President Bush

[purebloodtexan]

Sorry for not clarifying, but we basically catalyzed this war by invading Iraq.

And, unless you're being sarcastic, I really don't see any harm that Iraq could do to the Continental U.S. I do agree, however, that we were on more peaceful terms when Saddam was in reign.

Doing some more research on the Gulf War.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by devonin

You know, Jewp...you don't have to shout like that. One of these days I'll just write up some huge epic post detailing all the ways that the Bush administration has lied, misled and otherwise failed miserably to lead the country in a proper way. Complete with citations, references, and plenty of direct links to websites that end in .gov

But man, that would be the work of quite possible days.

Please do this; I would -love- to see you write that, considering the quality of your other posts. A big essay like that from one of the best posters in CT? It would be the most epic post in the entire forum.

[devonin]

The funny thing is, most of the inherent contradictions of the Bush administration were given by the President himself in his various speeches and addresses, all of which are preserved for anyone to read on the whitehouse.gov website. You could read it for yourself any time you want.

[purebloodtexan]

According to Wikipedia, the 1990-91 Gulf War was due to the fact that Iraq seemed to disapprove of peace-keeping movements and had friendly relations with the Soviet Union, who was one of the dominant countries in the Cold War and considered a reasonable threat. Also, Saddam Hussein had commited crimes against humanity, which probably brought support of the other causes, but isn't a cause alone; one reason is probably the fact that Hussein's cruelty was well documented before the invasion.

Although no nukes were fired, they did have nukes, so the invasion may have been justifiable to some. What makes me scratch my head is Bush Senior's motives.

Originally Posted by George W. Bush Sr. September 11, 1990 (OMG! Conspiracy theory!)

"Within 3 days, 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then that I decided to act to check that aggression."

I certainly pray that it wasn't the only reason for invasion.

[devonin]

Because if they took Kuwait, Iraq would have control of roughly 20% of the world's oil reserve. The usual worry at the time was that the Soviets would invade major oil producing countries like Kuwait, but there was actually a report by Paul Wolfowitz in the late 70s (Wolfowitz was the Deputy Secretary of Defense under the George W Bush until 2005, and was a Pentagon staffer under George H W Bush during the first Gulf War) warning that it was likely Iraq could turn its attention to invading countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Also, I'll point out that while the potentiality of a nuclear programme being undertaken by Iraq during the time of the first gulf war was definately something that should have (and would have) been considered by the Americans, after Clinton basically reduced to rubble what remained of their (by then) anemic nuclear program, claims in this iteration of Iraqi conflicts about WMDs have basically been spurious right from the outset.

[purebloodtexan]

What kind of influence did Wolfowitz have back in the 70's?

[purebloodtexan]

I'll go ahead and double post.

According to Kuwait's history, it was one of the most oil-bound countries in the Middle East, meaning that imports and exports were probably going through like a school of fish. I'm going to judge Saddam's nature by saying that he probably would've kept the oil to himself. Unfortunately, while being chased at sea, he ordered countless tons of oil to be dumped into the ocean. Millions if not billions of organisms died. Judging his nature again, he probably wouldn't have put that oil to good use.

[Magnum13]

Look, a president can't do everything the people want, weren't we the ones who ran to him after 9/11? But now that he's trying to do something about it everyone hates him!

[devonin]

Originally Posted by purebloodtexan

What kind of influence did Wolfowitz have back in the 70's?

At the time, he was employed as U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Regional Programs for the U.S. Defense Department, under then U.S. Secretary of Defense Harold Brown, where he was put to work on the Limited Contingency Study, charged with examining possible areas of threat to the U.S. in the third world. While there, he worked on expanding the study to look at what would be the consequences of another middle eastern country siezing the oil fields instead of the soviets, and pointed to Iraq as the main threat in that area. According to wiki at least, this studay played "a key role in the 1991 Gulf War, after the Bush administration argued that the study’s predictions had come true, and the subsequent 2003 invasion of Iraq, for which Wolfowitz was a major driving force" Though that claim lacks a citation on the wiki page, it is in line with other more well documented sources I've read.

Originally Posted by purebloodtexan

I'm going to judge Saddam's nature by saying that he probably would've kept the oil to himself.

And yet the oil industry contributed 95% of Iraq's foreign earnings, hardly the numbers you'd see if he was "keeping it to himself" rather it was the thing he was most trading elsewhere. Iraq currently has the third largest oil reserves in the world, behind Iran (which produces 3 times the oil) and Saudi Arabia (which produces 8 times the oil)

The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq to try and take control of the oil reserves had much more to do with their foreign debt as a result of the hostilities with Iran. They needed the oil and the money from selling it, to pay off their creditors.

