First Draft of History Looks a Bit Rough on Bush

[Old Hippie]

"...Well, one of the really bad things about the Bush administration is its neglect to create alternatives to oil for energy use. I think we have a combination here of corporate greed and voters' conformism with status quo..."

 

 

I would not blame ONLY Bush here, all the previous administrations since who/what, Nixion or ford? have failed in this area.

 

 

"...I believe most Iraqis are relieved to have escaped the horror of the Saddam Husssein regime..."

 

Than who are/were we fighting there? I realize there is a post Sadaam power grab of sorts, but it seems there were/are a number of people who are not willing to sit still and allow a U.S. Occupation.

[playtheblues]

No I don't argue about the blatantly dishonest - well pure lying it was - WMD motive for invasion.

 

I mean that Saddam was a monster to his own people; imagine living in a state of constant terror, like the Iraqi people did. He even committed genocide towards the Kurds and, as I understand, the Shiites in Southern Iraq.

 

It's good to be rid of him. Yes, I know it's a mess there, no need to remind me. But at the time of the invasion (which I happened to be against btw, believing it to be too risky) not many people

could or would like to foresee this mess, not even among those opposed to the war.

 

 

 

 

[Old Hippie]

"...magine living in a state of constant terror, like the Iraqi people did..."

 

 

I would argue they are still living in terror, and will be for years to come. Better or worse with or without Sadaam? in honesty, not really sure. But, in most cases such as these, it takes a bad mother fucker to keep all the other crazy mother fuckers in line. Case in point *might* be the Sha of Iran, and Marcos in the P.I.

[playtheblues]

"I would argue they are still living in terror, and will be for years to come".

 

Not as pervasively as during Saddam. Terror was everywhere all the time. Any neighbour could be an informer and send you to torture and maybe death.

 

Even if many people are killed daily in terror attacks (and the US is not responsible for those) all the millions of Iraqis don't live in constant fear of such attacks. But under Saddam I am sure that every single Iraqi was scared to the bones every single day.

 

 

 

 

 

[rogueyam]

Then what was all that fuss on the issue raised during the Iran contra arms deal? for which Reagan was nearly impeached. And why were/are there law suits from some of the former hostages based on this believe/fact you call false?

 

The "October Surprise" charge was investigated ad nauseum. Nothing ever came of it. Here's one major example:

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4D61F3FF930A25752C0A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

 

House Inquiry Finds No Evidence of Deal On Hostages in 1980

 

By NEIL A. LEWIS,

New York Times

Published: January 13, 1993

 

A bipartisan House panel has concluded that there is no merit to the persistent accusations that people associated with the 1980 Presidential campaign of Ronald Reagan struck a secret deal with Iran to delay the release of American hostages until after the election.

 

[Old Hippie]

I still, like many, do not buy it. As I said, the Reagan administration was dealing in arms with people they were not supposed to be dealing with, and all sorts of bullshit was going on. You will not convince me that during this time, the issue of the hostages was never mentioned or used as a bargaining chip either way, by either side.

 

To put it in simpler terms, we all know O.J. killed the bitch, despite the fact that he was never convicted of murder. Hence, we all know Reagan and his bunch were involved in all sorts of shit, we just can't prove it. As I said, they were certainly capable of covering it all up.

[rogueyam]

...Now, the intervention was unilateral, and that's indeed an issue...

 

False. Pres. Bush sought and received a unanimous U.N. Security Council resolution requiring Saddam to surrender his weapons programs (which Saddam did not do) and threatening serious consequences for failure. The actual invasion of Iraq was led by the United States, backed by British forces and smaller contingents from Australia, Poland and Denmark. A number of other countries were involved in the invasion's aftermath. Thus it is quite simply a lie to call the invasion "unilateral".

[Bangkoktraveler]

Aaah, if I remember right, preacher Bush conned the world that Suddam was bad and needed to be removed. The world bought his bullshit.

[playtheblues]

"Unilateral" as opposed to a decision from the Security Council to take action. I took the word from Kofi Annan:

 

"The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally." (I forgot to note the source but this statement by Annan is well known).

 

 

It is disputable (to say the least) whether previous resolutions ordering Saddam to comply with the demands for scrapping his WMD or face consequences are applicable when no such weapons existed. Well that was not evident at the time of invasion but aren't you the least concerned - now that we know - about the falsifications made by the Bush administration about the existence of WMD?

[playtheblues]

"It is disputable (to say the least) whether previous resolutions ordering Saddam to comply with the demands for scrapping his WMD or face consequences are applicable when no such weapons existed",

 

Thinking about it, maybe you were referring to res 1441, which indeed threatened Saddam with "serious consequences" in case of non-compliance. But didn't both the US and the UK ambassadors to the UN openly accept the interpretation that this resolution did NOT automatically constitute an authorization for military action without a new decision by the Council?

 

And then there was, as I remember, another US resolution draft which was withdrawn since it was made clear that i would never pass the Council.

 

So which resolution are you referring to? Maybe I have missed and confused something. Getting old.