‘Why We Did It'

[exotix]

Airing tonight at 9 Eastern


Rachael Maddow documents why Bush invaded Iraq based on new evidence

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/why-we-did-it-preview-bushs-early-focus-182614595615


'Within days of his inauguration ... and 8 months before 9/11 ... Bush called-in his national security team wanting to know how he could invade Iraq ... using Israel as the bait'



Video Inside

http://i60.tinypic.com/zmy6i8.png

[Blackrook]

Didn't Saddam Hussein attempt to assassinate George H.W. Bush? That might have had something to do with it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm

[Peter1469]

I will have to remember to turn the TV on and watch it.

[Libhater]

Rachel Madcow? I'll be sure to miss her commentary.

[Peter1469]

I have heard that before. I will check out the show.

[Blackrook]

Didn't MSNBC just recently admit that they were not really a news channel, but openly admitted they were a propaganda mouthpiece for the Democrat party -- in other words an official state-run government propaganda channel broadcasting only government approved opinion. Why would any freedom-loving American watch official state propaganda?

[Max Rockatansky]

Didn't Saddam Hussein attempt to assassinate George H.W. Bush? That might have had something to do with it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm
That's enough to drop a 2000 pound bomb on his ass, but not put over 4400 Americans into their grave and blow almost a trillion dollars of the taxpayer's money. We could have bombed every "palace" into oblivion and killed Saddam for a whole lot less.

[Max Rockatansky]

Rachel Madcow? I'll be sure to miss her commentary.
Something we can agree upon. I don't watch MSNBC for the same reason I don't watch Fox News: it's not news. It's political pandering disguised as entertainment.

[exotix]

Didn't MSNBC just recently admit that they were not really a news channel, but openly admitted they were a propaganda mouthpiece for the Democrat party -- in other words an official state-run government propaganda channel broadcasting only government approved opinion. Why would any freedom-loving American watch official state propaganda?
Aren't you one of the resident whiners about thread-hijacking ?

[Blackrook]

Aren't you one of the resident whiners about thread-hijacking ?
Is is thread hijacking to question the source of a link? I see this happen every time I post something linking to any publication further to the right than Mother Jones.

[Max Rockatansky]

Obviously Thread-jacking is in the eye of the beholder. And no, I'm still not going to watch Maddow's show.

[Blackrook]

Guess what, almost EVERYONE supported the Iraq War when it first started:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx

It was only later that people changed their mind, when it became obvious that the war was not going to be won quickly and easily and without significant cost in lives and treasure.

Let's call the people who supported the war, and then turned against it, what they are: SUNSHINE PATRIOTS.

People who rally around the flag when everything is looking good, but quickly desert it when things look bad.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sunshine%20Patriot

I will admit that I supported the Iraq invasion, and I did not turn against our President when things went badly, because in supporting his decision, it was my decision too, and I take full responsibility for it.

Saddam Hussein was a threat to regional stability, having already started two wars with invasions of other countries. He had already used chemical weapons against the Kurds. To claim he did not have chemical weapons is insane, because he did. He used them against the Kurds.

[exotix]

Is is thread hijacking to question the source of a link? I see this happen every time I post something linking to any publication further to the right than Mother Jones.
Your first post was fine ... how you managed the second post most likely meant that *I contributed to the thread with my opening statement so this entitles me to derail the thread with my second statement*

LOL.

[Max Rockatansky]

Guess what, almost EVERYONE supported the Iraq War when it first started

Not me. Not most of my military friends. Not Colin Powell until he'd been beaten stupid. No exit strategy? WTF?

[exotix]

Guess what, almost EVERYONE supported the Iraq War when it first started:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx

It was only later that people changed their mind, when it became obvious that the war was not going to be won quickly and easily and without significant cost in lives and treasure.

Let's call the people who supported the war, and then turned against it, what they are: SUNSHINE PATRIOTS.

People who rally around the flag when everything is looking good, but quickly desert it when things look bad.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sunshine Patriot

I will admit that I supported the Iraq invasion, and I did not turn against our President when things went badly, because in supporting his decision, it was my decision too, and I take full responsibility for it.

