# "Bush Lied!"



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

A Nexus Lexus search yields the following points:
The bipartisan Silberman Robb Commission investigated the intelligence failures leading up to the Iraq war. It was concluded that both the administration and congress received the same information, leading to the following:
" I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat to our security"......Senator Kerry

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction"...Senator Kennedy

"In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program....Senator Clinton, 2002

What a shame that some are willing to give comfort to those determined to destroy our way of life, to gain personal power.

According to correspondence between FDR and Churchill, leading up to Pearl Harbor, FDR knowingly committed impeachable offenses, six times, by violating the Neutrality Act of 1936, in order to aid the UK.

Thank God that he did. Had the UK fallen, Hitler's dream of a 1000 year Reich could have been a reality.

Difficult times call for a united free people. Cowardly appeasement is always appealing, but never works.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Intrepid,

Great post. One can disagree with the wisdom of going to war in Iraq however to claim Bush lied is absurd. Just bc your assumption is wrong doesn't mean you have lied - I believe one has to know they are be untruthful to lie. 

Two things - first the Left likes to paint George W Bush as some sort of bumbling idiot but somehow he was able to engineer some duplicitious scheme to dupe the world and engage in war. Some of the radical Left even believes he had a hand in planning 9-11. And it is the Right which is accussed of fear mongering!

Second, many of those who claim about the faulty intelligence voted to gut the CIA budget during the 90's. A certain senator/failed presidential candidate from MA comes to mind.

And speaking of presidential lies, didn't the previous president lie under oath? Oh, I know perjury is nothing serious but perhaps if Clinton hadn't lied then Gore would won in 2000 walking away and then by logic of the Left, we wouldn't be in this mess. Perhaps you should blame your beloved Cinton for George W Bush and his "mess".

Karl


----------



## ashie259 (Aug 25, 2005)

I take it that you mean Saddam Hussein when you refer to "those determined to destroy our way of life." I wasn't aware that he posed any threat to your way of life - except perhaps to the extent that your endless supply of cheap gasoline to put in your car was looking a bit dodgy for a while there.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ashie259,

Hussein was actively supporting Hamas and offering a 25,000 USD reward to Palestinian suicide bombers who killed innocent Israeli civilians. I don't know about you but I think all dictators are a threat to our way of life, no matter if they are expansionist or not. And please be intellectually honest enough not to use the old canard that the war was for oil. If it was I assure you, gas would be considerably cheaper.

One more thing since the Left seems so concerned about lies - where is the outrage over the lies the UN was telling about the Oil for Food program? Where is the outrage over the fact that UN officials padded their Swiss bank accounts while Iraqi children starved? Where are the mass protests in New York, Paris and London? We know the answer. The Left hates Bush more than it hates tyranny.

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Rational self-interest should at least make one think....*



ashie259 said:


> I take it that you mean Saddam Hussein when you refer to "those determined to destroy our way of life." I wasn't aware that he posed any threat to your way of life - except perhaps to the extent that your endless supply of cheap gasoline to put in your car was looking a bit dodgy for a while there.


Just to tie this topic to your little world:

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/london_blasts/what_happened/html/default.stm

Saddam inspired? I doubt it. Part of the ongoing conflict between the West and Islam? Certainly. Some of the bombers home-grown too....makes me think England isn't doing so well with diversity, making everyone feel welcome and such....

Warmest regards


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Just to tie this topic to your little world:
> 
> https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/london_blasts/what_happened/html/default.stm
> 
> Saddam inspired? I doubt it. Part of the ongoing conflict between the West and Islam? Certainly. Some of the bombers home-grown too....makes me think England isn't doing so well with diversity, making everyone feel welcome and such....


You are now linking the 7/7 bombings in London to Saddam?

What, pray tell, does a secular dictator who was in US custody at the time have to do with "the ongoing conflict between the West and Islam"?

Surely it is plain to see that Iraq has become a breeding ground for the very type of violent Islamic fundamentalism that breeds these types of murderers. And when the US decides it has hed enough in Iraq and pulls out, there will still be a lot of very angry young men who will be looking for someone to kill in the name of Allah.

