andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:31 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 44):
Wrong-the United States did, by not securing the borders with Iraq's neighbors, and letting these guys flood the country.

Securing the borders is a two-way proposition, and you know that.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 46):
It's not up to us to topple another nations' government, simply because George Bush didn't like it.

So now, how come NATO and the US toppled Milosevic? Please tell me you were against that to keep yourself consistent.
 
Falcon84
Topic Author
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:16 pm

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 49):

Actually, it is. Ultimately, they paid the price for Bush's mess.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
clipperhawaii
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 3:35 pm

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:30 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 44):
Just under 3 years and 4 months to be exact-since he put this catastrophic doctrine into effect on March 19, 2003 in Iraq.

Catastrophic? The war has not ended and we fight to this day and you want to declare a loss and cut and run because you don't like Bush and his policy. Defeatist!

Boy, I wonder where we would be today if back in 1941 people said the same thing?

Your blind hatred for all things Bush clouds any hope for reasoning with you. Enjoy the final 2 years. I will.
"You Can't Beat The Experience"
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15079
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:03 pm

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 50):
So now, how come NATO and the US toppled Milosevic? Please tell me you were against that to keep yourself consistent.

Attempted genocide against Kosovar Albanians. Sounds like a valid reason to me. Curious that the U.S. didn't topple Saddam before, after his attempted genocide againts Kurds and marsh Arabs - but of course, one man's vicious dicatator is another man's stalwart ally against the hated foe, Iran.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 46):
They could have, like Romania before them, thrown off the yolk

Hence the phrase "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs"  Wink

I think you meant "yoke".
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
Falcon84
Topic Author
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:01 pm

Quoting Clipperhawaii (Reply 52):
Catastrophic? The war has not ended and we fight to this day and you want to declare a loss and cut and run because you don't like Bush and his policy. Defeatist!

Brave words, CH, but not near the truth. I've always maintained that, despite my opposition to this war, we cannot leave now. We owe a debt of honor to the Iraqi people for unjustly invading THEIR nation, for our own desires, and we owe it to the young men and women who have come home and will never grow old.

As we've learned, there's almost no way to completely wipe out terrorism, short of nuking the whole region, and that doesn't even guarantee you'll stop terrorism.

Eventually, we will have to leave Iraq, and when we do, there's no doubt in my mind the place will fall into a bloody civil war. It's almost inevitable, just like it was in the former Yugoslavia. There's too much ancient hatred there.

So say what you want. It isn't "defeatism"; it's simply being a realist. We need to stay, but in the end, I think old jealousies will simply explode once we're gone.

Quoting Clipperhawaii (Reply 52):
Your blind hatred for all things Bush clouds any hope for reasoning with you. Enjoy the final 2 years. I will.

sdf

And your blind obedience and deference to the man is one reason why we're in this fix. Had more people stood up and questioned this man before Iraq, maybe it wouldn't have happened. But your own fear and paranoia after 9/11, which is the same thing that Bush fell into, has put us in a situation that has harmed this nation like nothing else since Vietnam.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
santosdumont
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:22 am

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:16 pm

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 45):
is there any shred of validity in attempting to compare a country that spanned 11 time zones and had a superpower-level military force to a backwater nation whose citizens are forced to eat twigs to keep from starving while their deranged leader pours money into military projects?

Yes, it's about the weapons capability, not who's starving.

Let's assume for a moment that the comparison between the former USSR and the DPRK is valid; doesn't the fact that Kim Jong Il enjoys absolute control of the government represent a source of concern? He doesn't have to worry about pesky rivals on the Politburo trying to build opposing consensus behind his back because those officials know that he can have them executed with a wave of his hand....oh yeah, that and he's about as mentally volatile as they come...

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 45):
By breezily talking up diplomacy with regard to an enigmatic adversary that deserves much more concrete attention...

And who is backed up by China.

And?

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 45):
With apologies to Condi Rice, do we want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud?

Do we invade on the pretense that they have nuclear weapons? Haven't we done that once already and taken serious heat over it?

That would be consistent with Cheney's "1% doctrine" now, wouldn't it?

What happened in Iraq already was not an invasion on pretense, but rather an invasion based on a fabricated backstory with tenuous roots in reality that included all manner of satellite photos, 3-D imagery and fancy graphics to help convince skeptics. Not to mention the slavish compliance of the corporate news media.
"Pursuit Of Truth No Matter Where It Lies" -- Metallica
 
frequentflyer
Posts: 708
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:22 am

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:21 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 46):
They could have, like Romania before them, thrown off the yolk of the dictator with some will, but they chose not to.

Get a hold of yourself. The Iraqis chose not to fight the dictator? That's insulting to all Families who have sufferred the reign of that piece of crap. Chose not to fight? Maybe it was tougher to fight it than typing stupidities on a keyboard. You have each an every right to dislike W, however resorting to ludicrous arguments does not help your case.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 46):
It's not up to us to topple another nations' government, simply because George Bush didn't like it. If we did it in Iraq, why aren't we overthrowing other vile dictators throughout the world? Why not?

It is Mankind's role to defeat Mankind's oppressors. Not because W does not like them, but because you should help the oppressed. The question as to why we do not overthrow other dictators is a good question.
Unfortunately you have prime designees on the list, to start with 2 loonies trying to play with N weapons as we speak.
Take off and live
 
usnseallt82
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:22 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 51):
Actually, it is. Ultimately, they paid the price for Bush's mess.

Some of us devote our lives to the cause. To speak for them like you do is absurd. You don't know who thought it was a mess and who thought it was the right thing to do.

Often the right thing to do is not always the most understandable.
Crye me a river
 
Falcon84
Topic Author
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:49 pm

Quoting Frequentflyer (Reply 56):
It is Mankind's role to defeat Mankind's oppressors.

Then tell me, why haven't we gone after the brutal dictators and warlords in Africa and other places with the same vigor Bush went after Iraq?

Don't hand me that line of bullshit, because that's what it is-bullshit. I thought we were not supposed to be the world's policeman? Wasn't it Mr. Bush himself that said in '00 that we shouldn't be in the business of nation-building? And look what we're doing in Iraq: nation-building! That's just another weak post-facto invasion excuse to justify going after a nation that threatened no one, didn't have the ability to threaten anyone, and was a fourth-rate nation by the time we invaded.

And Bush's near-unilateralism in Iraq, and his "fuck-you" to our allies and friends over Iraq don't speak well for having the world get rid of the dictators. It was about George W. avenging the attempt on his father; it was about forwarding a far-right foreign policy ideology, driven by fear and paranoia after 9/11. It was about him wanting to make history. Well, he has, but not the way he hoped.

His doctrine of pre-emptiveness has failed miserably. If we continue to follow it, or Cheney's maniacal "1% doctrine", more and more Americans are going to die in combat for no good reason.

