Iraq war a total fraud

[POP]

http://yournewswire.com/declassified-cia-document-reveals-iraq-war-had-zero-justification/

Just in case there is ANYONE LEFT ON EARTH that didn't realize that war was sold on 100% lies for the elite to plunder pilfer.....

I knew it was total bull **** from the time they started to sell it. The lies were beyond obvious.

 

[MT~Forged]

But, Bush said so.

I believe all those who had a hand in it should go to jail, all their assets should be pooled and distributed to the families who lost loved ones.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

I thought this horse had been dead a while. I think most people agree that that war was a bad idea, but WMDs were not the only justification for that war.

 

[jitter77]

First of all everyone and their mother believed there were WMD there. Some countries just wanted to go about it more diplomatically and what not. Also some things were found just not in the quantities they expected. Now I am not saying I agree with everything, but several countries had information that the weapons were there.
Of course the region is unstable now and even if hussein was still in power Isis may have still rose up we will never know. What do we do moving forward? My solution is to let the people over there take back their land. If they hate the terrorists like they claim then let them eradicate them.

 

[hamster]

It wasn't about WMD's, it was about building a secular democracy in the ME. As we all can see today, it was a terrible idea.

 

[POP]

I thought this horse had been dead a while. I think most people agree that that war was a bad idea, but WMDs were not the only justification for that war.

Yea, and the other justifications were all proven lies too. And I knew it all along.

1. WMDs - total lies. Scott Ritter told us so before we dropped a single bomb.

2. Ties to Al Quida. Total bull ****. Saddam hated them.

3, We would "liberate" the Iraqis and they'd have freedom and democracy. Bull ****. It's a total **** storm there now, and they all knew it would be going in. Remember what Cheney said on why we didn't push to Baghdad the 1st war? How did he forget what he said?

 

[POP]

It wasn't about WMD's, it was about building a secular democracy in the ME. As we all can see today, it was a terrible idea.

So in '94 Cheney could describe why taking out Saddam and the entire govt. was a bad idea, but a decade later, he forgot what he once knew?

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Yea, and the other justifications were all proven lies too. And I knew it all along.

1. WMDs - total lies. Scott Ritter told us so before we dropped a single bomb.

2. Ties to Al Quida. Total bull ****. Saddam hated them.

3, We would "liberate" the Iraqis and they'd have freedom and democracy. Bull ****. It's a total **** storm there now, and they all knew it would be going in. Remember what Cheney said on why we didn't push to Baghdad the 1st war? How did he forget what he said?

You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Steeltime]

It wasn't about WMD's, it was about building a secular democracy in the ME.

Indeed. Before the invasion, Bush spoke repeatedly about changing the culture and mindset of the Middle East, pointing out that exactly one country - Israel - in the region had a representative government. The theory was that if the United States set up a successful, dynamic, economically-dynamic democracy in the Middle East, then the garbage, corrupt, sick mind-set that led to the Taliban and 9-11 could be ended. Remember that Bush and Powell spoke about the need to move the entire region forward, as the ****-bags were being financed by Iran and we needed to do something to prevent us from being nothing more than a meme and target for the Middle East.

As we all can see today, it was a terrible idea.

No, it was performed terribly. First, Bush refused to let the Sunnis - those who had supported Hussein - hold any authority after the United States defeated Iraq. That decision was suicidal, since the Sunnis uniformly ran the jails, and the military, and the oil production, and the water purification, and the medical clinics, and the schools, and on and on.

When the United States invaded Germany during WWII, we did not remove Germans from governmental involvement and control. But that is basically what we did after routing the Iraqi military by refusing to allow any Sunnis to have any position of authority or control.

You remember that story where nobody was guarding the Tehran museum, and a bunch of "opportunists" stole millions of dollars of items from the museum? That was because the Sunni guards were dismissed, and nobody was qualified to replace them.

If the United States had simply used qualified Sunnis to run the power plants, and oil wells, and security, and military, the "insurgents" (read: terrorists funded and imported by Iran) would never have made a dent.

 

[POP]

You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

Guys say things like "you don't know what you're talking about" but never say how that is so or refute the assertions made. Now why is that?

 

[DBS1970]

The WTC Atacks on 09/11/2001 were an inside job by BOOOOSH AND DE JOOOOOOS!

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Guys say things like "you don't know what you're talking about" but never say how that is so or refute the assertions made. Now why is that?

Because this has been gone over and over and a quick Google will reveal the other reasons that you did not list.

 

[POP]

Because this has been gone over and over and a quick Google will reveal the other reasons that you did not list.

Like?

