Don Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein (Lowell - 9/2/2006 9:59:49 PM)
No further comment.
I have a question for those who still support the President on the issue of the War in Iraq. And I'm not just talking "Stay the Course", I'm talking to those who still think going there in the first place was a good idea.
I see a lot of comparisons to Saddam Hussein and the current President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They both are enemies of the United States, this I don't dispute. Whether or not you have to go to war with EVERY SINGLE ONE of your enemies, well, we'll discuss that later on. But back to the comparisons. They both have shown themselves to be forces that could easily ignite the powderkeg that is the Middle East. Now, here's the kicker. In 2003, President Bush claimed to the American people that Saddam had or was close to developing Weapon's of Mass Destruction. That was the most necessary reason for kicking him out; protecting America. We later discovered that there were no WMDs, but that's not important to my question.
The question is, we KNOW that Ahmadinejad has the capability of creating WMDs with his plans to continue enriching Uranium. My question becomes: Why hasn't our President made plans to go to War with Iran? After all, the conditions are rather the same as with Iraq. And further, Iran is a much larger threat to the safety of Israel than Hussein ever was. When I here Saddam's regime called "Islamic Facism", I laugh, because you know damn well that it was a secular regime, and religion had very little to do with power (guns did, however).
It's crap like this that makes me doubt why we went to War in Iraq. We decide to absolutely destroy the Iraqi government with just the thought that they MIGHT have WMDS, but when North Korea blatantly flaunts them, or when Iran goes way further in Uranium Enriching than Saddam ever went, and our administration just sits there with a thumb up the ass. I'm a logical being, and this defies logic.
I'll admit that War with Iran is impossible at this point. We don't have the man-power, as we're using it all to keep Iraq under control right now. Of course, we could re-instate the Draft, but you see how that goes over. We don't have the funds (we're going broke on Iraq as it is) to go to yet ANOTHER war. Of course, we could raise taxes, but that's not going to happen either.
So, why haven't we gone to War with Iran, or North Korea for that matter, when they've been far more guilty and dangerous than Iraq EVER was? And don't give me this "we went for freedom" crap, because I don't believe you. That wasn't the reasoning in 2003. That was 2004's reasoning when they realized 2003's reasoning wasn't going to work anymore. So we're fighting for Freedom, huh? What about the other dictatorships in the world? What about Cuba right below us! Haven't they suffered long enough for a Cuba Libre?
My question is this:
Can you really say that we went to Iraq over Weapons of Mass Destruction and Freedom when we ignore both of them in other nations around the world today? If owning WMDs, or suppressing your own people, is bad enough to warrant a War, why doesn't it warrant a war in Iran, Cuba, or North Korea? When one person gets treated differently than another, there is usually a reason for it. Iraq was, apparently, unique to this Administration. It did less than other bolder countries, yet recieved a far stricter punishment. Why?
I ask Republicans such as George Allen, Thelma Drake, Tom Davis, Frank Wolf, Virgil Goode, and others to answer this question for me. Most importantly, I want George W. Bush and his administration to answer that for me. Why was Iraq different? What made Iraq's demise so essential to the freedom of the United States, while the more dangerous Iran and North Korea are not?
And finally, one more question. This one goes out to all of Bush Supporters, both activists and elected officials.
If George W. Bush chose to go to War in Iran over the Uranium Enriching, or with North Korea over their Weaponry, would you support another War Effort?
For a VERY entertaining video on Iran/US conflicts, go here. Get up and dance if you want to, it's a very catchy tune.
What makes you think that he hasn't? Plans to invade Iraq and kick out Saddam were made years before Bush implemented them. Plans to turn right and head to Tehran were certainly drawn up not long after the fall of Baghdad.
would you support another War Effort?
Iran - Yes. Iran is a legitimate threat.
North Korea - No, not yet. They can't threaten anybody.
The only way Reagan helped, was by creating a business-friendly environment for corporations. The cold war was won by free press, by consumer goods, by stable economies (in the West), and by Levi's, feminine hygiene products, McDonalds, Disney, Hollywood movies, and rock and roll music.
Seriously.
Clearly demonstrating the competitive advantages of freedom of expression and relatively open markets were what one the cold war, coupled with access to basic necessities for better living (reliable food, reliable hygienic products, reliable clothing and shelter).
People change. You did. Saddam obviously did.
No further comment.
You know why? Because the President is:
Totally. Utterly. Completely. Clueless.
What? You think Saddam changed from the 80's to now? Saddam wasn't a peacenik in the 80's, in fact his cruelty was used as a reason by the administration that he had to be taken care of.
Saddam was ruthlessly evil in the 1980s, Saddam was ruthlessly evil in the 1990s, and he is still ruthlessly evil (though, thankfully, quite powerless) now.
Rumsfeld was also ruthlessly evil in the 1980s, still ruthlessly evil in the 1990s, and is still ruthlessly evil today.
Many of us did not know Rumsfeld was evil in the 1980s - but he was already planning to use fear as a weapon against an open and free (read liberal) society: The United States of America. Many Americans did not realize who Saddam was, at least until the Stark incident; when people started to really sit up and take notice.
And, in discussing the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Bush said: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."
(You do know there was an assasination attempt on Bush 41 while Clinton was Prez?)
I don't think that's all of it -- I also buy the theory that the inept neocon advisers thought Iraq would be easy pickings, and that there would be lots of leverage gained from a successful invasion. And if the idea had succeeded, the U.S.'s stock would have gone way up as a nation not to be messed with. As it is . . . well . . .
