petertenthije wrote:

phugoid1982 wrote:

calluosuly disregarding and disrespecting the thousands/millions of soldiers and innocent civilians lost in a debacle based on lies and deception.

beyond the direct kills, an argument could be made that he caused the rise of IS / ISIS / Daesh / ISIL or whatever these guys are named this year.

I did not understand Dubya’s “75” remark though. Can someone explain this?

He's 75 years old.

petertenthije wrote:

beyond the direct kills, an argument could be made that he caused the rise of IS / ISIS / Daesh / ISIL or whatever these guys are named this year.

That's just a fact. Who would argue against that? What would their argument be?

phugoid1982 wrote:

The slip didn't even bother me that much. I was more appalled that he then corrected himself and s then said laughingly "Iraq too..hehe" calluosuly disregarding and disrespecting the thousands/millions of soldiers and innocent civilians lost in a debacle based on lies and deception.

I'm with you there. For me, it was the "Iraq too" remark that is astounding !!

It took me a while to understand that Dubya is a nickname for George W. Bush although why it ain't clear. Perhaps I'm missing some context here

The part about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_f ... an_Century is a revelation at least to me. Although they lost the plot and grew up even worse enemies than before

pune wrote:

It took me a while to understand that Dubya is a nickname for George W. Bush although why it ain't clear. Perhaps I'm missing some context here

The part about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_f ... an_Century is a revelation at least to me. Although they lost the plot and grew up even worse enemies than before

Very good, it only took you 19 years to figure out why the US invaded Iraq, in spite of the fact that many people have been screaming that fact for all of the last 19 years (but have been drowned out by the "it's all about oil" and "WMDs WMDs WMDs" noise. Although it took you 19 years to get here don't feel bad, you're way ahead of many other supposedly informed people, maybe someday their grandchildren will get it.

Now that you are here, let me drag out some more of the unspoken truths: most of the founders of the PNAC were/are dual Israeli / US citizens: the PNAC was actually an Israeli lobbying group (although unregistered as such as required by law).

Where you read "PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership" pay attention to the words "stated goal" because things were even worse than they seem. Of course "to promote American global leadership" in this case was just a dog whistle meaning "to promote American dominance of the Middle east" but that was just for American consumption; the actual country gaining "dominance of the Middle east" wasn't going to be the US. It was intended to be the country that was manipulating the Bush administration and the US congress to achieve its own goals ("dominance of the Middle east and continued expansion").

BTW
Dubya is pronounced "W", which is Bush's middle initial, as opposed to his father, also George Bush who's middle initial(s) were H.W.

Vintage wrote:

pune wrote:

It took me a while to understand that Dubya is a nickname for George W. Bush although why it ain't clear. Perhaps I'm missing some context here

The part about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_f ... an_Century is a revelation at least to me. Although they lost the plot and grew up even worse enemies than before

Very good, it only took you 19 years to figure out why the US invaded Iraq, in spite of the fact that many people have been screaming that fact for all of the last 19 years (but have been drowned out by the "it's all about oil" and "WMDs WMDs WMDs" noise. Although it took you 19 years to get here don't feel bad, you're way ahead of many other supposedly informed people, maybe someday their grandchildren will get it.

Now that you are here, let me drag out some more of the unspoken truths: most of the founders of the PNAC were/are dual Israeli / US citizens: the PNAC was actually an Israeli lobbying group (although unregistered as such as required by law).

When you read "PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership" pay attention to the words "stated goal" because things were even worse than they seem. Of course "to promote American global leadership" in this case was just a dog whistle meaning "to promote American dominance of the Middle East" but that was just for American consumption; the actual country gaining "dominance of the Middle East" wasn't going to be the US. It was intended to be the country that was manipulating the Bush administration and the US congress to achieve its own goals ("dominance of the Middle East and continued expansion").

BTW
Dubya is pronounced "W", which is Bush's middle initial, as opposed to his father, also George Bush whose middle initial(s) were H.W.

In my defense, I'm not American but still better late than never. I was caught in the oil thing for a long time as that was what was stated, didn't know it was an Israeli thing. The Mossad guys must have been laughing all the way to the bank in 2004.

