Tenth Anniversary of Pretending There Was Reason to Invade Iraq

[two-blocked]

Vabeach says;
  " But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy    and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,"
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
 
  ....And does it look to you as if we may be getting dragged into a Syrian war while we speak?

Not really, our president hasn't gone whacko like this yet:
 
"Do you want to know what the foreign policy of Iraq is to the United States? (Gives the finger.) F*** the United States! That's what it is -- and that's why we're going to get him."—George W. Bush, at a Congressional breakfast, September 2002

[SHOOTALL]

yawn ! same old come backs.
As for no war that would be great . I feel if we send troops they should have a set objective and no interference from the political side other than the President calling them home and by law no back and forth. if it's worth doing then do it. Let the military do their job. Rules should reflect the safety of Americans first and non combatants not the protection of buildings etc.

[SHOOTALL]

Check out the news for the gas and chemicals
As for civilian controled , yes but do you believe it should be used for political gain ?  I feel if the military is to be used it should be for our protection not to protect some fruit grower in Centrial America .

[vabeachman]

That is actually a quote from Hermann Goering.  But he learned it from examining the histories.  It is just the nature of the beast.  Some people who want more than others will do anything to obtain them.  Been going on since the beginning of man. 

[ChungDoQuan]

Mehhh, He-who-must-not-be-named's dad had LESS reason to invade Panama and kidnap their president...

[Swampman]

There were 2 reasons.  Iraq was violating the treaty they signed by shooting at American aircraft.  Sadam was paying vermin to blow up Israeli buses full of women and children.

[rickt300]

yawn ! same old come backs.
As for no war that would be great . I feel if we send troops they should have a set objective and no interference from the political side other than the President calling them home and by law no back and forth. if it's worth doing then do it. Let the military do their job. Rules should reflect the safety of Americans first and non combatants not the protection of buildings etc.

.
Yeah well,,,,just show us your WMD link, OK...the one with the hard evidence, not impressions and storytelling. Our miitary is suppose to be civilian controlled_ _please don't forget that.
.
Thanx........TM7

Considering how many ammunition dumps were blown in place istead of sneaking around in the underground complexes I can easily see how some WMD's would be missed.  However if Saddam had nothing to hide why did he not comply with the weapons inspections? He brought what happened on himself.

[magooch]

Ya know, the title of this thread is about no need to have invaded Iraq.  I'm going to agree with that.  We absolutely should not have invaded Iraq; we should have just bombed it out of existence and been done with it.

[two-blocked]

The Party Line:
 
 "My interest is to hit Saddam."
-- Donald Rumsfeld, at a White House meeting five hours after the 9/11 attacks

"I didn't advocate invasion. I wasn't asked."
-- Donald Rumsfeld, November 20, 2005

[vabeachman]

It is just amazing how far we have gone wrong in this country.  One of the USA earliest principles of non-intervention in other countries affairs.  A true conservative still believes that.  Republican and Democrats do not.  The people who still think invading Iraq was a good idea are either Republicans or Democrats, not true conservatives.  The people who still think invading Iraq was a good idea are just trying to justify the killing and maiming of hundred of thousands of people, trying to ease their consciousness. But no matter how often it is repeated, it is still not true.  One of the biggest blunders in our history.  We are not the World's policemen or the Worlds judge. 

[ironglow]

TM asks;
  "
 Link please,,,,,only poison gas was before Gulf War One,,,supplied by US_Nato for use against Iran, but said he used against Kurds instead and thatwas a Big Deal, except he was never charged with that during his funny trial. But did they find some pre Gulf War One mortar gas rounds buried some where...maybe--maybe not."
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
 
  Links, he wants LINKS..
   OK TM;  here are some links..do you want more?
    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/071912-618875-syria-chemical-weapons-came-from-iraq-.htm?p=full
 
    http://www.examiner.com/article/chemical-weapons-syria-are-those-saddam-s-weapons-of-mass-destruction
 
    http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/will-saddams-wmds-fall-into-the-hands-of-al-qaeda/
 
 
     Georges Sada was Saddam's vcice Air Marshall when these events were taking place..I am confident that he has better knowledge of what was happening at the time in the Iraqi  military heirarchy than TM, YT, Garbhead, Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry or Hillary ever had..