Thanks George, Rummy and the rest of the gang - great work....


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Intrepid,
> 
> Great post. One can disagree with the wisdom of going to war in Iraq however to claim Bush lied is absurd. Just bc your assumption is wrong doesn't mean you have lied - I believe one has to know they are be untruthful to lie.


I think it is really sweet how you two have formed a mutual appreciation society. "Oooh, great post Intrepid!". "Post another one like that Karl - please!". Very good for your morale, keep it up.

It is an interesting question about whether Bush and his cronies lied. How wildly erroneous do your assumptions have to be to become a lie? How specific can you be about knowing something and then have that proven to be completely false before you are a liar. The exchange between Rumsfeld and the CIA man a couple of weeks ago demonstrates this point - Rumsfeld said he KNEW where these WMDs were (he denies this now but the footage shows him to be wrong).

The bottom line is - Bush and his boys are either liars or idiots. And posting a list of people agreeing with them means little - none of those people invaded a soveriegn nation based on the flimsy evidence when there were workable alternatives. Bush did.



Karl89 said:


> Two things - first the Left likes to paint George W Bush as some sort of bumbling idiot but somehow he was able to engineer some duplicitious scheme to dupe the world and engage in war.


Oh, Bush IS a bumbling idiot!

And just who do you think he duped? He didn't fool anybody who didn't fancy his crusade - he wanted his war and he got it in the face of enormous protests and traditional American allies (who were in the 1st Gulf War and Afghanistan) refusing to join in because they knew it was based ona load of crap (Britain and Australia can both hang their heads in shame at this point).

Face it Karl, the only people that were duped were you and the rest of the far right who believed the obvious lies being peddled by the administration.

Don't worry though, there is a sucker like you born every minute - how else would republicans get elected?


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

gmac said:


> (Britain and Australia can both hang their heads in shame at this point).


Dont' forget Poland!


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Familyman,

Yes let us not forget Poland. The Poles more than anyone appreciate the consequences of failed diplomacy. The Poles understand what it means to be brutalized by a dictator and they also understand the meaning of courage and the risk it entails - whether it being Sobieski rescuing Europe in 1683, Pilsudski turning back the Red Army at Warsaw in 1920, the valiant resistance to Nazi occupation and the Solidarity movement during the 1980's.

Tak! Let us NEVER forget the Poles.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FTR traditional allies like France were bribed by Saddam Hussein. So was Germany and Russia. It was NOT because "they knew it was a load of crap".


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*This from Germany*

Another interesting quote a few weeks before the Iraq invasion:

"I think all of our governments believe that Iraq has produced weapons of mass destruction and that we have to assume that they continue to have weapons of mass destruction."

Wolfgand Ischinger, German Ambassador to the US


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

ksinc said:


> FTR traditional allies like France were bribed by Saddam Hussein. So was Germany and Russia. It was NOT because "they knew it was a load of crap".


Three major European states were "bribed' by Saddam Hussein? You have proof of this of course?

Or are we going to see more of the laughable alleagtions made by the one termer from Minnesota against George Galloway - who came to Washington and made an utter fool out of Coleman and his committee.

No doubt there were some pay offs made, a few contracts offered - but nothing that would have changed the fact that those countries have been proven RIGHT to stay out of the fools errand in Iraq. There were no WMDs, Saddam was a threat to no-one except his own people and the invasion has become a quagmire.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Familyman,
> 
> Yes let us not forget Poland. The Poles more than anyone appreciate the consequences of failed diplomacy. The Poles understand what it means to be brutalized by a dictator and they also understand the meaning of courage and the risk it entails - whether it being Sobieski rescuing Europe in 1683, Pilsudski turning back the Red Army at Warsaw in 1920, the valiant resistance to Nazi occupation and the Solidarity movement during the 1980's.
> 
> ...


Yes, having suffered invasion time after time through their history, one would have thought the Poles would have thought twice before subjecting another nation to invasion and occupation by a foriegn power.

