What is motivating Bush ?

[Sojourner]

And for more satire:

The real reason for invading Iraq?

[Tamerlane]

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
I actually have (a copy of) the official document released by the Blair administration citing the reasons for attacking Saddam, from what I have read (which is most of it) there is nothing new or different in that report to suggest he is more of a threat apart from the fissile material thing that we have heard so much about.

Heya Sleep, recently came across this .... and was wondering how faithful it is to the printed version. It came from that rather untrusting source called the Internet you see

EDIT- Nevermind, wrong dossier. No one would happen to know where an electronic version or a summary of it would happen to be, would they?

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by Sojourner
And for more satire:

The real reason for invading Iraq?

Heh It's such a shame SatireWire has stopped, they were always good, I especially liked the Hinjews Nice link

[Sojourner]

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Heh It's such a shame SatireWire has stopped, they were always good, I especially liked the Hinjews Nice link

Yea, the "Axis of Evil" one had me ROTFLMAO.

[Mr Sleep]

I only just noticed your sig, that is very amusing and scary at the same time (not the support GB one )

Here is more satire, I am not going to post a link since the site will only cause arguments, anyone who wants to check it out, drop me a PM.

SADDAM HUSSEIN'S PLOTS:

CIA operatives are confident that within six months, Saddam Hussein will have purchased most of the world's available cubic zirconium over the Home Shopping Network. He will mount these precious gems on a dish the size of Utah, which will be launched into space and used to bedazzle and blind the entire population of North America.

Top brass at the FBI possesses compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has already infiltrated a certain software company in Washington State with Islamic Fundamentalist programmers holding positions of encrypting autonomy. These wily, American-looking programmers will fill 99.99% of America's software with subliminal messages, including "Smoke More Unfiltered Cigarettes," "Eat More Saturated Fat" and "Couldn't You Really Go For a Nice Big Snort of Cocaine Right About Now?" This new software will drive Americans to behavior that may not be noticeable at first, but will result in the success of his evil master plan to destroy America!

The General Accounting Office reports that within four months, Saddam Hussein will, through the clever use of shell corporations, take a controlling interest in numerous key American defense contractors. He will then institute dangerous new corporate policies, including disclosure of product failures and pricing with less than quadruple-digit mark-ups. Within a matter of days, there will be no soft money available to elect Republicans and Democrats who support any and all wars and weapon programs, thereby completing Saddam's evil plan to make America peaceful and fiscally responsible.

NASA now believes that within 2 years, Saddam Hussein will have established an Islamic colony on the moon. His first act upon arrival will be to spit at and set fire to the American flag planted by Neil Armstrong. Then, using millions of miles of neon tubing, he will then poison the American nighttime sky with salacious, orbiting messages blinking scurrilous assertions about our president's genitals and mother.

Kurdish operatives report that Saddam's elite Republican Corps of Engineers is nearing completion of a powerful underground hydraulic system, which will be capable of effortlessly submerging the entire nation of Iraq beneath an elaborate facsimile of itself - the latter populated entirely by genetically-engineered doppelgangers of the late Ayatollah Khumayni - all of whom will vehemently denounce the gassing of fluffy little puppy dogs.

A joint investigation by the CIA and Department of Commerce has revealed that by mid-2003, Saddam will have stockpiled half the world's supply of Elizabeth Taylor's White Diamonds perfume. He will then launch canisters of this deadly fragrance from his secret headquarters inside a seemingly active volcano, asphyxiating our nation's capital.

[Scayde]

Originally posted by HighLordDave

Dubya claims that Iraq is an imminent threat to the security of the United States and the rest of the world. This is despite the fact that there is no clear or overwhelming publicly-available evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the World Trade Tower or Pentagon attacks.

The key here is publicly-available Bush is more than aware of the publics cry for proof, adn he has offered a great deal IMO...however, there most surely is inteligence too sensitive for public consumption.