[ironglow]

Here is an excerpt from the article above..quoting Air Marshall Sada;
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
       >>>" In 2006, former Iraqi general Georges Sada, second in command of the Iraqi  Air Force who served under Saddam Hussein before he defected, wrote a  comprehensive book, "Saddam's Secrets."
It details how the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard moved weapons of mass  destruction into Syria in advance of the U.S.-led action to eliminate Hussein's  WMD threat.
As Sada told the New York Sun, two Iraqi Airways Boeings were converted to  cargo planes by removing the seats, and special Republican Guard units loaded  the planes with chemical weapons materials.  There were 56 flights disguised as a relief effort after a 2002 Syrian dam  collapse.  There were also truck convoys into Syria. Sada's comments came more than a  month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon,  told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to  Syria."
Both Israeli and U.S. intelligence observed large truck convoys leaving Iraq  and entering Syria in the weeks and months before Operation Iraqi Freedom, John  Shaw, former deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology  security, told a private conference of former weapons inspectors and  intelligence experts held in Arlington, Va., in 2006.
According to Shaw, ex-Russian intelligence chief Yevgeni Primakov, a KGB  general with long-standing ties to Saddam, went to Iraq in December 2002 and  stayed until just before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003">>>>

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/071912-618875-syria-chemical-weapons-came-from-iraq-.htm#ixzz2OICFAPnE
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
 
  Pretty detailed isn't it ?  You see, I read Sada's book years ago..so I (and hundeds of thousands of others) have been "one up" on you, Al Gore and B Hussein since that time.  Sorry guys..you simply MUST become better informed...and please;  get your info from credible sources..

[Oldshooter]

Yall want some buns to go with them links, or some cheese to go with your whines.

[rickt300]

yawn ! same old come backs.
As for no war that would be great . I feel if we send troops they should have a set objective and no interference from the political side other than the President calling them home and by law no back and forth. if it's worth doing then do it. Let the military do their job. Rules should reflect the safety of Americans first and non combatants not the protection of buildings etc.

.
Yeah well,,,,just show us your WMD link, OK...the one with the hard evidence, not impressions and storytelling. Our miitary is suppose to be civilian controlled_ _please don't forget that.
.
Thanx........TM7

Considering how many ammunition dumps were blown in place istead of sneaking around in the underground complexes I can easily see how some WMD's would be missed.  However if Saddam had nothing to hide why did he not comply with the weapons inspections? He brought what happened on himself.

.
They don't blow up ammo dumps with the possibilty of nuclear or chemical or bio agents being released, duh!  Sad'dam did comply,,,just ask Hans Blix and Ritter and others. Stop being a victim of propaganda is my advice, before our country is further wrecked and driven down. Just show me the WMD.  BTW, I actually know where Sad'dam's nukes are, and if you ask nicely, I'll tell you.
.
.
...TM7

Wrong TM7, our troops destroyed every ammunition dump they came across without inspecting them first fearing booby traps. No one I know said Hussein had any nukes but we all know he used chemical weapons to kill Kurds and Iranians.

[rickt300]

Kinda funny about orders. When the order is "Blow in place" there is no incentive to crawl around in the deep bunkers trying to decipher labels from different countries containers. As a matter of fact there were some illnesses linked to blowing up various weapons in said bunkers. If however one was really curious and not concerned with booby traps then that foolish person would be shipped back to the states to be examined carefully. As for not being indicted on charges of genocidal attacks on the Kurds it is possible that Hussein had only one neck to be hanged with (and the general population could care less) but if you are denying the chemical attacks happend explain why you would do so? What in your opinion makes Saddam Hussein special and undeserving of his fate.

