advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: January 22, 2006 02:23AM
It seems the administration's reasons are continually changing, from "preventing smoking clouds from becoming mushroom clouds" to "liberating Iraq" to "spreading democracy," so I'd be interested to read your understanding, since Bush seems to be uncertain himself, having changed the justification so many times.

I'll start:
The PNAC (Project for a New American Century) decided in the early 90's that the US was squandering a unique historical opportunity, given the fall of the Soviet Union, to make the world safe for American (read "multinational corporate") interests. They approached Clinton with Wolfowitz's battle plan, which started with the "liberation" of Iraq, but Bill wasn't interested. The Wolfowitz plan, called " Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century", laid out the roadmap beginning with the Crescent of instability containing the oil producing states of the mideast, since the world economy runs on oil, and as Baron de Rothschild noted long ago, it matters not who holds titular power in a nation - he who controls the economy rules.

Unable to get Clinton on board with the scheme, Cheney, Perle, Rumsfeld, Kristol, Abrams, and the other neocons of the PNAC pined for "another Pearl Harbor" to enrage Americans sufficiently to get them behind the generational war the PNAC envisioned as necessary to pull off this scheme. Their mentor, Leo Strauss, had taught them in Macchiavelian fashion that it was necessary and right to lie and deceive the masses to accomplish their goals, so when foreign intelligence services warned Bush that Al Qaeda was planning to hijack airliners all he did was to instruct high-level staff to quit flying commercial. Condi Rice said that "no one could have envisioned airliners being used as missiles" yet the Pentagon had practiced just such scenarios and other similar plots had been prepared for at world trade conferences, where the site was surrounded by air defenses to shoot down such planes.

When Payne Stewart's plane went off course and incommunicado Air Force jets were scrambled immediately, and this is Standard Operating Procedure, happening many times a year sometimes, yet with many much larger commercial planes going off course simultaneously no jets were scrambled and the airliners were allowed to proceed towards cities which had previously been targeted by international terrorists. David Ray Griffith and others have noted extensively the incongruities in the official story of what happened on 9/11 so I'll let you do the Google search if you're interested further.

So, having planned to invade Iraq since the early 90's the neocons now had their "second Pearl Harbor" and the plan was activated. We also were under pressure to remove our troops from Saudi Arabia because world Islam was outraged that infidels were occupying their holy land, and the 14 permanent bases we're building in Iraq will help take the pressure off that friendly Saudi dictatorship as well as provide the stepping stones to invade and change the regimes of other nations we find inconvenient, such as Iran and Syria.

I could go on, but it's your turn.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: MacMagus
Date: January 22, 2006 04:21AM
Wow, you're loony.

I know some people who in the heat of passion have accused Bush, et al of planning 911, but to really believe that they encouraged the terrorists is to believe that they had a hand in the murder of all of those innocent Americans.

Don't get me wrong -- I think that bunch feels no remorse over the torture and murder of foreigners and barely give a thought to the hundreds of soldiers killed in their war. I also think that they had ample notice of the 911 attack and turned a blind eye to it, but I think they did so because of a narcissistic god-complex... a false belief of invulnerability.

I don't think they'd authorize the slaughter of Americans on American soil. That would be crossing a line from dogmatic imperialistic xenophobic messianic @#$%&hole to hardcore sociopath.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: Robert
Date: January 22, 2006 07:09AM
And people can't understand what keeps the Republicans in power. I think refurbvirgin and the rest are secret rebublican operatives. The idea is to make the oppositiion look like such wackos you'd be afraid to vote with them. Bush got us into a war that has cost thousands of American and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, left us with the biggest deficits ever and the nutcases have to go with their conspiracy theories (as opposed to an incompetent FBI, CIA etc.) I used to laugh at the Moslem world which claimed the Mossad planned 911 but I guess we're not much brighter.
You don't need conpiracy theories to prove he's a horrible president.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: spearmint
Date: January 22, 2006 08:22AM
You and the rest of the lefties are just playing Monday morning QB as if you had the information we have now then. As if you knew better. Ha! Seems all the Dem's voted for war and silly Kerrey was a big proponent and believed in the WMD. The WMD exist but are now in Syria. We have to finish it now.

After running an elitist clown like Kerrey and having Dean be the face of their party the Dems better get used to being a permanent minority. Hillary? Give me a break. She has no chance of even getting the nomination. Glad you folks have all those pathetic protests, it's good to get out once in a while.




Da Good Life
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: January 22, 2006 10:24AM
MacMagus Wrote:
> I don't think they'd authorize the slaughter of
> Americans on American soil. That would be crossing
> a line from dogmatic imperialistic xenophobic
> messianic @#$%&hole to hardcore sociopath.

