Bush/Cheney warmongering exposed in new book

[dahermit]

... we don't target civilians, thats what our enemy does.

Although we do not target civilians, an entity that decides to go to war must consider that in all major wars since WWI, more civilians have been killed than combatants. Therefore, there is a moral imperative that War should be the very last resort. There was no indication that any other alternative was attempted first (see my posts above for some of the possibilities).
I suggest that the reason for that is, the I.Q. of the sitting president is not sufficient to be aware of the historical facts of war: It will not be over by Christmas., The unexpected can and will happen., More Civilians will be killed than soldiers. Anyone who has a higher I.Q. than the president is aware of his limitations.

 

[GenSeneca]

Therefore, there is a moral imperative that War should be the very last resort. There was no indication that any other alternative was attempted first.

Honestly... I have to really bite my tongue when someone says such things... Did you only become aware of Iraq when we invaded or WHAT?

12 years of sanctions, trade embargoes, naval blockades, enforcing No Fly Zones and CONSTANT diplomatic talks...

14 UN resolutions - Have you ANY idea how long it takes to get ONE resolution to pass in the UN?

I mean really... there is so much more we "attempted" PRIOR to finally setting an ultimatum and deadline for compliance... How do NOT REMEMBER all that stuff?

 

[dahermit]

Honestly... I have to really bite my tongue when someone says such things... Did you only become aware of Iraq when we invaded or WHAT?

12 years of sanctions, trade embargoes, naval blockades, enforcing No Fly Zones and CONSTANT diplomatic talks...

14 UN resolutions - Have you ANY idea how long it takes to get ONE resolution to pass in the UN?

I mean really... there is so much more we "attempted" PRIOR to finally setting an ultimatum and deadline for compliance... How do NOT REMEMBER all that stuff?

Arguable, those things were merely diplomatic posturing that no one could realistically expect Saddam to respond to. U.N. resolutions have never proven to be effective, as were all the other insipid measures that you have mentioned. And, yes I was aware of them.
What I was referring to was the things of substance some of which I suggested. Such measures as were used by the Israelis to deal with the Munich terrorists. Do you remember how Israel infiltrated the Syrian Military and caused so much havoc...they have "Eastern" Jews who look, speak like, and pass for Arabs. Resolutions and diplomacy have their place, but a bullet makes a more substantial impression. If the CIA does not have the resources or the skill to carry out such missions, the Israelis have the skills, resources, and the will.

 

[BigRob]

The war was not right. If Saddam had to be removed, the Bush-Chaney administration should have used a more explicit means. Modern war kills more civilians than soldiers. Killing huge numbers of civilians to exterminate one man is inexcusable.

This is not a valid argument to not go to war. That is like saying people die in wars, therefore we should not have them.

Any dullard should be able to construct a plan that would kill just Saddam. If not the Bush-Chaney dullards, than the Israelis could be enlisted to perform that service...they are known to be good at it and have the resources. Likewise, Saddam's officials were subject to abuse making likely an environment that would support a coup.

Any dullard also would see that the removal of Saddam would create a power vacuum and cause all of the problems that we are having now. The postwar management was bad, but postwar management to argue against a war is not valid.

Now, do not propose that the U.S. has a law against assassinating another countries leaders, Bush-Chaney should have found a way around that...they are good at that.

The way around it is to declare war on them, or to remove him and let his own people try him. Which would you have preferred?

A war that kills thousands of innocent civilians with the purpose of removing one man is morally indefensible.

Arguing against war because people will die has to be the worst argument I have ever heard. People die in car wrecks, I suppose cars should be banned?

 

[GenSeneca]

Arguable, those things were merely diplomatic posturing that no one could realistically expect Saddam to respond to. U.N. resolutions have never proven to be effective, as were all the other insipid measures that you have mentioned. And, yes I was aware of them.
What I was referring to was the things of substance some of which I suggested. Such measures as were used by the Israelis to deal with the Munich terrorists. Do you remember how Israel infiltrated the Syrian Military and caused so much havoc...they have "Eastern" Jews who look, speak like, and pass for Arabs. Resolutions and diplomacy have their place, but a bullet makes a more substantial impression. If the CIA does not have the resources or the skill to carry out such missions, the Israelis have the skills, resources, and the will.

I just want to be clear on this: It sounds as though your saying Resolutions and Diplomacy are nothing but political posturing but political assassinations are a sustainable foreign policy. Is that what you're saying?

History show us that Military dictatorships tend to launch purges of the population as reprisal to assassinations and anyone remotely friendly with the west would be suspect, imprisoned, tortured and likely killed.

