The Big Lie, Ten Years After...

[thegreekdog]

I too lean towards the idea of corporate cronyism. It's a human tragedy
that was probably avoidable and I suspect history won't be kind to the
those who initiated and profited from this fiasco.

Hmm... I think you're overreacting a bit. There does not appear to be much public outcry now and there has not been much public outcry in the recent past.

[thegreekdog]

Since Iraq was not a part of the 9/11 attack that would be an ill aimed rebuttal and I suppose the failed assassination attempt on George W. Bush's father when he was President or the actual invasion of Kuwait were probably more likely reasons. If you ignore the economic cash cow of oil or private contractors participation in a war.
the brief version:
The Iraq WMD scare originates with the Bush administration leaking bogus intel to the UK, who share it with the Americans who sound the alarm, even though the White House knows for a fact it is bogus. The White House sends General Colin Powell to the United Nations to present these "facts" of the Iraq theat as a justification for a military solution to the problem. Valerie Plame Wilson was exposed by an administration leak as a CIA operative after she questioned the legitimacy of Bush's intel and rational for invading Iraq.

Colin Powell resigns after discovering the Bush administration sent him to the United Nations to present a fabricated lie to gain support and justify the military intervention and pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.

I have no idea whether WMD stuff was true or not; a friend from law school served and said he saw the WMDs there, but he could be lying (he's a staunch Republican and Bush supporter). In any event, I used to think it was access to oil. Now I think it was just corporate cronyism.

hint hint the WMD was a lie. My few times viewing your replies and you giving information told me you are a smart person that not only uses his intellect, wisdom, discernment and gut check, yet with your answer here. I have to take it all back.

You sir, are clueless!!!!!! WOW no wonder I don't get my gut checks from this place. its insane

Okay, now that majorheadache876 has told me that the WMD was a lie, I now have all the information. Thanks majorheadache876! You've given me all the proof I need!

Hint hint - When I typed "I think it was just corporate cronyism," I'm rather explicitly stating that it doesn't matter whether WMDs were in Iraq or not. The point of the war, according to my theory (and others), was to make money for private companies.

Your reading comprehension skills are lacking. Your English skills are horrendous. I'm not sure where you received your education, but you should get your $10 back.

[oVo]

I understand your point. The Administration knew there were no WMD
and bullied ahead with their plans anyway. The concept of WMD was
simply a logical way publicly promote and justify their actions.

The enormous expense, destruction of infrastructure and loss of life were far
outweighed by the potential for huge corporate profits.

[BigBallinStalin]

Although profits to particular businesses is involved, it's also about geopolitics. If you can flip an anti-USA government into a pro-US government (similar to Saudi Arabia's loyalty), then this also factors into their 'calculus'.

[_sabotage_]

And if it had been a pro-US government, we would have flipped them into an anti-US government first in the media, so we could go in and flip them back. First rule of the art of war: maintain the moral imperative. The US wanted to update their war machine and Iraq fit the bill. We could claim moral superiority, get oil and ramp up the war machine while easily obfuscating any dissent.

I don't get how people can so often be lied to and not figure it out= insanity.

Sure corporate cronyism was involved, who do you think is running the war machine? can access and process the oil? can service the troops? But it was also a statement of domination. We have no strings, our bombs are beautiful, now shut the f*ck up. Government are the mafia, and ours will extort who ever the f*ck they want, now where's my canoli?

[thegreekdog]

And if it had been a pro-US government, we would have flipped them into an anti-US government first in the media, so we could go in and flip them back. First rule of the art of war: maintain the moral imperative. The US wanted to update their war machine and Iraq fit the bill. We could claim moral superiority, get oil and ramp up the war machine while easily obfuscating any dissent.

I don't get how people can so often be lied to and not figure it out= insanity.

Sure corporate cronyism was involved, who do you think is running the war machine? can access and process the oil? can service the troops? But it was also a statement of domination. We have no strings, our bombs are beautiful, now shut the f*ck up. Government are the mafia, and ours will extort who ever the f*ck they want, now where's my canoli?

But most people don't really care, which is my point.

[_sabotage_]

Last time I was in the US, I was told by a native that the US was the only free country on Earth. I don't know if it is apathy or ignorance, but most people don't care or don't know.

