[Lunims]

QFT

Statements like this make me want to ram my fist down Bush's throat, grab him by the rectum, and yank him inside out.

[agracias]

Yea, watch the video. I wouldn't do it around dinner time actually. It will turn your stomach.

[GinaGomesz]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I love the "US leaving Vietnam = Khmer Rouge" thing. Immediately historians jumped in and said the US destabilizing Cambodia, by bombing it and and sending our troops through there led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge. Kinda like bombing Iraq and then sending our troops across from Kuwait to Baghdad destablized Iraq and created the Madhi Army and other militias?

[exschke]

Back then I was saying that it's gonna be a f*ck-up.
Am I an optimist?

[Izzy]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
QFT

Statements like this make me want to ram my fist down Bush's throat, grab him by the rectum, and yank him inside out. I think you have the first and second steps out of order.

[glagoliska]

Originally posted by Bosh
Actually I made a poll back in 2003 right when the war began about how things would turn out. I've got it bookmarked on my home computer. I chose the "it will be another Lebanon" option which I think was very accurate... I'd actually like to see the results... though I'm afraid I was on the wrong side at that time .

[letmelogin]

after all these years of the "- it's to going be a new vietnam - no it wont" discussions, finally bush joins in

[zlopikanikanza]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I love the "US leaving Vietnam = Khmer Rouge" thing. Immediately historians jumped in and said the US destabilizing Cambodia, by bombing it and and sending our troops through there led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge. Who cares? The point is that leaving Iraq could result in genocide similar to that caused by the Khmer Rouge.

Of course Bush destabilized Iraq. He has admitted screwing up. That is no reason to run and support people who would further destabilize the country.

[hotelhyatt]

Originally posted by Berzerker
--- The Khmer Rouge went on a murder spree because we left

Well, they actually started their cultural purge when we were bombing convoy routes within Cambodia, and it was the Vietnamese who went into Cambodia and ended the slaughter. At which point we donned our ideological blinkers and supported -- yep, you guessed it -- the Khmer Rouge.

Really, of all the historical analogies you'd think this administration wouldn't want to invoke...

[redDoodia]

Was China backing the Khmer? I thought they were behind them initially and didn't like it when the Viets went in after them.

[xpllmr]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Of course Bush destabilized Iraq. He has admitted screwing up. I demand a bush quote saying "we screwed up iraq" :doitnow!

[Teligacio]

If anyone knows anything about Vietnam, it's George Bush.

[voksveta]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
I was more disturbed that he still uses 9/11 to justify Iraq 9/11 was connected to Iraq.
It was the presence of the US troops in Saudi Arabia to contain SH that caused OBL to get angry at the USA and made 9/11 happen.

[corriffuniee]

9/11 was connected to Iraq.
It was the presence of the US troops in Saudi Arabia to contain SH that caused OBL to get angry at the USA and made 9/11 happen. That would be of our making... All we had to do was leave and tell Saddam to be a good boy... and he would have listened. If we had told him prior to his invasion of Kuwait about our reaction, he would have stayed home and bluffed Kuwait for concessions relating to their dispute over border oil fields. But we were wishy washy and he took that as a green light to take a prize for fighting the Iranians on behalf of the west.

[spklnraz]

How exactly?

1. by sending troops
2. by at least supporting the invasion
or:
3. by at least giving an alternate solution that would actually work, thus not: let's do nothing and wait till things may become better

And if you're talking about the Iran-Iraq thing, you do realize that the US supported Iraq too back then?

I wasn't talking about that thing.
Yes, I do realise that.
That's what happens in international politics, that you support the lesser evil who becomes the great evil with your help against your will.

It's a common used strategy during large parts of the last century. I think we've learned a lot from that. (though it's not always possible to not do things that way)

And that they did as well sell weapons to Iraq in the 1980ies (though admittedly France and USSR sold much more)

In the 80's there was no boycot against SH. And eventhough it wasn't smart to do, it's not as bad as the Russians (and most probably the French) who traded with Iraque during the boycot. (which may have resulted in not supporting the US invasion, only to cover their own @sses)

That would be of our making... All we had to do was leave and tell Saddam to be a good boy... and he would have listened.

You are aware of the big report made after the Iraque invasion, in which was stated that there were no WMD in Iraque? It's a famous report which was used to slap GWB with.

A part of that report, which was hardly cited, talked about SH's lack of WMD because the UK/USA presence in Kuweit and SA secured that he couldn't do what he wanted to do. The report also stated that SH would start building WMD as soon as the UK/USA presence in the regio would have ended.

The fact that SH didn't have WMD was BECAUSE of the USA/UK presence. And that same presence caused 9/11. That's a status quo that had to end one day.

Not to mention that it had to end one day anyway.
It's easy for France/Germany/Russia to oppose an attack on Iraque. They weren't there, doing the difficult job.

But we were wishy washy and he took that as a green light to take a prize for fighting the Iranians on behalf of the west.

Faults may have been made in those days indeed.
Though in the end, SH was an expansionistic power-hunger person who could only be contained by force.

Yes, that is the one and only connection.

No, SH was also connected to terrorism in the ME, especially regarding Hezbollah. SH also supported suicide bombers by giving $25000 to their families.

But that's not the connection Bush uses to justify the war, quite contrary he still sticks to the argument that the presence is needed to "prevent the terrorist from coming to our streets".

That's a valid, though a bit demagogic, argument.
There have been no bounds between Al Qaida and SH, that's true. Though Agents from Al Qaida did visit Iraque in the years prior to 9/11.

But that doesn't mean that it's not a good idea to prevent any such bounds to form in the future.
It's known that SH was keen to support Islamic terrorism against western targets.

but it's true that it's pure demagogy to use that argument that often in public after 9/11. Even more if a pre-9/11 connection was suggested, which wasn't there (as far as we know).

The correct response to the "troops in Saudi pissed OBL off enough to attack USA" connection would be to pull out

which would've given SH the change to rebuild his WMD again and his army.

[freddystone]

Originally posted by CyberShy
How exactly?

1. by sending troops
2. by at least supporting the invasion
or:
3. by at least giving an alternate solution that would actually work, thus not: let's do nothing and wait till things may become better

So those who didn't support a war that was based on everything else but the truth are responsible, not those who started the mess in the first place? How's life in the Nedaverse?

In the 80's there was no boycot against SH. And eventhough it wasn't smart to do, it's not as bad as the Russians (and most probably the French) who traded with Iraque during the boycot. (which may have resulted in not supporting the US invasion, only to cover their own @sses) According to your logic none of those actions were bad at all, since - as you told us - there was no boycott. So stop whining about France and Russia/USSR (the latter being the prime weapons exporter to Iraq, not France, which was second) when others you support did the same, just on a different scale.

[illiderob]

Originally posted by Patroklos
It is funny watching so many smart people deliberatly not understand what was said in that speech. I expected better.

But for all of you guys who predicted Iraq would be another Vietnam you still have 2,920,000 odd civilian and 54,000 odd military deaths to go. Keep hoping and praying, at this rate you will be right in 18 more years (48 years for civilians) Don't worry, we're patient...

[maxuilg]

Saddam would have done as told, we just didn't tell him what to do wrt Kuwait and he took that as permission to invade. You are welcome to your opinion, Berz, as ridiculous as it is.

[giftplas]

Originally posted by Patroklos
It is funny watching so many smart people deliberatly not understand what was said in that speech. I expected better.
I don't know how you can understand anything that Bush says. I do understand how people would be afraid of him.

[intmarkworkk]

I don't think I'm wrong when I say that the right wingers as well as the left wingers on this site would consider your opinion to be batshit crazy. 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.