Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Thu Mar 28 19:27:49 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / 20 year anniversary of Iraq war
Im better then you
2012 UP Football Champ
Mon Mar 20 14:04:36
Bush lied the media went along with it and neither paid the price so now. No one trusts government intuitions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3C91qsRYFg
Rugian
Member
Mon Mar 20 15:08:11
Joe Biden voted for that war.

Everyone who did (R or D) should be hanged for willingly committing our country to a war based on lies.

And yes, this war did undermine trust in public institutions. The war, and the subsequent NSA mass surveillance revelations, permanently destroyed my own trust in the federal government. Just wanted to put that out there for anyone who believes that the American public had full confidence in their institutions until Trump came along.
Average Ameriacn
Member
Mon Mar 20 15:33:19
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!
murder
Member
Mon Mar 20 16:50:57

"And yes, this war did undermine trust in public institutions. The war, and the subsequent NSA mass surveillance revelations, permanently destroyed my own trust in the federal government."

Yeah because we've never been lied into war or been surveilled by the state before.

It would be easier to list the wars we haven't been lied into.
kargen
Member
Mon Mar 20 16:55:30
President Bush didn't lie.

He relied on faulty British intelligence after the CIA said the British report was more up to date.

Still a big fuck-up though.

Hell even Saddaam thought he had those weapons because his scientists lied to him in order to stay alive and not be tortured.
Paramount
Member
Mon Mar 20 17:11:13
^ lol
Y2A
Member
Mon Mar 20 17:47:44
The propaganda was so good that even now people like kargen parrot the "wmd" nonsense with all of us who lived thru the time knowing that the only reason the US went in was because of public support due to the "iraq did 9/11" propaganda campaign. seriously, Rossiya one has nothing on the manufactured consent machine here.
kargen
Member
Mon Mar 20 18:01:40
Nothing you typed Y2A changed what I stated. President Bush in that speech he gave (I watched it live by the way) used information that was from the British report. Sure the US could have ulterior motives but the reasons given were backed by the British intel report.

If you could remember that far back you would remember the United Nations had a series of hearings and came to much the same conclusion I have given you here. Theirs was a little more wordy.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Mar 20 19:36:33
Wahahahahahaha
Y2A
Member
Mon Mar 20 20:45:33
Chomsky on Iraq, a man who with actually cancelled from mainstream media in 2003 unlike the obnoxious daily wire propagandists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GFh4vZbjYc
Y2A
Member
Mon Mar 20 20:52:50
*who was actually cancelled
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Mar 20 23:49:02
Chomsky is a russian stooge. I think pillz quotes him. For real.
earthpig
GTFO HOer
Tue Mar 21 04:33:52
Relevant thread: http://www...ay_we_invaded_iraq_how_are_my/
Habebe
Member
Tue Mar 21 05:51:31
"Bush lied the media went along with it and neither paid the price so now. No one trusts government intuitions"

This comes off as of this was the one time we weeklies into war.

And THIS time it's super cereal and the Gods honest truth, not propaganda.

I was watching a pbs documentary the other day (briefly) that was claiming how Putin started a war with the US and basically that when he invaded Ukraine that he really was attacking the US.....
murder
Member
Tue Mar 21 18:04:11

"President Bush in that speech he gave (I watched it live by the way) used information that was from the British report."

1. We conspire with Iraqi dissidents to make up bullshit testimony/evidence.

2. We feed it to British intelligence.

3. They share it with our intelligence services.

4. We wave it around as proof of Saddam having WMD and use it as an excuse to invade.

Sam Adams
Member
Wed Mar 22 01:07:17
1) Saddam wanted it to appear as if he had wmd. Dictators only stay in power through fear, and he knew his army sucked.
jergul
large member
Wed Mar 22 01:55:36
Sammy
He needed a deterrent versus Iran. He was not toppled internally. He famously hung out with huge crowds of people before availing himself to civilians to hide him for a while. Any 2nd rate army sucks if under heavy sanctions for long enough. Cut off Ukraine from aid and see what happens if you need a modern day case-study :). The sunni revolt eventually did succeed in a sense after it was fired from the Iraqi state services. You are not there anymore. Nor are shia security groups in any form. I would not advice tourism in Tikrit even today.
murder
Member
Wed Mar 22 07:34:02

"1) Saddam wanted it to appear as if he had wmd. Dictators only stay in power through fear, and he knew his army sucked."