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 57):
Some of us devote our lives to the cause. To speak for them like you do is absurd.

Exactly what is "the cause"? Is it to invade nations that are literally helpess, who didn't possess the weapons that we said they had as a pretext to go to war? Is it to further one president's lunatic view of foreign policy, that we have a right to strike at who we want, and be damned the world?

Or is it to protect the United States? If it is, then this war doesn't fall into that category. It never did. Our freedom, our liberties, our way of life was NEVER on the line in Iraq. It was done for political and other reasons.

And, the fine young men and women who serve in our Armed Forces, who swore an oath to serve, pay the price. The ONLY ONES who have sacrificed anything in this conflict is the men and women in our Armed Forces, and their families.

You want to talk about insulting, maybe try this president giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans DURING WARTIME, while some of our men and women under arms didn't even have body armor! Try that on for size. We're at war, and yet Bush hasn't asked anyone else to sacrifice but the men and women in uniform. THAT is an insult to our troops, my friend.

Unfortunately, too many on the right who support Bush and serve, seemingly can't grasp such an insult, and the fact that they alone are being asked to sacrifice.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
frequentflyer
Posts: 708
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:22 am

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:01 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 58):
Then tell me, why haven't we gone after the brutal dictators and warlords in Africa and other places with the same vigor Bush went after Iraq?

Fair question. As far as I am concerned, the less dictators around, the better.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 58):
Don't hand me that line of bullshit, because that's what it is-bullshit. I thought we were not supposed to be the world's policeman?

Take it easy, no need to slur.
Well we might have to police at times. The UN's far too weak.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 58):
It was about him wanting to make history. Well, he has, but not the way he hoped.

You seem to be consumed by some kind of Bush hatred. Take a pill. The US under Bush is still a wonderful Country and you know it.
Take off and live
 
Falcon84
Topic Author
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:13 pm

Quoting Frequentflyer (Reply 59):
You seem to be consumed by some kind of Bush hatred.

Whatever. It isn't a crime to dislike a guy who has taken this country down a path that has seriously harmed it. And, if you didn't notice, most people in this nation don't like this President. Most finally woke up and saw what a disaster he really is.

Quoting Frequentflyer (Reply 59):
The US under Bush is still a wonderful Country and you know it.

The U.S. is a wonderful place. If you're trying to get me to say something nice about Mr. Bush, forget it. I'll do that if I think it's warrented. As far as I'm concerned this nation was a much better place before him, and will be a much better place once he packs up on Jan 20th, 2009, and leaves.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
rjpieces
Posts: 6849
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:58 am

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:27 pm

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 25):
Want to rephrase that?

No, his streak of unilateralism has nothing to do with his view of the national interest. Of course he pursues unilateralism to achieve different national interests than when he first entered office, but that is in response to the times. Remember the Kyoto scandal?
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:00 am

Quoting Flyingbabydoc (Reply 22):
Not to forget, Churchill was acclaimed and revered, held as a true hero of the British people, but voted out of the government shortly after the war - exactly because his policies were then out of touch with what the UK was aspiring. Even a great leader has faults and fails that may terminate his/her political career.

There was little or no rancour, the voters knew from the 20s and 30s what Churchill stood for in peace and they did not want it. What they did want was more or less contained in the Beveridge Report:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/A1143578

The history of that is interesting in that it was drawn up during the war from 1942, but by a man who was appointed by Churchill, mainly I think to get him out of the way. Atlee was swept to power and most of what his government is remembered for was straight out of the Beveridge Report. It is the basis of much of the UK structure to this day. Even the Iron Lady had trouble in demolishing it. So in a way, that too could be put down to benign neglect of Churchill.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 46):
No, we introduced Al Qaeda to Iraq, and it's simply another sad failure of this war, my friend.

My guess is the historians are going to write of how the war on terror has gone to date is:

1. killed a few terrorists
2. killed even more non-terrorists who happened to be in the wrong place, and
3. irritated the heck out of a great number who could have been co-opted, but now have been turned into sworn enemies.

?Not a good scorecard.

The Evil empire may or may not have been knocked over by Ronnie R. If it was done intentionally, where was the plan to cope with the post-collapse situation? It appears that 43 is not the only one that has a problem with re-building states.

Then there is the legacy of civil rights. For some reason, the US has been followed by the UK and Aus and even to some extent countries such as Indonesia in the legal frolics - so dont take this personally US posters, Nous sommes tous des assassins (1952), which has been turned into a film for our times.

http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=116117

For example, Aus pressed the Indonesians to prosecute the Bali bombers under anti terrorist laws that did not exist when the crime was committed. This has made the convictions unsafe. It beggars belief that this course of action was advocated when Indonesia has perfectly good laws to deal with murder. Just a part of the collective madness that has followed the "With us or against us" rhetoric.

And while the west uses the Caliphate as a bogey, it is not nearly as effective for western propaganda as the Crusade and the Crusaders have been in OBLs hands for his propaganda. If you were to run OBLs popularity now in the world, it would be way up on where it was in 2001. Hard to explain that as a success.

[Edited 2006-07-11 17:02:15]
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 6125
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:09 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 62):
The Evil empire may or may not have been knocked over by Ronnie R. If it was done intentionally, where was the plan to cope with the post-collapse situation?

What situation?  Confused
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:32 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 46):
It was their government.

It was Saddam Hussein's government, not the people of Iraqs'.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 46):
like Romania before them,

Yeah, after the Soviet Union collapsed. I believe the Kurds tried something like that and got gassed for their attempt. Then the Sunni's in the south tried and got ripped to shreds. It's about who has the guns as the Palestinians never quite seem to figure out.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 46):
It's not up to us to topple another nations' government, why aren't we overthrowing other vile dictators throughout the world? Why not?

Because they don't have chemical weapons or the technology to produce them. That's not to say that we shouldn't but there is a reality to all situations and sometimes even though you'd like to you can't.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 46):
No, we introduced Al Qaeda to Iraq

They introduced themselves. They are looking for another Afghanistan.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 46):
Had we sent in the kind of forces necessary to occupy a nation-and securing it is a large part of occupying it, we could have secured most of it.

I know you don't have any military experience so I'll let that one go.

Quoting Santosdumont (Reply 55):
He doesn't have to worry about pesky rivals on the Politburo trying to build opposing consensus behind his back

And you know this...how?

Quoting Santosdumont (Reply 55):
And?

And what?

Quoting Santosdumont (Reply 55):
That would be consistent with Cheney's "1% doctrine" now, wouldn't it?

Your kind really needs to pick a line and stay with it. You were against the invasion of Iraq because it hadn't been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he had chemical weapons yet with no proof that NK has a nuclear weapon you want to try and invade an even more well equipped militarily nation than Iraq was. Which is it? No wonder your kind of politician gets their ass handed to them in national elections in this country.

