War - Bush vs Saddam

[Frederick M. Dolan]

Does this imply that everyone in the U.S. is responsible for the war in Iraq? Or that everyone in the world is responsible for it as well?

Edward

It's closest to the truth to say that everyone is responsible. In war, as a great man said, there are no innocent victims. The Iraq war was as much to do with Saddam's miscalculations as with Bush's.

[Valley Oak]

What about babies and small children? Are they exempt from responsibility or guilt?

Edward



It's closest to the truth to say that everyone is responsible. In war, as a great man said, there are no innocent victims. The Iraq war was as much to do with Saddam's miscalculations as with Bush's.

[Braggi]

It's closest to the truth to say that everyone is responsible. In war, as a great man said, there are no innocent victims. ...

That "great man" was full of crap.

Most victims of war these days are completely innocent. In fact, that's how it's always been.

Who was it that said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is intertested in you." Ah, Trotsky.

Saddam may have been a bad guy, but that war is all the fault of Bush and his neocon maniacs. And it's ALL about oil. No matter what would have happened, oil company profits would rise. Either oil would get plentiful and cheaper and they'd sell more, or, as is the case now, production and distribution is very disturbed, so prices are through the roof.

That's what happens when you put oil men in the White House.

-Jeff

[Frederick M. Dolan]

What about babies and small children? Are they exempt from responsibility or guilt?

Edward

Well of course, I didn't have truly innocent victims in mind. I was referring to the belligerents: it takes two to make a war.

[Frederick M. Dolan]

That "great man" was full of crap.

Most victims of war these days are completely innocent. In fact, that's how it's always been.

Who was it that said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is intertested in you." Ah, Trotsky.

Saddam may have been a bad guy, but that war is all the fault of Bush and his neocon maniacs. And it's ALL about oil. No matter what would have happened, oil company profits would rise. Either oil would get plentiful and cheaper and they'd sell more, or, as is the case now, production and distribution is very disturbed, so prices are through the roof.

That's what happens when you put oil men in the White House.

-Jeff

I wasn't referring to genuinely innocent victims such as children and, more generally, noncombatants. I meant the belligerents. The war wouldn't have happened unless Saddam was willing to risk it for the sake of things that mattered more to him. Saddam miscalculated.

[Valley Oak]

So it was 90% Saddam's fault, 7% liberal media and Democrats' lies, 2.5% Al Jazeera's misinformation, and maybe .5% Bush's fault for lying to the American people in a protracted propaganda campaign, sending over hundreds of thousands of troops and keeping them there, and spending how many billions of dollars?

Gee, this doesn't seem to pan out too well.

Also, if we go back to the original comment about it being everybody's fault, where does this leave responsibility with the rest of the world if it is almost all Saddam's fault? The 'wisdom' doesn't apply in the scenario you're painting. Where is the consistency?

Edward



I wasn't referring to genuinely innocent victims such as children and, more generally, noncombatants. I meant the belligerents. The war wouldn't have happened unless Saddam was willing to risk it for the sake of things that mattered more to him. Saddam miscalculated.

[Frederick M. Dolan]

So it was 90% Saddam's fault, 7% liberal media and Democrats' lies, 2.5% Al Jazeera's misinformation, and maybe .5% Bush's fault for lying to the American people in a protracted propaganda campaign, sending over hundreds of thousands of troops and keeping them there, and spending how many billions of dollars?

Gee, this doesn't seem to pan out too well.

Also, if we go back to the original comment about it being everybody's fault, where does this leave responsibility with the rest of the world if it is almost all Saddam's fault? The 'wisdom' doesn't apply in the scenario you're painting. Where is the consistency?

Edward

I don't believe I said it was almost all Saddam's fault. My point was only that Saddam was not an innocent victim.

[MsTerry]

Jeff
can you spell check this post for me?
thanks!


That "great man" was full of crap.

Most victims of war these days are completely innocent. In fact, that's how it's always been.

Who was it that said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is intertested in you." Ah, Trotsky.

Saddam may have been a bad guy, but that war is all the fault of Bush and his neocon maniacs. And it's ALL about oil. No matter what would have happened, oil company profits would rise. Either oil would get plentiful and cheaper and they'd sell more, or, as is the case now, production and distribution is very disturbed, so prices are through the roof.

That's what happens when you put oil men in the White House.

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

: it takes two to make a war.

No it doesn't,
It takes only one to start or make a war.
And then it takes another to defend themselves.
The USA invaded Cambodia remember? many more examples available

[Frederick M. Dolan]

No it doesn't,
It takes only one to start or make a war.
And then it takes another to defend themselves.
The USA invaded Cambodia remember? many more examples available

Cambodia is a good example of how it takes two to make a war. Sihanouk acted in ways that he should have known would persuade the United States that he was sympathetic to North Vietnam. If he had permitted us to use Cambodian bases to attack the North Vietnamese soldiers along the border, the invasion might not have taken place. In any case, the "invasion" was permitted by the government of Lon Nol, which had deposed Sihanouk, so the sense in which it was an invasion is ambiguous.

