Page 1 of 2

The Big Lie, Ten Years After...

PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 1:30 pm
by oVo
A decade has passed since the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.
Millions of lives and trillions of dollars spent to end the reign
of one "evil" dictator and his regime. Was it worth it?
Tomas Young wrote: On every level—moral, strategic, military and economic—Iraq was a failure.
And it was you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, who started this war.

A veteran's letter to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Re: The Big Lie, Ten Years After...

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:36 am
by chang50
oVo wrote:A decade has passed since the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.
Millions of lives and trillions of dollars spent to end the reign
of one "evil" dictator and his regime. Was it worth it?
Tomas Young wrote: On every level—moral, strategic, military and economic—Iraq was a failure.
And it was you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, who started this war.

A veteran's letter to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.


As lies go this was a whoppa..I clearly remember arguing this at the time although my anger was directed more at Blair.I fully believe this cabal of criminals knew there were no WMD and had determined to remove Saddam regardless whilst milking the popular support they got for appearing to avenge 9/11.It was truly shameful..

Re: The Big Lie, Ten Years After...

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:59 am
by oVo
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.

Re: The Big Lie, Ten Years After...

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:03 pm
by PLAYER57832
chang50 wrote:
oVo wrote:A decade has passed since the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.
Millions of lives and trillions of dollars spent to end the reign
of one "evil" dictator and his regime. Was it worth it?
Tomas Young wrote: On every level—moral, strategic, military and economic—Iraq was a failure.
And it was you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, who started this war.

A veteran's letter to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.


As lies go this was a whoppa..I clearly remember arguing this at the time although my anger was directed more at Blair.I fully believe this cabal of criminals knew there were no WMD and had determined to remove Saddam regardless whilst milking the popular support they got for appearing to avenge 9/11.It was truly shameful..

Agreed.

Re: The Big Lie, Ten Years After...

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 10:04 pm
by thegreekdog
oVo wrote: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.

Re: The Big Lie, Ten Years After...

PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:06 am
by oVo
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.

Re: The Big Lie, Ten Years After...

PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:13 am
by majorheadache876
thegreekdog wrote:
oVo wrote: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

Re: The Big Lie, Ten Years After...

PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:43 am
by chang50
oVo wrote: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.


History will only damage the reputations of these criminals,there is zero chance of them being held accountable in their lifetimes and actually doing time..

Re: The Big Lie, Ten Years After...

PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:07 am
by Night Strike
If it was such a lie, where did Syria get all their chemical weapons that we're currently worried about being used in their civil war?

Re: The Big Lie, Ten Years After...

PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:42 am
by chang50
Night Strike wrote:If it was such a lie, where did Syria get all their chemical weapons that we're currently worried about being used in their civil war?


I would be very wary of believing any reports they originated in Iraq,but if you believe it to be true would you support an invasion of Syria,after all one dictator with WMD is as bad as another?Then why stop there?

Re: The Big Lie, Ten Years After...

PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:54 am
by Ray Rider
majorheadache876 wrote: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

Your blatant ad hominem attack does nothing to decrease his credibility; only your own.

Night Strike wrote:If it was such a lie, where did Syria get all their chemical weapons that we're currently worried about being used in their civil war?

I have personally spoken with one of Saddam Hussain's former air vice-marshals, General Georges Sada, and according to him (he also wrote this in his book and mentioned it in interviews on tv), Iraq had WMDs but flew them out in unmarked airplanes to Syria prior to the invasion of Iraq. In addition I have read his book and according to him, there are numerous positive changes which have occurred in Iraq thanks to the invasion. I would be more inclined to believe that personal account of a first-hand, reputable witness than that of the MSM which adjusts its coverage (or its slant on stories) according to what sounds most shocking; or for that matter over some government report saying there were no WMDs, when we have no more assurance that this new report is any more reliable than the previous reports which are now said to be false.

Now that doesn't in itself justify the invasion; is it just for us in the West to invade and depose every oppressive dictator around the world? I would also question the legitimacy of our recent intervention in Libya. Does it even make any sense from an economical standpoint? I think it was a terrible blunder for the US from a PR, financial, and strategic (aside from the initial invasion) standpoint. However, that being said, I am glad that there is one less crazy ruthless dictator in the world and that the Iraqi people are now free to choose their own leadership and destiny...whether that turns out for good or bad, only time will tell.

