Events Leading Up to Iraq War
 

A fascinating historical survey. See http://www.historycommons.org/timeli...vasion_of_iraq

Here's a taste:

emphasis and paragraph breaks added

The timeline material as a whole strongly supports my position that the Iraq war was naked neo-imperialist aggression aimed at furthering US interests through coercive, destructive means. It was in fact an immoral war that killed hundreds of thousands (at least) without any of the generally recognized justifications for use of deadly force as an instrument of policy.

I have never had any doubt about this.

And as long as I have a breath left in my body my cup shall runneth over with hate for these bastards that sent my first born son into harms way over a pack of lies.

Yeah, but it's our imperialist expansion and we're exceptional, so it's okay.:rolleyes:

Hear, Hear!!!

I love to watch the reaction when I tell certain people;

"In my opinion, the greatest disrespect ever foisted upon our military folks is to waste their lives making them fight bogus wars."

Dave

That's head-exploding material right there - enough to make Sarah Palin go Fembot on ya.

http://www.jeffbots.com/fembot3.jpg

Although a film, the Cheney character in the movie "W" reflects nakedly, unapologetically the imperialist sentiments in the Donq link. His arguments in the son Bush cabinet meetings are instructive.

You certainly won't get an argument from me here! I'll also add that the Iraq War was partly motivated by Neocon pique. They were furious with Bush 41 for not continuing on to Baghdad as part of Desert Storm. The Wolfowitz/Libby paper was written just after that and, I believe, was in part a response to it.

John

I like your style. :)


Carl

The picture of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld going down the Whitehouse steps with ear to ear smiles I will never forget. There has to be a special corner of Hell reseved for those two.

Nothing new there for those that picked choosing to see what was happening at the time over the propaganda and out and out lies.



Barney

My theory if anyone cares to hear it is that Saddam Hussein was a gift from heaven to foreign policy hawks like Wolfowitz and the Neocons, who'd just publicly put the Middle East on notice with their Project for the New American Century where they outlined the re-ordering of the Middle East into a compliant vassal-states crude oil spigot for the U.S.A.. Who could possibly object to that? Not smart as it turned out as they do occasionally check the 'net over there.
Our position in Saudi as a base of operations had become politically untenable and we had to eventually un-ass the A-O (leave) to keep the peace and good relations. The Iraqi situation presented the Hawks and oil/financial interests with a golden opportunity to keep Army boots in Middle East sand by occupying Iraq with some ruse of justification, and as a major bonus, we take over the oil fields to "stabilize them" and keep the stuff flowing out, and guess what? That pays the costs of all this at-home spending. The Iraqis (aren't they all the same?) are so grateful to be out from under the Hussein family's tyranny they hail us as liberating heroes. Win-win!! Except the "little people" in the margins of this equation failed to be predictably compliant to the oh-so-clever and well-conceived plan. Who-da thunk?? It blows up in our face as the major poorly thought-thru clusterfunk it was and persists to the present, they're glad to see Hussein gone but miss the enforced stability his tyranny ensured. The ongoing intermittent terror attacks and our indebtedness to the operation and ongoing indebtedness to the injured/disabled vets of this operation is the legacy, not to mention our loss of credibility thru the expenditure of good will squandered. The diversion of resources from Afghanistan proved disastrous. Halliburton (Cheney's outfit) & the other Usual Suspects won-won, everyone else not so much.

So now Pakistan has taken advantage of it all and ensures that Afghanistan will remain a turbulent area for their benefit.

1. Nor I.
2. That's why I didn't volunteer.

If you believe in Number One, doing Number Two shouldn't follow. In that situation, I would hate me, not the bastard(s) I swore to obey.

But that's just me.

Your lead candidate for Pres in 16 supported the Iraqi war, and your current incumbent has acted very much like the last one.

Pete

Hillary was misled by Dubya and his CIA just like everybody else and cleaning up Dubya's mess inevitably resulted in maintaining some of his policies (at least for a while). Red herring, Pete.

