Why we shouldn't have marched on Baghdad and removed Saddam

[bascule]

As told through a particularly unbiased source... DICK CHENEY!

 

 

"It would've been a US occupation, none of the Arab forces... would've been willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over, what are you going to put in Saddam's place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down Saddam's government, parts of it are going to fly off..."

 

I don't think I've ever agreed with Dick Cheney so much ever before.

 

What happened? Why the about face? Why support such a stupid war now?

 

Halliburton?

 

PNAC?

 

Not having to answer to an older, smarter Bush?

[SkepticLance]

Yeah!

 

I wish I was all wise and could suggest a solution. The only solution I have is to invent a time machine and go back to before 9/11 and shoot George Bush junior. Too late now.

 

Iraq is a mess. If America continues, another 100,000 will die. If America pulls out, another 100,000 will die. Whaddaya do? Wish I noo.

[tomgwyther]

Probably the most peaceful solution would be to revert Iraq back to three individual states.

The current government was put there by America, there-fore the Iraqi people aren't happy,

If the Iraqi people decide who's in charge; the shia majority would vote for leaders that the US don't like. plus the suni minority would by more likely to bread increase in militant action.

 

Devolution is by no means perfect, but the situation will only get worse if we stay in this stale-mate.

 

Most Iraqis I've spoken to just want the electricity back on, clean water and for the west to leave them alone.

[Sayonara]

The only solution I have is to invent a time machine and go back to before 9/11 and shoot George Bush junior. Too late now.

It's never too late for a bit of time travel.

[ParanoiA]

I wish I was all wise and could suggest a solution. The only solution I have is to invent a time machine and go back to before 9/11 and shoot George Bush junior. Too late now.

 

My how the hypocrisy goes unchecked...

 

For the president of a country, your solution is to back in time and kill him - the mentallity you say you're against.

 

But for Islamoracist murder clubs your solution is:

 

1. Gettin' to know ya. Spend time studying and learning to understand the group that is currently hostile. Learn why they are hostile. Learn to understand them, from their own viewpoint.

 

2. Gettin' to help ya. Provide aid and assistance in helping the hostile group to develop in a humanitarian way. Send doctors, nurses and teachers rather than soldiers.

 

3. Learnin' to wait on ya. Be prepared to take time - sometimes decades. Rome wasn't built in a day and all that. If you are behaving as a friend, eventually the friendship will be returned. However, there is a lot of history to be overcome, and that takes a lot of time. If it does not work at first, keep trying, and keep patient.

 

Nice to finally validate what I've always suspected about extremists.

 

 

 

Edit: Had to remove the last sentence after realizing SkepticLance isn't an american. Don't worry, didn't miss much...

[abskebabs]

It's depressing that I'm not at all surprised by that video. Who knows...

[john5746]

I didn't think we should have invaded either - or at least so quickly, BUT:

 

The situation changed - the first time was to get Saddam out of Kuwait and keep the region somewhat stable. The second invasion was to get rid of WMD. If he really thought that Saddam had WMD or was close to getting them, I am sure he regrets not taking him out in the first place.

 

It is logical to have the differing opinions for the different situations, IMO

[bascule]

It is logical to have the differing opinions for the different situations, IMO

 

His opinions of the negative consequences of invading Baghdad were quite apt in 1994... also:

 

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060411_bush_leak_plame_libby_powell/

 

On Monday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell told me that he and his department’s top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the president followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim. Now he tells us.

 

The harsh truth is that this president cherry-picked the intelligence data in making his case for invading Iraq and deliberately kept the public in the dark as to the countervailing analysis at the highest level of the intelligence community. While the president and his top Cabinet officials were fear-mongering with stark images of a “mushroom cloud” over American cities, the leading experts on nuclear weaponry at the Department of Energy (the agency in charge of the U.S. nuclear-weapons program) and the State Department thought the claim of a near-term Iraqi nuclear threat was absurd.

[ParanoiA]

His opinions of the negative consequences of invading Baghdad were quite apt in 1994...

 

But the situation is different in 2002. Yes, the negative consequences were true then and true now, but that alone doesn't dictate whether or not to invade. And honestly, I'd prefer a deeper appreciation to understand the difference. Anyone who analyzes those consequences and determines invasion to "never be an option of any kind for any reason whatsoever no matter what", lacks the depth to appreciate those consequences.