The second Iraq was was most definately an unorganized mess. (putin seems to have learned a lot from Dubya). No thought of what to do after the war, and just alienate the population to hating Americans.
But lets not forget what really started it all was Hussain invading Kuwait and the other countries not letting George senior finish the job.
If the first war had been finished properly the 2nd would never have happened. Hussain should have been taken out in the first place.

Exrampieyyz wrote:

The second Iraq was was most definately an unorganized mess. (putin seems to have learned a lot from Dubya). No thought of what to do after the war, and just alienate the population to hating Americans.
But lets not forget what really started it all was Hussain invading Kuwait and the other countries not letting George senior finish the job.
If the first war had been finished properly the 2nd would never have happened. Hussain should have been taken out in the first place.

Wrong or right, what it achieved except create more radicals/terrorists. Till Saddam was there, there was at least relatively peace in that region. Now it's been chaos for what more than a decade now. The same thing as in Afghanistan. Of course, the same thing in Afghanistan. After what, 20 odd years came back with tails between their legs. What is that policy? While the Americans and UK forces got out, Afghans who helped the Americans for all those years were left behind to bear death, atrocities and hardships under the Taliban.

Exrampieyyz wrote:

The second Iraq was was most definately an unorganized mess. (putin seems to have learned a lot from Dubya). No thought of what to do after the war, and just alienate the population to hating Americans.
But lets not forget what really started it all was Hussain invading Kuwait and the other countries not letting George senior finish the job.
If the first war had been finished properly the 2nd would never have happened. Hussain should have been taken out in the first place.

That's a ludicrous take, even more so than the WMD one.

There was absolutely no need to go into Irak to 'finish the job'. The initial job was to get Irak out of Kuwait, not to change the Iraqi regime.
There's enough examples in recent history of why forced regime changes by Western nations are a terrible idea.

Bush Jr.'s venture into Irak was not justified in any mean as Saddam had essentially been neutered and was posing no obvious threat to the US or its neighbors. The US and allies had zero business being in Irak in 2003 and there was nothing left to do. You could even easily argue that the 03 invasion seeded quite a lot more instability in the region.

Francoflier wrote:

That's a ludicrous take, even more so than the WMD one.

Francoflier wrote:

You could even easily argue that the 03 invasion seeded quite a lot more instability in the region.

That's obvious, that needs no argument.

Exrampieyyz wrote:

The second Iraq was was most definately an unorganized mess. (putin seems to have learned a lot from Dubya). No thought of what to do after the war, and just alienate the population to hating Americans.
But lets not forget what really started it all was Hussain invading Kuwait and the other countries not letting George senior finish the job.
If the first war had been finished properly the 2nd would never have happened. Hussain should have been taken out in the first place.

Yeah. Take him out. Very new America. We're the best, the most lawful country, the scion on the world's stage, everyone wants to be like us: let's go bludgeon a developing world country in the recent hangover of the Cold War, kill their leader, and do a smash-and-grab, while the Soviet countries are still figuring out what's even going on and where they are.

There's a good LA Times article I found archived about this from 1996. Illuminating, because it lays out as reasons for why we didn't go... all of the reasons why the Iraq War was a fool's errand.
People I went to high school and college with got their legs blown off, killed, and horribly traumatized by that war, and the US military was much better equipped for that type of fighting by 2003 than 1991. If we had gone "all the way" and "taken him out" like the "big macho USA" in 1991, we would have been watching C5s landing at Andrews with flag-draped coffins being hauled off for years, just like Vietnam.

Get some perspective, and show some respect.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html

Francoflier wrote:

Bush Jr.'s venture into Irak was not justified in any mean as Saddam had essentially been neutered and was posing no obvious threat to the US or its neighbors. The US and allies had zero business being in Irak in 2003 and there was nothing left to do. You could even easily argue that the 03 invasion seeded quite a lot more instability in the region.

There is no argument necessary, it's simply a geopolitical fact. Not to mention Iraq and Hussein had zero connection to the groups and persons who perpetrated 9/11.

Just saw this -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l049FENb4E

Just had a quick look at the Wikipedia link above and clicked on the objectives link.

That reference to developing biological weapons to target specific genotypes sounds interesting.