Quoting Santosdumont (Reply 55):
What happened in Iraq already was not an invasion on pretense

Ok, you'll want to tell that to the intelligence agencies of virtually every major western power since they all were sure he had them.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 61):
No, his streak of unilateralism has nothing to do with his view of the national interest.

In his first 9 months in office did he once talk of going into Afghanistan or Iraq? I remember him being accused by the press of not paying enough attention to the middle east and being worried only about changing social security and tax cuts, which strangely enough are the campaing planks he ran on!
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
Falcon84
Topic Author
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:42 am

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 64):
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 46):
It's not up to us to topple another nations' government, why aren't we overthrowing other vile dictators throughout the world? Why not?

Because they don't have chemical weapons or the technology to produce them.

Neither did Iraq, my friend. Neither did Iraq. It was all a big falsehood. They didn't have the weapons; they didn't have the means to make them anymore.

That was proven long ago, that the real reaons given was false.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 64):
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 46):
Had we sent in the kind of forces necessary to occupy a nation-and securing it is a large part of occupying it, we could have secured most of it.

I know you don't have any military experience so I'll let that one go.

No, I do not, but I do have common sense. And common sense tells me that in 1991 we had half a million forces in-theater, simply to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. How many did we have to OCCUPY and SECURE Iraq? Not even half that many? Come on, Gilligan. I don't have to have served to realize that the Pentagon and Dumsfeld sent in way too few forces. That's quite obvious to anyone with some common sense.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 6125
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:05 am

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 64):
Yeah, after the Soviet Union collapsed.

Except that it was almost 2 years BEFORE. In December 1989.
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:32 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 65):
That was proven long ago, that the real reaons given was false.

Except they just found a bunch of old shells and immediatly after the war technical papers on how to produce the weapons were also found. So the argument is what if we had just said, ok we've been on your back long enough, you're free to do what you will, what would he have done? He had the paperwork, the Germans, French, and Russians obviously were willing to sell him anythig, the UN was going to look the other way for a few dollars. But you refuse to see that picture.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 65):
No, I do not, but I do have common sense.

Then you would look at a map of Iraq. Over 1500 miles of border, mostly open desert, 2 borders with countries at least somewhat sympathetic to terrorism or at least interested in seeing a government they can bend. 171,599 sq mi of interior space, larger than Germany, the whole Germany. We didn't even secure all of that country after WW2, it took the British, French, and Soviets to do it. So would you like to guess how many troops it would take to secure that country? A lot more than half a mil.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 65):
How many did we have to OCCUPY and SECURE Iraq?

And as you have said many times here, it was a totally depleted army incapable of doing anything, unlike the military we faced in 1991. You plan for the battle you're going to fight, not for the battle over the hill happening next week.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 66):
Except that it was almost 2 years BEFORE. In December 1989.

And what took place in the summer of 1989?
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:39 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 53):
Attempted genocide against Kosovar Albanians. Sounds like a valid reason to me. Curious that the U.S. didn't topple Saddam before, after his attempted genocide againts Kurds and marsh Arabs

So if they did it before it was OK, but after 2003 not OK?
 
Falcon84
Topic Author
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:43 am

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 67):
Except they just found a bunch of old shells and immediatly after the war technical papers on how to produce the weapons were also found.

If memory serves, those old shells were dated around the Gulf War in '92, not something that was active in '03 when Bush lanuched the war.

And I can probably get technical papers on how to produce weapons, if I looked hard enough. That does not equate with CAPABILITY to produce said weapons. More like a wet dream Saddam was having.  Big grin

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 67):
Then you would look at a map of Iraq. Over 1500 miles of border, mostly open desert, 2 borders with countries at least somewhat sympathetic to terrorism or at least interested in seeing a government they can bend. 171,599 sq mi of interior space, larger than Germany, the whole Germany. We didn't even secure all of that country after WW2, it took the British, French, and Soviets to do it. So would you like to guess how many troops it would take to secure that country? A lot more than half a mil.

Agreed.

But why send in less than half that-and on top of that dismantle the Iraqi military, which could have helped.

It again tells me that Bush and Co. thought this would be a quick spring war, over before the end of '03. His idiotic "Mission Accomplished" circus stunt adds more fuel to that fire.

And, instead of keeping the Iraqi military employed to help keep order-we did that in Germany after WWII, if I'm correct-we disbaneded them, and made tens of thousands of disgruntled vets, many who turned against us, when we could have made them a key part of security.

Again, it adds up to gross negligence and incredible incompetence, combined with pie-in-the-sky delusions, all adding up to a recipe for disaster and a long, drawn-out conflict.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 67):
And as you have said many times here, it was a totally depleted army incapable of doing anything, unlike the military we faced in 1991.

Which again begs the point: why did they even NEED to be invaded? They were a paper tiger. The Kuwaiti National Guard could have probably whipped them. Doesn't do much good to have WMD if they can't be protected.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 67):
You plan for the battle you're going to fight, not for the battle over the hill happening next week.

But when you don't make any plans for winning the peace-and this Administration obviously didn't do that, since there's no doubt in my mind they thought the war would be over 3 years ago-then you didn't plan properly.

If you thought 250,000 troops, or whatever the number was, was enough to win the fight, it seems to me more should have been sent to SECURE the victory, and the borders as much as we could.

But we didn't do that. It was a gross, negligent error in judgement, IMHO.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 6125
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:48 am

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 67):
And what took place in the summer of 1989?

 Confused  Confused  Confused
 
MUWarriors
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 12:11 pm

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:37 am

Quoting Clipperhawaii (Reply 52):

Boy, I wonder where we would be today if back in 1941 people said the same thing?

My favorite argument. Lets compare World War II, the most destructive war in human history, to an ill advised invasion of a small dictatorship in the Middle East. Not only that, but WWII was brought to us via Pearl Harbor, then Hitler declaring war on us, which made FDR's life easier because at the time there was no reason for the U.S. to declare war on Germany. September 11 brought a war home to the U.S. as well, however that war is in no way related to the Iraq war.

Quoting Frequentflyer (Reply 59):

Fair question. As far as I am concerned, the less dictators around, the better.

All right, next stop Saudi Arabia, then North Korea, then Zimbabwe, then... It's a never ending streak. That isn't why we went there, a positive benefit, sure, but honestly if we were concerned about an immediate threat, North Korea is the target. This was a personal vendetta by GWB, which hampered the real effort in Afghanistan, and opened a door for terrorists in Iraq.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 64):
Yeah, after the Soviet Union collapsed. I believe the Kurds tried something like that and got gassed for their attempt. Then the Sunni's in the south tried and got ripped to shreds. It's about who has the guns as the Palestinians never quite seem to figure out.