Guess not.....


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

gmac said:


> Three major European states were "bribed' by Saddam Hussein? You have proof of this of course?
> 
> Or are we going to see more of the laughable alleagtions made by the one termer from Minnesota against George Galloway - who came to Washington and made an utter fool out of Coleman and his committee.
> 
> No doubt there were some pay offs made, a few contracts offered - but nothing that would have changed the fact that those countries have been proven RIGHT to stay out of the fools errand in Iraq. There were no WMDs, Saddam was a threat to no-one except his own people and the invasion has become a quagmire.


It's common knowledge, do some basic research.

Start with Colin Powell's book.


----------



## romafan (Apr 29, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Hussein was actively supporting Hamas and offering a 25,000 USD reward to Palestinian suicide bombers who killed innocent Israeli civilians. I don't know about you but I think all dictators are a threat to our way of life, no matter if they are expansionist or not.


If Hussein was so horrible, why was the Reagan administration so supportive of him? Talk about giving comfort...

"Christmas came 11 days early for Donald Rumsfeld two years ago when the news broke that American forces had pulled Saddam Hussein from a spidery hole. During interviews about the capture, on CBS and ABC, the Pentagon's top man was upbeat. And he didn't have to deal with a question that Lesley Stahl or Peter Jennings could have logically chosen to ask: "Secretary Rumsfeld, you met with Saddam almost exactly 20 years ago and shook his hand. What kind of guy was he?"

Now, Saddam Hussein has gone on trial, but such questions remain unasked by mainstream U.S. journalists. Rumsfeld met with Hussein in Baghdad on behalf of the Reagan administration, opening up strong diplomatic and military ties that lasted through six more years of Saddam's murderous brutality.

As it happens, the initial trial of Saddam and co-defendants is focusing on grisly crimes that occurred the year before Rumsfeld gripped his hand. "The first witness, Ahmad Hassan Muhammad, 38, riveted the courtroom with the scenes of torture he witnessed after his arrest in 1982, including a meat grinder with human hair and blood under it," the New York Times reported on Dec. 6. And: "At one point, Mr. Muhammad briefly broke down in tears as he recalled how his brother was tortured with electrical shocks in front of their 77-year-old father."

The victims were Shiites -- 143 men and adolescent boys, according to the charges -- tortured and killed in the Iraqi town of Dujail after an assassination attempt against Saddam in early July of 1982. Donald Rumsfeld became the Reagan administration's Middle East special envoy 15 months later.

On Dec. 20, 1983, the Washington Post reported that Rumsfeld "visited Iraq in what U.S. officials said was an attempt to bolster the already improving U.S. relations with that country." A couple of days later, the New York Times cited a "senior American official" who "said that the United States remained ready to establish full diplomatic relations with Iraq and that it was up to the Iraqis."

On March 29, 1984, the Times reported: "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name." Washington had some goodies for Saddam's regime, the Times account noted, including "agricultural-commodity credits totaling $840 million." And while "no results of the talks have been announced" after the Rumsfeld visit to Baghdad three months earlier, "Western European diplomats assume that the United States now exchanges some intelligence on Iran with Iraq."

A few months later, on July 17, 1984, a Times article with a Baghdad dateline sketchily filled in a bit more information, saying that the U.S. government "granted Iraq about $2 billion in commodity credits to buy food over the last two years." The story recalled that "Donald Rumsfeld, the former Middle East special envoy, held two private meetings with the Iraqi president here," and the dispatch mentioned in passing that "State Department human rights reports have been uniformly critical of the Iraqi President, contending that he ran a police state."

Full diplomatic relations between Washington and Baghdad were restored 11 months after Rumsfeld's December 1983 visit with Saddam. He went on to use poison gas later in the decade, actions which scarcely harmed relations with the Reagan administration.

