If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   10 years ago today, the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq began and answers once and for all the age old question of "What could possibly go wrong?"   (reuters.com) divider line 182
    More: Fail, invasion of Iraq, Iraq, U.S., Said Ali al Farha, Maliki, ISI, Anbar, Shiites  
•       •       •

2030 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Mar 2013 at 8:38 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



182 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-19 08:32:02 AM
 
2013-03-19 08:33:51 AM
There's just so much that's depressing about this anniversary. The biggest of which - to me - is that we haven't learned anything. All the people who were so utterly confident, mocked those who disagreed and were 100% wrong? Still in positions of power, no accountability, no reflection. All those who nailed it? Still mocked and marginalized. Correlation with reality still has no real weight in or influence in our politics.
 
2013-03-19 08:38:12 AM
I think enough time has passed to fully admit that U.S. interests were NOT served in any way.  The whole "wait and see" thing, well we did and.... I still see no advantage for the U.S. having done this.  None whatsoever.  Certainly not anything worth the tremendous price.
 
2013-03-19 08:38:59 AM
It is interesting to point out though that, historically speaking, our wars are getting 'better' - ie less people are dying. Whether its due to a better sense of morality in war, more precision weapons, better health care or something else, in the 10 years since we went into Iraq, we 'only' lost about 4.5K Americans and about 150K Iraqis (still a staggering number). If you compare to Vietnam, those are small numbers. So that's something.
 
2013-03-19 08:40:34 AM

DamnYankees: There's just so much that's depressing about this anniversary. The biggest of which - to me - is that we haven't learned anything. All the people who were so utterly confident, mocked those who disagreed and were 100% wrong? Still in positions of power, no accountability, no reflection. All those who nailed it? Still mocked and marginalized. Correlation with reality still has no real weight in or influence in our politics.


Neoconservatives  have been marginalized with the Obama administration.  That is a big change.

Note how we are not invading Iran, for example.
 
2013-03-19 08:40:40 AM
"Should we bring back these species? And what would we do them?"

Good jorb, editors!
 
2013-03-19 08:40:45 AM
This sho uo
 
2013-03-19 08:41:20 AM
Trying that again, this should be a fun thread.
 
2013-03-19 08:41:20 AM
dammit.  wrong thread.

Good jorb, Farker.
 
2013-03-19 08:41:22 AM
Was stupid then.

Continues being stupid.
 
2013-03-19 08:41:28 AM

people: Neoconservatives  have been marginalized with the Obama administration.  That is a big change.


Is that because neocons have been marginalized? Or just that there's a Democrat in office? I don't buy it.
 
2013-03-19 08:41:41 AM

DamnYankees: about 150K Iraqis (still a staggering number). If you compare to Vietnam, those are small numbers. So that's something.


That 150k number that keeps getting thrown out is a lowball based only on reports in the media. The real number is several times higher.
 
2013-03-19 08:42:05 AM

Xenomech: "Should we bring back these species? And what would we do them?"

Good jorb, editors!


Neo-conservatives, while a threatened species, are certainly not extinct.
 
2013-03-19 08:42:11 AM
This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.
 
2013-03-19 08:42:33 AM
Ugh.
 
2013-03-19 08:43:09 AM
I blame the "liberal" media for the entire thing. They sold everything they are to cheer lead for that war, and they'll do it again with Iran.
 
2013-03-19 08:43:14 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: DamnYankees: about 150K Iraqis (still a staggering number). If you compare to Vietnam, those are small numbers. So that's something.

That 150k number that keeps getting thrown out is a lowball based only on reports in the media. The real number is several times higher.


All I can use is the numbers reported by people I can trust. Also, just like the 150K is an approximation, so are the Vietnam numbers. For the sake of comparison I don't know what else to use.
 
2013-03-19 08:43:42 AM
and everybody lived happily ever after

Bombs kill 50 on Iraq invasion anniversary

(Reuters) - A dozen car bombs and suicide blasts tore into Shi'ite districts in Baghdad and south of the Iraqi capital on Tuesday, killing more than 50 people on the 10th anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein.
 
MFK
2013-03-19 08:43:54 AM
solitary: This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.
 
2013-03-19 08:44:26 AM

DamnYankees: people: Neoconservatives  have been marginalized with the Obama administration.  That is a big change.

Is that because neocons have been marginalized? Or just that there's a Democrat in office? I don't buy it.


They're marginalized.

The most telling exposition of this is with the Hagel nomination.  The white house and hagel kissed key Pro-Israeli dems asses, like Schumer.  (Others has posterior smooching, too).

Regular core neoconservatives were left out in the cold, pounding sand, angry as hell.

Their access to power is cut off.  Its much like it was in the Clinton years.
 
2013-03-19 08:44:43 AM

solitary: WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.


I don't think that's 100% true, although I think the majority opposed to the war knew, for whatever their reasons, that the whole thing was a bad idea.
 
2013-03-19 08:45:35 AM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Neo-conservatives, while a threatened species, are certainly not extinct.


Bears repeating.

Cut from access to power =/= extinct.  They're waiting.
 
2013-03-19 08:46:00 AM
\MFK: solitary: This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.

Too easy. Do you really think a majority of Americans were knowingly complicit in a lie? Please.
 
2013-03-19 08:46:01 AM
1 the people who profit from such things did very well
2 the politicians that get paid to orchestrate such things were paid very well
3 you got entertainment

it was a win win win situation
mission suceeded very well
 
2013-03-19 08:46:46 AM
People wake up! Benghazi! Benghazi!
 
2013-03-19 08:46:59 AM

solitary: This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.


That is why we did not join you. For all of Jean Chretien's flaws, he was the proud owner of some of the largest testicles on the planet, and he had no problem at all telling Blair and Bush to go pound sand all by themselves. I saw an interview with him last week and the journalist suggested it was some huge, moumental step forward for Canadian sovereignty to tell the US that we wouldn't be joining a war on the wrong side. He agreed it was a big deal on the national stage, but correctly pointed out that there really is no other way that decision should've gone.
 
2013-03-19 08:48:03 AM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: solitary: WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.

I don't think that's 100% true, although I think the majority opposed to the war knew, for whatever their reasons, that the whole thing was a bad idea.


Ok, but the original point stands:  People spoke out at the time.  Not only were they ridiculed, their love of America was called to question.
 
2013-03-19 08:49:48 AM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: although I think the majority opposed to the war knew


what majority?  Bush had a 90% approval rating after declaring war (he has the highest one time approval rating in history)
 
2013-03-19 08:50:10 AM

DamnYankees: \MFK: solitary: This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.

Too easy. Do you really think a majority of Americans were knowingly complicit in a lie? Please.


When Colin Powell says he didn't know he wasn't telling the truth to the UNSC (even though he probably should have) there's no way a public who believes what FOX tells them could reasonably be expected to figure it out.
 
2013-03-19 08:50:39 AM

thecpt: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: although I think the majority opposed to the war knew

what majority?  Bush had a 90% approval rating after declaring war (he has the highest one time approval rating in history)


wow.
 
2013-03-19 08:51:07 AM

Flakeloaf: That is why we did not join you.


Major components of American power were against the war.  Many military leaders to ex US politicians, to industry leaders.

The Russians, Germans, French, and others had problems with it.

It is an incredible demonstration power how, really, a small group of people were able to ram this through and get a buffoon of a president to go with the plan.  The media most certainly have a finger pointed at them, and it isn't just Judith Miller here.
 
2013-03-19 08:51:30 AM

thecpt: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: although I think the majority opposed to the war knew

what majority?  Bush had a 90% approval rating after declaring war (he has the highest one time approval rating in history)


Is English your second language?
 
2013-03-19 08:51:42 AM

solitary: This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.


New evidence: CIA and MI6 were told before invasion that Iraq had no active WMD

Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, a German source codenamed Curveball. He admitted to the Guardian in 2011 that all the information he gave to the west was fabricated.
 
2013-03-19 08:52:23 AM

Bladel: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: solitary: WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.

I don't think that's 100% true, although I think the majority opposed to the war knew, for whatever their reasons, that the whole thing was a bad idea.

Ok, but the original point stands:  People spoke out at the time.  Not only were they ridiculed, their love of America was called to question.


This is the correct answer. Many people could see this was a horrific mistake from jump street.
 
2013-03-19 08:52:42 AM
What I've always wondered was what they hoped to gain by this invasion.  And if they actually had a goal did they achieve it?   The best I can figure was to extend our influence in the zone to make sure we were on top of the limited resource of oil.  And that's really not all that bad a thing to do strategerically speaking.  But it's not like we didn't have plenty of influence there already and all that has happened is oil prices have continued to climb.  So really we just spent several trillion dollars to spend more money.  I guess the only way to justify the "Defense" budget is to use it every now and then and this was as good a reason as any.
 
2013-03-19 08:54:03 AM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Is English your second language?


so what are you talking about.
 
2013-03-19 08:54:29 AM

thecpt: Bush had a 90% approval rating after declaring war (he has the highest one time approval rating in history)


Sort of. That was immediately after 9/11, though. He DID get a big bounce right at the start of the invasion, but it was more like 75%.

www.hist.umn.edu
 
2013-03-19 08:54:47 AM

Bladel: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: solitary: WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.

I don't think that's 100% true, although I think the majority opposed to the war knew, for whatever their reasons, that the whole thing was a bad idea.

Ok, but the original point stands:  People spoke out at the time.  Not only were they ridiculed, their love of America was called to question.


That's not in dispute, I'm just trying to remember the conversation the country was having at the time without injecting what we've found out in hindsight.
 
2013-03-19 08:56:58 AM

neversubmit: New evidence: CIA and MI6 were told before invasion that Iraq had no active WMD

Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, a German source codenamed Curveball. He admitted to the Guardian in 2011 that all the information he gave to the west was fabricated.


We were aware of the bullshiat fabrication in 2004.  Neoconservatives set up an alternative "intelligence" shop, because normal routes could not be trusted to peddle bullshiat.

The Lie Factory
2004


Indeed, the Bush team at the Pentagon hadn't even been formally installed before Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of Defense, and Douglas J. Feith, undersecretary of Defense for policy, began putting together what would become the vanguard for regime change in Iraq.

Both Wolfowitz and Feith have deep roots in the neoconservative movement. One of the most influential Washington neo- conservatives in the foreign-policy establishment during the Republicans' wilderness years of the 1990s, Wolfowitz has long held that not taking Baghdad in 1991 was a grievous mistake. He and others now prominent in the administration said so repeatedly over the past decade in a slew of letters and policy papers from neoconservative groups like the Project for the New American Century and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Feith, a former aide to Richard Perle at the Pentagon in the 1980s and an activist in far-right Zionist circles, held the view that there was no difference between U.S. and Israeli security policy and that the best way to secure both countries' future was to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem not by serving as a broker, but with the United States as a force for "regime change" in the region.

Called in to help organize the Iraq war-planning team was a longtime Pentagon official, Harold Rhode, a specialist on Islam who speaks Hebrew, Arabic, Turkish, and Farsi. Though Feith would not be officially confirmed until July 2001, career military and civilian officials in NESA began to watch his office with concern after Rhode set up shop in Feith's office in early January. Rhode, seen by many veteran staffers as an ideological gadfly, was officially assigned to the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, an in-house Pentagon think tank headed by fellow neocon Andrew Marshall. Rhode helped Feith lay down the law about the department's new anti-Iraq, and broadly anti-Arab, orientation. In one telling incident, Rhode accosted and harangued a visiting senior Arab diplomat, telling him that there would be no "bartering in the bazaar anymore. You're going to have to sit up and pay attention when we say so."

Rhode refused to be interviewed for this story, saying cryptically, "Those who speak, pay."