[Valley Oak]

Are you justifying U.S. military operations in Cambodia?

Edward



Cambodia is a good example of how it takes two to make a war. Sihanouk acted in ways that he should have known would persuade the United States that he was sympathetic to North Vietnam. If he had permitted us to use Cambodian bases to attack the North Vietnamese soldiers along the border, the invasion might not have taken place. In any case, the "invasion" was permitted by the government of Lon Nol, which had deposed Sihanouk, so the sense in which it was an invasion is ambiguous.

[MsTerry]

Cambodia is a good example of how it takes two to make a war. Sihanouk acted in ways that he should have known would persuade the United States that he was sympathetic to North Vietnam. If he had permitted us to use Cambodian bases to attack the North Vietnamese soldiers along the border, the invasion might not have taken place. In any case, the "invasion" was permitted by the government of Lon Nol, which had deposed Sihanouk, so the sense in which it was an invasion is ambiguous.
Frederick
Surely you must be joking!
he was sympathetic to North Vietnam.
If he had permitted us to use Cambodian bases to attack the North Vietnamese soldiers along the border, the invasion might not have taken place.
Maybe you want to rewrite this kind of logic?

[Frederick M. Dolan]

Are you justifying U.S. military operations in Cambodia?

Edward

I don't think this conversation is about the justification of war. It's about responsibility for war.

[Frederick M. Dolan]

Frederick
Surely you must be joking!
he was sympathetic to North Vietnam.
If he had permitted us to use Cambodian bases to attack the North Vietnamese soldiers along the border, the invasion might not have taken place.
Maybe you want to rewrite this kind of logic?

Maybe you want to point out what's illogical?

[Braggi]

... The war wouldn't have happened unless Saddam was willing to risk it for the sake of things that mattered more to him. Saddam miscalculated.

So let's see, Saddam must be playing man, and he came first, then G.W. must be God, and he came second. (Trying to get back on topic.)

Please Frederick, how does Saddam have any responsibility for that war? As far as I can remember, he was sitting there doing his own horrible business, and we started dropping bombs on him. Even the UN weapons inspectors were against us starting that war. They were being given all the access they wanted (everyone seems to forget that), they weren't finding anything (remember?), and our intelligence knew their weapons of mass destruction programs were dismantled by 1995 (we had inside information from Saddam's son-in-law who was in charge of those programs). The supposed informant (an ex engineer of Saddam's who defected to Germany) was telling a pack of lies so he'd be taken care of in Germany and the Bush misadministration was being told by the German investigators that they thought he was lying, yet Colin Powell based his whole UN Speech of Lies completely on this fellow's testimony.

It was all based on lies and the Bush misadminstration knew it. Remember the yellowcake story? They knew it was a total fabrication. They knew it.

No, it was all OUR fault. Saddam had little to do with it. Even if he was declaring he had WMDs, we had no business going in there. None.

Bush and his neocons are liars, war criminals and mass murderers. They should all be on trial. Bush should be on trial for treason for hiring mercenaries and deploying them on US soil (in the Katrina aftermath) as well as his flagrant attacks on the Constitution.

But don't get me started on Bush. Saddam was a gentleman by comparison. Saddam was doing everything in his power to avoid that war.

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

you left out the fact that Saddam actively (covert diplomacy) was trying to stop the invasion.


So let's see, Saddam must be playing man, and he came first, then G.W. must be God, and he came second. (Trying to get back on topic.) ...

[MsTerry]

Just because a country is sympathetic to another country that is being first occupied by France, then demolished by the USA, does that make it a legit target for war?
If your same logic was used for America, then yes, we did ask to be attacked on 9/11

Maybe you want to point out what's illogical?

[Frederick M. Dolan]

So let's see, Saddam must be playing man, and he came first, then G.W. must be God, and he came second. (Trying to get back on topic.)

Please Frederick, how does Saddam have any responsibility for that war? As far as I can remember, he was sitting there doing his own horrible business, and we started dropping bombs on him. Even the UN weapons inspectors were against us starting that war. They were being given all the access they wanted (everyone seems to forget that), they weren't finding anything (remember?), and our intelligence knew their weapons of mass destruction programs were dismantled by 1995 (we had inside information from Saddam's son-in-law who was in charge of those programs). The supposed informant (an ex engineer of Saddam's who defected to Germany) was telling a pack of lies so he'd be taken care of in Germany and the Bush misadministration was being told by the German investigators that they thought he was lying, yet Colin Powell based his whole UN Speech of Lies completely on this fellow's testimony.