As the most senior U.S. official to visit Iraq in six years, Rumsfeld had served as Reagan's point man for warming relations with Saddam. In 1984, the administration engineered the sale to Baghdad of 45 ostensibly civilian-use Bell 214ST helicopters. Saddam's military found them quite useful for attacking Kurdish civilians with poison gas in 1988, according to U.S. intelligence sources. "In response to the gassing," journalist Jeremy Scahill has pointed out, "sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the U.S. Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most U.S. technology. The measure was killed by the White House."

The USA's big media institutions did little to illuminate how Washington and business interests combined to strengthen and arm Saddam Hussein during many of his worst crimes. "In the 1980s and afterward, the United States underwrote 24 American corporations so they could sell to Saddam Hussein weapons of mass destruction, which he used against Iran, at that time the prime Middle Eastern enemy of the United States," writes Ben Bagdikian, a former assistant managing editor of the Washington Post, in his book The New Media Monopoly. "Hussein used U.S.-supplied poison gas" against Iranians and Kurds "while the United States looked the other way."

Karl[/QUOTE]And please be intellectually honest enough not to use the old canard that the war was for oil. If it was I assure you, gas would be considerably cheaper. Karl[/QUOTE]

You have to win the war for that to be the case....


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Romafan,

I am not sure what your point is? I have never defended the Reagan administration's policy towards Iraq and I won't now. However you can't look at without context. The US actually wanted both sides to lose and also gave covert aid to Iran (remember Iran Contra?) Sometimes you have to chose the lesserof two evils. Remember the Allies supported a murderous dicatorship in the Soviet Union to help win the war against the Nazis. Was this the wrong policy? No of course not but it was far from the morally pure standard you seem to demand.

I don't understand the Left - they complain when the US deals with dictators and they complain when the US removes them.

All I can glean from your post is that Saddam was bad. I think we can all agree on that. Unless of course you miss the Iraqi dictaorship.

And if the war was for oil then the whole Middle East would be a giant 7-11 with members of the House of Saud manning the cash registers while we bought a Slurpee and paid for our fill up. Amazing that the left believes in a neo-con/Big Oil conspiracy yet they ignore the Oil for Food program conspiracy or the Iranian conspiracy to acquire nuclear weapons.

Far easier to attack Bush than to stand up against tyranny. For shame.

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Do I need flashing arrows?*



gmac said:


> You are now linking the 7/7 bombings in London to Saddam?


Do I need some animated huge flashing arrows to point things out? What's the first the first thing I said after posting the link?



wayfarer said:


> Saddam inspired? I doubt it.


Question answered?



gmac said:


> Surely it is plain to see that Iraq has become a breeding ground for the very type of violent Islamic fundamentalism that breeds these types of murderers.


Why do you say "Iraq"? Did you not read and comprehend the article? Most of the bombing was done by British born people! Thus why I say it is a conflict between Islam and the West, not Iraq, Iran, or anyone one country.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Just to tie this topic to your little world:
> 
> https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/london_blasts/what_happened/html/default.stm


Then what are you trying to tie together? The previous poster was talking about Saddam, you bring up 7/7 to "tie this topic to your little world".

Contradicting yourself. no?


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

ksinc said:


> It's common knowledge, do some basic research.
> 
> Start with Colin Powell's book.


Not such common knowledge I'd say.... Politically motivated claims to get back at France for not subscribing to Georgie's lunatic foriegn adventures more like.

https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3723924.stm

France disputes Iraq bribe claims


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

As if they would admit to bribery. What a dunce!

Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> As if they would admit to bribery. What a dunce!
> 
> Karl


Dastardly frogs! Denying what we all know to be true because, because, because....... Karl says so! And so does ksinc! And they know better than anyone because..... they heard it on Fox News! And Rush! So, you garlic muching appeasers, don't tell us what we don't want to hear. Hhhmmmmm.....

I thought you were ignoring me anyway? Didn't think that would last long! Hee hee!

Freedom fries anyone?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*You need to be more observant*



gmac said:


> Then what are you trying to tie together? The previous poster was talking about Saddam, you bring up 7/7 to "tie this topic to your little world".
> 
> Contradicting yourself. no?


