Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Some Guy)   New York Times, 2003: "Why are we attacking Iraq when no one has proved Saddam committed any atrocities?" Yesterday: "Er..."   ( divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

961 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Jan 2007 at 7:56 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook

19 Comments     (+0 »)
2007-01-09 7:23:51 PM  
um, yea ... we didn't invade because of any atrocities. If we did that we'd be invading every other country on the planet.
We invaded to get rid of the massive stockpiles of WMDs that were being prepared for an invasion of the U.S.
This is the image that pops to mind whenever someone around me discusses why we are there.
[image from too old to be available]
2007-01-09 8:02:31 PM  
It is nice that everyone suddenly started caring about the atrocities committed by Saddam. It might have been nicer if anybody cared about them back when he was actually comitting them.

Don't pretend the war was about Saddam being a mass murderer if for years you actively supported him and tacitly approved of him being a mass murderer.

If you want to do the world a favor send some of those people who supported Saddam back then to Iraq to be prosecuted as accomplices.

I am sure they would get a fair trial.
2007-01-09 8:10:17 PM  
dillenger69: We invaded to get rid of the massive stockpiles of WMDs that were being prepared for an invasion of the U.S.

Yeah, good thing we uncovered all of that stuff, huh?
2007-01-09 8:13:41 PM  
The Times said no such thing. It's called an op-ed, subby, and it expresses the opinion of the author, not the Times.
2007-01-09 8:14:06 PM  
submitter: New York Times, 2003: "Why are we attacking Iraq when no one has proved Saddam committed any atrocities?" Yesterday: "Er..."

And submitter is an ass for even suggesting that we went in to remove a bad guy. If that was the case, why haven't we replaced those in the Sudan or Somolia or China or any Venezuela or Cuba or the Congo or any other of these countries that have been run by stronghand thugs?
2007-01-09 8:15:25 PM  
From TFA: "As we noted at the time, Pelletiere sought to blame Iran, not Iraq, for the gassing of Iraqi Kurds in the infamous Halabja massacre of 1988."

Funny, that's exactly what the Reagan administration did, just before vetoing UN resolutions against Hussein.
2007-01-09 8:15:25 PM  
Op Ed != NYTimes editorial

The guy was an asshat. But you know, the Times was 1000000% right to not want to go to war. Did you think that maybe this wasn't really getting us a good ROI, Republitards?
2007-01-09 8:17:21 PM  
"but most opposers were talking about the apparent lack of WMDs"

I was a farker during the build up to Iraq. Not one said they didn't have WMDs.
2007-01-09 8:21:24 PM  
Cracker_monkey_in_a_cage: I was a farker during the build up to Iraq. Not one said they didn't have WMDs.

Wow, are you so wrong.
/also a Farker then
2007-01-09 8:53:16 PM  
Wrong war, wrong time. Eventually the US will pull out of Iraq, everyone knows this. That is why no other government is committing any new resources to the mess.

Iraq will become a weak semi-failed state, ruled by proxy from Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Kurds will keep their head low to avoid invasion from Turkey.

I'm sure within 15 years some clever lawyer will try to sue the US government on behalf of the Iraqis who died or were injured in the invasion.
2007-01-09 8:57:08 PM  

Yeah, I was too... I seem to remember there being a number of voices which were hesitant to believe or downright didn't believe.

Anybody want to dredge up a thread?
2007-01-09 9:13:08 PM  
Alright, fark it. I'll dig it up myself.

(FOX NEWS) 'Huge' Suspected Chemical Weapons Plant Found in Iraq (lots)

2003-03-23 08:20:21 PM MikeWeath

So an unnamed pentagon official is saying we've found what we think is chemical weapons with no confirmation yet? Let's not all jump to conclusions here. US troops aren't exactly trained weapons inspectors. It'll all cone out in the end. Leave the speculation to the news ancors, it's their job.

2003-03-23 08:19:29 PM Magic [TotalFark]

*dramatic gasp* But I thought they didn't HAVE any chemical weapons!!!