Originally posted by HighLordDave

@Tybaltus and mental_nomad:
The United States has had a firm policy of not seizing land in the middle east, even though we could take the oil fields at will, because we don't want to occupy that land as long as the Saudis et al are willing to sell us the oil cheaply. Since the end of the Second World War, American policy in the middle east has been one of stability. We've maneuvered things so that no single country is dominant in the region. We basically control what weapons the Egyptians and the Saudis have, Lybia is isolated and we've backed both Iran and Iraq to make sure that neither is in a position to expand beyond its borders.

I agree, the middle east oil source is largely due to US discovery, investment, and involvement in the region during the 30's - 70's. If we were intent on seizing land in the area, the fields that were nationalized in the 60's would have been all the provocation needed. It is not in our best interest to own the region.

[Scayde]

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
It doesn't quite work like that, you take into account that a developing country will know the causes of Nuclear fallout. I seem to recall discussing my theory about this in the other recent DW Bush thread. Check it out, the MAD theory is ludicrous in my opinion. You might want to rent a book by Martin Amis called Einstein's Mosters, it is a fascinating read and provides a great commentary on the arms race.

Nukes are an unfortunate fact of life . We cannot wish them away, and as long as there is the possibility of rogue nations developing and deploying them, it is fool hardy to limit our own capabilities. It is only by mutual threat that such intities are kept at bay.. If the strong hand fails, and the bombs are unleashed, We are doomed to a horrific thing. But with out the mutual threat, we risk being held blackmail to the fear of there potential.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Oh I agree that a soverign land must defend its own turf...it is the responsibility of a leader that has been elected into office to look after the people who put him there. However it is debatable whether Bush got their legitimately or not, we all know the stories.

You are aware that the popular vote is not part of the constitution. The state legislatures are given the responsibility of appointing delegated electors to represent their constituencies. It would be completely constitutional for the popular vote to be stopped altogether, if that is what each stat legislature decided to do. A Presidential election is won or lost in the primary... That is when the electors are chosen. Even so, an elector is not bound by any law, to vote the way his states constituents indicated. I for one, feel the system works. It does a good job of protecting the intrests of the less populous areas/states from the over whelming tide of interests divergent to theirs of the more populous urban centers.

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by Scayde
Nukes are an unfortunate fact of life . We cannot wish them away, and as long as there is the possibility of rogue nations developing and deploying them, it is fool hardy to limit our own capabilities. It is only by mutual threat that such intities are kept at bay.. If the strong hand fails, and the bombs are unleashed, We are doomed to a horrific thing. But with out the mutual threat, we risk being held blackmail to the fear of there potential.

I offer no solution but I do not have to agree to the current method, I think the state of paranoia is preposterous, the only proof that the mutual threat works is by the fact that we all are still alive but that isn't proof that another nation would have used nuclear weapons...that would be a logical step too far in my opinion. The only way the escelation stops is when nuclear weapons are removed from the equation, or we stick with a blanket of paranoia.

You are aware that the popular vote is not part of the constitution. The state legislatures are given the responsibility of appointing delegated electors to represent their constituencies. It would be completely constitutional for the popular vote to be stopped altogether, if that is what each stat legislature decided to do. A Presidential election is won or lost in the primary... That is when the electors are chosen. Even so, an elector is not bound by any law, to vote the way his states constituents indicated. I for one, feel the system works. It does a good job of protecting the intrests of the less populous areas/states from the over whelming tide of interests divergent to theirs of the more populous urban centers.

Don't you ever find all that complication pointless, whatever happened to the vote going to whom you voted for. I mean democracy should be simple, you vote for who you want and that is that, the vote of the people is the point of democracy.

[Gwalchmai]

LOL! I just figured out what Grunty means by MAD. And here, this whole time, I thought he was talking about some British equivalent to Mothers Against Drunk Driving!