The poster in question was from the UK and posturing that the current world situation only affected the US, "dodgy" as he called it. I think the link effectively showed the war on the West could also affect him.

Warmest regards


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I think the link effectively showed the war on the West could also affect him.


No, what it showed was a blatant attempt to tie Saddamm up with a bombing in london thereby somehow justifying the foolhardy invasion of Iraq.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gmac,

I don't say so, the Volker Commission does. I don't watch Fox and I don't listen to Rush. And it was not only the French but the Russians, Germans and even some Americans who took bribes. Intrepid offers sage advice in ignoring you but I feel that if your lies, distortions and silliness go unchallenged that some might think what you say is true. By your own admission you are a fraud. There are intelligent, thoughtful leftists on this board but you are not among them. Have a nice trip to France, perhaps we will be lucky enough that you won't have internet access during your holiday. We will not miss your rabid hatred for Bush, your thinly veiled contempt for America or your baseless allegations. Is it any wonder that you are the most disliked member of this board? 

Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Sorry to disappoint you Karl but I don't go to France for another 2 weeks..... And my old man has a fast connection so you'll hear from me every day! However, since the world cup wil be on at that time I doubt I'll be posting much.

And, on the bright side, I'm away fishing for the rest of this week - way up in the Queen Charlottes, far from an internet connection. You can relax.

As for me being the most disliked member on the board, well, maybe so - but that's only because there are enough right wing loons like you who get angry when somebody shines a light on their falsehoods. I can live with that.

And, I would suggest that for every angry little man like you, seething away over your keyboard, there are two or three lurkers who get a bit of a giggle out of seeing you, Intrepid and the others blow your cool so completely!


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gmac,

I think I can speak for myself and Intrepd when I say we are not right-wingers. Just bc I am a Republican (I don't know Intrepid's affiliation) doesn't make me a crazy loon. But in your world I suppose anyone who isn't a fellow traveler is a fascist. I think we should get rid of dictators while you spend all your time attacking freely elected leaders yet I am the loon. Ironic.

You don't shine any light, you don't make any coherent arguments and you have a tendency to be uncivil. 

I am not angry just annoyed that you cause so much trouble and add so little to the discussion. Your intellectual sophistry doesn't even have the merit of being mildly amusing. 

Karl

P.S. I hope the fish don't bite.

P.P.S. I take it back. I hope you have a good catch. Even a dunce is entitled to some R&R.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*Honored by the association*



Karl89 said:



> Gmac,
> 
> I think I can speak for myself and Intrepd when I say we are not right-wingers. Just bc I am a Republican (I don't know Intrepid's affiliation) doesn't make me a crazy loon. But in your world I suppose anyone who isn't a fellow traveler is a fascist. I think we should get rid of dictators while you spend all your time attacking freely elected leaders yet I am the loon. Ironic.
> 
> ...


No matter the source, Karl, I am honored to have been grouped with you. I'm not even a Republican, but a Libertarian.

Our views often coincide with those on the left, where they involve keeping the government out of individual issues.

However, when the results of the Volker Commission are dismissed out of hand, it greatly dimishes the value that can come from an intelligent discussion of important issues.

There are a lot of important issues that come up on the Interchange. Usually polemics from the uninformed keep them from amounting to much.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I watch Brit Hume, I don't listen to Rush or watch anything else on Fox (Hannity or O'Reilly). I mostly watch CNBC and The Golf Channel.

I'm a conservative-libertarian, but not Republican.

My personal opinion is: the Dems are the Evil Party, and the Reps are the Stupid Party.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*Fabulous!*



ksinc said:


> I watch Brit Hume, I don't listen to Rush or watch anything else on Fox (Hannity or O'Reilly). I mostly watch CNBC and The Golf Channel.
> 
> I'm a conservative-libertarian, but not Republican.
> 
> My personal opinion is: the Dems are the Evil Party, and the Reps are the Stupid Party.


Brilliant analysis! I agree completely with you ksinc.

