An Epiphany That Just Couldn't Wait

[Michael]

In 1956, we knew that The Soviet Union possessed weapons of mass destruction. We knew that these weapons could be used against the United States if the USSR wanted to use them.

In 1956, during a speech by then British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan to The United Nations, Nikita Khrushchev, then the leader of The Soviet Union, removed his shoe and began banging it on the desk in front of him. He then turned to the American delegation to the UN and shouted, “We will bury you.”

It is no secret that citizens of the USSR were tortured by their own government.

It is also no secret that Russia, the center of what Russia called The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, invaded a nation which considered itself sovereign. Moscow sent tanks into the streets of Czechoslovakia in 1954 because Czechoslovakia wished to think itself sovereign.

This all happened between 1917 and 1991.

Yet, we never carpet bombed the USSR. Why was this?

The reason we never engaged in military combat against the USSR was because they had weapons of mass destruction and because we knew that they could be used against us.

Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan never launched an attack against The Soviet Union.

Were we just fortunate that George W. Bush wasn’t president during the days of the Soviet Union? After all, let’s examine some of his “reasons” for attacking Iraq.

His first reason was that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. He said, in conjunction with Tony Blair, that Iraq could launch these weapons in 45 minutes.

Bush also said that, with the use of drones, Iraq could deliver these weapons to the United States.

As stated, we knew that the USSR had weapons of mass destruction and could deliver them to the US. We were also verbally threatened by the leader of the USSR.

We could stop right there and say that, if George W. Bush really believed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that could be delivered to the US, he was willing to chance what the seven presidents mentioned above weren’t willing to chance. We had WMD and the USSR had WMD and every one of the presidents mentioned above did everything to avoid conflict with the USSR. Would Bush have caused mass death and destruction if he was president during the height of the USSR? If we look at his original reasoning for invading Iraq, the answer has to be an unqualified yes.

Of course, Bush has used other reasons for attacking Iraq.

Another reason was because Iraq had used force against its neighbors. The USSR used force to crush Czechoslovakia’s attempt at sovereignty. Is it safe to assume that, if George W. Bush had been president, this would have been enough to strike The Soviet Union? Would Bush have used the invasion of Czechoslovakia to create what may have amounted to global Armageddon? Since he speaks so often of Iraq’s activities against its neighbors, it’s quite possible that our world would look a lot different today if Bush had been president during the invasion of Czechoslovakia.

Let’s look at another of Bush’s “reasons” for invading Iraq.

Bush has said that, even though weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq, the invasion and subsequent carnage has been worth it because we are “bringing democracy” to Iraq.

We first forced a dictatorial government from power.

Now we’re overseeing “democratic elections”.

Would Bush have invaded the Soviet Union for the purpose of freeing its citizens from that nation’s dictatorial government? Would he have invaded the USSR to “bring democracy” to its land? Judging from his “reasoning” for invading Iraq, he would certainly have done that. If the Soviet government threatened to stop him, he may have said something akin to, “Bring ‘em on.”

George W. Bush would have done what seven presidents who preceded his father never even considered doing – or would he have?

My answer is no, he would never have used the same excuses to invade The Soviet Union, a nation known to possess weapons of mass destruction, torture its own citizens, invade its neighbors and, in fact, blatantly threatened The United States of America, that he used to invade Iraq.

Seven presidents knew that, if they invaded the USSR, the imminent peril would be unthinkable.

Bush is an irresponsible president, maybe the worse in our history, and telling the truth isn’t one of his strong points. However, just as the seven presidents mentioned didn’t invade the USSR because they possessed weapons of mass destruction, Bush would not have invaded Iraq if he really believed it possessed weapons of mass destruction.

If he did believe that Iraq possessed WMD that could be used against The United States and still invaded that nation, then we should assume that he would have invaded the USSR for the same reason and/or the other reasons mentioned. If this is the case, is he really fit to be president?

I see two choices here.

First, he would not have invaded the USSR and, consequently, wouldn’t have invaded Iraq if it possessed WMD.

In fact, he wouldn’t have invaded the USSR for any of the reasons he’s given for the Iraq invasion.

Consequently, he’s obviously lied when he’s presented any of his “reasons” for the March, 2003 invasion.

The other choice is that, since he invaded Iraq because it possessed weapons of mass destruction and was a “gathering threat” to the US, he would have invaded the Soviet Union because it had weapons of mass destruction and was a blatant threat to the US.

Either way, the answer is no, George W. Bush is not fit to be president.

[knip]

the flaw is the relative threat presented by iraq's (supposed) wmd to that held by the USSR wasn't discussed...you will have to explain why this isn't a factor before i can buy (or begin to buy) your argument

but an interesting read nonetheless...thanks

[Michael]

First, before I answer your question, I showed this to someone and was told that the USSR was much larger than Iraq. Of course if a nation has several weapons of mass destruction, it really doesn’t matter the size.

