Author Topic: Reasons Not to Invade Iraq by Bush Sr. (Read 1373 times)

x0847Marine · « **on:** April 25, 2007, 02:37:09 PM »

Reasons Not to Invade Iraq, by Bush Sr.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm

The Arab allies didn't want US troops to stay, and Bush Sr correctly states "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."

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #1 on:** April 25, 2007, 03:58:01 PM »

Too bad the son was way too utterly stupid to listen to his father's advice.

ack-ack

john9001 · « **Reply #2 on:** April 25, 2007, 04:06:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Too bad the son was way too utterly stupid to listen to his father's advice.

ack-ack

saddam and his idiot sons would agree with you.

if they were still alive.

x0847Marine · « **Reply #3 on:** April 25, 2007, 05:53:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
saddam and his idiot sons would agree with you.

if they were still alive.

The reality that invading then occupying Iraq would be an unpopular disaster was nicely laid out by Bush Sr, apparently GW was one of the weaker sperm to hit the egg... lacking a common sense gene or something.

KgB · « **Reply #4 on:** April 25, 2007, 05:57:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
saddam and his idiot sons would agree with you.

if they were still alive.

Oh yeah,they could have brought Iraqi battleships to USA coast,he-he.

FrodeMk3 · « **Reply #5 on:** April 25, 2007, 06:04:51 PM »

You know, even with that said, It seems like we would have had a better chance of pulling off what we are trying to do now, If we had occupied Iraq at the end of Desert Storm. What we have now is a somewhat worse situation than Vietnam.

rpm · « **Reply #6 on:** April 25, 2007, 06:13:02 PM »

Bush Sr. had an international coalition that included many Arab states and a fair chance at a reasonable outcome. Dubya had Tony Blair and Poland.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #7 on:** April 25, 2007, 09:25:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
Bush Sr. had an international coalition that included many Arab states and a fair chance at a reasonable outcome. Dubya had Tony Blair and Poland.

Bush Sr. also had the UN forbidding a march on Baghdad. This was when we thought the UN was actually important.

So this wasn't really a piece on why it's bad to invade Iraq, but a piece on garnering support for the UN.

Eagler · « **Reply #8 on:** April 25, 2007, 10:02:43 PM »

the article is from 1998 talking about an Iraq in 1991

ya think the situation may have changed any btwn 91 and 03 (only 12 years) for a reason to attack? Wasn't it thought during those 12 years the cheekbones saddam was building WMDs? Didn't he & his crazy sons continue to spiral out of control? Sort of like a Noriega in many ways only richer and more dangerous. Can't forget his support of the pal bombers during that time.
ya, nothing changed in those 12 years .. nothing at all.

Viking · « **Reply #9 on:** April 25, 2007, 10:08:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Bush Sr. also had the UN forbidding a march on Baghdad. This was when we thought the UN was actually important.

So this wasn't really a piece on why it's bad to invade Iraq, but a piece on garnering support for the UN.

The UN did no such thing. However the Arab members of the coalition forces did.

rpm · « **Reply #10 on:** April 25, 2007, 10:30:32 PM »

C'mon Viking, we're rewriting history to suit our needs. Be a playa not a hater.

x0847Marine · « **Reply #11 on:** April 26, 2007, 12:05:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
the article is from 1998 talking about an Iraq in 1991

ya think the situation may have changed any btwn 91 and 03 (only 12 years) for a reason to attack? Wasn't it thought during those 12 years the cheekbones saddam was building WMDs? Didn't he & his crazy sons continue to spiral out of control? Sort of like a Noriega in many ways only richer and more dangerous. Can't forget his support of the pal bombers during that time.
ya, nothing changed in those 12 years .. nothing at all.

Oh yea, all those nasty WMDs he was building..

A US occupying force in the mid east is just as unacceptable today as it was 12 years ago for all the same reasons, take a look at the on-going 5 year complete disaster in Iraq for conformation that not much has changed.

Per the article Big Bush had hoped to establish a model for the use of force, a a proven success that made the Arabs happy: get in, get the job done, then leave quickly as not to be seen as an occupying force and pissoff the natives.

So little Bush decides to do the exact opposite, with predictable "barren--outcome" results.

Eagler · « **Reply #12 on:** April 26, 2007, 05:11:51 AM »

so you really think "little" Bush would do anything "big" Bush & his friends would be 100% against?
not me, circumstances changed and yes, the ENTIRE world thought he had WMD's though they all did not agree with the war but would you if you were making millions circumventing the surrender/withdraw agreement of Desert Storm with the oil for food program? Make up your mind - first GW is a puppet then he's a renegade - which one is it?

"C'mon Viking, we're rewriting history to suit our needs. ..."
rpm, yep the dems are trying to do exactly that .. they all seem to have forgotten they voted on the war knowing exactly what everyone else did at the time..

Odee · « **Reply #13 on:** April 26, 2007, 05:46:01 AM »

Complete disaster??? Sadam's and his kin are gone, and the only disaster is being created by the Sunni, and Shia against fellow Islamists... with the occaissional UN, US, UK, etc troops caught. Boy, there's a model of a compassionate religion for you.

Quote

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Too bad the son was way too utterly stupid to listen to his father's advice.

ack-ack

Yo liberals... too bad Senior didn't have those 3200 American deaths on his head to weigh in on staying the course either, huh?

Same goes for Clit-one who let these yokels have their way, while he was off boffing the staff.

War is not supposed to be pretty. If it was, we would have more of them... and the only thing that Islamic radicals truly understand is superior fire power. Give them a real good bloody nose and they fall in line, because that is all they understand. It's what they are, and how they are raised, these radicals, to hate every freedom you so enjoy.

x0847Marine · « **Reply #14 on:** April 26, 2007, 05:49:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
so you really think "little" Bush would do anything "big" Bush & his friends would be 100% against?
not me, circumstances changed and yes, the ENTIRE world thought he had WMD's though they all did not agree with the war but would you if you were making millions circumventing the surrender/withdraw agreement of Desert Storm with the oil for food program? Make up your mind - first GW is a puppet then he's a renegade - which one is it?

"C'mon Viking, we're rewriting history to suit our needs. ..."
rpm, yep the dems are trying to do exactly that .. they all seem to have forgotten they voted on the war knowing exactly what everyone else did at the time..

It doesn't matter what I think, its pretty clear big bush didn't invade Iraq for all the reasons we're seeing Little Bush fail... that's just kinda obvious 5 years of failure after the fact and almost 30,000 wounded.

I'm not sure where the oil for food thing came from, or who you think was making millions... Saddam had replaced the dollar with the euro and had euro companies lined up to do billions in business using the new currency... whatever scam he had with oil / food was probably Udays party $$.

Blaming the dems seems pointless since republicans are just as stupid and incompetent... neither party could find their own nuts without help much less expose the little bushis total bogus WMD excuse for what it was; fecal matter polished to look like sunshine.