Saddam Hussein was a threat to regional stability, having already started two wars with invasions of other countries. He had already used chemical weapons against the Kurds. To claim he did not have chemical weapons is insane, because he did. He used them against the Kurds.
This is basic redundancy ... America and the world believed Bush when he said Saddam was *reconstituting a nuclear weapons capability* ...

Hans Blix was cast down by Bush as a liar not to mention Saddam never had an inking of a nuclear weapons or nuclear energy capability at all ... since Israel destroyed Osirak in 1981 (Operation Opera)

[Peter1469]

Didn't MSNBC just recently admit that they were not really a news channel, but openly admitted they were a propaganda mouthpiece for the Democrat party -- in other words an official state-run government propaganda channel broadcasting only government approved opinion. Why would any freedom-loving American watch official state propaganda?

Error spotting.

[Peter1469]

This is basic redundancy ... America and the world believed Bush when he said Saddam was *reconstituting a nuclear weapons capability* ...

Hans Blix was cast down by Bush as a liar not to mention Saddam never had an inking of a nuclear weapons or nuclear energy capability at all ... since Israel destroyed Osirak in 1981 (Operation Opera)

He had programs mothballed and he had fuel to start with....

[Cigar]

DVR'ed and must see TV :)

[Cigar]

Rachel Madcow? I'll be sure to miss her commentary.

Im sure that will break her heart. :)

[Common]

I dont listen to her anymore than I do Glen Beck or Hannity they are all the same just different flavors.

Its long overdue to leave bush alone. I remember the left screaming to high heaven when the right kept using Clinton as the beat boy to cover for bush.
Bush has been gone 6 years, we invaded iraq in 2003 we arent even in iraq anymore. We have today to worry about.
I cant wait to have to listen to obama being blamed for everything for the rest of my life after hes out of office.

LET IT GO, lets fix today

[Bob]

Didn't Saddam Hussein attempt to assassinate George H.W. Bush? That might have had something to do with it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm

We from the SF Bay Area have two women in the media, who dominate the left.

Rachel Maddow grew up just a few miles from me in Castro Valley, CA. She spews left wing rhetoric. The left wingers love her. Castro Valley is part of Alameda county and not a true city.

Then they also have Abby Martin, from Pleasanton, which is a true city and is maybe 10 miles from Castro Valley. Martin finally spoke ill of the Russian military being in Crimea so the RT network is reported to be sending her there from NY City.

One thing about Martin. She is hot. And when she lived in Pleasanton, she had boy friends. Maddow wants women only.

[exotix]

Ok ... here we go ...

*Because we had no energy plan*


http://i57.tinypic.com/zo94ld.jpg

[Max Rockatansky]

...Then they also have Abby Martin, from Pleasanton, which is a true city and is maybe 10 miles from Castro Valley. Martin finally spoke ill of the Russian military being in Crimea so the RT network is reported to be sending her there from NY City.

One thing about Martin. She is hot. And when she lived in Pleasanton, she had boy friends. Maddow wants women only.

Never heard of her, but you are absolutely correct; Abby Martin is hot. Rachel Maddow, not so much.

http://www.stuartwilde.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/images-15.jpg

[darroll]

Bush invaded Iraq because the worlds thugs would kill Americans and run and hide in Iraq.
I wish I could rob a bank and find a place to hide and be treated like a king.
The left said it was about oil. Where is our hot oil?

[Bob]

This is basic redundancy ... America and the world believed Bush when he said Saddam was *reconstituting a nuclear weapons capability* ...

Hans Blix was cast down by Bush as a liar not to mention Saddam never had an inking of a nuclear weapons or nuclear energy capability at all ... since Israel destroyed Osirak in 1981 (Operation Opera)

Stop blaming Bush.
Blame the correct people.

