Register to leave a comment, or log in if you already have an account
Saddam did not have nuclear weapons. He wanted them but he did not have them. As far as the intelligence on nuclear weapons, had they paid attention to the others reports they would have known that the rods were not the right diameter for creating nuclear weapons and that the yellowcake intelligence was wrong.
What Bush understood was that the country was out for blood. No one questioned why we went into Afghanistan. From their they went out of control. Yet millions of people across the globe and here protested- we knew invading Iraq was wrong.
And to date we still don’t have bin Laden.2Towers down, the pentagon, the plane in PA, all the dead, all the grief, all the lives lost in a false war- a much less safe world- that’s what going into Iraq accomplished.
Legion, I understand what you’re saying, but I think one thing the government has masterfully done during numerous administrations using mass media (which is controlled by an alarmingly small number of individuals and corporations with their own interests that often diverge from the best interests of the citizenry) is convince the general population that they have a real choice. This has prevented my aforementioned emergence of a true alternative government.
The “liberal” “conservative” debate serves the very useful propaganda service of giving the appearance of a lively democratic debate: the free flow of ideas, when actually the spectrum of ideas discussed are so narrow and the framework for discussion / assumptions already agreed upon that it ceases to have any real meaning. It’s a complete mockery of democracy.
As I just wrote, Iraq was under UN-ordered sanctions prior to the war, because it was widely believed by the international community that he had WMD’s. To say that it was just George Bush’s cherry-picking intelligence just does no describe reality. Shall I pull up quotes from Bill Clinton and John Kerry from the 90’s, in which they talk about Saddam, his WMD’s that he was known to have, and their threat to the international order?
In case you have forgotten, Saddam Hussein used WMD’s twice in previous wars.
If you are going to go to war for oil, it would be a good idea to make sure you can actually get oil out of it.
In that regard, the current Iraq war has been a massive failure, while the 1991 Gulf War was a huge success.
Again, I’m with biff and arkady. And legion, yes we had a rea reason to go into Afghanistan. In fact it was the only reason we went to war. Indeed radical Islam is a threat- so why did we attack a secular ME country? Radical Islam was not in Iraq. Now, thanks to us, it is.
The Gulf war began because Saddam invaded Kuwait. He was soundly trounced and never came back from his defeat. There were good reasons Bush Sr. left him in place- ignored by his son. Obama is not connected to this other than he inherited the problem and is now trying to extricate us.
So explain to me again, what was the rationale for invading Iraq? Because there is no good one.
If we are to learn any lessons from the 20th century it is that a people must be willing to accept the leadership to at least a certain extent for it to fully coalesce.
We saw this with Stalin
We saw this with Mussolini
We saw this with Hitler
We saw this with Saddam
“We’ve done it before & will do it again. What’s wrong particularly in this instance is that there was a target we should’ve gone after but neglected. Getting Bin Laden immediately would have left us much better postioned for the rest of the agenda.”
Benson, here is an analogy with what I think happened with the intelligence which became the justification for the Iraq war. You are an engineer with a very high level of technical expertise. You are able to distinguish between the high level scientific experts in other technical fields, i.e. the difference between the super smart guys doing R&D energy research associated with Stanford and the dopey DOE energy people.
Imagine having access to the deep levels of expertise in the CIA for Iraqi intelligence and international atomic scientists within the with the IAEA (could have distinguished the aluminum pipe reactor issue) and who do you choose as the basis for your conclusion that Iraq had WMD? The CIA equivalent of Alfred E. Newman, a rookie with little experience and less expertise, but the only one who came to the conclusion that Iraq had nuclear weapons. Internationally renouned physicists in the IAEA were never consulted. One thing we DO know the Bush administration got right is that the American people would approve an invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein is he was shown to have nuclear weapons, which was the goal. they just never leveled with the American people.
Saddam did not have nuclear weapons. He wanted them but he did not have them. As far as the intelligence on nuclear weapons, had they paid attention to the others reports they would have known that the rods were not the right diameter for creating nuclear weapons and that the yellowcake intelligence was wrong.
What Bush understood was that the country was out for blood. No one questioned why we went into Afghanistan. From their they went out of control. Yet millions of people across the globe and here protested- we knew invading Iraq was wrong.
And to date we still don’t have bin Laden.2Towers down, the pentagon, the plane in PA, all the dead, all the grief, all the lives lost in a false war- a much less safe world- that’s what going into Iraq accomplished.
Legion, I understand what you’re saying, but I think one thing the government has masterfully done during numerous administrations using mass media (which is controlled by an alarmingly small number of individuals and corporations with their own interests that often diverge from the best interests of the citizenry) is convince the general population that they have a real choice. This has prevented my aforementioned emergence of a true alternative government.
The “liberal” “conservative” debate serves the very useful propaganda service of giving the appearance of a lively democratic debate: the free flow of ideas, when actually the spectrum of ideas discussed are so narrow and the framework for discussion / assumptions already agreed upon that it ceases to have any real meaning. It’s a complete mockery of democracy.
This is THE worst raunch hour EVER!
Donatella;
As I just wrote, Iraq was under UN-ordered sanctions prior to the war, because it was widely believed by the international community that he had WMD’s. To say that it was just George Bush’s cherry-picking intelligence just does no describe reality. Shall I pull up quotes from Bill Clinton and John Kerry from the 90’s, in which they talk about Saddam, his WMD’s that he was known to have, and their threat to the international order?
In case you have forgotten, Saddam Hussein used WMD’s twice in previous wars.
If you are going to go to war for oil, it would be a good idea to make sure you can actually get oil out of it.
In that regard, the current Iraq war has been a massive failure, while the 1991 Gulf War was a huge success.
Again, I’m with biff and arkady. And legion, yes we had a rea reason to go into Afghanistan. In fact it was the only reason we went to war. Indeed radical Islam is a threat- so why did we attack a secular ME country? Radical Islam was not in Iraq. Now, thanks to us, it is.
The Gulf war began because Saddam invaded Kuwait. He was soundly trounced and never came back from his defeat. There were good reasons Bush Sr. left him in place- ignored by his son. Obama is not connected to this other than he inherited the problem and is now trying to extricate us.
So explain to me again, what was the rationale for invading Iraq? Because there is no good one.
biff,
If we are to learn any lessons from the 20th century it is that a people must be willing to accept the leadership to at least a certain extent for it to fully coalesce.
We saw this with Stalin
We saw this with Mussolini
We saw this with Hitler
We saw this with Saddam
“We’ve done it before & will do it again. What’s wrong particularly in this instance is that there was a target we should’ve gone after but neglected. Getting Bin Laden immediately would have left us much better postioned for the rest of the agenda.”
So true.
Benson, here is an analogy with what I think happened with the intelligence which became the justification for the Iraq war. You are an engineer with a very high level of technical expertise. You are able to distinguish between the high level scientific experts in other technical fields, i.e. the difference between the super smart guys doing R&D energy research associated with Stanford and the dopey DOE energy people.
Imagine having access to the deep levels of expertise in the CIA for Iraqi intelligence and international atomic scientists within the with the IAEA (could have distinguished the aluminum pipe reactor issue) and who do you choose as the basis for your conclusion that Iraq had WMD? The CIA equivalent of Alfred E. Newman, a rookie with little experience and less expertise, but the only one who came to the conclusion that Iraq had nuclear weapons. Internationally renouned physicists in the IAEA were never consulted. One thing we DO know the Bush administration got right is that the American people would approve an invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein is he was shown to have nuclear weapons, which was the goal. they just never leveled with the American people.