Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

The missile itself is not the problem but the development of Nucleur Weapons is. Iran, Iraq and North Korea were included in Bush’s Axis of Evil Speech. Iraq was invaded despite the general belief that it had Chemical Weapons (Bush already knew Iraq was not Nucleur-Armed). Whereas North Korea who really does have Nukes is being handled “multilaterally” aka “No Invasion”. Conclusion: Nukes makes Bush blink. Solution: If we have Nukes, We safe from “Preemption”. We get Nukes quick. Might as well develop Delivery System in the meantime.

Aldous.

I have no problem with Iran wanting to defend its own country; however, I feel it is to late for America or Isreal to keep them from getting a nuke. Bush should of dealt with this problem at the begining of his term. That being said now either him or Kerry will have to work to engulf Iran’s concerns into the every growing Middle East economic/peace plan.

Good point, Aldous. The only reason I even considered the Iraq invasion to be possibly a good idea was because of the “mushroom cloud” statements by the Administration. Turns out they were basically attacking the one member of the Axis of Evil that wasn’t actually a threat, while leaving the other two to continue their progress with more enthusiasm and urgency than ever before.

-Cf

I found it odd and disturbing that Bush & Co. were using the mushroom cloud terror tactic even after the IAEA geve Iraq a clean bill of health on nukes and nuke programs.

As for Iran, there are really only two options: Either an intrusive inspection regime or military strikes. Our new president must put some muscle in the NPT. Too bad the current president misfocused on Iraq.

Misfocused? or Calculated Risk?

Bush is not the only one who thought the WMD’s were there. We did not ‘go it alone’. Yes. We have the biggest presence and the most money invested but we are not alone.
If the only reason those other countries won’t help in Iraq is because they don’t like Bush that is just plain stupid.

What would everyone have said if Bush attacked Iran or North Korea? “They didn’t do anything. Bush is just a Texas Cowboy.” Seems like some people think trying to do it diplomatically isn’t good enough. That the ‘talks’ aren’t working fast enough.

Not fast enough for Iran and N.Korea but we could have talked to Saddam until the end of time.

There have been more terrorists attacks since the invasion and the situation is ‘out of control in Iraq’.
Who can prove that the attacks were not already going to happen?
The terrorists are coming out of the woodwork in Iraq and other places.
They know the world will no longer let the problem fester and we (the world) are coming after them.

I recall hearing something at the beginning of all of this about the people of Iraq. Something about how well educated most of them are. (Maybe it isn’t mentioned much because it would make people in other Middle Eastern countries think we didn’t help them because we think they are stupid.)

That is why I think Iraq was ‘picked’. Bush knew it wouldn’t be easy but believed that the people of Iraq could establish a credible government. That it would give the people of the Middle East the hope that they no longer have to live in societies that threaten their lives and keep them living in the dark ages.

The other reasons to ‘pick’ Iraq are where it is located and to show other countries that they are not going to get away with some of the things they do anymore.

THE WORLD HAS HAD ENOUGH. Not just Bush.

There is alot more to it than stockpiles of WMD’s.

Chris:

I’m not sure I understand your point. It seems to be saying that you are okay with pre-emptive war, as long as we fight the right people.

You also seem to say that you would have been okay with the pre-emptive war in Iraq IFFF we had found the WMD’s we suspected they had.

Am i wrong that you have been opposed to the concept of pre-emption, or are you actually in favor of pre-emption under the right conditions?

Thanks in advance for clearing up your position. I’m not sure I’ve properly understood it, or perhaps have confused it with other posts.

Iran stands as the most stark example of the failure of Bush’s strategy that invasion of Iraq gives the U.S. strategic advantage to deal with other problems that would arise in the Middle East.

Here the U.S. has about 140,000 troops in Iraq, right next door to Iran, and what advantage is gained by it in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapon technology? NONE!! Bush has committed to keeping them in Iraq. Bush says there will be no reinstatement of the draft. So, where are the troops to come from to big stick Iran away from nuclear weapons? All this military superiority and no one capable of effectively wielding it in foreign relations. History will not be kind.

Yes, Bush has plans, and so far, almost all of them wrong, impotent, and ill-conceived.

bugcrazy,
Iran has been a problem to the US since 1979 when they took our people hostages. They are most likely behind the present terrorist movement. Yes, UBL may have exploited our weakness on 9/11, but Iran has been our enemy for a long time. Bush should of flooded Afganistan with our troops so he could of turned around and went into Iran after catching UBL.

Saddam was an mad man; however, he was always able to be controlled by bombing his sweet spots. I imagine if we blew up 5 or 6 of hie palaces his tune would of changed for a while.

What made Iraq attractful was or is Iraq holds the second largest oil supply in the world. What Bush and Company hoped for was another country like Sudia Arabia.

> You also seem to say that you would have been okay with the
> pre-emptive war in Iraq IFFF we had found the WMD’s we
> suspected they had.

