From 9/11 to today. How did we end up in Iraq.

[veracity00]

From planes being flown into buildings, from the alleged suspects of the terrorist attack being mostly of Saudia Arabian nationality, to the hunt for Osama bin Laden, to the war on Al Qaeda and terrorism that ensued.

Exactly how in the hell did we end up in Iraq? That's something to think about.

[BooRadley]

The Bush Administration made a very obvious, very overt, and very concerted campaign to shift anger, fear and resentment from al Qaida to Iraq so he could use 9-11 to accomplish political ends. They wanted a "new Pearl Harbor" so they could launch PNAC global-reorg plans, and they used 9-11 for that end.

In order to convince the American public, they used some outright lies, but mostly manipulative, deceptive, and duplicitous language to trick stupid people into think that Iraq, not al Qaida, had attacked us.

They turned up a massive propaganda engine, incorporating Fox News, right wing blogs and talk shows to shout down anyone who tried to shine light on their deception by screaming that anyone who protests or questions or debates the *need* to attack Iraq is a communist traitor terrorist.

Then they attacked Iraq and dropped the bill on our laps. Sadly, around 1/3 of the American population is so stupid they still don't get it.

[veracity00]

That was a great way to put it BR.

[86Dude]

I dunno, why don't we ask the dirty jew running the World Bank.

[ironwest]

Originally Posted by BooRadley

The Bush Administration made a very obvious, very overt, and very concerted campaign to shift anger, fear and resentment from al Qaida to Iraq so he could use 9-11 to accomplish political ends. They wanted a "new Pearl Harbor" so they could launch PNAC global-reorg plans, and they used 9-11 for that end.
In order to convince the American public, they used some outright lies, but mostly manipulative, deceptive, and duplicitous language to trick stupid people into think that Iraq, not al Qaida, had attacked us.

Since Bush is still in white house, either these are not true, or democrats are too stupid. I do not think anyone in congress is stupid.

[enkahootz]

the one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other.
saddam needed to be removed… simple as that.

[86Dude]

Originally Posted by enkahootz

the one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other.
saddam needed to be removed… simple as that.

Ok, but why?

[BooRadley]

Originally Posted by ironwest

Since Bush is still in white house

Bush is still in the White House specifically because what I said is true: 51% of the American public are ****ing retarded.

[enkahootz]

Why?
Well, the short answer is, he had already made power plays in the form of a war with iran and the invasion of Kuwait. And he had been caught with WMDs (throughout the 90s).
Does/did anyone really believe he was about to settle for what he had, that he had given up the business of “evil-doings” and had now changed his ways?

Just for shits and giggles, check out some of the adventures of his two sons…
For their actions alone, he should have been removed…



And for the record, 25% of the human population is retarded.

[enkahootz]

And b/c bush was involved in his downfall and now everyone hates bush, am I supposed to feel sympathy for "what bush did to saddam", like saddam is somehow an innocent victim?

[Ice Pick]

Saddam needed to be removed also, so I agree.

[BooRadley]

Originally Posted by enkahootz

And b/c bush was involved in his downfall and now everyone hates bush, am I supposed to feel sympathy for "what bush did to saddam", like saddam is somehow an innocent victim?

Who are you quoting when you say, "What bush did to saddam"? Who said that anyone should feel sympathy for Saddam? Is this just some crazy as hell strawman you dreamed up, or did someone say any of this?

[bornundersaturn]

Saddam was/is a puppet. How many people think Saddam was really hung? how many people know what the guy really looks like. There were geopolitical reasons for those things he did. Kurds threaten to break away and make their own state.

who do you think gave him the weapons to kill Kurds and Attack Iran? I'll give you a hint, the buck came out of our pockets.

[KanuckiStang]

Originally Posted by enkahootz

Why?
Well, the short answer is, he had already made power plays in the form of a war with iran and the invasion of Kuwait. And he had been caught with WMDs (throughout the 90s).

The war with Iran was tacitly supported by the Reagan administration since Iran at that time was going through its Islamic Revolution. Indeed, you might remember the handshake heard 'round the world:



The US also knew of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait since Ambassador April Glaspie outright told Saddam "that the United States did not take a stand on Arab-Arab conflicts."

And had Saddam really been caught with WMDs - actual, proven WMDs -- in "throughout" the 1990s?

"Exasperated, besieged by global pressure, Saddam Hussein and top aides searched for ways in the 1990s to prove to the world they'd given up banned weapons.

"We don't have anything hidden!" the frustrated Iraqi president interjected at one meeting, transcripts show.

At another, in 1996, Saddam wondered whether U.N. inspectors would "roam Iraq for 50 years" in a pointless hunt for weapons of mass destruction. "When is this going to end?" he asked.