Blame the people from Iraq then living in the USA who promised Bush that Saddam was trying to get WMD.
Blame then President Mubarak who told Bush via Gen. Tommy Franks that the American forces will be attacked by Saddam using gas or biological weapons.
The current King of Jordan also said the same thing. Most don't understand this but the King of Jordan gave our military help to invade Iraq.

Blame Saddam for acting just like any dictator would that had WMD. He played hide and seek games on inspectors. Blix later commented that he was not positive and based on dealing with Saddam personally believed he still had them.

Saddam must have had a nuclear program since his scientists had them at their homes and turned them over to the USA.

http://www.amazon.com/Saddams-Secrets-Georges-Hormuz-Sada/dp/1591454042

6236

[Bob]

Never heard of her, but you are absolutely correct; Abby Martin is hot. Rachel Maddow, not so much.

http://www.stuartwilde.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/images-15.jpg

I once owned a lovely home in Pleasanton and know where she was raised. That is a good picture. To see more, again check google images.

Maddow would be turned out to sleep with the dog, well, if I had one.

[Bob]

Bush had an energy plan. It was Democrats who refused to pass it into law.

Exotix actually does not know me, but for many years I and Democrats debated this stuff and maybe she was still in diapers (maybe not) I debunked democrats lies all day long.

[exotix]

Stop blaming Bush.
Blame the correct people.

Blame the people from Iraq then living in the USA who promised Bush that Saddam was trying to get WMD.
Blame then President Mubarak who told Bush via Gen. Tommy Franks that the American forces will be attacked by Saddam using gas or biological weapons.
The current King of Jordan also said the same thing. Most don't understand this but the King of Jordan gave our military help to invade Iraq.

Blame Saddam for acting just like any dictator would that had WMD. He played hide and seek games on inspectors. Blix later commented that he was not positive and based on dealing with Saddam personally believed he still had them.

Saddam must have had a nuclear program since his scientists had them at their homes and turned them over to the USA.

http://www.amazon.com/Saddams-Secrets-Georges-Hormuz-Sada/dp/1591454042

6236
Bush had an energy plan. It was Democrats who refused to pass it into law.

Exotix actually does not know me, but for many years I and Democrats debated this stuff and maybe she was still in diapers (maybe not) I debunked democrats lies all day long.
Are you watching this ... the only reason you wouldn't be sick is because you're disturbed.

[Bob]

Are you watching this ... the only reason you wouldn't be sick is because you're disturbed.

That is how democrats act when their false arguments are destroyed.

Read what General Sada said. At least scan Amazon where you can read the early parts of his book.

http://www.amazon.com/Saddams-Secrets-Georges-Hormuz-Sada/dp/1591454042

I hope you have used Amazon's system where you can read enough of the book where you may wish to buy it, but if not, click on the cover. I am sure you will figure out how to scroll down the page.

[Libhater]

Something we can agree upon. I don't watch MSNBC for the same reason I don't watch Fox News: it's not news. It's political pandering disguised as entertainment.

Not quite yet, for FOX NEWS is the only real news on the airwaves these daze, and their highest ratings prove it. MSNBC is known by all to be agitprop central.

[Peter1469]

No kidding the Middle East is about oil. Otherwise the entire place would be Darfur. They would be killing each other with no other nation paying much attention.

We can eliminate our need for oil from the Middle East. (http://energyvictory.net/)

[Libhater]

Im sure that will break her heart. :)

Only another woman could break that lesbo's heart.

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Max Rockatansky http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=541339#post541339)

Something we can agree upon. I don't watch MSNBC for the same reason I don't watch Fox News: it's not news. It's political pandering disguised as entertainment.


Not quite yet, for FOX NEWS is the only real news on the airwaves these daze, and their highest ratings prove it.

We can tell them and tell them, buy them books to read, point out the pictures, but if they refuse, nothing works.

I am saying this.

FOX NEWS is the network on Cable.

FOX also has FOX NEWS on broadcast. I see that program for no extra charge. The News broadcast is not delivered by the same person or persons that is on Cable.

FOX also has shows.

A show on FOX Cable must have two sides.