We also agree completely on tv viewing. Must be the only two people on the planet.

If there is a hell, it will involve having to watch an endless string of Sunday Morning shows that pretend to impart wisdom on the US political scene.


----------



## mr_economy (May 13, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> I think all dictators are a threat to our way of life, no matter if they are expansionist or not.


We (the US) have routinely overthrown democratically-elected governments in favor of dictators when it suits our interests. The United States is not some valliant defender of democracy everywhere - it, like all nations, simply follows policies and doctrines that promote its self interests. We just happen to have the resources and power to be able to directly involve ourselves in the governments of other nations.

Democracy is not always the answer. Iraq is technically a democracy, yet its ideologically segregated population is on the brink of civil war. In the event that such a war does break out, the loss of life would likely be several orders of magnitude larger than the threat posed by Saddam. He may have been evil, but his dictatorial rule had been rather successful at keeping religious clashes quashed.

The other quandry posed by democratizing the Middle East is its dangerous potential. What if the people of a nation democratically elect an islamo-fascist leader? Or what if the people vote in legislation to encourage theocracy? We've already seen these outcomes in Afghanistan - a Christian convert barely escaped with his life!

Democracy has worked in the US because though we disagree amongst ourselves on many issues, we are still relatively homogeneous compared to other regions of the world.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Mr. Economy,

Thanks for the lecture. Or was it a sermon? I am under no illusion that the US is perfect or that some of our foreign policy dealings have been unsavory at best. I am also enough of a realist to know that sometimes these unsavory options are necessary, even vital to national security.

That still doesn't undermine what I have said. We are all less free and face a threat when other people live in tyranny independent of whether that tyranny is US government approved. You simplify democracy into a simple election process but I think it also involves and is dependent upon having a civil society. Many places don't have this necessary element, does that mean they should not be democratic and are better served by tyranny? No, it just means that they have to work on the political aspect and civil society aspect of democracy.

You bring up the fact that for all his faults that at least Saddam kept the peace. True, but what would have happened when he eventually died or was overthrown? Do you think that all these pent up frustrations, vendettas, etc. would have suddenly disappeared and Iraqi politics would have become the Oxford Union? There usually is a very violent period following the end of dictatorship, at least now the US can offer some assistance and try and help shape the new order. If we weren't involved you can bet the Iranians, Syrians and Turks would have nefarous plans for Iraq. Of course it is fair to criticize how the US has handled the occupation but its somewhat naive to think Iraq would not have eventually exploded.

Karl


----------



## romafan (Apr 29, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Romafan,
> 
> I am not sure what your point is? I have never defended the Reagan administration's policy towards Iraq and I won't now. However you can't look at without context. The US actually wanted both sides to lose and also gave covert aid to Iran (remember Iran Contra?) Sometimes you have to chose the lesserof two evils. Remember the Allies supported a murderous dicatorship in the Soviet Union to help win the war against the Nazis. Was this the wrong policy? No of course not but it was far from the morally pure standard you seem to demand.
> 
> ...


Stand up against tyranny? For shame? What a ridiculous thing to say. My point is that the Iraq war is not a war against the tyranny of SH's regime. Some would say that W and his cronies had it out for Hussein for a long time (and not because he was a tyrannt), and used 9/11 as an excuse to go after him. Other's believe that SH posed an imminent threat to the US and/or was connected to 9/11. Either way, W, Cheney, Rummy et al. could give two hoots about the tyrannnical nature of SH's rule.

As to your second point, I don't believe the war "was a war for oil" (although it can be argued that oil plays a huge part in our reasons for going to war). I was merely pointing out that high gas prices do not disprove, as you claim it does, this assertion.


----------



## mr_economy (May 13, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Mr. Economy,
> 
> Thanks for the lecture. Or was it a sermon? I am under no illusion that the US is perfect or that some of our foreign policy dealings have been unsavory at best. I am also enough of a realist to know that sometimes these unsavory options are necessary, even vital to national security.


