It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bush says leaving Iraq would send 'terrible signal'

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 06:17 PM
The Bush strategy in Iraq has been outstanding.
To begin with the main mission in Iraq was elimination
of Iraq as a potential supplier of nuclear weapons
and this has been accomplished 100%. The secondary
goal of denying Al Qaeda their global islamic expansionist
plans is now underway. This too will be accomplished
because Bush is not taking his eye off the ball.

Those that say that we failed because Iraq is in such
sorry shape, should just be happy its them in sorry shape
instead of us. I can handle Iraq being down and out.
But to be fair, the US is making the effort to help them
to a government that is peaceful and good to its people.
We also did this in Japan. We could have just pulled all
effort away from there after the 2nd bomb was dropped and
let the same people continue with their dictatorial
government. We did not do that however, in Japan or Germany.
Instead we tried to oversee a turnover of the country to
a government that was dependent on the will of the people,
thereby removing the country as a potential dictatorship
which could easily carry out war and expansionist plans
Japan and Germany were successful in this effort. We
will probably be successful in Iraq also. If we are not,
though, its really them that will suffer most, isn't it? I really don't
understand why Americans are so upset about how bad things
are in Iraq, when you consider that the alternative was that
you had to let Saddam continue his dictatorship and continue
his work on nuclear weapons.

For all you people with an attention span of less than
20 seconds let me go over the facts as to why the US went
to war in Iraq. It was not give them a democracy. It was
not to rob their oil. It was not get scarfs off womens heads
as someone speculated. What it was, was observed by millions
of people while it happened and here is the review of it.

At the very core of the problem with Iraq was nuclear
weapons and this was covered with much publicity before
the public and witnessed by millions. Yet at no time
did the media choose to point this out as proper justification
for going into Iraq. Think back to when things were
deteriorating with Iraq, the situation was this:
UN inspectors had gone back into Iraq and were apparently
making progress until one issue came up that Saddam
stonewalled on. That issue was the interview of his
nuclear scientists. Saddam refused Hans Blix the interview
of his nuclear scientist. This was the key point, highly
covered on all the news that resulted in breakdown of UN
weapons inspections. Several trips were made by Colin Powell
and Dick Cheney to get neighbors to convince Saddam that
he had to comply with the interview of his nuclear
scientists and yet Saddam stonewalled. This was all done
while military forces were daily landing in Kuwait, in
order to show the resolve of the US to get this complied
with. Yet Saddam stonewalled. Most of the neighbors
relayed the message to Saddam that he had better comply,
even Mummar Qadafi urged him to comply.

All of this, as I said before, was witnessed on TV by
millions. Also you can find all this information confirmed
by looking at archives of Newsweek, Time, and even the
UN archives, so I'm not going out on some unproveable
mission by stating what is the obvious to most everyone
that witnessed it.

Now any reasonable person could blame Saddam for this
breakdown of UN inspections and the resulting invasion
of Iraq. He was the one who refused UN inspections.
He did not refuse access to gas and chemical sites. He
did not refuse to let woment take scarfs off their heads.
He specifically, without any doubt whatever, refused
interview of his nuclear scientists.

As it turned out, Saddam's nuclear program proved to be
real, not a lie of George Bush. Along about October of
2004 I watched an interview on TV of Saddam's top nuclear
scientist. I believe it was on CNN. This scientist estimated
that Iraq would have got to build a bomb within 3 years if
they had not been stopped. He now lives in the US and his
book "The bomb in My Garden" came out about that time and
is available from This was one of the scientists
that Saddam had refused to be interviewed by the UN inspectors.
So Saddam knew exactly what he was doing when he stonewalled
the inspectors. This scientist also gave some details of
what all was buried in his yard awaiting the UN sanctions
to be lifted and inspectors leaving so that they could
get back to work on it. The book detailed Saddams program
that Kerry and Dean were insisting did not exist, and
that Bush was a liar. Now this was in October of 2004
that the interview was on CNN and the book available,
written by Saddam's own nuclear scientist. The election
was still a month off and John Kerry was still running
around telling how Bush lied that their was no threat
from Iraq. You would think Bush at that time might have
at least mentioned the facts concerning the invasion
of Iraq happened because Saddam would not let UN inspectors
interview Saddam's nuclear scientist and he could have
held up the book and said, "This book details Saddam's
nuclear program in the words of his own scientist. It
tells how the program was hidden waiting for UN inspectors
to leave" He could have made reference to the uranium
that had been confiscated there and brought back to
the US. He could have asked, "How come John Kerry thinks
he knows more about Saddam's nuclear program than
Saddam's own nuclear scientist?" Yet Bush did none of
this while letting Kerry continue to call him liar about

