Is this ‘Bush logic’?

Question

Last night, Bush said that if we leave Iraq now, the government will collapse and the country will erupt in civil war.

But before Bush invaded, he was told that removing Hussein from power would result in a civil war.

Why did Bush start a civil war if he wants to stop it?

Wouldn’t it have been easier to just not start the civil war in the first place?

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

SIMONE Ozbolt –

Colin Powell told Bush, “if you break it [Iraq], you own it”.

Well, Bush broke it, and he owns it – all of it. You cannot blame the Iraqi’s for that. This is, one hundred percent, the responsibility of the Bush administration and no one else.

-------------------------------
Turboweegie –
You cannot brush off knowledge. EVERY non-partisan Middle East expert (and everyone with more than casual familiarity with the region) predicted this outcome – as did former president GHW Bush in his 1998 book ‘A World Transformed’.

No one with expert knowledge of the region gave the plan more than a 50-50% chance of realizing any success (and there were very few of those – and they were Bush supporters).

Further, there was never a possibility of partitioning Iraq, because Turkey will never allow anything even resembling a permanent Kurdish state on their border. Syria would just as soon see all the Kurds killed also. They only thing that might unite the Shi’s and Sunni would be a temporary alliance to kill all the Kurds and reclaim the northern oil fields.

The only ‘partitioning’ you may see is Iraq being broken into thirds: 1/3 to Turkey, 1/3 to Iran, and 1/3 to Syria – and Iran will probably suck up Kuwait at the same time.

The neocon plan implemented by Bush was a stupid idea doomed to failure. There was never a possibility for success, there was never an upside for the United States – it was a stupid idea doomed to failure.

The entire world, including half of America knew. Only ignorant Bush-Blair-bots supported the charge to defeat, turning a deaf ear to those trying to warn you.

When will you guys grow up, get a little backbone, and act like adults?

When will you stop trying to place the blame on everyone and everything except where it belongs – on your own ignorance, arrogance, and anti-Constitution and un-American agenda?

Bush’s blundering incompetence may prove to have signed the death warrants on hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Americans. Good job.

-continued-

Your first point about my logic, is not about logic. If it were about anything, it would be about facts and evidence.

You lose this one for not know thing difference.

But wait there’s more…

Your demanding 100% assurance on a anything other than a simple, closed, and finite system is evidence of either statistical and scientific ignorance (you don’t know anything about either, do you?) or dishonesty.

Dishonesty is the most likely, since even you must know that by whatever qualitative probability estimate one would choose, there is nothing near a 100 percent certainty that a civil war WOULD NOT occur.

Further, the burden of proof was on your side, which has never provided a single piece of evidence (by historical or sociological precedent or theory, or even by analogy) supporting belief in a successful mission in Iraq.

And, although the burden of argument is not mine, I’ll give you one anyway.

Take Bosnia-Herzegovina as an example.

Bosnia was a really simple problem.

1). It involved internal strife between two (more-or-less military organized) groups in a well defined geographic space;

2). no one gave a sh!t about the place because the country has nothing anybody wants

3). It was resolved with the loss of American lives.

And yet, you conservatives continue to call it a total Clinton failure.

Now, take Bosnia and raise the complexity, difficulty, and risk by an exponential factor. Why? Because (in addition to having an even more dynamic internal situation) every other country in the region and beyond wants a piece of Iraq’s oil.

So, if you thought Bosnia was a failure, you had to know that Iraq was like grabbing a tiger by the tail.

Here is another – every Iraqi citizen is (as required by Hussein himself) armed with at least an AK-47, and knows how to use it ( that’s

Here is another – in every war throughout human history, in the long run – the home team always wins. An invaded country does not have to win a single battle (and, in fact, can lose every military engagement) to win the war.

Quick, name three battles we won in the American revolution.

During the American Civil War, how many battles did the Army of the Potomac win in Virginia? (answer = 0). How many did the Army of Virginia win on northern soil? (answer = 0).

The same applies to Korea, Vietnam, and countless others.

There are only two uses of aggressive military action that have any chance of success:
1). Invade a country for the purpose of conquest and to make it your own, or
2). Invade to inflict punishment – and then get the he!! out.

What will always fail is everything in between. You cannot leave your military forces stuck on foreign soil occupying geography and defending itself like a lone homesteading family in the old west.

------------------------------------------------------
I passed on this earlier, but I can’t resist. This may be the most inaccurate and lame statement ever posted on Yahoo.
------------
“Second, it is only the responsibility of the people who take the action, not a 3rd party. Just because actions of the 3rd party made the civil war possible, by removing the tyranny that prevented such actions, does not make that person responsible for the actions.”
----------------------

Here is what it means:

1.Hussein is brutally restraining a killer.
2.We pull Hussein off the killer.
3.The killer kills us.
4.It is the killer’s fault. (yeah, I guess, since suicidal stupidity is a legal defense)

Or, how about:

1.A person hires an assassin.
2.The assassin kills the target.
3.The person who hired the assassin is innocent.

Or:

1.You free every murderer in a prison.
2.They commit thousands of murders.
3.Your defense is, “Hey, I didn’t kill anyone”.

Who is going to buy that line of crap? No one, and no one is buying yours.

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

Mizz Patriot & Gary G & Ropemancometh –

You guys have solid points. Thanks for answering.