It's happened before. Johnson used a fabricated attack on the Turner Joy & Maddox to justify massively escalating the Vietnam war, and thought nothing of spraying our own troops with Agent Orange, for which many (and their offspring) are paying the price today. Agent Orange's effects, btw, are like a skin rash compared to those of depleted uranium which Bush is exposing so many hundreds of thousands of our troops to.

History is replete with examples of how we've been manipulated for war. The Lusitania was being used to haul munitions, in violation of neutrality agreements, and was directed without protection into an area known to be prowled by U-boats.

We'd broken the Japanese code and new the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming, but because Roosevelt wanted to take us to war against Germany, who the American people had no love of fighting after WW1, he cut off Japan's oil, gave them an ultimatum, then concentrated the fleet (minus the essential aircraft carriers) as it never had been done before, to bait them into an attack.

And then, of course, you are aware of "Operation Northwoods," in which our Pentagon protectors proposed blowing up American civilian airliners to turn the country's anger against Cuba?

A Vietnam vet, a two-tour Marine, told me that one night his squad leader said "Come on - I'm going to show you what this war is really all about." The snuck over a ridge into an off-limits area and in the bay below them the beach was lit up as cargo ships offloaded supplies to the Vietcong. He later pointed out vessels with the same yellow & red stripes on their stacks in a local harbor. His point was that the arms merchants were supplying both sides, and thereby profited from endless war, much as they did from the Iran/Iraq war.

You and I are just pawns in the elites world games, and expendable, as are, of course foreigners whose bodies we don't count.


Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: January 22, 2006 10:29AM
Robert Wrote:
... the nutcases have to
> go with their conspiracy theories....

It is a fact that Condi Rice presented Bush with a PDB in the months ahead of 9/11 that stated unequivocably that Al Qaeda was intent on striking US domestic targets, and that foreign intelligence services had warned us bin Laden wanted to hijack U.S. airliners. Condi lied when she said "no one could have conceived of airliners used as missiles" as a Muslim group had planned to fly a commercial airliner into the Eiffel tower. It doesn't take a conspiracy when you have a large body of people all subscribing to the same ideology. They can work independently yet towards the same goal.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: Robert
Date: January 22, 2006 10:40AM
Refurbvirgin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Robert Wrote:
> ... the nutcases have to
> > go with their conspiracy theories....
>
> It is a fact that Condi Rice presented Bush with a
> PDB in the months ahead of 9/11 that stated
> unequivocably that Al Qaeda was intent on striking
> US domestic targets, and that foreign intelligence
> services had warned us bin Laden wanted to hijack
> U.S. airliners. Condi lied when she said "no one
> could have conceived of airliners used as
> missiles" as a Muslim group had planned to fly a
> commercial airliner into the Eiffel tower. It
> doesn't take a conspiracy when you have a large
> body of people all subscribing to the same
> ideology. They can work independently yet towards
> the same goal.

I don't get what your saying. Your quote is true and they were incompetant. Are you saying they knew planes would be flown into the WTC and thought "great that will give us our excuse"?

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: January 22, 2006 11:12AM
spearmint Wrote:
Seems
> all the Dem's voted for war and silly Kerrey was a
> big proponent and believed in the WMD.

Robert F. Kennedy was right: "90% of the Republicans are corrupt, and 75% of the Democrats. Our local senators, Murray and Cantfeel, are both in Boeing's pocket, which sells us cruise missiles for a million bucks a pop.

The WMD
> exist but are now in Syria.

Yet Rumsfeld told us he KNEW where the WMD were. With constant satellite and overflight monitoring, how did these deadly masses of weapons get out of the country? Cheney told us it was a FACT that Saddam had reconstituted nuclear weapons, yet all we've found are a few parts of a centrifuge buried under a rose bush. Are you calling them both liars?

> After running an elitist clown like Kerrey and
> having Dean be the face of their party the Dems
> better get used to being a permanent minority.
> Hillary? Give me a break. She has no chance of
> even getting the nomination.

Hillary is the favorite of the DLC corporatists, who provide the money which corrupts our political process, and until we eliminate that special interest influence our democracy will remain dormant and suppressed. Public financing of elections is the first step towards governement less influenced by the power of plutocracy. Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we ever had, but he killed far more Iraqis than W has.

Glad you folks have
> all those pathetic protests, it's good to get out
> once in a while.

