"As far as I'm concerned, the debate is over. Historians will ultimately judge those decisions." - G
62 replies, posted
[quote]As his presidential library and museum open, former President George W. Bush said he remains "very comfortable" with perhaps the most controversial decision of his presidency -- the invasion of Iraq -- as he pursues a post-presidency removed from the spotlight but active on a series of core issues.
In a wide-ranging interview that touched on everything from his brother Jeb Bush's presidential prospects, the Republican Party's future, and his new passion for painting, he told ABC News' Diane Sawyer he hopes the library and museum serve as resources for historians to judge him based on the same facts he had access to as president.
That includes his decision to invade Iraq, despite the fact that the world later learned that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. The museum presents that information directly, Bush said.
"We're just laying out the facts. And that was a fact," Bush said. "I am comfortable in the decision-making process. I think the removal of Saddam Hussein was the right decision for not only our own security but for giving people a chance to live in a free society. But history will ultimately decide that, and I won't be around to see it.
"As far as I'm concerned, the debate is over. I mean, I did what I did. And historians will ultimately judge those decisions."[/quote]
[url]http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/george-bush-comfortable-decision-invade-iraq/story?id=19032717#.UXhslLWTiSo[/url]
At least he's owning up to it. I'd like to visit the museum.
His book really says a lot about the matter and is helpful in terms of not bandwagoning and jumping on the invaded-for-oil shit. The intelligence most major western countries had at the time all indicated he had or was developing some type of WMD. The debate should be whether that justifies an invasion; much of anything else is entirely too speculative or is usually based soley on defacing his character/motives for whatever reason. I'd love to see what the museum has to show on the matter to gain some perspective.
I actually supported his invasion of Iraq, because Sadaam Hussein was a terrible human being who was a huge threat to the international community. We never should have got involved in Afghanistan and should have pulled out of Iraq as soon as there was some degree of stability and a new, democratic government was put in place.
[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;40412092]I actually supported his invasion of Iraq, because Sadaam Hussein was a terrible human being who was a huge threat to the international community. We never should have got involved in Afghanistan and should have pulled out of Iraq as soon as there was some degree of stability and a new, democratic government was put in place.[/QUOTE]
If we had waited, Saddam would probably have been ousted along with the rest in the Arab Spring.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40412182]If we had waited, Saddam would probably have been ousted along with the rest in the Arab Spring.[/QUOTE]
I can't believe I'm saying this, but would it have been worth it to wait? Would he have killed even more people in the ten interceding years?
The [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian%27s_fallacy]Historian's fallacy[/url]
[quote][W]hen one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.[/quote]
And would the Arab Spring have even deposed him? He had a history of using chemical weapons against his civilian populace; I don't think he'd just let angry protests go without subjugation.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;40412232]The [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian%27s_fallacy]Historian's fallacy[/url][/QUOTE]
The best part is, historians don't judge at all. We merely seek out the truth of the past.
[editline]24th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=ElectricSquid;40412267]And would the Arab Spring have even deposed him? He had a history of using chemical weapons against his civilian populace; I don't think he'd just let angry protests go without subjugation.[/QUOTE]
I feel it would have turned into another Syria, but who can say how successful or unsuccessful.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40412268]The best part is, historians don't judge at all. We merely seek out the truth of the past.[/QUOTE]
If historians don't judge, then why are decisions like Hiroshima and Nagasaki so hotly debated?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40412182]If we had waited, Saddam would probably have been ousted along with the rest in the Arab Spring.[/QUOTE]
I don't think we should have waited when there was a man willing to use Chemical weapons on his own people, and others.
I think Christopher Hitchens made a good point on the Iraq War, that a terrible genocidal dictator was removed from power.
[media][URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUukjX-Nee0[/URL][/media]
[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;40412306]I don't think we should have waited when there was a man willing to use Chemical weapons on his own people, and others.[/QUOTE]
Let's invade Syria then, since the possibility is quite strong that they'll be used eventually.
