The price tag for rebuilding Iraq.

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
Specifically, Russian and French companies would benefit and I mean handsomely. I'm sure that entered the minds of some US officials.

I gotta give you credit for digging up all the French/Russia to Iraq trade info. But you neglected to compare their trade with Iraq to their trade with US.

France imported 28 Billion to US with 9 billion surplus in 2002. Russia imported 6.8 billion with 4.4 billion surplus in 2002. In addition to direct trade, US also have considerable influence to other trade partners of those two countries. France and Russia both had economic ties with Iraq, but that's nothing compare to the tie with the world's largest economy.

Why in the world would they risk big money from US to protect minor interests they have with Iraq?

 

[tcsenter]

I gotta give you credit for digging up all the French/Russia to Iraq trade info. But you neglected to compare their trade with Iraq to their trade with US.

I wouldn't have had it been relevant.

France imported 28 Billion to US with 9 billion surplus in 2002. Russia imported 6.8 billion with 4.4 billion surplus in 2002. In addition to direct trade, US also have considerable influence to other trade partners of those two countries. France and Russia both had economic ties with Iraq, but that's nothing compare to the tie with the world's largest economy.

Why in the world would they risk big money from US to protect minor interests they have with Iraq?

Because the US would never have pursued 'punitive trade action' against any country for being Hussein's biotches in the United Nations and they knew it. That's just not how things are done between member nations of the United States Security Council, no matter how bitterly they disagree.

Senator John Kerry, President Clinton, and virtually every other Democrat in Congress before a Republican took the White House were right: a regime change was required before the sanctions on Iraq could be lifted.

 

[BOBDN]

So the Bush administration has their regime change. Now about the price of the regime change which is the subject of this thread.

Hundreds of billions of dollars over the next several years if the Bush administration sticks it out. Or if their successor sticks it out. All paid for by the USA because we assumed responsibility for rebuilding Iraq the minute the invasion began.

Not included in the financial cost is the cost in US lives. And Iraqi lives.

What was the pressing problem in Iraq that made a preemptive invasion necessary? What was the emergency that required the Bush administration to invade Iraq?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
So the Bush administration has their regime change. Now about the price of the regime change which is the subject of this thread.

simple: sell the oil

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Not included in the financial cost is the cost in US lives. And Iraqi lives.

3600% more people died in France due to heat than the number of deaths resulting from the war in Iraq...on both sides of the proverbial trench. What was your point again?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Not included in the financial cost is the cost in US lives. And Iraqi lives.

3600% more people died in France due to heat than the number of deaths resulting from the war in Iraq...on both sides of the proverbial trench. What was your point again?

And how many elderly have died in the US in the same period?

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BOBDN
So the Bush administration has their regime change. Now about the price of the regime change which is the subject of this thread.

simple: sell the oil

If the solution is that simple why are we spending $4 billion per month plus the $70 billion already appropriated and why is Bremer saying he needs "tens of billions of dollars more"?

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Not included in the financial cost is the cost in US lives. And Iraqi lives.

3600% more people died in France due to heat than the number of deaths resulting from the war in Iraq...on both sides of the proverbial trench. What was your point again?

What is the relationship between the two? US policy is killing Iraqis. Unusually hot weather in Europe is being blamed for the deaths in France.

What is your point?

 

[tcsenter]

What was the pressing problem in Iraq that made a preemptive invasion necessary? What was the emergency that required the Bush administration to invade Iraq?

Some how, I knew my earlier response to your feigned request for a rationale would simply be ignored by you. In fact, I think I may have even predicted it. But I'll pretend one more time that your question is genuine, and you just accidentally overlooked my response the last time. I'll highlight the important parts for you, cuz I'm helpful like that.

A rationale. Ok, here goes...

Given that Hussein was successfully purchasing opposition to US policies WRT UN sanctions among a few notable UN member nations with whom Iraq had strong financial and economic ties, I won't mention any names*COUGH*francerussia*COUGH, and that so many people were serving as dupes, both witting and unwitting, for Hussein's manipulation of world opinion by first exacerbating then politicizing the 'suffering of Iraqi children' due to UN sanctions and blaming it on the US, bolstered by UNICEF's virtual reliance upon highly inflated 'infant mortality statistics' published by the Iraqi Ministry of Health, a major propaganda outlet for the Hussein regime, it was becoming increasingly clear that economic sanctions were - right or wrong - becoming a very sore spot for the US.

The 'suffering of Iraqi children', made far worse by the Hussein regime than it ever would have due to sanctions alone, and aggrandized by all US-hating pundits the world over, was hardening opposition and fueling hatred for the West among Muslim populations, serving as a rallying cry for terrorist recruiters and militant Islamic factions. It was clear that the sanctions had to go (and I agree they had to go), but there was simply no way to lift the sanctions on Iraq without invariably restoring Hussein's ability to once again fully resume every nefarious practice for which we undoubtedly know Hussein has an insatiable appetite.

That means, Hussein had to go before we could lift the sanctions. Capice?

And just in case you still don't get it and need a little more help to tie this all together, Osama Bin Laden cited in a video three main grievances justifying the attacks on New York and Washington:

- The US presence in Saudi Arabia (why did we have a military presence in Saudi Arabia)
- The humanitarian crisis in Iraq due to UN sanctions (which Bin Laden called 'US sanctions')
- US support of Israel

Well, whaddaya know:

U.S. to Cut Force In Saudi Arabia Sharply

If you need any more help figuring all this out, as 'politically astute' as you are and all, just give me a shout.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

What was the pressing problem in Iraq that made a preemptive invasion necessary? What was the emergency that required the Bush administration to invade Iraq?