Yes, they are the highlight of my week, and it does feel good to do *something* when so often I feel powerless to stop the slaughter of innocent lives for lies. If by standing on the street with my sign "We Impeach Liars, Don't We?" I make one other person think long enough to tell two others then perhaps we won't be in Iraq for 12 years and sacrifice 60,000 American troops while killing two million civilians, as we did in Vietnam. If you aren't working against this war you are supporting a similar outcome in Iraq, or worse. As Gandhi said, "You may believe that what you are doing is inconsequential, but it is exceedingly important that you do it." And as Maragaret Mead said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world - indeed it is the only thing that ever has."



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: January 22, 2006 11:22AM
Robert Wrote:
Are you saying they
> knew planes would be flown into the WTC and
> thought "great that will give us our excuse"?

Al Qaeda had tried to destroy the WTC before with a truck bomb in the basement, so obviously the neocons knew it was a target, they knew Muslims were willing to commit suicide attacks, and they knew airliners were going to be hijacked, yet they didn't increase sky marshals, harden cockpit doors, increase security measures at airports or follow SOP's for hijacked aircraft. Connect the dots.

Read David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor." Listen here:
[www.informationclearinghouse.info]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: Guitarman
Date: January 22, 2006 11:23AM
Look this guy is a complete whako nut job that used to post on AS as Lokimotive. Look it up on AS. He's certifiable.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: Robert
Date: January 22, 2006 11:33AM
I give up. It must be true, its on the internet. BTW, Israel (and India and the US) caused the earthquake and tidal wave that killed hundreds of thousands in SE Asia lastt year [www.cnsnews.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: January 22, 2006 11:37AM
David Ray Griffin is professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology, where he taught for over 30 years (retiring in 2004). He has authored or edited over two dozen books, including "God and Religion in the Postmodern World," "Religion and Scientific Naturalism," and "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11."

There are none so blind as they that will not see.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: SteveO
Date: January 22, 2006 01:52PM
Hey, Minty, LMAO on the Syria thing! BUT you forgot the one about the wmd on the ships out in the ocean. That is a good one, too! HA HA HA!

>I don't think they'd authorize the slaughter of Americans on American soil. That would be crossing a line from dogmatic imperialistic xenophobic messianic @#$%&hole to hardcore sociopath.


Right on the money. Look at the facts:
dogmatic imperialistic: Bush invaded a sovereign nation based upon lies that he knew were lies or at the very least not anything close to reliable intelligence
messianic @#$%&hole: Bush claims that God TALKS to him; he said that God told him to invade Iraq
xenophobic: Bush does not read newspapers, does not seek other viewpoints, does not involve himself with the American public and rarely takes a press questions

And no matter how discountable (or not) the link above is, you cannot deny that BUSHCO REC'D THE BIN LADEN MEMO. They cared enough to tell their top staff to quit flying commercial, but did nothing, I repeat NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING to increase security for joes like us; didn't even issue an email to the airport security chiefs saying watch out for terrorists. Then when on 9.11 if you recall, Bush was reading a book to some kids. Did he stop reading and say he had important national business to attend to? NO. He sat there and did NOTHING. He had a look on his face that for a moment, to me, said, "My God, I just sold my soul."

At worst, one could say they were stupid or self-involved, cared enough about their own cronies but not the rest of us; they turned a blind eye and YES, ALLOWED this to happen. No jets were scrambled. Why? Why?!

And why did they fly all the Saudis out of the US within what, 72 hours of 9.11 WHEN NO OTHER PLANES WERE ALLOWED TO FLY? You and I could not fly, but Saudis with rich oil and business and especially bin Laden connections were allowed to leave.

I also found this hard to believe, that Bush must be some kind of sociopath. I thought, what kind of person behaves like this? What kind of person allows the wholesale hijacking of our American way of life, of civil liberties to go on day after day, year after year like it has since 9.11? What kind of person allows torture to go on, not only allows it but fosters it? If you're a sadist and believe in hurting "to extract valuable infomration from those who would harm us" -- to that argument why not look at the military's own research that says information received under torture is NOT RELIABLE?

What kind of person ignores the rule of law, of checks and balances inherent in our system of gov't, and makes his OWN rules a la some third-world dictator? What kind of person signs a no-torture bill into law and one moment later VERBALLY EXEMPTS HIMSELF FROM THAT LAW? What kind of person blows the cover off a lifelong CIA agent to exact petty political revenge? What kind of person would do all this while wrapping himself in the flag and the cross? What's patriotic about selling off our environment to powerful energy interests? And bombing civilians, destroying infrastructure and critical power and water supplies? What's pious about fomenting death, torture and terror? Who does this kind of stuff?