Ok then. Totally flamed. Sorry never said or meant that the 2nd war was necessary. All I meant to say was Hussain was the major cause of all of this.
Dubya should never have gone in. No plan, lied about WMD.
And are u saying Senior should have never gone in? Let dictators go into smaller countries and do as they please. Easy to second guess an I imagen the Kuwaitis where damn gratefully

Exrampieyyz wrote:

Ok then. Totally flamed. Sorry never said or meant that the 2nd war was necessary. All I meant to say was Hussain was the major cause of all of this.
Dubya should never have gone in. No plan, lied about WMD.
And are u saying Senior should have never gone in? Let dictators go into smaller countries and do as they please. Easy to second guess an I imagen the Kuwaitis where damn gratefully

Bush Sr. lost me when the retreating Iraqi forces got bombed into oblivion on their way home with their tails between their legs. Completely supported the liberation of Kuwait but what was the point of that slaughter?

Exrampieyyz wrote:

Let dictators go into smaller countries and do as they please.

When was it decided that it was the US mission to be the policeman of the world?
And if we are to be the world's policeman, then shouldn't there be some kind of a court to try cases against the accused nations?

ER757 wrote:

Exrampieyyz wrote:

Ok then. Totally flamed. Sorry never said or meant that the 2nd war was necessary. All I meant to say was Hussain was the major cause of all of this.
Dubya should never have gone in. No plan, lied about WMD.
And are u saying Senior should have never gone in? Let dictators go into smaller countries and do as they please. Easy to second guess an I imagen the Kuwaitis where damn gratefully

Bush Sr. lost me when the retreating Iraqi forces got bombed into oblivion on their way home with their tails between their legs. Completely supported the liberation of Kuwait but what was the point of that slaughter?

The very same forces who, after Bush urged the Kurds to rise up, went ahead and slaughtered them, plus much more besides.
They were no innocents, any more than Russians in Ukraine.
And they did so despite multiple violations of the very cease fire agreement that they agreed to.

Fact is, the US had been very concerned about another quagmire, Vietnam was fresh in the memory so to have an enemy fold like that, so quickly too was massively relieved, the administration in the form of Bush Snr, essentially encouraged those long oppressed within Iraq by that regime to rise up but left them in the lurch.
You would not need to topple the regime yourselves to do that, since that was not the mandate and quite rightly so, still could have nailed those retreating units of some of Saddam's most notoriously repressive troops though.

Bottom line in Washington, later that year there would be a victory parade.
There was not for the previous time the US had committed major forces.
Feel good and screw those we told to rise up with the clear implication they would at least have air cover.

As it seems to be necessary to remind you again, please keep this thread on topic, the current US president and his predecessor are not subject of discussion in this thread.

SQ22 wrote:

As it seems to be necessary to remind you again, please keep this thread on topic, the current US president and his predecessor are not subject of discussion in this thread.

I don't mean to be that dude who contradicts the powers that be, but the predecessor is literally mentioned by name in the OP.

Because I had seen this on "A Closer Look" with Seth Meyers a few days ago I just knew this was the subject matter of this post before clicking it open. Yeah, a true Freudian slip if I ever heard one.

ER757 wrote:

Exrampieyyz wrote:

Bush Sr. lost me when the retreating Iraqi forces got bombed into oblivion on their way home with their tails between their legs. Completely supported the liberation of Kuwait but what was the point of that slaughter?

Was Kuwait “liberated”? The West handed power back to the unelected Kuwaiti monarchy.

I’m always reminded of the words of former US Army General Wesley Clark, who confirmed the decision to invade Iraq was made very soon after September 11th 2001. The 18 months of build up, weapons inspections, UN negotiations, peace protests, attempts at disarmament, warnings for Saddam to peacefully comply were a charade. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, Bolton et al had made their minds up and were looking for an excuse:

I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About 10 days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon, and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military, and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the secretary of defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

https://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/2/g ... ential_bid

In my books that’s enough to throw the aforementioned “leaders” in prison for life.

Vintage wrote:

Exrampieyyz wrote:

Let dictators go into smaller countries and do as they please.

When was it decided that it was the US mission to be the policeman of the world?
And if we are to be the world's policeman, then shouldn't there be some kind of a court to try cases against the accused nations?