According to insiders, Rhode worked with Feith to purge career Defense officials who weren't sufficiently enthusiastic about the muscular anti-Iraq crusade that Wolfowitz and Feith wanted. Rhode appeared to be "pulling people out of nooks and crannies of the Defense Intelligence Agency and other places to replace us with," says a former analyst. "They wanted nothing to do with the professional staff. And they wanted us the fark out of there."

The unofficial, off-site recruitment office for Feith and Rhode was the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing think tank whose 12th-floor conference room in Washington is named for the dean of neoconservative defense strategists, the late Albert Wohlstetter, an influential RAND analyst and University of Chicago mathematician. Headquartered at AEI is Richard Perle, Wohlstetter's prize protege, the godfather of the AEI-Defense Department nexus of neoconservatives who was chairman of the Pentagon's influential Defense Policy Board. Rhode, along with Michael Rubin, a former AEI staffer who is also now at the Pentagon, was a ubiquitous presence at AEI conferences on Iraq over the past two years, and the two Pentagon officials seemed almost to be serving as stage managers for the AEI events, often sitting in the front row and speaking in stage whispers to panelists and AEI officials. Just after September 11, 2001, Feith and Rhode recruited David Wurmser, the director of Middle East studies for AEI, to serve as a Pentagon consultant.

Wurmser would be the founding participant of the unnamed, secret intelligence unit at the Pentagon, set up in Feith's office, which would be the nucleus of the Defense Department's Iraq disinformation campaign that was established within weeks of the attacks in New York and Washington. While the CIA and other intelligence agencies concentrated on Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda as the culprit in the 9/11 attacks, Wolfowitz and Feith obsessively focused on Iraq. It was a theory that was discredited, even ridiculed, among intelligence professionals. Daniel Benjamin, co-author of The Age of Sacred Terror, was director of counterterrorism at the National Security Council in the late 1990s. "In 1998, we went through every piece of intelligence we could find to see if there was a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq," he says. "We came to the conclusion that our intelligence agencies had it right: There was no noteworthy relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq. I know that for a fact." Indeed, that was the consensus among virtually all anti-terrorism specialists.

In short, Wurmser, backed by Feith and Rhode, set out to prove what didn't exist.

In an Administration devoted to the notion of "Feith-based intelligence," Wurmser was ideal. For years, he'd been a shrill ideologue, part of the minority crusade during the 1990s that was beating the drums for war against Iraq. Along with Perle and Feith, in 1996 Wurmser and his wife, Meyrav, wrote a provocative strategy paper for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." It called on Israel to work with Jordan and Turkey to "contain, destabilize and roll back" various states in the region, overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq, press Jordan to restore a scion of the Hashemite dynasty to the Iraqi throne, and, above all, launch military assaults against Lebanon and Syria as a "prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial integrity."
 
2013-03-19 08:57:12 AM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: thecpt: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: although I think the majority opposed to the war knew

what majority?  Bush had a 90% approval rating after declaring war (he has the highest one time approval rating in history)

Is English your second language?


oops my bad, the 90% was post 9/11.  it rose back up to 77% for the Iraq war

www.hist.umn.edu
 
2013-03-19 08:57:23 AM
Nothing has really changed. A terrifying number od Americans still think we should keep playing cop and nanny to the world. If Korea, Vietnam, Gulf war, and Bosnia taught them nothing, why would they learn from Iraq and Afghanistan?
Rome lasted over a thousand years. We won't make it to 300. We will piss away our entire substance, trying to fix and ungrateful and undeserving world of savages.
And I'll be dead, so I don't care.
Hope your grandchildren enjo the scrap heap we are leaving them.
(White Knights of Stupid - flames on!!)
 
2013-03-19 08:57:25 AM
Like rust, the Neocon Jews never sleep.
PNAC:  http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
War criminals in plain sight:


Elliott AbramsGary BauerWilliam J. BennettJeb Bush

Dick CheneyEliot A. CohenMidge DecterPaula DobrianskySteve Forbes


Aaron FriedbergFrancis FukuyamaFrank GaffneyFred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan
Zalmay KhalilzadI. Lewis LibbyNorman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle
Peter W. RodmanStephen P. RosenHenry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld
Vin WeberGeorge WeigelPaul Wolfowitz
 
2013-03-19 08:58:10 AM

dukeblue219: thecpt: Bush had a 90% approval rating after declaring war (he has the highest one time approval rating in history)

Sort of. That was immediately after 9/11, though. He DID get a big bounce right at the start of the invasion, but it was more like 75%.

[www.hist.umn.edu image 850x581]


damn, didn't have time to correct myself.  Fark rule, research first.
 
2013-03-19 08:58:15 AM
I still can't believe "Freedom Fries" actually happened in the United States Congress.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-03-19 09:01:08 AM

DubtodaIll: What I've always wondered was what they hoped to gain by this invasion.  And if they actually had a goal did they achieve it?   The best I can figure was to extend our influence in the zone to make sure we were on top of the limited resource of oil.  And that's really not all that bad a thing to do strategerically speaking.  But it's not like we didn't have plenty of influence there already and all that has happened is oil prices have continued to climb.  So really we just spent several trillion dollars to spend more money.  I guess the only way to justify the "Defense" budget is to use it every now and then and this was as good a reason as any.


I think some of them wanted to rewrite the Iraqi constitution after the invasion to make Iraq a right wing paradise, with all of their terrible Randian ideas implemented.  Problem with that, it's illegal, and all the major corporations had no interest in moving to Bagdad.
 
2013-03-19 09:01:42 AM
There is one thing that I still haven't been able to figure out.  Saddam DID at one time have nerve gas, in fact he used it on the Kurds.  The USA wasn't the ONLY intelligence agency that said that he had them.  So what happened to them?  Obviously they were gone, I think they found some old shells with residue but that's about it.  People said they went to Syria, but with all that's going on there and the fact that they weren't deployed, that's obviously not the case.

So what really happened?  Did Saddam voluntarily get rid of them years ago?  Or did he think they still had them, perhaps his generals just lied to him and said they did?  It's said that near the tail end of WW2, Hitler was commanding imaginary armies, no one wanted to tell him the truth, perhaps that was the case there?  Obviously they are gone, just wondering what led from him having them to him not.
 
2013-03-19 09:03:44 AM

nekom: So what happened to them?


Some chemical weapons degrade over time to the point where they're effectively useless.  Not sure about nerve gas though.
 
2013-03-19 09:05:45 AM

dukeblue219: I still can't believe "Freedom Fries" actually happened in the United States Congress.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-19 09:08:40 AM
Single worst, most destructive policy decision of our time.
 
2013-03-19 09:09:15 AM

dukeblue219: I still can't believe "Freedom Fries" actually happened in the United States Congress.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 400x599]


It certainly was a low point in the maturity level of the US congress. Purely middle school level thinking.
 
2013-03-19 09:10:56 AM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: nekom: So what happened to them?

Some chemical weapons degrade over time to the point where they're effectively useless.  Not sure about nerve gas though.


No doubt, but if he had the capability to make them at one point, he could have renewed the aging supply. I don't think it's all that difficult to manufacture VX, mustard gas, etc. At least it's a lot easier than getting a nuke or weapons grade anthrax. That's always kind of puzzled me.
 
2013-03-19 09:11:45 AM

neversubmit: and everybody lived happily ever after

Bombs kill 50 on Iraq invasion anniversary

(Reuters) - A dozen car bombs and suicide blasts tore into Shi'ite districts in Baghdad and south of the Iraqi capital on Tuesday, killing more than 50 people on the 10th anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein.


Aww.... they remembered.  How sweet.
 
2013-03-19 09:12:34 AM

dukeblue219: I still can't believe "Freedom Fries" actually happened in the United States Congress.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 400x599]


I liked when a bunch of dullards went and bought up tons of French wine to dump in to the sewer. That must have really killed the people collecting the cash.
 
2013-03-19 09:12:38 AM

Dinki: It certainly was a low point in the maturity level of the US congress.


And then they started to dig...
 
2013-03-19 09:13:05 AM
God I was so farking stupid. I won't bullshiat people and say I opposed it at the time.  I'd like to go back in time and cockpunch my 2003 self.
 
2013-03-19 09:14:52 AM
nekom:
No doubt, but if he had the capability to make them at one point, he could have renewed the aging supply. I don't think it's all that difficult to manufacture VX, mustard gas, etc. At least it's a lot easier than getting a nuke or weapons grade anthrax. That's always kind of puzzled me.

It always puzzled me why he ordered parts specifically meant for nuclear power/weapons.  Yeah, he was faking it and trying to intimidate us.  But really?  He had to of known that meant war, which they would lose.

/farker was insane
 
2013-03-19 09:16:01 AM

DubtodaIll: What I've always wondered was what they hoped to gain by this invasion.  And if they actually had a goal did they achieve it?   The best I can figure was to extend our influence in the zone to make sure we were on top of the limited resource of oil.  And that's really not all that bad a thing to do strategerically speaking.  But it's not like we didn't have plenty of influence there already and all that has happened is oil prices have continued to climb.  So really we just spent several trillion dollars to spend more money.  I guess the only way to justify the "Defense" budget is to use it every now and then and this was as good a reason as any.


It was about the neo-cons trying to create the new American Empire.
 
2013-03-19 09:16:48 AM
The war payed for itself and peace has swept across the region.  I fail to see the problem here.
 
2013-03-19 09:17:16 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: DamnYankees: about 150K Iraqis (still a staggering number). If you compare to Vietnam, those are small numbers. So that's something.

That 150k number that keeps getting thrown out is a lowball based only on reports in the media. The real number is several times higher.


Drone's cant make notches in their helmet?
 
2013-03-19 09:17:37 AM

DamnYankees: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: DamnYankees: about 150K Iraqis (still a staggering number). If you compare to Vietnam, those are small numbers. So that's something.

That 150k number that keeps getting thrown out is a lowball based only on reports in the media. The real number is several times higher.

All I can use is the numbers reported by people I can trust. Also, just like the 150K is an approximation, so are the Vietnam numbers. For the sake of comparison I don't know what else to use.



Based on the work done by British based Opinion Research Business back in 2007 and the subsequent tracking by organizations adding to that research in the time since, I'd argue that number is actually closer to 1.4 million dead (with another 4.5 million injured and 4.2 million refugees). The book Erasing Iraq: The Human Costs of Carnage is an excellent overview of the efforts by our government to undermine every serious attempt at estimating the true human cost of the invasion and occupation. Regardless, those are number *I* trust. If I take that as a jumping off point, we're talking about 5% of the population of Iraq. Compare that to 2.5% of the population lost in the U.S. Civil War or 3% to 4% of the population of Japan in WWII. So no, I think your premise is deeply flawed.
 
2013-03-19 09:17:38 AM
Before I post anything, I forget. Are we allowed to comment, or are we still waiting for history to judge this boondoggle a waste and Americans complacent for not having the offenders hung, drawn and quartered for lying a nation into war and promoting torture?
 
2013-03-19 09:17:42 AM

thecpt: nekom:
No doubt, but if he had the capability to make them at one point, he could have renewed the aging supply. I don't think it's all that difficult to manufacture VX, mustard gas, etc. At least it's a lot easier than getting a nuke or weapons grade anthrax. That's always kind of puzzled me.

It always puzzled me why he ordered parts specifically meant for nuclear power/weapons.  Yeah, he was faking it and trying to intimidate us.  But really?  He had to of known that meant war, which they would lose.

/farker was insane


Well, he overplayed his hand, whatever the case. I think he probably believed that we'd have a Gulf War I redux, we'd bomb and eventually get tired of bombing, he'd go back to his palace, declare victory and move right along. He misunderestimated Bush, apparently.
 
