Saddam's Ouster Planned In 2001?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jan 10, 2004.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    link

    the lies continue to unravel. shall we expect to see a number of "ends justifies the means" arguments?
     
  2. Maclarny macrumors 6502

    Maclarny

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2003
    Location:
    MN
    #2
    Now I don't want to start any conspiracy theories but doesn't this raise some interesting questions for what went on between then and the invasion?
     
  3. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #3
    "what's the best way to get the american public to support our agenda?"
    "cross your fingers for an arab-led terrorist attack in the US"
     
  4. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #4
    Add this zinger:

    ... to the "Barreling Bushes" story I just posted, and I think we can get a pretty complete picture of how this administration works, and who it serves.
     
  5. Maclarny macrumors 6502

    Maclarny

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2003
    Location:
    MN
  6. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #6
    They will claim it is normal and natural to plan invasions. So we must ask - who's next?
     
  7. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #7
    Bush is finding new ways to dissapoint all the time. look at the War, he snowed us, look at healthcare, he has helped the big corporations, look at our economy, every day we are learning of someone new moving overseas. still ignoring the mexican border and then wanting to let illegals become citizens. he has pushed me over the fence.:mad:
     
  8. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #8
    Funny thing is (funny weird, not funny haha) that the battle plan for an invasion of Iraq, known as Desert Crossing, was ignored by the Bushies. I think it was Anthony Zinni who expressed great surprise when he heard that an invasion was being planned and he called CENTCOM and asked if they were looking over the plan he'd helped devise, and the response was "Desert what?" In other words, the plan was thrown out.

    Ah yes, here's the article...
    Link
    And the quote...
     
  9. Maclarny macrumors 6502

    Maclarny

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2003
    Location:
    MN
    #9
    If you have read Al Franken's book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," you will haved learned that Clinton's defense team had prepared an anti-terrorist plan to crack down on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan way before 9/11 and get stronger at home. A Clinton advisor actually briefed Condolezza Rice although she has said she does not remember such a brief. Clinton's plan was ignored by the Bush Administration and ultimately, so was Al Qaeda.
     
  10. Waluigi macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #10
    This whole situation with Iraq practically mirrors what George Orwell dipicted of the government of being like in his book 1984.....

    --Waluigi
     
  11. Durandal7 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2001
    #11
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush/
     
  12. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #12
    To me the more interesting part of this is whether there were advisors before 9/11 advocating the invasion of Iraq. Yes, the policy of the Clinton administration was to support regime change in Iraq, but it was not the use of US military forces to accomplish that aim. Wolfowitz, Perle, and others have been advocating the use of US military force for such purposes for almost a decade prior to 9/11. It leads to the question was there a part of the administration that was pushing for this prior to 9/11 and did they do so with acceptance of the President. If his statement of "Find out a way to make this happen" is referring to the use of US forces then it shows everything Bush told us about the war is a lie. If it is the product of a cadre of ideologues within the administration then it shows that such people need to be kept away from the levers of power and anyone who would give them such power needs to be voted out of office.
     
  13. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #13
    yeah, the WH has spun this very intelligently, by agreeing to the letter of what o'neill's saying and avoiding the spirit.

    i bet a lot of people will accept the "it was all part of normal wargaming and option exploring" argument, even as it glosses over the full-on intent o'neill talked about.

    too bad such extensive thought wasn't given to the al qaeda threat.

    "who could have imagined they'd fly planes into buildings," condi asked. how about those who went on about mobile WMD labs in iraq? or trans-atlantic drones? sheesh am i getting tired of being treated like i'm stupid and have no memory.
     
  14. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #14
    It's rather amazing to me to observe the difference in the package of Bush-as-governor and Bush-as-president. The overall "behavior" of the former had me supporting and voting for him for the latter.

    I just do not at all like the pandering to us Old Farts with the "Pill Bill". Had it been set up with means testing, my objections would be less. But the majority of the elderly are quite able to pay for their own medicines, thank you, regardless of the griping as to the costs.

    I think his ideas on dealings with Mexico and with illegals are wrong, insofar as "the good of the nation". (No point in "why"; we've done that.)