 

[dahermit]

I just want to be clear on this: It sounds as though your saying Resolutions and Diplomacy are nothing but political posturing but political assassinations are a sustainable foreign policy. Is that what you're saying?

No I am not. What I am saying is: It is inexcusable to wage a war to remove one man because of the massive number of innocents that will be killed in collateral damage. There has to be a more efficient means of accomplishing that task. Is war a sustainable foreign policy? You seem not to understand what a hideous thing war is to civilian casualties.

History show us that Military dictatorships tend to launch purges of the population as reprisal to assassinations and anyone remotely friendly with the west would be suspect, imprisoned, tortured and likely killed.

But it is acceptable for us to kill those very same civilians in a war?

 

[dahermit]

Honestly... I have to really bite my tongue when someone says such things... Did you only become aware of Iraq when we invaded or WHAT?

12 years of sanctions, trade embargoes, naval blockades, enforcing No Fly Zones and CONSTANT diplomatic talks...

14 UN resolutions - Have you ANY idea how long it takes to get ONE resolution to pass in the UN?

I mean really... there is so much more we "attempted" PRIOR to finally setting an ultimatum and deadline for compliance... How do NOT REMEMBER all that stuff?

Ademdum: Remember that all of this was not an attempt to remove Saddam. Most of it was to force him to allow inspections for weapons of mass destruction. Only just before the invasion was Saddam's removal an issue. I forgot that this was a war to keep Saddam from his "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

 

[dahermit]

This is not a valid argument to not go to war. That is like saying people die in wars, therefore we should not have them.
Any dullard also would see that the removal of Saddam would create a power vacuum and cause all of the problems that we are having now. The postwar management was bad, but postwar management to argue against a war is not valid.
The way around it is to declare war on them, or to remove him and let his own people try him. Which would you have preferred?
Arguing against war because people will die has to be the worst argument I have ever heard. People die in car wrecks, I suppose cars should be banned?

Read each of the points you quoted and responded to again carefully. It is pointless for me to respond to your simplistic post. You either are a poor reader or you lack the ability to comprehend.

 

[BigRob]

Read each of the points you listed to respond to again carefully. It is pointless for me to respond to your simplistic post. You either are a poor reader or you lack the ability to comprehend.

Sorry if I do not feel that screeching about "morality" is a valid basis for our foreign policy.

 

[GenSeneca]

It is inexcusable to wage a war to remove one man because of the massive number of innocents that will be killed in collateral damage.

Following that logic, we shouldn't have fought the Nazi's.

There has to be a more efficient means of accomplishing that task.

So whats your solution, or are you just frustrated and complaining?

Is war a sustainable foreign policy?

Like it or not, the world is ruled by the use of force.

You seem not to understand what a hideous thing war is to civilian casualties.

YOU seem to not understand who is killing those innocent civilians... YOU seem to think its our military thats INTENTIONALLY targeting civilians. WE do everything in our power to protect innocent life and avoid casualties.

But it is acceptable for us to kill those very same civilians in a war?

WHY do you think that WE are killing those people? WHY do you not understand its terrorists exploding bombs and planting IED's that are killing all those civilians?

Terrorists INTENTIONALLY kill civilians, NOT OUR MILITARY - we protect innocent life but we're not magicians and we can't make miracles happen.

Now in case you missed it... WE the United States is responsible for about 50,000 deaths of innocent civilians in about 5 years time.. 10k per year.

The people we are FIGHTING AGAINST have managed to kill 1.2 MILLION innocent civilians - 240,000 PER YEAR - And you somehow think WE are the bad guys in all this....

 

[top gun]

The bigger fact is the topic of this thread and that is the Bush/Cheney administration was outed for lying to the American people and "cooking" the information to their own personal liking so they could smoke & mirrors the American people into going along with a needless invasion which has now cost thousands of American lives and about a half a TRILLION DOLLARS.

Reputable sources on the inside that would know have confirmed this just as Scott McCellan cited other fraud & trickery by the Republicans in the White House.

Bottom line: No WMD's....... are guys died......... our economy is now in mega-serious economy killing debt.

Knowing up front that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11 and knowing we already had Hussein in a box where he couldn't even put a crop duster into the air the Bush administration still decided to go for a little payback and some hopefully better chance at their oil.

If it was just about getting rid of Hussein there was like a half dozen better ways to do it.

Thank you George Bush you'll go down in history just like your approval rating... THE WORST!