A few names of people through history who have behaved like this come to mind:
Hitler
Stalin
Amin
Pinochet
Hussein
bin Laden
Cheney
Bush

I KNOW it is hard to mentally lump Bush in with those people. I KNOW IT IS INSULTING as well. But it is the sad truth. He and bin Laden and Cheney are the biggest terrorists of our time. TENS OF THOUSANDS of people have died in Iraq as a direct result of our invasion.

You'll probably dismiss me if you haven't stopped reading already. Maybe even insult me. But you know what? Your democracy is gasping for its last breaths right next to mine, so you're only dismissing yourself. Bushco is laying the groundwork for the death of America as we have known it. Yeah, it is scary as hell. But if people like you and I don't stand up and do something, don't let our congresslizards and our fellow American citizens know THIS WILL NOT STAND, we deserve what we get.

And God help us all.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: January 22, 2006 03:03PM
spearmint Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You and the rest of the lefties are just playing
> Monday morning QB as if you had the information we
> have now then.

As a matter of fact I and millions of others around the world, including our traditional allies in France and Germany and other NATO nations, expressed doubts and disbelief, and stood up marching in the streets demanding that all other options to war be exercised first, as he lied to get Congressional approval of war powers. The Democrats were sucked into the mystique of fabricated evidence with the official stamp of toady CIA director Tenet, who got a medal of freedom for his complicity and a fat retirement. The justification that Bush used in a SOTU speech that Iraq was attempting to purchase yellowcake was a known fabrication three months before, yet Condosleaza excused it as an oversight saying that everyone in the administration had simply forgotten that fact in three months. The woman has a phd, and couldn't remember basic, crucial information over three months? Your credulity is amazing. But then so is that of any Bush voter.





Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: SteveO
Date: January 22, 2006 03:12PM
Sorry, MacMagus, looking at your post again I see I misread it. You DID say Bush was all that...it seems where you stopped was hardcore sociopath. But some serious thought also seems to make a good case for his being a hardcore sociopath.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: January 22, 2006 03:25PM
Many of the Democrats also wanted war, including Sen. Cantfeel, who admits she's wanted war on Iraq since 1993. War is good financially for her constituents, heavily dependent on Boeing for the last decent paying jobs in Washington state. The military industries require war to fatten their profit statements and most Democraps are on the take as well, dependent on campaign contributions from the merchants of death to be reelected to their positions of power, prestige, and profit. You won't find me defending any DLC Dems, including Kerry or Clinton or Gore, for that matter, despite recent statements suggesting evolution into a vertebrate. 90% of Repugs and 75% of Dems are corrupt. Our only hope is publicly financed campaigns to take pandering to special interests off of our representatives to-do lists.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: spearmint
Date: January 22, 2006 07:31PM
Refurbvirgin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> spearmint Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You and the rest of the lefties are just
> playing
> > Monday morning QB as if you had the
> information we
> > have now then.
>
> As a matter of fact I and millions of others
> around the world, including our traditional allies
> in France and Germany and other NATO nations,
> expressed doubts and disbelief, and stood up
> marching in the streets demanding that all other
> options to war be exercised first, as he lied to
> get Congressional approval of war powers. The
> Democrats were sucked into the mystique of
> fabricated evidence with the official stamp of
> toady CIA director Tenet, who got a medal of
> freedom for his complicity and a fat retirement.
> The justification that Bush used in a SOTU speech
> that Iraq was attempting to purchase yellowcake
> was a known fabrication three months before, yet
> Condosleaza excused it as an oversight saying that
> everyone in the administration had simply
> forgotten that fact in three months. The woman has
> a phd, and couldn't remember basic, crucial
> information over three months? Your credulity is
> amazing. But then so is that of any Bush voter.
>
>
>
>
> Give me the chipmunk, and nobody gets hurt.

Europe as a whole believed there were WMD as did the rest of the World. Nato inspectors there did. There were no doubters including you. You did not say to yourself when the reports came out "I do not believe that." Why would you have? Must be fun to describe past experiences as you wish you had not actually done. If y


Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: spearmint
Date: January 22, 2006 07:39PM
Refurbvirgin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> spearmint Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You and the rest of the lefties are just
> playing
> > Monday morning QB as if you had the
> information we
> > have now then.
>
> As a matter of fact I and millions of others
> around the world, including our traditional allies
> in France and Germany and other NATO nations,
> expressed doubts and disbelief, and stood up
> marching in the streets demanding that all other
> options to war be exercised first, as he lied to
> get Congressional approval of war powers. The
> Democrats were sucked into the mystique of
> fabricated evidence with the official stamp of
> toady CIA director Tenet, who got a medal of
> freedom for his complicity and a fat retirement.
> The justification that Bush used in a SOTU speech
> that Iraq was attempting to purchase yellowcake
> was a known fabrication three months before, yet
> Condosleaza excused it as an oversight saying that
> everyone in the administration had simply
> forgotten that fact in three months. The woman has
> a phd, and couldn't remember basic, crucial
> information over three months? Your credulity is
> amazing. But then so is that of any Bush voter.
>
>
>
>
> Give me the chipmunk, and nobody gets hurt.