Some how, I knew my earlier response to your feigned request for a rationale would simply be ignored by you. In fact, I think I may have even predicted it. But I'll pretend one more time that your question is genuine, and you just accidentally overlooked my response the last time. I'll highlight the important parts for you, cuz I'm helpful like that.

A rationale. Ok, here goes...

Given that Hussein was successfully purchasing opposition to US policies WRT UN sanctions among a few notable UN member nations with whom Iraq had strong financial and economic ties, I won't mention any names*COUGH*francerussia*COUGH, and that so many people were serving as dupes, both witting and unwitting, for Hussein's manipulation of world opinion by first exacerbating then politicizing the 'suffering of Iraqi children' due to UN sanctions and blaming it on the US, bolstered by UNICEF's virtual reliance upon highly inflated 'infant mortality statistics' published by the Iraqi Ministry of Health, a major propaganda outlet for the Hussein regime, it was becoming increasingly clear that economic sanctions were - right or wrong - becoming a very sore spot for the US.

The 'suffering of Iraqi children', made far worse by the Hussein regime than it ever would have due to sanctions alone, and aggrandized by all US-hating pundits the world over, was hardening opposition and fueling hatred for the West among Muslim populations, serving as a rallying cry for terrorist recruiters and militant Islamic factions. It was clear that the sanctions had to go (and I agree they had to go), but there was simply no way to lift the sanctions on Iraq without invariably restoring Hussein's ability to once again fully resume every nefarious practice for which we undoubtedly know Hussein has an insatiable appetite.

That means, Hussein had to go before we could lift the sanctions. Capice?

And just in case you still don't get it and need a little more help to tie this all together, Osama Bin Laden cited in a video three main grievances justifying the attacks on New York and Washington:

- The US presence in Saudi Arabia (why did we have a military presence in Saudi Arabia)
- The humanitarian crisis in Iraq due to UN sanctions (which Bin Laden called 'US sanctions')
- US support of Israel

Well, whaddaya know:

U.S. to Cut Force In Saudi Arabia Sharply

If you need any more help figuring all this out, as 'politically astute' as you are and all, just give me a shout.

There was no real threat, no pressing problem, no emergency which required the invasion of Iraq. Osama bin Laden's grievances were all exacerbated by the unnecessary invasion Bush insisted on. Now bin Laden can cite

- The US presence in IRaq
- The humanitarian crisis in Iraq due to the US invasion
- US support of Israel

Thanks again for adding the personal attack at the end. I won't retaliate. I hope you're not expecting me to.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BOBDN
So the Bush administration has their regime change. Now about the price of the regime change which is the subject of this thread.

simple: sell the oil

If the solution is that simple why are we spending $4 billion per month plus the $70 billion already appropriated and why is Bremer saying he needs "tens of billions of dollars more"?

when the oil is being sold the costs will be recouped.

 

[tcsenter]

There was no real threat, no pressing problem, no emergency which required the invasion of Iraq. Osama bin Laden's grievances were all exacerbated by the unnecessary invasion Bush insisted on.

Dismiss, distort, deny. You'll have to let go of your warped and intense need to be right about the Bush Administration, just for a moment, in order to clear your mind of the bitter prejudices that cloud your judgment and thinking.

The threat was not from Iraq, which I've been plainly spelling out for you in painstaking detail, short of running a hook through your nose and dragging you to it kicking and screaming. The threat was from the United States losing the propaganda war within the Muslim countries where Islamic terrorist groups get their bombers and shooters and legions of young Muslim men (and women) who sign-up for their chance to kill the Infidel and meet their virgins.

We have not been able to meaningfully make in-roads with these populations and are not likely to in the foreseeable future. Right or wrong, founded or unfounded - none of that matters. The inescapable reality remains, we are losing the propaganda war among these populations. We had to get out of Saudi Arabia and we had to lift the sanctions on Iraq in order to delegitimize the extremely sore 'grievances' which - right or wrong, founded or unfounded - were resonating very effectively with these impoverished, indoctrinated, and uneducated populations.

You keep trying to argue within the context of the Bush Administration's stated reasons justifying the invasion of Iraq, because I suspect, its your only angle to fullfilling the intense need you have to demonize the Bush Administration. I'm telling you the reasons why we invaded Iraq and I've provided plenty of support for this. Do you understand why the Bush Administration could not possibly justify the invasion of Iraq for these reasons?

Because it would be saying to the world of terrorist organizations (all of them, be they Islamic or not): 'terrorism works'. We are pulling out of Saudi Arabia, we are lifting the sanctions on Iraq, we are pursuing a Palestinian State, because terrorism works. Are you grasping any of this? It had to be justified under another pretense. There was no other acceptable choice.

Now bin Laden can cite:

- The US presence in IRaq
- The humanitarian crisis in Iraq due to the US invasion
- US support of Israel

The US presence in Iraq is nothing more than a redux of the very same grievances, not 'a different' or 'new' grievance. It is a temporary and short term action that may increase tensions in the short term, but will dissipate after Iraq is restored to a secure and stable country that will not threaten peace in the region by attacking its neighbors, then we can leave. The bonus is that we can attract foreign fighters to the theatre, with the goal of exterminating a good many of them, since it is extremely difficult to seek them out where they reside in other countries. Far easier to make them come to you.