Many problems here, first Romania was never part of the USSR, and in fact differed in a number of policies (See: Soviet invasion of Czechoslovika). It was in fact a revolution in 1989 (1 and a half years before the technical, and 2 years before the official fall of the USSR). And this is actually a fair assesment, as the Iraqi Army, pre-invasion, was probably about the same strength as the Romanian Army at the time of their revolution, and perhaps the Iraqi Army at the time was weaker.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 64):

Because they don't have chemical weapons or the technology to produce them. That's not to say that we shouldn't but there is a reality to all situations and sometimes even though you'd like to you can't.

Neither did Iraq, heck at least three other countries with brutal dictators; Iran, North Korea, Syria, are much more likely to have chemical weapons than Iraq. Iraq was a poorly planned personal vendetta (or crusade if you listen to GWB).

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 67):
And what took place in the summer of 1989?

The fall of the Berlin wall, which was a caused by a communication mistake. Yet the Soviet Union remained in tact for 2 more years.
 
Falcon84
Topic Author
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:52 am

Quoting Clipperhawaii (Reply 52):
Boy, I wonder where we would be today if back in 1941 people said the same thing?

Reading this quote highlighted by MUWarriors reminded me of something, CH: up until Dec 7th, 1941, most of the nation was against going to war. This was still a nation deep in isolation, and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor ended that.

Now, you can try to spin this with a 9/11--->War on Terror--->Iraq thing, but it doesn't work. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 nor the war on terror. That was an excuse used by Mr. Bush, and those like you, who, out of fear, or a desire for revenge, or because you wanted us to show the world how big our balls were, used to justify this war.

It doesn't work. This war was a mistake. It will go down as a mistake, and it will condemn Mr. Bush to the bottom half of presidents, I suspect. I'm sure Republicans in the future will try to change history, and try to fob off Mr. Bush as a president worth of Rushmore, but he'll be a bitter afterthought in history, I believe.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 6125
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:53 am

Quoting MUWarriors (Reply 71):
The fall of the Berlin wall

The wall fell in November. November 9 to be exact. During the summer the Hungarians tore down their part of the Iron Curtain and East Germans occupied the West German embassy in Prague.
 
ozglobal
Posts: 2595
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:33 am

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:00 am

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 67):
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 65):That was proven long ago, that the real reaons given was false.
Except they just found a bunch of old shells and immediatly after the war technical papers on how to produce the weapons were also found. So the argument is what if we had just said, ok we've been on your back long enough, you're free to do what you will, what would he have done? He had the paperwork, the Germans, French, and Russians obviously were willing to sell him anythig, the UN was going to look the other way for a few dollars. But you refuse to see that picture.

Well, you know what they say, "'Denial' is not river that runs through Egypt"!

It was your government who from the '80's onwards, groomed Saddam and gave or sold him the weapons he used to gas his own people:

From the Washington Post, December 30, 2002 (you have no excuse for not knowing these facts):

"Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.

The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...e&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29

Please 'fall on your sword' and move on.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
 
MUWarriors
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 12:11 pm

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:00 am

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 73):

The wall fell in November. November 9 to be exact. During the summer the Hungarians tore down their part of the Iron Curtain and East Germans occupied the West German embassy in Prague.

Shit, that's right. Hell of a brain fart there. Thanks for that.
 
santosdumont
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:22 am

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:06 am

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 64):
He doesn't have to worry about pesky rivals on the Politburo trying to build opposing consensus behind his back

And you know this...how?

Because the Kims have God-like powers ascribed to them by the official North Korean propaganda machine...the cult of personality is at a level that would make Stalin blush...it's a totally different universe than the old Kremlin news reports about Yuri Andropov having a "cold" when he was actually six feet under...I wish I could tell you more but I have no way of knowing...just the bits and pieces that I see when independent journalists are allowed into Nokor (rarely).

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 64):
Quoting Santosdumont (Reply 55):
And?

And what?

You suggest that somehow China is "watching our back" by keeping North Korea in check....are you willing to place such a level of trust in the hands of a government that slaughtered hundreds (maybe thousands) of protesters in Tiananmen Square?

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 64):
Quoting Santosdumont (Reply 55):
That would be consistent with Cheney's "1% doctrine" now, wouldn't it?

Your kind really needs to pick a line and stay with it. You were against the invasion of Iraq because it hadn't been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he had chemical weapons yet with no proof that NK has a nuclear weapon you want to try and invade an even more well equipped militarily nation than Iraq was. Which is it? No wonder your kind of politician gets their ass handed to them in national elections in this country.

My kind? Assume what you like about my kind. As tempting as it may be to crank out facile, one-dimensional assumptions about your kind, I'll take what you say at face value.

I was personally against the invasion of Iraq not because I was ever a fan of Sadam (Don Rumsfeld apparently was at one time -- at least enough of a fan to shake the guy's hand), but because I believe the Bush administration in effect manufactured a type of public consent through the use of misinformation, half-truths, bullying of an already catatonic news media, and in some cases outright lies. I refer you to the most recent issue of Vanity Fair, specifically the article titled "The War They Wanted, the Lies They Needed."

My point is that there is growing evidence that the Bush administration was directly or indirectly involved in a campaign of deceit to create the climate needed to justify a war that GWB had wanted even before September 11th.

In other words, if we use the criteria that Bush used to justify war with Iraq (and which so many of his supporters wholeheartedly supported), he would already be gunning for North Korea if in fact he meant what he said about taking the fight to the terrorists. Of course, it's entirely possible that he was just using that whole terrorist thing as an excuse to invade Iraq.

Independent of whether North Korea has nukes (it could be that Kim is just blowing smoke in a twisted effort to get laid), that nation fits Bush's own definition of a terrorist state. It's been established that Kim has missiles that could reach Japan for certain (and possibly Alaska). I'm sure there are NoKor scientists that are clever enough to come up with a real nice alternative for a nuclear warhead if they actually don't have one yet. Who knows, maybe a dirty bomb?

So which is it you ask? I'll tell you. Assuming that a War on Terror is actually underway, it seems to me that the US would be wise to treat all possible threats with the same level of circumspection.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 64):
Quoting Santosdumont (Reply 55):
What happened in Iraq already was not an invasion on pretense

Ok, you'll want to tell that to the intelligence agencies of virtually every major western power since they all were sure he had them.

Was the CIA in fact sure that he had them? Disregarding Tenet's pathetic "slam dunk" remark....
"Pursuit Of Truth No Matter Where It Lies" -- Metallica
 
Falcon84
Topic Author
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:10 am

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 74):
It was your government who from the '80's onwards, groomed Saddam and gave or sold him the weapons he used to gas his own people:

Again, we didn't groom Saddam for anything. We sold him few, if any, weapons. His entire arsenal was either Chinese, Soviet or French, not American made weapons. We did shift our policy to try and have more favorable relations with Iraq at that time due, in part, to the warlike actions of Iran under Ayatollah Scrambledbrains, and the taking of American diplomats as hostages.