 

[oneforthebus]

Like the fact that Saddam refused to allow weapons inspectors in despite a dozen or so UN resolutions which STATED he would face military consequences if he didn't.

Iraq was a mistake, it wasn't based on lies though, it was based on failed intelligence and on Saddam's deliberate misinformation. He bluffed and we fell for it.

The Bush administration never claimed Saddam had ties to Al Quaeda...the argument that was always made was, given what Al Quaeda did to us on 9/11, we had to be proactive about gathering threats and not wait for them to happen before taking action. Saddam was considered another such threat, and a supporter of terrorism, but not someone who was necessarily intimately involved with 9/11 or Al Quaeda.

The other motivation was the idea that the only way to defuse radicalism was to introduce modern concepts of freedom and self-determination to that part of the world. That proved to be a terrible miscalculation but was done with the best of intentions.

I think a lot of people have very short memories about the general mood and consensus of the country at the time.

 

[deljzc]

Indeed. Before the invasion, Bush spoke repeatedly about changing the culture and mindset of the Middle East, pointing out that exactly one country - Israel - in the region had a representative government. The theory was that if the United States set up a successful, dynamic, economically-dynamic democracy in the Middle East, then the garbage, corrupt, sick mind-set that led to the Taliban and 9-11 could be ended. Remember that Bush and Powell spoke about the need to move the entire region forward, as the ****-bags were being financed by Iran and we needed to do something to prevent us from being nothing more than a meme and target for the Middle East.



No, it was performed terribly. First, Bush refused to let the Sunnis - those who had supported Hussein - hold any authority after the United States defeated Iraq. That decision was suicidal, since the Sunnis uniformly ran the jails, and the military, and the oil production, and the water purification, and the medical clinics, and the schools, and on and on.

When the United States invaded Germany during WWII, we did not remove Germans from governmental involvement and control. But that is basically what we did after routing the Iraqi military by refusing to allow any Sunnis to have any position of authority or control.

You remember that story where nobody was guarding the Tehran museum, and a bunch of "opportunists" stole millions of dollars of items from the museum? That was because the Sunni guards were dismissed, and nobody was qualified to replace them.

If the United States had simply used qualified Sunnis to run the power plants, and oil wells, and security, and military, the "insurgents" (read: terrorists funded and imported by Iran) would never have made a dent.

This x10

There were SOME of the higher ups that had some good ideas about the Middle East. From both sides of the isle.

In my opinion, Bush got sold a bit on the Rumsfield/Chaney plan that I think was somewhat self-serving to both of them. I thought Powell would have been a much better person to be the voice of reason.

There were a BUNCH of mistakes in he initial invasion which could have prevented a LOT of uprisings and we were grossly unprepared for the wave of jihad fighters that flocked to Iraq from all over the Muslim world to fight good old U.S.A. on their doorsteps.

And we make horrible mistakes in supervising the government established by the Iraqis. Their government and new constitution stink. It doesn't give a **** about 2/3rds of the population. There was potential to create a Unites States of Iraq with meaningful representation from the Sunnis and Kurds, but the economic power brokers in Baghdad wanted none of that. They were clearly much more interested in aligning with Iran as soon as possible. And Barack Obama has enabled that alliance to flourish by breaking down the economic sanctions on Iran and thus allowing the COMBINED economies of Iran and southern Iraq to grow united and tied-together while all of Northern Iraq and Kurdish Iraq will be segregated and exploited by the government for decades to come.

Almost all the gains against northern Iraq/Sunnis is being done by Iranian soldiers. There probably isn't even a difference in the countries anymore. All we did was grow Iran's borders, influence in the region, and economic power under the Obama regime. And now Iran is closer to Israel and Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

There's going to be a HUGE war in the Middle East some day. It will be Iran vs. Turkey/Saudi Arabia as the main players with the U.S. backing Saudi Arabia, Europe backing Turkey and Russia backing Iran.

I don't really see how it doesn't happen at this point. I secular Iraq right in the middle of this Triangle would have helped but that didn't happen. We didn't stick with it like we should have. Now it's a clusterfuck of powers all fighting for their piece of Iraq and the Euphrates river/oil reserves.

 

[RollRed]

I can't believe what I'm reading.... This war was sold to the country by saying Saddam was an imminent threat to America and that it was not a matter of if but when he would launch his WMD's on American targets. Building a democracy in the region was not mentioned until it became known that all the other stuff was bullshit and they needed another reason to justify that clusterfuck of a war.

 

[POP]

Like the fact that Saddam refused to allow weapons inspectors in despite a dozen or so UN resolutions which STATED he would face military consequences if he didn't.