Europe as a whole believed there were WMD as did the rest of the World. Nato inspectors there did. There were no doubters including you. You did not say to yourself when the reports came out "I do not believe that." Why would you have? Must be fun to describe past experiences as you wish you had not actually done. If you are willing to support Hillary and Dean I cannot help but grin because it proves the Left has no touch with the the majority of the populace and will continue to stumble around. Cindy Sheehan is another good example of a bad choice. A grieving Mother profiting from and getting badly wanted spotlight while disgracing her son a true patriot and hero. Oh I forgot her 15 minutes are over.


Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: January 22, 2006 08:00PM
Unlike you, mint, I learned from Vietnam that my government sometimes lies us into war. I saw the way Bush's dad lied us into the Gulf war, and never trusted either of them since. Our UNSCOM inspector, Scott Ritter, was saying there were no WMDs. Have you got a link to backup the claim that NATO thought there were? I opposed this war from the get-go, as did Bush's dad, who correctly forecast our present predicament in his book with Gen. Scowcroft explaining why he didn't pursue Saddam's forces into Baghdad.

I've never supported Hillary or Dean, and voted for Nader rather than Gore. Kerry was an ABB choice for me, but I wouldn't do it again. When elections are decided on the basis of Republican owned and programmed voting machines what basis do you have to claim I'm out of touch with the majority? The sheeple are easy for the corporate media to manipulate by creating fear, so just being contrary to the majority doesn't always mean you're wrong.

Cindy Sheehan has every right to question the liar who sent her son to die for neocon wetdreams of empire, and if Bush thinks his war is a "noble cause" why isn't he over there fighting it? He's sent reservists older and less fit than he into harm's way. Does he really believe he's indispensable to the nation? A real commander never asks a subordinate to do something he's unwilling to do. This could have been settled with a steel-cage, no holds barred fight to the death between W & Saddam and the worldwide pay-per-view revenues would have retired our national debt instead of mortgaging the future of our nation for generations. War was not necessary and millions around the world, myself included, knew it. I'm sorry you didn't.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: hwystar
Date: January 22, 2006 08:31PM
spearmint Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Europe as a whole believed there were WMD as did the rest of the World. Nato inspectors there did.

I'm glad you are able to speak for "Europe as a whole". My impression is that all of "Europe as a whole" did not fall for the ruse of WMDs, just a few leaders who wanted to stay in the good graces of Bushco.

From what I have seen and read, "Europe as a whole" is as disgusted with what Bush and cronies perpatrated as what most intelligent Americans are. Even most of those who were easily misled to begin with in this country have come around to realizing how badly they were fooled, except for a few hardcore bush supporters, such as yourself who will just not let themselves be "confused by facts" because their minds were made up long ago, and they refuse to look objectively at any data, unless it agrees with what they want to believe.


> There were no doubters including you. You did not say to yourself when the reports came out "I do
> not believe that.
"

Huh? Speaking for myself, I have hollered, "@#$%&!" for the last five years, and a quick search of my posts on this topic will confirm that my position has not changed since the topic was first raised. I have never believed any of the trumped up BS spewed by this administration and never will, and have stated so consistently, in public.


> Why would you have? Must be fun to describe past experiences as you wish you had
> not actually done. If you are willing to support Hillary and Dean I cannot help but grin because it
> proves the Left has no touch with the the majority of the populace and will continue to stumble
> around. Cindy Sheehan is another good example of a bad choice. A grieving Mother profiting from and
> getting badly wanted spotlight while disgracing her son a true patriot and hero. Oh I forgot her
> 15 minutes are over
.

I do not support Hillary, and never have agreed with her, because I think she, and other Dems of the "republican lite" variety are completely wrong in their approach. But the only good thing I can say about her is that if you and other apparently staunch Bush supporters hate her so much, there must be something good about her.

