Is Bush Going Insane?

Remove all ads!

First, Gallup polls are so well respected for a reason, even if you don't like the results.

Second, I really can't understand how someone can say they can't see one good reason for military action in Iraq. Hell, I can think of a good reason to do just about anything. If a number of people here are so clos minded as to be unwilling to admit there are legitimate reasons to wish military action in Iraq, they are either uninformed or wilfully blind.

The idea that it is the U.S. government only connecting Iraq and al-Qaida is an example of being uninformed, unless you consider the traditionally left-wing magazine "The New Yorker" and its investigative journalism piece on the subject to be the government.

You can't think of one reason to want a regime change via action in Iraq? How about this:

"Let me move quickly to another main point of the piece. In 1988, Saddam used, as you know, chemical weapons against the Kurds of the north. He killed thousands with these weapons (and killed thousands more with conventional tools), and today the survivors of these attacks are suffering in terrible ways.....I will end what could quickly devolve into a rant by posing this question to you: Does it in fact even matter if Saddam is connected to al-Qaida? In other words, why look for a smoking gun when a dozen already exist? This is a man who has attacked, unprovoked, four of his country's neighbors; a man who has committed genocide and used chemical weapons on civilians; a man who is clearly obsessed with the development of weapons of mass destruction; and a man who uses homicide and rape as a tool of governance. Isn't he worthy, by these deeds alone, of removal?

Or am I just naive?

Kanan Makiya, the great Iraqi writer and dissident, argues that the Baghdad regime is similar in ideology and practice to the European fascist dictatorships of the 1930s. This makes it fundamentally different from every other ridiculous Third World dictatorship currently holding a seat in the U.N. General Assembly. Saddam's Iraq is the quintessence of a security state, built on paranoia and homicide and Big Brother surveillance; its charismatic and megalomaniacal Great Leader thinks of himself as father of his people; his regime engages in racialist thought; it commits genocide; it seeks Lebensraum; and on and on and on.

So, what is conservative, or neoconservative, about Paul Wolfowitz or Richard Perle (or Dick Cheney) standing in the front line against fascism? I didn't realize that the fight against fascism is solely the province of the neoconservative movement. Isn't the real story here not the muscular unilateralism of the neocons, but the moral abdication of the moderate left, which is missing a chance to defeat a genocidal fascist?" --Jeff Goldberg

"But that certainly doesn't mean that abhorrence of Baathist totalitarianism is the exclusive preserve of the neocons. (For one thing, that's hard to square with the fact that the beatified Reagan administration pursued "constructive engagement" with Saddam both before and—worse—after he gassed Halabja.) Some liberals have missed the boat in taking humanitarianism out of the case for moving against Saddam. The death of about 100,000 Kurds in the Anfal should still offend the collective conscience of humanity, as did the ethnic cleansing of the Kosovars, which goaded the reluctant Clinton administration into a humanitarian war. There's a fine liberal case for getting Saddam as well." --Warren Bass

For the whole exchange of letters see:

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2063437&entry=2063447

where there is a long exchange debating the Iraq situation.

If you really insist that everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant and stupid, look at how the list is growing. Most of America. A substantial part of Britain. People like Powell, Kissinger, Goldberg, the list of democrats in the link above, etc. etc. etc. Now please.

 

BOC
To use your exact same disasembly method of Z-layrex ideas, in simplicity, on yourself.
There is no proof US wants Iraqi oil

Anyway its even more rediculous. Here is just one of the numerous complications with conquering another country for oil; Which oilcompany would willingly risk their reputation world wide, stambed as those who went to war for oil.
*Crips*
You shock me BOC and others.

 

Nobleman:
Just read these articles:

http://adap2k.freeservers.com/aw44.htm

http://www.davidicke.net/newsroom/asia/afghanistan/092001a.html

http://www.davidicke.net/newsroom/america/usa/092001d.html

http://www.davidicke.net/newsroom/america/usa/100101a.html

 

OK, so we are now going to make a policy where the US patrols the world and eliminates any regime it doesn't like for whatever nefarious reasons the government decides to feed the public, which will of course eat it up because we are just a bunch of gun toting renegades who want to fight a war but haven't a clue what that really means.

Would you please stop repeating the BS rhetoric about this having anything to do with ridding the world of terrorism?

 

would you please stop spouting the BS rhetoric that it has anything to do with America wanting more oil, and maybe a 51st state?

