Bush/Cheney warmongering exposed in new book

[Libsmasher]

You pointed out that the U.S. had failed, not that the Masad had attempted and failed (another resource that could have been used instead of war). The Munich terrorist assassins also keep moving, and were eventually killed by the Masad. Have you addressed this or are you "...just ducking facts..."?

OH, I get your silly ass game. If Mossad HAD tried and failed, what would you be saying? "The UK didn't try!"

It obvious that you are not clever enough to perceive a plan that would work;

Oh, YOU would have figured out a plan??

you should join the CIA (or the Bush administration) and put your intellect to use to continue the search for weapons of mass destruction. Be sure to look in every sock and underwear drawer in Iraq; they have to be there...Bush and Chaney said so.

No, I'll leave that task where it belongs, to the appeasers like you, who idiotically asserted "there are no WMDs in Iraq".

 

[dahermit]

No, I'll leave that task where it belongs, to the appeasers like you, who idiotically asserted "there are no WMDs in Iraq".

Did I miss something? There were WMDs found in Iraq after all? Perhaps you should go back to your vidio games.

 

[dahermit]

What we need to remember in this situation. Even if no one knew who it was (but it would widely be suspected it was Israel) Saddam being assassinated would still have resulted in an explosive situation in Iraq.

Saddam had so many enemies, no one could have been sure who assassinated him.

If Israel was thought to be behind this, many in that part of the world would blame the US by proxy as it it widely viewed that we OK many of their actions.

Who in that part of the world does not blame us for what happened anyway. Also, Saddam had little support in the Arab world after the Kuwait invasion.

Israel did indeed have to be restrained from responding during the Gulf War, but think about why. If Israel did respond, the entire coalition would have fallen apart. That is why Saddam attacked them to begin with, to try to break up the coalition.

I mentioned that to support my contention that the Israeli mindset is one of an eye for an eye, and very willing to carry out operations.

The Israeli mindset is indeed as you say, and I do not disagree with it, but look at it from an American point of view. We do give them loads of aid, and we get blamed for many of the things that they do. If we did not want Saddam dead at the time (which we did not) there is no way we would condone his assassination when it would simply be blamed on us.

With the Israeli skill at clandestine ( and overt) operations it is arguable that there would have been no Israeli stamp on the action.

The Osirak reactor, as well as the recent incident in Syria do show that Israel will take a preemptive approach, but bombing a reactor and assassinating a sitting head of state are two very different matters in regards to foreign policy, and the US knows it.

If it was an "Israeli" action, there would be plausible deneiablity...as there was with other Israeli actions.

Maybe, but the problems in Iraq would still have come, but there have been no force to maintain some form of stability. Odds are that then Iran, Turkey, and the Saudis would have then gotten a lot more involved.

A dead Saddam would not mean no army, or no police. Forces to maintain stability would likely not be effected. There might have even been a minion of Saddam who would have made a more reasonable leader than Saddam; as with Sadat taking over after Nasser's death in Egypt.

Also, keep in mind why GHW Bush left Saddam in power to begin with. It was for that very reason. The power vacuum that his absence would create would destabilize much of the region, much as we have seen today.

The stated reason was because continued action may have caused the coalition to break-up...the Iraqi army was defeated at that point anyway.

My original premise still stands: The removal of Saddam through conventional warfare was an uninspired solution that resulted in morally unacceptable civilian causalities. Furthermore, it has resulted in the mess we are stuck in now.

 

[BigRob]

Saddam had so many enemies, no one could have been sure who assassinated him.

He did have many enemies, but you are banking on the fact that there would be this flawless operation to get rid of him, when that is debatable at best.

Who in that part of the world does not blame us for what happened anyway. Also, Saddam had little support in the Arab world after the Kuwait invasion.

There are many moderates in the Middle East who will openly condemn the US, but through back channels will take a different tone.

I mentioned that to support my contention that the Israeli mindset is one of an eye for an eye, and very willing to carry out operations.

Not if it means losing US support.

With the Israeli skill at clandestine ( and overt) operations it is arguable that there would have been no Israeli stamp on the action.

That is a huge risk, that no one would be willing to take. If we wanted him dead covertly we needed to have Iraqi separatist groups do it, not Israel.

If it was an "Israeli" action, there would be plausible deneiablity...as there was with other Israeli actions.

Sure there is that, but it would have meant nothing to those picking up the pieces that it would have caused. We would have been blamed and suffered a big loss of reputation.

A dead Saddam would not mean no army, or no police. Forces to maintain stability would likely not be effected. There might have even been a minion of Saddam who would have made a more reasonable leader than Saddam; as with Sadat taking over after Nasser's death in Egypt.

All of these entities were tightly controlled by Saddam and his sons. His "minion" would have resulted in one of his sons most likely who are ten times more crazy than Saddam. Why kill him just to get one of them? The situation in Egypt is not really the same as it was in Iraq.

Add to that, what happened right after the war in 1991? There was a revolt, which was destroyed, but there was one nonetheless. Who is to say that the removal of Saddam would not have resulted in a much harder crackdown on the Kurdish area and ensured more violence?

The stated reason was because continued action may have caused the coalition to break-up...the Iraqi army was defeated at that point anyway.

Exactly, all of these "enemies" in the area that Saddam had were not willing to let it continue.

My original premise still stands: The removal of Saddam through conventional warfare was an uninspired solution that resulted in morally unacceptable civilian causalities. Furthermore, it has resulted in the mess we are stuck in now.

I think making a moral argument against war is a loser right from the start. But setting that aside, I think that even had we killed Saddam as you advocate, Iraq still would have imploded but we would not have been there to maintain any stability.