I like Dean, always have, and if you don't, then that just confirms my beliefs. The biggest problem with the Democrats is that they are their own worst enemy. "Circular firing squad" best describes their tactics. I think that the opposition party should stand for principles in opposition to the ones demonstrated by their opponents. I agree with Molly Ivins column recently linked here [www.commondreams.org] from a thread a few below this. The Dems will make headway when they stand for real principles, instead of worrying about polls and getting elected. And there is quite a bit of new blood in the party of late, that is standing for such principles, in particular against the "war" in Iraq, and I think they will see some serious success in the mid term elections of '06.

I am for throwing out all corrupt politicians from either wing of the corporate @#$%& party, and getting in some new blood who are interested in doing the will of the people, and not the will of the corporate elite controlling committee. And keep throwing out the ones that are corrupted in turn until we finally get some people in office who will do their job. The most important thing is that we need to reform the influence of big money in campaigns, and in influencing policy. Until we can accomplish that, all other efforts are rendered moot. And as long as corporate lawyers make the laws, that is going to be tough to do, so it will be an uphill battle, but it must be done.



hwystar
___________________

teelblue">"The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who loves his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair." ~H. L. Mencken Ibid.: "The Coolidge Buncombe", pp.411-2
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: spearmint
Date: January 22, 2006 09:14PM
A renegade Nato inspector started the first doubts long after the invasion. I am on the "They are in Syria" bandwagon which for some strange reason has not started up very fast. If we can match up successfully with the manical heriditary warriors who whipped the Russkies bad in Afganistan we should be able to make an expedtionary foray into Syria (#16 on Parade Magazine's worst dictator list today) and find those weapons. All the stories about the Imperial Guard or whatever their "elite" (ha!) troops are called, taking the place of Syrian border patrol at night have been ignored. I mean this is an satan on Earth who used mustard gas on his own people who belonged to the wrong club.

Nato inspectors were tricked and taken on a guided timed tour by Sadaam for their "inspections" and we tipped him off way too early the stuff was going hit the fan. Hussein had every reason to hide them despite his bluster he knew he was through and most likely dead if and when the US invaded. He probably hoped a report of no weapons would prevent the war.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: hal
Date: January 22, 2006 09:32PM
"Nato inspectors were tricked and taken on a guided timed tour by Sadaam..."

You really remember it like that? You don't rememeber the video of the inspectors getting a covoy going, the styeaming full speed to the area they wanted to inspect catching the iraqis completely off guard?

Jebus... you just make this crap up out of you adled memory?

Don't you remember US officals saying, 'he's got'em and we know where they are!'

Do you really think that the few main roads that could accomodate entire WMD projects, nukes etc from iraq to syria are not under constant observation.

Mint, you just amaze me...
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: hwystar
Date: January 22, 2006 09:39PM
spearmint Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A renegade Nato inspector started the first doubts long after the invasion. I am on the "They are in
> Syria" bandwagon which for some strange reason has not started up very fast. If we can match up
> successfully with the manical heriditary warriors who whipped the Russkies bad in Afganistan we
> should be able to make an expedtionary foray into Syria (#16 on Parade Magazine's worst dictator
> list today) and find those weapons.


If by "we" you mean a multinational force with the backing of most of the countries of the civilized world, then you might garner some support for something of that type, if you could provide actual PROOF that such exist. Which will be very difficult after your monkey-boy and his bumbling war-mongering minions have almost single-handedly demolished the remaining credibililty and reputation of the US and its intelligence efforts.

If by "we" you are referring to the US acting in a unilateral fashion, then I would like access to some of the hallucinogens you have been taking lately.

Where do you get this idea that it is our job, our responsibility, or our right to police the world and make unprovoked attacks on sovereign nations? Defending your country is one thing. Attacking someone who has not attacked you is a completely different matter, and is illegal under international law. It is arrogant crap like that that makes me sick personally, and destroys the reputation of the US in the international community.


hwystar
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: January 22, 2006 09:55PM
My favorite pre-war bumpersticker was:

"Of course we know Saddam has WMD.
We have the receipts."

Iraq is surrounded by enemies, many of its own making of course. Israel alone has over 200 nukes, and chem/bio warfare. The Iranians used poison gas in their war with Iraq. An Indian admiral, during the Gulf War, was quoted: "The lesson of this is that if you're going to have to fight the United States you better have WMD." Every nation with potential adversaries wants deterrents.

Nonetheless, when Saddam's son-in-law, Kamel Hussein, who was in charge of those programs defected, he told his debriefers that all those weapons had been destroyed. All that remained was the knowledge to restart the programs once the inspectors left. That knowledge is freely available to most nations on earth. The liquid anthrax that Saddam had was long past pull date, according to our own CIA, so even if they still had any appreciable stocks of it left it was no longer infectious. Syria has its own WMD, and probably the most potent military in the region, next to Israel. To risk being bringing Saddam's stuff across the border would have been senseless. They had ample supplies of the same or worse, as does Israel.