MFK
2013-03-19 09:17:58 AM

Flakeloaf: DamnYankees: \MFK: solitary: This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.

Too easy. Do you really think a majority of Americans were knowingly complicit in a lie? Please.

When Colin Powell says he didn't know he wasn't telling the truth to the UNSC (even though he probably should have) there's no way a public who believes what FOX tells them could reasonably be expected to figure it out.


Bullshiat. This is a cop out of the highest order. It was glaringly obvious that the whole debacle was trumped up. Remember the million-strong protests in NYC and elsewhere? Millions of us knew it was lies. If you weren't paying attention at the time, that's not the fault of "the media", that's on you.
 
2013-03-19 09:20:03 AM
DubtodaIll: What I've always wondered was what they hoped to gain by this invasion.  And if they actually had a goal did they achieve it?   The best I can figure was to extend our influence in the zone to make sure we were on top of the limited resource of oil.  And that's really not all that bad a thing to do strategerically speaking.  But it's not like we didn't have plenty of influence there already and all that has happened is oil prices have continued to climb.  So really we just spent several trillion dollars to spend more money.  I guess the only way to justify the "Defense" budget is to use it every now and then and this was as good a reason as any.

i think it was along these lines:

"well, boys, what do we do to assure 9 11 cant happen again, and to "drain the swamp of the middle east" of terrorism? how do we modernize the place, we cant touch the sauds and the iranians are our sworn enemies and stronger than iraq. if we can bring one of the major players forward, we can hopefully modernize the whole place and its McDonalds and Starbucks on every corner, peace, prosperity, and lucrative oil contracts as a nice perk. how bout baghdad? they should be the most receptive. they dont like saddam, theyre a relatively secular arab society (in contrast to the sauds), if we can real quick topple saddam in the way that Rummy thinks he can with this new modern invasion concept, it wont cost much, wont take many guys to do, and we can have iraq, the biggest guy in the region, as our best friend in the region.  this will put reform pressure on iran and saudi and make the whole place mroe stable."

i really dont think oil was the driver, although it was certainly going to be a nice kickback / perk.

wolfowitz and his other neocon cronys really believed in leveraging american power "for good" (read: to further American interests); and using it to expand American style power and freedom around the world and to change the region for "everyone's benefit", this follows the neocon ideology (from wiki): "Neoconservatism is a branch ofAmerican conservatism that includes endorsement of political individualism, free markets and the assertive promotion of democracy, and American national interest in international affairs including by military means"

-------
Further wiki stuff:
During Bush's State of the Union speech of January 2002, he named Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as states that "constitute an axis of evil" and "pose a grave and growing danger". Bush suggested the possibility of preemptive war: "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.

Some major defense and national-security persons have been quite critical of what they believed was neoconservative influence in getting the United States to war with Iraq.
Nebraska Republican U.S. senator Chuck Hagel, who has been critical of the Bush administration's adoption of neoconservative ideology, in his book America: Our Next Chapter wrote:

"So why did we invade Iraq? I believe it was the triumph of the so-called neo-conservative ideology, as well as Bush administration arrogance and incompetence that took America into this war of choice. . . . They obviously made a convincing case to a president with very limited national security and foreign policy experience, who keenly felt the burden of leading the nation in the wake of the deadliest terrorist attack ever on American soil."

Policy analysts noted that the Bush Doctrine as stated in the 2002 NSC document had a strong resemblance to recommendations presented originally in a controversial Defense Planning Guidance draft written during 1992 by Paul Wolfowitz, during the first Bush administration. The Bush Doctrine was greeted with accolades by many neoconservatives. When asked whether he agreed with the Bush Doctrine, Max Boot said he did, and that "I think [Bush is] exactly right to say we can't sit back and wait for the next terrorist strike on Manhattan. We have to go out and stop the terrorists overseas. We have to play the role of the global policeman. . . . But I also argue that we ought to go further. Discussing the significance of the Bush Doctrine, neoconservative writer William Kristol claimed: "The world is a mess. And, I think, it's very much to Bush's credit that he's gotten serious about dealing with it. . . . The danger is not that we're going to do too much. The danger is that we're going to do too little."
----------

The thing is, this, on paper, is not a terrible idea. What was so criminally incompetent was how it was executed. If bush could've been more patient, built the case necessary with the Supranational bodies like the UN and gotten legitimacy and a broader base of support (had an alliance more along the lines of what Baker assembled for his father during the Liberation of Kuwait) and invaded Iraq, even if had been under BS terms as it surely would've been, but with a UN mandate and blue helmets on every street corner in Iraq in large numbers, the insurgency "against the americans" never would've had the legitimacy it had in the eyes of the Iraqis as fighting an oppressor/imperialist/invader.

We would've had other countries helping foot the bill for it, and it would've had a much larger potential for success.

As it was, just letting the US military run it along with Bremer, who completely clusterfarked it, was just a recipe for failure. Noone even appears to have given what happens AFTER the toppling of saddam a second thought.

The breath taking incompetence of the Bush administration in this regard is mind boggling. The accusation of "theyre war criminals" has merit. Certainly a stronger case for that than the evidence which justified the invasion.
 
2013-03-19 09:20:07 AM

nekom: He misunderestimated Bush, apparently.


I think you misdispronounciated that one.
 
2013-03-19 09:20:28 AM
The repercussions were that Obammmma was elected twice.
 
2013-03-19 09:21:40 AM
How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.
 
2013-03-19 09:21:40 AM
I'll tell you what. The programs that progress a civilization were cut or reduced in order to pay for a war nobody wanted.
 
2013-03-19 09:22:24 AM

HotWingConspiracy: dukeblue219: I still can't believe "Freedom Fries" actually happened in the United States Congress.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 400x599]

I liked when a bunch of dullards went and bought up tons of French wine to dump in to the sewer. That must have really killed the people collecting the cash.


you remember that nutjob florida politician who wanted to have all our GIs in French cemetaries who fell in ww1 and ww2 disinterred and buried on US soiL?
 
2013-03-19 09:23:11 AM

Earl of Chives: Bladel: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: solitary: WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.

I don't think that's 100% true, although I think the majority opposed to the war knew, for whatever their reasons, that the whole thing was a bad idea.

Ok, but the original point stands:  People spoke out at the time.  Not only were they ridiculed, their love of America was called to question.

This is the correct answer. Many people could see this was a horrific mistake from jump street.


Too many of the wrong people, too few of the ones that mattered.
Someone will always disagree with any decision and appear to be right in hindsight. But many of these views developed along partisan lines.   Those who thought they were seeing the evidence decided to go along with the war.

Fact is that wars never go smoothly.  You've got to adapt your goals to a changing situation.
We should be looking at the present situation and sorting out why its falling apart and how to fix it.
Instead we are looking to blame someone, because that's what politics is these days.

We didn't have a long term goal going in and we never developed one throughout a decade of debate.
Its going to end in a miserable pile of failure, but not just because of how it started. Its because of our habitual inability to construct and enforce a strait forward policy on foreign intervention.
 
2013-03-19 09:24:08 AM
I wouldn't have a hard time with a sad tag, but a big hearty fuk U to Subb, his enabler and his groupies for the FAIL tag. War sucks, but kindly go shove it in your stinkholes. I'm really surprised you don't picket VFW parking lots and boast your huge intellectual superiority there.
 
2013-03-19 09:24:42 AM

I'd just like to say sorry to all of the service members who ended up there because of lies. But thank you - that doesn't make your service less admirable in the slightest.

Sorry to all the Iraqi families torn apart by this. Especially those who aided the Americans and coalition who weren't offered a fast track path to citizenship for themselves and their families after they were put in harms way.

A big F--K YOU to the people who orchestrated this bullsh-t. I hope you realize the blood on your hands Lady Macbeth style.

solitary: This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.


This.

I do wish I could have done more. Don't know what that would have been, though.


Shrugging Atlas: God I was so farking stupid. I won't bullshiat people and say I opposed it at the time.  I'd like to go back in time and cockpunch my 2003 self.


Thanks for admitting it.  That sounds sarcastic, but it isn't.

 
2013-03-19 09:26:26 AM
Pottery Barn rule?

Pottery Barn rule.
 
2013-03-19 09:26:49 AM

Stinkyy: I wouldn't have a hard time with a sad tag, but a big hearty fuk U to Subb, his enabler and his groupies for the FAIL tag. War sucks, but kindly go shove it in your stinkholes. I'm really surprised you don't picket VFW parking lots and boast your huge intellectual superiority there.


Dafuq are you going on about?
 
2013-03-19 09:27:38 AM

DamnYankees: It is interesting to point out though that, historically speaking, our wars are getting 'better' - ie less people are dying. Whether its due to a better sense of morality in war, more precision weapons, better health care or something else, in the 10 years since we went into Iraq, we 'only' lost about 4.5K Americans and about 150K Iraqis (still a staggering number). If you compare to Vietnam, those are small numbers. So that's something.


While I don't doubt that the US military is much more skilled in 2013 than it was in 1973, that conclusion should be tempered by the fact that 1) Vietnam was a much more populated country, both in absolute numbers and in density; 2) we were essentially fighting a foreign army (the NVA), and one supported by two fairly powerful allies at that (USSR and China -- Iran and Syria can't compare); and 3) we were fighting with a draftee army.
 
2013-03-19 09:27:46 AM
 
2013-03-19 09:29:27 AM

MFK: solitary: This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.


QFT - I remember going to protests before the war (and I'm not a stand with a sign protest type).  I was in such a minority. It seemed everywhere I turned people were beating the drums for war.

I wish we could impose a tax on all those that wanted the war...
 
2013-03-19 09:31:43 AM

MFK: Flakeloaf: DamnYankees: \MFK: solitary: This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.

Too easy. Do you really think a majority of Americans were knowingly complicit in a lie? Please.

When Colin Powell says he didn't know he wasn't telling the truth to the UNSC (even though he probably should have) there's no way a public who believes what FOX tells them could reasonably be expected to figure it out.

Bullshiat. This is a cop out of the highest order. It was glaringly obvious that the whole debacle was trumped up. Remember the million-strong protests in NYC and elsewhere? Millions of us knew it was lies. If you weren't paying attention at the time, that's not the fault of "the media", that's on you.


This.

In my hometown there's a decent population of folks who fled Iraq.  There is no f--king love lost for Saddam.  And of the half-dozen or so conversations I can remember with some of them off the top of my head, not a single person believed the BS reasoning for going into war.  Most of them said that it was still justified, or that Saddam had to be stopped by any means necessary anyway, but if people who have damn good reasons for hating Saddam didn't buy into this crap... COME ON.

It was stupidly, mind-blowingly obvious.
 
MFK
2013-03-19 09:32:57 AM

way south: Earl of Chives: Bladel: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: solitary: WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.

I don't think that's 100% true, although I think the majority opposed to the war knew, for whatever their reasons, that the whole thing was a bad idea.

Ok, but the original point stands:  People spoke out at the time.  Not only were they ridiculed, their love of America was called to question.

This is the correct answer. Many people could see this was a horrific mistake from jump street.

Too many of the wrong people, too few of the ones that mattered.
Someone will always disagree with any decision and appear to be right in hindsight. But many of these views developed along partisan lines.   Those who thought they were seeing the evidence decided to go along with the war.

Fact is that wars never go smoothly.  You've got to adapt your goals to a changing situation.
We should be looking at the present situation and sorting out why its falling apart and how to fix it.
Instead we are looking to blame someone, because that's what politics is these days.

We didn't have a long term goal going in and we never developed one throughout a decade of debate.
Its going to end in a miserable pile of failure, but not just because of how it started. Its because of our habitual inability to construct and enforce a strait forward policy on foreign intervention.


