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  
•       •       •

2029 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 182 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report