Originally Posted by purebloodtexan

Judging his nature again, he probably wouldn't have put that oil to good use.

He'd almost certainly have sold it to the United States to power their SUVs and tanks. Definately a bad use, I completely agree.

Originally Posted by Magnum13

Look, a president can't do everything the people want, weren't we the ones who ran to him after 9/11? But now that he's trying to do something about it everyone hates him!

You say that like invading Iraq with underequipped, underfunded troops in too small a volume to actually manage the country after they toppled the government actually had anything to do with 9/11

[purebloodtexan]

Originally Posted by devonin

At the time, he was employed as U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Regional Programs for the U.S. Defense Department, under then U.S. Secretary of Defense Harold Brown, where he was put to work on the Limited Contingency Study, charged with examining possible areas of threat to the U.S. in the third world. While there, he worked on expanding the study to look at what would be the consequences of another middle eastern country siezing the oil fields instead of the soviets, and pointed to Iraq as the main threat in that area. According to wiki at least, this studay played "a key role in the 1991 Gulf War, after the Bush administration argued that the study’s predictions had come true, and the subsequent 2003 invasion of Iraq, for which Wolfowitz was a major driving force" Though that claim lacks a citation on the wiki page, it is in line with other more well documented sources I've read.

And yet the oil industry contributed 95% of Iraq's foreign earnings, hardly the numbers you'd see if he was "keeping it to himself" rather it was the thing he was most trading elsewhere. Iraq currently has the third largest oil reserves in the world, behind Iran (which produces 3 times the oil) and Saudi Arabia (which produces 8 times the oil)

The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq to try and take control of the oil reserves had much more to do with their foreign debt as a result of the hostilities with Iran. They needed the oil and the money from selling it, to pay off their creditors.

He'd almost certainly have sold it to the United States to power their SUVs and tanks. Definately a bad use, I completely agree.




You say that like invading Iraq with underequipped, underfunded troops in too small a volume to actually manage the country after they toppled the government actually had anything to do with 9/11

Wolfowitz did a damn good job, then.

I think our plans for invasion put that to an end.

[Coolgamer]

I refuse to answer this question. I fear the current government, and as such, I refuse to expose myself to any reasons for my silencing.

Actually, that's not true, but I could type paragraphs about this and other administrations. I'm just lazy right now. Look for more later. Perhaps in a separate post.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by purebloodtexan

Wolfowitz did a damn good job, then.

Wolfowitz did "A damn good job" getting his report completely ignored because higher ups in the defense department were worried that even releasing the contents of the report might sour US-Iraq relations at the time (Remember, this is when the US was actively training, equipping and supporting Iraq against other nations that were being propped up by the Soviets at the time [For those of you keeping score at home, yes this means that the US is largely responsible for the very situation they are claiming to be fixing out of the goodness of their hearts]) and it wasn't acted on at all. That's -why- it wasn't until Iraq had moved all those troops into Kuwait that any step was taken to try and stop them.

If Wolfowitz had been taken seriously, and the US made it clear to Iraq that friends or no friends, they weren't going to take kindly to Iraq moving into Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, the entire first Gulf War might have been averted entirely.

I think our plans for invasion put that to an end.

Yeah, they certainly did. Reducing Iraq's ability to produce oil by orders of magnitude, invading a country that was selling you its oil, and then fronting so costly an invasion that even if you took -all- the oil reserves in Iraq and sold them off, you woudln't even come -close- to paying for the costs of the invasion...

It is pretty safe to say that Iraqi oil won't be powering American products at a profit ever again.

[purebloodtexan]

I've heard a lot of people say that Bush Sr. had a great chance to catch Hussein, but backed down. What's the full story on that?

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by purebloodtexan

I've heard a lot of people say that Bush Sr. had a great chance to catch Hussein, but backed down. What's the full story on that?

My understanding is that Iraqi forces were absolutely routed out of Kuwait, to the point where they were in shambles and had absolutely no chance of defending their own country. Bush Sr., however, decided not to pursue the Iraqis back into their own country after Kuwait was liberated. However "catching" Saddam, as in apprehending, I haven't heard anything about.

[devonin]

Well...after the Iraqi forces were pushed back out of Kuwait, the US government implied very heavily that if the Kurds were to rise up, they would have American support to overthrow Hussein. They did, the US didn't, and the Kurds were slaughtered pretty wholesale by the Iraqis.

The US -could- have pressed on and completed a full-out overthrow of the existing Iraqi government, which would likely have resulted in the capture or death of Hussein, but it was pointed out (and rightly so) that to do so would a) Take -many- more American lives b) Take a -very- long time and c) Result in an American occupation of Iraq with no readily available way to turn power over to a national civilian authority.