 

[Libsmasher]

Did I miss something? There were WMDs found in Iraq after all? Perhaps you should go back to your vidio games.

Focus, man. Appeasers said there were no WMDs in iraq. >>THEY<< made the assertion - it's up to >>THEM<< to prove it. Grasp that much? Good - let's continue: Nobody with an IQ over 80, or a Logic 101 grade above "D", would make such a negative assertion, since as is well known, such assertions are difficult or impossible to prove. But >>THEY<<< made it, >>THEY<< are the ones to look all over Iraq to prove there are no WMDs.

Blink twice if you get it yet.

 

[Libsmasher]

sounds a lot like someone has a Masters degree in whining.

Better that than an insipid cheerleader. Do you wear a little dress and shake your pom-poms when you make those posts?

 

[dahermit]

Focus, man. Appeasers said there were no WMDs in iraq. >>THEY<< made the assertion - it's up to >>THEM<< to prove it. Grasp that much? Good - let's continue: Nobody with an IQ over 80, or a Logic 101 grade above "D", would make such a negative assertion, since as is well known, such assertions are difficult or impossible to prove. But >>THEY<<< made it, >>THEY<< are the ones to look all over Iraq to prove there are no WMDs.

Blink twice if you get it yet.

You have gotten to the point where you should be embarrassing yourself. You are alone in this delusion.

Does your mom know you are on the computer again?

 

[Libsmasher]

You have gotten to the point where you should be embarrassing yourself. You are alone in this delusion.

Does your mom know you are on the computer again?

You don't get it! Geez, send us some libs who can at least get their skulls around elementary logic!

 

[Shadow]

Does your mom know you are on the computer again?

LOL. His mom is probably working TWO or THREE jobs to keep this slacker in hi tech toys.


but I digress.

Seems that many are not even prepared to address the Bush Cheney warmongering . Has war become so ordinary now in US lives that their indifference just goes up a notch. Heck...... they could care less about the LIVES they have destroyed.~ as long as their lying leader tells them it is for their sorry insecure little butts.

 

[Libsmasher]

LOL. His mom is probably working TWO or THREE jobs to keep this slacker in hi tech toys.


but I digress.

Seems that many are not even prepared to address the Bush Cheney warmongering . Has war become so ordinary now in US lives that their indifference just goes up a notch. Heck...... they could care less about the LIVES they have destroyed.~ as long as their lying leader tells them it is for their sorry insecure little butts.

Euroweenies only complain about US "warmongering" when it's other than our periodic efforts to rescue your decaying civilization from your latest dictator, four times in the 20th century. I have a flash for you: we don't give a sh__ what you think.

 

[top gun]

LOL. His mom is probably working TWO or THREE jobs to keep this slacker in hi tech toys.


but I digress.

Seems that many are not even prepared to address the Bush Cheney warmongering . Has war become so ordinary now in US lives that their indifference just goes up a notch. Heck...... they could care less about the LIVES they have destroyed.~ as long as their lying leader tells them it is for their sorry insecure little butts.

Your points are well stated.

You will notice the response (above) was first a personal insult... and then followed by a total dismissal of your worth as a human being for not walking in fascist lock step with the neo-con propaganda line (read that lie).

The good thing is people now see the danger in believing in such intolerance and are ready for a major shift to a more comprehensive, more thoughtful local & world approach.

 

[Libsmasher]

Your points are well stated.

You will notice the response (above) was first a personal insult... and then followed by a total dismissal of your worth as a human being for not walking in fascist lock step with the neo-con propaganda line (read that lie).

The good thing is people now see the danger in believing in such intolerance and are ready for a major shift to a more comprehensive, more thoughtful local & world approach.

It wasn't a personal insult, but your's is another cheerleading post.

 

[Shadow]

The good thing is people now see the danger in believing in such intolerance and are ready for a major shift to a more comprehensive, more thoughtful local & world approach.

Gosh, TG, I sure hope you are right........and agree that many are and have become more aware. But honest.......when I read some of the "stuff" on here.........I have to wonder what alternate universe they reside in. ( ans. the neo con uni of delusion and fantasy )


what is really scary is the raw animosity towards the Dems/ or "libs" . I think it is a very real concern that should Obama be elected.....his life span will be "on the clock". The neo cons are not going to surrender power all that easily. But I hope I am wrong......and would be delighted to admit it , should that eventuate.

 

[top gun]

Gosh, TG, I sure hope you are right........and agree that many are and have become more aware. But honest.......when I read some of the "stuff" on here.........I have to wonder what alternate universe they reside in. ( ans. the neo con uni of delusion and fantasy )


what is really scary is the raw animosity towards the Dems/ or "libs" . I think it is a very real concern that should Obama be elected.....his life span will be "on the clock". The neo cons are not going to surrender power all that easily. But I hope I am wrong......and would be delighted to admit it , should that eventuate.

You fight the fights that need fighting my friend...

The last election the Republicans lost big... loosing their 12 year majority in not just one but both Houses of Congress.

The final pieces needed to change direction are in the election of a Democratic President and even more Democrats in the Congress. If that happens there will be some positive changes.

If not we'll continue the same decline because we'll be on the same path... actually worse path when it comes to conflicts.

It is what it is and it will be what it will be. All we can do is work for what we feel is best!

 

[Shadow]

Thanks, TG......for a thougtful and "sensitive" post. So much is yet to be determined.

war MUST become the LAST resort and NOT a "pre-emptive " tactic. ( ain't the busheviks semantics great?? NOT .)

Hopefully , the US will mature enough to handle real power constructively. I think it knows how........but chooses not to. .........so far.