[Casull]

 

   Quote

and so did the Taliban offer up Bin Laden on 3 or 4 occassions_ _Bush and Cheney refused to take him.

 
 
 
 
 
Have any credible evidence of this?

           Still waiting.   

[mcwoodduck]

Kinda funny about orders. When the order is "Blow in place" there is no incentive to crawl around in the deep bunkers trying to decipher labels from different countries containers. As a matter of fact there were some illnesses linked to blowing up various weapons in said bunkers. If however one was really curious and not concerned with booby traps then that foolish person would be shipped back to the states to be examined carefully. As for not being indicted on charges of genocidal attacks on the Kurds it is possible that Hussein had only one neck to be hanged with (and the general population could care less) but if you are denying the chemical attacks happend explain why you would do so? What in your opinion makes Saddam Hussein special and undeserving of his fate.

.
Point is 'order in place' means  'they' a) didn't care about showing any WMD to the American people funding this adventure because there weren't any WMD to show, and b) 'they' didn't worry about poisoning, killing and contaminating our guys by WMD because they weren't any to speak of...Thanx for pointing that out....not a stitch of WMD found....they all went to Syria every last molecule, because Sad'dam didn't want to use WMD on the nice American liberators....Riiiiiiight!.    
Or they deemed it safer to collapse the tunnel and not have the problem of dealing with unstable chemicals and endangering our troops.  Remember we have soldiers that are trained to deal with Chemical weapons and what would be best in disposing of them.  and blowing in place may have been the best answer. 
.
 As for ole Sad'Dam poisining Kurds that was played 10 times per day on telaversion, 30 times a day on FOXy, as proof of SaD'Dams WMD weapons cache.  That was played constantly to Americans as the NUMBER ONE REASON for invading and occuppying_ _THe NUMBER ONE REASON...but oops, Bush and Cheney didn't produce any Iracqui WMD, not even fugazi WMD. In fact, according to your account they didn't even worry about WMD in ammo dumps they were blowing up.... ...uh-huh!..riiiight!  Then they have this number one reason for invasion, and then when they capture the guy they don't even trial him for poisoning the kurds in the freaking first place.....Waz'zup wit dat!.. We knew he had them and had the ability to make them as he used them in the war agains Iran, against the Kurds and the Shites in Iraq.  Or are you denying that ever happened?
.
Bush and Cheney and the neocons and war profiteers and various and asundried zionist, whenever they get together, must laugh their collective arses off how easy it was to fool the stupid gullible Americans into this private war of their's, to surrender dollars and sacrifce their sons and daughters.  Incredible,,,and all based on a fuzzy non-investigated phoney mega-security breech of the century that was their fault in the first place,,,(or their creation!).
Why are you not yelling about Clinton as well who also called for war on Iraq and wished he had done more to impose the UN sanctions just before we invaded.   So if Bush and Chaney are guilty so is Clinton.  If you are going ot yell about one you should yell about all.  And I am sure we did not hear anything from you about the cruise missles to blow up an Asprin factory in the sudan, or was it a WMD factory?
.
.
.
..TM7

[rickt300]

There is one clear fact, TM7 stands hard for leftist beliefs and is blind to any fault of the left. It is possible that many at the time thought Saddam Hussein was the "Hitler" of the middle east and he acted the part well by invading Kuwait. In my opinion that alone was enough to justify his death. Hussein killed a lot of Iraqies with his foolish attitude toward the western powers. Again why TM7 do you feel Hussein is special?

[rickt300]

Sometime before or maybe at the beginning of our Iraq invasion the magazine Soldier of Fortune had a target inserted with the face of Saddam Hussein and a bullseye on his forehead. I set the target up and put 5 in the forehead then sent it to the Iraqi embassy. What was sort of funny was the call I got from some office saying it was against the law to threaten assassination of a foreign head of state. I said I would take that under advisement.

