Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD errors

[factorg]

I hope to God Bush gets voted out in November.

Terrorists share your sentiment exactly. Although I think they use the word Allah instead of God.

THERE IS NO TERRORIST THREAT.

Uh, please explain

[Yao]

Re: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD error

This war was all about WMD?s,

Actually, no. Each time Bush presented his case to the UN he gave 4 main reasons (with multiple followups branching off) as to why an invasion was necessary. In on particular order he said they needed to, and I'm paraphrasing here:

1. Remove Sadam
2. End the flow of money and support to terrorist cells/groups coming from Iraq.
3. Find and dismantle all possible WMD.
4. Liberate the Iraqi people and help install a self sustaining democratic (in the sense that he people run their own country) government.

The reason that the WMD's were made such a focal point is because many of those in the global media couldn't accept that there wasn't just one giant reason to enter, so they harped on Bush to narrow the scope down to a single factor. It was a dumbass move on his part to lean towards WMDs, but he made numerous attempts to remind everyone that there were multiple reasons. Too little too late though, by that point those against the war and against Bush in general got their sound byte and ran with it.

Sorry Sully, didn't know that.

But the other three reasons...removing Saddam, ending the flow of money and support to terrorist cells/groups coming from Iraq and liberating the Iraqi people and help install a self sustaining democratic government...

Removing Saddam is just plain blunt. That way Bush could use that as a (one of more) reason everytime he wants to invade. Would he say the same when he would invade, let's say, Iran?

The flow of money to terrorist groups could've been controlled with a minor change in the oil-for-food programma: don't let Saddam pick the companies he wants to work with. Appoint them after they've been thoroughly scanned. Because that's how he did it: those companies directed the money further to fundings and other companies which have been known to financially support terrorist groups.

Liberate the people of Iraq? The basis for that was too small in Iraq. They hate Americans more than anything in the world, including Saddam. Because to them, you represent the devil. And now they hate Europeans, too, for aiding the devil...

But the biggest mistake by far is thinking we can install a democrating regime there in a few years' time.
No way. I've stated this before in maybe 2 other treads: it is not going to work, installing a whole different political sytem in a place where there is still no moral basis for that. Iraqis are not democratically raised. It took Europe and the US at least 700 years, actually even more time when you take it back to the Greeks to come to the present form of democracy. It's in our culture now, in our blood.
But in the middle east, how can you expect people who've been living under authoritarian regimes, and having a very hierarchical religion, to accept democracy in their lives just like that? Look at Latin America and Africa: They've been trying now for a few generations, and they still have a long way to go. Iraq is crowded with various religious and ethnic groups, just like most of the L-A and Affrican countries. It's gonna take more than just a few years and president Bush to do that. And as soon as the European and US troops leave, neighbouring regimes will start pulling the strings to bring it down.

[factorg]

^What about South Africa and Botswana, they seem to being doing ok?

[Yao]

Re: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD error

Hell, Botswana is doing better than any other country on the continent, including South Africa.

Along with South Africa there's more countries over there that manage to hold the democracy in place, even with minor ethnical struggles around. But there's still a lot where ethnical conflicts rule politics, or where oppression by a dictator is the reason that people keep quiet. Even S-A is not free of those struggles or clashes, the Bushmen for example are still pretty much ignored as a whole, and the Zulu have their own political party (Inkatha) which (luckily for the rest of S-A) is not big enough to obtain power. Somalia (remember Mogadishu?) doesn't even have a government. It's totally ruled by warlords.

Tanzania and Kenya seem to be on their way; both have democratically elected presidents, but accusations are made all over the place, mostly by the new governments, against the old administrations. Same old game, new crooks in the office.

But the real democracies are still few among a number of non-democracies or "wannabe-d's". Too few, alas.

Museveni from Uganda has an interesting system to avoid ethnicity which is called 'The Movement', but it's not a real democracy. It may very well be the solution for a lot of countries where ethnicity still prevails over the 'nation'. I'm not going to explain it here, that would make for an essay, but I'll post a link as soon as I find a credible explanation on a website.

[factorg]

So the problem with Africa is not to do with the continent being a couple of hundred years behind in the evolution stakes but more to do with the greed of the power hungry that are in control in certain African countries?

[Yao]

Re: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD error

Yeah.

It's a patrimonial system, for one. The are no 'rights', there are only favours. So if a bureaucrat is supposed to do something for you by rights, he'll ask for a fee, or a return favour.
A minister or a high positioned politician can have a government-car in use for as long as he or she is in that function, but they use it as if it were their own. They confuse privileges with property. That is why there is so much corruption over there, and that's putting a strain on the economy as well as the people who have to pay taxes.

Put someone in a decent paying job: they will consider it theirs for life and do anything to keep it, or start using it to generate a side-income (charging fees is a way) to enrich themselves.

And wether we like it or not: our way of extracting natural resources and tying them economically to us with the loans that have to be repaid is still sucking the continent dry. We should not have supported the post-colonial regimes in 'kick-starting' their industries, but slow them down rather. They were spending like little kids that just found a $100,- bill.
But encouragement was only in our advantage: the repay of the interest alone took about 21% of GNP per year on average in the last decade.

Imagine the US having to give up 21% of it's GNP and then having to do with what's left...

[BSully828]

Re: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD error

Sorry for the late reply - didn't even see the post!

But the biggest mistake by far is thinking we can install a democrating regime there in a few years' time.