The simplest truth is, we are proud of our muscle and happy to show it. How will it impact the future of the country? Does dashing away international goodwill, creating enemies and alienating allies make us more powerful? We got them bombs mofo. I was part of a debate recently where the opposition made the contention that: man to man, Chinese soldiers can't match a GI Joe. Wasn't that what Hitler said?

[tzor]

Last time I was in the US, I was told by a native that the US was the only free country on Earth.

Never trust the natives. They are prone to boast.

[thegreekdog]

Last time I was in the US, I was told by a native that the US was the only free country on Earth. I don't know if it is apathy or ignorance, but most people don't care or don't know.

The simplest truth is, we are proud of our muscle and happy to show it. How will it impact the future of the country? Does dashing away international goodwill, creating enemies and alienating allies make us more powerful? We got them bombs mofo. I was part of a debate recently where the opposition made the contention that: man to man, Chinese soldiers can't match a GI Joe. Wasn't that what Hitler said?

I think it's a combination of apathy and ignorance, but it probably starts with apathy. There has been no great hardship here for most Americans and if there is a great hardship, it's someone else's fault.

[Dukasaur]

Although profits to particular businesses is involved, it's also about geopolitics. If you can flip an anti-USA government into a pro-US government (similar to Saudi Arabia's loyalty), then this also factors into their 'calculus'.

I don't believe any strategic/geopolitical benefits were gained by the U.S. Sure, Saddam was pretty anti-U.S. in his rhetoric, but actually he was relatively harmless to American interests. Iraq was a useful counter-weight to Iran, which was often more dangerous to American interests. Saddam was also a secular counter-weight to religious and Jihadist forces. Even his anti-Americanism was mostly leftover Cold War mash. He hadn't realized yet that post-Afganistan and post-perestroika Russia was more interested in courting Iran than Iraq. I think quite likely with some good will and a few bribes the Americans could have "flipped" Saddam without blowing up his country.

All the negatives of the Iraq war beg for some massive positive to balance the books, but where is it?

We come full circle to my original point: I don't think the Bushes seriously care about the geopolitical consequences. I think it was all about serving their dynastic fortune. One could be a lot less contemptuous of them if they feathered their bed while doing their job and strengthening the national defense. They went one step further and feathered their bed without any benefit to American security.

[BigBallinStalin]

Although profits to particular businesses is involved, it's also about geopolitics. If you can flip an anti-USA government into a pro-US government (similar to Saudi Arabia's loyalty), then this also factors into their 'calculus'.

I don't believe any strategic/geopolitical benefits were gained by the U.S. Sure, Saddam was pretty anti-U.S. in his rhetoric, but actually he was relatively harmless to American interests. Iraq was a useful counter-weight to Iran, which was often more dangerous to American interests. Saddam was also a secular counter-weight to religious and Jihadist forces. Even his anti-Americanism was mostly leftover Cold War mash. He hadn't realized yet that post-Afganistan and post-perestroika Russia was more interested in courting Iran than Iraq. I think quite likely with some good will and a few bribes the Americans could have "flipped" Saddam without blowing up his country.

All the negatives of the Iraq war beg for some massive positive to balance the books, but where is it?

We come full circle to my original point: I don't think the Bushes seriously care about the geopolitical consequences. I think it was all about serving their dynastic fortune. One could be a lot less contemptuous of them if they feathered their bed while doing their job and strengthening the national defense. They went one step further and feathered their bed without any benefit to American security.

Perhaps you're right, but the guys who make these decisions hardly tell us the truth. So, it's difficult to say.

(1) Oil was a main concern. Switching out the government removes the sanctions, thus expanding supply to generally favored markets. Economic interests are tied with US national security interests often enough.

(2) Terrorism was another concern. They had some "Al-Qaeda" group popping up in Iraq ("therefore, INVADE!" which was insane).

(3) I'm not sure Saddam could have been bought--especially given our history of bombing his country and ruining it.

(4) re: the stability factor, yeah, Saddam helped keep the 'peace', but when you mention this things, they simply heavily discount them. They say, "yeah, but that service wasn't that valuable," or "benefits #1 and #2 + others are worth more." (of course, they have no prices to compare these decisions, so there's that knowledge problem for ya).

(5) How exactly was the "Bush dynasty" profiting from that war? And what were their profits compared to others?