Re: Reminder on how liberals view the world

On 19 Aug 2005 17:26:31 -0700, ediebur@xxxxxxx wrote:

>>I know that this is a lot to ask, but could you please provide me with
>>at least one direct cite quoting President Bush as saying each of
>>these statements as a reason to make a pre-emptive attack, (you called
>>it an invasion), on Iraq? The possession of WMD's or the making of, I
>>believe were spoken. I just don't recall the actual verbiage of the
>>statements.
>
>I believe this was in the State of Union speech

The President covered many aspects of Saddam's possession, use and
desire to create more WMD's. Notice the phrase,(speaking of Saddam),
"He provided no evidence that he destroyed them".
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

Picture a more simplistic example of this; A man is cornered by the
police after having killed 10 people. These people included unarmed
men, women and children. The man backs into a corner with his hand
behind his back. The police have no idea if he has a weapon in his
hand or not. They do know that this person has committed a heinous
crime. They know that he is capable of doing it to them, given the
chance. The man flinches his hidden arm and taunts the police by
saying "I'll kill each and every one of you".

After the police shoot this man until he falls to the ground, 200
bleeding heart liberals scream that the man didn't even have a gun on
him when they killed him. He had no weapons within his reach.

This is Iraq. This was Saddam's history. This was Saddam's downfall.

>
>>The direct Al Qaeda connection with Saddam Hussain, I'm not sure tha
>>was actually said by President Bush. I would like to see a cite for
>>that please. Take your time, I'm in no hurry. I would like our
>>conversation to be factual and clear. I'll cross check your quotes and
>>information and then reply back to you.
>
>Cheney was saying this

Do you remember all of the quotes of Vice Presidents? Do you remember
Dan Q? Oh my.

I have to say, I still believe that there is a strong likelihood that
a connection was there. It was just very well hidden.

>
>>Saddam Hussain openly taunted President Bush. Saddam Hussain was very
>>visible and vocal when threatening warfare against the United States
>>of America. Do you recognize that as being the truth?
>
>Yes,Saddam openly taunted Bush,, you will have to show me quotes
>threatening war but, given that no one, even the administration itself
>( see the Downing St memos) this is hardly a reason for invasion

It was one of the straws that broke the back. Do you remember Saddam's
promise that if the United States wanted a fight, it would be "The
Mother of all wars"?

>
>>The oil that is controlled by Iraq, both then and now, is a powerful
>>tool to use as an incentive to the Iraqi people, to demand more profit
>>sharing of the proceeds from this oil.
>
>>Would the strong likelihood of losing any possibility of gaining
>>access to that oil be an incentive to President Bush and almost every
>>other politician to attack Iraq if given any real reason to do so?
>
>>Of course it would. I'm almost sure that I could find a cite for that.
>>I'lhave a look.
>
>If this was the real reason for the war,

I'm saying *one* of the reasons for the conflict.

>and I am not making any
>judgement of its validitiy for war, then it should have been debated in
>Congress.

Again, I must tell you that I've never thought of G.W. Bush as an
angel.

I've read somewhere that a high percentage of the Congress and Senate
have oil investments. They have intimate knowledge of the strategic
value of oil. I don't believe that a debate was desired by anyone in
either branch of the government on this issue.

>Taking of my flaming liberal hat I think that if Bush had
>been more forthcoming about the strategic reasons for the war and if
>he had been able to sell the war on that basis, it would have gone
>better.

Who knows?

>As it was we were wooed with tales of American soldiers
>welcomed with flowers, that the oddupation would be a short love fest.

The taking of Saddam's Iraq was a short love fest. However, the booty
was now up for grabs in the eyes of the power players in the mid-east.

The terrorist leaders saw this as a once in a lifetime chance to seize
control of the Iraqi oil fields and the slave force to work them.

The second part of the conflict was then commenced.

>As a result and as a part of the sales, troop levels were kept low and
>good generals who objected ( Shinseki) were sacked. The government is
>left with a war that it is having a harder time selling as time goes
>by, mainly because the official rationale keeps changing.

There is no way that the USA can leave Iraq and let the outside
interests gain control of the oil and the strategic ground that it is
under. Think a few moves ahead, as in chess. Iraq is a very good place
to control. However, like in chess, most people don't have the
capacity to understand the intricacies of an advanced chess game. They
bore easily. You can give them a fast game of football, (either kind),
and you will have their attention. You must make the task
understandable.

I once read that it's not a genius that can make a room full of
scientists understand a complex problem, it's a genius that can make a
ten year old child understand the same problem.

I don't mean that to be a derogatory statement to the average person,
but one must face reality.

> It the
>invasion was unsellable if th truth were used, then perehaps it were
>better if we didn't go it. I think a similar problem fouled the Vietnam
>War. The real reasons for us being there were not effectively and
>honestly explained to the public.

I don't think I want to explain right now, how much I disagree with
you on that statement. Maybe we can get into that some other time.

>
>>People who use law as their reason for like, or dislike, really do
>>bore me.
>
>>I do, however vastly appreciate the claim of dislike for reasons of
>>morality
>
>For me law is connected to morality.

If that were true, O.J. Simpson would have already been in prison.

>We put ourselves as a beacon to
>the world. We have a constitution and we live by it. A Constitutional
>republican democracy,,,

I agree.

> if we abandon that we abandon our soul.

I don't believe in souls.

>Rome,
>when it was a republic was great, when it was an empire it was a
>scourge of the world but not great.

Man, that's another one we can tear into at another time. The
complexities involved in the downfall of the Roman Empire are much too
involved to cover here, now.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Reminder on how liberals view the world
    ... >these statements as a reason to make a pre-emptive attack, ... >was actually said by President Bush. ... I would like to see a cite for ... If this was the real reason for the war, and I am not making any ...
    (soc.culture.iraq)
  • Re: The Real Reason
    ... If point one was the real reason, then why on God's green earth am I paying ... Oil was indeed a factor in targeting Iraq. ... depleted during the Iran-Iraq war of the ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: The Real Reason
    ... If point one was the real reason, then why on God's green earth am I ... Oil was indeed a factor in targeting Iraq. ... depleted during the Iran-Iraq war of the ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Iraq War Was About Oil
    ... inherently wrong with going to war over oil. ... was because we were trying to cut off their supply of oil. ... "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never ... The reason Japan bombed Pearl Harbor was because the US was interupting ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: US and the economy of death
    ... I would comment on the war for terror, ... Iraq's oil industry and to ensure theUS is a beneficiary of IRaq oil ... Most Iraqis support petraeus's policy because it keeps ... For some reason your rebuttal doesn't seem to be very related to my ...
    (soc.culture.iraq)