Now as I put this story forward I can almost see the
die hard Bush Bashers reply. It will be that Bush
bribed or forced the nuclear scientist to write the
book and that there is no truth in the book and that
still there were no weapons programs going
on in Iraq. Yet if they want to promote that argument
then have them explain why Bush did not capitalize on
the book by holding it up during election campaigning
and point out that this proved beyond doubt that Saddam
was working on WMD, nukes specifically. Would Bush
have forced the scientist to write up this false
book and then not even use it? The idea is preposterous
that the book is not just as it says it is. On top
of this, they will have one thing more that they will
strain very hard to explain away. That one more thing
is: How did that lying Bush get Saddam to refuse interview
of his nuclear scientists, when in fact he had no
program. Their answer, "Bush offered him a nice
hidey hole after the war".

posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 09:23 PM
Dictators and wannabes all over this globe would like to have nuclear weapons, the point is there a credible threat that they can and more importantly are acquiring them.

Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan are all credible threats of this. Pakistan because it is now acquiring missiles to launch nukes and also as a source of technology for the others.

North Korea is in many ways the worst case scenario. They [Kim] are so poor that the only thing they have to export [sell] is weapons to terrorist groups. The North Koreans have already been caught selling missiles to terrorist groups.

Iran is pretty grave threat for other reasons. It will probably be very selfish and not sell or trade weapons or technology, but given that they are a generally radical theocracy and have an undying hatred of Israel problems are inevitable.

Iraq due to import restrictions [however imperfect they may have been] and most importantly with UN weapons inspectors poking around had no WMDs, no viable WMD program.

If Bush is so worried about nuclear weapons being built or acquired why has he done so little to identify, acquire and contain the nuclear matterials that are floating around the world, most notably from the post Soviet Russia client states?

Sorry guy but that rationale doesn't hold water.

Iraq was invaded because it gave the Whitehouse guys a hardon to think about it.
Plus it would funnel Billions of dollars to Cheney's buddies over at the war profiteers at Halibuton.

It was sold on lies from Chalabi who was paid $340,000.00 a month to tell the administration what it wanted to hear rather than the truth.
The CIA was working from information that was at best 3 to 5 years out of date.
The Whitehouse intentionally lied about aluminum rocket tubes being used in centrifuges. They even went so far as to ban DOE employees from telling the true facts to reporters.

The media played salesman for Bush's agenda. Like his little lapdog.

In retrospect the invasion of Iraq may have been great news for Haliburton but For the American people it was an abysmally counterproductive effort against terrorism.
Iraq is a breeding and training ground for terrorists even while we supposedly are incharge of the country.

The signal that would be sent if America announced we are leaving immediately after Saddam is dead is that we have finally come to our senses.

It is a new idea, but maybe at that point we would actually begin to work with Iraqis instead of treating them like they aren't even worthy of consideration as human beings.

In the end it is the Iraqis that will make whatever government(s) that will be spawned work or not.

This idiot cowboy testosterone OD mentality that everything happens because we Americans make it happen doesn't stand up to credibility.

One lives in grace with the Universe because one understands how it operates and then you work with it and not against it.

Working with the natural elements and forces in Iraq will produce faster and more lasting results than trying to impose some sugary western confection democracy on them.

