Iraq war double standards

[Carlis]

When america entered Iraq there seemed to be allmost concensus about the affair in america. Now years later there is a massive critiqe about the state of affairs and the great costs in both cash and american lives.

Is that not rather unfair? I mean, US entered Iraq to replace Sadam with a democratic regiem. Initiating such an operation it must have been clear that the mission is not only to remove a regiem but to help creat one as well. If US left today then I think most would agree that Iraq has changed to the worse. Sadam did not host terrorists, in fact he was affraid of them. That would be the ultimate failure. In a sense, GWB has a lot of spine because he refuse to leave Iraq in the current condition despite the enormous preassure. Im not a fan how him but I have to admit that.

Those people how gave the invasion a fullhearted support and now blaim GWB for the mess live by doubble standards. Lets admit most of us didnt se this coming a few years ago.

 

[boredhokie]

Are you a student at DeVry? I can't even tell what the hell you're trying to say.

If you get over your amnesia of the reasons the war was sold on you'd see why most people think this war and admin is a total fvck up.

 

[techs]

You are gravely mistaken, about a great many things.
The US invaded Iraq because an idiot President chose morons to manipulate intelligence to convince Americans Saddam had or would shortly have WMD.
We did not go there to get rid of Saddam and institute democracy.
Having screwed up over the intel on the invasion, Bush and his morons got to carry out THEIR plan, not ours, which was to depose Saddam and institute a democratic government friendly to the US and to get access to Iraqi oil.
After royally screwing THAT up Bush is now desperate to keep troops there, dying, so he doesn't have to admit how wrong he is.
Another thing is that the American occupation is, to some degree, the cause of the insurgency in Iraq.
If we would just leave, secure the borders of Iraq, and help moderates in Iraq where we can, the Iraqis will work out their own problems, probably thru violence, which may not be as severe as the current violence. Yet once an equlilibrium is reached Iraq can move forward. Which it can't do with the U.S. standing in the middle, hated by all.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: boredhokie
Are you a student at DeVry? I can't even tell what the hell you're trying to say.

If you get over your amnesia of the reasons the war was sold on you'd see why most people think this war and admin is a total fvck up.

Actually, the Bush Regime and their sycophants have been using this tactic for nearly 3 years. They claim everybody believed EXACTLY what they believed and everybody wanted it done EXACTLY how the Bush Junta carried it out.

Anybody with a clue knows that's a lie but it's pretty much the Bush Junta MO to keep lying since kool-aid drinkers don't care. Many others stopped listening long ago . . . most intelligent people do that when you continue to say so many things that just aren't so.

 

[Moonbeam]

I was against this war from long before it started and I warned everybody on it at the time the reasons being given were lies. You need to understand that America is a sick and violent country that that can explode into violence at the drop of a hat. We are in the process now of turning the Iranian into the Juden. Fools aren't fooled by others. Fools fool themselves. They go with what they've got.

When large numbers of sick people gather they become a mob, a robotic entity that can be manipulated by pulling its strings. Mobs obey mechanical laws that can be understood and used by cleaver emotionally dead people. The mob psychosis always wears off with time. People wake up counting backward, I will now forget, I will now forget. Then the psychosis waits like a virus for the next outbreak.

 

[Carlis]

Originally posted by: boredhokie
Are you a student at DeVry? I can't even tell what the hell you're trying to say.

If you get over your amnesia of the reasons the war was sold on you'd see why most people think this war and admin is a total fvck up.

I know the WMD's was a factor when waging this war but I was under the impression that the cruelty of the regiem and lack of democracy in Iraq were equally important arguments. But then I followed this debate from outside of america.

Still, america reelected GWB in 2004 roughly one and a half year after the invasion presumably knowing Sadam had no WMD. It seems to me that the general lack of results in getting Iraq on its feet and going out of there with a victory has had more effect on opinions than GWB lying about those WMD's.

 

[dahunan]

GWB never met a spending bill he didn't like.. he loves to spend Americas money and he constantly supports people who are absolute failures and his administration has lied to us all throughout the war process and trumped up BS and hyped soldiers stories that were lies and propoganda etc.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: techs
You are gravely mistaken, about a great many things.
The US invaded Iraq because an idiot President chose morons to manipulate intelligence to convince Americans Saddam had or would shortly have WMD.
We did not go there to get rid of Saddam and institute democracy.
Having screwed up over the intel on the invasion, Bush and his morons got to carry out THEIR plan, not ours, which was to depose Saddam and institute a democratic government friendly to the US and to get access to Iraqi oil.
After royally screwing THAT up Bush is now desperate to keep troops there, dying, so he doesn't have to admit how wrong he is.
Another thing is that the American occupation is, to some degree, the cause of the insurgency in Iraq.
If we would just leave, secure the borders of Iraq, and help moderates in Iraq where we can, the Iraqis will work out their own problems, probably thru violence, which may not be as severe as the current violence. Yet once an equlilibrium is reached Iraq can move forward. Which it can't do with the U.S. standing in the middle, hated by all.