I don't expect you to relinquish your warped need to demonize the Bush Administration. I'm reasonably sure that Bill Clinton himself couldn't convince you of the geopolitical realities behind the war with Iraq.

Or, perhaps I'm underestimating you, and you are every bit as politically astute as you claim to be, and you would say to Bill Clinton: "Bill, save your breath. I know these are the reasons we had to go to war with Iraq, you don't need to convince me. But this presents an irresistible opportunity to do irrepairable damage to the reputation and credibility of the Republican Party and the Bush Administration, casting them as villians that will have a lasting effect in the minds of voters for 20 years. I simply cannot let that opportunity pass by. I will not let it pass by."

Only you know.

 

[BOBDN]

There was and is no valid reason for attacking Iraq.

The very idea we invaded Iraq to attract foreign fighters only serves to illustrate the moral bankruptcy of the Bush administration policy. How can Bush and his supporters say on one hand we invaded Iraq because of an imminent threat, then change the story to we invaded Iraq to free the Iraqi people, then change the story again to say we invaded Iraq to attract foreign fighters? If this were true, and I don't believe it is, we just went from maintaining our own security to maintaining Iraq's security to endangering Iraq by purposefully invading Iraq to attract people who commit acts such as today's bombing of the mosque or last week's bombing of the UN.

This is as well a new excuse. I haven't heard that one up to now. I thought we were invading Iraq to end an imminent threat Iraq posed and to rid them of the WMD no one has been able to locate.

Maybe next week you'll have another reason. Is there a prize for the most believable reason concocted every week?

As for the temporary nature of the action I beg to differ. Every day it becomes clearer we are being dragged deeper and deeper into a long drawn out guerilla war. It is costing more than we can afford and more troops than we can send. That's why the Bush administration is now courting the UN for help. They've bitten off way more than they can chew. They can't spit it out either. Bush and Co. have us locked into a no win situation in Iraq.

I don't have any bitter prejudices clouding my thinking. Anyone who can support the Bush administration in this madness is so blinded by partisanship they can't see the truth that Bush has used false evidence to invade Iraq unnecessarily and put America at risk economically, destroyed our credibility around the world and put American lives on the line for no reason at all.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
There was and is no valid reason for attacking Iraq.

The very idea we invaded Iraq to attract foreign fighters only serves to illustrate the moral bankruptcy of the Bush administration policy. How can Bush and his supporters say on one hand we invaded Iraq because of an imminent threat, then change the story to we invaded Iraq to free the Iraqi people, then change the story again to say we invaded Iraq to attract foreign fighters? If this were true, and I don't believe it is, we just went from maintaining our own security to maintaining Iraq's security to endangering Iraq by purposefully invading Iraq to attract people who commit acts such as today's bombing of the mosque or last week's bombing of the UN.

This is as well a new excuse. I haven't heard that one up to now. I thought we were invading Iraq to end an imminent threat Iraq posed and to rid them of the WMD no one has been able to locate.

Maybe next week you'll have another reason. Is there a prize for the most believable reason concocted every week?

As for the temporary nature of the action I beg to differ. Every day it becomes clearer we are being dragged deeper and deeper into a long drawn out guerilla war. It is costing more than we can afford and more troops than we can send. That's why the Bush administration is now courting the UN for help. They've bitten off way more than they can chew. They can't spit it out either. Bush and Co. have us locked into a no win situation in Iraq.

I don't have any bitter prejudices clouding my thinking. Anyone who can support the Bush administration in this madness is so blinded by partisanship they can't see the truth that Bush has used false evidence to invade Iraq unnecessarily and put America at risk economically, destroyed our credibility around the world and put American lives on the line for no reason at all.

Just more of the same. We've been over all these issues you keep bringing up and they still don't have much merit if any at all. Is there a prize for the person who takes the hardest line against Bush? (seems to be so, since Dean is supposedly the front runner of the Dem race)
BOBDN - to say that "Anyone who can support the Bush administration in this madness is so blinded by partisanship.." is nonsense and you know it. All the "reasons" have been there all along - they aren't a "new excuse" - its just that people seem to forget about them and only look at one of them at a time. -IMO ofcourse

CkG

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN
There was and is no valid reason for attacking Iraq.

The very idea we invaded Iraq to attract foreign fighters only serves to illustrate the moral bankruptcy of the Bush administration policy. How can Bush and his supporters say on one hand we invaded Iraq because of an imminent threat, then change the story to we invaded Iraq to free the Iraqi people, then change the story again to say we invaded Iraq to attract foreign fighters? If this were true, and I don't believe it is, we just went from maintaining our own security to maintaining Iraq's security to endangering Iraq by purposefully invading Iraq to attract people who commit acts such as today's bombing of the mosque or last week's bombing of the UN.

This is as well a new excuse. I haven't heard that one up to now. I thought we were invading Iraq to end an imminent threat Iraq posed and to rid them of the WMD no one has been able to locate.

Maybe next week you'll have another reason. Is there a prize for the most believable reason concocted every week?

As for the temporary nature of the action I beg to differ. Every day it becomes clearer we are being dragged deeper and deeper into a long drawn out guerilla war. It is costing more than we can afford and more troops than we can send. That's why the Bush administration is now courting the UN for help. They've bitten off way more than they can chew. They can't spit it out either. Bush and Co. have us locked into a no win situation in Iraq.