Were there contacts between the U.S. and Saddam? Yes, absolutely, but again, don't distort history by making it sound like we were his Sugar Daddy when it cames to weapons. We never were.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
ozglobal
Posts: 2595
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:33 am

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:17 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 77):
don't distort history by making it sound like we were his Sugar Daddy when it cames to weapons.



Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 74):
The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...Dec29

If you think the Washington Post is distorting history, perhaps you should take it up with them. These are not my words.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
 
Falcon84
Topic Author
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:22 am

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 78):
If you think the Washington Post is distorting history, perhaps you should take it up with them. These are not my words.

I don't care who's words they are. The facts are this: Saddam's arsenal was Russian, Chinese and French. That's what his war against Iran was fought with. In fact, Iran had the American weapons, oddly enough.

I did not say the U.S. didn't sell Saddam anything, but again, don't make it sound like we armed him to the teeth. We did not. We gave him little, if any, military help.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
ozglobal
Posts: 2595
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:33 am

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:32 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 79):
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 78):If you think the Washington Post is distorting history, perhaps you should take it up with them. These are not my words.
I don't care who's words they are. The facts are this: Saddam's arsenal was Russian, Chinese and French. That's what his war against Iran was fought with. In fact, Iran had the American weapons, oddly enough.

I did not say the U.S. didn't sell Saddam anything, but again, don't make it sound like we armed him to the teeth. We did not. We gave him little, if any, military help.

I've cited a credible source. So far I've heard only "these are the facts" as a response. You can find the sources as easily as I...I have only used US-based ones: Washinton Post and official Senate reports.

Further details,"....according to our own Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, under the administrations of Reagan and Bush No. 41, we sold Iraq anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism.

And we didn't stop when word got out about the gassing of the Kurds in the town of Halabja that claimed the lives of 5,000. Nope. We sold them this stuff right up until March 1992. That's March 1992 -- a year after the Gulf War was over."

And again:
"Senator Donald Riegle Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs reported, “ UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs .” He added, “ the executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual -use technology to Iraq . I think that is a devastating record. ”

Source: http://www.democracyrising.us/content/view/30/74/
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
 
11Bravo
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:54 am

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:36 am

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 80):
Further details,"....according to our own Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, under the administrations of Reagan and Bush No. 41, we sold Iraq anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism.

I'd like to see an original source for that VX claim.

As far as the others go, they are standard pathogens that are used for testing, research, and validation in any moderately developed public health care system. There are a number of American medical companies, as well as European ones, that regularly supply pathogen libraries to countries for that purpose.

That's the whole problem with a variety of "dual use technologies". As long as they're used for their intended purpose, it's not a problem.

There are lots of examples of this. The same equipment and precursor chemicals used to manufacture agricultural pesticides can also be used to make chemical weapons. The same equipment and precursor chemicals used to manufacture fertilizers can be modified to produce explosives. Etc., etc.

Most people don't understand this, or choose to ignore it because they want to further a political agenda, but it becomes easy to say "America supplied Iraq with WMD", when in fact, we supplied them with dual-use items that were not used for their intended purpose.

It's a double-edged sword too because if those items were not made available, developing countries throughout the world would suffer even more than they already do. I'm sure there would be lots of America bashing for that as well. "The US refuses to supply medical and agricultural technology to third-world countries!"
WhaleJets Rule!
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:19 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 69):
That does not equate with CAPABILITY to produce said weapons.

But as was shown with the oil for food fiasco, too many nations were willing to look the other way to make a quick buck to not think he wouldn't get the capability if he wanted too.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 69):
But why send in less than half that-and on top of that dismantle the Iraqi military, which could have helped.

We did the same in Germany in 1945.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 69):
His idiotic "Mission Accomplished" circus stunt adds more fuel to that fire.

Opinion.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 69):
And, instead of keeping the Iraqi military employed to help keep order-we did that in Germany after WWII,

No, we did not do that. As a matter of fact Gen. Patton took some serious heat for employing former Nazi's in the post office and other civil service jobs.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 69):
Which again begs the point: why did they even NEED to be invaded?

As I stated in another thread, just because a brutal dictator or terrorist is confined to one country does not mean that he is not a threat. OBL was confined to Afghanistan, 9/11, Qadhafi to Lybia, Pan Am 103, Hussien to Iraq, attempt on Bush 41's life.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 69):
But when you don't make any plans for winning the peace-and this Administration obviously didn't do that

Show me where even one of these Generals that are now speaking out predicted that even the Iraqi police would abandon their posts allowing the idiots that are in every society to loot.

Quoting MUWarriors (Reply 71):
It was in fact a revolution in 1989 (1 and a half years before the technical, and 2 years before the official fall of the USSR).

Yes but the Soviets influence was lost in the summer of 1989 as many of the USSR satellite states started declaring their own freedom. Had the same thing happened in 1979 you can bet Soviet tanks would have been prowling the streets backing up Ceauºescu dictatorship.

Quoting MUWarriors (Reply 71):
Neither did Iraq,



Quoting MUWarriors (Reply 71):
heck at least three other countries with brutal dictators; Iran, North Korea, Syria, are much more likely to have chemical weapons than Iraq.

Source please.

Quoting MUWarriors (Reply 71):
The fall of the Berlin wall,

Correct along with what I stated above.

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 74):
It was your government who from the '80's onwards, groomed Saddam and gave or sold him the weapons he used to gas his own people:

Source please.

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 74):
Please 'fall on your sword' and move on.

No need to. When you come up with acutal sources instead of misinformed opinion then we can talk.

Quoting Santosdumont (Reply 76):
You suggest that somehow China is "watching our back" by keeping North Korea in check

I meant exactly the opposite. China is not watching our back, they are watching the NK's back. If we attack NK we essentially attack China as it was during the war.

Quoting Santosdumont (Reply 76):
Don Rumsfeld apparently was at one time -- at least enough of a fan to shake the guy's hand),

I seem to remember a former British Prime Minister that shook the hand of Hitler and everyone thought he was just a great guy, for about a year and a half. I'm sure that Stalin probably thought the same thing when the USSR got invaded in 1941. It only takes one person to break an agreement between two people, Rumsfield did not break his word.

Quoting Santosdumont (Reply 76):
Was the CIA in fact sure that he had them? Disregarding Tenet's pathetic "slam dunk" remark....

Well, considering virtually every major western intelliegence agency thought he had them as well, sorry, Argentina doesn't rank in that group so whatever they thought got lost in the shuffle, I guess you have to believe that they had them.

President Bush gave Saddam every chance to prove he did not have these weapons. All Saddam had to do was tell Bush, look I just want to be left alone to rape my women and torture my political adversaries, come on in and have a look wherever you want. Instead he decided to play cat and mouse believing that certain other powers would protect him. He guessed wrong and now sits in the docket awaiting his fate. None of this would have happened if he had been up front and honest. All the second guessing and Monday morning quarterbacking here on this thread will not change history, and history says that everyone in the know thought he had them, the disagreement was how to make him get rid of them.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:44 am

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 63):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 62):
The Evil empire may or may not have been knocked over by Ronnie R. If it was done intentionally, where was the plan to cope with the post-collapse situation?