 

People say that the we are going after Iraq because of terroism, others say for the oil.

If we are going after Iraq for the fact they are stronghold of terroists. That would be stupid. Simple why destory a country for the actions of a few. Terroists here that US is going to attack Iraq they will be out of there and in eroupe, africa, or another mild east country before the first bomb is dropped.

What I am getting at is that the US is saying they are going after the terroists. Good for them I say, but what the hell ever happened to the 'black op' you know illegial entry into a country kill the baddies get out of dodge city?

No the stance that bush is presenting is that we are going to attack Iraq. Not only are we going to attack Iraq but we are going to do it in grand style, one massive rush that has been overhyped and broadcasted across the world. I think they forgot that Iraq gets cnn and cspan.
Great by the time we attack the terroists have already left.

Now let us think that bush is doing this for oil. not to get some oil but to secure oil for the states for the next couple generations. First he proves Iraq is evil; he has done that.
Second the say that democarcy needs to go into Iraq; he has done that. Now let us think about this. If US does attack Iraq and does destory there government a democratic government will be established.

Now you are probally thinking what is the problem with that, correct. Now this is where politcs comes into play. The US will only support a government that will play US rules ie Iraq will become a state of the states (also a base of assualt onto the rest of the middle east).

If you think that an oil company will not buy US owned Iraq oil your a fool. there will be a bloodbath, as one of two things will happen.

A) US(government) will agree with Iraq to buy all the oil Iraq can produce. this would replenish the US oil stockpile, plus replinsh the expendures of the military, and give the US government control over the oil market. This would piss of the oil companies so they would jack up the price of oil, making the US government sell all the iraq oil at below market value. This cycle would go on for ever and would never be nice(unles you invest in oil)

B) the second the US government will get Iraq to sell oil at below market value, making all oil companies lower the value of oil. This would make every car in north america happy, and second would allow the US government to buy oil at below market price which could lead to scenario one.

that is just my two cents.
ohh and on a side note I dont hate the US. Bush has fumbled the ball like usual

 

Griffin: Your Mark Twain quote has officially become my screen saver

Lachel: Another well-said opinion. It's obvious that, unlike many pro-war supporters, you know what you're talking about. And I agree wholeheartedly: I didn't even know about the gassing of Halabja. Jesus. You're right, there's a damned good reason for killing Saddam. The man's sick.

But still, two things concern me. First, as Throrin said, what happened to Black Ops? Did Dubya forget about this? Why, in God's name, would he murder thousands more people than he needs to just to remove a single political regime? And why do it without the U.N's blessing? By making such a grand production of slaughtering a nation about the size of Illinois, Bush seems to be *inviting* people to kill Americans. Here, Middle Easterners. You weren't pissed off enough at the capitalistic evils we and our agents have done you? Maybe bombing the sh*t out of Baghdad will do it! Be sure to wear shirts with your home nation's flag on them, so we'll know who to blow up next.

Second, Bush isn't a liberal. And the timing of this attack is simply suspect. It just seems to me that he's using his little "War on Terrorism" (which, to me, seems more like a "Slaughter of Non-Terrorists"...but that's a whole 'nother topicc) as an excuse to finish daddy's work. His motives don't lie in avenging the horrendous crimes dealt the Iraqie(sp?) people by their fascist dictator. He just wants to show the world how headstrong and incredibly stupid America is. He's telling the world that the United States are above the United Nations, and that even though we expect everyone else, even non-U.N. countries, to comply with the "communal" will, we ourselves are exempt. It's like the cop who goes 80 down a residential street, but pulls someone over for going five miles an hour over the speed limit on an interstate. Dubya is basically raising his middle finger to the world and telling them to sit on it. And rotate.

Geh. What ever happened to liberalism? Even the f'ing Democrats are conservative nowadays. Well, we'll be back in a generation or two...

 

Novak: Thanks
Thorin: Thanks
Rumsfeld to Germany: "Someone who's sitting in a hole shouldn't dig any longer." We understand this as a threat.
Today i received a call from a german boy working in France. The first thing he said was: "I'm working for a rich american couple, but they're quite okay." Well i can't translate it real good.
He was very anxious about us disliking Americans because of politics.
I dislike Rumsfeld.
He didn't greeting Strunck in public, but behind a pillar they shook hands.
After Germany was elected for U.N. Security Council, one of the american government Heinzis (people) told us Germany had been friend of America for such a long time. Slime slime.