Side A argues pro Democrats
Side B argues pro Republicans

Since each side gets to argue, there is no such thing as FOX picks favorites. The hosts can of course pick one side, but the audience has two views to select from.

As to the people on both cable and network , the actual news is just news.

[Peter1469]

Only another woman could break that lesbo's heart.

You stay classy.

[Max Rockatansky]

No kidding the Middle East is about oil. Otherwise the entire place would be Darfur. They would be killing each other with no other nation paying much attention.

We can eliminate our need for oil from the Middle East. (http://energyvictory.net/)

Agreed, but it's not just us. It's the entire global economy. We could drill the shit out of ANWAR and make Canada the 51-61 states but that wouldn't do shit for Germany, Japan, China and other G8+5 nations.

The just moving the oil tit doesn't fix the problem. We need to get off the oil tit completely then hand out the tech to other nations who didn't help develop it.

[Peter1469]

Agreed, but it's not just us. It's the entire global economy. We could drill the shit out of ANWAR and make Canada the 51-61 states but that wouldn't do shit for Germany, Japan, China and other G8+5 nations.

The just moving the oil tit doesn't fix the problem. We need to get off the oil tit completely then hand out the tech to other nations who didn't help develop it.

Read the link. It is a shift from an oil economy; making the US a manufacturing powerhouse and energy independent.

[Max Rockatansky]

Read the link. It is a shift from an oil economy; making the US a manufacturing powerhouse and energy independent.

We're already shifting to biofuels, but that's an interim measure. We still need an oil base. Trucks, trains and airplanes don't run on biofuel yet even though I know of programs studying it. Burning corn just jacked up the price of food, especially beef. The massive droughts plaguing the West haven't helped.

Still, the bottom line is to get away from petro-based fuels completely, not just reduce our need for it.

[Peter1469]

We're already shifting to biofuels, but that's an interim measure. We still need an oil base. Trucks, trains and airplanes don't run on biofuel yet even though I know of programs studying it. Burning corn just jacked up the price of food, especially beef. The massive droughts plaguing the West haven't helped.

Still, the bottom line is to get away from petro-based fuels completely, not just reduce our need for it.

The book at the link says not to use corn for alcohol, since there are so many other sources that work better and don't compete with food or with land to grow food.

Alcohol can replace oil 100% with 18th century chemical engineering. Of course newer tech makes it cheaper.

[Max Rockatansky]

The book at the link says not to use corn for alcohol, since there are so many other sources that work better and don't compete with food or with land to grow food.

Alcohol can replace oil 100% with 18th century chemical engineering. Of course newer tech makes it cheaper.

Does it have the same punch as gasoline to power trucks, trains and airplanes?

[Peter1469]

Does it have the same punch as gasoline to power trucks, trains and airplanes?

Not per gallon; but it does per $. (It is cheaper).

[Bob]

Agreed, but it's not just us. It's the entire global economy. We could drill the shit out of ANWAR and make Canada the 51-61 states but that wouldn't do shit for Germany, Japan, China and other G8+5 nations.

The just moving the oil tit doesn't fix the problem. We need to get off the oil tit completely then hand out the tech to other nations who didn't help develop it.

It would pay you dividends to get the book from your library, Physics for future presidents and study it.

Professor Muller did a wonderful job answering your points.

I also have a very good book on petroleum.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Deep-Hot-Biosphere-Fossil/dp/0387985468

[Bob]

According to my figures on fuels, in my college text from MIT, plus having used alcohol as fuel for drag racing motorcycles, it is a lot harder than you suppose to use in street cars. First, you must use more alcohol to get the same power. We combined it with nitro to get full power, with methane being the alcohol. Ergo we burned nitro-methane. But the engine sucks that stuff like there is no end to fuel.

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Blackrook http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=541269#post541269)
Didn't Saddam Hussein attempt to assassinate George H.W. Bush? That might have had something to do with it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ine/062793.htm (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm)


That's enough to drop a 2000 pound bomb on his ass, but not put over 4400 Americans into their grave and blow almost a trillion dollars of the taxpayer's money. We could have bombed every "palace" into oblivion and killed Saddam for a whole lot less.