The various elements of Iraq have to find a system or systems that work for them.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 03:29 AM
we made the iraq war part of war on terrorism as part of the faulty justification process. If we really wanted to , we could come up with a story that makes a pullout to our advantage and spin it that way.

i mean who are we trying to convince? islamic terrorists? the only thing that can beat a radical isalmist is a moderate one. a pullout in Iraq would at least force the confrontation between the two and remove the US a justification for more terror. Then however it goes we can say radical islam failed. (if iraq stablizes, it was because we did it. If not , it was the radicals fault.)

If i had to devise an exit strategy , it would be to slowly scale back the occupation from shiite and kurd territories while encouraging migration to respective borders. I would also leave southern Iraq in the hands of the Elected gov , while having lower state govs over the remaining land of the 3 provinces. Trying to slove the problem of dividing iraq into 3 parts while assauging fears of sunnis being surrounded.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 03:58 AM
Tinku i can safely assume that you know very little about the British conquest of India. No invasion ever took place. Native armies were used, we built a trading empire.

As for my intellegence, well that remains to be seen.

However i would like to point out that you never answered my questions, instead spouting your rhetoric rather than engage in debate.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 04:21 AM
Uncle Joel....

I have answered all you question and you never seem to answer anything I ask. All you do is question everything. The British did take over control and is seen as act of “invasion”, which did happen and exploited the country. However, what ever you want to believe kid, go ahead, whatever makes you sleep better with your milk and cookies.

All you do is go from thread to thread as I have noticed spreading your uneducated, unfounded beliefs that make so sense and only there to start crap…. Listen, as I said before…the British (America’s mom and dad) as a Superpower before their fall used these tactics of distortion, as you are, to further there own claims like Bush did in the War in Iraq….lay off the glue sniffing and stop watching Bill O’reilly.

[edit on 15-8-2005 by Darth Tinku]

[edit on 15-8-2005 by Darth Tinku]

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 04:39 AM
Thanks for those friendly, cheerful and totally misinformed judgements of me.

First of all why the impression that i am American?

Second i am a student in history and studying the British Empire, so dont try and correct me on the occupation of India, it wasnt very nice but there was never an 'invasion.' Just business manuverings that culminated in a private army doing what it wanted until the 1850's.

What does the US creation of the Taleban have to do with this thread? Why do i need to 'face facts' since i never denied this?

Just because i diagree with you doesnt make me ill educated. You need to work on your debating technique.

Now back to the topic...

British and US troops need to stay in Iraq because of the mess we have made there. This is an illegal war and a total screw up but we cant just cut and run. Too much money has been spent and too much blood spent. Unforutnately the current techniques being used are not working, a new strategy is called for.

This is one of the few incidences where bush is right.

Leaving Iraq gives the terrorists an even bigger victory than before, since they have driven out two powerful nations using nothing more than wired up artillery shells and a few 1980's rockets. Iraq will then becoem a new and bigger Afghanistan in the heart of the middle East.

Is that really a better solution?

And who is Bill o Reily?

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 04:54 AM

Posted by Uncle Joe Leaving Iraq means that a nation 28 million people is left in s*it that they didnt ask for and isnt their fault.

Leaving Iraq shows the US and UK to be cowards who cannot face the repercussions of what they have done.

Leaving Iraq makes every single death, soldiers, civilians, insurgents worthless.

There is no reason to leave Iraq, no excuse until the misguided, poorly led and badly planned mission leaves the people of Iraq with a good government and an ability to look after themselves.

Whatever kind of stability that can be achieved there has to be doable by the Iraqis themselves. By making it clear we are leaving they will be able to tell us exactly what THEY need and don't instead of the US telling them what they supposedly need.

It may not be their fault but we broke it and sadly enough they will have to live with it.

This is basic pragmatics. If you or someone else has some ego problem with leaving i suggest you seek some counselling about it.
This ain't about pride or ego, it is about pragmatics and common sense.
We created chaos over two years ago and has not abated in that time with us being there, so leaving will make no real difference.