Besides, Bush never said, “We’re going to attack Iraq because they have WMD and they’re small enough for us to beat up on.” He would have looked even more the fool than he already looks if he said that.

Just thought I’d share that with you. I figured that would be one of the arguments that I would get. Notice that we’re not carpet bombing North Korea and it’s really not a behemoth amongst nations.

His first reason was that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. He said, in conjunction with Tony Blair, that Iraq could launch these weapons in 45 minutes.

Bush also said that, with the use of drones, Iraq could deliver these weapons to the United States.

As stated, we knew that the USSR had weapons of mass destruction and could deliver them to the US. We were also verbally threatened by the leader of the USSR.

We could stop right there and say that, if George W. Bush really believed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that could be delivered to the US, he was willing to chance what the seven presidents mentioned above weren’t willing to chance. We had WMD and the USSR had WMD and every one of the presidents mentioned above did everything to avoid conflict with the USSR. Would Bush have caused mass death and destruction if he was president during the height of the USSR? If we look at his original reasoning for invading Iraq, the answer has to be an unqualified yes.

Bush is accused of calling Iraq an “imminent” threat. He denies ever using the word “imminent”. Someone in his administration did and I bet if we looked long and hard enough, we could probably find Dubya using it.

However, Bush did admit to calling Iraq a “gathering” threat.

Now, according to Bush and Condi Rice, we needed to attack Iraq because we didn’t want the proof of its having WMD to “come in the form of a mushroom cloud”.

If you notice in the quote above, Tony Blair said Iraq was capable of launching its WMD within 45 minutes and Bush said those very same WMD could be delivered to the US by unmanned aircraft.

Now, Iraq was merely a “gathering” threat, according to our beloved president.

Khrushchev, on the other hand, said that he was going to “bury” us. Them’s fightin’ words. I mean, there was no “gathering” there.

My point is the USSR did everything that Bush has accused Iraq of doing and, for those activities, Bush found it necessary to preemptively attack Iraq. And Hussein never even threatened to bury us.

I don’t believe that Bush would have attacked the USSR, although he and his neocon friends may be capable of just about anything. They’re looking at Armageddon in the near future anyway and they know they’ll be “sitting at the right hand of god” and we won’t, so what should they care?

I don’t believe that Bush attacked Iraq because it possessed WMD.

I don’t believe that Bush attacked Iraq because it was a threat to its neighbors. In fact, I don’t believe that Daddy gave a damn about the Kuwaitis. The Kuwaiti government vacationed in France during that “war” and their military, such as it is, didn’t help a bit. And the citizens still hate us. We’re infidels and we’re controlling their natural resources.

I don’t believe that Bush attacked Iraq to topple a tyrannical dictatorial government and “bring democracy” to the people. There are plenty of tyrannical dictatorial governments that should have been attacked before Iraq.

Bush attacked Iraq because they weren’t playing nicely with us and allowing us to control their oil like so many of the other Middle Eastern nations are.

If, however, there is even the slightest chance that I’m wrong and Bush really believed that Iraq had WMD and didn’t know if the WMD could cause a “mushroom cloud” over the US, he did what seven presidents wisely avoided. He attacked a nation that could have retaliated by killing a massive quantity of our citizens, just as the USSR could have done. Those seven presidents did everything they could to use diplomacy with the USSR. Smart move.

Of course, we know that Bush lied and over 1,300 military personnel have died because of his lie.

By some estimates, 100,000 Iraqis have died as well. The smallest estimate that I’ve heard is 20,000 and, of course, to support a lie, that’s far too many.

Yet, if we’re to believe the voting results from November, over 50% of Americans say that he can keep us safe.

If anyone of those presidents tried to preemptively strike the USSR, do we think that the voters would be saying that whichever president it was was doing his best to keep us safe?

I guess the epiphany was that this is yet more logic to prove that Bush has the American public hoodwinked and that they really believe that, as Bush said, even though its now official, there were no WMD, the carnage is still “worth it”.

Not only should people see this, but they should be calling for his, and Cheney’s, impeachment. He’s murdered over 1,300 Americans. When he was governor of Texas, he didn’t seem to have any trouble upholding the death penalty for someone who was accused of killing just one American.

He lied to bring us to war against Iraq, he and his cabal is getting ready to lie to bring us to war against Iran, another Middle Eastern nation who won’t play nicely with us, and then they have their sites set on Syria.

We’ve never preemptively attacked a nation because it was an imminent, gathering or even a real threat to the US. The USSR met Bush’s criteria and more. Yet, ole “bring ‘em on” Bush is having a grand ole time at the expense of those he’s murdering.

How many people does Bush and his cabal have to murder before Americans see it for what it is, murder?