if Iraq had used weapons of mass destruction in a Terrorist attack?

[OldGreyEagle]

I understand this group has difficulty with focus. I have often used Forest Gumps feather as an illustration of how a thread meanders, herding cats is another, although over used cliche

 

What would be G W's legacy if Iraq had used weapons of mass destruction in a Terrorist attack?

[CalicoPenn]

"Furthermore, Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism, funneling money to Al Qaeda and other anti American groups. Iraq also had a large stockpile of chemical weapons, which Saddam used on the Kurds."

 

Except that Iraq didn't funnel money to Al Qaeda - the Saddam regime hated Al Qaeda and was the reason Al Qaeda wasn't able to get a foothold in Iraq. I know it was one reason put forth by the administration and was trumpted on front pages but when the administration backed off and admitted it wasn't true, the corrections were on the back pages, where a lot of folks missed it.

 

That's not to say that Saddam wasn't supporting terrorism, we know, by his own admission, that he was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who "martyred" themselves.

 

We also know he had - key word had - chemical weapons - yet none were used during the second war with Iraq and no stockpiles were found.

 

Lest us also forget, that as the drums of war were getting louder, Iraq let the UN inspection teams in and they were finding nothing to support the administrations weapons contentions - in fact, they were finding the opposite, and asked for more time but Bush had made up his mind and nothing was going to stop him from having his little temper tantrum and play out his oedipal complex (and I do still believe it was a temper tantrum (they allegedly tried to kill his daddy) and that he was going to show his mommy that he could be stronger than daddy by finishing what his daddy allegedly didn't).