Conspiricy Theory Article About George Bush and The Invasion of Iraq

[sigpig]

sigpig - My only issue with you is that you wax poetically about the tyranny of the Bush regime, all the while enjoying the benefits the US has to offer. That, to me, is 2-faced and hypocritical. If these principles were as important to you as you make out, then I am surprised you haven't moved back to Canada, where things are more to your liking. It's easy to spout protests on the internet - a lot harder it seems, to take a real stand, and demonstrate, with actions, your disdain...

By the way, last I saw, DS were also allowed to make comments in threads as posters, as opposed to as Moderators. The DS comment just goes to reinforce your "poor me" mantra...

I'm well aware that ds can make comments as posters. I also freely admit my personal dislike for the politics and policies of President George W Bush ( 2Cdo). Now, I don't care if you think I shouldn't be critical of US politics while I live here. I guess I'm supposed to quit my job, tell the wife to quit hers, take the kids out of school, and move to somewhere without a job waiting because you think I'm not man enough to stand by my words. 

In future I will refrain from noting site positions when responding to comments and just refer to the individuals names. Yes, I purposefully referred to the ds position because I was so p'd off about about the 'why are you living there' stuff. Criticize my politics, call me an idiot, have all the disdain for me you want but don't think for one minute you or anyone else who doesn't know me at all can question why I live where I do.

Many Americans feel as I and others do. Why can't I as a permanent resident comment on the policies of a government that affect my family and I on a daily basis? I live here, can't I participate in the dialogue?  I know you don't agree with my politics, that's fine, I don't agree with yours. But please don't expect me to not express my opinion because I  wasn'st born here.

 

[muskrat89]

sigpig - If I am a guest in your house, I'm not going to criticize your cooking. It is my opinion that you don't simply have reasoned arguments against Bush policies - most of your posts are acidic in nature. To me, it is simply bad form to so vehemently voice your opposition to everything Bush, while a guest in this country. Your arguments are beyond philisophical, indicating to me hate or passion, or maybe both. I am not telling you where to live - I am simply saying that for someone who hates it as much as you appear, I find it odd that you continue to stay. It's like someone who complains about their job all the time, yet chooses to continue coming to work every day. You mentioned being a Permanent Resident - of course you have a right to an opinion. I don't buy that your right to voice it so passionately (positive or negative) should be equal to that of a US Citizen.

Believe it or not, I do not agree with all of Bush's policies. Nor did I agree with Clinton's, nor Bush, Sr. The day I cannot find anything favourable to say about the US Government, and 90% of my posts on this board are bashing the current administration (whomever they may be) is indeed, the day that I will pack up my family and move somewhere else.

I'm "out" on this topic. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[tomahawk6]

Sigpig, you are entitled to your opinion you pay your taxes after all. But not all opinions are correct. Usually time and events prove one side or another correct. Fortunately the anti-Bush opposition has been found to be wrong most of the time. The left wing in the US has been working overtime against the President. They are a powerful coalition of the media, Hollywood, politicians and socialist/communist/anarchist wack jobs funded by the likes of George Soros and others. The media has been playing up the daily casualties. Thirty people killed in a bombing. We have more people murdered in crimes or killed on the highway in a day than are killed in Iraq. The US has reached the 1700 KIA mark in two years of fighting. As bad as that is it pales in comparison to casualties in a day/month in Vietnam, Korea, WW2 and and WW1 not to mention the US Civil War. If a country is to be taken seriously it has to be prepared to lay its money and its military on the line to accomplish its national aims. It has to be willing to risk everything while acting in its national interest. The left in the US do not feel that there is any rationale to go to war. The left of today would oppose going to war in WW2. They would not have forced Saddam out of Kuwait. They do not see any threat from radical Islam. The left of today would have been comfortable in pre- WW2 Europe, right up to the time the Gestapo/KGB would have been forcing them out of their homes and into the camps or worse. I have little time for the left and their propaganda because I think they are wrong about whats good for my country. Appeasement is not a proper policy for a great country and its a proven failure through history.

 

[a_majoor]

What is astonishing about reading this thread is the "deja vu" factor. All these arguments, "facts" and opinions have been raised time and again since at least 1998 for and against enforcing regime change in Iraq; September 11 demonstrated there ARE risks with a policy of neglect.

Perhaps fortunatly, we no longer have to take the MSM as the source of our knowledge of things in Iraq, plenty of soldiers, civillians and now Iraqis are reporting ground truth on the Internet, and after reading these reports; I wonder what alternative universe the MSM is reporting from. Then again, much of the western media prior to OIF had gotting into the position of being imprisoned in hotels in downtown Bhagdad and happily reporting what their Iraqi minders were telling them to say (or else). I have yet to see any serious efforts by the media to apologize for that little lapse of ethics, so the general Anti-American slant should be no surprise today. I don't think the MSM will ever admit the elected government of Iraq is legitimate, even decades from now, when most of the "Bush lied" articles are forgotten or have been exposed as lies themselves.