Fine, no one decided, but do you just let a bully terrorize another country. If not the US than who.
We have a court, the UN, but it is totally useless because of veto powers.
The US is not perfect. They have made huge mistakes. W one of the biggest and stupidest of all.
But who has done better. (Again not condoning what W did) Name a country that is better at at least trying to keep the peace.
Could they have done better, are they self serving. YES. But again who has tried to do anything better.
I have meet Iraqis that thought hussain was fine. Like pune said he kept the peace in the country. (With an iron fist of course) but when he invaded Kuwait he crossed a line.
And yes Senior got the opposition to stand up and fight but I do believe it was pressure from other countries that more or less told him to stop short of Bagdad, mostly for economic reasons.
Easy to sit back and criticize and second guess, but like I said, I'm sure the Kuwaitis were thankful for US intervention.
And where to stop. hussain started it just like putin, just like hitler. These maniacs are the big problem, get rid of these types of assholes and the world would be a whole lot better place. Then maybe countries like the US wouldn't have to step in and make the mistakes they did make.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

ER757 wrote:

Exrampieyyz wrote:

Bush Sr. lost me when the retreating Iraqi forces got bombed into oblivion on their way home with their tails between their legs. Completely supported the liberation of Kuwait but what was the point of that slaughter?

Was Kuwait “liberated”? The West handed power back to the unelected Kuwaiti monarchy.

And I guess then that they should have just let hussain rape and pillage Kuwait. Much better than an unelected monarchy.
Your solution would have been?
And yes the 2nd war was totally unjustified.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

I read from you directly without citing sources when you were 'speculating' on a certain ailment 45 had based on his speech and his manners when he was in the WH. Without no proof just supposition and speculation. Now you are telling me to be emphatic about someone's 'condition'.

I was sharing concerns some mental health experts had about the last POTUS's pattern of behavior because they were a way to explain his bizarre and irrational decisionmaking that constantly had to be checked and tempered by others in the WH. There is nothing unempathetic about that - I did not put anything in quotes or ridicule the condition. Moving the goalposts is lazy.

Trumps is an idiot, no doubt about it, Biden isn’t really any better, the man is clearly in over his head like Trump was, I honestly believe he’s suffering from dementia, watching him is like watching my grandfather when he was first diagnosed.

After the last two presidents there needs to be a constitutional amendment capping the age of POTUS. It’s not an old persons job.

Kiwirob wrote:

Biden isn’t really any better, the man is clearly in over his head like Trump was, I honestly believe he’s suffering from dementia, watching him is like watching my grandfather when he was first diagnosed.

Thanks for the Russian view of our president.
It's so nice having you and the other Russian guy posting here.

Vintage wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Biden isn’t really any better, the man is clearly in over his head like Trump was, I honestly believe he’s suffering from dementia, watching him is like watching my grandfather when he was first diagnosed.

Thanks for the Russian view of our president.
It's so nice having you and the other Russian guy posting here.

Crickets all I hear is crickets, how long have you been here 2 months, first time anyone has called me Russian in 17 years, it’s about as ridiculous as your last two presidents.

Exrampieyyz wrote:

Vintage wrote:

Exrampieyyz wrote:

Let dictators go into smaller countries and do as they please.

When was it decided that it was the US mission to be the policeman of the world?
And if we are to be the world's policeman, then shouldn't there be some kind of a court to try cases against the accused nations?

Fine, no one decided, but do you just let a bully terrorize another country. If not the US than who.
We have a court, the UN, but it is totally useless because of veto powers.
The US is not perfect. They have made huge mistakes. W one of the biggest and stupidest of all.
But who has done better? (Again not condoning what W did) Name a country that is better at least trying to keep the peace.
Could they have done better, are they self-serving? YES. But again who has tried to do anything better.
I have met Iraqis that thought Hussain was fine. Like Pune said he kept the peace in the country. (With an iron fist of course) but when he invaded Kuwait he crossed a line.
And yes Senior got the opposition to stand up and fight but I do believe it was pressure from other countries that more or less told him to stop short of Bagdad, mostly for economic reasons.
Easy to sit back and criticize and second guess, but as I said, I'm sure the Kuwaitis were thankful for US intervention.
And where to stop. Hussain started it just like Putin, just like Hitler. These maniacs are the big problem, get rid of these types of assholes and the world would be a whole lot better place. Then maybe countries like the US wouldn't have to step in and make the mistakes they did make.