Are you serious? We shouldn't be blaming anyone?? I guess then in a situation where some guy breaks into your house and rapes your wife and kills your kids, you would be "let's just figure out how i'm gonna move forward and not spend any time pointing fingers or squabbling about who raped who", right?
 
2013-03-19 09:38:40 AM

Publikwerks: http://www.fark.com/comments/473888/White-House-says-disarmament-of-I r aq-has-begun-President-Bush-to-make-statement-at-1015-PM-EST-link-goes -to-not-much


and from the first 100 or so comments alone, that is farking hilarious and exactly what I was trying to say.  The amount of people who don't take responsibility for their public opinion is staggering, and whether they like it or not their opinion matters.

/was in 8th grade at the time
 
2013-03-19 09:39:34 AM
Some of us were on fark way back when, and I remember how openly hostile a lot of Americans were towards Canadians. We'd get the "you only exist because we protected your ass against invasion from the Soviets", and "you're cowards hiding under our coat tails"...
We'd also read how sh*tty our socialist commie government was, how we were communists supporting terrorism by letting 9/11 terrorists cross the border and into your country (a complete f*cking lie that few bothered to correct), how we were traitors and didn't have the balls to stand up to anyone. Out in Alberta we'd read stories how farmers who had known each other for years could no longer drive across the border into Montana and sit in a restaurant without some asshole calling us cowards, throwing food on us or spitting on us and such for not joining the co-alition. And this taking place only a short while after Canada had hosted thousands of stranded Americans when 9/11 shut down the skies over the U.S. Also while Bush and co were ratchecting the trade embargo on beef cattle, and Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh said that the United States should invade Canada.

I got to tell you. It changed a lot of us and how we feel about Americans. I haven't been across the border since. Some of you won't care, but it was a sh*tty way to treat your closet allies and neighbours.
 
2013-03-19 09:39:51 AM

DubtodaIll: What I've always wondered was what they hoped to gain by this invasion. And if they actually had a goal did they achieve it?


I recall seeing Kurt Vonnegut on one show (don't remember which one) where he raved about how the suits in office wanted the Iraqi oil.  I suppose it was a factor.

But as to the actual "achievements"...?  The administration at the time believed Iraq would become this "shining beacon, demonstrating a new standard of living in a free democratic society."  But what actually happened?

- America is now the most hated and despised country on the globe.  None of us will live to see that opinion change.  Nor will our children.  Crusades, anyone....?

- Iraq is now more closely aligned with Iran, when previously they kept Iran in check.  The fact that Iran is now running rampant is one consequence we'll be dealing with for a long time.

- Does anyone recall hearing the phrase "our credibility in the region"?  It was used frequently by the Bush administration.  *What* credibility?  It's evident that the mass quantities of outright lies that were cited to justify the invasion did an outstanding job of sustaining that credibility.

- We did have the support of the entire world after 9/11.  That was a prime opportunity that was squandered in the worst possible way.  The Iraq invasion wiped that clean.

- Haliburton and some other corporations made a LOT of money.  But for some reason this war did not stimulate the economy on the homefront as others have in the past.

There are more.  But I'm feeling a bit nauseated for some reason.
 
2013-03-19 09:39:59 AM

Publikwerks: http://www.fark.com/comments/473888/White-House-says-disarmament-of-I r aq-has-begun-President-Bush-to-make-statement-at-1015-PM-EST-link-goes -to-not-much


This proves once and for all Fark wasn't better 10 years ago.
 
2013-03-19 09:41:22 AM

solitary: This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.


This * 2infinity-1
 
2013-03-19 09:42:15 AM

MFK: way south: Earl of Chives: Bladel: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: solitary: WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.

I don't think that's 100% true, although I think the majority opposed to the war knew, for whatever their reasons, that the whole thing was a bad idea.

Ok, but the original point stands:  People spoke out at the time.  Not only were they ridiculed, their love of America was called to question.

This is the correct answer. Many people could see this was a horrific mistake from jump street.

Too many of the wrong people, too few of the ones that mattered.
Someone will always disagree with any decision and appear to be right in hindsight. But many of these views developed along partisan lines.   Those who thought they were seeing the evidence decided to go along with the war.

Fact is that wars never go smoothly.  You've got to adapt your goals to a changing situation.
We should be looking at the present situation and sorting out why its falling apart and how to fix it.
Instead we are looking to blame someone, because that's what politics is these days.

We didn't have a long term goal going in and we never developed one throughout a decade of debate.
Its going to end in a miserable pile of failure, but not just because of how it started. Its because of our habitual inability to construct and enforce a strait forward policy on foreign intervention.

Are you serious? We shouldn't be blaming anyone?? I guess then in a situation where some guy breaks into your house and rapes your wife and kills your kids, you would be "let's just figure out how i'm gonna move forward and not spend any time pointing fingers or squabbling about who raped who", right?


He meant, "Don't blame the guys I voted for and cheered on 10 years ago while I called anyone who doubted or argued terrorist sympathizers."
 
2013-03-19 09:43:28 AM
Where are all the farkers who always used the "Glass. Parking. Lot." gem? Seriously, everybody who posted shiat like that and supported the wars and the assholes who launched them, f*ck you. You have shown you can't be trusted choosing a breakfast cereal.
 
2013-03-19 09:47:58 AM
Let's go to war! Glass parking lot! Muslims suck!

Oh, we have to actually pay for it?

With tax dollars?

Stop the freeloaders! Stick it to the poor! Taxed Enough Already!
 
2013-03-19 09:48:59 AM

Flakeloaf: That is why we did not join you. For all of Jean Chretien's flaws, he was the proud owner of some of the largest testicles on the planet, and he had no problem at all telling Blair and Bush to go pound sand all by themselves. I saw an interview with him last week and the journalist suggested it was some huge, moumental step forward for Canadian sovereignty to tell the US that we wouldn't be joining a war on the wrong side. He agreed it was a big deal on the national stage, but correctly pointed out that there really is no other way that decision should've gone.


I'm always sure to mention that to the legions of Stephen Harper supporters I am surrounded by. I'm also sure to further remind them that ol' Stevie, supported the US and would have sent Canadian troops to Iraq had he been Prime Minister at the time.

Stephen Harper would rather have played nice with the US than do the right thing.

What an ass.
 
2013-03-19 09:54:04 AM
Mission Accomplished!
 
2013-03-19 09:56:46 AM

nekom: There is one thing that I still haven't been able to figure out.  Saddam DID at one time have nerve gas, in fact he used it on the Kurds.  The USA wasn't the ONLY intelligence agency that said that he had them.  So what happened to them?  Obviously they were gone, I think they found some old shells with residue but that's about it.  People said they went to Syria, but with all that's going on there and the fact that they weren't deployed, that's obviously not the case.

So what really happened?  Did Saddam voluntarily get rid of them years ago?  Or did he think they still had them, perhaps his generals just lied to him and said they did?  It's said that near the tail end of WW2, Hitler was commanding imaginary armies, no one wanted to tell him the truth, perhaps that was the case there?  Obviously they are gone, just wondering what led from him having them to him not.


Chemical weapons have a shelf life of 5 years. Bio weapons 3 years. That's why they were making such a big deal out of labs and production facilities. To have an active weapons program, they needed a shiat ton of production because it dies off so quickly. That's how simple chuckleheads like me knew they had nothing before the war started. As an engineer who helps design mass spectrometer systems, if you can't find traces of the bad stuff, it never existed. That's how we know there was nothing to move as mass spec technology measures parts per million. In other words, you can't move that stuff without a trace. When I had this discussion with my teatard brother, he called me an idiot spouting talking points. And I'm at least as conservative as him. The biggest difference being, I have a fully functional bullshiat detector.

We were had - plain and simple. Bush got 100% of every facet of that war wrong and you can't accidentally 100% wrong about anything of that scope and size. Especially with unlimited resources at your disposal. In fact, they found so little that they could not find a single shred of evidence they could overhype to justify the invasion.
 
2013-03-19 09:56:54 AM

Flakeloaf: When Colin Powell says he didn't know he wasn't telling the truth to the UNSC (even though he probably should have) there's no way a public who believes what FOX tells them could reasonably be expected to figure it out.


Assuming he was honest when he said that, that comment is what made me lose respect for Powell.  I watched him talk to the UN, and when he held up those pictures of the "chemical trucks," my honest-to-Cthulu reaction was "Please tell me that's not all you've got."  I knew it was complete bullshiat at the time, so I can't imagine how stupid he had to have been to not see it.
 
2013-03-19 09:57:14 AM
 
2013-03-19 10:04:24 AM

Farkomatic:
We were had - plain and simple. Bush got 100% of every facet of that war wrong and you can't accidentally 100% wrong about anything of that scope and size. Especially with unlimited resources at your disposal. In fact, they found so little that they could not find a single shred of evidence they could overhype to justify the invasion. ...


Oh I don't dispute that one bit. There absolutely were NOT any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in Iraq, nor did they appear to have the ability to produce them. That much is glaringly obvious at this point. But the fact remains that at one time, he did possess and deploy chemical weaponry. At one time, therefore, he must have had the means to produce them. The only question left in my mind is exactly WHY they appear to have stopped making them.

To be fair, they DID find residue on very old shells, but that's hardly a "see, told ya so!" moment. There was NOTHING there, that's crystal clear. But why? That's what I don't really get.
 
2013-03-19 10:08:55 AM
From those posting the 2003 thread, I found this comment which speaks volumes (i didn't want to use the Farker's name):


All I have to say is after 9/11 Bush stated that after Afghanistan, that was not the end. We were fighting a war against terrorism and anyone that sponsored, funded, or participated in that would be handled. He also stated that this would be a long task and that even though most of the nation is for that now, the support would start to taper off. Also why is it that all I see on the news is Anti-war protests? We had a pro-america rally attended by 25,000 people here in Atlanta and a anti-war rally attended by 450 people. The only thing CNN showed was the anti-rally. So you tell me how we can depend on info from the media when they only show one side. There are as many pro-america rallies as anti yet you see none of those on tv...The media is all about what will make controversial news and nothing about fact. 71% of the nation support the war effort yet all you see on tv is the opposite. I don't like war and would love to avoid it. But does anyone else see the comparisons of Saddam and Hitler? Germany opposed military action against Hitler and look what he did to that country? But if Bush didn't call for this war and another 9/11 scenario happened they'd blame him for that too. He'll never win either way.

/NOT SAYING THAT POST PROVED ANYTHING.  I just found it to be extremely interesting and informative.
 
2013-03-19 10:15:53 AM

indarwinsshadow: I got to tell you. It changed a lot of us and how we feel about Americans. I haven't been across the border since. Some of you won't care, but it was a sh*tty way to treat your closet allies and neighbours.


I'm sorry on behalf of the morons who acted like that. A lot of us, myself included, supported the war. I wish I hadn't.

Come back and visit sometime... I hope things have changed a bit. We're still crazy, loud, and obnoxious, and we love to rag on Canada, but it's just in a little brother sort of way. I can't recall the last time I heard someone actually say something bad aboot you guys :)
 
2013-03-19 10:21:31 AM

thecpt: From those posting the 2003 thread, I found this comment which speaks volumes (i didn't want to use the Farker's name):


All I have to say is after 9/11 Bush stated that after Afghanistan, that was not the end. We were fighting a war against terrorism and anyone that sponsored, funded, or participated in that would be handled. He also stated that this would be a long task and that even though most of the nation is for that now, the support would start to taper off. Also why is it that all I see on the news is Anti-war protests? We had a pro-america rally attended by 25,000 people here in Atlanta and a anti-war rally attended by 450 people. The only thing CNN showed was the anti-rally. So you tell me how we can depend on info from the media when they only show one side. There are as many pro-america rallies as anti yet you see none of those on tv...The media is all about what will make controversial news and nothing about fact. 71% of the nation support the war effort yet all you see on tv is the opposite. I don't like war and would love to avoid it. But does anyone else see the comparisons of Saddam and Hitler? Germany opposed military action against Hitler and look what he did to that country? But if Bush didn't call for this war and another 9/11 scenario happened they'd blame him for that too. He'll never win either way.