I don't have any bitter prejudices clouding my thinking. Anyone who can support the Bush administration in this madness is so blinded by partisanship they can't see the truth that Bush has used false evidence to invade Iraq unnecessarily and put America at risk economically, destroyed our credibility around the world and put American lives on the line for no reason at all.

Just more of the same. We've been over all these issues you keep bringing up and they still don't have much merit if any at all. Is there a prize for the person who takes the hardest line against Bush? (seems to be so, since Dean is supposedly the front runner of the Dem race)
BOBDN - to say that "Anyone who can support the Bush administration in this madness is so blinded by partisanship.." is nonsense and you know it. All the "reasons" have been there all along - they aren't a "new excuse" - its just that people seem to forget about them and only look at one of them at a time. -IMO ofcourse

CkG

CkG

If you haven't noticed I've been doing my best not to get involved in name calling and flame wars. I will not however sit by when people misconstrue my questions on Iraq as a " warped need to demonize the Bush Administration"

You started the "nonsense" thread. I reacted to the suggestions made there by stopping the personal attacks (although I truly believe I didn't initiate any, only retaliated). I don't believe defending my point of view is wrong. I said anyone who can support the Bush administration in this madness is so blinded by partisanship in response to the statement I quoted in the preceding paragraph.

And I haven't heard the excuse about attracting fighters to Iraq to exterminate them more easily. And I do believe it is utter nonsense. The excuses keep changing. No one has given a good reason to invade Iraq yet. Just different reasons every time the preceding reasons they give prove false.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN
There was and is no valid reason for attacking Iraq.

The very idea we invaded Iraq to attract foreign fighters only serves to illustrate the moral bankruptcy of the Bush administration policy. How can Bush and his supporters say on one hand we invaded Iraq because of an imminent threat, then change the story to we invaded Iraq to free the Iraqi people, then change the story again to say we invaded Iraq to attract foreign fighters? If this were true, and I don't believe it is, we just went from maintaining our own security to maintaining Iraq's security to endangering Iraq by purposefully invading Iraq to attract people who commit acts such as today's bombing of the mosque or last week's bombing of the UN.

This is as well a new excuse. I haven't heard that one up to now. I thought we were invading Iraq to end an imminent threat Iraq posed and to rid them of the WMD no one has been able to locate.

Maybe next week you'll have another reason. Is there a prize for the most believable reason concocted every week?

As for the temporary nature of the action I beg to differ. Every day it becomes clearer we are being dragged deeper and deeper into a long drawn out guerilla war. It is costing more than we can afford and more troops than we can send. That's why the Bush administration is now courting the UN for help. They've bitten off way more than they can chew. They can't spit it out either. Bush and Co. have us locked into a no win situation in Iraq.

I don't have any bitter prejudices clouding my thinking. Anyone who can support the Bush administration in this madness is so blinded by partisanship they can't see the truth that Bush has used false evidence to invade Iraq unnecessarily and put America at risk economically, destroyed our credibility around the world and put American lives on the line for no reason at all.

Just more of the same. We've been over all these issues you keep bringing up and they still don't have much merit if any at all. Is there a prize for the person who takes the hardest line against Bush? (seems to be so, since Dean is supposedly the front runner of the Dem race)
BOBDN - to say that "Anyone who can support the Bush administration in this madness is so blinded by partisanship.." is nonsense and you know it. All the "reasons" have been there all along - they aren't a "new excuse" - its just that people seem to forget about them and only look at one of them at a time. -IMO ofcourse

CkG

CkG

If you haven't noticed I've been doing my best not to get involved in name calling and flame wars. I will not however sit by when people misconstrue my questions on Iraq as a " warped need to demonize the Bush Administration"

You started the "nonsense" thread. I reacted to the suggestions made there by stopping the personal attacks (although I truly believe I didn't initiate any, only retaliated). I don't believe defending my point of view is wrong. I said anyone who can support the Bush administration in this madness is so blinded by partisanship in response to the statement I quoted in the preceding paragraph.

And I haven't heard the excuse about attracting fighters to Iraq to exterminate them more easily. And I do believe it is utter nonsense. The excuses keep changing. No one has given a good reason to invade Iraq yet. Just different reasons every time the preceding reasons they give prove false.

I made no inference of "pesonal attacks" coming from you and have noticed the tone down - thanks
I was saying that the issues you bring up have been hashed and rehashed and are still only OPINION.
*You don't think there are valid reasons for attacking Iraq - Many of us do and have been presenting them over and over again.
*You say that we keep "changing" them - They have been there from the start, its just that some people are finally realizing that they had been there
*You think that "It is costing more than we can afford and more troops than we can send" - In truth we can and will afford it and furthermore - there hasn't been a call for more troops by the people in charge over there. If they request more troops they will get them - Rummy and the rest are on record as saying such. Yes they'd like a bigger foreign presence - as they have from the very start.
*You say that the war was based on "falsehoods" - but those few don't make the whole war "unnecessary".
*You say America is at "economic risk" - We are always at risk.
*You say America's credibility is being destroyed - Why do countries keep begging/blackmailing us for help?
*You say Bush "put American lives on the line for no reason at all." - Again it is your opinion - many of us believe there was a need.