 

Instead, what I take from it is proof that they understood the dynamics, the potential of insurgency, ahead of time - yet still failed to meet it adequately.

[bascule]

Yes, the negative consequences were true then and true now, but that alone doesn't dictate whether or not to invade. And honestly, I'd prefer a deeper appreciation to understand the difference.

 

I addressed the reasons (or lack thereof) for invading above. Don't you think your post is a bit of a strawman?

[SkepticLance]

Paranoia said :

 

For the president of a country, your solution is to back in time and kill him - the mentallity you say you're against.

 

Paranoia, sometimes you have to understand that a few things are said tongue in cheek. When I said to go back in time and bump off Bush, that was firmly tongue in cheek. I suspect that most of the contributors to this thread were well able to understand that.

 

My solution in three steps is not for Al Qaeda, but for nations such as Iraq. Al Qaeda is, of course, the moral equivalent of the mafia. They are a criminal group, who should be treated as such. Police actions to round them up so they can be put on trial for murder. Treating Al Qaeda the way we do simply gives them a credibility they do not deserve. Treat them as criminals and murderers, and let the criminal justice system deal with them.

 

Al Qaeda can, in the long term, be cleaned up with undercover police who infiltrate and betray. This is already happening, of course, but their actions are hampered by the fact that, due to hostile action by the USA in Afghanistan and Iraq, recruitment into Al Qaeda is faster than police action can deal with.

 

Iran and Iraq, though, are full sovereign nations, and deserve respect. We may not agree with them, but that is no reason to go to war with them. Most such problems can be dealt with using good will and patience.

 

Look at Viet Nam. This nation is now developing to the point of friendly relations and trade. And yet the utter morons of the 1960's had to declare war. Iraq is exactly the same. Give it time, and it would have come right. Even bloody Saddam would eventually have dropped dead.

[ParanoiA]

I addressed the reasons (or lack thereof) for invading above. Don't you think your post is a bit of a strawman?

 

Only if yours to john is a strawman.

 

Look, you addressed one reason - Dick Cheney's reasons for 1994. Then John made a perfectly sensible observation and mentioned that differing opinions due to the situations made sense. You replied back with repeating how his opinions of the negative consequences were apt in 1994...in other words you just repeated yourself. So, I tried to elaborate on John's point.

 

I agree, it's a great video and it's awesome to see him make arguments that seem to counter everything he says today - arguments that many people, like you, are making today.

 

At the same time, logic and reason has to kick in at some point and realize that just because you outline horrible consequences of action X, doesn't therefore mean that action X should never be performed.

[bascule]

Look, you addressed one reason - Dick Cheney's reasons for 1994.

 

Actually, I addressed his point about how WMDs changed the situation, namely by (vicariously) articulating how sources including the State Department, Department of Energy, and Joseph Wilson thought the (multitude of sketchy) claim(s) was baseless, then all of the above combined with the reasons Dick Cheney gave for not marching on Baghdad...

 

Cheney's response:

 

"Look what's happened since then. We had 9/11"

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogbPosUQA9M

[geoguy]

Why the time machine? Dick Cheney was interviewed on Larry King just a few days ago. He stated flatly (again) that the invasion was the right course of action and he and the President would do it again.

 

And people still buy this crap? Support the morons even whe they can state such a blatant lie? They would invade again? It's incredulous that in a democracy that the american population willingly swallows the lies over and over and over.

 

'Sure we made some mistakes but the removal of Sadam was the right course of action and I'd support it again'. What a friggin liar. Bush and Cheney would have choked on their Freedom Fries if the word 'Iraq' was mentioned 4 and a half years ago and they knew the humiliation an invasion would lead to.

These are the same con men now promoting 'the surge'. Brooklyn Bridge is for sale again.

[john5746]

I think Cheney is lying, but in his view, he probably is lying for the troops. Remember, their argument against any war complaints is that we must support the troops in time of war. This means supporting even a mistaken war.

[doG]

We should keep our eyes on the road ahead, staring at the rear view mirror will change nothing. Why rehash history when you can't change it?

[ParanoiA]

And people still buy this crap? Support the morons even whe they can state such a blatant lie? They would invade again? It's incredulous that in a democracy that the american population willingly swallows the lies over and over and over.