God

Doesn't any of you know the actual history of what Bush did and how it worked in Iraq?

I don't want to lecture but since I have the important books on this topic, let's start with the General Tommy Franks plan.

Franks did not want to lose 4400 troops.

Do you guys know what Bush expected would happen?

I advise you guys to turn to the thanks by General Sada, a real Iraqi General who thanked Bush for not destroying Iraq.

The operating plan was this.

Give advance word that we would invade and do our best to not harm any Iraq citizen other than the military.

Hit them hard, fast and do not destroy bridges and infrastructure needed by civilians.

Get rid of Saddam and get out of Iraq.

It was never planned to be a long term invasion nor remain for years.

Things happened.

So, some claim Bush did not reverse course.

Actually he did reverse course and decided to remain to try to patch things up.

Also, people forget how fast Franks won and that it was peaceful in Iraq for most of a year.

Well, given that a few malcontents in Iraq decided to get a rumble going, our men ended up staying longer.

This is about as simple as I can make it. There are books by Generals devoted to this but you don't want me typign out a thousand pages. So that is in short how it went down.

Give Bush credit for defeating Iraq so fast.

Give Franks credit for losing very few troops.

Most of all give some Iraqis credit for learning how to build bombs since most of our losses were not combat losses, but were deaths due to explosives planted in ambush.

[Peter1469]

After the initial invasion and the Iraqi government collapsed, we allowed the local sheiks to run locally. They were happy. Then Paul Bremer rolled into town and crapped all over that plan and forced a central government on Iraq. That is when they rose up against the occupation.


God

Doesn't any of you know the actual history of what Bush did and how it worked in Iraq?

I don't want to lecture but since I have the important books on this topic, let's start with the General Tommy Franks plan.

Franks did not want to lose 4400 troops.

Do you guys know what Bush expected would happen?

I advise you guys to turn to the thanks by General Sada, a real Iraqi General who thanked Bush for not destroying Iraq.

The operating plan was this.

Give advance word that we would invade and do our best to not harm any Iraq citizen other than the military.

Hit them hard, fast and do not destroy bridges and infrastructure needed by civilians.

Get rid of Saddam and get out of Iraq.

It was never planned to be a long term invasion nor remain for years.

Things happened.

So, some claim Bush did not reverse course.

Actually he did reverse course and decided to remain to try to patch things up.

Also, people forget how fast Franks won and that it was peaceful in Iraq for most of a year.

Well, given that a few malcontents in Iraq decided to get a rumble going, our men ended up staying longer.

This is about as simple as I can make it. There are books by Generals devoted to this but you don't want me typign out a thousand pages. So that is in short how it went down.

Give Bush credit for defeating Iraq so fast.

Give Franks credit for losing very few troops.

Most of all give some Iraqis credit for learning how to build bombs since most of our losses were not combat losses, but were deaths due to explosives planted in ambush.

[Max Rockatansky]

After the initial invasion and the Iraqi government collapsed, we allowed the local sheiks to run locally. They were happy. Then Paul Bremer rolled into town and crapped all over that plan and forced a central government on Iraq. That is when they rose up against the occupation.Even Bremer admits "mistakes were made" but, although he was the new "Dictator of Iraq", he puts blame on Washington. In other words, Bush and Cheney, even though he doesn't name them and Rumsfeld. Regardless, he clearly screwed the pooch.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10739597/ns/dateline_nbc/t/his-year-iraq/

Back when he was appointed in May of 2003, the 61-year-old Ivy League-educated Bremer, a career diplomat, had never been to Iraq and did not speak the language. The ambassador was about to get his boots dirty in a very dangerous place.Just days after he got the job, Bremer says he saw an alarming report from a think tank, concluding it would take three times more US troops to stabilize Iraq than had actually been sent.
He says he tried to get the attention of his direct boss—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

