Bush: Iraq Invasion My Responsibility

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

...

...The United States has also used weapons its own defense department categorizes as chemical weapons. Oh, the irony.

I believe that is an overstatement of several degrees.

The chemical agents we're talking about are essentially Nerve gas and Poison Gas. The U.S. hasn't used anything approaching Chemical Weapons. Incendiary Rounds may be classified at some level as a chemical weapon, but are in a whole different category than what we are really talking about when Chemical and Biological Weapons are concerned.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Pakistan

• Has allowed WMD technology secrets to be sold on the black market
• Local leaders very likely to harbor Al Qaida leaders
• Human Rights violations up the ying-yang
• Government run by a dictator who gained power in a military coup

• Known to be active on the WMD black market
• Threatens to attack neighbors with WMD and otherwise
• Led by a dictator who's quite possibly loony

The Bush Admin wanted to remove Hussein primarily to secure America's state in Middle East oil for the next century. If someone wants to be at least honest and go ahead and say that, I could at least respect them for that.

That still puts Pakistan way, way behind Saddam on any list of dangerous bad guys.

The oil thing ... I don't really understand that, other than that our economic interests make the region strategically important - the region has always been strategically important, even before oil was discovered. If I actually thought that the invasion would secure more oil for the country, I would have said so loudly and been way more gung-ho about the war than I even was. If you think that was the case, then why in the world would you be AGAINST the war? I mean talk about anti-american leftism... that's borderline treasonous, arguing against foreign policy because it's economically advantageous???

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

The U.S. certainly did not supply Saddam with Chemical weapons.

Not true. Again, a simple google search will give you plenty of links to objective sources that show through declassified documents that the U.S. facilitated Hussein's acquisition of chemical weapons in the 1980s.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

That still puts Pakistan way, way behind Saddam on any list of dangerous bad guys.

You say this, yet you don't support it. Maybe you don't want to admit that Musharraf of 2005 sounds a lot like Hussein of 1980?

I mean talk about anti-american leftism... that's borderline treasonous, arguing against foreign policy because it's economically advantageous???

When the result of our misadventure in Iraq is an anti-American theocracy in Iraq and a decreased willingness of OPEC states to work with the U.S. due to Islamist domestic pressures, we'll see what the true economic impact of this foreign policy has been.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You say this, yet you don't support it. Maybe you don't want to admit that Musharraf of 2005 sounds a lot like Hussein of 1980?

I believe the only support I need is the fact that Saddam has used WMD's. Show me somebody else who has, and maybe you'll be in the same ballpark.

I really don't know what you're trying to convince me of. That there are bad guys in the world? Ok. That some of them are potentially worse than Saddam? Ok.

And from whence comes this myth that the Middle East was a bastion of stability before we invaded Iraq? Come on... it's bad now, it was bad then, it will be a bad place probably for a very long time. Are we supposed to do nothing about that, other than wait for some big bombs to go off? It appears that George Bush doesn't have all the answers, but who, exactly, does?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Democracy, except when the Islamists come to power (see Algeria for the previous case study).

Well, when you consider that Islamists denounce democracy as 'godless' you have to admit it's a philosophical muddle.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The Bush Admin wanted to remove Hussein primarily to secure America's state in Middle East oil for the next century. If someone wants to be at least honest and go ahead and say that, I could at least respect them for that.

I go back and forth between the oil argument (Ann Coulter said it best, "Why not go to war for oil? We need oil!") and just an out of touch sense of idealism.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Not true. Again, a simple google search will give you plenty of links to objective sources that show through declassified documents that the U.S. facilitated Hussein's acquisition of chemical weapons in the 1980s.

Huge Huge Huge difference between that statement and your previous claim.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Huge Huge Huge difference between that statement and your previous claim.

Really? The orginal claim:

Originally Posted by crapshoot

Who on earth helped supplied those (and other) weapons to Iraq in the first place ?

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Not true. Again, a simple google search will give you plenty of links to objective sources that show through declassified documents that the U.S. facilitated Hussein's acquisition of chemical weapons in the 1980s.

What is the huge, huge, huge difference between helping supply weapons and facilitating the acquisition of weapons?