quote:Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz undertook a full-fledged lobbying campaign in 1998 to get former President Bill Clinton to start a war with Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein�s regime claiming that the country posed a threat to the United States, according to documents obtained from a former Clinton aide.
This new information begs the question: what is really driving the Bush Administration�s desire to start a war with Iraq if two of Bush�s future top defense officials were already planting the seeds for an attack five years ago?
"a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S."
"to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf"
"establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf"
"a significant portion of the world�s supply of oil will all be put at hazard"
Are we going to keep up this little charade, or shall we stop beating around the bush once and for all?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Well, given the mutually-incompatible viewpoints held by the pro-war hawks among us: that a) The Iraqi people are being oppressed by Saddam Hussein and need to be rescued; and, b) The Iraqi people could easily get rid of Saddam Hussein if they really wanted to, therefore they're at best lazy and at worst as bad as him, so it doesn't matter how many civilian deaths occur in the invasion. . . I really don't know anymore.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
b) The Iraqi people could easily get rid of Saddam Hussein if they really wanted to, therefore they're at best lazy and at worst as bad as him, so it doesn't matter how many civilian deaths occur in the invasion
Somebody here's said this?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Nope, nobody's EVER said that.
Actually, since we failed to support the attempted uprisings against Hussein after the Gulf War, we sort of owe a huge debt to the survivors of that screw-up.
You know, I ADMIT the US did a bad thing by initially supporting Hussein, even if he WAS the enemy of a bigger enemy, Fundie-wacko Iran.
But given that virtually everyone agrees that the US is at least partially at fault for the existance of Hussein...
Why such an objection to the idea of us cleaning up our mess?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Seems to me that we have several messes around the world to clean up then.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
No doubt. So do a lot of folk. The UK, for instance, can take the blame for a great deal of the Middle East situation, China and Russia for North Korea, France for Ivory Coast, etc...
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
You had a better answer when you just had no doubt. Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Still, this "we have to clean up our mess" theory of the war, it keeps changing all the time, leans toward an answer of no to the question of the thread.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
"You know, I ADMIT the US did a bad thing by initially supporting Hussein, even if he WAS the enemy of a bigger enemy, Fundie-wacko Iran."
Said fundie-wackos having been brought to power by the United States, of course.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Yep, it's a bad chain. The USSR, which we allied with against the greater threat of the Nazis, expanded into Eastern Europe and elsewhere. Fundies came into power in Iran because we supported the Shah vs. the USSR because the USSR was a greater threat, then we supported Hussein against the Fundies, because they were the greater threat.
That's the danger of containment and proxy wars.
And I don't see anything anywhere that says wars have to be fought over Just One Issue. Many wars aren't The American Civil War wasn't, although slavery was perhaps the overriding issue. World War I and II weren't, although they both had their hot-buttons.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Fine, then I'll make my cat an issue. She has the same relevance to King George's War as terrorism.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
...The point is, many of the links in that chain weren't on the Bad Countries� list before the US started meddling in their affairs.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Which still doesn't mean we shouldn't clean up after ourselves.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:although slavery was perhaps the overriding issue.
You mean resources.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
"Which still doesn't mean we shouldn't clean up after ourselves."
Nice try, but if you had any intentions of cleaning up your mess, you'd be preparing to invade Iran... and Indonesia... and Chile... and Turkey... and Greece... and the Philippines... and Puerto Rico... and North Korea... and Guatemala... and Lebanon... and Vietnam... and Cuba... and Laos... and Panama... and the Dominican Republic... and Cambodia... and Oman... and Angola... and El Salvador... and Nicaragua... and Honduras... and Grenada... and Lybia... and Bolivia... and Colombia... and Venezuela... oh, and Afghanistan, come to think of it.
I'd stick to your oil story.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I didn't say "here," I said "among us." You really are slipping, Omeychops. 8)
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Nice try, Lee, but when someone says "us" it's assumed that they're talking about either some previously defined group, or if there is none, the smallest set that contains all those being addressed. That would be Flare. You screwed up.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartmaniac: "Which still doesn't mean we shouldn't clean up after ourselves."
Nice try, but if you had any intentions of cleaning up your mess, you'd be preparing to invade Iran... and Indonesia... and Chile... and Turkey... and Greece... and the Philippines... and Puerto Rico... and North Korea... and Guatemala... and Lebanon... and Vietnam... and Cuba... and Laos... and Panama... and the Dominican Republic... and Cambodia... and Oman... and Angola... and El Salvador... and Nicaragua... and Honduras... and Grenada... and Lybia... and Bolivia... and Colombia... and Venezuela... oh, and Afghanistan, come to think of it.
Don't forget Canada.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Nope, I'm afraid I didn't. You were led by your own twisted little worldview to assume exactly what you wanted to, namely that everyone else is wrong and you're right. I know what I said. After all, I referred to "hawks," and if I meant you I'd have said "jumped-up snotty-nosed little gits." Is everything all right at home? You getting buggered by the larger choirboys or something?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
For the record, I assumed "us" meant "people", until someone else suggested it meant "people on Flare".
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:You getting buggered by the larger choirboys or something?
Ever notice how everytime Voggie gets in an argument, it eventually ends up somewhere like this?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Oh, everybody knows, but oddly enough, few seem to care...
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Well, since you two are usually up in la-la land anyway ...
![[Wink]](wink.gif)