Oh, Lowell, I was a Republican too -- when they were sane.
Sadaam's only virtue was that he was openly hostile to the Iranians--and a Sadaam lead Iraq acted as something of a buffer state. Now the Iranian wield tremendous influence inside Iraq--and likely will for years to come.
The Iraq War has helped to drive up global oil prices lining the Iranian coffers, which has in turn allowed them to pledge $100 million of support for Hezbollah.
The Iraq War has helped to unify two traditionally hostile states in Syria and Iran (Syria as a Baathist state having once been strongly aligned with Baathist Iraq under Sadaam).
The Iraq invasion has helped to push out a hardliner as President who was replaced with an even harderliner in 2005 in Ahmadenijad.
It's also troubling that some GOPers such as Newt Gingrich are once again leaning on ex-pats for insight into the current situation inside Iran. I seem to remember us doing this in 2003 with a guy named Ahmad Chalabi who turned out to be wrong on pretty much everything (but seems to be doing very well for himself inside Iraq post-invasion--one of the few winners in the current situation).
This current leadership has made the task much harder for future generations in confronting a broad range of crises. This situation with Iran is another one to add to the list.
Do we bomb the hell out of them and hope that the people are a lot more agreeable than Iraq?
Or do we use diplomacy?
Only time, and 2008, will tell.
Even then though, it would be a hard slog through Iran where resistance will be fierce.
If we had a more skillfull diplomatic team in the White House, I think we could do quite a bit to steer the situation in Iran towards a more favorable endgame. Iran is not Nazi Germany, and while Ahmadinjad may have some Hitlerian tendencies, he doesn't have anything close to absolute power yet (the Ayatolah is the Supreme Leader, and there's also the Islamic Council which wields influence).
I think this is one of those cases where the creation of economic prosperity and a vibrant middle class inside Iran would do quite a bit to temper the more radical elements within the government. Sanctions on the other side might sour the public mood towards the current leadership. The Iranian system is authoritarian, not totalitarian like Iraq or Cuba or North Korea, so sanctions might yield a more potent result.
Time will tell indeed.
These reformed Dems must be 180 years old because the last sane Republican I remember was Abraham Lincoln...
*A passion for civil liberties
*A disdain for conformity and suspicion of authority
*A commitment to protect the environment and not engage in mindless exploitation of the nation's natural beauty.
*A strong belief that diversity -- gender, racial, social, sexual, ethnic, and religious -- should be celebrated because it gives the United States moral strength.
*A belief that the nation does have international responsibilities
*A recognition that government does have a basic social responsibility to help those in need
*A commitment to fiscal prudence and limited government
*A responsibility to publicly criticize those who call themselves Republican when the situation merits.
*A belief that God and religion have a very important place in America -- at the dinner table and in churches, temples, and mosques.
George Allen and George Bush fail on ALL these counts, thus making them extremists and unqualified for the offices they hold.
It's the Taliban wing of the GOP that's a worrisome development. Check that, it's the fact that the Taliban wing of the GOP is now the heart of the party that worrisome development.
For I. Publius, that last question should be taken into consideration: successful execution. I do NOT believe that the Israel (with their superior Mossad intelligence) much less the United States knows exactly where all the key Iranian nuclear sites are. Even with our big boom-boom super bunker busters there is a distinct likilhood we cannot adequately pulverize the Iranian nuclear sites that we DO know about. I suspect we would end up having to use nuclear bombs over a good much of Iranian geography. And would that be wise? Would there be adverse consequences for the US? Heh.
That, of course, assumes we are prepared militarily abroad as well as domestically to absorb what will happen after we bomb Iran. What do you think will happen to our sitting duck troops in Iraq? What do you think China and Russia will do? Heh.
I understand that there are also grandiose plans (in the Pentagon naturally) to "re-draw" the map of the Middle East. Sort of like the British did after World War I when they cobbled together Iraq in the first place. But they were on the winning side after World War I (despite their defeat at Gallipoli), and we haven't "won" our Middle Eastern War, so who are we kidding.
Good grief, try to think more than one move ahead. That we should even be having this discussion boggles the mind. There are Consequences (see my article from a few days ago on RaisingKaine, "Truth and Conseuqences."
Out president does not make plans. He decides on other people's plans. That is as it should be - on that I actually agree with Bush... the sad thing is he keeps making the wrong decisions.
The military better have plans in place for war with nearly every country on the planet, and some idea of a plan for alien invasion - otherwise they are not doing their job. Just my opinion. The question is, will Bush decide to execute the plans for Iran and which of them?
My guess is he will not attack Iran until/unless forced into war with Iran. He will not because: 1) our Army is already tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Bush and his neo-cons do not want to be the ones who have to re-implement the draft; 2) Iran may already have a nuclear weapon or two, and that is dangerous; 3) Bush and his neo-cons are genuinely afraid of losing their grip on power here, and being seen as starting a new war would inspire the opposition all the more; 4) it would be bad for profits on all the Iraq reconstruction efforts.
The sad truth is the U.S. may not have a choice, War with Iran may be inevitable regardless of who occupies the oval office because of what Reagan and now Bush and Rumsfeld have set in motion.
would you support another War Effort?
Only if attacked. Bottom line; we need to be out of the business of starting wars, and in the business of ending them.
I dream of a future where there are no nations and no national governments at all, because all peoples sharing this one small planet learn to live together.
I fear there will be another round of brutally violent wars until humanity wakes up to the evils of fundamentalism in all religions.