What situation? Confused

The collapse of the mechanisms of Government, rise of crime, no arrangements to pay state employees, collapse of rouble, fire-sale of state assets and so on. The after effects of this roll on. Russian crime gangs have not had a beneficial effect on the world. "Unofficial" sales of military equipment have been behind many civil wars. There are still some missing nuclear warheads, and even worse, it appears that the number of mislaid warheads is probably not known either.

Example of the collapses are, coal production in the Russian Federation was 452 mt/a in 1988 and fell to 231.9 mt/a by 1998. Oil production was 11 MMBPD in 1988 and fell to 6.1 MMBPD by 1998 (source BP). The catastrophic collapse of other industries was similar (or worse), I just happen to have those numbers. Interestingly, the collapse of oil production is also one of the many reasons for current high oil prices.

Those falls were paralleled by an inability to supply heating in the Siberian winter, lack of pay.

My point was if collapse was the aim, there should have been better measures to manage the collapse and a transition to a new form of government. The early 90s was a tale of scrambling to catch up, arguably not very successfully.

The collapse also let loose the Islamic separatist movements across S Russia - a problem that the CIA had been warning about for years. Those separatist movements together with the Mujahudeen in Afghanistan have formed a major base for Al Q.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:20 pm

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 67):
Then you would look at a map of Iraq. Over 1500 miles of border, mostly open desert, 2 borders with countries at least somewhat sympathetic to terrorism or at least interested in seeing a government they can bend. 171,599 sq mi of interior space, larger than Germany, the whole Germany. We didn't even secure all of that country after WW2, it took the British, French, and Soviets to do it. So would you like to guess how many troops it would take to secure that country? A lot more than half a mil



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 69):
But why send in less than half that-and on top of that dismantle the Iraqi military, which could have helped.

The low numbers were mistake #1, but the dismantling of the Iraqi military seems to have been the real killer. The German army had been fought beyond a standstill in May 45, but had not collapsed in the way that the Iraqi army collapsed. Much was made that the US had psyched much of the Iraqi army not to fight - its reward to be disarmed and sent home with no pay. Small wonder that they became a bit hostile. And they knew where the weapons and money were.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 82):
President Bush gave Saddam every chance to prove he did not have these weapons.



Quoting Gilligan (Reply 82):
None of this would have happened if he had been up front and honest.

Well Saddam will probably reply (if given a chance) that he was up front and honest to a greater degree than Bush, Blair and Howard.

(For Americans not following Aus politics, Howard has just been caught out in the small matter of a porky he has been peddling for some years that there was no understanding with his - current - deputy. I am sure later this week I will be able to give a link to Clarke and Dawes comments on the matter. Howard has gone on denying it, in spite of there having been a witness who took notes and there are countless interviews where he denied that any such conversation had occurred. Whatever, this is a good week to talk about the up-front and honest nature of one of the three musketeers.)

For Saddam to declare he had nothing in the way of weapons, was pretty close the same (for him) to saying to all his neighbours, "Hey I am now defenceless, why not invade me?"

"Know thine enemy" said Sun Tzu. The US either did not know Saddam, or did not act sensibly on the knowledge. The answer to that might lie in the Socratic plea, "Know thyself".
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:48 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 84):
"Hey I am now defenceless, why not invade me?"

That was his kunundrum but while he had to fear that his neighbors might invade, he knew for sure by 48 hours before the invasion began that the U.S. was going to. His option at that point was to take the money and run, still he refused and now we are where we are today, thanks to Saddams refusal to allow full and open inspections.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:57 pm

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 85):
That was his kunundrum but while he had to fear that his neighbors might invade, he knew for sure by 48 hours before the invasion began that the U.S. was going to. His option at that point was to take the money and run, still he refused and now we are where we are today, thanks to Saddams refusal to allow full and open inspections.

My reply is based on some speculations, but lack of information leaves us with not many other options. There are rumours that requests for negotiations (not sure you could call them peace feelers, but possibly that too) by Saddam were either rejected or obfuscated by the US in the immediate run-up to invasion.

The whole episode reminded me of an event when my dog took his daily trip to the nearby house of an Aunt for the food she used to give him. Just opposite her house live a large Chow dog that set upon my bitzer spaniel sized dog. My Aunt went in and filled a bucket of water. When she emerged the fight was over and the Chow was back licking its chops lying on the steps of its owners house. She was determined not to waste the water, and went over and threw it on the surprised Chow, only to discover that its owner was watching. She just muttered Hrrmph and marched back home. Mission accomplished, as you might say!

That pattern fits the Iraq war, the US had filled its bucket (massed its armed forces) and even if the Chow (Saddam) had quit, the US was not going to waste its preparations - invade.
 
MUWarriors
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 12:11 pm

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:19 pm

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 82):
Source please.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/images/npp/chemlarge.gif

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/jan_jun2003.htm

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 82):
Yes but the Soviets influence was lost in the summer of 1989 as many of the USSR satellite states started declaring their own freedom. Had the same thing happened in 1979 you can bet Soviet tanks would have been prowling the streets backing up Ceauºescu dictatorship.

Likely true, but considering the relationship Romania had with the Soviet Union throughout the late 70's early 80's they may not have. Also to compare the Iraqi Army with an army of a superpower is silly. I stand by my earlier statement that the Iraqi Army of the late 1990's early 2000's was at best as well equipped as the Romanian Army of 1989.

On a side note, I personally find this to be funny. Warning: People who like how President Bush has handled his presidency won't likely enjoy this, people like me who feel President Bush has been an utter failure will find it amusing, and eerily accurate:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784?issue=4228&special=2001
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 6125
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:46 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 83):
My point was if collapse was the aim, there should have been better measures to manage the collapse and a transition to a new form of government. The early 90s was a tale of scrambling to catch up, arguably not very successfully.

I knew what you meant, but I think this is playing arms-chair general. If I can draw some sort of comparison with my country's experience with transition from dictatorship and separatist tendencies (which is to a large extent uncomparable due to ethnic makeup, size, historical background, etc. and which both were smooth and without any major setbacks, certainly not violent ones):
Only after the regime fell certain problems resurfaced (e.g. Slovak separatism) because they were not an issue before or if they were they were actively suppressed for various reasons.
I really don't see how anyone could have some contingency plan for the USSR gradually falling apart under its own weight, with almost 300 million people spaning across 10(?) time zones, being prison for technically 15 in reality many more nations, many being occupied or included in the USSR by force.
While I can imagine the although CIA had a pretty good idea about what's going on in the USSR, what happened between 1989-1991 was something like a free fall. I just don't see how the US could babysit the Soviets during the collapse of the USSR, especially since the USSR was not defeated or capitulated like Germany did in 1945.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:32 pm

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 88):
While I can imagine the although CIA had a pretty good idea about what's going on in the USSR, what happened between 1989-1991 was something like a free fall. I just don't see how the US could babysit the Soviets during the collapse of the USSR, especially since the USSR was not defeated or capitulated like Germany did in 1945.