My only comment to the various people who say America should never have invaded Iraq is simply this; how else would a dangerous and agressive regime have been removed from power? What other action or actions would have freed millions of people from the whims of cruel and oppressive tyrants in Afghanistan and Iraq? What other policy has the ability to inspire democratic movements in Lebanon, Eygpt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran? Given the historical failure of American policy to do this between 1979 and 2003, I would suggest there were no better answers; and given the potential threats growing in the region, the outcomes could have been far worse.

 

[Infanteer]

I'm still trying to figure out what happened in 1812?  Does anyone have a link - apparently Canada was in a war with the States?  Was that part of the War on Terror too?

 

[Britney Spears]

I'll stick to contributing new material on threads like this. If any of you benighted saps *still* think invading Iraq was a good idea or has made Canada/US safer from terrorism, I urge you to read Against all Odds - Inside America's war on Terror by Richard Clark.

But I suppose if you've made it this far, no amount of futher debate or revelation is going to change your mind. The next plane to demolish a building and kill a few thousand people probably will be piloted by Iraqis, and then Bush will claim he was right all along.

I just hope my home town isn't important enough to be a target. :

 

[Infanteer]

Where is Thomas Jefferson when you need him, eh?

Oh, that's right, he was prepping that bastard Madison for the invasion of Canada....

 

[54/102 CEF]

What is astonishing about reading this thread is the "deja vu" factor. All these arguments, "facts" and opinions have been raised time and again since at least 1998 for and against enforcing regime change in Iraq; September 11 demonstrated there ARE risks with a policy of neglect.

I refer you all to this book and its chapter on Gen Tony Zinni during his time as Commander of CENTCOM and you'll see the handsoff policy goes way back before the first gulf war.

THE MISSION
Priest, Dana
The Mission: Waging War and Keeping Peace With America's Military
New York: W W Norton & Co Inc, 2003 - ISBN: 0393010244

In brief it says that the large power (s) have to help the regions of the world solve their problems at home. But there is a catch - you pay for raw materials and the locals run the country. They don't want your orders on how to act and it takes generations to change ideas. This is more problematic when there is a winner take all society. This can breed disaffected political situations who have learned to fly Airliners and ended up being the have nots at a great rate of knots.

My point? The policy of neglect is a hands off policy - when the west tells other countries how to behave - thats Imperialism. When they strike out at failed states (was Iraq or Afghanistan an unfailed state that had a snowballs chance in H_LL - anyone?) its a calculated risk that the problems here are easier to solve than those of the face to face nuclear confrontations of the 50s to the 90s. See Max Boot's Interview here

http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Boot/boot-con6.html

which states in part

The problems we face today are severe. But they don't rise nearly to that level. Even if they get their hands on some weapons of mass destruction, it's not the same thing as facing an all-out Soviet strike. We have to put our current problems in perspective. They are very severe, and I don't want to make light of them, but we've overcome greater challenges in our history, and so I'm confident that we can overcome this challenge.....

Well, as President Bush said, "You're either with us or you're against us." Those are words to live by, and they're words that the Saudis should keep in mind, in particular, because they've played a double game for several decades now -- on the one hand, professing great friendship to the United States, and in some ways really helping us out on some things, but at the same time, opening up their checkbooks and writing checks to the most hateful madrasas around the world, and also to people like Osama bin Laden who, of course, is a Saudi himself. They've been playing this double game where they've been trying to have it both ways. Before long, they have to choose sides and decide, are they with us or against us? They'd better know that if they're against us, there is going to be a severe penalty to pay for that.

As long as there is turmoil and not stabliity - I am not saying the western forms of democracy - in these countries - the west must stay engaged - help the Iraquis and others help themselves.

Farsi anyone? 

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

What I don't get is that if Saddam had "no connection to terrorism," why was he paying the families of Palestinian sucide bombers? http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004765039.html?oneclick=true

Oh yeah, sorry: that was another argument that was "amended" by blind hatred for everything Bush does the antiwar left.

What I don't get is if Saddam had "no connection to al-Qaeda," why was he providing  protection for one of al-Qaeda's top people (Zarqawi, currently public enemy #1 in Iraq), and why wasn't this news given the top headlines for weeks all around the western world? http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20050519-06362800-bc-jordan-king.xml

{Oh yeah, nevermind}