Sen. Clinton's support for the war was based on cooked intelligence provided by the Bush administration. Once the truth was revealed, she no longer supported the war.

Obama has withdrawn our troops from Iraq and has set the stage for our withdrawal from Afghanistan. Do you honestly believe that Bush, or any Republican who might have succeeded him, would have done the same?

John

The sooner we un-ass that A-O and let India deal with them, the better.

http://www.politicalchat.org/showpos...0&postcount=11
I vividly remember driving to B'ham for a Crystal Radio Club luncheon listening to the live Colin Powell address to the U.N. on NPR. I understand he refuses to speak to GWB to this day for deceiving him and using him and his his credibility to 'sell' it.

This red herring?

4-21-04

"......

Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since," she said. "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

....."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/

And Bush was already drawing down troops in Iraq. Obamas' promise of 10 months and out was conveniently forgotten anyway.

Pete

Iraq was your boy's doing.

Don't try to deflect.

That shit doesn't won't work on me.

That's good, because you're sure going to hear a lot of it come next Pres election!

Pete

No doubt.

You side is going to throw everything you can at Hillary, including the Kitchen Sink. But that's not going to work either.

Benghazi!

Oh yes, the dead Benghazi squirrel. As long as that is coming she can retaliate with a bill for the $24 billion for Turd Cruz' shutdown publicity stunt for the Teabaggers..

Speaking of squirrels....

Pete

Point exactly. Benghazi is a present-non-issue as would be attaching the Turd Cruz stunt to her campaign. Tit-for-tat petty retaliation that doesn't belong in an issues debate between candidates.

Actually I was thinking about how quickly the topic shifted from Hillary and Iraq ;)

Pete

You're the one desperately trying to deflect attention away from the fact that it was your boy Bush and his administration that got us into this clusterfuck based on nothing but lies.

I guess when you find yourself in such an embarrassing situation as that, trying to defend the indefensible, the only option left to you is to try to deflect.

Of course you could always man up and take personal responsibility for being wrong, but that's not the way of the winger.

I'm uncertain of whether Iraq was the right thing to do. For better or worse it changed the ME forever.

It was ultimately Bush's decision indeed. At least he asked Congress before bombing, something your guy didn't.

But regarding Hillary, she stands by her vote. In light of this thread, you guys going to vote for her?

Pete

Unless the GOP succeeds in pulling a rabbit out of a hat, yes.

You see now, Pete? She's saying that, given what she believed at the time (thanks to Bush/Cheney lies), she believes she made the only decision she could. In addition, there were conditions placed on the Authorization To Use Force for which she voted but Bush invaded without meeteing those conditions. Admittedly, she was parsing her words carefully so as not to seem unpatriotic or "weak" but her meaning is clear.

We had never faced a situation like this before where Administration appointees to multiple entities, the Pentagon, DIA and NSA, were all fabricating intelligence to deceive both the public and the legislative branch. This unprecedented criminal behavior caught the Senate off-guard. They, like General Powell, were deceived and co-opted by the Bush Administration.

John

That's like Ted Bundy saying "I'm uncertain of whether killing all those women was the right thing to do".

Pretty much!

John

She goes on to say that everyone had the same intel.

Pete

".....

The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," she said. "It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.

...."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/

"....

I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors. And I also knew that our military forces would be successful. But what we did not appreciate fully and what the administration was unprepared for was what would happen the day after.

...."

http://mediamatters.org/research/200...-her-of/139115

Pete

Same old broken record from Pete.

http://www.skillsyouneed.com/ps/asse...echniques.html

Nobody's buying it Dude.:rolleyes:

That Hillary listened to 'Bush's lies'?

Pete

Suck it up your nose and blow it out your ears.

Btw I like the link. May I have a refund? :D

Pete

Dang, could've used it for a beer :o

Pete