While we stay there we are the easy target of blame. Even for those things we did not directly cause. We did unleash it, and without sufficient force to subdue it, so we do bear that blame. But the sooner we turn it over to the Iraqis the sooner it becomes their problem. And you know what? When someone finds out they are the make or break of something they don't have time to blame anyone, they just have to get busy and try and make it work.

The service personel who have died in this pointless effort were worthless the day the administration listened to the lies of Chalabi and the lies they themselves told about aluminum rocket tubes. You could ask why the adminstration in the whitehouse and CIA relied on WMD reports that were 3 to 5 years out of date.

If you are worried about the pointlessly squandered lives there, I suggest you take it up with the Whitehouse, the congress and most importantly the American people who allowed this to happen.

Spilling more milk will not make up for previously spilt milk.

Wasting more lives will not make up for lives already wasted.

I see very little progress towards a cohesive Iraqi government.
I see strong divisions between regions developing with attendant violence.
We may see a civil war there.

But in the long run Iraq or what used to be Iraq has to find its own centers of gravity. The sooner we get out of the way the less of our resources and lives we spend standing in the way of the inevitable.

This needs hardheaded American self interested thinking and not emotional worries about psychological effects.
Will terrorists respect me in the morning?
Frankly my dear i don't give a damn.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 05:01 AM
Uncle Joe,
You do understand the concept of cutting your losses?
Not throwing good money after bad?
Not throwing money down a rat hole?

Nothing useful is being acomphished.
There are no realistically tangible goals to be achieved by staying there.

I don't find your thinking very logical.

You seem caught up in psychological effect,
ie. 'What will people think?'

Intelligent people know we screwed up.
Intelligent people will know we finally saw the light and left.

I don't care what stupid people think, well, because they are stupid.
You have to use other means like brute force to deal with stupid people.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 05:05 AM
Giving the impression that we are leaving will almost instantly lead to a downturn in terrorism.

Why? Because they know they have won if the US and UK pulls out before Iraqi forces are ready. The minute the last troops leave the terrorists will be back in business, only this time there will be noone even trying to stop them.

This war needs to be rebranded and the occupation of Iraq organised as a colonial venture, simply because it would fisrtly be more honest, and total control by the US and particularly the UK would give us much greater control of the area.

It also shows that there is a commitment to the region. The US government should spend the reconstruction money directly rather than hand it over to private contractors in a amnner similar to Marshall aid. Then once a usable nation is built it should be given to the Iraqis, and the nation becomes more or less a Dominion of the new US empire.

Perhaps slightly off topic, but i do think this is the best way to win the war.

Unfortunatley its also slightly unrealistic, since there is no way that a republican administration can stop giving money to companies.

In the end i fear that we will withdraw prematurely because people expect instant results, and when those are not forthcoming lose interest.

[edit on 15-8-2005 by Uncle Joe]

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 05:10 AM
Uncle Joe.....

Well I think it’s safe to say that you, me and everyone here has gone off topic at least a handful of times. Secondly, if there is any subject that is more flawed and biased, especially shown in textbooks around the world it is History. No offence, just telling you from many experiences which this subject and reading various books on the same topic. If you have noticed from many books in history subjects, each has their own view of accounts of what took place in history. Things people learn sometimes become distorted because of what they have learned from certain sources that generally say the same things. Then you have other textbooks in other countries saying the exact opposite.

There are two truths in this world I believe…one that you believe, and the other that is the truth.

If you are studying history and the British Empire, I say great, it is pretty fascinating stuff. However, you also should know then of the deception the British were famous for when they were conquering the world. Well, maybe not, cause books in North America and England have very different accounts of what happened. I have family in India, North America, and parts of Europe including England where my father had lived for many years before to Canada. They have told me things about this nature of great censorship and how things still haven’t changed. When studying in England, he was learning the same things in one subject as you as currently. Told me what he read and heard about the British in India from relatives, friends, and books were very different of that of the British believed in their own writings. British people were and some still are very racist and did horrible things but you never hear about that. Just like the crazy censorship and the books you will be reading in the next 20 years about how the US spread democracy to Iraq and “won the war on terror”. And you will never read about the tortures, racisms, and all the civilians killed (100,000 est. in Iraq now)

Listen, either way…when you do finally leave Iraq there is going to be a huge Civil war…you guys being there have made everything worse and you have lost the war. Face it. Every time I hear the same thing “ well it might have been wrong but now that were there, we have to solve it”. That has been used for every war I have ever heard about the Americans in. Time you put that dog to sleep.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 05:16 AM
More off topic fun!