/NOT SAYING THAT POST PROVED ANYTHING.  I just found it to be extremely interesting and informative.


What you see in this thread is the political victors indulging in a Squealer-style rewriting of history, pretending their politically motivated naysaying was propelled by knowledge Hussein himself didn't have at the time.

/someday PsiChick will be proudly declaring that 9/11 was carried out in response to Dubya's invasion of Iraq
//hopefully there will still be someone left who values little details like "chronological order"
 
2013-03-19 10:25:31 AM

Tatterdemalian: What you see in this thread is the political victors indulging in a Squealer-style rewriting of history, pretending their politically motivated naysaying was propelled by knowledge Hussein himself didn't have at the time.


LOLWUT?  (to be polite)
 
2013-03-19 10:25:44 AM
But I thought we won!

www.famouspictures.org
 
2013-03-19 10:29:25 AM
Its a fail tag so lets post some fail from that 2003 thread:

We elected him, get over it. Vietnam was a Democrat war with the purpose of containment. That shiat won't happen here, Bush knows what he's doing without wimpy liberal nice guy weasel attempts.

I wish the stupid liberals were in Iraq right now.

You know, Bush and Blair are either gonna go down as Abe Lincoln and Winston Churchill
 
2013-03-19 10:32:08 AM

solitary: This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.


THIS THIS THISITY THIS.
 
2013-03-19 10:42:02 AM

dukeblue219: i
I'm sorry on behalf of the morons who acted like that. A lot of us, myself included, supported the war. I wish I hadn't.

Come back and visit sometime... I hope things have changed a bit. We're still crazy, loud, and obnoxious, and we love to rag on Canada, but it's just in a little brother sort of way. I can't recall the last time I heard someone actually say something bad aboot you guys :)


THIS. Come on, buddy, we got a black POTUS now. Bet you didn't see that one coming! Come back and visit, guy. It's not so bad.

/haven't been to Canada since 2003 for completely unrelated reasons
//Toronto is awesome.
 
MFK
2013-03-19 10:46:15 AM

Tatterdemalian: thecpt: From those posting the 2003 thread, I found this comment which speaks volumes (i didn't want to use the Farker's name):


All I have to say is after 9/11 Bush stated that after Afghanistan, that was not the end. We were fighting a war against terrorism and anyone that sponsored, funded, or participated in that would be handled. He also stated that this would be a long task and that even though most of the nation is for that now, the support would start to taper off. Also why is it that all I see on the news is Anti-war protests? We had a pro-america rally attended by 25,000 people here in Atlanta and a anti-war rally attended by 450 people. The only thing CNN showed was the anti-rally. So you tell me how we can depend on info from the media when they only show one side. There are as many pro-america rallies as anti yet you see none of those on tv...The media is all about what will make controversial news and nothing about fact. 71% of the nation support the war effort yet all you see on tv is the opposite. I don't like war and would love to avoid it. But does anyone else see the comparisons of Saddam and Hitler? Germany opposed military action against Hitler and look what he did to that country? But if Bush didn't call for this war and another 9/11 scenario happened they'd blame him for that too. He'll never win either way.

/NOT SAYING THAT POST PROVED ANYTHING.  I just found it to be extremely interesting and informative.

What you see in this thread is the political victors indulging in a Squealer-style rewriting of history, pretending their politically motivated naysaying was propelled by knowledge Hussein himself didn't have at the time.

/someday PsiChick will be proudly declaring that 9/11 was carried out in response to Dubya's invasion of Iraq
//hopefully there will still be someone left who values little details like "chronological order"


No, dickbag.

There are no "winners" here. We all lost. Some of us lost friends. Others lost relatives. In Iraq, everyone lost somebody and most people lost everything.

Do you think that Iraq is just something trumped up by the librul media to rub in Republican's faces and not an utterly avoidable catastrophe of the highest magnitude?

Go fark yourself.
 
2013-03-19 10:49:24 AM
I never understood why we didn't just send in a team of Seals to get Saddam in the middle of the night. Why send a whole army when we mainly had a problem with one guy? If our aim was to scare evil middle eastern types from messing with the US, I think the silent overnight disappearance of a head of state would have done the trick.
 
2013-03-19 10:51:19 AM

LDM90: I never understood why we didn't just send in a team of Seals to get Saddam in the middle of the night. Why send a whole army when we mainly had a problem with one guy? If our aim was to scare evil middle eastern types from messing with the US, I think the silent overnight disappearance of a head of state would have done the trick.


Assassination of the heads of other nations has been illegal in America for decades, at least.

That, and all that stuff about 'decoys', professional impersonators walking around, make it harder to get the right one.
 
2013-03-19 10:51:40 AM
This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.

 This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.

 This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.

 This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.

 This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.

 This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.

 This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.

 This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.

 This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.

 This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.

 This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.

 This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.

 This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.

 
2013-03-19 10:51:47 AM

LDM90: I never understood why we didn't just send in a team of Seals to get Saddam in the middle of the night.


I don't think it's quite that easy, honestly. I remember that he used to sleep in a different palace every night. He was a target on that first night of the air war but they didn't find him. Took us 9 months to find him once we had the country occupied.
 
2013-03-19 10:53:27 AM
Wolfowitz called for Saddam's overthrow during the 1991 Gulf War and advised GWBush, days after September 11, 2001, to seek regime change in Iraq. The Weapons of Mass Destruction ruse was always a lie. The real mission was to take out Saddam. Just because. There are plenty of Wolfowitz and Cheney statements showing their position before Bush went on television to explain his invasion. Nobody I know who watched GWBush explain the invasion and understood the NeoCon background believed for a moment he was telling the truth.

That same NeoCon attitude still guides the GOP today. Lies don't matter. Advancing the mission is more important. That attitude plays well to the low information voter. Then folks like Wolfowitz can admit they were wrong - in that they did not advocate for the correct implementation of the Iraq invasion - they will never admit the invasion was fraud and that they wrote the lies for GWBush to tell the American people.
 
2013-03-19 10:54:40 AM

dukeblue219: LDM90: I never understood why we didn't just send in a team of Seals to get Saddam in the middle of the night.

I don't think it's quite that easy, honestly. I remember that he used to sleep in a different palace every night. He was a target on that first night of the air war but they didn't find him. Took us 9 months to find him once we had the country occupied.


Yeah, it took 10 years to get bin laden. Our military is the best in the world at taking out any target, but you do have to FIND the target first. A battalion of troops is easy enough to find, a single man is not.
 
2013-03-19 10:54:53 AM

Fat-D: This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.


For a great deal of us it IS hindsight. Look, feel good about yourself for being right all you want, but please quit the public, self-congratulatory nonsense that simply inflames the war supporters from ten years ago. There's a huge percentage of the country that cheered it on back in '03 and now really, really regrets it. Yeah, I am ashamed of the things I said in support back then. Doesn't make me a bad person, I don't think, so please stop rubbing it in my face.
 
2013-03-19 10:55:00 AM

nekom: dukeblue219: i
I'm sorry on behalf of the morons who acted like that. A lot of us, myself included, supported the war. I wish I hadn't.

Come back and visit sometime... I hope things have changed a bit. We're still crazy, loud, and obnoxious, and we love to rag on Canada, but it's just in a little brother sort of way. I can't recall the last time I heard someone actually say something bad aboot you guys :)

THIS. Come on, buddy, we got a black POTUS now. Bet you didn't see that one coming! Come back and visit, guy. It's not so bad.

/haven't been to Canada since 2003 for completely unrelated reasons
//Toronto is awesome.


Thanks. That's appreciated. I'm not blaming everyone. We did support the invasion of Afghanistan, one of the reasons that Canada commited billions of dollars in combat support. Over 136 of our soldiers were killed in the 12 years we were there. My cousin was a M.A.S.H physician that treated American soldiers at some sort of hush hush (mirage, if I have that right) base in Dubai, where they were stabilized and then sent on to Germany for extensive surgery.
I miss North Carolina. Some nicest people I've met were from  Kentucky and North Carolina.
 
2013-03-19 10:55:16 AM
thepoliticalcarnival.net
 
2013-03-19 11:00:27 AM
 
2013-03-19 11:01:08 AM

solitary: This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.


Joseph Wilson.

Anyone paying attention should have known what was going on at the time...but when have American's ever been "tuned in" to current events or politics?  Look, American Idle is on...
 
2013-03-19 11:01:39 AM

MFK: There are no "winners" here. We all lost. Some of us lost friends. Others lost relatives. In Iraq, everyone lost somebody and most people lost everything.

Do you think that Iraq is just something trumped up by the librul media to rub in Republican's faces and not an utterly avoidable catastrophe of the highest magnitude?


He phrased it pretty rudely, but it's something that deeply angers me.  I think it's fine to recognize now that it was in retrospect a bad decision, and the execution and lack of plan were even worse.  But up until that first bomb dropped the majority of America wanted a war, not that war but a war.  Their opinions, and what the media reported on Saddam's dealings drove pressure on the govt to do something, and now those same people don't recognize that their opinion at that time meant something and rescind how they felt.  They are all too willing to say the whole thing was a mistake without any personal guilt.  It of course isn't everybody and there was a portion of the population who didn't want the war (29%), but that is honestly a small portion when it comes to America's dealings.

I was a kid and it left an impression on me, and probably the best lesson for someone growing up:  people suck and don't like responsibility.

Anyways, the people learned a lesson that I hope serves well in dealing with Best Korea.
 
2013-03-19 11:02:00 AM

Tatterdemalian: What you see in this thread is the political victors indulging in a Squealer-style rewriting of history, pretending their politically motivated naysaying was propelled by knowledge Hussein himself didn't have at the time.


You must've been deaf dumb and blind at the time, son, because it was obvious beginning in August of 2002 that the PR machine was pushing us away from Afghanistan and towards Iraq. Embarrassingly transparent machinations, but that's the deal with the emperor's new clothes, they're all transparent and still no one notices.

I supported Afghanistan, and I still think we could have done some good there. Except we shifted all the money and materiel that would have made a difference to a war of convenience that was nothing but a complete and total snowjob. So go have a nice bowl of dicks on me.
 
2013-03-19 11:03:39 AM

people: Rhode refused to be interviewed for this story, saying cryptically, "Those who speak, pay."


What the fark.
 
2013-03-19 11:06:31 AM

indarwinsshadow: Thanks. That's appreciated.


I will say this as an American Jays fan who goes to stadiums a couple times a year, you'll get the occasional d-bag who can't get over the fact that your country is different but don't take offense.  They give more guff to fans of other American teams.
 
2013-03-19 11:08:36 AM

dukeblue219: Fat-D: This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.

For a great deal of us it IS hindsight. Look, feel good about yourself for being right all you want, but please quit the public, self-congratulatory nonsense that simply inflames the war supporters from ten years ago. There's a huge percentage of the country that cheered it on back in '03 and now really, really regrets it. Yeah, I am ashamed of the things I said in support back then. Doesn't make me a bad person, I don't think, so please stop rubbing it in my face.


Basically this.
 
2013-03-19 11:09:44 AM

nekom: There is one thing that I still haven't been able to figure out.  Saddam DID at one time have nerve gas, in fact he used it on the Kurds.  The USA wasn't the ONLY intelligence agency that said that he had them.  So what happened to them?  Obviously they were gone, I think they found some old shells with residue but that's about it.  People said they went to Syria, but with all that's going on there and the fact that they weren't deployed, that's obviously not the case.