I think that is BS. Everyone assumed Saddam had WMD's before we invaded, and either everyone turned out to be wrong, or he moved them to Syria since he saw the buildup happening for months. The people against Bush have tried to turn a mistake into a lie by repeating it over and over and over. I guess the people that predicted a severe hurrican season this past year are "liars" instead of just mistaken huh? Saying it is a lie is a logical fallacy, and i think you know it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Carlis

I know the WMD's was a factor when waging this war but I was under the impression that the cruelty of the regiem and lack of democracy in Iraq were equally important arguments.

But then I followed this debate from outside of america.

Still, america reelected GWB in 2004 roughly one and a half year after the invasion presumably knowing Sadam had no WMD.

It seems to me that the general lack of results in getting Iraq on its feet and going out of there with a victory has had more effect on opinions than GWB lying about those WMD's.

Welcome to P&N.

The reason Bush got elected and re-elected was because the Republican party was able to put an army of brainwashed supporters together from the majority of the churches and corporations in America.

There is still quite a few hold outs and diehard supporters in here.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: techs
You are gravely mistaken, about a great many things.
The US invaded Iraq because an idiot President chose morons to manipulate intelligence to convince Americans Saddam had or would shortly have WMD.
We did not go there to get rid of Saddam and institute democracy.
Having screwed up over the intel on the invasion, Bush and his morons got to carry out THEIR plan, not ours, which was to depose Saddam and institute a democratic government friendly to the US and to get access to Iraqi oil.
After royally screwing THAT up Bush is now desperate to keep troops there, dying, so he doesn't have to admit how wrong he is.
Another thing is that the American occupation is, to some degree, the cause of the insurgency in Iraq.
If we would just leave, secure the borders of Iraq, and help moderates in Iraq where we can, the Iraqis will work out their own problems, probably thru violence, which may not be as severe as the current violence. Yet once an equlilibrium is reached Iraq can move forward. Which it can't do with the U.S. standing in the middle, hated by all.

I think that is BS. Everyone assumed Saddam had WMD's before we invaded, and either everyone turned out to be wrong, or he moved them to Syria since he saw the buildup happening for months. The people against Bush have tried to turn a mistake into a lie by repeating it over and over and over. I guess the people that predicted a severe hurrican season this past year are "liars" instead of just mistaken huh? Saying it is a lie is a logical fallacy, and i think you know it.

What do you know about logic. The inspectors said there were no WMD so Bush had the inspectors withdrawn. And I guess you don't remember all the trial balloon excuses for war that were shopped and popped before WMD was hit upon. Lots of people knew there were no WMD and it was obvious to every thinking person 45 min into the war when a country that supposedly had them didn't use them against a superior invasion force that was about to take over their country. And the they went to Syria joke is really too too old. It is the last refuge of fools like yourself that caused and support America's greatest disaster. You, you mind, your absurd belief state, have done more damage to America that Saddam could have ever done. But rather than experience the profound shame that you should, you hide your head in denial with the pat notion that everybody thought like you.

 

[jackschmittusa]

I agree completely with Moonbeam on this one.

Mxylplyx, just where did you get the idea that everyone assumed the WMD BS was true? This board alone was proof that a lot of people did not buy into it.

And for Carlis, we went to war because GWB said "That man (Sadaam) tried to kill my daddy.". I think a lot of initial support for the invasion was lukewarm at best, figuring that not only was Sadaam a bad guy (and who cares what happens to bad guys anyway?), but we would also demonstrate that we were a badassed superpower to the whole M.E.. The icing on the cake was that it would be a really cheap adventure. GWB even claimed the Iraqi oil revenues would pay for it.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: boredhokie
Are you a student at DeVry? I can't even tell what the hell you're trying to say.

I wasn't aware tha Devry offered courses in physics?

See his sig ("physics student")

Fern

 

[Harvey]

Carlis -- You're two weeks late for an April Fools joke post. If you really believe that garbage you posted, invest in a spell checker and some history lessons. You've failed dismally at both. :roll:

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Mxylplyx, just where did you get the idea that everyone assumed the WMD BS was true? This board alone was proof that a lot of people did not buy into it.