Joe, I understand your confusion, so I’ll clarify:

First, the chemical and biological WMDs that Saddam was suspected to have actually weren’t much of a concern to me, at least not enough to justify a pre-emptive invasion. The worst case scenario that seemed realistic about his WMD potential still seemed pretty weak to me. Colin Powell’s case seemed pretty weak to me. If there was a pile of information that the Administration posessed but that they could not share for intelligence reasons, a potentiality that I indeed considered, then I could have supported the war. It turns out that the Powell evidence was the whole shebang (and a little embellishment at that!), so, I feel confident in saying that knowing what Powell knew, I would not have supported the invasion. The troop build-up, yes. The pressure that got Saddam to capitulate to inspections, yes. The invasion, no.

Now, what did I mean when I wrote “I even considered the Iraq invasion to be possibly a good idea”?

The problem that I thought might actually justify a pre-emptive invasion was the potential of a nuclear attack. I thought that stopping a dangerous anti-American Arab tyrant from getting a nuke, especially after 9/11, was something I could stand behind. Anway, I actually thought that perhaps the Bush Administration might indeed be sitting on SOLID evidence that Saddam had a nuclear weapon. When Condoleezza Rice used the expression “mushroom cloud”, I thought to myself “What if this is the Administration’s subtle way of saying that we KNOW that Saddam has a nuke, but we can’t say it because it would reveal sources”. Yes, I actually thought that. I actually thought that maybe the Administration was being honest about the level of threat from Iraq.

Now we know (by “we” I mean “the American people”, not “the Bush Administration”) not only that Saddam was nowhere near having a nuclear weapon, but we also know now that the Bush Administration was well aware of the impossibility of Saddam having a nuclear weapon. The “mushroom cloud” rhetoric was deception, and I consider myself among the partially-deceived. Ultimately, I didn’t beleive the Administration was telling the truth, I didn’t beleive that there was more damning evidence that they weren’t telling us about, and I didn’t support the war. I was right.

By the way, I would still stand behind any pre-emptive action to prevent a dangerous anti-American tyrant from getting a nuke today, should President Kerry or President Bush choose to take it, although in the post-Iraq War climate such an action would be extremely difficult for the United States to accomplish, particularly for Bush. It may well be too late for NK and Iran, anyway - any pre-emptive action in those places would almost certainly lead to a mushroom cloud and millions of dead innocent people. If we found out, for example, that Syria was about to get a nuke and that we could stop them with an aggressive pre-emptive attack (or an invasion, although I think a single F-16 could probably do the job, as Israel did to Iran in the 1980s), you bet I’d support it. I would imagine that the rest of our allies would support it, too, especially if the American President who asked for their help wasn’t known around the world to be an arrogant man who cannot be trusted on these matters.

-Cf

The NY Times today has a major article about exactly how the Bush Administration, in particular Cheney and Rice, deliberately and knowingly deceived the American people about Saddam’s nuclear potential.

Before Ms. Rice made those remarks, though, she was aware that the government’s foremost nuclear experts had concluded that the tubes were most likely not for nuclear weapons at all, an examination by The New York Times has found. Months before, her staff had been told that these experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were probably intended for small artillery rockets.

As the only physical evidence the United States could brandish of Mr. Hussein’s revived nuclear ambitions, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and his advisers. The tubes were “only really suited for nuclear weapons programs,” Condoleezza Rice, the president’s national security adviser, asserted on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

Before Ms. Rice made those remarks, though, she was aware that the government’s foremost nuclear experts had concluded that the tubes were most likely not for nuclear weapons at all, an examination by The New York Times has found. Months before, her staff had been told that these experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were probably intended for small artillery rockets.

Some of us actually thought that maybe they were telling the truth. I consider myself among the duped, and I’m pissed about it.

This is “crying wolf” manifested as national policy. Nobody around the world will ever trust the Bush Administration ever again, in particular regarding the most important issue there is: nuclear proliferation. Bush must go, if for that reason alone.

-Cf

Um, sorry for that messed-up blockquote. Here’s the real deal:

In 2002, at a crucial juncture on the path to war, senior members of the Bush administration gave a series of speeches and interviews in which they asserted that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program.

In a speech to veterans that August, Vice President Dick Cheney said Mr. Hussein could have an atomic bomb “fairly soon.” The next month, Mr. Cheney told a group of Wyoming Republicans the United States had “irrefutable evidence” - thousands of tubes made of high-strength aluminum, tubes that the Bush administration said were destined for clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges, before some were seized at the behest of the United States.

The tubes quickly became a critical exhibit in the administration’s brief against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States could brandish of Mr. Hussein’s revived nuclear ambitions, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and his advisers. The tubes were “only really suited for nuclear weapons programs,” Condoleezza Rice, the president’s national security adviser, asserted on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

Before Ms. Rice made those remarks, though, she was aware that the government’s foremost nuclear experts had concluded that the tubes were most likely not for nuclear weapons at all, an examination by The New York Times has found. Months before, her staff had been told that these experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were probably intended for small artillery rockets.

-Cf