So what really happened?  Did Saddam voluntarily get rid of them years ago?  Or did he think they still had them, perhaps his generals just lied to him and said they did?  It's said that near the tail end of WW2, Hitler was commanding imaginary armies, no one wanted to tell him the truth, perhaps that was the case there?  Obviously they are gone, just wondering what led from him having them to him not.


Even at the time, we had much larger threats than Saddam Hussein and Iraq.  I'm pretty sure every decent sized country has weapons of mass destruction.  At the time North Korea, Iran and Pakistan were MUCH larger threats than Iraq.  Iraq had no ability to hurt America or our citizens.

So even playing devil's advocate, that Saddam had WMD, it was still a bad decision to go to war.  But most of us who were paying attention (Joseph Wilson anyone? anyone?) knew that the march to war was on false pretenses.  The media did absolutely nothing to help with parsing facts either...they were a White House mouth piece at the time.  And still to this day, are more worried about entertainment than truth.
 
2013-03-19 11:10:43 AM

dukeblue219: There's a huge percentage of the country that cheered it on back in '03 and now really, really regrets it. Yeah, I am ashamed of the things I said in support back then. Doesn't make me a bad person, I don't think, so please stop rubbing it in my face.


If you feel shame about your previous support, I'd genuinely like to hear why you supported it at the time.
 
2013-03-19 11:12:18 AM
www.longwarjournal.org

Failed to carpet bomb it until it was a smoking crater, nothing left alive

(of you go to war - go to war)
(otherwise, stay home)
 
2013-03-19 11:13:46 AM

CrazyCracka420: But most of us who were paying attention (Joseph Wilson anyone? anyone?) knew that the march to war was on false pretenses.


Please stop saying this. It' s not true. Whether or not you supported the war has no correlation to have much you were "paying attention".
 
2013-03-19 11:18:55 AM

midigod: If you feel shame about your previous support, I'd genuinely like to hear why you supported it at the time.


Short answer: Because I was 17, living in a red state, and feeling the whole "America! Fark yeah!" thing.

We could talk about for hours over some beers I'm sure, but I don't feel like going into much further at the moment. I didn't believe that Saddam was connected to 9/11, but just that he was a "bad guy" and after 9/11 we needed to stand up for ourselves and punch some of these "bad guys" in the mouth before they came after us at home. I was too young to know that my complete faith in the leadership's ability to execute the war and plan for the aftermath might be mistaken.
 
2013-03-19 11:19:11 AM

DamnYankees: There's just so much that's depressing about this anniversary. The biggest of which - to me - is that we haven't learned anything. All the people who were so utterly confident, mocked those who disagreed and were 100% wrong? Still in positions of power, no accountability, no reflection. All those who nailed it? Still mocked and marginalized. Correlation with reality still has no real weight in or influence in our politics.


fairly certain that many members of the bush administration cannot travel openly as they would stand trial for war crimes in several countries.. but yaknow, who gives a fark right? you know where i was when this shiat was going down? protesting in the streets. has my opinion changed on us interventionism? no. what do i rail against now? monetary policy. why? because it is a tool of war.

libya, irag, iran, syria, what do they have in common? overt moves to get out of the current global monetary regime which is controlled by the fed... (don't worry, russia and china just fark the numbers slowly, making love to the statistics, so we still got some time..)

it's cool though because the united states government is totally there to help out the poor and students and pensioners by backstopping horrible investments which lead to inoperable monopolies in insurance and finance, and violently destabilize foreign governments but yeah, pretty awesome.


i feel you though, there is no rational discourse in this farking country, apathy and ignorance are enforced policies, feel good smile time take your pills.
 
2013-03-19 11:20:08 AM

CrazyCracka420: Even at the time, we had much larger threats than Saddam Hussein and Iraq.  I'm pretty sure every decent sized country has weapons of mass destruction.  At the time North Korea, Iran and Pakistan were MUCH larger threats than Iraq.  Iraq had no ability to hurt America or our citizens.


Another from that original thread (again, this proves nothing but it's something that Americans and even Farkers believed at the time):

It's a sad day when serving in the Armed forces is seen as something "succesful people" don't do, that it is just something that low-lives do. We have to remember that we have a volunteer Armed forces, we don't force anyone to serve. These people train for this and this is what they want to do.

Sadam is a threat to his own people and his neighbors. As a superpower, the United States has a responsibility to elimitate him. Furthermore, the Iraqi government has repeately ATTACKED patrols that were UN SANCTIONED just about everyday in the UN SPONSORED no-fly zone!!! What the hell?!?!

The next few days will prove, one way or another, who is right. I support this war, although I do not like Bush and will not vote for him next time around. This is something that should have been taken care of long ago. They've had 12 years to get their shiat together, Sadam has just been stalling and at least the US has the balls to stand up and enforce international law.

Peace sometimes must be made through war.

/I remember the build up of him being uncooperative with the UN, and him ordering the things needed for WMDs without actually having them.  The govt and its people believed he had things.
 
2013-03-19 11:20:11 AM

dukeblue219: midigod: If you feel shame about your previous support, I'd genuinely like to hear why you supported it at the time.

Short answer: Because I was 17, living in a red state, and feeling the whole "America! Fark yeah!" thing.

We could talk about for hours over some beers I'm sure, but I don't feel like going into much further at the moment. I didn't believe that Saddam was connected to 9/11, but just that he was a "bad guy" and after 9/11 we needed to stand up for ourselves and punch some of these "bad guys" in the mouth before they came after us at home. I was too young to know that my complete faith in the leadership's ability to execute the war and plan for the aftermath might be mistaken.


Basically this. The same. All tribalism. That's why I supported it. I can tell you I never really thought about it very deeply, even though I was hip-deep in politics at the time.
 
2013-03-19 11:22:31 AM

MFK: Flakeloaf: DamnYankees: \MFK: solitary: This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.

Too easy. Do you really think a majority of Americans were knowingly complicit in a lie? Please.

When Colin Powell says he didn't know he wasn't telling the truth to the UNSC (even though he probably should have) there's no way a public who believes what FOX tells them could reasonably be expected to figure it out.

Bullshiat. This is a cop out of the highest order. It was glaringly obvious that the whole debacle was trumped up. Remember the million-strong protests in NYC and elsewhere? Millions of us knew it was lies. If you weren't paying attention at the time, that's not the fault of "the media", that's on you.


I was tucked away in a country that knew the war was wrong, decided not to go and then went right back to skating around and putting cheese on things. What American news reached us suggested the protests were sporadic and shouted down by jingos.
 
2013-03-19 11:26:26 AM

midigod: Flakeloaf: When Colin Powell says he didn't know he wasn't telling the truth to the UNSC (even though he probably should have) there's no way a public who believes what FOX tells them could reasonably be expected to figure it out.

Assuming he was honest when he said that, that comment is what made me lose respect for Powell.  I watched him talk to the UN, and when he held up those pictures of the "chemical trucks," my honest-to-Cthulu reaction was "Please tell me that's not all you've got."  I knew it was complete bullshiat at the time, so I can't imagine how stupid he had to have been to not see it.


The tinfoil in me suggests he was either very well-compensated or influenced by dark and shady forces to beat that drum. Nobody is that stupid.
 
2013-03-19 11:31:04 AM

DamnYankees: \MFK: solitary: This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.

Too easy. Do you really think a majority of Americans were knowingly complicit in a lie? Please.


I don't know if complicit is the correct term. Lots of presidents lie. For most folks, Richard Nixon was always Tricky Dick and set the standard for lying, even in regards to war. Nixon told of his secret plan to end the Viet Nam war - to get re-elected. Although GWBush came to office after Clinton's lies about his blow job, that was Clinton's personal failing, and not advocacy for war. Not all presidential lies are created equal.

However, studies show Clinton's lies tilted enough voters away from Gore that it provided the opportunity for the Republican SCOTUS to decide the election. Initially, GWBush came off as a folksy kind of dumb guy incapable of Nixon's level of mendacity. For many in 2003, they did not understand that GWBush was to be a repeat of the Nixon era of constant lies.

"Bush's place in history...will depend not on whether he lied to the American people-every president, arguably, has succumbed to that temptation-but how he lied, what consequences his lying unleashed, and how he ultimately responded to them. Put bluntly, posterity will judge [GWBush] not so much by whether he told the truth but whether he recognized what the truth actually was." Carl M. Cannon
 
2013-03-19 11:37:55 AM

Flakeloaf: The tinfoil in me suggests he was either very well-compensated or influenced by dark and shady forces to beat that drum. Nobody is that stupid.


He got beat in the dick-wagging contest with Rummy. My uncle was in the State Department, he was all set up in Kuwait in February of 2003 to go in and start rebuilding. Rummy pulled rank and sent in the Army to do nation-building. Powell was clownshoes.
 
2013-03-19 11:39:08 AM

SeraphicSorcerer: Drone's cant make notches in their helmet?


Sure they can
www.crydev.net
 
2013-03-19 11:39:43 AM

theorellior: My uncle was in the State Department


Please, fill us in with some stories of Scowcroft.
 
2013-03-19 11:43:44 AM

CrazyCracka420:
So even playing devil's advocate, that Saddam had WMD, it was still a bad decision to go to war.  But most of us who were paying attention (Joseph Wilson anyone? anyone?) knew that the march to war was on false pretenses.  The media did absolutely nothing to help with parsing facts either...they were a White House mouth piece at the time.  And still to this day, are more worried about entertainment than truth.


Well, that much is true, especially regarding North Korea who actually DID develop and test several nuclear weapons. That's one of the less talked about blunders of the Bush administration. He said we would NOT tolerate a nuclear NK. NK tests a nuke. *crickets* That really cheapens our words, doesn't it?
 
2013-03-19 11:44:45 AM
In my opinion the protests I participated in helped stop the UN approval of GWBush's Iraq war, an approval that the NeoCons desperately wanted. "You forgot Poland"
 
2013-03-19 11:52:06 AM

people: Please, fill us in with some stories of Scowcroft.


I'd love to, but my uncle never really talked about his time there, and absolutely despised the Bush Administration for being a bunch of chucklefarks. You wanna talk about patronage jobs? Even State had Regent University appointments forced on it. Total clownshoes.
 
2013-03-19 11:56:14 AM

theorellior: but my uncle never really talked about his time there


Dang
 
MFK
2013-03-19 11:59:04 AM

DamnYankees: CrazyCracka420: But most of us who were paying attention (Joseph Wilson anyone? anyone?) knew that the march to war was on false pretenses.

Please stop saying this. It' s not true. Whether or not you supported the war has no correlation to have much you were "paying attention".


yes it absolutely did.

I was paying attention and to me it was so farking OBVIOUS. When Colin Powell went to the UN with "drawings" of mobile weapons labs instead of actual evidence, I knew it was bullshiat and so did a LOT of other people. We were not quiet about it either.
 
2013-03-19 11:59:17 AM

DamnYankees: CrazyCracka420: But most of us who were paying attention (Joseph Wilson anyone? anyone?) knew that the march to war was on false pretenses.

Please stop saying this. It' s not true. Whether or not you supported the war has no correlation to have much you were "paying attention".


Why would you claim otherwise?
 
2013-03-19 12:04:33 PM

Alphax: DamnYankees: CrazyCracka420: But most of us who were paying attention (Joseph Wilson anyone? anyone?) knew that the march to war was on false pretenses.

Please stop saying this. It' s not true. Whether or not you supported the war has no correlation to have much you were "paying attention".

Why would you claim otherwise?


Where's your evidence for thinking there is any correlation? I was very active in politics in 2003. So was, you know, Bill Clinton and Colin Powell and lots of people who voted for the war.