The problem is you can't force democracy on to people. And anywhere, you would find most countries that have democracies under 'flawed democracy' and most of them are going towards authoritism rather than consensus-building. The sad part is, in those countries that have those 'maniacs', they cull all those who could succeed them, And any third-party person you bring in, would serve only the occupying force's interests, not the public. There is enough history of Latin America and elsewhere where America did the same.

pune wrote:

The problem is you can't force democracy on to people. And anywhere, you would find most countries that have democracies under 'flawed democracy' and most of them are going towards authoritism rather than consensus-building. The sad part is, in those countries that have those 'maniacs', they cull all those who could succeed them, And any third-party person you bring in, would serve only the occupying force's interests, not the public. There is enough history of Latin America and elsewhere where America did the same.

There is also the problem that comes from the fact that our government is not a neutral judge. Whatever choices we make are clouded by our own interests. And the whole world knows that (except for some US citizens).

Exrampieyyz wrote:

Vintage wrote:

Exrampieyyz wrote:

Let dictators go into smaller countries and do as they please.

When was it decided that it was the US mission to be the policeman of the world?
And if we are to be the world's policeman, then shouldn't there be some kind of a court to try cases against the accused nations?

Fine, no one decided, but do you just let a bully terrorize another country. If not the US than who.
We have a court, the UN, but it is totally useless because of veto powers.
The US is not perfect. They have made huge mistakes. W one of the biggest and stupidest of all.
But who has done better. (Again not condoning what W did) Name a country that is better at at least trying to keep the peace.
Could they have done better, are they self serving. YES. But again who has tried to do anything better.
I have meet Iraqis that thought hussain was fine. Like pune said he kept the peace in the country. (With an iron fist of course) but when he invaded Kuwait he crossed a line.
And yes Senior got the opposition to stand up and fight but I do believe it was pressure from other countries that more or less told him to stop short of Bagdad, mostly for economic reasons.
Easy to sit back and criticize and second guess, but like I said, I'm sure the Kuwaitis were thankful for US intervention.
And where to stop. hussain started it just like putin, just like hitler. These maniacs are the big problem, get rid of these types of assholes and the world would be a whole lot better place. Then maybe countries like the US wouldn't have to step in and make the mistakes they did make.

‘Senior’ was under no such pressure, to get the whole coalition together in the first place, with UN approval essential to ensure Saddam’s long term client, which he had factored into his invasion planning in the first place, would not help him, including their Security Council veto. The USSR - an entity with only months left to itself exist - as well as hostile states such as Syria (who suddenly stopped becoming the lead suspects for bombing PA103 oddly enough, remember how Russia propped up the Assad regime, every bit as murderous as Hussein’s just to retain access to a port, not the first to have done that then). As well as others in the region not known for bring pro Western.
This is why after the Scud attacks on Israel Bush had to go all those extra diplomatic and military miles to keep them out of the war and collapse the coalition. In fairness can you imagine his Son managing anything like that?

So blaming others for somehow restraining the US did not happen, could not, the UN mandate was to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. My point was that after telling oppressed groups, notably the Kurds, to rise up then after Iraqi forces broke the ceasefire terms to suppress them, most of his fast jets had ‘fled’ to Iran but still had enough transport and attack helicopters to do the repression.
While they were high fiving, partly with relief, in Washington.

This has everything to do with what caused Bush Snr’s idiot son to utter that slip about the war to get the guy who tried to ‘kill his Daddy’, the subject of this thread.
Since it led to the situation in 2003 onwards, had the ceasefire being broken by Iraq been dealt with, principally from the air, internal events might well have decided it for Saddam. After all, despite just having large parts of his forces destroyed by the coalition, Saddam clearly felt threatened enough to risk a resumption of coalition action to put the encouraged by the US uprising down.

Vintage wrote:

When was it decided that it was the US mission to be the policeman of the world?

