Some Reality: The Origins of the Iraq War

Just wanted to add one thing to your post SteelCore...

Original
The majority of Americans fell for it like sheeple because they think the US government actually tells them the truth.
Click to expand...

Edit to change/add:

The rest of the Americans believe that there is always some type of conspiracy trying to get all the oil from the Saudi's and Iraqi's and that George Bush is some genius who duped us into a disaster over in Iraq. Those same Americans fell for it like sheeple because they think the MEDIA actually REPORTS the truth 100% of the time.
Click to expand...


I mean c'mon, have you heard GW speak? I highly doubt he is even able to tie his shoes in the morning, let alone dupe a country into going to war with false intentions.
 
I must say that I laughed my butt off at the specter of those "mobile biological weapons labs" running all over Iraq camouflaged as bread trucks or whatever. Does anyone know who at the CIA or White House was the first to pull this one out of thin air?
 
I mean c'mon, have you heard GW speak? I highly doubt he is even able to tie his shoes in the morning, let alone dupe a country into going to war with false intentions.
Click to expand...
I agree that Bush is stupid (at least much stupider than a president should be), but he's still smarter than the average person. Sad, but true. And even many otherwise intelligent people are very gullible and trusting of their government, which takes full advantage of that gullibility.

Also, the plan wasn't really concocted by Bush; he seems to have been more of a spokesman or figurehead. The real architects of the Iraq war were operating in an advisory capacity.

Here's a story in an Israeli newspaper (Haaretz) that discusses the role of those advisors:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/...&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

A few of the same neocons mentioned in that story are now on Giuliani's foreign policy advisory committee (one is Norman Podhoretz). (I'm not sure about the other presidential candidates.) Other neocons were heavily involved in promoting a US attack on Iran -- at least until the NIE was released.

Another good article that gives the big picture about Iraq:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html

People who really want to understand how the US was duped into invading Iraq would do well to read everything at the above links.
 
thallub said:
I must say that I laughed my butt off at the specter of those "mobile biological weapons labs" running all over Iraq camouflaged as bread trucks or whatever.
Click to expand...
I laughed, too. I was like, "Is this the best they can do?"

If they had had REAL evidence of WMD programs, then there would have been no need to keep coming up with such BS. But those in the US government knew that all they had to do was point to a satellite pic of a random building or trailer and say, "That's a weapons lab!" and enough Americans would take them at their word. :barf:

Does anyone know who at the CIA or White House was the first to pull this one out of thin air?
Click to expand...
Probably Douglas Feith or someone else in the "Office of Special Plans" (see links above).
 
Thallub,
I guess it is plausible. From my understanding (I am a homebrewer as well), all you need is basically the stuff to make beer and you can build biological weapons. I've never attempted to brew a strain of anthrax, but I think I'll stick to Porters and Stouts.

The whole thing is that yes- Saddam had them or at least had the knowlege and equipment to make them. So what? We likely gave the stuff to him in the early 1980's. He refrained from using them because of a good threat made in 1991 to blow the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers that would wipe out most of Iraq if he ever used them against us.

Regardless of the reasons for going in, the failure of the Bush team to prioritize and execute has made it the fiasco it is today. This war isn't failing due to poor soldiering and military leadership. It is failing due to poor civilian leadership. Even the perception of failure is due to civilian leadership. Actually, from what I understand, the war lately has been a smash-bang success.

I look at it like the war on (some) drugs and the war on poverty. You can pick what measure you want and use that measure and show success, but we are no closer to getting out of there than we were in 2004. Just as we are no closer to declaring the "war on drugs" won, or the war on poverty won, we will hear all sorts of benchmarks for each and how well it is going. Less soldiers are dying, but just as many marriages are breaking up, just as many Jr. NCO's and Officers are leaving because of prolonged deployments, the National Guard is begging for recruits and the treasury is being drained. I'm not asking for a withdrawal date. I know that one will never come. We are now in possession of Iraq and will be forever whether we like it or not. That is- unless we get somebody like Nixon or Ford to withdraw us. I don't see that happening.
 
What a dummy. Now groups who would attack the US have to worry that we might over-react, rather than "reacting" like Clinton did to WTC1, Somalia, USS Cole.

The Dhimmicrats dream that there is a better solution, but what specifically can they deliver?
 
As for legal, the only legal you really can count on is what will be enforced. Congress authorized this war up to a point. We have far exceeded the point that was authorized. Beyond that, Congress doesn't have the guts to ask for withdrawal of troops (having accomplished the stated objectives of the original authorization), and Bush doesn't have the guts to ask for a further authorization, so now the President fights every 6 months for more money, Congress blathers on about withdrawal dates, and the soldier is stuck in the middle.
Click to expand...
Let's see, it's gone beyond what was authorized, whatever the hell that means, but they keep sending the checks. OOOooK.