[ChungDoQuan]

It was just another war against an imaginary threat foisted on the commoners by the capitalist overlords to keep us from focusing on corporations as the root cause of social problems.

[ironglow]

From TM;
   " As for ole Sad'Dam poisining Kurds that was played 10 times per day on telaversion, 30 times a day on FOXy, as proof of SaD'Dams WMD weapons cache.  That was played constantly to Americans as the NUMBER ONE REASON for invading and occuppying_ _THe NUMBER ONE REASON...but oops, Bush and Cheney didn't produce any Iracqui WMD, not even fugazi WMD"
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
  Come now TM.. Do you REALLY have such a short memory... or were you simply  bereft of information at the time?
      Let me refresh your memory:
   There were TWO Iraqi wars...
      #1..... came about because Saddam invaded Kuwait.. and although he was forewarned for months to back out and leave Kuwait basically as he found it when he invaded.. instead, he stubbornly persisted in occupying and stripping valuables from that nation.
  When he was finally driven out, he did his very best to cause an ecological and economic disaster by setting the kuwaiti oil wells & production sites afire.
   When his army was virtually destroyed in 100 hours, to avoid complete destruction of his regime, he agreed to certain conditions to which he promised the coalition and the UN...that he would comply.
 
   #2.. Came about simply because he failed to comply and again, stubbornly refused to live up to his signed agreement!
  He understood as we all understood (unless we lived under a rock) that if Saddam had complied, he would not have been taken down..there would have been no reason or excuse to invade!!
  I think most of us can recall that in the 1st as well as the 2nd Iraqi war, there was a gradual materiel buildup in the region, accompanied by continuous warnings for him to comply.....
   But no; the angry dictator was too stupid to "read the handwriting on the wall"..nor hear the repeated warnings from the UN and the coalition..
 
  Here is the official/historical document from the archives.. showing the actual reasons for war #2..  I suggest somebody keep the link to use every time some terrorist sympathizer brings up the "straw man" WMD falsehood:
 
   http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html
 
       

[rickt300]

It was just another war against an imaginary threat foisted on the commoners by the capitalist overlords to keep us from focusing on corporations as the root cause of social problems.

Government is the root cause of social problems! Corporations though not always pretty are a necessary part of capitalism which is the only way we can have freedom of any kind.

[rickt300]

IG.....C'monnnnn already!!  Surely, you don't expect this board to accept the war justifications written by the chief protagionists. Sad'dam couldn't produce WMD because there wasn't WMD and Sad'dam wasn't a threat to the USA at all, and he didn't have anything to do with the 911 Hoax.. They tried him for stuff other than poisoning Kurds with US supplied gas.  Enough already with the war propaganda drumming and setting the same lame stage for invasion of Syria and Iran.  The American people, except for war employees and the FCR, don't watn this and don't want to pay for any more wars..
.
How many American wars must we endure in our lifetime_ _how many?
.
.
..TM7

9/11 hoax?

[ChungDoQuan]

It was just another war against an imaginary threat foisted on the commoners by the capitalist overlords to keep us from focusing on corporations as the root cause of social problems.

Government is the root cause of social problems! Corporations though not always pretty are a necessary part of capitalism which is the only way we can have freedom of any kind.

Capitalism and its subsequent income inequality are the root causes of social problems. The capitalists ARE the government. The taxes the colonies were protesting were not being paid by destitute newly freed indentured servants, and they were certainly not being paid by the slaves--- they were being paid by the "founding fathers" who were also the richest men on the continent. Their real genius was in convincing the poor white colonists to go to war for them and in setting up a government of themselves, so that they actually paid taxes to themselves after the revolution. Do you realize that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't just affect the slaves? Unless you owned 170 acres, you (as a white man) could not vote either, until after the Civil War. Most of the colonists probably could not tell the difference between life under the Brits from life under the new state governments.

[rickt300]

Capitalism makes limited freedom possible. Regulation of capitalism causes income inequality.