Basically it came down to the fact that the US -could- have gone in and taken over, but would then be forced to keep Iraq as an occupied nation under American Military control. Ironically, the best quote on the subject comes from Vice-President Cheney while he was the Secretary of Defense:

Originally Posted by Dick Cheney in 1992

So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.

Kind of funny how, 15 years later, the American government is bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.

[ljw5021]

Some of you in this post need to go take a class in the subject, or read a book or something. Some of your "logic" is quite humorous.

[devonin]

Perhaps you'd like to follow the rules of the forum, and I don't know...-support- your claim that people are making fallacious arguments with perhaps some kind of evidence? Or even explanation?

[purebloodtexan]

Originally Posted by devonin

Well...after the Iraqi forces were pushed back out of Kuwait, the US government implied very heavily that if the Kurds were to rise up, they would have American support to overthrow Hussein. They did, the US didn't, and the Kurds were slaughtered pretty wholesale by the Iraqis.

The US -could- have pressed on and completed a full-out overthrow of the existing Iraqi government, which would likely have resulted in the capture or death of Hussein, but it was pointed out (and rightly so) that to do so would a) Take -many- more American lives b) Take a -very- long time and c) Result in an American occupation of Iraq with no readily available way to turn power over to a national civilian authority.

Basically it came down to the fact that the US -could- have gone in and taken over, but would then be forced to keep Iraq as an occupied nation under American Military control. Ironically, the best quote on the subject comes from Vice-President Cheney while he was the Secretary of Defense:



Kind of funny how, 15 years later, the American government is bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.

From the supposed threat of WMD's to the bombing of Iraq before an inspection even occured, to the overthrowing of Saddam, to a holy war........

Having a governing body of Iraq is about the only thing we can do to clean up this mess until Iraqi officials can manage the country on their own.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by purebloodtexan

From the supposed threat of WMD's

Multiple sources all showed that what anemic meagre nuclear program even existed after the iran-Iraq war was completely blasted to rubble by the Clinton Administration missile attacks. Inspectors found nothing, the intelligence community found nothing, and then after the invasion, they found more nothing.

to the bombing of Iraq before an inspection even occured,

The attacks occured after the Iraqi government had expelled all American members of inspection teams (Still allowing other inspectors in) because the American contingent was accused of commiting espionage on behalf of the American government. EDIT: Or were you talking about the attempt to kill off a few top Iraqi officials before the invasion, the attack that killed none of them, but did kill a dozen or so innocent civilians?

to the overthrowing of Saddam,

Deciding that you want to overthrow a leader who has become less friendly to you after you helped them, supported them, then stabbed them in the back when it was in your best interest is something that I suppose you can internally justify, but when you pretend that you have nobler, humanitarian ends, and then make the situation worse than it was before you started, as a reason it loses some credibility.

to a holy war........

Um...whose holy war against whom? Iraq's government has been incredibly secular for years, to the point of outright condemning religious movements and sentiment in the state.

Having a governing body of Iraq is about the only thing we can do to clean up this mess until Iraqi officials can manage the country on their own.

So...you invaded a sovereign nation, overthrew its elected leader that you used to support, fired the entire array of government officials (over 140,000 people, who were -supposed- to be integral in reconstruction attempts) fired the entire military (over 400,000, who were -supposed- to be integral in defending government structures) and cutting off their pensions, but neglecting to disarm them first. Just how long are you planning on being an occupying force? The entire infrastructure that -needs- to be there for the country to operate was canned.

The Americans have not only diliberately worked -against- the ability of Iraq to actually govern itself, it has done a piss-poor job of managing things on its own. Before the invasion, electricity was available 20 hours a day for most people. Now they're lucky to get 10, in sporadic 2-hour chunks as rollig blackouts are the only way they can get power to much of anywhere. Ditto the fresh water supply and so on and so on. The country is falling apart due to the complete lack of authority in the state.

Estimates before the invasion suggested that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to -properly- protect and manage Iraq after the government was toppled. To date, it appears that a -total- of 263,000 American troops have actually set boot in Iraq, with only 165,000 there currently. This to manage a country of almost 27 million people, in a landmass roughly the size of California.

Edit: For scale purposes...Imagine you have to go to California, and on your own, with a rifle, you have to deal with 163 people, one of whom worked for the government and was fired, two of whom were members of the Iraqi military who were fired, lost their pensions, but still have their machine guns, oh, and also, you have to patrol, and keep peace and order in a full square mile of land. That's roughly what the US got itself in for.

Now...if they'd followed the advice of the groups whose job it was to offer advice, and kept the government and Iraqi military around, that number goes from 163 per solider down to 47 per soldier. If they -also- listened to advice of their own officials who suggested that several hundred thousand troops were needed, and thus 300,000 troops were on the ground, the number goes down even more, to 38.