Yao, I'm with you 100% on that - rebuilding a country from the ground up is never quick nor easy - but it is possible. Just look at Jordan for example: Not even 20 years ago they were just as far removed from democracy as any other country in that area - but, through a more moderate political body, have slowly and steadily shifted their political views. Granted they aren't the poster child for democracy, as they still do have a "king", but they are taking steps towards a more "pro-western" or "westernized" political ideology. The people of Jordan were not democratically raised either but they have begun to blend their way of life with a more "democratic" political view.

The flip side to that is the obvious - Jordan wasn't controlled by a brutal dictator who had to be removed through invasion. Iraq, therefore, will probably not see such a smooth transition - but the prospect of democracy is right in their neighborhood. Once tensions has eased and the Iraqi people have begun to embrace their new freedom, they will see the growing prosperity and opportunity that is, for the first time in decades, available to them. Countries like Jordan are an example of the idea that democracy can and does work in a country that has never known democracy - and for the Iraqi people, seeing a country that is more akin to them in history and philosophy than the US will help foster that idea.

BUT like we've already said - this is going to take time. You're correct in noting how long it took Ancient Greece to become the country it did - but the operative word there is "Ancient". Those were different times, it was literally a different world back then - as it was for the young American colonies and the British Isles. To see just how different it is look at the end of WWII - only 60 years ago, the blink of an eye in historical terms - places like Germany, France, and Japan were decimated. And in that short amount of time, they have rebuilt themselves back into powerful, productive countries.

It will take time to rebuild Iraq, no one ever said it wouldn't. The Iraqi people have not entirely welcomed this change (obviously), the majority are still waiting with baited breath. There are those extremists who still cling to the old regime, as well as those extremists who want the power for themselves, granted - but their numbers are dwindling. Reconstruction takes time and, as history has shown, it's never mistake-free, but we're moving in the right direction - and there's only one way to go from here.

[digitalghostx]

THERE IS NO TERRORIST THREAT.

:What:

[santo26]

Re: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD error

I think Bush is sick , or creazy , he loves war, in all of this someone get allways rich, and I?m sure he got some petrol from Irack, I hope he wont win the next election,

[DJkeithrace]

The bottom line to this whole arguement is that the terrorists that attacked the U.S. on 911 were in AFGHANISTAN not IRAQ!! Period. The 911 commission (a bi-partisan commission of 5 Reps. and 5 Dems.) looked at the same Intelligence as the President and Vice-President and explicitly said, THERE WAS NO IRAQ-911 connection. Yet the President ordered our Military to attack Iraq. End of story-End of debate. There is no response to that action.
Yes, Saddam was an enemy but he wasn't putting the U.S. in any imminent danger. There is plenty of ruthless cruel dictator's and rulers who are guilty of what Saddam did (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, IRAN, NORTH KOREA, i could go on...)
the bottom line is the President started a war on false premises and now is such honest person that he won't even own up to it!!! At least come clean with the whole fiasco.

[definiteform]

Re: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD error

Well it's just so hard to pick a side. I would like to see this country change, but on the second hand, Hussein did murder people to get where he was. I'll take the 'we did it in a bad way, and we needed to do it, but I think we should have waited for more support from the world' stance. :\

[Yao]

Re: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD error

Well Sully, maybe I should've added this:

Anything is possible, given you have enough time for it.

If we're talking about the Ancient Greeks, we're diving back about 2000-2500 years. Had to look that up in a website :wink: Well, I don't think Iraq will take that long to make the change to democracy, but I still think a few generations' time is not too long taken for it. The question is more, how far will democracy be allowed to root in a society that is hi?rarchical? It could formally be there, but on the streets, how much would you find when you're looking for the real 'democratic attitude' inside people's heads?

There's only a few countries in Africa for example, where people really think democratic (Botswana, South-Africa). Even in Ghana (my favourite country) where there is democracy, people still tell me they want a strong leader again, they want Rawlings back.

But here's what I'd like to add to what I said before and what could be problems when it comes to installing a democratic government:

People don't like slow changes for the good...they want it right here, right now. If a new Iraqi democratic government is installed, I sure hope they will be able to keep the people satisfied about the changes and economical growth. An African friend of mine put it like this: "I'll speak of economic growth as soon as I feel it in my pocket."
If not, I fear revolt or the use of military force to stay in office.
Besides that, they will have to deal with strong destabilizing forces that are already trying to disrupt the whole country.
It is in the terrorists' advantage if the chaos reigns: no control, all the room to move around the place with their weapons. They can do pretty much anything without being detected.
And then there is the religious groups who try to claim their part of the national cake (influence). They won't go down without a fight, and have to be considered very important when it comes to having a political base. Look at Al-Sistani.

So I'm not discarding what you said Sully, just adding some viewpoints to it. Good post tho.

[definiteform]

Bush should come out and say, "Hey, we kinda fucked this up, but what's done is done, the world is better off without Saddam, lets move on."

The Bush adminstration is either in denial or is way more fucked up than I ever dreamed.

oh, they're plenty fucked up, that's for sure.

Ashcroft needs to bleed a slow death. (granted, by just typing that, i've been put on ECHELON's watch list.) But i'm surely not the first person to think this, or type it.

Rumsfeld can suck a fat one too as far as i'm concerned...right along with Dick Cheney.

Basically, i can't stand much of the administration, but i'll be goddammed if i'm going to hand the country over to the democratic party waiting to hand out their entitlements. And really, who even knows what the Democratic party stands for these days? Definitely not the strong party it used to be.

lollerskates on this post. ashcroft can go to hell.

[camposja]

Re: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD error

he should go to jail for being an idiot