[fuslkdhfma]

Troops were never going to be removed from SA. NEVER!

[Extipletape]

Originally posted by CyberShy
So those who didn't support a war that was based on everything else but the truth are responsible

The war was based on the truth.
1. Saddam was a known aggressor
2. Saddam has had the possession of WMD
3. Saddam had used WMD in the past
4. Saddam didn't want to explain what happened to his WMD
5. Saddam was a treat for the regio
6. Saddam was a cruel dictator who murdered 500.000 - 1.000.000 civilians.
7. The presence of American troops in SA caused OBL to cause 9/11. This presence was needed to contain SH.

All valid reasons. Nonsense. The main reason given at the time was the actual threat of WMD, which weren't found later. Most of your points were given later to provide additional justification because that main point (WMD) turned out to be a complete failure.

[ranndomderr]

Nonsense. The main reason given at the time was the actual threat of WMD, which weren't found later. Most of your points were given later to provide additional justification because that main point (WMD) turned out to be a complete failure. You have that backwards. Most of the reasons Cybershy listed existed in the 90's, the WMD thing came out very late in the game.

[pXss8cyx]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I think the point is over emphasized, but it has always been a long term goal to make Iraq a stable, democratic buffer state in the area so that we could tone down our direct presence. If (big if) Iraq stabilized where would we need to keep any significant troop concentration in the Gulf? The Navy would stick around sure, but they have no footprint except for Bahrain, which we might leave behind as well. But the toning down of our direct presence was more of a cost issue than a "let's pacify OBL" issue. In fact, the later would be incredibly distasteful... especially since it wouldn't pacify him at all.

[q=Cybershy]You want to deny that OBL caused 9/11 b/c of the USA troops in SA?[/q]

Do you actually think that if US troops were removed from SA in 2000, OBL would have just stopped and not gone after the US? Really?

I'll not participate in your "attack the poster, not his opinon" way of debating

"your opinion to be batshit crazy" is now not attacking the opinion, but rather the poster? That's a new one.

[Calluffence]

Originally posted by BeBro
Yet it was given as the primary reason for the attack, otherwise I don't see why the US wouldn't have gone after Saddam already, and why there was so much fuss about WMD inspections etc. The WMD fuss was to convince Europe and Russia.
Not to mention that it was very important to Tony Blair as well.

It's always been regime change to the USA.
GWB made the mistake to let him drift away from his real course by trying to convince the world about the WMD.

[SkHukV3N]

Do you actually think that if US troops were removed from SA in 2000, OBL would have just stopped and not gone after the US? Really?

Yes, back in 2000 that would have let him focus back on his battle against the corrupted regimes in the muslim countries.
That's what Al Qaida was all about to begin with. To battle the muslim dictators who joined forces with the great satan.

[EbrsaRynleot]

But the toning down of our direct presence was more of a cost issue than a "let's pacify OBL" issue. In fact, the later would be incredibly distasteful... especially since it wouldn't pacify him at all. Agreed not to pacify OBL directly, but nobody including Bush denies that our presence there creates hatred, no matter how justified you think that presence is.

Patroklos, do you have some sort of super-secret decoder device for propertly understanding Bush that the rest of us lack? I listen to what he actually says vice what I want to hear, and I use context. How does lessons from Vietnam translate to just like Vietnam?

[RobsShow]

Originally posted by BeBro


Ah, so you now know the "real course" better than GWB himself?

Bush 2003, Ultimatum to Iraq:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,916543,00.html You think that you can learn the real courses from the window dressing?
But indeed, later on the WMD became the key thing around everything resolved. Not b/c of GWB but b/c of Europe and Russia.

[Amorsesombabs]

I am reacting soley to the "Just like Vietnam," and "OMFG ANOTHER VIETNAM WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE," crowd.

[buchmausar]

Originally posted by CyberShy


You think that you can learn the real courses from the window dressing? First, if you now say that what Bush said was not about "real courses" for war - how can you disagree with my earlier "a war that was based on everything else but the truth"? If he gives a certain justification in public but wants the war because of something else, then my description seems not to far out, hm?

Second, I'd like to know what superior sources you're using to find out about those "real courses" if we have to take any official statements by the US as lies anyway (which I wouldn't say they are in all cases, but maybe I'm just too naive).

[Brewpralgar]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I am reacting soley to the "Just like Vietnam," and "OMFG ANOTHER VIETNAM WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE," crowd. There wasn't much of the former, as most of us who thought this dubious enterprise was a bad idea were smart enough to understand that the two situations, while they may share certain similarities, also had many differences. Unlike, I might add, many right-wingers who liked to draw comparisons to Japan/Germany after WWII.

I cannot remember anyone claiming the second. That there be a strawman.

-Arrian

[alskdjreyfd]

Originally posted by CyberShy
But the Iraq war was already in preparation long before 9/11, and it's always been regime change since all other means to re-stabalise the ME and SH had failed. Re-stabalise? Don't you mean de-stabalise?

[Aniplinipsync]

Do you actually believe GWB invaded Iraq because he "cared about their suffering?"

He did it because he thought it was the right policy to advance US interests. He was wrong, but I do not doubt he had the best interests of the USA in mind.

If I thought he didn't, I'd be a lot more pissed off now. The responsibility of the government of the United States is the safety and welfare of United States citizens, first and foremost. Until we have a world government, or at least a stronger UN, that's the way it is and SHOULD BE.

Blaming Europe for the WMD argument That's priceless.

-Arrian

[Accor$314]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Appantly the western (decadent) people didn't care about the suffering people in the ME, far from their beds. Western decadent people? Isn't rhetorics of that kind usually AQ's part?

He let himself being pulled into the WMD crowd by his counterparts in Europe/Asia. How so?

Oh, and the WMD was of course still a valid argument as well to invade Iraq. Just not the main argument. WMD stuff is most significant in the speech I linked to. Sounds pretty much like the main argument - given to the public - to me. How should anybody know that it was not the main argument when even the guys in charge used it most prominently?

[+++Poguru+++]

There are many types of guagmires. Again, if all comparisons to Vietnam (including those will qualifies/caveats, like "I get that it's a desert country and that ethnic/religious divisions are different) are laughable, what about all comparisons to Germany/Japan? I remember whole threads of me pointing out how Iraq is not anything but superficially similar to Vietnam, and I didn't do it for my health.

I can't recall a single "Iraq resembles WWII" thread. Though it is perfectly acceptable to apply general military maxims from one conflict to the next, whether Vietnam or WWII.

[Proodustommor]

Re-stabalise? Don't you mean de-stabalise?

There's almost always a period of destabilisation after a dictator has been removed in a nation that consists of multiple ethnical group.

Not to mention that not removing the murdering dictator because of a possible destablisiation is obviously a serious weird way of thinking.
It's like: "let's not rescue the hostagers because they may get mental problems after they're freed"

"cared about their suffering?"

Why can a right-wing person not act out of an ideology, while a left-winger can do it everyday?
I think that's the first problem in this debate, people don't believe that the neocons have a partly ideologic agenda.

I obviously can't look into the head of GWB for his real thoughts, but me myself consider the freeing of enslaved people as a very good reason for a war.

I hope the world will free the North Korean people soon as well.

Blaming Europe for the WMD argument That's priceless.

For making the WMD argument the only argument that counts for an Iraq invasion, that's true.

[CelexaNY]

I'm sure we both have some selective memory going on here. I too took a hiatus from 'poly, though I can't remember the exact timing of it. It's possible I missed some Iraq = Vietnam (exactly) threads or something.

-Arrian