[Gwalchmai]

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Don't you ever find all that complication pointless, whatever happened to the vote going to whom you voted for. I mean democracy should be simple, you vote for who you want and that is that, the vote of the people is the point of democracy.

But, the US is not a Democracy. Its a Republic.

[Minerva]

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Heh It's such a shame SatireWire has stopped, they were always good, I especially liked the Hinjews Nice link

You can always rely on the good ol' Private Eye.

A Thank-You Message From Rev. Dubya Bush, Church of the Latter-Day Morons

Greetings to my good friend and ally Rev. Timmy Bloom and his lovely wife Shirlene. I would like to thank him once again for his steadfast support in our fight against Mr Badman Hussain, the Thief of Baghdad -- Unlike Pastor Schroder of Germanland who has shown himself to be in league with Satan. My advice to Pastor Schroder is to watch his back. Because Germanland could be next on my list when the boys ride into town and start shooting up rough. Yessir.

Greetings in the Lord Dubya Bush (Rev.)

From St.Albion Parish News
Private Eye No. 1064

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by Scayde
The key here is publicly-available Bush is more than aware of the publics cry for proof, adn he has offered a great deal IMO...however, there most surely is inteligence too sensitive for public consumption.

The fact that the administration has not released any information detailing a link between Saddam Hussein and the WTC bombing leads me to believe that no such evidence exists. Let's face it, if there were such a connection that could be proven, Dubya would not need any additional authorisation or approval to invade Iraq. If it could be shown that Iraq was behind the Al-Qaeda attacks on the United States, we would give him a blank check to bomb Iraq back to the Stone Age.

It would make all of the wrangling that's going on now go away. Since no such evidence has been release, I am not inclined to believe that there is such a link.

[Scayde]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
The fact that the administration has not released any information detailing a link between Saddam Hussein and the WTC bombing leads me to believe that no such evidence exists. Let's face it, if there were such a connection that could be proven, Dubya would not need any additional authorisation or approval to invade Iraq. If it could be shown that Iraq was behind the Al-Qaeda attacks on the United States, we would give him a blank check to bomb Iraq back to the Stone Age.

It would make all of the wrangling that's going on now go away. Since no such evidence has been release, I am not inclined to believe that there is such a link.

@HLD.:.. You are a gifted and talented debater,
You could almost convince anyone that your opinion is in reality fact, It is however your opinion.. and I have mine. I believe there is more than sufficient evidence that has already been presented. At least enough to satisfy my concernes. Furthermore, it is my opinion that we have only a partial picture of what the President and our intelligence community have at their disposal. I feel woefully under-equipped to second guess them in this matter.


@ Sleep: re: Nukes.... We will agree to disagree then

[Bloodstalker]

But, the US is not a Democracy. Its a Republic.

Just popping in to agree with Gwally. That has always been my opinion anyway. In theory, the way the U.S. voting process is run, the popular vote is supposed to determine who the Electors in a given state cast their votes for. Their is, however, no provision that I am aware of that legally binds any given Elector to the decision of the popular vote. In essence, they can legally disregard the popular vote altogether and cast their vote for whichever candidate they wish too as far as I know. I realize that this thread is not meant to discuss this subject, and if the mods feel my comments are irrelevent, I will remove them. Or maybe someone could start a different thread of there is enough interest.

As far as Bush and his duties to the nation as opposed to the world, I agree to an extent that it is his responsibility to further the welfare of the U.S, as is the responsibility of any national leader. But I think it also puts a burden upon him to work within the international community. The U.S. is not and can not be a nation to itself, any more so than any other nation that has ties to their allies, be it military or ecenomic. As long as the U.S. trades with and has diplomatic treaties with other nations, then those nations have to be considered in any international policy.

Add to this that the U.S. has a kind of geographical isolation that a lot of other nations do not have. We can do what we want, but we don't have to live in the mess if we leave one so to speak. even if we do oust Saddam, the political vaccum it would create would undoubtably affect the U.S., but not to the point that it would a nation that was geographically closer to the area. This was the main reason that I believe the last war in Iraq was stopped short. That problem was recognized, and is still a real problem.