It was all based on lies and the Bush misadminstration knew it. Remember the yellowcake story? They knew it was a total fabrication. They knew it.

No, it was all OUR fault. Saddam had little to do with it. Even if he was declaring he had WMDs, we had no business going in there. None.

Bush and his neocons are liars, war criminals and mass murderers. They should all be on trial. Bush should be on trial for treason for hiring mercenaries and deploying them on US soil (in the Katrina aftermath) as well as his flagrant attacks on the Constitution.

But don't get me started on Bush. Saddam was a gentleman by comparison. Saddam was doing everything in his power to avoid that war.

-Jeff

You clearly have strong feelings on this subject, and I think they're leading you to be a bit hyperbolic. I don't disagree that a case could be made against Bush for impeachment and even, in the international court, for aggressive war. And I don't disagree that the war shouldn't have been waged. But Bush would have had a difficult time invading if Saddam had allowed inspectors. He didn't do so because it was important to him that the world believe he did have WMD.

[Frederick M. Dolan]

Just because a country is sympathetic to another country that is being first occupied by France, then demolished by the USA, does that make it a legit target for war?
If your same logic was used for America, then yes, we did ask to be attacked on 9/11

I didn't think we were discussing the legitimacy of these wars, I thought we were discussing their causes.

[MsTerry]

You clearly have strong feelings on this subject, and I think they're leading you to be a bit hyperbolic. I don't disagree that a case could be made against Bush for impeachment and even, in the international court, for aggressive war. And I don't disagree that the war shouldn't have been waged. But Bush would have had a difficult time invading if Saddam had allowed inspectors. He didn't do so because it was important to him that the world believe he did have WMD.

Sorry, but he did let them in and the inspectors said there was nothing there to be found.
Afterwards documents were leaked that showed that Bush decided to become unreasonable on purpose, and make Saddam kick the inspectors out.
And he did.
those are the facts Frederick

[MsTerry]

Now we are quibbling over semantics.
I thought we were discussing the legitimacy of the causes to start those wars.


I didn't think we were discussing the legitimacy of these wars, I thought we were discussing their causes.

[Frederick M. Dolan]

Sorry, but he did let them in and the inspectors said there was nothing there to be found.
Afterwards documents were leaked that showed that Bush decided to become unreasonable on purpose, and make Saddam kick the inspectors out.
And he did.
those are the facts Frederick

Bush didn't "make" Saddam do anything. He baited Saddam, and Saddam bit.

[Braggi]

Y ... But Bush would have had a difficult time invading if Saddam had allowed inspectors. He didn't do so because it was important to him that the world believe he did have WMD.

There's a lot to reply to here, but you should know that Saddam DID allow the inspectors just about everything they wanted. So many sites were available to them they didn't have the manpower to see them all. What they found was nothing, as MsTerry said. All they wanted was more time. The inspectors never called for an invasion.

Perhaps you got all your news from the US press at the time, which was only mouthing statements from the White House. I was online monitoring websites in Russia, Al Jazeera's English site (which is an amazingly unbiased source), BBC and other European news sites. What a different story they all told.

The often repeated story that everyone in the world believed he had WMDs is just bull. That was a fabrication of Bush and Blair and almost nobody else believed it. The rest of the world knew that but the US was ignorant because of our absurdly cowardly press. It's a national shame.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

Bush didn't "make" Saddam do anything. He baited Saddam, and Saddam bit.


What Bush did is demand Saddam prove a negative, which we all know is impossible. Then he dropped a few tens of billions worth of bombs on Iraq when Saddam couldn't do it, though he tried mightily. Nice guy that Bush.

-Jeff

[Frederick M. Dolan]

Now we are quibbling over semantics.
I thought we were discussing the legitimacy of the causes to start those wars.

I'm definitely not saying the wars were legitimate. I just don't see them as conflicts between one party that is utterly innocent and another that is completely evil. In the case of the United States in Southeast Asia, I think that policymakers were pursuing what they thought was the least of possible evils, with spectacularly disastrous results. Bush, on the other hand, was spectacularly reckless and delusional. But that doesn't make Saddam a victim. His disregard for the Iraqi people was more or less as callous as Bush's.

[Frederick M. Dolan]

What Bush did is demand Saddam prove a negative, which we all know is impossible. Then he dropped a few tens of billions worth of bombs on Iraq when Saddam couldn't do it, though he tried mightily. Nice guy that Bush.

-Jeff

Of course, Bush did everything he could to make the war happen. But Saddam was sufficiently committed to holding onto power to risk massive destruction, and he (and Iraq) reaped the consequences. Which doesn't make Bush's actions legitimate or correct or just.