The reason people supported the war wasn't mostly due to a lack of 'attention', and thinking otherwise is extremely not illumination. It doesn't provide any roadmap for how to prevent it in the future.

MFK: I was paying attention and to me it was so farking OBVIOUS.


Congratulations on being very smart. I was paying attention and to me the opposite was obvious. So, what lesson can we draw from our two anecdotes?
 
2013-03-19 12:11:59 PM
DamnYankees:
MFK: I was paying attention and to me it was so farking OBVIOUS.

Congratulations on being very smart. I was paying attention and to me the opposite was obvious. So, what lesson can we draw from our two anecdotes?


That your critical reasoning skills were quite lacking in 2003?
 
2013-03-19 12:14:10 PM

CrazyCracka420: DamnYankees:
MFK: I was paying attention and to me it was so farking OBVIOUS.

Congratulations on being very smart. I was paying attention and to me the opposite was obvious. So, what lesson can we draw from our two anecdotes?

That your critical reasoning skills were quite lacking in 2003?


And how does that lesson help you confront this if it happens again in the future? Yell at people to think more? You think that's an effective strategy?
 
MFK
2013-03-19 12:15:22 PM

CrazyCracka420: DamnYankees:
MFK: I was paying attention and to me it was so farking OBVIOUS.

Congratulations on being very smart. I was paying attention and to me the opposite was obvious. So, what lesson can we draw from our two anecdotes?

That your critical reasoning skills were quite lacking in 2003?


not to be a dick or anything, but really it's this. Your first clue should have been how if someone asked any sort of questions about what the administration was saying, they would be shouted down with "WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA??"

"We have evidence but we can't show it to you" should have been laughed off the stage, but somehow enough people bought into it.
 
2013-03-19 12:16:13 PM

DamnYankees: Alphax: DamnYankees: CrazyCracka420: But most of us who were paying attention (Joseph Wilson anyone? anyone?) knew that the march to war was on false pretenses.

Please stop saying this. It' s not true. Whether or not you supported the war has no correlation to have much you were "paying attention".

Why would you claim otherwise?

Where's your evidence for thinking there is any correlation? I was very active in politics in 2003. So was, you know, Bill Clinton and Colin Powell and lots of people who voted for the war.

The reason people supported the war wasn't mostly due to a lack of 'attention', and thinking otherwise is extremely not illumination. It doesn't provide any roadmap for how to prevent it in the future.

MFK: I was paying attention and to me it was so farking OBVIOUS.

Congratulations on being very smart. I was paying attention and to me the opposite was obvious. So, what lesson can we draw from our two anecdotes?


We'd been flying air patrols over Iraq for the past 10+ years.  Nothing could move in their air space without US permission.  And now they're a threat that must be attacked before they nuke us?  Not credible.
 
2013-03-19 12:17:41 PM

Alphax: We'd been flying air patrols over Iraq for the past 10+ years.  Nothing could move in their air space without US permission.  And now they're a threat that must be attacked before they nuke us?  Not credible.


Once again - congratulations for thinking that in 2003. You were right and I was wrong. I readily admit it.

Now, how is this helpful in figuring out how to prevent this in the future?
 
2013-03-19 12:23:54 PM

way south: Earl of Chives: Bladel: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: solitary: WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.

I don't think that's 100% true, although I think the majority opposed to the war knew, for whatever their reasons, that the whole thing was a bad idea.

Ok, but the original point stands:  People spoke out at the time.  Not only were they ridiculed, their love of America was called to question.

This is the correct answer. Many people could see this was a horrific mistake from jump street.

Too many of the wrong people, too few of the ones that mattered.
Someone will always disagree with any decision and appear to be right in hindsight. But many of these views developed along partisan lines.   Those who thought they were seeing the evidence decided to go along with the war.

Fact is that wars never go smoothly.  You've got to adapt your goals to a changing situation.
We should be looking at the present situation and sorting out why its falling apart and how to fix it.
Instead we are looking to blame someone, because that's what politics is these days.

We didn't have a long term goal going in and we never developed one throughout a decade of debate.
Its going to end in a miserable pile of failure, but not just because of how it started. Its because of our habitual inability to construct and enforce a strait forward policy on foreign intervention.


Trouble is that if you don't have any real, self-interested reason to go to war to begin with, you will not be able to "develop" one later, unless you count one that consists of lies and propaganda.
Herr Goebbels explained this to us several generations ago - and nothing has changed.
As in Vietnam - there was never any "victory" there for us to "win" in the first place, and no way to "develop" one later that was going to fool anybody.
Sure - you can always convince the Wad that they should go to war, if you can distract them from American Idol and the sex lives of the Kardassians long enough - but history will not be kind, and the money and lives will be lost forever.
 
2013-03-19 12:25:58 PM
http://www.wisebread.com/7-steps-to-improving-your-critical-thinking

www.criticalthinking.org/pages/critical-thinking-in-everyday-life-9- st rategies/512

Just trying to keep an open mind and trying to play devil's advocate will take you very far...using information to come to your own conclusions (rather than letting blowhards tell you what to think) is usually pretty important as well.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=improve+critical+thinking+skills
 
2013-03-19 12:27:04 PM

jso2897: As in Vietnam - there was never any "victory" there for us to "win" in the first place, and no way to "develop" one later that was going to fool anybody.


the goal was to stop the spread of the red,no?  Sounds fun.

anyways I hope the people in power read charlie wilson's war before they withdrew from Iraq.
 
2013-03-19 12:27:27 PM
Crazy. Ten years ago, I was in grad school doing a student teaching assignment. I remember seeing a lot of my students downtown protesting the war that day.

And what has changed since? Can we objectively say the US or Iraq is any safer now?
 
2013-03-19 12:29:53 PM

CrazyCracka420: http://www.wisebread.com/7-steps-to-improving-your-critical-thinking

www.criticalthinking.org/pages/critical-thinking-in-everyday-life-9- st rategies/512

Just trying to keep an open mind and trying to play devil's advocate will take you very far...using information to come to your own conclusions (rather than letting blowhards tell you what to think) is usually pretty important as well.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=improve+critical+thinking+skills


the thing is I think the majority of the public can buy the excuse "we can't tell you how we know this" when it comes to military intelligence.  It definitely is a trust thing, but of course we keep getting burnt don't we.  I like DY's question of how can you prevent that.
 
2013-03-19 12:33:28 PM

thecpt: jso2897: As in Vietnam - there was never any "victory" there for us to "win" in the first place, and no way to "develop" one later that was going to fool anybody.

the goal was to stop the spread of the red,no?  Sounds fun.

anyways I hope the people in power read charlie wilson's war before they withdrew from Iraq.


And I hope the people in power read Major General Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket" before we get into any more wars.
 
2013-03-19 12:35:37 PM
Donald Rumsfeld  @RumsfeldOffice
10 yrs ago began the long, difficult work of liberating 25 mil Iraqis. All who played a role in history deserve our respect & appreciation.



Go fark yourself.
 
MFK
2013-03-19 12:44:15 PM

DamnYankees: Alphax: We'd been flying air patrols over Iraq for the past 10+ years.  Nothing could move in their air space without US permission.  And now they're a threat that must be attacked before they nuke us?  Not credible.

Once again - congratulations for thinking that in 2003. You were right and I was wrong. I readily admit it.

Now, how is this helpful in figuring out how to prevent this in the future?


for starters, when they start beating the war drums over Iran or North Korea, you demand hard solid evidence and don't shut up until they provide it. If they can't provide it, you do everything you can to stop them.
 
2013-03-19 12:44:22 PM

thecpt: jso2897: As in Vietnam - there was never any "victory" there for us to "win" in the first place, and no way to "develop" one later that was going to fool anybody.

the goal was to stop the spread of the red,no?  Sounds fun.


Wasn't.
 
2013-03-19 12:46:31 PM

DamnYankees: Donald Rumsfeld  @RumsfeldOffice
10 yrs ago began the long, difficult work of liberating 25 mil Iraqis. All who played a role in history deserve our respect & appreciation.


Go fark yourself.



Wow.

I'm speechless.

How the f*ck does that guy sleep at night?
 
2013-03-19 12:46:47 PM

midigod: If you feel shame about your previous support, I'd genuinely like to hear why you supported it at the time.


I'll go.  First, I didn't believe the Iraqi WMDs being a threat story.  I thought it was clear it was being used as a false pretense for invasion--the real purpose of which was an expansion of American interests.  And I suppose it was, but never in my wildest dreams did I imagine they'd fark up the post-war aspects as badly as they did.

 
I envisioned us getting in, whacking Hussein, installing a marginally American-friendly dictator and letting him rule with an iron fist as long as we were allowed to call a shot every now and then and set up a few bases out in western Iraq that would grant us increased leverage with some of the other nations in the region.  Reduce the need to move an entire carrier group into the eastern Med or Gulf every time another nation wanted to threaten the flow of oil, raise hell with Israel, etc.

Rather than hunt down and kill or arrest every single member of Hussein's regime and then proceed to outlaw the Baath party, we'd employ many of them with the understanding it could be their neck with a noose around it unless they played ball. 


I thought the administration was lying, but didn't care because they couldn't just say, "We're invading to get a foothold in the Middle East and have opted for Iraq because of its location and the relative ease with which we can justify an attack."  But as I said I never imagined they would not only fail to execute a plan for Iraq in the post-war period like the one I had envisioned, but that they would have absolutely no plan at all--for years.

 
Now, that said, my world views have changed drastically over the past 10 years, and not just due to Iraq or with foreign policy in general.  Socially I was always somewhere in the middle, but I've shifted left on almost everything.  I've always been a late bloomer, and I think uncommonly grow more liberal as I grow older, rather than the opposite.  I feel where I am now is my natural comfort zone; however, born and raised in a super conservative household with almost no exposure to an alternative viewpoint until well into college really stifled that evolution.  It's why I get pissed at people that bash Obama for his 'evolution' on gay marriage.  I'm living proof such a thing is possible on a range of issues, and I have no external motivation for such changes...they just happened as more data became available and I was more willing to take it in.


So there it is.I'm not claiming I know better than anyone else, and I congratulate everyone here who claims they were right all along and knew it.I'll take my lumps for being wrong, and commit the cardinal sin of admitting as much on Fark.
 
2013-03-19 12:49:49 PM

DamnYankees: Once again - congratulations for thinking that in 2003. You were right and I was wrong. I readily admit it.

Now, how is this helpful in figuring out how to prevent this in the future?


For one, the people who (FINALLY) admitted that the war they wanted might not have been such a brilliant strategy after all can be assessed by their friends and loved ones accordingly. For example, if we're lost on the highway, and a person in the car says, "We should take this exit," I can ask that same person, "What did you think about the Iraq War?" If they say they supported it, I'll probably skip that next exit and keep driving.
 
2013-03-19 12:55:27 PM

jso2897: Wasn't.


what was it?

(honestly, I like history but I can't bring myself to read about that era or conflict because of the amount of derp that was flying around)
 
2013-03-19 01:02:35 PM
i.imgur.com
derpderpderpderpderpderp
 
2013-03-19 01:05:02 PM

nekom: There is one thing that I still haven't been able to figure out.  Saddam DID at one time have nerve gas, in fact he used it on the Kurds.  The USA wasn't the ONLY intelligence agency that said that he had them.  So what happened to them?  Obviously they were gone, I think they found some old shells with residue but that's about it.  People said they went to Syria, but with all that's going on there and the fact that they weren't deployed, that's obviously not the case.

So what really happened?  Did Saddam voluntarily get rid of them years ago?  Or did he think they still had them, perhaps his generals just lied to him and said they did?  It's said that near the tail end of WW2, Hitler was commanding imaginary armies, no one wanted to tell him the truth, perhaps that was the case there?  Obviously they are gone, just wondering what led from him having them to him not.


hmmmmmmmmmmmm

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57575054/syria-rebels-and-regime -b lame-each-other-for-1st-alleged-chemical-weapons-attack/
 
2013-03-19 01:08:29 PM

solitary: This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.