Seriously? That's a role that America choses for itself when it suits and complains about when it doesn't.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

I’m always reminded of the words of former US Army General Wesley Clark, who confirmed the decision to invade Iraq was made very soon after September 11th 2001. The 18 months of build up, weapons inspections, UN negotiations, peace protests, attempts at disarmament, warnings for Saddam to peacefully comply were a charade. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, Bolton et al had made their minds up and were looking for an excuse:

I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About 10 days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon, and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military, and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the secretary of defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

https://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/2/g ... ential_bid

In my books that’s enough to throw the aforementioned “leaders” in prison for life.

Amazed that no one has commented on this yet.

Puts Putin in the shade.

GDB wrote:

the war to get the guy who tried to ‘kill his Daddy

Is this another attempt to divert attention from the real cause and driving force for the 2003 Iraq invasion, The Project for a New American Century? (After the "it's all about the oil" and "WMDs" "WMDs" "WMDs" strawmen.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_f ... an_Century

GDB wrote:

had the ceasefire being broken by Iraq been dealt with, principally from the air, internal events might well have decided it for Saddam.

If you're referring to the 2003 war, there had been thousands of sorties over Iraq prior to Bush's war. In fact one of the sales points for Bush's invasion was that Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern Watch were wearing down our Air Force and something had to be done to stop that.
https://www.airforcemag.com/article/0204war/

bennett123 wrote:

“This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran."

https://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/2/g ... ential_bid
Amazed that no one has commented on this yet.
Puts Putin in the shade.

It has been commented on, the plan to take down all the countries in the ME (including Iran) is straight out of the public plan of the Project for a New American Century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_f ... an_Century

That little vignette from the Pentagon is probably one of a hundred such stories of how people came to know about the PNAC plan. It is interesting that Wesley Clark was apparently so naive that he didn't know that most of the people he had just visited (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Bolton) were founding members of PNAC.

I believe that Wesley Clark was playing dumb both to protect himself and to make his story sound good.

Vintage wrote:

GDB wrote:

the war to get the guy who tried to ‘kill his Daddy

Is this another attempt to divert attention from the real cause and driving force for the 2003 Iraq invasion, The Project for a New American Century? (After the "it's all about the oil" and "WMDs" "WMDs" "WMDs" strawmen.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_f ... an_Century

GDB wrote:

had the ceasefire being broken by Iraq been dealt with, principally from the air, internal events might well have decided it for Saddam.

If you're referring to the 2003 war, there had been thousands of sorties over Iraq prior to Bush's war. In fact one of the sales points for Bush's invasion was that Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern Watch were wearing down our Air Force and something had to be done to stop that.
https://www.airforcemag.com/article/0204war/

No, as stated I was specifically referring to just after Operation Desert Storm, Bush told Kurds and others to rise up and left them in the lurch. I know that the US and RAF maintained air policing in the intervening years to 2003, however any action was only when Iraqi air defence radars illuminated the aircraft.
As part of the sanctions effort western including the RN for checking for illicit military suppilies.

The result of the repression of the Kurds was a major humanitarian disaster, Royal Marines were involved there, in a disaster relief effort, many refugees ended up in Europe.
One concentration was in a seat where the MP, Ann Clwyd, became a campaigner for them, being on the (pragmatic not Corbyn style) left of the Labour Party, though not a minister in the Blair government she had his ear and what she told him about the plight of the Kurds under Saddam really pissed him off.

Not justifying the 2003 war and certainly not the UK’s part in it, however the linked to 9/11 BS was never tried by him, it would not work anyway being clearly absurd.

pune wrote:

Exrampieyyz wrote:

Vintage wrote:

When was it decided that it was the US mission to be the policeman of the world?
And if we are to be the world's policeman, then shouldn't there be some kind of a court to try cases against the accused nations?

Fine, no one decided, but do you just let a bully terrorize another country. If not the US than who.
We have a court, the UN, but it is totally useless because of veto powers.
The US is not perfect. They have made huge mistakes. W one of the biggest and stupidest of all.
But who has done better? (Again not condoning what W did) Name a country that is better at least trying to keep the peace.
Could they have done better, are they self-serving? YES. But again who has tried to do anything better.
I have met Iraqis that thought Hussain was fine. Like Pune said he kept the peace in the country. (With an iron fist of course) but when he invaded Kuwait he crossed a line.
And yes Senior got the opposition to stand up and fight but I do believe it was pressure from other countries that more or less told him to stop short of Bagdad, mostly for economic reasons.
Easy to sit back and criticize and second guess, but as I said, I'm sure the Kuwaitis were thankful for US intervention.
And where to stop. Hussain started it just like Putin, just like Hitler. These maniacs are the big problem, get rid of these types of assholes and the world would be a whole lot better place. Then maybe countries like the US wouldn't have to step in and make the mistakes they did make.

