Posted on 03/26/2013 8:48:49 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
“.......is absolutely contrary to sound conservative thought. Fail VDH!”
VDH is an old style Zell Miller, George Putnam type Democrat. IOW a Conservative Democrat. He’s NOT a FRee Republic style Conservative at all, thus his perspective.
Has everyone forgotten about the attack on the USS STARK?
Because the neocons (yes, including *those* neocons) wanted us to.
VHS is generally known for his sound reasoning. His perspective here is much of the same... logical reasons for why we went to war. Why don’T you make points based on logic if you want to refute his reasons instead of just calling him a zell miller?
Why doesn’t the goofball who started these wars come out of the woodwork to defend his actions? Bush its the reason we have a second Obama administration. He was that big of a dumb ass.
“To make daddy bush 41 proud of bush 43”
Exactly, two turds in the Presidential Punchbowl. And to hand the WH over to the halfbreed. Good going Bushes! You succeeded where others failed in destroying our country. BTW, tell Brother Jeb to take his Mexican wife and move out of the country!
“Why don’T you make points based on logic if you want to refute his reasons instead of just calling him a zell miller?”
Obviously you and I disagree on Mr. Miller. He’s one of the damned few Democrats I appreciate, thus considered my remark a compliment to VDH (NOT VHS, as you posted. That’s an obsolete video system.)
Take your crank elsewhere.
Oh sure...Everything is just peachy in Iraq...
We won...They love us now...Sure buddy...
Righto. He didn't mention the elephant in the room - that the road to peace in Jerusalem was through Baghdad. Which was the reason no one ever questioned mushroom clouds or anything else. Of course now we see, the road and the mushroom cloud has been moved to Tehran.
BFL
You seemed to be in sympathy with the poster who believed VDH to have views contrary to conservative thought. But you were correct on the acronym...my smartphone thought it was too brainy and could outguess me on what I was wanting to type...I didn’t catch it in time.
The left stream media has been writing quite a few articles about Bush and Iraq. I think they are trying to assuage their guilty conscience over Obama and the Middle East. If Bush and Iraq was so awful, then how can they keep quiet about Obama and Libya or Obama and Egypt or Obama and Syria or Obama and, well, the whole Middle East? Hanson falls into the liberal trap of writing about Bush and Iraq. The real story is Obama and the Middle East.
For an example of a country whose currency does not have reserve status and is denominated in something other(USD) than it's national currency and spends like a drunken sailor running up enormous debt till it can't be serviced look at Argentina. Once the IMF cut off credit Argentina defaulted and collapsed.
Right now we are some what similar with enormous debt but having the advantage of being the worlds reserve currency and having a very good ,albeit somewhat smaller than in previous times, military.
Once the USD looses reserve status we eventually go Argentina. So when Saddam posed a threat to the Petro dollar it was time for him to go. Saddam started to deal Oil for euros in the fall of 2000 and was being kicked out in 2003
I’m sorry, but this analysis by Mr Hanson completely misses the real reason for invading Iraq. It was oil, or course, but not in the way most people think. The problem was that UN sanctions were set to expire at the end of 2003 and the US had run out of ploys to extend them. Saddam, meanwhile, had begun granting oil concessions to foreign countries, including one that had already been signed with Chinese arms-maker Norinco in partnership with other Chinese firms. Upon the lifting of sanctions, the Chinese would have been able to effectively garrison the massive and undeveloped Al Hadab field and were in line to sign another concession for Halfaya. It was with these sales of in-ground reserves to potentially hostile outside players that Saddam crossed the line and triggered the “Carter Doctrine,” which commits the US to treat any outside attempt to gain control of Mid-East oil reserves as a direct threat to US interests that should be met if necessary by force. Bush was faced with the urgent need to preempt Chinese encroachment into Iraq and resorted to the “cavalry charge” approach with an outright invasion: horrendously expensive but dramatically effective. All the WMD, nation-building, Al Qaeda and 9/11 yammering was just window dressing to avoid talking about the real issue: China. For a detailed explanation of all this, see Ch 7 of “The Oil Card.” http://www.amazon.com/Oil-Card-Economic-Warfare-Century/dp/097779539X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199719101&sr=8-1
Was the Iraq war of 2003 worth the cost? Well consider the cost of a direct military confrontation between the US and China. In that context, Bush’s war was cheap at twice the price.
It is worth noting that, with Chinese investment funds, Saddam had planned to be producing nearly as much oil by now as the Saudis. That was another problem for the US, which has been trying since the late 1990s to jack up oil prices to bolster the crippled Russians and crimp the import-dependent Chinese on their input costs. And look where we are? Iraq production and exports are still bumping along at a fraction of what they could have been and pose no threat to world oil pricing. The Chinese have been allowed to participate in some service contracts there, alongside Western majors, but are not allowed to bring their own security forces, have to take minority stakes and only get a fairly small profit per barrel — no actual equity ownership of oil in the ground.
I would go further to say that fears over the potential invocation of this Carter Doctrine are what have given pause to the Chinese and others as far as implementing development of oil concessions in Iran.
Flame away.
"The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had:
1.committed various and significant violations of International Law,
2.had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed following the Gulf War and
3.further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council."
The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change."
President Clinton stated in February 1998:
"Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity,..."
After 911, and Saddam's continued intransigence, Pres. Bush constantly referred to the "Iraq liberation Act" as another justification of taking out Saddam. At that time, it was accepted as fact that Iraq was the most dangerous regime in the Middle East. BTW, he was offering a $25K payment to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers during the Intifada of the early 2000's.
Naturally, Clinton pretty much disappeared during this time, proving to be the disingenuous weasel that he truly is. Once he saw the polls start to turn, Clinton was not going to say anything supporting the actions of the next President, even though by his former actions and speech, he could and should have.
That will sigh your death warrant every time. Follow the dots.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.