You mean aside from repeatedly denying that he had any?

That's an excuse that was manufactured to cover up our bullshit "evidence".
murder
Member
Wed Mar 22 07:42:33

For those who don't have clear recollections of some of the bullshit our government was putting out there ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgS6JggWtgE

murder
Member
Wed Mar 22 07:51:52

And yeah I was sure that Iraq had WMD because what kind of dictator gives up his weapons if he isn't forced to?

But it was pretty clear that we were lying like crazy about having supposed evidence. I remember Rumsfeld being asked where Saddam was storing the chemical weapons and his response was something like "in the area around Baghdad" ... as if that was a location.

====================================
On ABC's "This Week" on Sunday morning (March 30), Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that those weapons have not yet been found because they are hidden inside cities that troops have not yet entered, such as Baghdad.

"The area in the South and the West and the North that coalition forces control is substantial," Rumsfeld said on the show. "It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are, they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.

====================================


We of course knew that we had no such evidence.

Seb
Member
Wed Mar 22 08:21:38
Murder:

It's fairly well documented now.

He did have weapons etc. in the past - CIA knew that well.

He thought he could avoid disarming in public and maintain sufficient ambiguity to deter Iran while there being no risk of actually getting caught with weapons. This mostly happened during the 90's.

When Bush Jr came calling and by the time he realised Bush wanted proof and public disarmament, he had no way to prove it to Hans Blix.

His denials of having weapons from 2001 were real enough.

Prior to that it had been deeply ambiguous - and he thought even if not an ally of America, he had carved out a niche of understanding where he could be a bulwark against Iran and largely be left to his own devices.
Seb
Member
Wed Mar 22 08:25:15
Don't get me wrong - the US and UK made deep intelligence failures on top of that. But one of those is rejecting the idea that Iraq would have disarmed in the 90's without proving it to us - which we now know it definitely did as we do know it did have WMDs before GWI that had not been verifiably decommissioned (cause we sold them to him).

We simply didn't consider that Iraq viewed Iran as a bigger threat than the US - more so after GWI as it couldn't think of US support - and therefore needed to maintain enough ambiguity to deter Iran.
murder
Member
Wed Mar 22 08:48:16

"Don't get me wrong - the US and UK made deep intelligence failures on top of that."

They were not intelligence failures. They were lying. They manufactured "evidence".

I don't know how people absorb government bullshit and just accept it when it is transparently bullshit. There were weapons inspectors. We claimed to know where the weapons were, but we refused to tell them where. Why? You know why. We had no credible information ... and the incredible information we had was manufactured by us and being disseminated by our own stooges.

Intelligence services lie. One of the biggest lies is that they exist to gather intelligence. They do that, but their real reason for being is to advance the foreign policy of whatever nation they work for.

Saddam Hussein was not being ambiguous. There is no evidence to support that assertion. It's simply a story that was made up to explain away our intelligence "failures". It was manufactured to explain how supposedly competent intelligence agencies could have possibly gotten everything so wrong and so we could keep pretending that we're the good guys.

btw has "Curveball" been prosecuted yet? A ton of people died as a result of his misinformation, so surely he's been prosecuted, right?

*eyeroll*

There were no mistakes. Our governments were not fooled. Everyone played their part, including the media. Some of which are on the government payroll.

It's all theater.
murder
Member
Wed Mar 22 08:50:42

btw was Saddam also being ambiguous about his ties to al-Qaeda and how Iraq was training them to use chemical weapons?

show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share