Tinku would the racist theories include the social darwinists of the 19th century who 'proved' to themselves that blacks and asians were less intelligent due to the size of their heads and shape of their bodies?

We are taught this. We are taught the stupid masscres, the ridiculous and uncessery conquests (especially Burma). We learn the good and the bad. And when the British Empire is weighed up in the scales of history, for the most part it was good.

After all spreading sanitation, medicine, democracy, didt exactly hurt the millions we ruled.

Also i answered all your questions and posed you several new ones and you didnt answer, its just not fair.

[edit on 15-8-2005 by Uncle Joe]

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 05:36 AM

Posted by Uncle Joe Unfortunatley its also slightly unrealistic, since there is no way that a republican administration can stop giving money to companies.

In a nutshell!
The same incompetence and corruption that prevented any kind of dialogue with Iraqis is still in charge.

Any more money or resources they get will continue to be squandered. both money and human lives.

They even lost 9 Billion US dollars. Likely some millions of that made it into the hands of insurgents and terrorists, the rest went to criminals maybe Iraqi maybe American.

With corruption running the show there can never be any hope of creating some kind of fantasy democracy.

Its up to the Iraqis.
They either have to make or break a government there.

I can only feel shame that this is what America has wrought.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 05:39 AM
Cant argue with you there Slank, this war is a hotbed of curruption, mistakes and lies.

However we cant abandon the country because of our mistakes, once you devastate a nation you have a certain responsibility towards it, just look at what happened to Germany when we didnt finish the job we started in 1914.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 05:51 AM
Uncle Joel.....

Right you obviously no nothing and soon your history major will become history when I see you at KFC and you’re having a fried-chicken food fight in the back.

That is why history majors are called the “joke majors”, usually the ones who couldn’t get into Political Science. History majors are very flawed altogether, you know to be the truth, that’s why it hurts you, and cause you know I “schooled” you.

And you said, “British Empire is weighed up in the scales of history, for the most part it was good”. Right…you lie way too much. All the science and mathematics, medicine were original developed in Asia and then the west borrowed and worked together with
others from Asia to improve on it through time, you fool. If you’re going to lie, and
distort things, make it believable kid.

The British and you are the same in almost every single way with lies and information being imprecise. People around the world mostly don’t like the UK or and really don’t like the US except for some EU countries and the Saudi’s. Soon when one or all of the BRIC alliance countries finally invades you guys, you will get a taste of your own medicine. Putin even threatened the US that if they go and invade Iran, obviously for resources, like Iraq, Brazil+Russia+India+China, will protect Iran by all means necessary. You will lose, no doubt about that. I have answered all your questions and given you a history lesson. Now go study a more valuable art than history majors, like cleaning your toilet.

[edit on 15-8-2005 by Darth Tinku]

[edit on 15-8-2005 by Darth Tinku]

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 05:54 AM
Part of what happened to Germany after WWI was war reparation payments.

Europe was still working under the deluded notion that if you win a war you should recieve booty, spoils of war.

That helped drive Germany into hyperinflation, economic collapse and political instability.

Wars are almost without exception a loss, loss situation.

Leaving it totally to the Iraqis means they can start building using whatever natural organizing forces are there.

Will the Shiites become a theocracy?
Will they have civil war with the Sunis?
very possibly
Will the Kurds want to create a separate state and will Turkey hate us forever for that?
very likely.