I still hold to my opinion that this entire process is politically designed to get support for another presidential bid. Until I see some proof that Saddam has the capability and the intent to use that capability to expand his borders or to offer strikes at other nations, I will continue to be skepticle of Bushs motives. It just seems to me that he is trying to recreate the popularity and national feelings of patriotism that were created after 9/11.

Just my opinion.

[Gruntboy]

My, my, who's been reading the Federalist Papers? Good topic.

Technically, I agree that the US is a Republic. That does not mean the US is not a "liberal democracy". And since when was any "democracy" a democracy in the true, Greek, sense of the word demos. Athenian slaves could not vote...

@Mr Sleep. Have to side with Scayde here on the nukes. Never mind Amis (pfaff) try reading "Makers of Modern Strategy" or Lawrence Freedman's "Evolution of Nuclear Strategy". MAD makes perfect sense when you take deterrence into account. Still, irrational dogs like Mr Hussein need to be destroyed.

Oil. Pfaff again. Read my earlier rebuttal. We could have taken the Oil 10 years ago.

[Minerva]

Originally posted by Gruntboy
Oil. Pfaff again. Read my earlier rebuttal. We could have taken the Oil 10 years ago.

But if you did, you couldn't sell more arms and weapons to the region, you know. The Arms trade makes loads of money, and I think that's big enough reason for Bush to go to the war. The war is profitable for some people.

I also believe the Bloodstalker's original answer: To finish the job his dad didn't.

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by Scayde
@ Sleep: re: Nukes.... We will agree to disagree then

Fair enough by me, there is nothing wrong with us just disagreeing....oh whoops, that was a bit of a faux pas...you must bend to my will Scayde, you will agree with me, fear my venemous comebacks

Rich Hall put it best in my opinion (not verbatim):

You have two types of countries that have access to nuclear weapons, on the one hand you have a country with progression, they start with radios, tv's, cars etc etc there is an obvious curve upwards in technology eventually getting to nuclear weapons.

On the other hand you have some middle eastern countries that are like this: guy sitting in a desert coaxing a snake out of a basket straight to nuclear weapons. No progression at all.

My point (and maybe not his) being that the nations who are sold these nuclear weapons don't necessarily understand exactly what they will do, so how do they get their hands on these things in the first place? They certainly don't develop fiscile materials on their own and they got the tech from somewhere.

And since when was any "democracy" a democracy in the true, Greek, sense of the word demos. Athenian slaves could not vote...

Good question, does that change what the movement represents though, isn't it about people power? If not i'll start banding around words like despot and totalitarian The Uk has a much simpler system, the votes are the votes, none of this erraneous gumpf. Part of the problem for US administrations is the amount of money they need to campaign, they spend countless millions proving why they are so great, this of course comes from big business so of course big business then have their hooks in the administration. I am sure everyone doesn't want me to continue patronising so I will move on

Amis didn't exactly convert me to his cause through his writing, rather I agreed with what I was reading. Until I read some compelling evidence otherwise (i'll try to check out your recommendations) I am sticking with my current thinking.

I tend to agree with Minerva, big business is going to flourish if there is a war, I don't think that the Bush administration can rely on it's fiscal policies alone

[Nightmare]

Originally posted by Scayde
The key here is publicly-available Bush is more than aware of the publics cry for proof, adn he has offered a great deal IMO...however, there most surely is inteligence too sensitive for public consumption.

Ever read the book Animal Farm by Orwell? Its basic lesson is to question everything your leaders say, which is why I'm against Bush doing this. He hasn't given good proof, and I will not "trust" any politician or leader to make decissions without giving the public information.

Also, a little off topic, but has anyone heard about whats happening in Afganistan right now? The new gouvernment has run out of money. Fine example of nation building by the US and its allies (including Canada, where I am). And Bush wants to occupy Iraq?