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


Muse –
Really, a great answer. You sound exactly like my friend Eric (that’s not you, is it?).

I still lean towards the stupidity + buffoonery + arrogance explanation.

However, I could be wrong – Eric’s a really smart guy.

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

roadwarrior –

A really great answer also, except you sound as much like me as Muse does Eric.. You and Muse would probably be good friends if you knew each other.

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

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

Bert T –

Great job of combining both Muse and roadwarriors’ perspectives.

And, thank you for this,

“who had never even THREATENED to attack us”

I have always withheld using that line myself because I wanted to see if anyone in the world would point it out first. It follows right after the part about how … “Iraq was not a threat to America, or any nation”…

… and it is the final nail in the ‘preemptive’ argument.

His pathetic attempt to off GHW Bush is too lame even to be interpreted as some of ‘threat’, and besides, it cost him his remaining WMD manufacturing installations when Clinton responded by bombing the he!! out of them.

Answer 1

Yeah it seems to me if he was all about avoiding civil war in Iraq, he wouldn't have conned the American into invading a sovereign nation who had never even THREATENED to attack us, in the first place.

This was never about avoiding civil war in Iraq. Bush's ultimate plan is to completely rip that country apart, either in civil war or in killing as many as he can get away with, then plunder the oil.

This is supposedly the Neocons "Compassionate Conversatism", although, maybe I'm not too bright, how is killing innocent women and children considered "compassionate" by the morons who continue to regurgitate Bush's stupid little slogans about "cut and run" and "smoke him out of his cave" (oh wait thats AFGHANISTAN, where Bush's blow-buddy Osama is living)?

Answer 2

Nothing about the invasion of Iraq was ever logical to me. From the start Bush was told that a force of 300,000 troops would be needed to bring law and order to post-Saddam Iraq. He responded to this advise by firing the generals who advised him so. In there place, he assigned yes-men.
Colin Powell predicted the outcome of Bush's policies in Iraq. Powell soon resigned when he saw the direction Bush was headed.
It seems to me that Bush has methodically followed a plan of disaster in Iraq. Given the fact that he is not a stupid man, it seems clear he was set on destroying this country from the start.
His reasoning will never be clear. I can only say, this is the outcome of social conservative thinking. Forcing morality upon a population by either edict or the point of a gun is folly and will result in civil unrest.

Answer 3

Actually, if you wanted to work with the truth, there was no 100% probability of civil war in Iraq, so saying that "he was told" is a lot of BuShwa. With certainty, he heard a lot of opinions from a lot of experts who predicted differently, but I mightily doubt there was 100% consensus that civil war was 100% probable.

This is one fatal flaw in your "logic".

Second, it is only the responsibility of the people who take the action, not a 3rd party. Just because actions of the 3rd party made the civil war possible, by removing the tyranny that prevented such actions, does not make that person responsible for the actions.

This logic is similar to blaming the rape on the victim's sexy dress and level of inebriation.

Your "logic" does not pass muster, ergo your conclusion is faulty, as was your premise.

Answer 4

Lets face it no connection to 9/11 (the Iraq War) it was all about oil-Saddam did not tolerate Islamist style terrorism-he was a Hitler type-this was a War of choice to Bush-I think the average American beleives we should kick butt if someone is threatening us-but spending billions to set up a Government?

Answer 5

Bush's way promises only to delay the day of reckoning that is drawing near. His way will lead to an increase in American casualties and further strain our military. His way forces U.S. military commanders to carry out a policy they strongly advised against. His way ignores overwhelming public and congressional opposition to the war. His way is an escalation in the fighting that is unlikely to end the sectarian slaughter of innocents, force the Shiite majority to compromise with the Sunni minority, or achieve national reconciliation and political stability.

Answer 6

It's very simple...money. Everyone keeps screaming that Bush has no plan. He has a plan and it's been the same plan sine before 9/11. Start a war, and destroy as much infastructure as possible. His cronies at Haliburton make alot of money from the situation in it's quagmire state. The more messed up it is...the more money they make. The plan? Make as much money as possible and leave the mess for the next administration to clean up. He's right on target as usual.

Answer 7

I think that the logic of the matter is, the people of
Iraq have to stop being petty and stupid, they have
to realise that they can rebuild their country or be
bashed into a bloody pulp by each other in a civil
conflict, they need to choose, it has nothing to do
with who the soldiers are, or from where, the
people of Iraq are committing civil and criminal as
well as acts of war against each other.......................

Bush did not start a civil war the people of Iraq must
stop what they are doing and get off their butts now
and rebuild instead of acting up..................................

Do the people of Iraq not know that they themselves are
to blame for everything that goes down there, a lot of
innocent people from other countries who are trying
to help are being killed by their lack of interest in getting
their country going...........................................................

Saddam is gone.....It is time to stop blaming Bush for
everything and move on..................................................

Answer 8

Bush was hell bent on going into Iraq. So instead of keeping the fight and focus on the real threat, Bin Ladin, he cuts-n-runs in Afghan to invade a country under, what turns out to be, incorrect information. The honorable thing for Bush to do is admit he was wrong, the invasion was wrong, and get the focus back on Bin Ladin.

Answer 9

bush should call gen. Powell back as v.p., bush is fighting global war on terror, not just in Iraq.

Answer 10

How is that not logical?
They have to do something to keep the war on terror going dont they?