Ultimately i think all the things that will happen will happen when we leave.
Either they will happen now or we can waste resources and stall and then let them happen later.

it is ultimately a waste of time and energy to forstall the inevitable.
sort of like having a boxing match with a tidal wave,
its pointless.

I do think before we leave Saddam needs to be dead. Letting him rise to power and seeking revenge is to horrible a thing to do after we created this mess. He can be tried and executed or if that doesn't happen we should just march in and cap him.

We tell the interested parties we are leaving, do they need some kind of assistance we can give them before we go?
Then the Iraqis will know without a doubt it is up to them.
Either they will step up to the plate or not,
I don't really care.
We will not stay any longer if we don't see clear progress happening.
If the Iraqis can not manage to maintain order for themselves all the other democracy stuff just becomes BS.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 06:01 AM
Damn Tinku, you got me, thanks to your clever reasonig i just realised that everything i am taught is a lie.

For instance the Empire was so popular in Canada that you joined in with WW2 streight away.

What is it with you and lies, difficult childhood, unable to understand other points of view?

Very Neocon of you, 'if you dont support me then you lie!'

And just out of curiosity, how does the fact that i am taught by an Indian teacher who supports what the Empire did to India appeal to you?

Can you reccomend some books that dont 'lie'? can you tell me what the latest thinking on Empire is at the moment?

And again you didnt answer my questions.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 06:06 AM
Slank i agree with you, there is probably going to be a civil war in iraq, similar to that in Bosnia.

Look what happened there when we didnt bother, Ethnic cleansing, masscres. A nightmare situation.

By keeping troops in place we may be able to prevent the worst of this from happening. It nots a good position to be in but its what has to be done. We have an obligation to these people now.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 06:18 AM
Uncle Joel.....
I feel very lucky to go to an world class university, taught by world renowned prof's, have friends from all types of cultures and to grow up in Canada where race doesn't matter.

Well ask your Indian teacher about biased in textbooks from country to country. And so what, I have English Profs who think the British Empire were overall evil like the US and some who think otherwise. You still have a lot to learn kiddo. See it’s your job to separate what is true and what is false. That is what makes one educated. And again you didn’t answer my questions.

You know History majors are worth nothing, save yourself the cash and buy one of the internet for a few hundreds dollars. You will come out with the same knowledge and the same job (KFC, stands for Kentucky Fried Chicken). Get use to it, your going to be there for a long time.

[edit on 15-8-2005 by Darth Tinku]

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 06:26 AM
Sorry. In the barrage of devastating humor i missed the questions

But dont worry about my degree (England remember!) In the UK we have history (ha ha) of valuing these degrees. Why i hear you ask....

Well history degrees are not really valued for the knowlege they give, though this can be useful for a job in the foriegn office. Instead by studying history we learn how to assess information quickly, write well, argue a case without resorting to childish insults.

In short businesses need history graduates, law firms need history graduates, government needs history graduates. Also you can just research history, work at a university, write books, lecture, spend a lifetime learning. Sounds good to me.

Would you like fries with that?

On second thoughts dont bother, this is a waste of time.

We have established that neither of us are capeable of having a civilised conversation with the other. Come try again when you get out of the habit of insulting those who disagree with you and we ca see what happens.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 06:32 AM
The truth is we don't and can't know exactly what will happen in Iraq.

But the first and biggest step towards any kind of internal reconcilliation between Iraqi factions is making it very clear we are not there forever.

The Bush administration is totally vague and unclear about their intentions.
They can't even come up with clear and tangible goals.
I think they must be waiting for the second comming of Jesus or something.
Bush and the Neocons are addicted to the Iraq war, without it they probably would have lost the last election.

We need to be clear and efficient in our actions, for our sake and the Iraqis.

We do not want to stay there, we are leaving unless order is being achieved. We will not dictate what kind of government the majority of people choose, including accepting a theocracy for the Shiites if that is what they choose.

The Bush policy at present is muddle around with no clear identifyable goals.
I am fed up with that.
I think more Americans are becoming fed up with that.

new topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in