.....Though Bremer says he never heard back from his direct boss, he says he then discussed his concerns with the president. According to Bremer, President Bush said he would try to get more troops from other countries, but made no mention of increasing the number of American forces.
Once Bremer arrived in Baghdad, he had to quickly decide what to do about the old Iraqi Army. His critics point to this as Bremer’s biggest blunder, they say it helped create a growing insurgency in Iraq.


http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/once-dubbed-americas-dictator-iraq-paul-bremer-now-finds-stress-v19298898

Bremer has been criticized for some decisions in Iraq – chiefly disbanding the Iraqi army, though he says this was approved by Washington and tens of thousands of soldiers had deserted anyway (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10739597/ns/dateline_nbc/t/his-year-iraq/#.UdaBx_mR9Zo).

“We did the best we could with the tools we were given,” Bremer said, pointing to the writing of the region’s “most progressive” constitution and saying he helped get the economy going. “The per capita income in Iraq is six times what it was before the war.”

If you're going to rebuild a nation after a devastating war, it's best to know what the heck you are doing.

[Nemo]

The only thing to be learnt from history is that nobody learns from history."
- William Golding, Close Quarters (1987)
. . .
It would take a great philosopher to know all the causes of the Iraq war, suffice it to say that President George W. Bush accused Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction - some of which were sold to Iraq by George H.W. Bush when he was President - that Saddam Hussein denied having and the United Nations weapons inspectors could not find, but that President Bush insisted Iraq had, or was in the process of acquiring for imminent use against the United States; and that when this was shown to be based on false intelligence, the invasion and occupation was then justified as a war against terrorism, to liberate Iraq from a oppressive regime, and spread democracy throughout the Middle East; for which thousands of American soldiers were killed and wounded, and untold numbers of Iraqi citizens lost their lives, were maimed, imprisoned, tortured, humiliated, and made to be enemies of the United States and its allies, and fermenting civil war.

Now that we are out of it, we can look back upon the whole scene with historic smugness. What are the lessons learned? What, in the final analysis, was accomplished? Did we win the war? Or was it a phony victory to be whitewashed by politicians? "Peace with honor" was the best face that Kissinger and Nixon could put on our inglorious exit from the Vietnam quagmire. In The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli maintained that a state that is hard won in war is easily ruled as the enemy has been destroyed; where as a state that easily won is not easily held because the enemy still remains everywhere about the occupier. Machaivelli, Il Principe (1532). Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz - the architects of the war in Iraq - both profess to have studied Machiavelli. Apparently, they didn’t learn their lessons well; and President Bush would have done well to have had better advisors.

[Max Rockatansky]

A good post, Nemo, but it will take more than just a few years to understand all the ins and outs of what drove the Iraq War. It took us a couple of decades to understand Vietnam. Iraq will be the same.

FWIW, I disagree with Golding. Some people do learn from history, but the masses do not. As posted previously, 72% of Americans supported the Iraq War.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx
http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr030324i.gif

Seventy-two percent of Americans interviewed in a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Saturday and Sunday favor the war against Iraq, while 25% are opposed. Roughly the same number approve of the job President George W. Bush is doing.

The percentage supporting the war is just slightly lower than the 76% approval registered last Thursday night -- the day after hostilities began -- but remains significantly higher than support levels in the weeks and months leading up to the beginning of hostilities. Approval levels for the concept of war had been running in the high 50% range in the months leading up to last week. Support increased to 66% on Monday night, March 17, after President Bush made his "ultimatum" speech in which he pledged military action if Saddam Hussein did not leave Iraq, and, as noted, jumped to 76% on Thursday night.


The level of support for the war against Iraq is slightly more muted than was the case just after the first Persian Gulf War began in January 1991. At that time, 80% of Americans supported the decision to begin the air war in the effort to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait.


Both those who support and those who oppose the current war say they hold their views strongly. Out of the total of 72% who favor the military action, about four in five (59% of all Americans) say they support it strongly. At the other end of the spectrum, of the 25% who oppose military action, roughly two-thirds (17% of all Americans) oppose it strongly.