[Nightmare]

Also, I have this article that kind of sums my point up...

----------------------------------------------------------------

README
Ours Not To Reason Why
By Michael Kinsley
Updated Thursday, September 26, 2002, at 6:50 AM PT


In London Tuesday, Prime Minister Tony Blair declared with fanfare that Saddam Hussein's Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, is ready to use them against other nations, and soon will have nukes as well. In Washington, a reporter asked President Bush why Blair offered no new evidence to explain his newfound conviction on these matters.

THE PRESIDENT: He explained why.

Q: Pardon me, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Explained why he didn't put new information to protect sources.

That's a good joke on journalists "protecting sources" is our religion and not a bad point on the merits. Much of what our leaders know about Iraq's military capacities and intentions can't be revealed, and how they know it must be secret as well. So, how is a citizen of a democracy supposed to decide the most important question any nation must decide: Should we go to war?

In this case the issues are mainly factual. That is not always so. In Vietnam, though there were factual disputes, the big disagreements were about moral and strategic issues on which the government's policy had no home-team advantage. With Iraq, by contrast there would be almost no opposition to imposing what is being called, with comic delicacy, a "regime change" if Blair and Bush are right that Western nations are in imminent peril. But this turns on facts and analysis that ordinary citizens must take on trust.

The official U.S. government message on how citizens should decide about going to war is, "Don't worry your pretty little heads about it." Last week the White House issued a sort of Official Souvenir Guide to the Bush administration's national security policy, and it is full of rhetoric about democracy. Yet that policy itself, including at least one likely war, has been imposed on the country entirely without benefit of democracy. George W.'s war on Iraq will be the reductio ad absurdum of America's long, slow abandonment of any pretense that the people have any say in the question of whether their government will send some of them far away to kill and die.

Add it up. You may not agree that the Bush family actually stole the presidency for George W., but you cannot deny that the other guy got more votes. Once installed as president, Bush asserted (as they all do) the right to start any war he wants. Members of Congress can pass a resolution of support if they would like in fact, he dares them not to but the lack of one is not going to stop him. You may not agree that this is flagrantly unconstitutional, but you cannot deny that this makes any discussion of the pros and cons outside of the White House largely pointless. Finally, it's already clear that Bush will copy his father's innovation of rigorously controlling what journalists covering the war can see and report. You may not agree that the obvious purpose of this is to protect official propaganda and lies from exposure, but you cannot deny that such will be the convenient effect.

Democracy will be especially missed if "pre-emption" he hot concept in Bush's national security policy takes off as his advisers hope. (The Bushies hail pre-emption as a brilliant innovation by The Man, except when they're downplaying it as nothing new to worry about.) If the United States is going to feel free to attack any countries that might attack us, without the inconvenience of waiting to see if they actually do, then putting that decision in one individual's power seems especially reckless. And most of the reasons people give to explain why the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says about Congress having the power to declare war involve things like responding to surprise attacks. These concerns seem especially out of place if America's future wars are going to be chosen off the a la carte menu and then stewed for months or years before they are actually served up.

But let's pretend we actually do have some role in deciding whether our nation goes to war. How should we go about it when our leaders don't come PR-ratified by democracy and when crucial information for an independent decision is unavailable to us? We aren't capable of answering the actual questions at hand: Is Saddam Hussein an imminent threat to our national and personal security, and is a war to remove him from power the only way to end that threat? So, we must do with a surrogate question: Based on information we do have and issues we are capable of judging, should we trust the leaders who are urging war upon us?

The answer to that last one is easy. The Bush administration campaign for war against Iraq has been an extravaganza of disingenuousness. The arguments come and go. Allegations are taken up, held until discredited, and then replaced. All the entrances and exits are chronicled by leaks to the Washington Post. Two overarching concepts "terrorism" and "weapons of mass destruction" (or "WMD" as the new national security document jauntily acronymizes) are drained of whatever intellectual validity they may have had and put to work bridging huge gaps in evidence and logic.