 

[GenSeneca]

The bigger fact is the topic of this thread and that is the Bush/Cheney administration was outed for lying to the American people and "cooking" the information to their own personal liking so they could smoke & mirrors the American people into going along with a needless invasion which has now cost thousands of American lives and about a half a TRILLION DOLLARS.

Reputable sources on the inside that would know have confirmed this just as Scott McCellan cited other fraud & trickery by the Republicans in the White House.

Bottom line: No WMD's....... are guys died......... our economy is now in mega-serious economy killing debt.

Knowing up front that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11 and knowing we already had Hussein in a box where he couldn't even put a crop duster into the air the Bush administration still decided to go for a little payback and some hopefully better chance at their oil.

If it was just about getting rid of Hussein there was like a half dozen better ways to do it.

Thank you George Bush you'll go down in history just like your approval rating... THE WORST!

Amazing how you seem to ignore all the evidence that contradicts your preconceived notions.... the Rockefeller report, the Yellow Cake Uranium we took out of Iraq, the Domestic Spending thats put us in this current pickle.... Its much easier to just blame Bush and Iraq though... that fits on a bumper sticker.

 

[Libsmasher]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
Where did I say a government with all it's resources? In any case, let's look at the record.
From Saddam entry in wiki:
After the 1982 attempt the US tried. The following info is from the leftwing anti-bush show "Frontline" on PBS:
All squared away now about assassinations?

Dance all you want. American nor Israeli governments attempt at assassination until after the war started.

Nope - the CIA plot was carried out in 1996. Now are you all squared away?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
Dictionary.com:
After many years of everyone trying to "talk" or boycott Saddam out of his war, murder, torture, and rape - without success - the US acted. People opposing that at that point are thus fairly termed appeasers.

I wanted him assassinated, how does that make me an appeaser?

Because assassination attempts failed repeatedly, and you opposed the only remaining option.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
Baloney - whoever was next in command, or most powerful in saddam's claque would have just taken power. Incidentally, the reason the US generally doesn't employ assassination (Saddam was a military target insofar as he was C-in-C of Iraqi forces) is because american presidents are exceptionally easy to assassinate.

Most likely, "...whoever was next in command, or most powerful in saddam's claque would have just taken power...".
But knowing that the U.S. had done it and would likely do it again if they were not different than Saddam, would likely be more cooperative, just to stay alive.

There's no evidence for this - the US had fought a full scale war with Iraq in 1991, and except for George Bush the elder's whim, the US could have gone on then and rounded up all the top Baathists - even that didn't persude them to bail out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
Oooooooooo - civilians get killed in wartime - who'da thunk it? Civilians have gotten killed in every war in history.

Yes, since WWI more civilians have been killed in war than soldiers. That is why War should be the last resort.

It WAS the last resort.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
If you oppose a war because civilians get killed, then you are opposed to all war.

Your imagination is obviously too limited to frame my argument for me; I am just opposed to this war.

Uh, my point zipped over your head. I pointed out to be LOGICALLY SELF-CONSISTENT, you would have to oppose ALL wars, not just THIS war, if your argument against war is that civilians get killed. GET IT? GET IT????

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
If you are, that makes you a philosophical pacifist. While that is a respectable intellectual position, I somehow doubt that that applies to you.

What you doubt is of no consequence to anyone but you.

Are you or are you not a pacifist? If you are, you've already been inconsistemt. If you aren't, my doubt is validated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
Most people adopt a utilitarian viewpoint on this issue -

Do you speak for "most people"?

Undoubtedly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
what action leads to the fewer people being killed?

A clandestine operation by the Masad, or a coup orcastraited by the U.S., some other action oranged by the CIA using resouces from the Saudis and or other Arab resources.

Tried. Didn't work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
In the case of Saddam, the megakiller par excellence of the middle east, there is no doubt at all that deposing him with war was the best option.

Only to your limited reasoning does the death of thousands of innocent children,and other civilians, makes the "best" option.

Only to your mind, incapable of comparing integers, does thousands look worse than millions.

In short, you have placed the value of zero on the innocents we have, and are killing in Iraq. Therefore, if Iraqi civilians have no value, then it makes sense that in order to bring about a quick and victorious end to the war, we should use our largest weapons (Nukes, and fuel-air bombs) and kill them all...after all it would be the "best option" and most sure method of insuring a glorious victory

.

I never said anything of the kind, as anyone who has read this thread will agree.

 

[top gun]

Amazing how you seem to ignore all the evidence that contradicts your preconceived notions.... the Rockefeller report, the Yellow Cake Uranium we took out of Iraq, the Domestic Spending thats put us in this current pickle.... Its much easier to just blame Bush and Iraq though... that fits on a bumper sticker.