[Cigar]

A good post, Nemo, but it will take more than just a few years to understand all the ins and outs of what drove the Iraq War. It took us a couple of decades to understand Vietnam. Iraq will be the same.

FWIW, I disagree with Golding. Some people do learn from history, but the masses do not. As posted previously, about 70% of Americans supported the Iraq War.

Well we already know what it wasn't about :wink:

[nathanbforrest45]

I would watch this but I will be exceptionally busy papering the inside of my refrigerator.

[exotix]

I would watch this but I will be exceptionally busy papering the inside of my refrigerator.
Oh, as soon as you're finished here you go ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbzWXEE65us

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnZLmWOm0G8

[nic34]

Amazing how many here won't even look at both sides.

[Max Rockatansky]

Amazing how many here won't even look at both sides.
I'm always willing to look at both sides of an issue but what MSNBC and Fox News present isn't a valid "side" or logical point of view. It's all-too-often simply throwing red meat to their fans.

Did we fuck up as a nation in attacking Iraq? Yes. Every professional military officer I knew in 2002-2003 knew it would be a colossal mistake to go into Iraq because it would become a quagmire. It wasn't winning the war that was a problem, but winning the peace. The cost and the time would easily go into years. And that's exactly what happened. Not the happy horseshit about "We'll be welcomed as liberators" that was being sold at the time.

Pottery Barn rules.

No Exit Strategy.

The Bush administration going General shopping to find someone to lead the fiasco.

Does any of that ring a bell?

[BB-35]

Airing tonight at 9 Eastern


Rachael Maddow documents why Bush invaded Iraq based on new evidence

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/why-we-did-it-preview-bushs-early-focus-182614595615


'Within days of his inauguration ... and 8 months before 9/11 ... Bush called-in his national security team wanting to know how he could invade Iraq ... using Israel as the bait'



Video Inside

http://i60.tinypic.com/zmy6i8.png

The Iraqi liberation act was law...nuff said

[BB-35]

That's enough to drop a 2000 pound bomb on his ass, but not put over 4400 Americans into their grave and blow almost a trillion dollars of the taxpayer's money. We could have bombed every "palace" into oblivion and killed Saddam for a whole lot less.

What is enough,then?

[Max Rockatansky]

What is enough,then?
Enough what? To execute a bombing mission? As assassination attempt does it for me.

[Ransom]

Can we all please first read the 1998 Osama Bin Laden Fatwa to begin to understand why we invaded Iraq?

[Peter1469]

Or better yet, don't rebuild it. Put a strongman in charge that fears the US and leave.


Even Bremer admits "mistakes were made" but, although he was the new "Dictator of Iraq", he puts blame on Washington. In other words, Bush and Cheney, even though he doesn't name them and Rumsfeld. Regardless, he clearly screwed the pooch.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10739597/ns/dateline_nbc/t/his-year-iraq/



http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/once-dubbed-americas-dictator-iraq-paul-bremer-now-finds-stress-v19298898


If you're going to rebuild a nation after a devastating war, it's best to know what the heck you are doing.

[nic34]

I'm always willing to look at both sides of an issue but what MSNBC and Fox News present isn't a valid "side" or logical point of view. It's all-too-often simply throwing red meat to their fans.

Did we fuck up as a nation in attacking Iraq? Yes. Every professional military officer I knew in 2002-2003 knew it would be a colossal mistake to go into Iraq because it would become a quagmire. It wasn't winning the war that was a problem, but winning the peace. The cost and the time would easily go into years. And that's exactly what happened. Not the happy horseshit about "We'll be welcomed as liberators" that was being sold at the time.

Pottery Barn rules.

No Exit Strategy.

The Bush administration going General shopping to find someone to lead the fiasco.

Does any of that ring a bell?

All your points were addressed fairly. I watched most of it and all sides were examined.

[Max Rockatansky]

All your points were addressed fairly. I watched most of it and all sides were examined.

Fairly according to whom? Please give a synopsis or point to a link.

[Max Rockatansky]

Or better yet, don't rebuild it. Put a strongman in charge that fears the US and leave.