This war isn't failing due to poor soldiering and military leadership. It is failing due to poor civilian leadership. Even the perception of failure is due to civilian leadership. Actually, from what I understand, the war lately has been a smash-bang success.
Click to expand...
No contradiction there either.:confused:
 
This is my favorite WMD tale:

""We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.""

- Donald Rumsfeld, March 30 2003.
 
Grand Illusion wroteYou know ... I wish I could go back in time and tell a few people how this war would turn out. Don't know if I could change their minds or not, but I'd at least like to go back in time and tell MYSELF how this war would turn out so I wouldn't have been a supporter of it. Hindsight is 20/20, but it makes me feel sick when I remember how I bought into the whole idea that this would be a quick and easy war resulting in a bright and shiny democratic Iraq that would stand as a bastion for freedom and against terrorism in the Mideast.
Click to expand...
I wish you could do so as well, fortunately I knew what would happen, and sadly exactly that happened. Almost by the numbers.

But ...

An "illegal war." That's an oxymoron. War's are neither legal nor illegal. I mean, who would decide upon legality? The UN? Some UN appointed court with a Syrian judge?
Click to expand...
The invasion and attempted occupation of Iraq violated US and International law. The regime should be charged in America, tried in America, and sentenced in America. Although a death sentence would be appropriate, life without parole would be more satisfying. Of course, we'd have to listen to Charles Krauthammer and William Kristol constantly whine about a pardon, but that's a price I'm quite willing to pay.

I guess the congress could keep us from going to war, but they didn't. So there's no legal problem within the US either. If Cheny or Bush lied to an extent that they are prosecuted within the US (won't happen) then that would make their statements illegal, but wouldn't affect the status of the war.
Click to expand...
Actually, congressional abetting of the War on Iraq does not make it lawful. The president knew or should have known that the invasion was unlawful without regard to any greasing of the skids by congress. Bush gave the orders to invade; game, set, and match.

A country makes war to expand it's power, protect it's power, protect it's interest, or (if attacked) defend it's people. Although WMD's turned out to be a straw man, either intentionally or unintenntionally, this war still met ALL of those objectives.
Click to expand...
The first three aren't legitimate at all, and defending America did not and is not happening.

1. We need to stabilize the region to protect ourselves (alright ... the war totally failed at that objective, at leat to this point. But just because you start a war to accomplish something doesn't mean you'll succeed).
Click to expand...
There's no money to do that, the US government is broke.

2. Oil from the mideast, though most of it goes to Europe, is critical for the world economy and our economy and the health of the world overall. I know it's unsavory to "go to war for oil," but if the taps get shut off and unemployment hits 15% and gas is $6 a gallon and you're about to lose your home in the collapsing US economy ... that is a human toll. Financial stability on that scale IS worth fighting for, especially when those who would turn the taps off would do so for no other reason than to do us damage (an economic attack is an attack just as much as a military invasion).
Click to expand...
America needs absolutely no oil from the mideast, none, de nada. While we get 7-8% of our petroleum from the mideast, that isn't required to be the source for that.

3. The Iraq war has turned Al Qaeda's attention to Iraq, leaving us untouched (thus far) in our country.
Click to expand...
There's absolutely no proof of any kind to support that assertion.

Don't get me wrong ... I wish we'd never started this debacle and it may break us financially AND militarily (though only time will tell -- history books may speak of this as the best decision every made, and honor Bush for having the courage to stand up against popular opinion and do the right thing for our nation and our posterity).
Click to expand...
Bush will go down in America history as having the worse foreign policies of all time.

He's a disgraced president, the lamest of lame ducks. His recent trip to the mideast illustrated that handily.

jaserST4Typical, an opinion piece written by a disgruntled retired desk jocky. Let us know when you come across something that resembles evidence.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, a retired lieutenant colonel, intelligence analyst, worked IN the Office of Special Plans, and earned a PhD. within a year of retirement. Hardly as described.

She's been consistently accurate and on point.

Oh, if she's a desk jockey, then everyone in the Pentagon is a desk jockey.
 
Oh Common! They Did have them and Used them on the Kurds!:eek:

I'd be willing to bet he had more then that and they are stashed in another country!
 
Hey Pat ...

Please cite specific US law that has been broken. The congress approved military action, and I can think of no other law that would have jurisdiction. The constitutional requirements, as has been said, have been and continue to be met everytime congress approves more money.

As to international law ... you have to give the UN legal power over the sovereignity of the US to accept that they have jurisdiction. Even if you're a pro-UN, pro-world government kind of guy this jurisdiction just doesn't currently exist. The UN can't prosecute our national leaders unless we let them. And we won't.

Wars are fought when laws fail. Not within laws.