THIS SO MUCH
 
2013-03-19 01:10:15 PM

thecpt: jso2897: Wasn't.

what was it?

(honestly, I like history but I can't bring myself to read about that era or conflict because of the amount of derp that was flying around)


If you are too lazy to read, I am too lazy to write.
Have a nice day.
 
2013-03-19 01:11:16 PM

nekom: There is one thing that I still haven't been able to figure out.  Saddam DID at one time have nerve gas, in fact he used it on the Kurds.  The USA wasn't the ONLY intelligence agency that said that he had them.  So what happened to them?  Obviously they were gone, I think they found some old shells with residue but that's about it.  People said they went to Syria, but with all that's going on there and the fact that they weren't deployed, that's obviously not the case.

So what really happened?  Did Saddam voluntarily get rid of them years ago?  Or did he think they still had them, perhaps his generals just lied to him and said they did?  It's said that near the tail end of WW2, Hitler was commanding imaginary armies, no one wanted to tell him the truth, perhaps that was the case there?  Obviously they are gone, just wondering what led from him having them to him not.


During the first Gulf War, the assumption was a lot of it was moved to Syria.  In the days prior to the Coaltion air strikes beginning there were convoys heading in and out of Syria.  I think the idea was they'd get them back after the Coalition was defeated or ultimately didn't attack...much like Hussein did with a portion of his air force as well which worked about just about as well.  But on top of that there's the fact the stuff has a shelf life, and the possibility the estimates regarding the overall quantity of chemical weapons may have always been overestimated to begin with.  Iraq was notoriously difficult to get intelligence on after the Iran/Iraq war ended and the US decided Hussein was going on the Bad Guy list.
 
2013-03-19 01:16:44 PM

jso2897: If you are too lazy to read, I am too lazy to write.
Have a nice day.


c'mon.  What I have read and what they choose to teach in schools indicates that the US did it to prevent the spread of communism.  If there is such a simple alternative reason then you can say that one goddamn word and move on, and I'll do the work from there.  No, you wrote that response instead.  Have a nice day, douche.
 
2013-03-19 01:18:19 PM
i wish i wasn't right about all of the bush lies...and it doesn't appear to matter, with a democrat murderer in the white house now.

it's all gravy!

murder for fun and profit!
 
2013-03-19 01:19:41 PM

thecpt: jso2897: If you are too lazy to read, I am too lazy to write.
Have a nice day.

c'mon.  What I have read and what they choose to teach in schools indicates that the US did it to prevent the spread of communism.  If there is such a simple alternative reason then you can say that one goddamn word and move on, and I'll do the work from there.  No, you wrote that response instead.  Have a nice day, douche.


Like I didn't know I was being trolled in the first place. Take it back to 4chan - you're an amateur.
 
2013-03-19 01:20:26 PM
if you know about remote viewing...you know i'm telling the truth.

i have seen better days ahead, tho.    : )
 
2013-03-19 01:25:39 PM

jso2897: Like I didn't know I was being trolled in the first place. Take it back to 4chan - you're an amateur.


I'm actually interested, and expressed such but hey don't bother to share what you know with other people.  that's not how conversation works or anything.
 
2013-03-19 01:32:35 PM

Shrugging Atlas: I envisioned us getting in, whacking Hussein, installing a marginally American-friendly dictator and letting him rule with an iron fist as long as we were allowed to call a shot every now and then and set up a few bases out in western Iraq that would grant us increased leverage with some of the other nations in the region.  Reduce the need to move an entire carrier group into the eastern Med or Gulf every time another nation wanted to threaten the flow of oil, raise hell with Israel, etc.


Thank you for your answer.  If we assume for a moment that everything you thought was true, was in fact absolutely accurate, why would it be okay for the US to do such a thing; destabilize an entire nation and install a puppet (or puppet-like) regime for the sake of exerting possible future force against other nations, simply for economic reasons?
 
2013-03-19 02:02:32 PM

MFK: solitary: This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.


And the very clever folks at the top pointed at the people saying they were lying and replied "See, America? They've already infiltrated! We  have to be ready, or we'll lose our country to people who are secretly working for the terrorists, or just poor misguided souls who are soft on terror!"

/I was about...eleven or so, I want to say? Maybe ten? And I still remember the way it felt like one of my historical novels about Nazi Germany. It was farking  creepy.
//Also, to the headline: ...*twitch*
 
2013-03-19 02:26:29 PM

DamnYankees: Donald Rumsfeld  @RumsfeldOffice
10 yrs ago began the long, difficult work of liberating 25 mil Iraqis. All who played a role in history deserve our respect & appreciation.


I had to check if that was fake, seems it's not. But why is he retweeting the people calling for his head?
 
2013-03-19 02:54:48 PM

midigod: Thank you for your answer. If we assume for a moment that everything you thought was true, was in fact absolutely accurate, why would it be okay for the US to do such a thing; destabilize an entire nation and install a puppet (or puppet-like) regime for the sake of exerting possible future force against other nations, simply for economic reasons?


Why would it be OK in my view?  It's a complicated answer made more difficult by the fact I'm having to provide a defense for a belief I haven't held for nearly a decade but I'll give it a shot.  At the time, I would have said it was OK because it would have been in our best interests if done well, and frankly was bound to happen anyway (I'll have to explain that further) so we might as well do so under our own terms.

I think it's important to note the fact we had by then  already been trying destabilize Iraq and oust Hussein for over a decade.  We were into the term of a third President under which the US was enforcing a seemingly endless no-fly zone and embargo under UN approval and having to maintain a perpetual military presence in the region under less than ideal conditions.  Between the embargo and the no fly zones which were a more than just tacit acceptance of the nearly independent Kurdish state in the north we had already been doing plenty to take down Hussein's regime.

In my view at the time, the country was already balkanizing and under less than controlled conditions because there was literally no telling what would happen if Hussein died from a heart attack, shot himself, or was offed by a body guard.  Replaced by someone worse?  Complete and total chaos with absolutely nobody there to stop it?  Or was Hussein going nowhere and the US destined to repeat the Cuba scenario and enforce the no-fly and embargo for 30 more years with absolutely nothing to show for it?

But to my earlier point about the US entering Iraq being bound to happen.  Honestly I thought we'd end up there anyway as some sort of UN Peacekeeping Force whenever Hussein was gone to keep the Kurds, Sunni and Shia from killing each other in droves such as we did in the Balkans, but unlike the Balkans we'd be dealing with a much, much more difficult situation.  Stuck there for who knows how long  either trying to hold Iraq together, or enforcing the division of Iraq into three countries and then stuck in those keeping them from each other's throat.

Guess there's no telling what would have happened had we not invaded, though I'm sure it would have been better than the results we ended up with.  And as I said, I'm the first to now admit the flaws in that thinking and lament the results of the invasion.  But as I said, at no time did I buy into the Iraq-9/11 theories or the belief Hussein was going to somehow attack the United State above or beyond the constant incidents in the no-fly zones at any rate.
 
2013-03-19 04:02:52 PM
Shrugging Atlas, thanks for your elaborations. Those stories fascinate me.

/was wondering if your username came from your previous world view days, but then I read your profile
 
2013-03-19 04:21:05 PM
Hey, it put lots of people to work. Lobbyists. Consultants. Doctors. Psychiatrists. Funeral home directors. Military contractors of various kinds.

It's the Republican jobs program. We don't need to fix roads or bridges or build schools over here. We need to blow those things up over there. For freedom.
 
2013-03-19 04:37:04 PM

Shrugging Atlas: At the time, I would have said it was OK because it would have been in our best interests if done well, and frankly was bound to happen anyway (I'll have to explain that further) so we might as well do so under our own terms.


While I think both you and I disagree with what you thought ten years ago, it's not often one gets to have a discussion like this, so thank you.  It's really very interesting.  I would still have disagreed with you about the destabilization's desirability, and even whether it would have escalated had we not gone in full-tilt, but our conversation probably wouldn't have been so civil at that time, and I think that's why it's fascinating to discuss.
 
2013-03-19 05:13:59 PM

midigod: While I think both you and I disagree with what you thought ten years ago, it's not often one gets to have a discussion like this, so thank you.  It's really very interesting.  I would still have disagreed with you about the destabilization's desirability, and even whether it would have escalated had we not gone in full-tilt, but our conversation probably wouldn't have been so civil at that time, and I think that's why it's fascinating to discuss.


I completely agree, and am more than happy to have the discussion.  I'll admit that while the results of the invasion clearly prove me wrong, I still to a degree cling to the belief my logic behind why I personally thought it might have been for the best if done well was sound.  That logic doesn't at all fit with the Bush Administrations stated goals for the invasion (WMDs / 9/11 and then just the spreading of 'freedoms') and certainly not with their intended goals which appears to have been nothing more than simple war profiteering.

What amazes me most and what I find more reprehensible than their lying to the public was the fact the administration had absolutely no idea whatsoever about what to do once the invasion was complete.  I mean we were fighting on our own time table, and had ample resources available to dedicate to stabilizing the situation as soon as we took over, and they just wasted it.  More than anything I think that symbolizes the complete and total incompetence of the Bush Administration from the top down and their total disregard for the Allied forces involved in the invasion and occupation not to mention the Iraqi people.

Anyway, discussions like this on this topic for me are both liberating and slightly amusing.  It's an interesting reminder how much I've changed in 10 years, and still is a source of wonder for close friends that have known me for far longer.
 
2013-03-19 05:30:57 PM

Deep Contact: The repercussions were that Obammmma was elected twice.


2/10
 
2013-03-19 05:37:45 PM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Sorry to all the Iraqi families torn apart by this. Especially those who aided the Americans and coalition who weren't offered a fast track path to citizenship for themselves and their families after they were put in harms way.


Hey Collaborators never fair well in an occupation
 
2013-03-19 07:14:39 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Bladel: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: solitary: WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.

I don't think that's 100% true, although I think the majority opposed to the war knew, for whatever their reasons, that the whole thing was a bad idea.

Ok, but the original point stands:  People spoke out at the time.  Not only were they ridiculed, their love of America was called to question.

That's not in dispute, I'm just trying to remember the conversation the country was having at the time without injecting what we've found out in hindsight.


Well it's very difficult to remember the whole conversation because only one side of it was presented. Remember the public protest in New York against the war? You probably don't because the media purposely ignored it.
 
2013-03-19 08:30:19 PM
When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we were not satisfied until we had destroyed the Empire of Japan and demanded its peoples' unconditional surrender under the threat of nuclear genocide.  Our response to the 9/11 attacks should be no less thorough.

10 years on, and the Middle East is in flames, with most of its governments on the brink of collapse and its peoples engaged in bloody internecine warfare.  So far, I'd say we've almost achieved our goal--the destruction of the Arab culture that gave rise to Al Qaeda.
 
2013-03-19 08:59:02 PM

Mouser: When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we were not satisfied until we had destroyed the Empire of Japan and demanded its peoples' unconditional surrender under the threat of nuclear genocide.  Our response to the 9/11 attacks should be no less thorough.

10 years on, and the Middle East is in flames, with most of its governments on the brink of collapse and its peoples engaged in bloody internecine warfare.  So far, I'd say we've almost achieved our goal--the destruction of the Arab culture that gave rise to Al Qaeda.


Lol, you cannot be serious.
 
2013-03-20 04:39:15 PM
You know who also had a boner for Drang Nach Osten?

i.ytimg.com
 
2013-03-20 09:04:53 PM
The neo-con agenda does not represent America.
 
Displayed 182 of 182 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report