The problem is you can't force democracy on to people. And anywhere, you would find most countries that have democracies under 'flawed democracy' and most of them are going towards authoritism rather than consensus-building. The sad part is, in those countries that have those 'maniacs', they cull all those who could succeed them, And any third-party person you bring in, would serve only the occupying force's interests, not the public. There is enough history of Latin America and elsewhere where America did the same.

Agreed, forcing a democracy on people never seems to work. Hell, right now very few democracies seem to be working.
But again when these maniacs cross borders what do you do and who does it.
The US was the big boy on the block and they did police force the world. Yes in their own interest, but who else was even close to being any better.
(I'm only talking about when countries invaded other countries)
I do agree that when the US tried to change governments just because they didn't like them is wrong and the US has a history of leaving the locals hi and dry (Cuba, Iraq).
Easy to criticize and monday morning quarterback but no other countries are doing any better.

Exrampieyyz wrote:

pune wrote:

Exrampieyyz wrote:

Fine, no one decided, but do you just let a bully terrorize another country. If not the US than who.
We have a court, the UN, but it is totally useless because of veto powers.
The US is not perfect. They have made huge mistakes. W one of the biggest and stupidest of all.
But who has done better? (Again not condoning what W did) Name a country that is better at least trying to keep the peace.
Could they have done better, are they self-serving? YES. But again who has tried to do anything better.
I have met Iraqis that thought Hussain was fine. Like Pune said he kept the peace in the country. (With an iron fist of course) but when he invaded Kuwait he crossed a line.
And yes Senior got the opposition to stand up and fight but I do believe it was pressure from other countries that more or less told him to stop short of Bagdad, mostly for economic reasons.
Easy to sit back and criticize and second guess, but as I said, I'm sure the Kuwaitis were thankful for US intervention.
And where to stop. Hussain started it just like Putin, just like Hitler. These maniacs are the big problem, get rid of these types of assholes and the world would be a whole lot better place. Then maybe countries like the US wouldn't have to step in and make the mistakes they did make.

The problem is you can't force democracy on to people. And anywhere, you would find most countries that have democracies under 'flawed democracy' and most of them are going towards authoritism rather than consensus-building. The sad part is, in those countries that have those 'maniacs', they cull all those who could succeed them, And any third-party person you bring in, would serve only the occupying force's interests, not the public. There is enough history of Latin America and elsewhere where America did the same.

Agreed, forcing democracy on people never seems to work. Hell, right now very few democracies seem to be working.
But again when these maniacs cross borders what do you do and who does it.
The US was the big boy on the block and they did the police force the world. Yes in their own interest, but who else was even close to being any better.
(I'm only talking about when countries invaded other countries)
I do agree that when the US tried to change governments just because they didn't like them is wrong and the US has a history of leaving the locals hi and dry (Cuba, Iraq).
Easy to criticize and Monday morning quarterback but no other countries are doing any better.

Your justification is because nobody wants to do that, hence the U.S. should do whatever it wants and that is part of the issue. If they can't work/play responsibly then how do they expect others to abide by the same rules? There is another problem that you don't see or pretend not to see when others want to take responsibility or do whatever the U.S. threatens them. For e.g. now China has been asserting itself lately and the U.S. doesn't like that. While wherever you look, China has been head-to-head or doing better in a whole lot of industries vis-a-vis the U.S. Now can I assert that China is a good example of world leadership, no but then neither can the U.S. claim?

There are lots of stories about the Chinese debt trap but if you look into history, that is the same thing that the Americans did with help of IMF. Of course, the irony is that today even the IMF sings Chinese tunes as do many International financial intermediaries.

