Bush Plays Down Banned Weapons Hunt in Iraq

[konichiwa]

Care to reread the 2000 presidential debates? Bush specifically referenced Iraq, and how we need to deal with people such as him. Seems to me that if foreign policy is "debated" it just might be on the minds of your average american.

He also said that he would "not use troops for nation building" or regime change, and that the countries of the world will resent the US if we go around the world saying "this is the way we do it and so should you" (referring to a democratic, secular government)

 

[mastertech01]

GOV. BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interests, and
that means whether or not our territory -- our territory is
threatened, our people could be harmed, whether or not our alliances
are -- defense alliances are threatened. Whether or not our friends
in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously
consider the use of force.

Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear; whether or not it
was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly,
whether or not we were prepared and trained to -- to -- win. Whether
or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-
equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy.

I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded
in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in
the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our
troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of


troops. He believes in nation-building. I would be very careful
about using our troops as nation-builders. I believe the role of the
military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from
happening in the first place.

And so I take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with
making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today's military
is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met
the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met
recruiting goals.

We're -- some of our troops are -- are not well -- well equipped. I
believe we're overextended in too many places. And -- and therefore I
want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion-dollar
pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform, a billion
dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It's to
make sure our troops are well housed and well equipped, bonus plans to
keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services, and a commander
in chief who clearly sets the mission. And the mission is to fight
and win war, and therefore prevent war from happening in the first
place.

 

[syzygy]

He also said that he would "not use troops for nation building" or regime change, and that the countries of the
world will resent the US if we go around the world saying "this is the way we do it and so should you" (referring to
a democratic, secular government)

why he made those statements at the time i'm not sure. international mediations had not worked. saddam snubbed
envoys from arab coalitions, european friendlies, and entreaties from other sympathetic dictators, like qaddafi, who
understood the end result of a scrapdown with the u.s.

saddam had killed - literally - all internal opposition, eliminating all control and correctives against his worst
tendencies. he was bent on extending the manipulation, hoping to induce sanction fatigue in critical states
whose votes he could employ to counterbalance growing u.s./british anger.

as early as 1994, saddam had managed to bait france, russia, china, and a few others into watering down
the sanctions, even though he had failed to comply with the first inspection regime led by eckaus(sp?).

with continuing failure, and knowing saddam ulterior motivations - which we could always and safely assume
the worst with - bush wisely altered his policy to meet saddam's intransingence, point for point. military intervention
was the logical and only response to saddam's own maneuvers.

 

[cpumaster]

Originally posted by: syzygy

He also said that he would "not use troops for nation building" or regime change, and that the countries of the
world will resent the US if we go around the world saying "this is the way we do it and so should you" (referring to
a democratic, secular government)

why he made those statements at the time i'm not sure. international mediations had not worked. saddam snubbed
envoys from arab coalitions, european friendlies, and entreaties from other sympathetic dictators, like qaddafi, who
understood the end result of a scrapdown with the u.s.

saddam had killed - literally - all internal opposition, eliminating all control and correctives against his worst
tendencies. he was bent on extending the manipulation, hoping to induce sanction fatigue in critical states
whose votes he could employ to counterbalance growing u.s./british anger.

as early as 1994, saddam had managed to bait france, russia, china, and a few others into watering down
the sanctions, even though he had failed to comply with the first inspection regime led by eckaus(sp?).

with continuing failure, and knowing saddam ulterior motivations - which we could always and safely assume
the worst with - bush wisely altered his policy to meet saddam's intransingence, point for point. military intervention
was the logical and only response to saddam's own maneuvers.

Also don't forget our vital national political and economic interest, ie Iraq's 2nd largest in the world oil fields...
that's why no matter what Bush is going to "deal" with Saddam, with or without 9/11
sad but probably will be proven true....