Surrounded by hostile neighbors Saddam was in a no-win situation where telling the truth, that he had no WMD, might encourage aggression from his past victims. Maintaining a credible deterrent while proving you don't have one is tough. Cheney said we knew for certain that Saddam had nuclear bombs, but all we found were a few centrifuge parts buried under a rose bush.

They're lying warmongers, mint.





Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: spearmint
Date: January 22, 2006 11:24PM
What about the mustard gas, that does not qualify when sprayed from an airplane? On the other stuff I honestly believe I think for good reason they exist. He had years of no observation to be noncompliant to the treaty he signed after his escapade in Kuwait. I am sorry I think the inspectors were UN not Nato and that really hurts their ability to do anything. In fact I am sure I was wrong. Just like the League of Nations. Minus a point for the mint.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: January 23, 2006 12:13AM
I'm tired, mint, and must bid you goodnight. Thanks for the dialogue. I had 13 kids I went to high school with killed for Johnson's lies, and Nixon lied to my parents to get their vote, saying he had a secret plan to end the war, which turned out to be to escalate and widen it. I promised myself I'd never stand by and watch my country slaughter its kids (and those of foreigners) for lies again. War should always be the absolutely last resort for settling differences. 90% of the victims of any modern war, according to the UN, are non-combatants, so nothing you can say will persuade me the killing of 30,000 Iraqis (as Bush admits) was worth it, nor was the loss of over 2,225 of my fellow citizens. The fact that we've spent almost a quarter trillion dollars on this unnecessary, illegal war that could have addressed real threats to our country, such as untreated disease, hunger, homelessness is shameful. Your share of the bill is over $26,000, btw, and growing.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: spearmint
Date: January 23, 2006 12:56AM
I am sorry for your friends. My friends and I survived, one without a leg though. LBJ sent me the letter starting off "Greetings from the President" I do not hate him but consider him poorly advised.

The horror visited on South Vietnam that followed our leaving Viet Nam and continues today is good enough reason for me to believe it was a just war. It was a blood thirsty act of conquest on Hanoi's part. Just like North and South Korea they may have shared the same basic name but it did not make them one nation.

Good Night.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: January 23, 2006 08:33AM
spearmint Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am sorry for your friends. My friends and I
> survived, one without a leg though. LBJ sent me
> the letter starting off "Greetings from the
> President" I do not hate him but consider him
> poorly advised.

Johnson KNEW the Gulf of Tonkin reports were suspect, yet latched onto them and touted the fabricated "attack" to support his desire for wider war. I don't hate him, either, but I hate what he did in sending tens of thousands of my generation to their needless deaths.

> The horror visited on South Vietnam that followed
> our leaving Viet Nam and continues today is good
> enough reason for me to believe it was a just war.

We killed between two and three million Asians in our zeal to "free" them. The Phoenix Program assassinated over 20,000 Vietnamese. We would take two prisoners up in a helicopter and throw one out to elicit info from the other. The massacre at My Lai was not an aberration, but a common occurence. We poisoned their land for generations with Agent Orange (as we are doing in Iraq, but more persistently with "depleted" uranium) and left behind land mines and munitions that kill innocent children every year. Thirty years later Nike is making your shoes there, so what was the point of all the killing?

The Viet Minh defeated the Japanese garrisons after WWII. Despite Truman's bleating about the right of all people to self-determination we decided that France needed its former colonies to rebuild, so we disarmed the Viet Minh, put the Japanese guards in control until the French could return and betrayed our stated democratic ideals for the sake of filthy greed. To speak of the North Vietnamese as blood-thirsty is definitely a pot-meet-kettle argument. We bombed civilian targets all over the North in a terrorist campaign seeking to break their resolve to reunite their country, a nation which had a long history of autonomy and several wars with China, who also tried to conquer them.

I agree with the late General David M. Shoup, U.S. Marine Commandant, & Medal of Honor winner in WWII, who said on May 14, 1966:

“I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar-soaked fingers out of the business of these nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own ... and if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type, because the 'haves' refuse to share with the 'have-nots' by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don't want and above all don't want crammed down their throat by Americans."

Gen. Shoup was subsequently replaced by Sec'y of Defense McNamara for being too honest. Now, however, even McNamara, the architect of the Vietnam war, admits it was a mistake. Is your pride so great that you cannot?