So, we are told this, yet, an actual US weapon inspector said they were allowed to visit all over Iraq, and that it was determined there were no WMDs before we invaded. Are you really going to buy the lies without critical thinking?

Iraq was a mistake, it wasn't based on lies though, it was based on failed intelligence and on Saddam's deliberate misinformation. He bluffed and we fell for it.

Sigh. This is the biggest chunk of horse **** ever. Sure, Saddam liked to bluff and play games, but no one "fell for" anything. Those calling the shots knew full well that the WMD claims were total BS. Colin Powell admits it. I think the only one in the upper circle who didn't realize no WMD would be found was Bush himself. They played him like a dim bulb and he did fall for it.

The Bush administration never claimed Saddam had ties to Al Quaeda...the argument that was always made was, given what Al Quaeda did to us on 9/11, we had to be proactive about gathering threats and not wait for them to happen before taking action. Saddam was considered another such threat, and a supporter of terrorism, but not someone who was necessarily intimately involved with 9/11 or Al Quaeda.

That is a nice revisionary story (created after the fact). Those war mongers kept REPEATING "Saddam" and "Al Qaeda" in the same sentence, over and over and over again. Why did they choose to do that? To create the impression that the two were related. Why else would they choose to combine that rhetoric? They were selling the war on lies. And here Bush FLAT OUT claims there is a connection between the two. Try to spin this one.

The other motivation was the idea that the only way to defuse radicalism was to introduce modern concepts of freedom and self-determination to that part of the world. That proved to be a terrible miscalculation but was done with the best of intentions.

I think a lot of people have very short memories about the general mood and consensus of the country at the time.

In all honesty, I am sorry you fall for their lies. It saddens me that so many Americans don't see through their mountain of pure lies in order to pursue an evil agenda. Over 1 million Iraqi people (vast majority totally innocent civilians) are now dead because of the lies of our govt. 1 million. It is your responsibility to see through the lies of your country if it is doing immoral acts. You don't get a free pass. It is your job to discover the truth instead of just buying what the cartels tell you.

 

[POP]

I can't believe what I'm reading.... This war was sold to the country by saying Saddam was an imminent threat to America and that it was not a matter of if but when he would launch his WMD's on American targets. Building a democracy in the region was not mentioned until it became known that all the other stuff was bullshit and they needed another reason to justify that clusterfuck of a war.

Right on brother. Seeking the truth is a duty of being an American. Their initial cauldron of lies got exposed, so they switched the narrative.

Just because a dictator is a bad guy, is not reason enough to invade a sovereign nation.

And let me remind everyone of something: You point to Saddam breaking ruling of the UN, and YET, the US ignored the ruling of the UN saying we did not have the green light to invade. So, in one breath, you claims breaking UN ruling is worthing of going to war, yet, in another breath, you ignore the fact that the US also broke UN ruling when it came to invading. That is total double standards. **** that bull ****.

 

[Coach]

http://yournewswire.com/declassified-cia-document-reveals-iraq-war-had-zero-justification/

Just in case there is ANYONE LEFT ON EARTH that didn't realize that war was sold on 100% lies for the elite to plunder pilfer.....

I knew it was total bull **** from the time they started to sell it. The lies were beyond obvious.

A few facts:

Saddam Hussein did have WMD's and used them to gas and kill thousands of people. Many of the WMD's were shipped to Syria, buried in a desert the size of Texas. Possibly dumped in the sea. But there is not doubt he had them.

Hillary Clinton was a very pro-war vote.

Hussien tried to obtain nukes before, Isreal bombed the area in the 1980's. He was trying again.

It's complicated....do you want a madman who attacked another nation in power, or does you get him out, and risks something worse taking over?

As long as the madman in power has no goals to obtain nukes or attack other nations, he's often better than ISIS.

 

[Coach]

There's going to be a HUGE war in the Middle East some day. It will be Iran vs. Turkey/Saudi Arabia as the main players with the U.S. backing Saudi Arabia, Europe backing Turkey and Russia backing Iran.

I don't really see how it doesn't happen at this point. I secular Iraq right in the middle of this Triangle would have helped but that didn't happen. We didn't stick with it like we should have. Now it's a clusterfuck of powers all fighting for their piece of Iraq and the Euphrates river/oil reserves.

The war might not be about oil.

It could be about water/food or jihad religious beliefs who just happen to have nuclear weapons.