[Braggi]

... Saddam was sufficiently committed to holding onto power to risk massive destruction, and he (and Iraq) reaped the consequences. ...

Are you suggesting there is something he could have done to avoid the invasion? Stepped down from his seat of power, perhaps? Where does one nation get the right to demand that of another? I didn't like Hussein either, but what we did was criminal. What we are still doing is criminal.

We need to leave as soon as we reasonably can.

-Jeff

[Frederick M. Dolan]

There's a lot to reply to here, but you should know that Saddam DID allow the inspectors just about everything they wanted. So many sites were available to them they didn't have the manpower to see them all. What they found was nothing, as MsTerry said. All they wanted was more time. The inspectors never called for an invasion.

Perhaps you got all your news from the US press at the time, which was only mouthing statements from the White House. I was online monitoring websites in Russia, Al Jazeera's English site (which is an amazingly unbiased source), BBC and other European news sites. What a different story they all told.

The often repeated story that everyone in the world believed he had WMDs is just bull. That was a fabrication of Bush and Blair and almost nobody else believed it. The rest of the world knew that but the US was ignorant because of our absurdly cowardly press. It's a national shame.

-Jeff

People tended to believe or doubt that Iraq had WMD depending on their views of the Bush administration's ultimate aims, the merits (or otherwise) of invading Iraq for the larger purpose of radically changing the game in the Middle East, etc. The UN inspection regime was not exactly neutral. Again, I'm not arguing that the war was legitimate, just, prudent, etc., only that the war happened in part because Saddam was willing to gamble.

[Frederick M. Dolan]

Are you suggesting there is something he could have done to avoid the invasion? Stepped down from his seat of power, perhaps? Where does one nation get the right to demand that of another? I didn't like Hussein either, but what we did was criminal. What we are still doing is criminal.

We need to leave as soon as we reasonably can.

-Jeff

Precisely, Saddam could have negotiated regime change for the good of his country. He chose not to. I'm not saying that the United States had the right to ask this of him -- clearly, we didn't -- but Iraq would be a lot better off if he had done so.

[MsTerry]

. Again, I'm not arguing that the war was legitimate, just, prudent, etc., only that the war happened in part because Saddam was willing to gamble.

If I remember it correctly, Saddam asked and got permission from the US to invade Kuwait. He does not like surprises from the US, but he got one anyways.
He was not a gambling man, that's why he got rid of the opposition.
He allowed Hans Blix free reign, but draw the line when he saw they were unreasonably requesting to inspect all of his palaces.
He realized he was set up.
Saddam never messed with the one with the bigger gun.

[Frederick M. Dolan]

If I remember it correctly, Saddam asked and got permission from the US to invade Kuwait. He does not like surprises from the US, but he got one anyways.
He was not a gambling man, that's why he got rid of the opposition.
He allowed Hans Blix free reign, but draw the line when he saw they were unreasonably requesting to inspect all of his palaces.
He realized he was set up.
Saddam never messed with the one with the bigger gun.

Saddam objected to "unreasonable" requests? What's unreasonable about wanting to investigate his palaces? If he realized he was being set up, and that the United States was going to get rid of him no matter what, why didn't he negotiate a peaceful regime change? No, he thought he would prevail, and was willing to sacrifice tend of thousands of lives on the chance that he would.

[MsTerry]

Saddam objected to "unreasonable" requests? What's unreasonable about wanting to investigate his palaces?
What is so reasonable about searching his palaces for WMD?????????
we have satellites monitoring his activities. to see where everything is hidden.
Which sites do you think will the US allow to be inspected?


If he realized he was being set up, and that the United States was going to get rid of him no matter what, why didn't he negotiate a peaceful regime change?What benefit is it to him to negotiate his dismissal?


No, he thought he would prevail, and was willing to sacrifice tend of thousands of lives on the chance that he would.[/quoteAre you talking about Bush when you say this?

[Valley Oak]

This thread needs to be broken up into a new one.

Edward




What is so reasonable about searching his palaces?????????
we have satellites monitoring his activities. to see where everything is hidden
What benefit is to him to negotiate his dismissal?
Are you talking about Bush when you say this?

[mykil]

WHY? LMAO! Seems to be running its own coarse and the only thing that will do is confuse the issues and leave people wondering what the hell are you guyz doing!!!

[Valley Oak]

Fred, I disagree with your position, in general, regarding this issue. Although you don't come right out and say it and you have already denied doing so, you are, in essence, justifying the invasion of Iraq.

Please tell me I'm wrong.

Edward


Saddam objected to "unreasonable" requests? What's unreasonable about wanting to investigate his palaces? If he realized he was being set up, and that the United States was going to get rid of him no matter what, why didn't he negotiate a peaceful regime change? No, he thought he would prevail, and was willing to sacrifice tend of thousands of lives on the chance that he would.