It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

"Reasons Not to Invade Iraq, by George Bush Sr."

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Imagine that, after digging and digging, finally found it.
My stance still hasn't changed, but thought some of you all would like to have read this.



Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs.

Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
Why We Didn't Remove Saddam




posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   
thanks for that bit of information Advisor.

It tells how smart and well grounded was GBSr. compared with his delusional son.



posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I have said in the past that it was a mistake not take out Saddam in 1991 and despite what has happened I'm convinced that a secure Iraq was possible .
Iraq may have become kind of like the states in America but thats another topic.

I have also mentioned in the past that I'm not a supporter of limited wars

The coalition occupation of Iraq was a lesson of what not to do. Partitioning in Iraq is the only sane option after three years of doing nothing or the wrong thing.



posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Seems that after the Soviet debacle in Afghanistan ended up spelling the end of the USSR, the US government might think twice about getting bogged down in virtually the same situation in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Is it hubris? Or is it a deliberate attempt to bankrupt and threaten the cohesion of the USA?

Combine it with current domestic policy, and I start to wonder if it isn't both.

Btw, whatever Bush Sr. said about regime change in Iraq after GW1, I got the impression the Kurds were expecting support that never materialized, and it cost them dearly. Was Daddy just talking Turkey?



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 01:12 AM
link   
expert11 But taking out Saddam in 1991 would have meant his command and control structure would have collapsed leaving officers and generals with WMD’s amongst which were biological weapons.
I would love to know what the world would like today if you had your way.
I mean is it’s not as there’s a shortage of political tensions, sectarian differences or terrorists to find new homes for these weapons.

Invading Iraq was only “logical” once we knew Saddam had let himself be completely disarmed of WMD’s (particularly those all important biological ones).

But I'm intrigued; let’s say for a moment no one would have re-housed anything from Iraq’s WMD stockpiles. Why do you think an invasion would have been more successful than it was in 2003?
Do you blame the sanctions for Iraq’s sectarian differences? Or do you blame Muslim fundamentalists who under Saddam in my view had been rightfully oppressed from oppressing others?

Because other countries have had terrible poverty (like Germany, Japan or Korea shortly after world war two) and they didn’t deteriorate into the current Iraq soup.
But then; these places don’t have the deeply divided cultural fabric Iraq has.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
But I'm intrigued; let’s say for a moment no one would have re-housed anything from Iraq’s WMD stockpiles. Why do you think an invasion would have been more successful than it was in 2003?
Do you blame the sanctions for Iraq’s sectarian differences? Or do you blame Muslim fundamentalists who under Saddam in my view had been rightfully oppressed from oppressing others?


Saddam was hardly a saint.
I don't blame the sanctions for the current situation in Iraq. I blame thousands of years of hatred and poor, stupid and extremely naive coalition plans. Heres what should have happened in 1991 after Saddam military had been crushed.

Special forces and troops have been trained in counter insurgency warfare would camp outside the city's and fight the insurgency from day one . The focus would be on winning the hearts and minds of the local population. Troops would also be in place to prevent looting and other crimes.

Any Iraqi government would be build from the ground up . The first leaders to be elected would be the likes of local mayors that way the foundations of the house would be laid before the walls and roof are constructed.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR
Reasons Not to Invade Iraq, by George Bush Sr."


Bush Senior is a thousand times smarter than his son. Wait ... ten thousand times smarter! Seriously.

Side note - Bush Sr. was walking hand in hand with the United Nations and was allowing them to dictate what America did and didn't do in liberating Kuwait. The UN said 'no going into Iraq' so that's what Bush 41 did. Even if Bush 41 thought differently, you would never know it, because he was being a UN 'company man' all the way.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
Invading Iraq was only “logical” once we knew Saddam had let himself be completely disarmed of WMD’s (particularly those all important biological ones).

Am I just reading this wrong, or are you saying we waited to invade until after the WMD's were disarmed even though the reason for invading Iraq was because of WMD's?

As Spock would say, "that is not logical".

I agree that it would have been better to remove Sadaam back in GW1 because the Iraqi people would have been much more cooperative then. Now it is a nightmare that just won't end.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Even if Bush 41 thought differently, you would never know it, because he was being a UN 'company man' all the way.


I agree with you, but also the Carlyle group was not ready yet to profit for a big war at that time they didn't have enough hold of the government yet.

Once Daddy Bush became the Carlyle man a decade later and his influences where well spread with a Carlyle board made of elite ex government members, then war was a profitable business to get into.


And Junior was in the best place to help the family business.


I have to give it to the Bush family and Bush senior, waiting and having patience work wonders for the family fortune.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Does anyone think maybe Bush Snr wasn't too pushed about going into Iraq during GW1 because up until then Saddam had a pretty good relationship with America & pursuing him would totally kill that?



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 04:00 AM
link   
Originally posted by: Hal9000

are you saying we waited to invade until after the WMD's were disarmed even though the reason for invading Iraq was because of WMD's?

No I'm not saying that. Because Hal9000 why do you still think we invaded Iraq because we thought it had WMD’s?
Doesn’t the fact zero workable ones were found mean anything? Not even the fact Saddam Iraq was destroying long range conventional Al Samoud Missiles (they’re range meant legality disputed) just 3 days before the war started, mean anything?

Storey: www.buzzle.com...
Description: news.bbc.co.uk...
This CNN article is dated 1st of March 2003
transcripts.cnn.com...
War in Iraq Began On 20th March 2003…
Date: en.wikipedia.org...

I agree the war is a disaster but ultimately it was done on Israel’s behalf. That’s because we oppose the Ba’th party because we fear a powerful Westernised Arab world. But I guess that’s another story-issue altogether.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join