Difficult to disagree with you on any point. However, there remains the doubt in my mind that it is a good idea to try to achieve something (in this case the fall of the Soviet Union) without having some sort of a plan to cope with the after effects. Much was written about the bipolar world, it being unsaid, but definitely thought, that if one pole went, the other would not find the result terribly stable. And so it has proved. If the Soviet Union had been propped up, instead of allowed to collapse, we probably would not be troubled nearly as much by our old friend OBL.

Perhaps it is a case for the old saying, "be careful what you wish for".

I am sure your thoughts 410Turbojet are especially valuable coming from an area that managed the change much better than many other parts of the "empire".

I was greatly impressed somewhere about 1987 or so by a CIA assessment of change in Jugoslavia given as part of a BBC world service special coverage. And just about everything that was forecast came about. Either the forecasts were unstoppable, or nobody tried. With Jugoslavia difficult to know. But it does appear, even if you have correct forecasts it does not prevent the disaster. It might make one conclude that we dont run things very well, and by we I mean the whole lot of us.
 
santosdumont
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:22 am

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:31 pm

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 82):
I meant exactly the opposite. China is not watching our back, they are watching the NK's back. If we attack NK we essentially attack China as it was during the war.

In that case, then Bush will be hard pressed to explain why he chose appeasement with regard to China over neutralizing a terrorist state -- which in the case of Iraq, was the key page in his playbook.

Obviously, China is not to be taken lightly. But you can't say that the US didn't see this (missile tests) coming. You know things are out of the ordinary when *Japan* threatens to attack North Korea.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 82):
Was the CIA in fact sure that he had them? Disregarding Tenet's pathetic "slam dunk" remark....

Well, considering virtually every major western intelliegence agency thought he had them as well, sorry, Argentina doesn't rank in that group so whatever they thought got lost in the shuffle, I guess you have to believe that they had them.

Dude, remember that I'm in Brazil -- so gratuitious bashing of anything Argentine is more than welcome!  biggrin 

As for the "every major Western intelligence agency" thing, let me refer you to this excerpt from CNN.com published on 7 October 2004:

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A long-awaited report which concluded Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion has intensified the debate about the decision to go to war.

The CIA report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, said Iraq's WMD program had essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.

The report did say, however, that Iraq worked hard to cheat on United Nations-imposed sanctions and retain the capability to resume production of weapons of mass destruction at some time in the future."

If you want to talk pre-war, consider this from the Carnegie Endowment's report "WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications" released in January 2003:

"Prior to 2002, the intelligence community appears to have overestimated
the chemical and biological weapons in Iraq but had a generally
accurate picture of the nuclear and missile programs." (p. 50)

"The dramatic shift between prior intelligence assessments and the October
2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), together with the creation of
an independent intelligence entity at the Pentagon and other steps, suggest
that the intelligence community began to be unduly influenced by
policymakers’ views sometime in 2002." (p. 50)
(my emphasis)

Not surprisingly, the issue is more complicated than whether or not Sadam had WMD -- that's when one enters the realm of dealing with Iraqi sources for intelligence and the question of their credibility and their own political agenda.

Nor is it surprising that someone of Sadam's ilk would at some point want to replenish whatever WMD stock he had in the past.

The more worrisome issue is the manipulation of this intelligence by the Bush White House in an ultimately successful effort to concoct a public climate conducive to going to war.
"Pursuit Of Truth No Matter Where It Lies" -- Metallica
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:39 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 84):
The German army had been fought beyond a standstill in May 45, but had not collapsed in the way that the Iraqi army collapsed.

There is no comparison anyone can make to the discipline and expertise of the German Wehrmacht Army in 1945 to any arab army on the face of the planet today.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 86):
My reply is based on some speculations

Negotiations were held up till the last minute. At that point nothing short of his leaving was going to be good enough. He was not going to be allowed to stay and further flaunt the UN. He didn't learn from Baby Doc and that General down there we had to buy off to get to leave. So once again, he was offered the chance to just go away and refused bringing down misery on all of his country.

Quoting MUWarriors (Reply 87):
Quoting Gilligan (Reply 82):
Source please.

I note that both sources say quite openly that it is "possible" that these countries have them. In Syria and Iran's case they almost spell out that they don't believe they have them but are trying to continually acquire them.

Quoting Santosdumont (Reply 90):
In that case, then Bush will be hard pressed to explain why he chose appeasement with regard to China over neutralizing a terrorist state -- which in the case of Iraq, was the key page in his playbook.

I don't quite understand where you are going. If we can achieve our aims peacefully, which is what we tried for a number of years to do with Iraq, then where is the problem with that? China has an interest in not seeing NK attacked as they would then have to jump in and defend them which is not something I think they really want to do at this point. Also, having a nuclear armed unstable leader on your border is not the most advantageous of situations either. BTW, what did Brazil intelligence say? I think we actually heard more from Argentina on the matter.

Quoting Santosdumont (Reply 90):
The more worrisome issue is the manipulation of this intelligence by the Bush White House in an ultimately successful effort to concoct a public climate conducive to going to war.

Then every major intelligence agency in the world is guilty of manipulating all their evidence as well since all were in agreement. It was not a matter of whether he had them at that point but which was the best way to make him get rid of them. That is where the disagreement lay.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:23 am

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 91):
There is no comparison anyone can make to the discipline and expertise of the German Wehrmacht Army in 1945 to any arab army on the face of the planet today.

Agreed

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 91):
Negotiations were held up till the last minute. At that point nothing short of his leaving was going to be good enough. He was not going to be allowed to stay and further flaunt the UN. He didn't learn from Baby Doc and that General down there we had to buy off to get to leave. So once again, he was offered the chance to just go away and refused bringing down misery on all of his country.

The question is, were they in good faith on either side? In general, the west has tended to be pretty arrogant negotiating with countries in the Middle East, well ever since Lawrence.

Even Gertrude Bell had a bit of an arrogant streak. There did seem to be undue haste to go to war. The generals probably did not want their war machine to collect too much sand lying around in the desert, but the political rush was probably the critical factor.
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:26 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 92):
The question is, were they in good faith on either side?

Considering Saddam would not consider stepping down and leaving Iraq, which was a prerequisite of the U.S., it doesn't really make any difference. The only way you could make that determination is if one party or the other agreed to terms and then backed away or did not follow thru.