The arguments have been so phony and so fleeting that it's hard to know what Bush's real motive is. The Freudian/Oedipal theorizing about finishing the job his father left undone is entertaining but silly. So is "Wag the Dog" speculation that Bush is staging a war for political reasons: The political risk of a bloody disaster surely outweighs any short-term patriotic boost. The lack of any obvious ulterior motive, in fact, is the strongest argument for taking Bush at his word.

But it's not strong enough. A quick recap. Knocking off Saddam became a top priority shortly after 9/11. It was part of the "war on terror," though the logical or factual connection between the events of 9/11 and Saddam's depredations was never explained. The administration pounced on suggestions that 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had met with Iraqi agents in Prague as if discovery of this one meeting retroactively justified the whole hoo-ha then dropped the allegation (though not the rhetorical connection) when it turned out to be made up. Bush and aides continue to talk ominously about meetings and connections between Iraqis and al-Qaida, continue to supply no details, and continue their relative indifference to greater al-Qaida links with other countries.

According to the 2000 edition of the State Department's annual "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report, issued in April 2001, Iraq has ties to various terrorist groups and does terrible things to dissidents, but, "The regime has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since its failed plot to assassinate former President Bush in 1993 in Kuwait." To be sure, for George W., that is a special case. But is it special enough to single out Iraq and ignore other nations that have actually committed successful terrorist acts against the West in the past decade? According to the 2001 State Department terrorism report, issued this past spring, the most enthusiastic state sponsor of terrorism is Iran an enemy of Iraq that we're now trying to patch things up with.

Iraq's use of poison gas in the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s is one example always offered to prove Iraq's ability and willingness to use "weapons of mass destruction." The other is the gassing of a Kurdish town called Halabja in 1988. The fact that these episodes happened years ago does not diminish their horror, and there is certainly no reason to think that Saddam has become kinder or gentler over the years. But it does raise the question why now, years later, they are suddenly a casus belli.

"Weapons of mass destruction," like "terrorism," is supposed to convey the idea that certain ways of fighting a war are illegitimate no matter how righteous the cause you are fighting for. It's a problematic notion in any event. The weapons the United States used against Iraqi soldiers in the Gulf War were about as horrific as those Iraq used against Iran. What makes the pretense of moral outrage in 2002 especially dubious, though, is the American attitude while and right after these horrors occurred in 1982-1988.

There is controversy over whether the United States actually supplied ingredients for the gas, or merely supplied helicopters and other useful equipment, or did nothing more than smother the odd unfriendly U.N. resolution. But there is no question that we knew all about it and looked the other way. The administration of the time included some of the same people as the current administration, or their father. Any indignation on this subject that comes without a fairly abject apology is worthless.

But at the time, you see, Iran was our enemy, so we wanted to help Iraq. Now Iraq is the enemy, so we are nuzzling Iran a bit. All very Kissinger and geopolitical and neorealist (or is that a movie genre, not a foreign policy posture?), but hard to reconcile with high dudgeon about terror.

To be sure, the fatuous hypocrisy of the Bush case for war is no reason to let Saddam Hussein drop a nuclear bomb on your head. Iraq may be an imminent menace to the United States even though George W. Bush says it is. You would think that if honest and persuasive arguments were available, the administration would offer them. But maybe not.


Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/?id=2071538
Finally - a good article from a journalist.

[Scayde]

Originally posted by Gaxx_Firkraag
Ever read the book Animal Farm by Orwell? Its basic lesson is to question everything your leaders say, which is why I'm against Bush doing this. He hasn't given good proof, and I will not "trust" any politician or leader to make decissions without giving the public information.

Yes I have as a matter of fact, in the 7th grade. It is a wonderful book, and I highly recomend it to anyone. The basic lesson however is not only to question ones leaders, but also a statement on the flaws and failures of communism. It is a classic.