19
   

The Circus in Chicago

 
 
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2016 03:51 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:

09/14/2003, Dick Cheney, Vice President
“If we’re successful in Iraq … we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.“

09/17/2003, George W. Bush, President
Q: Mr. President, Dr. Rice and Secretary Rumsfeld both said yesterday that they have seen no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with September 11th. THE PRESIDENT: “We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th.”


Quote Oralloy:
Quote:
So what? If I dug a bit, I could give you a link that reliably shows that the invasion of Iraq was planned within a couple weeks of 9/11.


The fact that the Bush Administration were wrong on the main reason that they justified an invasion which killed 3,500 Americans and maimed almost 10 times more is just a big "So What"? Egad.

Quote Oralloy:
Quote:
It doesn't change the fact that Iraq did have nerve gas shells hidden in the desert, and it doesn't change the fact that the mistaken claims that Iraq was still trying to develop nuclear weapons were made in good faith.


The nerve gas shells were from over 10 years previous, well past the expiration date when they could be effective. Oddly, the supposedly mainstream media that conservatives constantly accuse of being leftist never really emphasized that. Also, while Hans Blix and his crew were indeed interfered with by Saddam during the first round of inspections, they were not interfered with during the second round. In fact, our invasion occurred right during the midle of the second round of inspections when all the weapons we suspected Saddam was hiding were being accounted for. Bush told the inspectors who were on the ground at the time, finding out that the WMDs were actually destroyed according to agreement, to clear out because we were coming in. And we did.

If Saddam did not allow unfettered inspections during the second round of inspections, you might make the case that Bush had to know. But Bush invaded right at the very moment that the inspectors were free, unfettered, and finding out the weapons had been disposed of and also that the nuclear bomb program wasn't happening.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2016 03:54 pm
@Blickers,
That's correct: the UN Weapon Inspectors were already in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2016 07:31 pm
@izzythepush,
Their there but I am not going to look them up, as I'm not that interested either.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2016 08:55 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
The fact that the Bush Administration were wrong on the main reason that they justified an invasion which killed 3,500 Americans and maimed almost 10 times more is just a big "So What"? Egad.

That number of casualties was just a few hours of battle during WWII.

And the only justification that the US ever needs for invading and smashing up another country is: we felt like doing it.

So yes, people being wrong about Iraq's weapons program is a big "meh" from my perspective.


For what it's worth, here is documentation of White House thinking just after 9/11:
Quote:
Sunday September 23, 2001

Press Release
SOURCE: Newsweek

Pentagon Board Wants Hit on Iraq After Afghanistan, But Secretary of State Powell Fears Strike Could Shatter Arab Anti-Terror Coalition

NEW YORK, Sept. 23 /PRNewswire/ -- At a two-day meeting last week of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, which is chaired by hard-liner Richard Perle, eminent conservatives including Henry Kissinger, James Schlesinger, Dan Quayle and Newt Gingrich reached a consensus that U.S. military forces should strike Iraq shortly after an initial blow against Afghanistan in response to the terror attack on New York and Washington, Newsweek reports in the current issue. ``When the U.S. loses what may be more than 6,000 people, there has to be reaction so that the world clearly knows that things have changed,'' Gingrich tells Newsweek.

But Secretary of State Colin Powell fears a strike on Iraq could shatter his efforts to build a worldwide anti-terror coalition. The aim would be to pool intelligence on terrorists with ``global reach'' and to gain police cooperation which he and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice believe is at least as critical to cracking down on terror as military action, report Foreign Editor Michael Hirsh and Diplomatic Correspondent Roy Gutman in the October 1 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, September 24).

The strike-Iraq contingent fears American credibility will be damaged if the U.S. gets bogged down in Afghanistan. It also believes Saddam's weapons of mass destruction could be used against America next, Newsweek reports. There is ``a recognition that it will be very tough to get bin Laden in the rocky and mountainous terrain of Afghanistan,'' said one participant in the Pentagon meetings. ``There's a feeling we've got to do something that counts -- and bombing some caves is not something that counts.''

On the other hand, Powell and deputies believe a full-blown military strike on Baghdad would only kill many Iraqis, enrage the Arab world and probably not dispose of Saddam, who has slowly won new allies with promises of oil deals since 1991.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010924113109/biz.yahoo.com/prnews/010923/nysu001a_1.html
Lilkanyon
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2016 10:06 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Blickers wrote:
The fact that the Bush Administration were wrong on the main reason that they justified an invasion which killed 3,500 Americans and maimed almost 10 times more is just a big "So What"? Egad.

That number of casualties was just a few hours of battle during WWII.

And the only justification that the US ever needs for invading and smashing up another country is: we felt like doing it.



So yes, people being wrong about Iraq's weapons program is a big "meh" from my perspective.