Obviously the numbers don't line up like that in reality, with one person literally standing some kind of guard over 40 guys, but you get the point. There are reports of american soldiers assigned to guard facilities containing high explosive which were completely looted because there were only 20 guys assigned to guard it, and they were routinely outnumbered by looters.

[purebloodtexan]

Originally Posted by devonin

Multiple sources all showed that what anemic meagre nuclear program even existed after the iran-Iraq war was completely blasted to rubble by the Clinton Administration missile attacks. Inspectors found nothing, the intelligence community found nothing, and then after the invasion, they found more nothing.

The attacks occured after the Iraqi government had expelled all American members of inspection teams (Still allowing other inspectors in) because the American contingent was accused of commiting espionage on behalf of the American government. EDIT: Or were you talking about the attempt to kill off a few top Iraqi officials before the invasion, the attack that killed none of them, but did kill a dozen or so innocent civilians?

Deciding that you want to overthrow a leader who has become less friendly to you after you helped them, supported them, then stabbed them in the back when it was in your best interest is something that I suppose you can internally justify, but when you pretend that you have nobler, humanitarian ends, and then make the situation worse than it was before you started, as a reason it loses some credibility.

Um...whose holy war against whom? Iraq's government has been incredibly secular for years, to the point of outright condemning religious movements and sentiment in the state.

So...you invaded a sovereign nation, overthrew its elected leader that you used to support, fired the entire array of government officials (over 140,000 people, who were -supposed- to be integral in reconstruction attempts) fired the entire military (over 400,000, who were -supposed- to be integral in defending government structures) and cutting off their pensions, but neglecting to disarm them first. Just how long are you planning on being an occupying force? The entire infrastructure that -needs- to be there for the country to operate was canned.

The Americans have not only diliberately worked -against- the ability of Iraq to actually govern itself, it has done a piss-poor job of managing things on its own. Before the invasion, electricity was available 20 hours a day for most people. Now they're lucky to get 10, in sporadic 2-hour chunks as rollig blackouts are the only way they can get power to much of anywhere. Ditto the fresh water supply and so on and so on. The country is falling apart due to the complete lack of authority in the state.

Estimates before the invasion suggested that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to -properly- protect and manage Iraq after the government was toppled. To date, it appears that a -total- of 263,000 American troops have actually set boot in Iraq, with only 165,000 there currently. This to manage a country of almost 27 million people, in a landmass roughly the size of California.

Edit: For scale purposes...Imagine you have to go to California, and on your own, with a rifle, you have to deal with 163 people, one of whom worked for the government and was fired, two of whom were members of the Iraqi military who were fired, lost their pensions, but still have their machine guns, oh, and also, you have to patrol, and keep peace and order in a full square mile of land. That's roughly what the US got itself in for.

Now...if they'd followed the advice of the groups whose job it was to offer advice, and kept the government and Iraqi military around, that number goes from 163 per solider down to 47 per soldier. If they -also- listened to advice of their own officials who suggested that several hundred thousand troops were needed, and thus 300,000 troops were on the ground, the number goes down even more, to 38.

Obviously the numbers don't line up like that in reality, with one person literally standing some kind of guard over 40 guys, but you get the point. There are reports of american soldiers assigned to guard facilities containing high explosive which were completely looted because there were only 20 guys assigned to guard it, and they were routinely outnumbered by looters.

If you were against me on that statement, that's why I said supposed.

Although Wikipedia doesn't give much if any information on inspections after the beginning of the invasion, I only got reports of inspections [possibly months] after the invasion began. That doesn't add up to me. Also:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

2004: The CIA admits that there was no imminent threat from weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Not to sound pig-headed, but I'd like to know if they got this information before or after the invasion. I'm guessing that it was before, but I might be wrong.

I never said that I supported that action. Hell, I don't really support the war in general.

Also, I've brought this up before, but I think that if we had Saddam's next-in-command(s) rule the country under the watch of the US/U.N. (Either/or), Iraq might be just a tad bit more stable. Unfortunately, his next-in-command(s) are either battling against us or are dead.

The way that I interpreted the information, the overthrowing of Saddam meant that the Sunnis and Shia weren't divided anymore, and started going at each other to contribute to the fighting that was already going on.

Again, I'm not supporting this war at all, and I think we could've made great attempts to avoid it. But I'm not sure if there's much else we can do about Iraq right now. Pulling out, although it sounds immoral, would sound like a great idea to me. The Iraqi people can lead themselves, whether they want to rule the country by slaughter or not; it's the lesser of two evils.

However, I'm not sure if the U.N. will approve of us pulling out, and they probably don't.