The Road to Iraq - 237 Lies

by Satanus 65 Replies latest social current

• 

  SixofNine

  I still think it was the right thing for humanitarian reasons to oust Saddam.

  Which is fine, if the American people wanted to support that. Obviously, alot of us did, myself included (I know I was wrong, as it simply isn't "doable" in terms of the parameters we were working within, plus there's that whole honesty thing. I used to be a cynic too ).

  But saying it's for this (wmd's) or for that (regional stability), when in your big big heart meester Bush, you just wanted to help the Iraqi people, well... were is your big big heart for the mother of the helicoptor pilot who says you murdered her son, meeester Bush? She'd have no leg to stand on (much like many of the casualties of war who survive) if congress had been givin a vote authorising you to go to war to "liberate and rescue the Iraqi public from an evil tyrant".
• 

  Xena

  Actually I don't think Bush did it for humanitarian reasons either (but I think you know that )...I personally think that it needed to be done for that reason...but I imagine his reasoning was more he needed a target in the fight against terrorism and they were the most convenient.
• 

  Satans little helper

  Actually I don't think Bush did it for humanitarian reasons either (but I think you know that )...I personally think that it needed to be done for that reason...but I imagine his reasoning was more he needed a target in the fight against terrorism and they were the most convenient.

  But that's what really grinds my balls, if he had said 'Ok guys this Saddaam is a real bad guy and what we are going to do is free his people and as an aside we are going to use the war as an economic kick start and obviously benefit from the oil and reconstruction contracts' then I would have said, 'yeah ok, it's a bit rich you offering to free a people when you are restricting the freedoms of Americans but let's do it anyway so they get the measure of freedom that we have'

  That would have been honest, and I am sure that despite being a fucktard that Bush is genuinely agrieved at the evil things that Saddam did to his people. Thing is that if he had said that then he would have had to have gone into other countries that are worse - Zimbabwe, Saudi etc

  The thing that really worries me about this is twofold - firstly I am not sure that we have effectively combatted terrorism. Look at Israel, by blowing up houses and by using massive force the Israelis have succeeded in amplifying the justification for terrorism in the minds of most Palestinians. Terrorism only works when it has the support of a indigenous population against the target and Israeli actions have alienated the ordinary moderate Palestinians to the point that more extremists and more bombers to be are created.

  Secondly look at the precident - any country can do whatever the hell it likes because international law and the credence of the UN doesn't matter any more.

  If it was about WMD's then Hanz Blix would have been given more resources and time. He was bumrushed for political expediency which is terrible.
• 

  Xena

  Well if I had balls they probably would be grinded too....I was unhappy to say the least when I found out they had lied about the WMD...but I would imagine they figured that after 9/11 saying Saddam had WMD and there was imminent thread of him using them against us was more likely to get the support of the majority of the US public for a war rather than:

  'Ok guys this Saddaam is a real bad guy and what we are going to do is free his people and as an aside we are going to use the war as an economic kick start and obviously benefit from the oil and reconstruction contracts'

  Sad, but probably true, don't you think?
• 

  Yerusalyim

  I noticed the insistence that page eleven "proved" Bush lied has been dropped once I copied it to the thread.
• 

  Satanus

  Occupation/control of iraq is a step toward the caspian oil fields. Some quotes:

  "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian," declared Dick Cheney in 1998 in a speech to oil industrialists in Washington. Cheney was then still CEO of the oil-services giant Halliburton. In May 2001 Cheney, now US Vice President, recommended in the Administration's seminal National Energy Policy report that "the President make energy security a priority of our trade and foreign policy," singling out the Caspian Basin as a "rapidly growing new area of supply." Keen to outdo Clinton's oil record, the Bush Administration took the new Great Game into its second round. With potential oil production of up to 4.7 million barrels per day by 2010, the Caspian region has become crucial to the US policy of "diversifying energy supply."

  Bush actually cares about some arabs??

  the Bush Administration has wooed some of the region's most brutal autocrats, including Azerbaijan's Heydar Aliyev, Kazakhstan's Nursultan Nazarbayev and Pakistan's Musharraf. The most tyrannical of Washington's new allies is Islom Karimov, the ex-Communist dictator of Uzbekistan, who allowed US troops to set up a large and permanent military base on Uzbek soil during the Afghan campaign in late 2001. Ever since, the Bush Administration has turned a blind eye to the Karimov regime's brutal suppression of opposition and Islamic groups. "Such people must be shot in the head. If necessary, I will shoot them myself," Karimov once famously told his rubber-stamp Parliament. Although the US State Department acknowledges that Uzbek security forces use "torture as a routine investigation technique," Washington last year gave the Karimov regime $500 million in aid and rent payments for the US air base in Khanabad. Though Uzbek Muslims can be arrested simply for wearing a long beard, the State Department also quietly removed Uzbekistan from its annual list of countries where freedom of religion is under threat.

  SS
• 

  blacksheep

  All things things supposedly "proved" he lied. You cannot prove a "lie" when you don't know the intent. In other words, I believe there is no doubt the president and his administration, and indeed, most of the world, believed Sadaam to be a threat. Several people in Sadaams defunct clearly stated that he wanted everyone to THINK he had WMD, which is blantantly obvious by his refusal to comply with UN requirements. We know he WAS violating the terms of the UN agreements.

  Another variation on the theme that some desperate people put forth to try to "prove" Bush and his team knew that 9-11 was about to occur but yet did nothing. They man murdered 2000 US citizens and created the worst national disaster known by default.

  Totally preposterous logic. Using hindsight and analysis to try to prove that Bush knowingly lied, for obviously ill intent, is a red herring. Grow up people.
• 

  blacksheep

  SaintSatan:

  If you are going to "quote" something, at least put in references.

  Kinda like JW's quoting the "Bible" from John 1:1 to prove the trinity is a lie. Sure, according to THEIR version, NWT.
• 

  blacksheep

  Ah, yes. Invading Iraq and deposing Sadaam was evil. After all, he was a ruling sovereign. We should have respected that. Never mind that he was a horrific, tyrannical dictator that murdered tens of thousands of innocent people for their religious/political beliefs. That damned Bush lied, lied, lied....We shoulda just left the poor guy alone.

  Nice collection of straw men there, with a dash of red herring. Some people obviously like being governed by incompetants or being mislead by them"

  Ah, the old "straw man" argument, which translates, "I don't have a good response." We've seen it on this very thread: "We attack a soverign leader, when then guy was just trying to run his country the best he could." "At least Iraq was orderly when Sadaam was in power."

  Scary.
• 

  Pork Chop

  Henry Nostrilitius Waxman has been, is, and always will be a complete lunatic. Anything from him has no credibility what-so-ever because he is the kingpin of the lunatic left fringe.