 

Why does it follow that we swallow the lies just because he says them? Careful cramming that yellow cake in your mouth...

 

'Sure we made some mistakes but the removal of Sadam was the right course of action and I'd support it again'. What a friggin liar. Bush and Cheney would have choked on their Freedom Fries if the word 'Iraq' was mentioned 4 and a half years ago and they knew the humiliation an invasion would lead to.

 

Well when you're so blatantly jaded and pretentious then intellect can take a vacation, which is why your answer to everything is "he's a liar". Kind of like how creationism is said to spare mental exercise by concluding "god did it".

 

However, when you work past your emotional issues and apply logic and reason, it's pretty clear that he and GWB actually believe the crap they say. And so does a large portion of their base. I believe, well hope is a better word, that the base is losing faith in that idea. You don't have to look any further than this forum to find people that still believe that military action, including Iraq, is the way to combat terrorism - they too, would do it again.

 

Also, consider that most on the right, of which Cheney is obviously included, believe the media is to blame for the supposed failures in Iraq. In their opinion, the media simply refuses to report the good news along with the bad. If there's only one bad incident, it gets reported. If there's several good incidents - none get reported. I, too, blame the media for much of that, but I think it's because they are a business and good news doesn't sell. Sensationalism and tragedy sells. Blood and tears.

[geoguy]

We should keep our eyes on the road ahead, staring at the rear view mirror will change nothing. Why rehash history when you can't change it?

 

That makes sense if the road isn't going in a circle and you keep hitting the same potholes. 4 and a half years and Iraqinam is Vietnam. Look ahead down the road and see more American killing and being killed in Iraq with nothing accomplished. 'Stay the course'...'give it time'...

[-I-]

Do you know the federal reserve is a private bank.

We don't know who owns this private bank.

The true masters.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_vLTSWpQcY

 

What would you do to protect your ability to create money out of thin air?

 

First rule of war - know thy enemy -the cartel

[ParanoiA]

The federal reserve is a banking system, not a bank. It's privately owned but run by both the government and privately.

 

The Federal Reserve Banks have an intermediate status, with some features of private corporations and some features of public federal agencies (see below). Each member bank owns nonnegotiable shares of stock in its regional Federal Reserve Bank—but these shares of stock give the member banks only limited control over the actions of the Federal Reserve Banks, and the charter of each Federal Reserve Bank is established by law and cannot be altered by the member banks. In Lewis v. United States,[17] the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that "the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA [the Federal Tort Claims Act], but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations."[/b']

[SkepticLance]

Paranoia said to geoguy

 

 

However, when you work past your emotional issues and apply logic and reason,

 

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it is geoguy who is applying logic and reason.

 

Where are the WMDs? What about the 655,000 innocent Iraqi citizens who have been killed? What the hell is the point of the invasion madness?

 

The whole thing was just plain stupid. There were many, many people in countries other than the USA who knew it was stupidity well before the invasion took place, and even a few in the US. As geoguy says, it is Viet Nam all over again, except in the desert instead of the rainforest.

[ParanoiA]

Paranoia said to geoguy

 

 

However, when you work past your emotional issues and apply logic and reason,

 

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it is geoguy who is applying logic and reason.

 

Where are the WMDs? What about the 655,000 innocent Iraqi citizens who have been killed? What the hell is the point of the invasion madness?

 

The whole thing was just plain stupid. There were many, many people in countries other than the USA who knew it was stupidity well before the invasion took place, and even a few in the US. As geoguy says, it is Viet Nam all over again, except in the desert instead of the rainforest.

 

This is really beginning to become a problem around here. You're arguing to a point I didn't make.

 

Re-read my post, including the context:

 

Geoguy said...

'Sure we made some mistakes but the removal of Sadam was the right course of action and I'd support it again'. What a friggin liar. Bush and Cheney would have choked on their Freedom Fries if the word 'Iraq' was mentioned 4 and a half years ago and they knew the humiliation an invasion would lead to.

 

So I said...

....However, when you work past your emotional issues and apply logic and reason, it's pretty clear that he and GWB actually believe the crap they say. And so does a large portion of their base.

 

My point was about GWB believing in his crap, not that the crap merits believing. You're going off about how stupid the war is, and I don't contest that, I'm more of a non-interventionist type.