Exrampieyyz wrote:

pune wrote:

Exrampieyyz wrote:

Fine, no one decided, but do you just let a bully terrorize another country. If not the US than who.
We have a court, the UN, but it is totally useless because of veto powers.
The US is not perfect. They have made huge mistakes. W one of the biggest and stupidest of all.
But who has done better? (Again not condoning what W did) Name a country that is better at least trying to keep the peace.
Could they have done better, are they self-serving? YES. But again who has tried to do anything better.
I have met Iraqis that thought Hussain was fine. Like Pune said he kept the peace in the country. (With an iron fist of course) but when he invaded Kuwait he crossed a line.
And yes Senior got the opposition to stand up and fight but I do believe it was pressure from other countries that more or less told him to stop short of Bagdad, mostly for economic reasons.
Easy to sit back and criticize and second guess, but as I said, I'm sure the Kuwaitis were thankful for US intervention.
And where to stop. Hussain started it just like Putin, just like Hitler. These maniacs are the big problem, get rid of these types of assholes and the world would be a whole lot better place. Then maybe countries like the US wouldn't have to step in and make the mistakes they did make.

The problem is you can't force democracy on to people. And anywhere, you would find most countries that have democracies under 'flawed democracy' and most of them are going towards authoritism rather than consensus-building. The sad part is, in those countries that have those 'maniacs', they cull all those who could succeed them, And any third-party person you bring in, would serve only the occupying force's interests, not the public. There is enough history of Latin America and elsewhere where America did the same.

Agreed, forcing a democracy on people never seems to work. Hell, right now very few democracies seem to be working.
But again when these maniacs cross borders what do you do and who does it.
The US was the big boy on the block and they did police force the world. Yes in their own interest, but who else was even close to being any better.
(I'm only talking about when countries invaded other countries)
I do agree that when the US tried to change governments just because they didn't like them is wrong and the US has a history of leaving the locals hi and dry (Cuba, Iraq).
Easy to criticize and monday morning quarterback but no other countries are doing any better.

Whether the planet needs a policeman at any given time (Rome, the Caliphate, The Spanish/French/British empires, US/USSR) in order to make it more peaceful is a worthy philosophical debate.

What I hark back to is this: are we going to enforce the laws equally or not? The UN Charter clearly states that invading with military force any other sovereign states for any reason other than self-defense (i.e. attacked first), is against the charter. Bush and Blair clearly and categorically violated this, and as has been said for years, should stand for war crimes in an international court. In my opinion this is directly the result of the justice systems of their respective countries being a complete failure at holding power accountable. If they had been, no one would be asking for any international court. This inaction has obviously come back to bite the planet and cost Ukraine dearly.

Argentina has too many flaws as a country and society to count, but there is one undeniable thing they have done and been a beacon to the world: they have held their own war criminals accountable, like no other country on Earth sadly. Not only those responsible for the internal atrocities of the Junta, but even Galtieri himself, the aggressor in the Faklands War. He and the others were tried, sentenced and imprisoned. While admitedly the charges were more about how the war was mishandled and not directly rebuking him for the actual act of aggression, this is still far closer to justice than anything Blair or Bush or any other leader I can think of in recent times have faced.

Bush and Blair must be tried, because their war was not in self-defense, and based on faked information. No more no less.

CometII wrote:

What I hark back to is this: are we going to enforce the laws equally or not?

The history of mankind says no; this is especially true in this era when we have a major nation with an influential political party essentially advocating Darwinism as a political philosophy. That's the Republican Party in the US in case anybody is left confused.

BTW
You made some good points.

Vintage wrote:

CometII wrote:

What I hark back to is this: are we going to enforce the laws equally or not?

The history of mankind says no; this is especially true in this era when we have a major nation with an influential political party essentially advocating Darwinism as a political philosophy. That's the Republican Party in the US in case anybody is left confused.

BTW
You made some good points.

Sadly, I also agree with the above statement/sentiment and that is again a problem. If half of the population of a country thinks that the only way to resolve issues is who has the bigger bullet then I'm afraid we are back to square one .

To take a slightly different context, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNHWkjTWFS0. The funny and the irony therein is there are people in the UK who believe this is due to others, and they are not responsible even for a single bit. And a large part of that is due to the media there. Till you have such sources of misinformation, whether it is the U.S. or the UK don't really see any progress happening. Same and similar case is my country too as well

As the previous two warnings to keep this thread on topic have been ignored some users, this thread will no be locked.