Re: The Big Lie, Ten Years After...

PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:13 am
by chang50
Ray Rider wrote:
majorheadache876 wrote: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

Your blatant ad hominem attack does nothing to decrease his credibility; only your own.

Night Strike wrote:If it was such a lie, where did Syria get all their chemical weapons that we're currently worried about being used in their civil war?

I have personally spoken with one of Saddam Hussain's former air vice-marshals, General Georges Sada, and according to him (he also wrote this in his book and mentioned it in interviews on tv), Iraq had WMDs but flew them out in unmarked airplanes to Syria prior to the invasion of Iraq. In addition I have read his book and according to him, there are numerous positive changes which have occurred in Iraq thanks to the invasion. I would be more inclined to believe that personal account of a first-hand, reputable witness than that of the MSM which adjusts its coverage (or its slant on stories) according to what sounds most shocking; or for that matter over some government report saying there were no WMDs, when we have no more assurance that this new report is any more reliable than the previous reports which are now said to be false.

Now that doesn't in itself justify the invasion; is it just for us in the West to invade and depose every oppressive dictator around the world? I would also question the legitimacy of our recent intervention in Libya. Does it even make any sense from an economical standpoint? I think it was a terrible blunder for the US from a PR, financial, and strategic (aside from the initial invasion) standpoint. However, that being said, I am glad that there is one less crazy ruthless dictator in the world and that the Iraqi people are now free to choose their own leadership and destiny...whether that turns out for good or bad, only time will tell.


Just curious if Sada is correct why didn't Saddam use WMD against the invasion,he was certainly ruthless enough?

Re: The Big Lie, Ten Years After...

PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 8:34 am
by warmonger1981
Didnt the US give Iraq the weapons when Iraq was at war with Iran?

Re: The Big Lie, Ten Years After...

PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 8:40 am
by _sabotage_
Yes we gave them the biological weapons by selling cocaine to our own people so that we could circumvent prohibitions against selling them the weapons. We of course sold weapons to the Iranians the same way, and the Columbians. The former head of the CIA was directly implicated, but managed to squirm out of it as his father managed to squirm out of charges of participating in an attempted fascist overthrow of the US government. We then elected the son/grandson to two terms and followed him into Iraq.

Re: The Big Lie, Ten Years After...

PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:15 am
by Dukasaur
oVo wrote:A decade has passed since the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.
Millions of lives and trillions of dollars spent to end the reign
of one "evil" dictator and his regime. Was it worth it?

It was worth it -- to the Bush family, and their friends and sycophants. The primary purpose of the Iraq war was to create public panic about the world supply of oil in order, so that the Bushes and their cronies could sell their oil futures at a profit. It achieved that mission with spectacular success. The secondary purpose was to create additional profits at Slumburger and Halitosis and other companies where Bushes and their cronies have shares or directorships. It achieved that mission successfully, also.

Oh, did it destabilize an entire nation and guarantee decades of civil strife to come? Put another nail in the coffin of the idea of self-determination? Kill a few hundred thousand people and crippled a few hundred thousand more? Contribute to the fiscal disintegration of the U.S. and reduce the standard of living of all U.S. taxpayers? What makes you think the Bushes care about any of that? They accomplished what they set out to do. If you weren't smart enough to buy Halitosis shares, I guess you're S.O.L.

Re: The Big Lie, Ten Years After...

PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 7:48 pm
by thegreekdog
oVo wrote: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.

Re: The Big Lie, Ten Years After...

PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 7:53 pm
by thegreekdog
majorheadache876 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
oVo wrote: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.

Re: The Big Lie, Ten Years After...

PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 8:41 pm
by 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.

Re: The Big Lie, Ten Years After...

PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:16 pm
by 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'.

Re: The Big Lie, Ten Years After...

PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:20 am
by _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?

Re: The Big Lie, Ten Years After...

PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:58 am
by thegreekdog
_sabotage_ wrote: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.

Re: The Big Lie, Ten Years After...

PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:23 am
by _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?

Re: The Big Lie, Ten Years After...

PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:46 am
by tzor
_sabotage_ wrote: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. :D

Re: The Big Lie, Ten Years After...

PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 8:02 am
by thegreekdog
_sabotage_ wrote: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.

Re: The Big Lie, Ten Years After...

PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:06 pm
by Dukasaur
BigBallinStalin wrote: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.