"While we hoped that popular revolt would topple Saddam, we did not wish to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. Extending the war into Iraq would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."



--From "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time Magazine (2 March 1998):

There was an interesting doccumentary on PBS a week or so ago called the "Long Road to War". It outlines the conflict with Iraq from the war with to Iran to present. There was lots of interesting footage of Iraqi Commanders playing games with weapons inspectors at the front gate while trucks are driving out the back gate of suspected chemical weapons facilities. It shows footage of how Saddam deals with his own people. There is one particularly interesting section where an Iraqi helicopter is wasting Kurds while they were trying to flee into Turkey. It also showed some of Saddams goons beating prisioners. One of the interogators pulled and cocked a pistol then put it to a prisioners head. Interestingly enough the scene changed as soon as the pistol reached the prisoners head. Wonder what the rest of that scene would have been.

I have supported the Presidents actions concerning Iraq from the begining. After watching this doccumentary I felt much stronger about President Bush's course of action.

Check it out it is a very powerful piece of information.

Vic,

I caught part of it last Thursday night. Very informative to say the least. I wonder why Paul Wolfowitz' name doesn't come up more. After all the Deputy Secretary of Defense is a well-known "hawk". According to the same documentary, he, Donald Rumsfeld, and others, dissatisfied with the outcome of the first gulf war, have been working behind the scenes since 1991, even pressuring the Clinton administration, to bring this war to fruition.

I'm not sure who produced that documentary, but it sure does shed a "whole new light" so to speak, on exactly how and why we've reached this point. I hope they re-broadcast it soon, so I can catch all of the parts that I missed.

Surecatch

I suppose that Peter Arnet was also telling the truth too in his LAST Iraq TV interview!

--From "Why did I say what I did in that stupid 15 minute Interview on Iraq TV ??

... by Peter Arnet [has been] and now x reporter for NBC News (30 March 2003):

Sorry 4Salt, I just couldn't help myself!

Cowlitzfisherman

It's all right by me Cowlitz!

The Peter Arnett situation, and the book that George Bush Sr. co-wrote are after all, inexorably linked.

I'm not sure why Surecatch didn't realize it?

Edit: Oops, there's that pesky sarcasm again.

Cowlitzfisherman;

I don't understand your point? What does a quote by a past president have to do with Peter Arnett? Do you think they are both liars?

'The long road to war' is another outstanding Frontline documentary...

...it sounds like either some people that watched the episode may have only seen part of it or have selective perception.

It detailed in one place the many horrors of the Hussein regime, no question.

It also detailed in one place the scary new direction of American foreign policy, the backgrounds of those in the Bush administration that are 'hawkish' and examines in some detail what their motivations are, as written by themselves.

This was easily the most unbiased and fair representation of the current situation with Iraq I have seen to date, as are most Frontline news programs. If you want to feel like you have a good grasp on both sides of this touchy issue, you couldn't do any better than to watch this show.

Shlhdh2o

They explianed in detail why those in the Bush administration drafted the "scary new direction of foreign policy". The part you may have missed was the part where they explained why the old policy of containment wouldn't work with Saddam. Perhaps you missed that part or you had your selective perception on.

Hey, stlhdh2o

As an American, Just what's so "scary" about America's new direction and our long over due foreign policy? What is it that you fear about it so much? Don't want to fight with you agian, but what are your fears?

Cowlitzfisherman

I think I can do that without addressing the politics of the war directly...I'll have to dedicate an appropriate amount of time to answer it as best I can.

Vic -

First...Your typo comes dangerously close the most hilarious (and some would say accurate) possible misspelling of my moniker.

I've watched the whole show twice now and will probably watch it again if I see it. Its just that good...my point though, as vague as it was, was that if you watched the whole show and it solidified your position, you probably weren't actually listening to the positions taken by the people with whom you disagree.

More for CF in a later post....

The point made by stlhdh2o was very telling. All of us see our world thruogh our biases. If we are against the war, we see the logic of our position in almost everything we see and hear. If we are for the war, we find reinforcment everywhere we look. That 's just human nature. The best we can hope for is that some of us try to see the others point of view some of the time. I think that's not happening often enough.

stlhdh2o

Since you are going to take some time to reply to my questions, can you please do a couple of more things that will help us understand you.

1) Will you please define to us what you believe the term 'hawkish' means?

2) What is your terminology for the opposite point of view of 'hawkish' is, and will you please define whatever that name applys to or means?

Surecatch:

Your last post does make some sence!


Thanks,

Cowlitzfisherman

Stlhdh2o

Sorry for the misspelling of your moniker. I wasn't trying to imply anything.

I am looking forward to seeing it again too. There was alot of information and I am sure that I missed something important. However I doubt I will change my view.

Surecatch,

How about a current statement from our former President G. Bush Sr. atleast for posterity sake? That was a great one though and absolutely correct.

Do we not now see that our leaders, particularly the President of the United States is more informed than any of us and makes his decisions carefully according to all the information gathered from the best sources? He isn't proud to see our Americans die that is rediculous?! War is not wanted by any of our leaders. Maybe in time we will see the value and truth of why we are in Iraq again and now...?

Does any one here believe it would have been better to leave Germany and the Reich alone in the 30's & 40's IF they would have not threatened any of our business? We did go into that war primarly on the German front because we felt threatened EVEN though we were not the direct target of them at the time. Matter of fact, they would have preferred that we would have just stayed out of it. We striked more or less -Premetitively against Germany. Alone on a humantartian principle it was worth going in to save the suffering people in the concentration camps like Aschwitz. Surecatch's last statements were good.
Remember, atleast we can re-elect our government if we aren't happy. That also means our governments "intentions" or "master plans" as some believe in conspiracy theories, are unfounded and will die sooner or later due to our democratic form of government. Some people in the world don't have that priviledge and right.
Shalom, D. Abraham

CF -

This is going nowhere fast.

Check your email...

Cowlitzfisherman -

I think I can help you out with the term "hawkish".

This refers to someone who was born and raised in the NW, transplanted to the MW, proclaims to never fish for "rough fish" while fishing for spiny rays every day of the week.

Seriously CFM, how could you watch that documentary and not understand what the term "hawkish" means. I looked it up in the dictionary today and yes, there was actually a picture of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld there.

For the opposite of "hawkish" see Colin Powell. Although I think the doc portrayed him as a wuss in regards to foreign policy, I am damn glad he is part of W's cabinet.

If anybody missed it you had better catch it the next time around or else purchase it...it's so informative it's almost like reading...

Ike

After spending more than 22 years as a military pilot and officer, I feel qualified ot offer to offer the following question:
Isn't this a fishing site?

CT....Fishin is slow right now..Can't you tell that this is a bash America, bash the military, bash George Bush website? Oh and don't forget anti-religion too.

I'm with you CT let's go fishing and leave the thinkin to them smart fellas

Another good source of general history of the situation is the book "Arming Iraq" by mark Phythian. it is at most book stores. It goes into the whole process of the arming of Iraq and every countries role. It was written before 9/11 but goes way in-depth into the contracts and reasons for so many countries sending arms to this country. in 1987 they were the largest importer of arms in the world. it is not unreasonably biased in one way or another but would be very informative for anyone and everyone to read. the propagand fly's thick on both sides of the fence on this one.

ps. I wanna see geraldo rivera and olie north have a "duel in the desert" ...that would be great watching...and ratings...they should each be able to use guns