Bush's current approval rate is 47% -very close to Obama's
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];39373449']Hate to break it to you, guy, but [I]we sold Saddam (and Iran) the start-up kits for manufacturing chemical weapons with the intent of Saddam using them against Iran[/I] in the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam also used them against the Kurds, and we didn't give a shit. It very well could be the case that the exact components we sold to Saddam were the ones used in the weapons that killed the Kurds.
That's also why we believed he had WMDs- because while it was unlikely that the exact chemical weapons we sold him were still active and likely would have deteriorated by now, the startup kits we sold had very good potential to still be in tact. "The reason we knew that Iraq had WMDs is because Saddam still had our receipt." The WMDs themselves were long gone, but the components could have been there and could have been manufactured into weapons for a long while after.
Just because we weren't the ones dropping the bombs does not excuse our regime from the selling of the components used to make those bombs.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];38693434']Iraq did have chemical weapons, you know.
[URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-534798.html"]We sold them to Saddam[/URL] as dual use "starter packages" that were intended to be used as a deterrent against the Iranians, and got put to use in the Iran-Iraq war. The main issue was whether these weapons were decayed or not. [URL="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/"]We did find[/URL] [URL="http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2010/10/chemical-weapons-i-were-i-found-in-iraq/180872/"]plenty of stores[/URL] and l[URL="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_did_find_iraq_wmd_AYiLgNbw7pDf7AZ3RO9qnM"]abs and whatnot.[/URL][/QUOTE]
Throwing these back out there.
[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;40412092]I actually supported his invasion of Iraq, because Sadaam Hussein was a terrible human being who was a huge threat to the international community. We never should have got involved in Afghanistan and should have pulled out of Iraq as soon as there was some degree of stability and a new, democratic government was put in place.[/QUOTE]
I disagree, Afghanistan was arguably a far more justifiable invason [I]at the time[/I]. It was dumb to stay after the taliban were like "yeah dudes, al-qaeda fucked off about 5 minutes go, they're not here anymore"
But what a lot of people dont stop to consider if the war in Afghanistan has done a LOT for the future generations of Afghanis. Its effectively dethroned the taliban for good, the anti-taliban groups that have always existed now finally have the power and means to ensure it stays that way, there (albeit a dumb one) is a democratic goverment in afghanistan now, women's rights are and will continue to improve in a country where not all that long a go a woman could be raped and stoned to death for speaking out of turn, they are becoming more connected with the modern world and are starting to build an economy off trade and mineral deposits, education for children is becoming more widespread and schools are being rebuilt all over the country where previously the taliban would've blown them up for supposed religious offenses, etc etc.
Contrast that to the Iraq invasion which has really only resulted in sending Iraq spiraling into a big clusterfuck of chaos and a big waste of money on the war machine for no real result.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;40412546]I disagree, Afghanistan was arguably a far more justifiable invason [I]at the time[/I]. It was dumb to stay after the taliban were like "yeah dudes, al-qaeda fucked off about 5 minutes go, they're not here anymore"
But what a lot of people dont stop to consider if the war in Afghanistan has done a LOT for the future generations of Afghanis. Its effectively dethroned the taliban for good, the anti-taliban groups that have always existed now finally have the power and means to ensure it stays that way, there (albeit a dumb one) is a democratic goverment in afghanistan now, women's rights are and will continue to improve in a country where not all that long a go a woman could be raped and stoned to death for speaking out of turn, they are becoming more connected with the modern world and are starting to build an economy off trade and mineral deposits, education for children is becoming more widespread and schools are being rebuilt all over the country where previously the taliban would've blown them up for supposed religious offenses, etc etc.
Contrast that to the Iraq invasion which has really only resulted in sending Iraq spiraling into a big clusterfuck of chaos and a big waste of money on the war machine for no real result.[/QUOTE]
You are the most optimistic man I've seen about the future of Afghanistan.
I barely have a fraction of your hope.
From the moment bush stopped being president I liked him more
even his goodbye speech was great
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40412268]The best part is, historians don't judge at all. We merely seek out the truth of the past.[/QUOTE]
Historians may seek out the truth but you cannot say they do not judge. There are many historical matters that are hotly debated based on their own judgements and opinions.