WE see your opinions as anti-Bush rhetoric and can be fortified by your statement that Bush "will NEVER be my president precisely because I AM an American citizen." Now I know you were a tad worked up when we were discussing the "presidential" nature of Bush but even when tempered to show such - it adds to the perception. This is all "IMO" though and not meant to "attack" you - I just wish to show you why we may seem to be so "united" against your posts and positions.

The "attracting them to Iraq" is a tad silly but one can't deny that it is happening. I doubt it was deemed a valid reason to attack but was probably thought about. I had similar thoughts before the war like - take the fight to them, or fight it in their back yard - but never expressed them because they hold no legal validity and could be construed as inflammatory or hatefull - but truth be told, I'd rather have the fighting take place over there than over here and willingly admit that it is selfish.

CkG

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN
There was and is no valid reason for attacking Iraq.

The very idea we invaded Iraq to attract foreign fighters only serves to illustrate the moral bankruptcy of the Bush administration policy. How can Bush and his supporters say on one hand we invaded Iraq because of an imminent threat, then change the story to we invaded Iraq to free the Iraqi people, then change the story again to say we invaded Iraq to attract foreign fighters? If this were true, and I don't believe it is, we just went from maintaining our own security to maintaining Iraq's security to endangering Iraq by purposefully invading Iraq to attract people who commit acts such as today's bombing of the mosque or last week's bombing of the UN.

This is as well a new excuse. I haven't heard that one up to now. I thought we were invading Iraq to end an imminent threat Iraq posed and to rid them of the WMD no one has been able to locate.

Maybe next week you'll have another reason. Is there a prize for the most believable reason concocted every week?

As for the temporary nature of the action I beg to differ. Every day it becomes clearer we are being dragged deeper and deeper into a long drawn out guerilla war. It is costing more than we can afford and more troops than we can send. That's why the Bush administration is now courting the UN for help. They've bitten off way more than they can chew. They can't spit it out either. Bush and Co. have us locked into a no win situation in Iraq.

I don't have any bitter prejudices clouding my thinking. Anyone who can support the Bush administration in this madness is so blinded by partisanship they can't see the truth that Bush has used false evidence to invade Iraq unnecessarily and put America at risk economically, destroyed our credibility around the world and put American lives on the line for no reason at all.

Just more of the same. We've been over all these issues you keep bringing up and they still don't have much merit if any at all. Is there a prize for the person who takes the hardest line against Bush? (seems to be so, since Dean is supposedly the front runner of the Dem race)
BOBDN - to say that "Anyone who can support the Bush administration in this madness is so blinded by partisanship.." is nonsense and you know it. All the "reasons" have been there all along - they aren't a "new excuse" - its just that people seem to forget about them and only look at one of them at a time. -IMO ofcourse

CkG

CkG

If you haven't noticed I've been doing my best not to get involved in name calling and flame wars. I will not however sit by when people misconstrue my questions on Iraq as a " warped need to demonize the Bush Administration"

You started the "nonsense" thread. I reacted to the suggestions made there by stopping the personal attacks (although I truly believe I didn't initiate any, only retaliated). I don't believe defending my point of view is wrong. I said anyone who can support the Bush administration in this madness is so blinded by partisanship in response to the statement I quoted in the preceding paragraph.

And I haven't heard the excuse about attracting fighters to Iraq to exterminate them more easily. And I do believe it is utter nonsense. The excuses keep changing. No one has given a good reason to invade Iraq yet. Just different reasons every time the preceding reasons they give prove false.

I made no inference of "pesonal attacks" coming from you and have noticed the tone down - thanks
I was saying that the issues you bring up have been hashed and rehashed and are still only OPINION.
*You don't think there are valid reasons for attacking Iraq - Many of us do and have been presenting them over and over again.
*You say that we keep "changing" them - They have been there from the start, its just that some people are finally realizing that they had been there
*You think that "It is costing more than we can afford and more troops than we can send" - In truth we can and will afford it and furthermore - there hasn't been a call for more troops by the people in charge over there. If they request more troops they will get them - Rummy and the rest are on record as saying such. Yes they'd like a bigger foreign presence - as they have from the very start.
*You say that the war was based on "falsehoods" - but those few don't make the whole war "unnecessary".
*You say America is at "economic risk" - We are always at risk.
*You say America's credibility is being destroyed - Why do countries keep begging/blackmailing us for help?
*You say Bush "put American lives on the line for no reason at all." - Again it is your opinion - many of us believe there was a need.

WE see your opinions as anti-Bush rhetoric and can be fortified by your statement that Bush "will NEVER be my president precisely because I AM an American citizen." Now I know you were a tad worked up when we were discussing the "presidential" nature of Bush but even when tempered to show such - it adds to the perception. This is all "IMO" though and not meant to "attack" you - I just wish to show you why we may seem to be so "united" against your posts and positions.

The "attracting them to Iraq" is a tad silly but one can't deny that it is happening. I doubt it was deemed a valid reason to attack but was probably thought about. I had similar thoughts before the war like - take the fight to them, or fight it in their back yard - but never expressed them because they hold no legal validity and could be construed as inflammatory or hatefull - but truth be told, I'd rather have the fighting take place over there than over here and willingly admit that it is selfish.

CkG

For reasons I cannot understand there are people who will support Bush no matter what he does. I believe the Bush administration has been hijacked by a group of neo-con radicals hell bent on world domination, which they see as a form of benevolent dictatorship. PNAC.