[ September 28, 2002, 11:01: Message edited by: Oblate ]

 

This is from your first link BOC

Now NATO is part of your rebel alliance too?

I have an idea, I make some random homepage where I claim that Bush actually wants to be Luke Skywalker, and he has a doll of Darth Vader which he calls Osama and one of Emperor Palpatine which he calls Saddam. Each night he plays with his B52-Xwing that destroys the evil deadly BioStar produced in secrecy by Saddam. Of course Bush brings in the help of Tony Solo. Heck! NATO could be in too, as Mon Calamari. And look at Koffi Anan. He would make an excellent General Ackbar. It all adds up, so it has to be true, right?

Then I'll add a lot of random quotes from politicians and journalists, that sum up somekind of idea that US wants oil. Everytime someone disagrees with you, you can link to my page. Cause whats on the net, must be true.

[ September 28, 2002, 12:19: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

 

Probably only the Dutch people living near beaches will see the connections between Germans and digging holes

LOL

 

Ok this is my first post on this board so why not make it on a controversial topic.
I was opposed to the first war in in Irag and even marched in Washington to protest it.Since then I have grown a little older and hopefully a little wiser and see that not only did it need to happen but was handled remarkably well by the people in charge. Namely Powell and Swartzkoph.
They finished that conflict with minimum loss of life on both sides and more quickly than i would have believed possiable.
This is not to say that it still wasnt a horriable thing for many innocent people in Irag but if you read more about these generals you wil see that they want war perhaps least of all.I think they understand the terriable responsibility that has been thrust upon them.
Laches and Blackthorne make very good points backed up by solid solid facts.It seems the people who are opposed have no good arguments they just resort to name calling.Every one has a right to their own opinion and in cases like this we will all never agree but please support youre arguments with a little more than just oh Bush and the entire US are just war hungry morons.
I mean really.
Anyway Laches and Blackthorne thanks for youre detailed and informative views of this situation.
If god is willing it wont come to war but if it does I will support my goverment this time around.
I will also weep for the many whose lives will change forever if this conflict comes to a head.
anyway thats just my two cents

[ September 28, 2002, 15:54: Message edited by: Dorion Blackstar ]

 

But Bush *is* a war hungry moron. That's sort of the whole point. Like you said, his generals don't want it, his people (no matter what "57% of people polled" -- likely meaning a few dozen guys in an Alabama bar -- say) don't want it, and the nations of the U.N. don't want it.

Personally, as I said, I agree that Saddam needs to be taken out. I didn't even know about the atrocities he's committed, and likely, 99% of other Americans don't either. I, and likely most other people, always considered him just another insane 3rd world dictator. He's not. Kill him. But do you need to start a war to do it?

I guess, when you come down to it, I'm worried most about Bush's motives. He's not a liberal, which basically means he's not doing it for the good of the Iraqie people, or just because Hussein's an evil bastard. He *must* have some alterior motive. And my left-wing mind can't think of anything that won't sound like a conspiracy theory. I'll leave it up to the resident righties to tell us how Bush's motives are logical and reasonable. To me, it looks insane, and hence the name of this topic.

Basically, I'm an idealist. I'm more concerned about *why* he's doing it, and *why* he's doing it that way, than enything else. If Dubya stands up and tells the world about all the crimes Saddam has commited against his people, and not just that he's "evil" and "harboring terrorists," I'll be a little less skeptical about the whole damned thing. But that's not likely to happen anytime soon. Until then, I'll keep ranting and raving my liberalist opinions until someone can convince me that Bush has a good reason for all of this.

And yes, I know we're not at war. And yes, I may be jumping to conclusions that war is coming. Butcha know what? Even if we don't end up slaughtering Iraq, I'll still wonder what the hell Bush was thinking with this whole meat-measuring contest.

 

Well, I recall both Bushes (Dana Carvey and "folks round here call me Dubya") being members of the secret society "Skull and Bones" (frikkin' History Channel buff right here!). Believe me, it's true! His code name is "the replacement" . I mean, these totally unknown folks (to us) meet and say "I think this law should be passed," and the next day...plinko! law passed.

Maybe they're the driving force behind this whole "let's get Iraq's oil thing, global power for America (right on!), yadda, yadda"... All right, but, anyway, that's my two rambling bits. The whole secret society thing really irks me, for one.....heh, I'm not lying about this stuff!! You wouldn't believe what goes on around our (allegedly "our") government (and over and under). Quit looking at me like I'm crazy, too.