The polls of... what was it, 70% agreement in invading Iraq? Not to mention the Democratic Party leadership of today were also mentioning WMDs. Maybe not everyone bought it, but the vast majority did.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Mxylplyx, just where did you get the idea that everyone assumed the WMD BS was true? This board alone was proof that a lot of people did not buy into it.

The polls of... what was it, 70% agreement in invading Iraq? Not to mention the Democratic Party leadership of today were also mentioning WMDs. Maybe not everyone bought it, but the vast majority did.

And every reason/excuse the Bushwhackos gave us and Congress has since been proven to be LIES. Which of them did you believe, and why?

More importantly, which of them are you still trying to shove down anyone else's throat, and why? :roll:

 

[Carlis]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Carlis -- You're two weeks late for an April Fools joke post. If you really believe that garbage you posted, invest in a spell checker and some history lessons. You've failed dismally at both. :roll:

Do you spell foreign languages perfect?

As for the subject I do find it a bit strange that so many americans supported the war and now dont stand for it.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: techs
You are gravely mistaken, about a great many things.
The US invaded Iraq because an idiot President chose morons to manipulate intelligence to convince Americans Saddam had or would shortly have WMD.
We did not go there to get rid of Saddam and institute democracy.
Having screwed up over the intel on the invasion, Bush and his morons got to carry out THEIR plan, not ours, which was to depose Saddam and institute a democratic government friendly to the US and to get access to Iraqi oil.
After royally screwing THAT up Bush is now desperate to keep troops there, dying, so he doesn't have to admit how wrong he is.
Another thing is that the American occupation is, to some degree, the cause of the insurgency in Iraq.
If we would just leave, secure the borders of Iraq, and help moderates in Iraq where we can, the Iraqis will work out their own problems, probably thru violence, which may not be as severe as the current violence. Yet once an equlilibrium is reached Iraq can move forward. Which it can't do with the U.S. standing in the middle, hated by all.

I think that is BS. Everyone assumed Saddam had WMD's before we invaded, and either everyone turned out to be wrong, or he moved them to Syria since he saw the buildup happening for months. The people against Bush have tried to turn a mistake into a lie by repeating it over and over and over. I guess the people that predicted a severe hurrican season this past year are "liars" instead of just mistaken huh? Saying it is a lie is a logical fallacy, and i think you know it.

Now what you've said is BS. Everyone believed Saddam at some chemical or biological weapons left over. Cheney/Rumsfeld and their Office of Special Plans cooked up a gaggle of lies and half-truths about massive WMD programs but what they commonly pushed was the notion of an advanced nuclear program. Those claims were not mistakes. They were lies.

Yellow cake
Aluminum tubes
Atta in Prague
mobile weapon labs

Bush supporters are masters at self delusion. If you don't suffer from delusional disorder or schizophrenia . . . prolonged periods of convincing yourself that 'up is down' or 'black is white' is at best willful ignorance.

You could argue that doesn't equate with lying. It certainly exhibits an astonishing lack of common sense and abundance of stupidity.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The real truth is Americans universally support the US military. When it became a foregone conclusion that Bush was going to start a war, much of the support was for that quick victory, preventing that mushroom cloud in Des Moines, and being greeted as liberators.

Bush had a fighting chance as long as he could hook his raggedy wagon to 'support the troops'. What's happened since is that the public now has a clear picture of just how much Bush has FUBAR'd Iraq from the word go. Accordingly, they no longer support his BS war/nationbuilding/reforming the Middle East and can easily disentangle support for the troops from support for Bush.

 

[tomywishbone]

"... I mean, US entered Iraq to replace Sadam with a democratic regiem..."

😀🙂:laugh:

Edit: I ain't laughing at your syntax or spelling... it's better than mine. "Democracy" was never a reason given for the invasion, until the first 10 reasons were proven to be absolute lies.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Mxylplyx, just where did you get the idea that everyone assumed the WMD BS was true? This board alone was proof that a lot of people did not buy into it.

The polls of... what was it, 70% agreement in invading Iraq? Not to mention the Democratic Party leadership of today were also mentioning WMDs. Maybe not everyone bought it, but the vast majority did.

And every reason/excuse the Bushwhackos gave us and Congress has since been proven to be LIES. Which of them did you believe, and why?

More importantly, which of them are you still trying to shove down anyone else's throat, and why? :roll:

Oh you mean the lies and excuses Bush told everyone while he was governer of Texas?