For what it's worth, here is documentation of White House thinking just after 9/11:
Quote:
Sunday September 23, 2001

Press Release
SOURCE: Newsweek

Pentagon Board Wants Hit on Iraq After Afghanistan, But Secretary of State Powell Fears Strike Could Shatter Arab Anti-Terror Coalition

NEW YORK, Sept. 23 /PRNewswire/ -- At a two-day meeting last week of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, which is chaired by hard-liner Richard Perle, eminent conservatives including Henry Kissinger, James Schlesinger, Dan Quayle and Newt Gingrich reached a consensus that U.S. military forces should strike Iraq shortly after an initial blow against Afghanistan in response to the terror attack on New York and Washington, Newsweek reports in the current issue. ``When the U.S. loses what may be more than 6,000 people, there has to be reaction so that the world clearly knows that things have changed,'' Gingrich tells Newsweek.

But Secretary of State Colin Powell fears a strike on Iraq could shatter his efforts to build a worldwide anti-terror coalition. The aim would be to pool intelligence on terrorists with ``global reach'' and to gain police cooperation which he and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice believe is at least as critical to cracking down on terror as military action, report Foreign Editor Michael Hirsh and Diplomatic Correspondent Roy Gutman in the October 1 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, September 24).

The strike-Iraq contingent fears American credibility will be damaged if the U.S. gets bogged down in Afghanistan. It also believes Saddam's weapons of mass destruction could be used against America next, Newsweek reports. There is ``a recognition that it will be very tough to get bin Laden in the rocky and mountainous terrain of Afghanistan,'' said one participant in the Pentagon meetings. ``There's a feeling we've got to do something that counts -- and bombing some caves is not something that counts.''

On the other hand, Powell and deputies believe a full-blown military strike on Baghdad would only kill many Iraqis, enrage the Arab world and probably not dispose of Saddam, who has slowly won new allies with promises of oil deals since 1991.


http://web.archive.org/web/20010924113109/biz.yahoo.com/prnews/010923/nysu001a_1.html



Are you comparing WW2 to Iraq? Really? The comparison of the western world being defeated by facsism compared to a neutered, pathetic, poor country defeated just cuz we could. The Iraq war was the first war we actually initiated, without true provocation...over what? A few aluminum cylinders and some "yellow cake?" Everyone knows now, that was a load of crap. It was a ploy by Haliburton to make a **** ton of money with Cheney pulling the strings. And people wonder why the US is not trusted. We were always assholes, but at least we could blame the CIA for it in the past. Now, we really destroyed our credibility with Iraq. It will take a generation or more of restraint to repair that damage.
Blickers
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2016 10:15 pm
@Lilkanyon,
No, the opposite. Oralloy is saying that the Iraq War was so much smaller and had so many fewer soldiers die that it is not that big a deal if they lied about the reasons for getting into it.
Lilkanyon
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2016 10:32 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:

No, the opposite. Oralloy is saying that the Iraq War was so much smaller and had so many fewer soldiers die that it is not that big a deal if they lied about the reasons for getting into it.


Gotcha...sadly, i doubt that brings comfort to those families. Nor the thousands of iraqis dead and so on. Of course Hussein was a dictator, but he understood the people he lived with. As much as I hate to admit it, Islam is not ready for democracy. They have no idea what it means, how much work it is, how much sacrifice and compromise it requires. Only after WW2, did the Germans understand it. Before that, they distrusted and misunderstood it, henceforth Hitler. Only after utter defeat and many many years of occupation compared to communism, did they learn to appreciate it. Now, they are likely the most progressive, gentle, educated country (arguably) in the west.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2016 04:32 am
@Lilkanyon,
Islam nor ready for democracy? What about Indonesia, Malaysia? In the ME you've got dictatorial regimes propped up by Western or Soviet (Now Russian ) arms and money. These regimes locked up all the moderates meaning that the only consistent opponent of Western hegemony was fundamentalist Islam.

There was a perfectly decent democracy in Iran before the CIA/MI5 orchestrated a coup and installed the Shah.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2016 07:23 am
@oralloy,
Quote oralloy:
Quote:
That number of casualties was just a few hours of battle during WWII.

Thank you for giving us the conservative opinion on the worth of our people in uniform-which is that mere thousands of their deaths are not important, the death toll needs to rise to WWII levels or no honest explanation for the military action which got them killed need be given to the American people.

We hope you advertise this to the American people during the upcoming election, this is knowledge they deserve to know.


Quote Oralloy:
Quote:
And the only justification that the US ever needs for invading and smashing up another country is: we felt like doing it.

Your contempt for the American people's right to know why their sons and daughters are dying is duly noted. As is your further contempt for the Constitution. You are a proud representative of what Trump is all about.

Quote Oralloy:
Quote:
So yes, people being wrong about Iraq's weapons program is a big "meh" from my perspective.

If only your conservative brethren were all as honest as you in stating their beliefs on how the country should be run.

0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2016 01:33 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
No, the opposite. Oralloy is saying that the Iraq War was so much smaller and had so many fewer soldiers die that it is not that big a deal if they lied about the reasons for getting into it.

Don't forget about the part about them not actually having lied. They honestly believed that Iraq was actively pursuing nuclear weapons.

And most importantly, don't forget the part where I think it is OK for America to smash up other countries just because we feel like it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 10/14/2019 at 09:44:19