None of the members of the neo-con group served in the military but they are quick to send troops into combat without provocation. The memory of military people asking how Clinton could send troops into battle without ever serving comes to mind.

I suppose what bothers me most is the double standard Bush supporters expect everyone to ignore now.

That and the fact that the Iraq conflict wasn't necessary for the simple reason Iraq posed no threat to the US or even its own neighbors.

And I must disagree. The reasons for invading Iraq keep changing. Bush made unqualified statements about Iraq's weapons programs, terrorist ties and the imminent threat Iraq posed to the US. Without proof to back those charges the reason for the invasion changed to freedom for the Iraqi people. Failing at that it is now to bring fighters into Iraq to engage them.

We've seen the Bush resolve in Afghanistan. I say the same will happen in Iraq. Only time will tell who is right. Until then everyone will believe what they want to believe.

If Bush isn't reelected Republicans will undoubtedly attack whoever the next president is as they did Clinton and won't understand the anger of Americans who see this as a double standard.

Republicans attacked Clinton unmercifully for eight long years. When they couldn't come up with anything, after spending something in the neighborhood of $64 million on investigation after investigation, they finally tripped him up on a lie about a private sexual encounter between two consenting adults. Now they act as thought his entire administration was a failure due to that one lie in answer to a question many people feel should never have been asked. The public disgrace they put Clinton through they put our entire nation through as well. All for petty partisanship. Because they couldn't beat Clinton at the polls. Now we are supposed to respect Bush.

To cast Bush as the righteous leader who cannot be questioned after such actions is unfair and unrealistic. Bush is not the man his supporters make him out to be. Look at his life history. Look at the privilege he wasted. He is being led around by a group of people who have us engaged in a war where there was no threat to the US.

Only time will tell. Until then we are facing record deficits and a war we cannot justify in a nation that was no threat to us. We are in the unenviable position of having to ask the world for help to finish the job we started. A world that didn't agree with us to begin with. But true to form the Bush administration is spinning this as their choice. They will consider letting the UN help in Iraq. What arrogance.

I don't know what you expect of me or other Americans who don't agree with you or the Bush administration. You cannot expect us to quietly go away and let this administration run roughshod over principles our nation held since its inception. We will continue to protest this administration's policy of preemption, its environmental policy, its tax policy, its policies on our rights and its insistence that everyone now circle the wagons and support them after the years of misery they put us through when it was our guy in the White House. Clinton did not deserve the treatment he received from Republicans. Bush doesn't deserve our support. He is wrong. His policies are wrong. He and his administration are doing irreprable harm to our nation IMO. I'll keep saying that just as Republicans kept attacking Clinton. I feel comfortable knowing at least I have good reason to do so.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
For reasons I cannot understand there are people who will support Bush no matter what he does. I believe the Bush administration has been hijacked by a group of neo-con radicals hell bent on world domination, which they see as a form of benevolent dictatorship. PNAC.

None of the members of the neo-con group served in the military but they are quick to send troops into combat without provocation. The memory of military people asking how Clinton could send troops into battle without ever serving comes to mind.

I suppose what bothers me most is the double standard Bush supporters expect everyone to ignore now.

That and the fact that the Iraq conflict wasn't necessary for the simple reason Iraq posed no threat to the US or even its own neighbors.

And I must disagree. The reasons for invading Iraq keep changing. Bush made unqualified statements about Iraq's weapons programs, terrorist ties and the imminent threat Iraq posed to the US. Without proof to back those charges the reason for the invasion changed to freedom for the Iraqi people. Failing at that it is now to bring fighters into Iraq to engage them.

We've seen the Bush resolve in Afghanistan. I say the same will happen in Iraq. Only time will tell who is right. Until then everyone will believe what they want to believe.

If Bush isn't reelected Republicans will undoubtedly attack whoever the next president is as they did Clinton and won't understand the anger of Americans who see this as a double standard.

Republicans attacked Clinton unmercifully for eight long years. When they couldn't come up with anything, after spending something in the neighborhood of $64 million on investigation after investigation, they finally tripped him up on a lie about a private sexual encounter between two consenting adults. Now they act as thought his entire administration was a failure due to that one lie in answer to a question many people feel should never have been asked. The public disgrace they put Clinton through they put our entire nation through as well. All for petty partisanship. Because they couldn't beat Clinton at the polls. Now we are supposed to respect Bush.

To cast Bush as the righteous leader who cannot be questioned after such actions is unfair and unrealistic. Bush is not the man his supporters make him out to be. Look at his life history. Look at the privilege he wasted. He is being led around by a group of people who have us engaged in a war where there was no threat to the US.

Only time will tell. Until then we are facing record deficits and a war we cannot justify in a nation that was no threat to us. We are in the unenviable position of having to ask the world for help to finish the job we started. A world that didn't agree with us to begin with. But true to form the Bush administration is spinning this as their choice. They will consider letting the UN help in Iraq. What arrogance.

I don't know what you expect of me or other Americans who don't agree with you or the Bush administration. You cannot expect us to quietly go away and let this administration run roughshod over principles our nation held since its inception. We will continue to protest this administration's policy of preemption, its environmental policy, its tax policy, its policies on our rights and its insistence that everyone now circle the wagons and support them after the years of misery they put us through when it was our guy in the White House. Clinton did not deserve the treatment he received from Republicans. Bush doesn't deserve our support. He is wrong. His policies are wrong. He and his administration are doing irreprable harm to our nation IMO. I'll keep saying that just as Republicans kept attacking Clinton. I feel comfortable knowing at least I have good reason to do so.