First off we're talking about WEAPONS not elements. You could say bullets all by themselves were WMD's if you wanted too. The fact is false information was put forth by the Bush administration and no "WEAPONS" the W part of WMD were found.

Niger uranium forgeries

The Niger uranium forgeries refers to falsified classified documents initially revealed by Italian intelligence. These documents depict an attempt by the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq to purchase "yellowcake" uranium ore from Niger during the Iraq disarmament crisis.

On the basis of these documents and other indicators, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom asserted that Iraq had attempted to procure nuclear material for the purpose of creating what they called weapons of mass destruction, referred to as WMD, in defiance of the United Nations Iraq sanctions.

President George W. Bush cited the documents in a sixteen-word sentence in the January 2003 State of the Union Address; when the International Atomic Energy Agency later determined the documents were forged and the U.S. government declassified a 2002 Central Intelligence Agency report casting doubt on the documents' veracity, the administration was criticized by many for its decision to include the sentence. See "Sixteen Words Controversy" below.

Yellowcake, a mixture of different uranium oxides and other uranium compounds, is the leachant obtained from uranium ore in the early stages of refinement. At this stage the natural isotopes of uranium are present in their natural ratios.

U.S. intelligence officials received the forged documents on October 7, 2002, the same day President Bush launched a new hard-line public relations campaign targeted to increase public support for the Iraq war. He kicked off the campaign with a speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, in which he referenced Hussein's seemingly apparent growing nuclear capabilities. [1]

Iraq and WMD

In late 2002, the Bush administration was soliciting support for the war in Iraq. To back up its claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, the administration referred to intelligence from Italy, Britain, and France detailing interactions between Saddam Hussein and the governments of Niger, Somalia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Specifically, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director George Tenet and Secretary of State Colin Powell both cited attempts by Saddam Hussein to obtain uranium from Niger in their September testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. At that time, the UK government also publicly reported an attempted purchase from an unnamed African country. In December, the US State Department issued a fact sheet listing the alleged Niger yellowcake affair in a report entitled "Illustrative Examples of Omissions From the Iraqi Declaration to the United Nations Security Council."[1]


Initial doubts

The classified documents detailing an Iraqi approach to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger were considered dubious by some analysts in U.S. intelligence, according to news accounts. By early 2002, investigations by both the CIA and the State Department had found the documents to be inaccurate. Days before the Iraq invasion, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voiced serious doubt on the authenticity of the documents to the U.N. Security Council, judging them counterfeit.


"Sixteen Words" Controversy in 2003 State of the Union

In his January 2003 State of the Union speech, U.S. President George W. Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."[2] This single sentence, known now as the infamous "Sixteen Words,"[3] would become a crucial justification of the administration's decision to conduct an invasion of Iraq less than three months later.

The administration later conceded that evidence in support of the claim was inconclusive and stated, "These sixteen words should never have been included." The administration attributed the error to the CIA.[4] In mid-2003, the U.S. government declassified the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, which contained a dissenting opinion published by the U.S. Department of State stating that the intelligence connecting Niger to Saddam Hussein was "highly suspect," primarily because State Department's intelligence agency analysts did not believe that Niger would be likely to engage in such a transaction due to a French consortium which maintained close control over the Nigerien uranium industry. [5]

According to the Washington Post, when occupying troops found no evidence of a current nuclear program, the statement and how it came to be in the speech became a focus for critics in Washington and foreign capitals to press the case that the White House manipulated facts to take the United States to war. The Post reported, "Dozens of interviews with current and former intelligence officials and policymakers in the United States, Britain, France and Italy show that the Bush administration disregarded key information available at the time showing that the Iraq-Niger claim was highly questionable." [6] With the release of the 2002 NIE report, the Bush administration was criticized for including the statement in the State of the Union despite CIA and State Department reports questioning its veracity.

_____________________________________

FACT: The Domestic spending was completely controlled by a Republican President and 2 Republican branches of Congress for 6 years. The last 2 they've just been playing spoiler blocking the Dems slim majority from pushing legislation through.

Now we have like a half Trillion Dollar debt on top of that a lot of which is to Communist China that is hurting not only us now but our children and quite possibly our children's children.

 

[Shadow]

Top Gun: Superb posting. How refreshing to read rational and reasonable comments about the situation as it really is. Keep up the good and intelligent work.


Dahermit. : excellent points too.

Nice to see that some are grounded in reality....and true awareness.


bravo to both of you.