 

Actually, my history prof is having us read a book called the Naked Capitalist, which is all about the "secret organization." I just haven't brought that up because people think us leftists are insane enough without spouting about J.P. Morgan's plans to conquer the world

 

Ah... global domination, thats the key to this mess.
When you have the strongest army behind your back you can be extremly "peacful"

 

Assume for a moment that you are correct in attributing nefarious motives to Bush. This is a bit of a stretch to me, first you state Bush is stupid then you state he is smart and wily enough to bend this issue into his own personal gain, but whatever. Suppose he is only after Iraq because he likes to kill and he likes oil.

So what?

That Bush's motives may be bad (I don't really think they are, he may not be correct, but I think he is doing what he honestly feels is best for the U.S.) doesn't change what I believe are purely humanitarian reasons to seek a regime change in Iraq.

I've noticed noone has refuted that there is a strong humanitarian case for a regime change in Iraq. The Europeans were screaming at the U.S. to be involved in their back yard and to help force a regime change in Kosovo, is the regime in Iraq any less viscious?

So, even assuming that Bush's motives are impure, the result of a regime change in Iraq is in my view a good for humanity, and until I see someone at least address this issue with some type of compelling argument, I'll believe that genocide and the use or torture, murder, and rape is enough to justify a regime change.

Now, there is a better argument to be made about how to achieve that regime change. For a decade now the world has sought to use containment. Over two billion dollars in humanitarian aid every year are being diverted by Hussein to the military. Sanctions have failed and will continue to do so in my opinion.

Novak, you ask has Bush forgotten covert ops? Not at all. Early I stated the question was nuanced in that the type of campaign that would be necessary is highly debatable. Just a point though, assassination is illegal both by our own laws and international (not long ago Congress toyed with the idea of legalizing it for our "war on terror.") The Kurds are asking, and have been asking the U.S. for help for a decade, and they are begging us to hit hard and fast to take Hussein out immediately with the first strike so as to tremendously reduce the chance of the use of weapons of mass destruction once again on the secular Kurds to the north.

I suspect that ideally if the U.S. and allies try to hit Iraq they will try to hit Hussein hard and quick. Or they'd like to. Unfortunately, he is a slick s.o.b. and it is very difficult to determine where he is at any given time.

I suspect what the U.S. would like is an inside out campaign like in Afghanistan where we help a local opposition through the use of our special operations (delta force, who as an interesting side note the Army doesn't even officially acknowledge exist,) special forces (green berets who specialize in acting as intermediates and helping opposition forces train and plan,) rangers, and our vastly superior air capabilities.

Unfortunately, in Iraq the opposition forces aren't as strong making the inside out campaign less feasible. At the other end of the spectrum is an all out invasion similar to Desert Storm with 300,000 troops or more. Word on the streets is that maybe a middle route is being considered. 75,000 troops to bolster the local opposition and heavy use of our special operations to take out key installations and try to neutralize those who might order the use of weapons of mass destruction.

Whatever happens, I promise you this -- the goal will be to quickly eliminate Iraq's ability to use their weapons of mass destruction, just like the Kurds are begging us to do. I'd anticipate delta force insertions everywhere we think Iraq might be able to launch such an attack early in the campaign if such a campaign ever comes about.

Also, Novak, why do you say America's generals are against a campaign. Powell is on the record as to saying he thinks a regime change is necessary. I haven't read or heard of anyone in the military being opposed to action, just curious if I've missed something. One of my earlier posts has the quote from Powell by the way.

 

I agree in most of your statments but you couldn't possible call China a communist state, and like the sovjet union they never have been, but many don't realise this-

 

Uh...China is a communist state. Remember Mao? The Great Leap Forward? That whole Tianamen Square thing?

I don't read them as a threat to the United States, though. They seemed quite wrapped up in their economic free zones, dismantling Hong Kong and moving it to Shanghai, and covering up North Koreans illegally entering their country. If they want to take out some aggression, they'll probably just try to suppress some nomads in the Xianjiang Autonomous Region or maybe flirt with Taiwan.

 

No, China is not a communist state today, though communist got alot of power. many of the members in the communist party are capitalists and such.

Well, like sovjet China begun to develop communism, but like Stalin, Mao Zedong begun to strive away from communism and begun to develop his own little version, Maoism.
True communism is probably the best ideology ever, I truly beleave so. Read some Marx and see.
Crush the capitalism!