Kudos, BOBDN. Well said.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BOBDN You cannot expect us to quietly go away and let this administration run roughshod over principles our nation held since its inception.

i see that the brainwashing you received in high school and jr high about how great america is is still in place.

 

[tcsenter]

There was and is no valid reason for attacking Iraq.

You can offer empty-handed dismissals of my argument, if you like. But you do so at the risk of your own credibility, since it was you who requested a 'rationale' or 'explanation' for the war against Iraq. I not only met your request, I built a case which, if it were true, completely subverts all criticisms of the Bush Administration's stated justification for war with Iraq and ties-up all seeming contradictions. It provides a highly plausible explanation for the 'true' reasons behind the war with Iraq, which I've supported adequately in both a logical and evidenciary manner.

Those making the case that the Bushy's motives were nefarious desires for greed or power have not managed to put forth an equally unflappable argument that, if presumed true, accomplishes the same feat of completely subverting all opposing arguments.

By dismissing out-of-hand the credible argument I've offered and refusing to acknowledge its merits, you show that you have no interest or intention of considering in good faith any other credible explanation offered in response to your request except those which are merely restatements of your own. If that is the case, then your repeated requests for a 'rationale' and 'explanation' for war with Iraq are not genuine but instead feigned attempts to appear reasonable and receptive to a credible explanation (as I predicted).

I've spelled-out for you this plausible justification for war with Iraq as plainly as possible, and have specifically characterized the Bush Administration's stated reasons as a pretext, not the true reasons it was necessary to remove Hussein from power. I also explained why it was necessary to use a pretext for the war, because the implications of stating the real reasons are unacceptable.

Yet you continue to force the discussion back to the context of the flaws in Bush's stated justification for war, which I've already admitted were a pretext, so you're only arguing with yourself on this point.

The very idea we invaded Iraq to attract foreign fighters only serves to illustrate the moral bankruptcy of the Bush administration policy.

There is nothing immoral about eliminating terrorists who have vowed to kill Americans if given half the opportunity, who indeed are coming to Iraq for the opportunity to make good on their vows, unless of course you support their cause against the United States? Hmmm, perhaps I was wrong about your intense hatred of the Bush Administration. Perhaps its the United States you despise and share Hussein's belief that the US 'deserved' 9/11.

How can Bush and his supporters say on one hand we invaded Iraq because of an imminent threat, then change the story to we invaded Iraq to free the Iraqi people, then change the story again to say we invaded Iraq to attract foreign fighters?

Now you're being deliberately dishonest (surprise). I'm responding to your [dishonest] request for a rationale, not Bush, nor am I speaking for Bush, so leave Bush out of it. Nor am I speaking for any Bush supporter who may have at some point in time offered you another justification, so leave these unnamed 'Bush supporters' out of it.

I've already spelled-out for you why Bush's stated justifications for war with Iraq differ from those I'm offering (besides the blatantly obvious fact that I'm offering them, not Bush). You know that, you refuse to acknowledge it. Dismiss, deny, distort. But beyond that, I specifically stated twice that attracting foreign fighters was an incidental benefit ("bonus"), not a primary reason for invading Iraq.

If I stated to you that I desired to lose weight, and that my reasons were aesthetic, but I also acknowledged that health benefits would be a bonus of losing weight, would you then characterize my main reasons for losing weight as health related? Do you even know how to follow a simple argument? It would certainly explain much, if you didn't.

If this were true, and I don't believe it is, we just went from maintaining our own security to maintaining Iraq's security to endangering Iraq by purposefully invading Iraq to attract people who commit acts such as today's bombing of the mosque or last week's bombing of the UN.

Answered above.

This is as well a new excuse. I haven't heard that one up to now. I thought we were invading Iraq to end an imminent threat Iraq posed and to rid them of the WMD no one has been able to locate.

Again, answered adequately. Dismiss, deny, distort.

As for the temporary nature of the action I beg to differ. Every day it becomes clearer we are being dragged deeper and deeper into a long drawn out guerilla war. It is costing more than we can afford and more troops than we can send. That's why the Bush administration is now courting the UN for help. They've bitten off way more than they can chew. They can't spit it out either. Bush and Co. have us locked into a no win situation in Iraq.

The Bush Administration has maintained from the outset that assistance from other nations would not only be welcome, it would be vital to success in Iraq. The suggestion that the Bush Administration's interest in assistance from other nations is evidence of some huge planning blunder is nothing more than a distortion of the truth.

I don't have any bitter prejudices clouding my thinking. Anyone who can support the Bush administration in this madness is so blinded by partisanship they can't see the truth that Bush has used false evidence to invade Iraq unnecessarily and put America at risk economically, destroyed our credibility around the world and put American lives on the line for no reason at all.

Given your intransigent refusal to acknowledge in good faith a word I've written, I suppose you would best know about 'blind partisanship preventing people from seeing the truth'.

 

[BOBDN]

tcsenter

We disagree. I stand by my statements. You stand by yours.

People will decide for themselves. Time will be the final arbiter.

I believe an honest evaluation of the actions of the Bush administration in Iraq will vindicate me and all Americans who agree with the version of events I gave and choose to dissent from Bush's leadership.