[Casull]

Sheeezz, I've been over this a dozen or so times on this board and there's tons of info on this subject online for those with a computor!!  These bin Laden offers are undisputed well known news. And not only 3 or 4 times, but numerous times, even before your defining 911 Hoax. And the Bush Admin failed, FAILED, to arrange for his custody because 1) they were diplomaically inept, OR 2) they didn't want him because they needed a boogyman and arch villian to pin 911 on and to invade opium, mineral and gas rich Afghanistan. ...I'm going with the latter.

 
 
 
Sheeeez yourself, tm.  Why don't you actually try reading the stuff you rely on.  The so-called offers were made over a period of three years when CLINTON was the President.  Also, the offer to Bush was to give bin laden to a neutral third party country and Bush said the hell with that, turn him over to us.  That certainly does not sound like he refused to take custody of bin laden.  AND, all of this took place BEFORE 9/11, and during the few months that Bush was actually President.  Now, have you any credible evidence that Bush refused to take custody of bin laden AFTER bin laden actually attacked us?  Of course not, and you know it.

[ChungDoQuan]

Chung says:
" Capitalism and its subsequent income inequality are the root causes of social problems. The capitalists ARE the government. The taxes the colonies were protesting were not being paid by destitute newly freed indentured servants, and they were certainly not being paid by the slaves--- they were being paid by the "founding fathers" who were also the richest men on the continent. Their real genius was in convincing the poor white colonists to go to war for them and in setting up a government of themselves, so that they actually paid taxes to themselves after the revolution. Do you realize that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't just affect the slaves? Unless you owned 170 acres, you (as a white man) could not vote either, until after the Civil War. Most of the colonists probably could not tell the difference between life under the Brits from life under the new state governments"
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
  Chung;
        Your statement above speaks very loudly...it is obvious you hate the United States.  You also hate our history, traditions, values and most of our people..
   
       Where are you from; ,,,,,Mars ? 
              ....Or perhaps closer by..like North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, Pakistan or Cuba?

Absolutely not! The United States still has the POTENTIAL to be the best place in history to live--- but, it was set up OF the capitalists, BY the capitalists, and FOR the capitalists. Unless WE THE PEOPLE exercise controls over them, the economy will collapse. It has happened before. Leading up to the Great Depression, the banks were de-regulated, antitrust laws were repealed, and Wall Street became almost purely speculative--- the economy crashed. Sound familiar? FDR initiated programs that stabilized the economy, by INCREASING government spending to create jobs, re-regulating the financial institutions, and breaking up the trusts. The Republicans immediately began to whittle away at those reforms, until we're in the same boat again, and guess what? The same thing happened. Surprise! (Not!)

I live here. THIS is the place I want to make better, not Venezuela, Iran, Pakistan, etc. I do not hate anything, certainly none of the things you mention. I just do not buy the BS. And, far rightys are not MOST of the people, thankfully.

[ChungDoQuan]

That pretty well sums it up, yes. I don't think it was a single event, nor even an outright conspiracy. I think it's built into the corporate mind. That's exactly why there need to be restrictions on corporate capitalism. I think individuals should be allowed the freedom to make what they can of their lives, or take the consequences--- but I think the system is set up to make it almost impossible to do that if you start out poor. Corporations did that.

[nw_hunter]

Several of you continue to try and turn this thread into a personal flame war.............Not about the topic, but name calling each other because your view of politics differ...................ENOUGH!

[magooch]

Yes indeed, if you start out poor in America and make poor choices, you probably aren't going to be very successful, unless you are also lucky.  Otherwise, you might want to try some other country, but again your chances aren't good if you make poor choices.


Corporations have done very well by me.  I can't imagine how I would be where I am today if it hadn't been for working for and investing in them evil, terrible corporations.  One thing is for sure, the federal government hasn't been much help of late in allowing a person to become wealthy.  Oh, unless you are some kind of muslim leader in a middle eastern locale.