I think my soapbox is very trad, thank you very much. :icon_smile_big:



> That still doesn't undermine what I have said. We are all less free and face a threat when other people live in tyranny independent of whether that tyranny is US government approved. You simplify democracy into a simple election process but I think it also involves and is dependent upon having a civil society. Many places don't have this necessary element, does that mean they should not be democratic and are better served by tyranny? No, it just means that they have to work on the political aspect and civil society aspect of democracy.


I fully agree that the success of a democracy is based on the civility of a given society, which is precisely why it is likely to fail in Iraq. In the US, we have found ways to hammer out our religious differences through oration and dialogue - something the Iraqis are nowhere near accomplishing.

I do believe installing democracy in a nation lacking sufficient civility is akin to handing a child a loaded gun. Putting the government solely in the hands of people can be incredibly dangerous. Plato knew this, as did the Founders of our nation - the representative system of government and elite political class it creates are no accident, as they create an important moderating balance to an easily-manipulated _demos_.

Though it is by now a cliché reference, Hitler's rise to power would have been impossible, or at least far more difficult, without his masterful ability to captivate a lost and desperate public. This prolific rise to power should not be considered an isolated incident. It is exactly the kind of risk we take each time we install democracy into a nation that does not have the proper underpinnings in place.



> You bring up the fact that for all his faults that at least Saddam kept the peace. True, but what would have happened when he eventually died or was overthrown? Do you think that all these pent up frustrations, vendettas, etc. would have suddenly disappeared and Iraqi politics would have become the Oxford Union? There usually is a very violent period following the end of dictatorship, at least now the US can offer some assistance and try and help shape the new order. If we weren't involved you can bet the Iranians, Syrians and Turks would have nefarous plans for Iraq. Of course it is fair to criticize how the US has handled the occupation but its somewhat naive to think Iraq would not have eventually exploded.
> 
> Karl


I believe Saddam would have been succeeded by one of his sons, who in all likelihood would have ruled the same way he did. The thing about Saddam is that we basically had him caged, contained. Without his iron fist rule, the religious factions have grown immensely in power and now pose constant threats to each other. I see no resolution to this ideological conflict absent either a partitioning of Iraq into three separate nations or a civil war.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Mr. Economy,

We didn't have him caged. Support for the sanctions were eroding and Iraq was dominating the international agenda. Let us not forget there were French and Russian calls for ending the sanctions as early as 1999. And need I mention the corrupt UN Oil for Food Program? In many ways the 90's were wasted on Iraq - terrorism, Yugoslavia, AIDS in Africa and a host of other issues were not given proper attention bc Saddam was able to grandstand during the 90's.

And I doubt the Hussein boys would have been able to hang on to power for long. Iraq was essentially a personality cult and the little legitmacy the regime had would have vanished with Saddam off the scene. Even still, a Hussein dynasty would have offered more of the status quo and the eventual explosion of Iraq could not be avoided. Or do you argue that Iraq would have eventually had its own Velvet Revolution? Possible but highly unlikely bc no legitimate outsiders like Havel or Dubcek commanded the necessary respect in Iraqi society and Iraq did not possess the level of civil society that existed in Eastern Europe. Until the recent events in Lebanon, regime change in Arab countries is never peaceful.

By no means do I think the situation is good but I believe it was inevitable. I do think where we can muster the will and support we should remove dictators. Many critics say the US shared responsbility for the events of 9-11 by supporting Arab dictators. Iraq represents both a neo-Wilsonian idealism (namely that people desire their freedom) and a calculated realism that the status quo was no longer viable and that countries that were free and where people had some control over their lives would not produce suicidal terrorists. 

Iraq is and will be a difficult challenge for the US and for Iraqis. Bush can be blamed for either not understanding how difficult it would be or for not properly relaying this difficulty to the American people. I still think this endeavour was a chance worth taking and that it still may very well succeed.

Karl


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

If history is any guide most people prefer civil war over a prolonged tyranny. And I would hazard a guess that most people would prefer an untested democracy over prolonged tyranny as well. But thats just me...


----------