All Iran needs to obtain nuclear weapons. Then a nuclear arms race starts in the Middle East with the backdrop of ISIS trying to gain control of other nations. This is a nightmare scenario and one that could force one nation to think they must strike first. Or even make the USA think it has to intervene quickly with force. I have zero doubt ISIS and groups like them will target New York or Washington DC if they had a Nuclear Weapon.

Suppose Iran was stupid enough to attempt a nuclear attack against Isreal as their leaders say they will do. It's very likely Isreal a tiny nation about the size of the state of New Jersey will counter attack with everything ( Whether the attack was successful or not ) and it's widely believed that Isreal has nuclear weapons.

Now you got a ruined area with a possibility of a nuclear winter / killer environmental effects, with tense relations among world powers aligned to various nations in the area and 100 million dead.

 

[Steeltime]

I can't believe what I'm reading.... This war was sold to the country by saying Saddam was an imminent threat to America and that it was not a matter of if but when he would launch his WMD's on American targets. Building a democracy in the region was not mentioned until it became known that all the other stuff was bullshit and they needed another reason to justify that clusterfuck of a war.

False.

The invasion of Iraq and its intended effects cannot be simply seen by themselves, but must be understood in the greater context. The US intended the invasion to not only topple Saddam Hussein and remove the threat of WMD production and diffusion, but also to bring democracy to a country in the centre of a region almost completely devoid of it. In his State of the Union [in 2002, prior to the invasion of Iraq], President Bush made it clear that he intended to bring democracy to the Middle East. His doctrine at its core was that people who are free and prosperous do not fly airplanes into skyscrapers. In his speech, he made his point that “all fathers and mothers, in all societies, want their children to be educated and live free from poverty and violence. No people on earth yearn to be oppressed, or aspire to servitude, or eagerly await the midnight knock of the secret police” (Bush, 2002). His policy in Iraq, derived from Wilsonianism (Bhansali, date unknown) and Manifest Destiny (Jones, 2014) was:

Not merely to expunge the totalitarians there, but to ensure that they never return by reconstructing their societies along democratic lines. Authoritarianism (at least in the Middle East) is no longer acceptable. The U.S. now proposes to liberate these nations from the captivity of their own unhappy traditions (Kesler, 2005).

http://www.e-ir.info/2015/03/09/one-war-many-reasons-the-us-invasion-of-iraq/

Get your facts straight.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Saddam had WMD's in violation of UN sanctions, it was just a matter that he sent the stuff to Syria before we invaded and now Assad has it.

 

[oneforthebus]

Those war mongers kept REPEATING "Saddam" and "Al Qaeda" in the same sentence, over and over and over again. Why did they choose to do that? To create the impression that the two were related. Why else would they choose to combine that rhetoric? They were selling the war on lies. And here Bush FLAT OUT claims there is a connection between the two. Try to spin this one.

He basically said the same thing I said. Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11. The administration never claimed he was. They weren't involved in some vast bring down America conspiracy together, but there were contacts and assistance going on between them. That is true...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/20192

 

[ark steel]

Saddam had WMD's in violation of UN sanctions, it was just a matter that he sent the stuff to Syria before we invaded and now Assad has it.

I've put this on here a bunch before:

1. There is no doubt that Sadaam had WMDs. If you believe otherwise, you are, willfully, stupid.
2. Part of the pact to keep Bush 41 from moving to Kuwait into Iraq was that Sadaam would allow inspections, dismantle any WMD's in existence, with proof, and stop production
3. The inspection issue was a fiasco. Clinton should have dealt with Sadaam, but was riding the "peace dividend" wave.
4. They did, indeed find some 'degraded' WMDs (further proof that they WERE there), but not to the extent that we know existed at one point.
5. What we did NOT find is any proof that those WMDs we KNOW were there were destroyed.

So, WMD's were there. They were not destroyed. They weren't there when we went in. Hmm, I wonder what could have happened to them?

 

[deljzc]

I don't remember WMD being all that big a deal. It was one part of many.

I remember most of America agreeing with me. Taking the fight to them was the only course of action. Afghanistan was about the Taliban & Osama Bin Laden but going into Iraq was more big picture thinking about the region long term.

If they sold us bullshit it was much more about the "liberators" idea than it was WMD's. I think Rumsfield and Chaney were grossly ignorant of a post-Saddam Iraq and were much more concerned about playing with their war toys and securing huge contracts with the government.

The country wanted to go to war with Iraq. With or without WMD's. For the whole decade of the 1990's it was debated whether or not we should have gone straight from Kuwait to Baghdad. People still remembered that as well.

I still believe going to war was the best course of action. I still believe we should be there. It was just politicized way too much circa 2007-2009 to survive and do the right thing.