We watched these events unfold. They are clear in our minds. They are clearly wrong.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
You can offer empty-handed dismissals of my argument, if you like. But you do so at the risk of your own credibility, since it was you who requested a 'rationale' or 'explanation' for the war against Iraq. I not only met your request, I built a case which, if it were true, completely subverts all criticisms of the Bush Administration's stated justification for war with Iraq and ties-up all seeming contradictions. It provides a highly plausible explanation for the 'true' reasons behind the war with Iraq, which I've supported adequately in both a logical and evidenciary manner.

Those making the case that the Bushy's motives were nefarious desires for greed or power have not managed to put forth an equally unflappable argument that, if presumed true, accomplishes the same feat of completely subverting all opposing arguments. [...]

Wow! I want to see this rationale that "completely subverts all criticisms" and "ties-up all seeming contradictions". That's a monumental achievement if true, probably Nobel material. No one else on the right has come even close.

Let's see, if we track back through this thread, we get this:

A rationale. Ok, here goes...

Given that Hussein was successfully purchasing opposition to US policies WRT UN sanctions among a few notable UN member nations with whom Iraq had strong financial and economic ties, I won't mention any names*COUGH*francerussia*COUGH, and that so many people were serving as dupes, both witting and unwitting, for Hussein's manipulation of world opinion by first exacerbating then politicizing the 'suffering of Iraqi children' due to UN sanctions and blaming it on the US, bolstered by UNICEF's virtual reliance upon highly inflated 'infant mortality statistics' published by the Iraqi Ministry of Health, a major propaganda outlet for the Hussein regime, it was becoming increasingly clear that economic sanctions were - right or wrong - becoming a very sore spot for the US.

The 'suffering of Iraqi children', made far worse by the Hussein regime than it ever would have due to sanctions alone, and aggrandized by all US-hating pundits the world over, was hardening opposition and fueling hatred for the West among Muslim populations, serving as a rallying cry for terrorist recruiters and militant Islamic factions. It was clear that the sanctions had to go (and I agree they had to go), but there was simply no way to lift the sanctions on Iraq without invariably restoring Hussein's ability to once again fully resume every nefarious practice for which we undoubtedly know Hussein has an insatiable appetite.

That means, Hussein had to go before we could lift the sanctions. Capice?

Hmmm. So, in a nutshell, your completely-subverts-all-criticisms rationale is that the United States had to unilaterally invade and occupy a Muslim country and kill thousands of innocent Muslims because the United Nations sanctions' "inflated" effect on Iraqi children was "fueling hatred for the West among Muslim populations" and served as a "rallying cry for terrorist recruiters"? Did I get that right? (Doris, please cancel my call to Stockholm. Thanks.)

Well, that's an interesting theory. Certainly, it rings true in a way. It's philosophically similar to Bush's approach to our natural resources -- we can save them by destroying them.

I am a little curious though. Can you offer even one iota of evidence that the U.N. sanctions were, in fact, playing any significant role in "fueling hatred for the West among Muslim populations" and serving as a "rallying cry for terrorist recruiters"? I wonder about this since it is painfully obvious our invasion and occupation of Iraq is having this effect, in spades. It is not so obvious that the U.N. sanctions, supported by the U.N. Security Council, were having the same effect ... only greater. In the past, these effects have been primarily attributed to other factors, e.g., our support of Israel. Please post a few links that back up your claim.

Then, of course, there's the whole notion that the only alternative to sanctions and inspections was invasion and occupation. It seems to me that there were a whole spectrum of other, less draconian alternatives that we would have explored first ... especially given that the rest of the U.N., equally privvy to our special insight on the whole Middle East hatred/terrorism thing, and generally more impacted by terrorist acts than the U.S., somehow disagreed that invading Iraq and killing thousands of Muslims was the appropriate solution to the problem. This included most of the major U.N. members, not just the ones with "strong economic ties" like "*COUGH*francerussia*COUGH".

So, with all due respect, I must politely decline to accept the notion that your "rationale" "completely subverts all criticisms" and "ties-up all seeming contradictions". I'm afraid I still see plenty of contradictions, and have a whole bunch of criticisms that your rationale doesn't address at all.

Finally, I note for the record that you posted this gem in the same message as:

It's not terrorist connections.

And none were cited as the justification for invading Iraq.

which, as I documented and you ignored, is utterly and completely false. I'm afraid it's not BOBDN's credibility at risk. Capisce?

 

[BOBDN]

Bowfinger

Are you a paisan?

You spelled CAPISCE correctly. BENE. MOLTO BENE!

May I add, your opinion was, as always, well said. Very well said!

 

[tcsenter]

BOWFINGER: Wow, that was a rather long diatribe, barely intelligible but I think was able to get the jist of your complaints with my argument, every single one of which has been answered or addressed adequately in other posts by me in this thread. Hell most of your complaints aren't even original, as BOBDN has already used them.

I suggest you go back to the beginning and read my posts to see how I developed the argument and provided the logical and evidenciary support for it. Then if you are still in the dark, come back and ask a question that - dare I say - is at least somewhat a new criticism. Alrighty then?

Your intellectual laziness will not be my loss.

 

[BOBDN]

Bowfinger, I have a suggestion for both of us.

We keep telling the truth. They can keep defending their version of events. Sooner or later the truth will become apparent.