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: spearmint
Date: January 23, 2006 08:56AM
“I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar-soaked fingers out of the business of these nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own ... and if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type, because the 'haves' refuse to share with the 'have-nots' by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don't want and above all don't want crammed down their throat by Americans."

The revolution must be of the violent type Shoup says. I do not agree we should allow slaughter to continue and no one had the nerve to trigger Sadaam's revenge that the Shia got. The general accusing us of having blood soaked fingers does not merit getting fired? I still have to see Mcnmara's interview in "Fog of War."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: January 23, 2006 09:47AM
I've seen "Fog of War." McNamara is largely unrepentant for the huge loss of life resulting from what he admits is a mistake.

Shoup doesn't advocate violence, but says if those who have more than they need will not share with those who have less than they need, then if violence ensues to establish equality it is better that we stay out of the fight, and let them settle it themselves.

GHWB told the Shia and Kurds to rise up against Saddam during the Gulf War, and they slaughtered many Sunnis. Then, because W's father was concerned about the rise of what we see now, a Shiite state aligned with Iran, he withdrew his protection, and watched as Saddam took deadly retribution for the slaughter of his tribesmen. Our support for both sides of the Iran/Iraq war was justified by Hank Kissinger (another of your heroes perhaps?) who said "I hope they kill each other."

That attitude persists today in our use of genocidal weapons such as depleted uranium, which depopulates the surface of the earth whose interior harbors the resources we covet. There are worse dictators in the world, and we support many of them, but God help them if we discover oil under their land and they assert domestic control over it.

When you say we shouldn't allow slaughter to continue how do you justify the Phoenix program or the two million plus people we killed during our 12 years trying to "stop the slaughter?" We not only continued the slaughter but made it worse, in Vietnam as we have in Iraq. Three to four thousand Iraqis are dying per month, now, so our genocidal intent is succeeding. As noted, however, Clinton killed a million and a half, so Bush still has some catching up to do.

Gen. Shoup was a genuine American hero who spoke truth to power. Gen. Shinseki also told the uncomfortable truth and he paid a similar price. Those like Johnson & Bush who love power more than truth are often offended by it.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: Patroklos
Date: January 23, 2006 12:11PM
"Figuratively, a scapegoat is someone selected to bear blame for a calamity. Scapegoating is the act of holding a person, group of people, or thing responsible for a multitude of problems." -- Wikipedia

Seems like there's a lot of back and forth about whether the Admin know there were no WMDs. To me that's less of an issue than how they went about "dealing" with that conclusion. The lies and misinformation come from the shrill insistance that the US was in iminent danger from the regieme of Saddam Hussein, which was never true - or at least is as true today as it was then.



-------------------------------------------------------
"We live in a fast-moving society, with short memories."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Why did we invade Iraq?
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: January 23, 2006 12:53PM
Saddam's replacement with a compliant puppet government is only the first step in Pax Americana, which will require similarly replacing all governments with similar puppets. The plan is world domination, not just taking over Iraq. To the neocons Iraq has only gone badly because the resistance has outside help from Iran and Syria, so if we can only take them down everything will get back on track. Iran and Syria are not nations weakened by 12 years of brutal economic sanctions and continual bombing and strafing as we did in the "no-fly" zones, so the first step is to repeat the process that brought Iraq to its knees.

These chickenhawks are big-picture thinkers and recognize that their goals may not be achievable within their lifetimes, so if election fraud isn't successful their plan B is perpetuation of imperialistic thinkers, if necessary by "Demofascists" like the Clintons or Kerry to mollify dissent ("This is the best we can do, ABB!"). The DLC is the corporate fascist state with a kinder, gentler face, and since they control the money that pays for elections they run the Democratic Party without regard for the grass roots. They will make empty gestures towards national health care to supply the butter with the guns appeal, but they will never seriously work towards it. This is why you see Bill C. & GHWB fishing together. They really are buddies.

Reid and Pelosi are making noises about pubicly financed elections, but as with impeachment, no matter how justified, it's going nowhere in a Republican dominate House and Senate. We have a plutocracy, and wealth rules and will tolerate no nonsense about the "will of the majority." The educational system is being allowed to decay like the levees, and as John Adams said, "an informed electorate is essential to democracy," that statement's corollary might be "an ignorant electorate leads to dictatorship." A young person ill-equipped to compete in the global market for a good job is a much easier recruit into a military when you dangle the keys of a new Mustang in front of him, hence the success of $40k enlistment bonuses, and the real reason education is being reserved for the rich.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 179
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020