I also stand by all of my points. While the US brings very little oil in from the Mideast, it's one big world economy. It's not like Europe is just going to say ... "oil shut off from the Mideast? Oh, well. I guess we don't get any then. Let's revert to a subsistence farming economy."

At that point they are now bidding on our sources of oil. Since there aren't any sources than can replace the middle east, price and availability will skyrocket. And the economy will shatter. Period.

Bush will go down in America history as having the worse foreign policies of all time.

He's a disgraced president, the lamest of lame ducks. His recent trip to the mideast illustrated that handily.
Click to expand...

You may be right, but only history can decide that. Not a prolific internet poster (either of us) and not even the talking head pundits on cable news shows.

Victory in Iraq and even achieving the real goals set, creating a democratic anchor for the Middle East, are not yet impossible. The democrats would love to make them impossible as they see a lot of political capital to be gained by an absolute American retreat and failure, but hopefully they won't be able to.

If a fairly resounding success is the result ... Bush will be well remembered in History. A visionary who had the courage to stand up and face the realities of the world while all those around him wailed and wept because we were engaged in about the least bloodiest conflict in history.

Time will tell. And not a year or two. Let's resume this thread in January of 2028. Set an appointment in your Outlook calendar.
 
I'm old enough to remember that they said worse about Reagan.
Click to expand...

Me too!

I was going to college when Reagan was elected, and the liberals just went nuts! Everyone talked about how stupid he was, how he had no concept on how to deal with the enemy du jour (the soviets) and how getting into an arms race was totally the opposite of what we needed to do (more Carter style Detente). They also talked about his ridiculous inflammatory speech, calling the Soviet Union the "Evil Empire."

BTW -- Although rather liberal back then, I actually voted for Reagan as a lesser of two evils. But let's not get THAT conversation started in this thread.

Anyway ... does the above sound like anyone you know? The enemy du jour is now radical Islam, and his outlandish policy is to attack Iraq, and his phrase is the "axis of evil."

History looks back favorably on Reagan, though none of us thought it would at the time.

History will Judge George W.
 
The invasion and attempted occupation of Iraq violated US and International law. The regime should be charged in America, tried in America, and sentenced in America. Although a death sentence would be appropriate, life without parole would be more satisfying. Of course, we'd have to listen to Charles Krauthammer and William Kristol constantly whine about a pardon, but that's a price I'm quite willing to pay.

Actually, congressional abetting of the War on Iraq does not make it lawful. The president knew or should have known that the invasion was unlawful without regard to any greasing of the skids by congress. Bush gave the orders to invade; game, set, and match.
Click to expand...


Please show us the part of the constitution that says the US can only wage preemptive war. Please show us the part of the constitution that says that all wars waged by the US must be completely altruistic.

Better yet just show us the part of the constitution which was violated.
 
Here's why the war was both unconstitutional and otherwise illegal:

http://www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org/laws_and_treatıes_violated_by_pr.htm

Most important, it was immoral because it was unnecessary. Iraq was no threat to the US, and that was obvious to anyone who paid attention and didn't simply take Bush at his (worthless) word. Also, many predicted the guerrilla war that ensued after the occupation began.

Basically, the neocons have been proven wrong on just about everything, yet they wish for all their mistakes and lies to go down the Memory Hole.
 
Iraq was no threat to America?


Given time they could have been a threat to the world!

He Hussein, was just a junior Hitler!

He and his brother killed anyone, anything, anyway they could to suppress rebellion. There power was growing. They killed how many Kurds for trying to live a life of semi peace? Iran as nutty as the leadership was engaged in a war with them because of it!

They was in the process of expansionism when they went into Kuwait!

Oil or not the man had to be stopped!


I do agree ! It should not have happened the way it did. I don't think America should be world police. We should only declare war when attacked. But yet we was attacted. And it looked like it came from there, Saidi, or Packistan. We should have declared WAR on some one.
 
Here's why the war was both unconstitutional and otherwise illegal
Click to expand...

I noticed that this little treatise failed to mention anything about the original ceasefire agreement which ended the hostilities of the first gulf war.

My guess is that the reason it wasn't included is because it completely undercuts their entire argument.
 
The UN ran a program that destroyed the vast majority of Iraqi chemical weapons after the first Gulf War. Many of my retired EOD friends worked in Iraq destroying the stuff for the UN. The Iraqis were able to hide a small quantity that was later destroyed on the order of Hussein Kamel.
Click to expand...
I wonder if that's one of the reasons they thought he might have WMD?
 
I noticed that this little treatise failed to mention anything about the original ceasefire agreement which ended the hostilities of the first gulf war.
Click to expand...
No, in fact that ceasefire bolsters their argument because it's between the UN and Iraq, not between Iraq and the US government.

Bush's attempt to use the ceasefire as a casus belli was not based on the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top