There was already one there when Bush started this fiasco. If we didn't like his cooperation in opening up his "palaces" for inspection, we should have just let a flight of B-52s use them for target practice. What were we afraid of?

[Ransom]

Or better yet, don't rebuild it. Put a strongman in charge that fears the US and leave.

Yeah because...that is the only answer. Self-determination, human rights, the ability to survive without some 'strongman' dictating realities, there is no other answer huh, Pete? Democracy either too difficult or unwanted even though Iraqis voted in greater turnout numbers than American elections receive. A strongman, a dictator the only solution, I mean......one cannot leave the human spirit to oneself.......these are cultures who don't get it, freedom and self-determination unheard of, they don't know any better, huh Pete?

[Ransom]

Amazing how many here won't even look at both sides.

Yes....amazing huh....nic?

[Ransom]

Amazing how many here won't even look at both sides.

Pot, meet kettle.

[Max Rockatansky]

Yeah because...that is the only answer. Self-determination, human rights, the ability to survive without some 'strongman' dictating realities, there is no other answer huh, Pete? Democracy either too difficult or unwanted even though Iraqis voted in greater turnout numbers than American elections receive. A strongman, a dictator the only solution, I mean......one cannot leave the human spirit to oneself.......these are cultures who don't get it, freedom and self-determination unheard of, they don't know any better, huh Pete?

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here, Ransom. Are you advocating that we were justified in attacking Iraq to "free those people"?

All the Bush arguments, which went through a few evolutions, to attack Iraq pale when compared to other nations. North Korea has WMDs so why don't we attack them? Their people are starving and damn near enslaved so why not attack them and "free those people"? Same goes for Iran, many nations in Africa (except for the WMD thing) and other countries around the world. Is freeing people the job of the US government? Not in my opinion.

[Peter1469]

Ransom is really John Bolton. :wink: We should make him the permanent ambassador to the United Nations, pull his string, and let him do what he does. But never put him in a position where he makes policy for the US. :smiley:


I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here, @Ransom (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=724). Are you advocating that we were justified in attacking Iraq to "free those people"?

All the Bush arguments, which went through a few evolutions, to attack Iraq pale when compared to other nations. North Korea has WMDs so why don't we attack them? Their people are starving and damn near enslaved so why not attack them and "free those people"? Same goes for Iran, many nations in Africa (except for the WMD thing) and other countries around the world. Is freeing people the job of the US government? Not in my opinion.

[Ransom]

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here, @Ransom (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=724). Are you advocating that we were justified in attacking Iraq to "free those people"?

Don't be a Pete, Max. If you're not quite sure, type that out.....don't offer a guess afterwards. One Pete per forum, please.


All the Bush arguments, which went through a few evolutions, to attack Iraq pale when compared to other nations. North Korea has WMDs so why don't we attack them? Their people are starving and damn near enslaved so why not attack them and "free those people"? Same goes for Iran, many nations in Africa (except for the WMD thing) and other countries around the world. Is freeing people the job of the US government? Not in my opinion.

My point is that many believe a strongman or dictator can be the only successful government in this region and I take issue with that. Religious leadership or dictatorships seem to be the limit of thought process regarding governance in the ME. And I'm calling that out and yes, using Iraq as my example. Freeing people not our primary motivation in Iraq, but we did facilitate and adhere to free elections in Iraq, many candidates we didn't support winning, turnout heavy. Especially given the security realities in Iraq. My point is the opposite. You cannot allow self-determination's seeds to root.....and then pronounce in your utterly clueless manner that some strongman now needs to walk in and thus we can be on our way, we've got our own head to bury in the sand, prayers to say so that all of this just goes away. I was just crushing the normal naïve nonsense....was there anything else?

[Ransom]

@Ransom (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=724) is really John Bolton. :wink: We should make him the permanent ambassador to the United Nations, pull his string, and let him do what he does. But never put him in a position where he makes policy for the US. :smiley:

Bolton a great speaker, knows his shit. I'll take that as a compliment.