Ah yeah. Those.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Carlis

Originally posted by: Harvey
Carlis -- You're two weeks late for an April Fools joke post. If you really believe that garbage you posted, invest in a spell checker and some history lessons. You've failed dismally at both. :roll:

Do you spell foreign languages perfect?

As for the subject I do find it a bit strange that so many americans supported the war and now dont stand for it.

Because most people (especially here in P&N) dont believe in history of the Iraqi situation until after 2000. They conveniently leave out 1992-2000.

Welcome to P&N 🙂

 

[Lemon law]

I think its really easy to logically demonstrate that GWB&co. deceived the American public. And that there were two entirely different versions of the intelligence---the raw files that basically harvest all possible allegations of what Saddam had---and the refined files which was the best available CIA estimate of the real strength of Saddam in terms of WMD.

Its very easy to go to the raw files and cherry pick intel that inflates Saddam into a total powerhouse just a few steps away from nuking the US---and ignore the refined and analysis that puts together best available estimates of multiple pieces of intel---with the two big whoppers being the aluminum tubes could only be used for enriching uranium and the claim about Saddam buying yellow cake from Niger---both of which were already known by the CIA to be highly dubious at best well prior to the start of Gulf war2.

And the simple proof is as follows---if Rummy believed the crap that he and other neocons were feeding the American public----would he have gone in with the absurdly light invasion force he opted to use???---and then race to Baghdad at all available speed leaving American forces trapped and vulnerable to later WMD counterattacks?

Would Rummy have done what he did if he believed a word of what he and the other neocons were telling the American public?---I rest my case.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I think its really easy to logically demonstrate that GWB&co. deceived the American public. And that there were two entirely different versions of the intelligence---the raw files that basically harvest all possible allegations of what Saddam had---and the refined files which was the best available estimate CIA of the real strength of Saddam in terms of WMD.

Its very easy to go to the raw files and cherry pick intel that inflates Saddam into a total powerhouse just a few steps away from nuking the US---and ignore the refined and analysis that puts together best available estimates of multiple pieces of intel---with the two big whoppers being the aluminum tubes could only be used for enriching uranium and the claim about Saddam buying yellow cake from Niger---both of which were already known by the CIA to be highly dubious at best well prior to the start of Gulf war2.

And the simple proof is as follows---if Rummy believed the crap that he and other neocons were feeding the American public----would he have gone in with the absurdly light invasion force he opted to use???---and then race to Baghdad at all available speed leaving American forces trapped and vulnerable to later WMD counterattacks?

Yeah but who gave out the cherry picked intel in the mid and late 90's? Thats who Im gunning for personally.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Carlis
When america entered Iraq there seemed to be allmost concensus about the affair in america. Now years later there is a massive critiqe about the state of affairs and the great costs in both cash and american lives.

Is that not rather unfair? I mean, US entered Iraq to replace Sadam with a democratic regiem. Initiating such an operation it must have been clear that the mission is not only to remove a regiem but to help creat one as well. If US left today then I think most would agree that Iraq has changed to the worse. Sadam did not host terrorists, in fact he was affraid of them. That would be the ultimate failure. In a sense, GWB has a lot of spine because he refuse to leave Iraq in the current condition despite the enormous preassure. Im not a fan how him but I have to admit that.

Those people how gave the invasion a fullhearted support and now blaim GWB for the mess live by doubble standards. Lets admit most of us didnt se this coming a few years ago.

Up yours, buddy. I've been in this forum complaining about Iraq since before it even got started. Nice attempt to paint with a broad brush, though. Kudos for that.

 

[Lemon law]

To Blackaigst1---who asks--Yeah but who gave out the cherry picked intel in the mid and late 90's? Thats who Im gunning for personally.

Well your answer is again Cheney and Rummy--who in the early 1980's convinced Saddam to invest in WMD---and arranged for the purchase---and at the conclusion of Gulf war 1 no one was sure if Saddam had indeed destroyed them as agreed---but according to his ill fated son in laws during the 1990's, they told and confirmed to the CIA that indeed they were destroyed after the son in laws briefly defected to Jordan.---again the difference between raw and filtered CIA files.

My best guess is that Saddam never revealed it either or his neighbors might think Iraq weak and ripe for the picking---but Rummy had to know in 2002 as he had access to all CIA files. And then when the WMD failed to surface---they made Tenant the scapegoat---leaving Rummy, Cheney , and the neocons otherwise free to independently bungle the Iraqi occupation.