    I've said before that I thought the emphasis on WMD was foolish; there were ample other reasons for the Iraq war. But, while I can subscribe to the "wargames theories", it seems there has been a lot of obfuscation/prevarication/BS about the whole deal. And, as I commented before, Zinni's idea of multiple offices around Iraq is very good. I guess I can forgive "wrong" more easily than I can forgive "stoopid".

    I'm less concerned about the issue of oil. Forget the money; it's trivial, all in all. The physical and financial health of this country is dependent upon foreign oil. And if you think our foreign policies are aimed now at hegemony, consider the effect of another $10 to $20 a barrel in costs...(Oil is said by some in the industry to rise to $40, later this spring. I dunno. But, with the decline in the dollar, it's reasonable to expect that.)

    'Rat
     
  15. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #15
    'Rat,

    I don't want to take too much issue with you on this since I mainly agree with you here. But personally, I'm more inclined to excuse "wrong" and "stoopid" then I am "venal" and "dishonest."

    If the case could be made to the American public for invading Iraq on the basis of Saddam being a Bad Man, then the White House would have made that case. Clearly, they did not think that dog would hunt, so they tapped our deepest fears and lathered on a bunch of phony-baloney nationalism to bring the public along. It's all incredibly cynical -- and that's another trait I can't excuse in elected officials.
     
  16. 1macker1 macrumors 65816

    1macker1

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2003
    Location:
    A Higher Level
    #16
    The war isn't about oil, never was. It's about setting up a US friendly government in the middle east.
     
  17. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #17
     
  18. flipperfeet macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #18
    Respectfully, this comment runs counter to what even some of the right wing press acknowledges. Despite the shifting reasoning provided by the current administration: "Destruction of the 9/11 perpetrators-> Removal of terrorists->Removal of WMD ->Removal of an evil dictator->Freeing an oppressed people->nation building." Our current administration is in Iraq for oil and one family's revenge. We already have a US friendly government in the Middle East, Israel. Unfortunately, for this and previous administrations, they are not oil rich and they are becoming politically uncontrollable.
     
  19. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #19
    IJ, we might be coming from different directions, but your comment, "...so they tapped our deepest fears and lathered on a bunch of phony-baloney nationalism to bring the public along." is pretty close. Certainly, the fear-tapping about WMD was wrong.

    flipperfeet, I tend to think of international affairs in terms of various goals to be achieved over different lengths of time. Multiple games of chess, if I may so view the actions.

    Were we to help set up a government in Iraq which is friendly to our views and perceived needs, we could possibly use some areas in the western portion of the country as forward basing. That's quite desirable, strategically. It would let us move our forces out of Saudi Arabia and from the Persian Gulf ports, I think. I see such a situation as reducing the anti-US attitudes extant in the Gulf states--particularly in Saudi Arabia.

    So long as the developed and the developing countries are dependent upon oil, we will have a national interest in the oil-producing countries. I see that as inescapable--whether I like it or not doesn't matter.

    And so it goes...

    'Rat
     
  20. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #20
    You and I (and probably a few other posters on this board) are old enough to remember the Vietnam War first-hand. This entire war was based on a tissue of lies, and our continued involvement was built upon such a comprehensive and methodical series of deceits issued forth by two presidents that it almost defies belief. The people who made these claims before the Pentagon Papers were released were considered "wild-eyed" and quite possibly dangerous. Remember how Nixon tried to "get" Dan Ellsworth? I sure do. Eventually, everybody knew how cynical and self-serving people in power can be.

    Maybe I'm wrong to have this history color my perceptions of current events, but I see evidence of the very same attitude plastered all over the Iraq debacle. Like Nixon in '72, the Bush people are mainly if not exclusively interested in getting through the next election. So the Bush administration sandbags the 9-11 investigation panel, they try to mow down anyone who might pull back the veil of secrecy. I hate this deja vu, but I've seen it all before. Haven't you?
     
  21. flipperfeet macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #21
    Agreed, oil is the driving force behind middle east, and much of the former USSR, policies.

    Not to sound too green here (impossible not to given current environmental policies), but it is incredibly disheartening to watch the war driven deficit climb faster than a Carrera 4 towards 100 mph and know that if we were playing the energy chess game with our heads instead of knee jerk emotions we'd be better served by spending at this rate on non-oil/coal energy systems that would provide self sufficiency and free American from its current self destructive foreign policy.
     

Share This Page