Colin Powell's New Book: Iraq War Never Debated

Broadsword2004 · 05-11-2012, 22:51

LINK

So I don't really have an opinion on this as I don't know enough about the subject, but if President Bush said he was a dissenting voice in his "Decision Points" and Powell says there was no debate, then the truth is getting twisted somewhere in this. Was wondering other's thoughts though? Is this sour grapes on Powell's part? Neither he nor Bush strike me as men who would twist the truth.

Sigaba · 05-11-2012, 23:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

LINK

So I don't really have an opinion on this as I don't know enough about the subject, but if President Bush said he was a dissenting voice in his "Decision Points" and Powell says there was no debate, then the truth is getting twisted somewhere in this. Was wondering other's thoughts though? Is this sour grapes on Powell's part? Neither he nor Bush strike me as men who would twist the truth.

BS2004--

It may not be an issue of 'twisting the truth' but rather different individuals having different perceptions of what constitutes "serious debate" and differing visions of an appropriate process in place to manage that debate.

It will be interesting to see if GEN Powell's experiences in Bush the Elder's administration (which had a profoundly positive reputation for handling internal debate) informed his expectations of how a discussion should be run in Bush the Younger's White House.

Geenie · 05-12-2012, 02:37

Is it wrong for me to get mad reading this?

You can say that the world is a better place without Saddam all day long, but, in the end, a war was started and fought for reasons that never existed, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.
It's cynical and jaded to say this, but it seems that it would have taken Saddam quite a bit of time to do that kind of damage on his own, and our men and women would most likely still be alive. Was it worth it? I guess that remains to be seen. But Iraq's future isn't looking too good at the moment.

Am I missing something?

**The Reaper** · 05-12-2012, 11:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geenie

Is it wrong for me to get mad reading this?

You can say that the world is a better place without Saddam all day long, but, in the end, a war was started and fought for reasons that never existed, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.
It's cynical and jaded to say this, but it seems that it would have taken Saddam quite a bit of time to do that kind of damage on his own, and our men and women would most likely still be alive. Was it worth it? I guess that remains to be seen. But Iraq's future isn't looking too good at the moment.

Am I missing something?

If I were an Iraqi citizen under Saddam, and had a choice between living that way, or taking a 1:100 chance of being killed during the liberation and aftermath, I would have taken it.

FWIW, Saddam wanted everyone to think that he had weapons, whether he did or not, and sent signatures that he did. He had used them against the Iranians and Kurds in Iraq.

Saddam consistently defied UN resolutions and his own treaties, doing as he pleased. He imprisoned, tortured, and killed hundreds of thousands of his citizens. There is no indication that he planned to abdicate and hold free and democratic elections anytime soon.

We destroyed a LOT of chemical WMDs in the first Gulf War. There was no reason to believe that we had gotten all of them. I personally believe that he had a chem and bio capability that he hid and we never found. We did find the drums of yellowcake uranium that he had acquired, evidence that he had the basis for a nuclear weapons program.

Iraq's future looks a lot brighter to me than it did in 2001.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

cjwils3 · 05-12-2012, 13:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geenie

Is it wrong for me to get mad reading this?

You can say that the world is a better place without Saddam all day long, but, in the end, a war was started and fought for reasons that never existed, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.
It's cynical and jaded to say this, but it seems that it would have taken Saddam quite a bit of time to do that kind of damage on his own, and our men and women would most likely still be alive. Was it worth it? I guess that remains to be seen. But Iraq's future isn't looking too good at the moment.

Am I missing something?

After reading extensively on the countless atrocities and human rights violations that were committed by members of Saddam Hussein's regime (especially his two depraved sons), there is no doubt in my mind that Iraq as we see it now is a far safer country than before the invasion. Iraqi citizens from all walks of life were constantly oppressed and often lived in fear of being arrested and executed (often gruesomely) for "dissent". Had he possessed the same resources, Hussein could very well have carried out as much genocide as Hitler or Stalin.

Could certain things have been handled better by some in the Bush administration and our government in general? I'm sure they could have. But the Iraqi people were rid of a brutal and oppressive regime, and hopefully Iraq can be a useful and trusted ally of the United States for years to come.

Dozer523 · 05-14-2012, 11:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geenie

Is it wrong for me to get mad reading this? . . .

Yeah, you're right to feel that way. I do, too. The ends don't justify the means in our society. In this case I doubt the ends justified anything. This was often called a war of convenience. I'm of the group that thinks war should be of necessity and a last resort. But, they made read St Thomas Aquinas.

As for everything after going in?
Well that was pure. Once "we're in" we were "IN". We did the best we could, and that was pretty darn good by a lot of people as TR points out. Of course once we are "out" it moves back to the political side and they got us into this mess. .02

BOfH · 05-14-2012, 21:51

MOO: There are other regimes that continue to defy the US in the same manner and commit similar human rights violations and atrocities as well, North Korea and Iran come to mind. Why Iraq?

Tree Potato · 05-15-2012, 00:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by BOfH

MOO: There are other regimes that continue to defy the US in the same manner and commit similar human rights violations and atrocities as well, North Korea and Iran come to mind. Why Iraq?

From the zoomie perspective we were still actively engaged in NFZ enforcement, routinely getting shot at and shooting back with our "response options" for ONW/OSW NFZ violations. There was a quiet air war with a lot of oversight and ops restrictions being waged since 1991 which may have made Iraq appear a slightly more dangerous beast. It was certainly manageable, but every day we wondered if they'd get lucky with a magic bb.

Scimitar · 05-15-2012, 01:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by BOfH

MOO: There are other regimes that continue to defy the US in the same manner and commit similar human rights violations and atrocities as well, North Korea and Iran come to mind. Why Iraq?

I'm not sure it was a "let's go to war, now who are we going to choose" situation, but you never know.

I am guessing that at the time we thought there was going to be alot more support from the populous then you'd find in am occupation of Iran or NK.

S