With news today that the administration is now going to give detainees in gitmo and in Afghanistan rights accorded to regular soldiers by the Geneva convention it seems as if Bush has given up the fight. He will now allow Congress and the courts to usurp even more of the executives power as granted to him under the Constitution. A shame. It is becoming apparent that no foreign power will ever do us in before we do ourselves in thru greed and lust for political power.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
santosdumont
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:22 am

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:08 am

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 91):
I don't quite understand where you are going. If we can achieve our aims peacefully, which is what we tried for a number of years to do with Iraq, then where is the problem with that? China has an interest in not seeing NK attacked as they would then have to jump in and defend them which is not something I think they really want to do at this point. Also, having a nuclear armed unstable leader on your border is not the most advantageous of situations either.

I agree with you there...certainly China has no interest in seeking NoKor attacked. But if we look at the NoKor missile situation in the framework of Bush's own stated doctrine of pre-emptively eliminating potential terrorist threats, shouldn't he at least be taking a more vigorous stand; if anything, a type of carrot and stick approach that goes beyond the traditional threatened sanctions (given that this is a post-September 11th world)? Of course, keeping in mind that no doctrine is inherently of a "cookie cutter" nature and must be calibrated to the individual situation (in this case the China proximity question).

Bush's reaction to the NoKor missiles, compared to his policies leading up to the war in Iraq leads me to believe that he had his mind made up about going to war against Sadam -- come hell or high water.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 91):
BTW, what did Brazil intelligence say? I think we actually heard more from Argentina on the matter.

About NoKor or Iraq? At the time of the Iraq war, the Brazilian Intelligence Agency (ABIN) was primarily focusing on the past travels of UBL to the "tri-border" region of Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay -- which is said to be a hotbed of terrorist financial and training activity.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 91):
The more worrisome issue is the manipulation of this intelligence by the Bush White House in an ultimately successful effort to concoct a public climate conducive to going to war.

Then every major intelligence agency in the world is guilty of manipulating all their evidence as well since all were in agreement. It was not a matter of whether he had them at that point but which was the best way to make him get rid of them.

But the sticking point is this one: it wasn't the intelligence agencies themselves that did the manipulating. It was the Bush White House through the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans and other agencies.
"Pursuit Of Truth No Matter Where It Lies" -- Metallica
 
MUWarriors
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 12:11 pm

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:48 am

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 91):

I note that both sources say quite openly that it is "possible" that these countries have them. In Syria and Iran's case they almost spell out that they don't believe they have them but are trying to continually acquire them.

Per the CIA unclassified report:

Quote:
Iran likely has already stockpiled blister, blood, choking, and probably nerve agents---and the bombs and artillery shells to deliver them---which it previously had manufactured.

That sounds like they believe they have them, at least to me.

About Syria the same report says:

Quote:
Damascus already held a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin, but apparently tried to develop more toxic and persistent nerve agents.

Trying to develop worse? Yes. Already have a stockpile? They seem to think so.

Based on this, and other things in the articles I don't know where you get the idea that they "don't believe they have" them.

For further reading:
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/npp...cations/index.cfm?fa=view&id=11745

Says about the same thing, but here is their quote about Syria

"...Syria has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention and U.S. officials believe it has a significant stockpile of the nerve agent sarin."
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:50 am

Quoting Santosdumont (Reply 94):
Bush's reaction to the NoKor missiles, compared to his policies leading up to the war in Iraq leads me to believe that he had his mind made up about going to war against Sadam -- come hell or high water.

Perhaps it's because we have the technology to knock down those missiles in their ascent phase.

Quoting Santosdumont (Reply 94):
BTW, what did Brazil intelligence say

It was a joke, I realized my error on where you live.

Quoting Santosdumont (Reply 94):
But the sticking point is this one

Disagree. Not one intelligence agency disputed what Sec State Powell said after he gave his speech at the UN. The dispute was all about how to proceed, more sanctions or war. No one in our Congress disputed the Presidents facts at the time, there were some that not only agreed but spelled out an even worse doom and gloom scenario than the President if something wasn't done.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:14 am

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 93):

With news today that the administration is now going to give detainees in gitmo and in Afghanistan rights accorded to regular soldiers by the Geneva convention it seems as if Bush has given up the fight.

WRONGLY REPORTED BY THE MEDIA.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blo...od_memo_on_terror_detainees_j.html

Quoting Santosdumont (Reply 94):
But the sticking point is this one: it wasn't the intelligence agencies themselves that did the manipulating. It was the Bush White House through the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans and other agencies.

You can easily find many quotes, prior to Bush becoming president, where Democrats who are now against the war, were using the same lines Bush used against Iraq.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:36 pm

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 93):
It is becoming apparent that no foreign power will ever do us in before we do ourselves in thru greed and lust for political power.

Hang on there, I could nearly have written that. What some here are trying to suggest is that using procedures that have been followed for 150 or whatever years is a better way to go. Trying to cut corners just causes trouble.

The critics are not saying OBL is a great guy. What they are saying is treat the problem as one of crime - which it is - and remove as many as possible of the causative problems he is able to use. So beat him on strategy, and beat him on tactics.

Don't have a war. Don't stretch and possibly break your own laws. OBL and his like are so far out of whack they should be an easy target.

And if you don't win by force you are going to have to negotiate. Yes, I know about hell freezing over. Just as well I dont gamble, or I would like a bet on negotiations.

I dont want to see him win, and I can well believe that most Muslims don't want him to win either. So many missed opportunities.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Death Of The "Bush Doctrine"

Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:52 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 98):
The critics are not saying OBL is a great guy.

Are you sure? I swear I can find a lot of places that think OBL is a hero.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 98):
What they are saying is treat the problem as one of crime

Then what is to you an act of war?

Quoting Baroque (Reply 98):
and remove as many as possible of the causative problems he is able to use

That is also called propaganda, the other side uses it very well for their favor, using some of your own criticisms. Plus what makes you think that the problems that have allowed this to occur are purely caused by western societies?

Quoting Baroque (Reply 98):
So beat him on strategy, and beat him on tactics.

And again, a lot of the war protestor are giving OBL and his ilk good 'talking points' to use against us. Is a good call from you, except that you are also part of the problem.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 98):
Don't stretch and possibly break your own laws.

Breaking our own laws is debatable. And the debates over this 'breaking our own laws' has and is being used by the other side to justify their actions, with little words from people like you condemning them for it.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 98):
And if you don't win by force you are going to have to negotiate.

There has never been a successful negotiation with these types of individuals. You dont negotiate with a person trying to rob you (a criminal), neither do countries.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 98):
I dont want to see him win, and I can well believe that most Muslims don't want him to win either.

As expressed by plenty of people like you in this forum, and the majority of Muslims (either by direct/indirect support), you have a strange way of showing that you dont want his side to win. Remember, there are crimes of commission and ommission, and there are plenty of people in the world committing the latter.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aaron747, speedygonzales, Teganuma, WesternDC6B and 58 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos