Have You No Shame, Mr. President?

[dalegg 143]

Well, what happened to the respect the U.S. had with the rest of the world right after WW2? It is has been our foreign affairs that have changed the world's view about us. We were once the champions of democracy and justice, but now many look at us as hypocrital bullies and this didn't just happen with Iraq

I picked up on an article wrote in January of 2003 (before the actual invasion) about this that I think it very interesting. Here is an excerpt:

"In the best-case scenario, Hussein doesn't pass WMD off to terrorists and he never gets to launch the Scuds. Shortly after the air war begins, he's deposed by a Republican Guard coup. We take Baghdad without a single U.S. battlefield casualty. Triumphalism is in the air, and the chorus of self-congratulatory "I-told-you-so's" rings out in op-ed pages and TV talk shows across the land.

But our troubles are just beginning.

Welcome to the Occupation At this point, we've conquered Iraq. Now what do we do with it? One plan being floated, according to the New York Times, uses the postwar occupation of Japan as a model. In this version of the MacArthur Regency, Iraq will be governed by an American military commander such as General Tommy R. Franks, commander of United States forces in the Persian Gulf.

The MacArthur Regency worked in Japan because the U.S. occupiers entered a country sick to death of war, with a tradition of deference to authority (encouraged by the Emperor's call to cooperate with U.S. authorities) and a monocultural middle class that could form the basis of a democracy. As historian John Dower puts it, "the ideals of peace and democracy took root in Japan—not as a borrowed ideology of imposed vision, but as a lived experience and a seized opportunity…. It was an extraordinary, and extraordinarily fluid moment—never seen before in history and, as it turned out, never to be repeated." That process is particularly unlikely to be repeated in Iraq, a fissiparous amalgam of Sunnis, separatist Shiites and Kurds. Keeping the country together will require a strong hand and threatens to make U.S. servicemen walking targets for discontented radicals. "

I can post the entire article if anyone's interested.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Gary, are you saying that you still think invading Iraq was the right thing to do? I'm posing a hypothetical- given all of the benifits of hindsight, given everything we know today, do you believe the invasion was a good idea?- I mean the timing, everything.

As a matter of fact I do think it was right. The way things were done in Iraq after we got that SOB were done wrong and I have no problems laying the blame on Bush for that. But yes, I think it was right to do.

What do you think we could have done differently that would have made things turn out better?

We needed WAY more troops in there. After we took control of the country we should have used all our resources to find the non-Iraqi fighters. We should have locked down the borders to keep new ones from coming in. But most important we should have done much more to strengthen the Iraq police force so they could have taken over quickly. We should have also done a crash project to rebuild their infrastructure and properly protected the workers doing that. If we could have done those things we WOULD have been looked at as liberators and not invaders. We would have had the support of the Iraq people.

I think we did the right thing going in. We blew it when it came to the aftermath.

I disagree with you on the necessity of invading Iraq, but that's beside the point, since it has already happened. I agree with you that the invasion should have been planned more carefully, adding not only many more troops, but also taking mare measures to keep the country secure.

Making sure rebuilding actually takes place should have been a no-brainer. But it didn't happen because the government gave contracts to companies but didn't exercise the necessary oversight. Disarming Iraqis would have been an even better idea, but for some reason (supposedly because the NRA complained) the government decided to let each Iraqi keep a semi-automatic rifle. That was a blunder without comparison; not only does it threaten the American soldiers in Iraq unnecessarily but it also overlooked the fact that even in 2003 it was clear that there would be some sort of violent opposition, at that time presumably coming from Baathists. An invading power has to take the utmost measures to pacify a country and that includes preventing partisan groups from forming by getting weapons of the street. Maybe Americans need guns to enjoy their freedom (after all there is a constitutional right), but to assume that a nation emerging from totalitarianism needs the same freedom even at the expense of casualties is ludicrous.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

An invading power has to take the utmost measures to pacify a country and that includes preventing partisan groups from forming by getting weapons of the street. Maybe Americans need guns to enjoy their freedom (after all there is a constitutional right), but to assume that a nation emerging from totalitarianism needs the same freedom even at the expense of casualties is ludicrous.

That certainly was a strange decision.

[jjjimmy 0]

i would like to thank everyone who posted here this strengthens my ideas that this country is split down the middle in regards to the war and niether side is willing to budge

[rclouse 0]

whistling.gif It's our government guys.. they don't tell us everything.. ...

"There is nothing in Roswell .. "

laughing.gif laughing.gif

"Paging Mr. Yabasta. Mr. Yabasta, you're needed in the Tinfoil Conspiracy Center."

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

whistling.gif It's our government guys.. they don't tell us everything.. ...

"There is nothing in Roswell .. "

laughing.gif laughing.gif

"Paging Mr. Yabasta. Mr. Yabasta, you're needed in the Tinfoil Conspiracy Center."

[*Robert* 2]

[mmmbop1976 1]

been meaning to answer this and many other similar threads for awhile, but been so busy...so finally, here goes...

first of all, in my life i have seen these things with my own eyes...

-i have been in the streets of the philippines when marcos was the dictator there and saw his army soldiers on every corner with rifles. not to protect the citizenry from some impending invasion but to keep the populace inline.

-i have been in nightclubs in chile and have seen pinochet's goons bust in and take a whole tableful of patrons away, never to be heard or seen again. why? because they wanted freedom for their country and opposed pinochet's dictatorship.

-i have seen poor children on the streets of peru with little wooden stands selling gum, candy, cigarettes and the like, trying to earn a little money for their families to survive run for their lives when the federal police vehicles drove down the street, for how dare they try to compete with the government for funds.

i could give other examples, but you get the point. but in case you don't get the point yet, the point is freedom. freedom is the birthright of every human on earth. freedom was, is, and always will be worth fighting for. there is no more precious gift that could be given to any human other than freedom. thank God we have these brave young men and women of the united states military that realize this and are willing to die in the fight to give freedom to people of the world. these brave young men and women do not die in vain, rather for a noble and good cause, advancing freedom for humanity. now to some specific points here...

Yeah, Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, no great distinction in much of the world

wow, talk about minimizing to support your argument. Saddam Hussein was much more than a bad guy. He was a murderous, torturing thug that brutalized many people of his nation. Massacred thousands and thousands. brutally tortured his political enemies.

Whatever you think or thought of the war in Iraq, the American invasion has undoubtedly caused terrorism to flourish in Iraq. Prior to the invasion, there were neither daily suicide bombings nor road bombings nor kidnappings by random organizations interested in money, holy war, freedom, or all three.

Terrorism flourished in Iraq before we arrived, it was conducted by Saddam Hussein on the people of his country.

i could go on and on, but i'd like to make one other point. all you leftists and peaceniks get on these blogs and forums and spout your anti-bush drivel, and you go to bed at night with no fear of reprisal. you couldn't do that if you lived in saddam hussein's iraq, or any other dictatorial or communist regime, you would always have to worry about whether you would be found out and hauled off to the torture chamber. isn't it wonderful to live in this free society we have. it always amazes me, however, about how stingy with freedom people on the left can be. as long as they have theirs, the hell with everybody else.

i remember one time having a conversation with an anti-bush person about iraq. he made the statement.."sure saddam hussein was a thug, sure his sons were rapists and murderers, but he kept everybody in line there (iraq)." as if, as long as things were "peaceful", too bad about the people that were being tortured, murdered, and raped by hussein and his sons. unbelievable.

well, as long as i'm on a roll here, why do we need to be in iraq....because freedom will change the whole middle east. when people can live in freedom to pursue their dreams, raise their families, live in peace, then they will be much less likely to fall under the spell of the likes of osama bin laden and the like. but, the political climate must be right before military action can be used to advance freedom. we had bases in saudi arabia, but saudi arabia is not a free society either. the political climate however precluded us from using military force to effect change there because we needed those bases at the time. then the political climate came right to remove saddam hussein and establish a free society in iraq. and once that is complete, and it will be achieved no matter how bleak you may think it looks now, because humans do yearn for freedom and peace, then we have a true ally in the region from where to work to spread freedom throughout the region. and this is how the war on terror will be won, by depriving the terrorists of there most needed commodity....more terrorists.

so, in closing, i must say. nobody wants war, we are not warmongers on the right. war is ugly, war hell, but living without freedom is worse.

oh, and btw, remember, all saddam hussein had to do was let the weapons inspectors do their job, how easily you all forget that point, he would no longer allow them to do there u.n. mandated mission and that brought his demise.

Edited September 5, 2006 by mmmbop1976

[jjjimmy 0]

you make the assumption that the iraqi people want your lifestyle.They dont!!!! They hated sadam and they hate us too.The people of this region want theocracy its what there beliefs demand and throughout history theocracys are evil.Even in europe when a state is lead by religion it is always ready to take on evil,and by the way to radical islam we are evil.The bottom line is the taliban and osama were free to do as they pleased i dont think that is good for the usa.The people of this region have proven to me time and again that whan free to do as they please they choose any side that is against the usa.i understand your feelings about freedom and would fight and die to preserve your right to your opinion but i am not willing to die to give this right to someone who would use thier freedom to attack ours.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

The DIA document that warned that the connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam was nothing but a misleading statement from an Al-Qaeda operative has been released to the Senate Intelligence Committee in Sept / Oct of 2005. The White House had that very document in February of 2002. The President harped on this ficticious link nonetheless just days before Sen Clinton made the above quoted remark and again just weeks before the invasion into Iraq. The President had information that would have been valuable to the Congress to make informed decisions but chose to withhold it. Can't blame the Congress for that.

[mmmbop1976 1]

you make the assumption that the iraqi people want your lifestyle.They dont!!!! They hated sadam and they hate us too.The people of this region want theocracy its what there beliefs demand and throughout history theocracys are evil.Even in europe when a state is lead by religion it is always ready to take on evil,and by the way to radical islam we are evil.The bottom line is the taliban and osama were free to do as they pleased i dont think that is good for the usa.The people of this region have proven to me time and again that whan free to do as they please they choose any side that is against the usa.i understand your feelings about freedom and would fight and die to preserve your right to your opinion but i am not willing to die to give this right to someone who would use thier freedom to attack ours.

i do not make that assumption. they don't want our lifestyle, they want to be free to choose their own. there is a democratically elected government in iraq, progress is being made in infrastructure, iraqi security forces are being trained, and the sectarian violence will end at some point, and hopefully soon. freedom is a very powerful desire to all humans. nobody want to be told what to think or how to act or what to believe. the people of this region have lived without it for so many centuries that it's foreign to them at this point. but as hope of a brighter future takes seed in iraq, the violence will subside and peace will reign.

LET FREEDOM RING!

Edited September 5, 2006 by mmmbop1976

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

you make the assumption that the iraqi people want your lifestyle.They dont!!!! They hated sadam and they hate us too.The people of this region want theocracy its what there beliefs demand and throughout history theocracys are evil.Even in europe when a state is lead by religion it is always ready to take on evil,and by the way to radical islam we are evil.The bottom line is the taliban and osama were free to do as they pleased i dont think that is good for the usa.The people of this region have proven to me time and again that whan free to do as they please they choose any side that is against the usa.i understand your feelings about freedom and would fight and die to preserve your right to your opinion but i am not willing to die to give this right to someone who would use thier freedom to attack ours.

we'll have to disagree then. there is a democratically elected government in iraq, progress is being made in infrastructure, iraqi security forces are being trained, and the sectarian violence will end at some point, and hopefully soon. freedom is a very powerful desire to all humans. nobody want to be told what to think or how to act or what to believe. the people of this region have lived without it for so many centuries that it's foreign to them at this point. but as hope of a brighter future takes seed in iraq, the violence will subside and peace will reign.

LET FREEDOM RING!

hmmm... a rather optimistic appraisal of the current situation.

[mmmbop1976 1]

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

The DIA document that warned that the connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam was nothing but a misleading statement from an Al-Qaeda operative has been released to the Senate Intelligence Committee in Sept / Oct of 2005. The White House had that very document in February of 2002. The President harped on this ficticious link nonetheless just days before Sen Clinton made the above quoted remark and again just weeks before the invasion into Iraq. The President had information that would have been valuable to the Congress to make informed decisions but chose to withhold it. Can't blame the Congress for that.

you can argue the why's and wherefore's all day long, but the bottom line is that President Bush was able to set the political climate to enable the ouster of a brutal dictator who understood nothing but force. brilliant mr president! millions of iraqi people are living in freedom! is there violence there? yes, but now the people doing the violence can be hunted down and brought to justice. before, saddam hussein and his goons were doing the violence with impunity to innocent people that just wanted to be free.

LET FREEDOM RING!

Edited September 5, 2006 by mmmbop1976

[gimygirl 0]

I am sure we did.. .. can you prove we didn't?

well vartan ... our own president certainly addressed the fact that we never found any WMD's!!!

is THIS enough proof for you?!?!?!

[Marc and Olga 0]

been meaning to answer this and many other similar threads for awhile, but been so busy...so finally, here goes...

first of all, in my life i have seen these things with my own eyes...

-i have been in the streets of the philippines when marcos was the dictator there and saw his army soldiers on every corner with rifles. not to protect the citizenry from some impending invasion but to keep the populace inline.

-i have been in nightclubs in chile and have seen pinochet's goons bust in and take a whole tableful of patrons away, never to be heard or seen again. why? because they wanted freedom for their country and opposed pinochet's dictatorship.

-i have seen poor children on the streets of peru with little wooden stands selling gum, candy, cigarettes and the like, trying to earn a little money for their families to survive run for their lives when the federal police vehicles drove down the street, for how dare they try to compete with the government for funds.

i could give other examples, but you get the point. but in case you don't get the point yet, the point is freedom. freedom is the birthright of every human on earth. freedom was, is, and always will be worth fighting for. there is no more precious gift that could be given to any human other than freedom. thank God we have these brave young men and women of the united states military that realize this and are willing to die in the fight to give freedom to people of the world. these brave young men and women do not die in vain, rather for a noble and good cause, advancing freedom for humanity. now to some specific points here...

Yeah, Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, no great distinction in much of the world

wow, talk about minimizing to support your argument. Saddam Hussein was much more than a bad guy. He was a murderous, torturing thug that brutalized many people of his nation. Massacred thousands and thousands. brutally tortured his political enemies.

Whatever you think or thought of the war in Iraq, the American invasion has undoubtedly caused terrorism to flourish in Iraq. Prior to the invasion, there were neither daily suicide bombings nor road bombings nor kidnappings by random organizations interested in money, holy war, freedom, or all three.

Terrorism flourished in Iraq before we arrived, it was conducted by Saddam Hussein on the people of his country.

i could go on and on, but i'd like to make one other point. all you leftists and peaceniks get on these blogs and forums and spout your anti-bush drivel, and you go to bed at night with no fear of reprisal. you couldn't do that if you lived in saddam hussein's iraq, or any other dictatorial or communist regime, you would always have to worry about whether you would be found out and hauled off to the torture chamber. isn't it wonderful to live in this free society we have. it always amazes me, however, about how stingy with freedom people on the left can be. as long as they have theirs, the hell with everybody else.

i remember one time having a conversation with an anti-bush person about iraq. he made the statement.."sure saddam hussein was a thug, sure his sons were rapists and murderers, but he kept everybody in line there (iraq)." as if, as long as things were "peaceful", too bad about the people that were being tortured, murdered, and raped by hussein and his sons. unbelievable.

well, as long as i'm on a roll here, why do we need to be in iraq....because freedom will change the whole middle east. when people can live in freedom to pursue their dreams, raise their families, live in peace, then they will be much less likely to fall under the spell of the likes of osama bin laden and the like. but, the political climate must be right before military action can be used to advance freedom. we had bases in saudi arabia, but saudi arabia is not a free society either. the political climate however precluded us from using military force to effect change there because we needed those bases at the time. then the political climate came right to remove saddam hussein and establish a free society in iraq. and once that is complete, and it will be achieved no matter how bleak you may think it looks now, because humans do yearn for freedom and peace, then we have a true ally in the region from where to work to spread freedom throughout the region. and this is how the war on terror will be won, by depriving the terrorists of there most needed commodity....more terrorists.

so, in closing, i must say. nobody wants war, we are not warmongers on the right. war is ugly, war hell, but living without freedom is worse.

oh, and btw, remember, all saddam hussein had to do was let the weapons inspectors do their job, how easily you all forget that point, he would no longer allow them to do there u.n. mandated mission and that brought his demise.

My what a nice little hole you have found, IF that was the case then why was the U.N. against us going into Iraq?

Oddly enough this all happened after 9/11 when we were looking for a fight but instead of going after a leader that most likely deserves his @$$ handed to him (North Korea), we went after a "muslim" country...coincidentally loaded with OIL. I would bet Iran will be next despite them only wanting the ability meanwhile we let a country MUCH worse then Iraq (and Iran) was run around with Nuclear capabilities?!

Why do I believe this? a simple three letter word OIL.

Did we not learn anything all those years ago when we put a leader in Iran and the Iranians made it very clear that what we want and they want are COMPLETELY different? Apparently not considering what is currently going on in Iraq!

As for tinfoil hats, here's something for you:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor."

source

Tell me that 9/11 was not a "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor" that the PNAC cronies (of which Cheney and Rumsfeld as well as many others in the Bush administration are members) needed to get their way!

Please note, as I am sure someone will say I said this, but nowhere did I say they orchestrated, planned or were involved in 9/11...just trying to bring light to the fact that this war is most likely about the "new American Century" after all where did Bush get his "intel" about the WMDs? I would bet it came from Rumsfeld, himself...

In 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, wrote to President Bill Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power using US diplomatic, political and military power. The letter argued that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies and oil resources in the region if he succeeded in maintaining his stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Emphasis added.

Same source