[QUOTE=Lethaxx;40412629]Historians may seek out the truth but you cannot say they do not judge. There are many historical matters that are hotly debated based on their own judgements and opinions.[/QUOTE]
Based on facts and evidence available.
They aren't SH
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40412320]Let's invade Syria then, since the possibility is quite strong that they'll be used eventually.[/QUOTE]
I haven't any actual proof of it happening in Syria, besides. "He said She said." If we can get actual proof of them using chemical weapons, I wouldn't be opposed to intervening in the conflict.
But, as for Saddam, we knew he had them, and was very willing to use them.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack[/url]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40412182]If we had waited, Saddam would probably have been ousted along with the rest in the Arab Spring.[/QUOTE]
As much as I'd like to agree with that, you have to account for hindsight bias. I mean, in 2001 the idea of the Arab Spring was outright impossible and unforeseeable.
Heck, it's even possible that without the invasion of Iraq the Arab Spring could have never happened. It also could have happened sooner. It's impossible to tell.
[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;40412668]I haven't any actual proof of it happening in Syria, besides. "He said She said." If we can get actual proof of them using chemical weapons, I wouldn't be opposed to intervening in the conflict.
But, as for Saddam, we knew he had them, and was very willing to use them.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack[/url][/QUOTE]
lol is that why the extent of the weapons we found in iraq were some old, degraded chemicals that had been sitting around for a decade?
we actually know syria has chemical weapons. iraq we really fabricated and assumed.
Yes, the debate is over. The Iraq war was a useless fraud that resulted in the meaningless deaths of over a hundred thousand people.
Wasn't there evidence that Hussein tried to make it look like he had WMD's (fake ones) to incite the U.S into an unfavorable war he though he'd win? (Like when Russia went to Afghanistan)
[QUOTE=DoctorSalt;40412853]Wasn't there evidence that Hussein tried to make it look like he had WMD's (fake ones) to incite the U.S into an unfavorable war he though he'd win? (Like when Russia went to Afghanistan)[/QUOTE]
Saddam kept up the rhetoric because he was afraid of another war with Iran. He never really believed that the US would invade, until they did.
I'm still of the opinion Saddam should have been taken down during the Gulf War, when NATO had heavy support from various Middle-Eastern countries, and when we weren't all fighting two wars in the region.
I also agree with JaegerMonster that the war in Afghanistan has, on the whole, been positive for the country and hopefully the region in times to come. It's standard of living has started to improve and it has the start of a democracy - I hope it can build on these.
I'm glad to see that the senseless part of the hate for Bush is dying down.
People who dislike him for his policies are justified, but the majority of the hate I've seen (here included) was bandwagoning "lol oil and wmds lol" with little actual knowledge of what they're actually mad about, which is in my opinion no better than those who hate Obama because "he's a socialist communist who'll take away muh freedoms"
I'm very interested in seeing what historians have to say about the early 21st century in the future, this is an incredibly interesting time for humanity.
[QUOTE=Camundongo;40413084]I'm still of the opinion Saddam should have been taken down during the Gulf War, when NATO had heavy support from various Middle-Eastern countries, and when we weren't all fighting two wars in the region.
I also agree with JaegerMonster that the war in Afghanistan has, on the whole, been positive for the country and hopefully the region in times to come. It's standard of living has started to improve and it has the start of a democracy - I hope it can build on these.[/QUOTE]
During the First Gulf War, the US made numerous attempts to kill Saddam, but he managed to escape each time - sometimes, barely.
The reason why we didn't march all the way to Baghdad was to not have to do the "nation building" bullshit we had to do for the past decade. If we had liberated Kuwait and killed Saddam, Iraq would have had to sort its own government out, not need us to hold everything together while extremists blow up our soldiers every day with IEDs.
It's good that he's done this. As one of the "worst" presidents in recent memory, he's been doing an excellent job not hiding from the decisions he made.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.