2003-03-23 08:16:43 PM Guy_guy42

Haha, no chemical weapons my ass.

I feel that everybody who said that Iraq has no weapons like these owes the world an apology.
2007-01-09 9:16:46 PM  

(FOX NEWS) Iraq now planning full disclosure of chemical arsenal by arming its troops with said arsenal (lots)

2003-03-17 05:30:36 PM Nightsweat

"The information is raw ... and hard to confirm ... but we are seeing -- using different methods -- that Saddam Hussein has armed troops south of Baghdad with chemical weapons,"


Hey, we said it was hard to confirm. Fox News - we make it up, you judge it.

2003-03-17 05:35:57 PM MrBigglesworth [TotalFark]

Interesting, After Everyone on here that said that Saddam had no chemical weapons, and after Iraq has "delcared" that they are 100% WMD free, AND after Saddam 2 or 3 weeks ago "banned" all WMD.

Interesting indeed. Peace in our time much?

2003-03-17 05:45:23 PM Ashe

This is to be expected. The very first thing the United States has to do to justify this invasion is to have biological and chemical weapons show up on the battlefield that can be blamed on Iraq, and it doesn't matter just where those biological and chemical weapons actually come from. It stands to reason that the same government that argued for war using fraudulent photos, plagiarized dossiers, and fake nuclear documents is not going to develop ethics when it comes to producing after-the-fact justifications for the war. The kicker is that the very men in uniform laying it on the line for the US grab for oil are the ones who will pay the health price for this deception.
2007-01-09 9:18:02 PM  
BTW - the headlines are much funnier these days, IMHO, than back in 2003. Although there were more boobies threads...
2007-01-09 9:50:18 PM  
"Wow, are you so wrong."

Not sure how exactly they could have known something the UN security council or Hans Blix didn't.

The arguments were that the UN sanctions and weapons inspectors should be given more time to get saddam to agree to get rid of these weapons.
2007-01-09 10:00:01 PM  
In fact, I remember when the report from (I think) the Times reporter just after the invasion started that US troops had found WMDs, the repsonses were mostly along of line of "well, no said they wouldn't find them, just that inspections should have been allowed to work".

I'd go look for that thread.
2007-01-10 12:18:00 AM  
Correct me if I'm wrong -- but didn't the chemical WMDs they found turn out to be unusable 20-year-old shells from before the first gulf war?
2007-01-10 2:00:41 AM  
I find the second article discussion on that page about the recent somalli airstrike by gunship, where they discussed smart weapon strikes in civilian areas, much more enlightening about the world's view of our actions.

A quarter of a million rounds of explosive ammunition inside a 300 meter circle of rocky terrain is neither blunt nor ineffective. Especially when each "civilian" in the area died from 6.72mm short and not from shrapnel and explosion.

We know for a fact that Uncle Al heads into these nations as a single solid unit carrying their own radio gear and support infrastructure, they move much like a light expeditionary force. What they weren't expecting in somallia was that an Ethiopian force would be INVITED IN by the Somalli government and given DIRECT intelligence support by the US through satellite and signals surveilance.

The tight unit of Uncle Al headed out of town with a level of military precision that exceeded any training of the general population and even the local Somalli military forces.

If you're dusting an ant hill and suddenly see a couple hundred head off in the same direction at the same time carrying a queen ant, many larval ants, construction materials, food and little ant guns... you're gonna go stomp on them. That's what we did, we stomped on an organized force that showed a CLEARLY higher threat.

Enjoy the boot Uncle Al, delivered free of charge by the USAF.
2007-01-10 11:08:58 AM  

/rubs eyes

How did that whole Iraq war thing turn out? We're done and out right?

Hate to break it to you nemoxnine, but both turned out to be false. Good try though.

BTW, we DID find some old chemical weapons that were from prior 1992. Pretty sure they still had their 'Made in the USA' stamp on them.
Displayed 19 of 19 comments

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.