It ended in 2004, when U.S. experts, after an exhaustive investigation, confirmed what the men in those meetings were saying: that Iraq had eliminated its weapons of mass destruction long ago, a finding that discredited the Bush administration's stated rationale for invading Iraq in 2003 — to locate WMD."

What do you have the inspectors finding?

Does/did anyone really believe he was about to settle for what he had, that he had given up the business of “evil-doings” and had now changed his ways?

Everyone knows that Hussein was contained and toothless. He was happy to funnel his Oil For Food kickbacks into lavish palaces and rule the 1/3rd of Iraq he still controlled. He wasn't a threat to his neighbors and he wasn't a threat to you.

Just for shits and giggles, check out some of the adventures of his two sons…
For their actions alone, he should have been removed…

Yes, they were all really, really bad people. So is Castro. So was Mao Tse Tung. So is Robert Mugabe. So was Muamar Khaddafi. The list goes on. Going to go charging in where ever a bad guys rules and collapse the government, disband the armies and destroy the place just to get rid of him?

But why the focus specifically on Hussein? He'd been hobbled for a decade by sanctions. No fly zones meant he didn't have much influence outside the middle third of his country. He had nothing to counter the US invasion, let alone project his power against the US.

The reason the US invaded Iraq is simple and Boo has already expounded clearly on it: PNAC. They hounded Clinton to go to war with Iraq. They desired the war. They needed a catalysing event to put the works into motion. That was 9/11. But even before that, Bush was telling his people to find him a way to wage war with Iraq. Amidst the wreckage of the Pentagon on 9/11 Rumsfeld is heard screeching to his aide to make a link to "S.H." and not just "UBL"...to "go massive", involving things "related and not." In the following days he and Wolfie and others were planning for war with Iraq. This had nothing to do with WMDs, mushroom clouds, drones of death, mystery ships, inspections, petulance on Saddam's part or yellowcake" from Niger. All that nonsense was stovepiped bluster designed to scare the American people and their political representatives into supporting the PNAC call for war.

It was them pouncing on the catalysing and catastrophic events of 9/11.

[ironwest]

Originally Posted by KanuckiStang

Everyone knows that Hussein was contained and toothless. He was happy to funnel his Oil For Food kickbacks into lavish palaces and rule the 1/3rd of Iraq he still controlled. He wasn't a threat to his neighbors and he wasn't a threat to you.

Not everyone knew. Many in congress said they would not voted in favor for the authorization to use force against Iraq, if they knew. Some coalition country also said they may not have join the coalition if they knew.

[enkahootz]

Originally Posted by BooRadley

Who are you quoting when you say, "What bush did to saddam"? Who said that anyone should feel sympathy for Saddam? Is this just some crazy as hell strawman you dreamed up, or did someone say any of this?

eazy krazy-eyez-killa...
it was just an afterthought to the post before.
no one actually said it, as fgar as I know...
rereading it, guess kind of a howdy-doo to you, to the people that do nothing but bitch about what GW has done... and will do... and coulda done, shoulda done, eastwooda done...

[enkahootz]

Originally Posted by bornundersaturn

who do you think gave him the weapons to kill Kurds and Attack Iran? I'll give you a hint, the buck came out of our pockets.

Kuwait financed the war with iran (if you want to say kuwait got the money from us, prove it…)
Iraq had never accepted its British-drawn borders, which established kuwait as a separate entity and iraq invaded kuwait as opposed to paying up, citing oil prices as an excuse.

Originally Posted by KanuckiStang

The US also knew of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait since Ambassador April Glaspie outright told Saddam "that the United States did not take a stand on Arab-Arab conflicts."

And had Saddam really been caught with WMDs - actual, proven WMDs -- in "throughout" the 1990s?

"Exasperated, besieged by global pressure, Saddam Hussein and top aides searched for ways in the 1990s to prove to the world they'd given up banned weapons.

"We don't have anything hidden!" the frustrated Iraqi president interjected at one meeting, transcripts show.

At another, in 1996, Saddam wondered whether U.N. inspectors would "roam Iraq for 50 years" in a pointless hunt for weapons of mass destruction. "When is this going to end?" he asked.

It ended in 2004, when U.S. experts, after an exhaustive investigation, confirmed what the men in those meetings were saying: that Iraq had eliminated its weapons of mass destruction long ago, a finding that discredited the Bush administration's stated rationale for invading Iraq in 2003 — to locate WMD."

What do you have the inspectors finding?

So they didn’t want to get involved, big f’n deal. Since when does 'to know' mean the same thing as 'to support'?

Yeah, they gave up on the WMDs in the 80s right? C’mon…
After the 1991 war, UN weapons inspectors, tipped off by an iraqi defector, uncovered a much more extensive program to develop nuclear weapons than the CIA had estimated. It happened again in 1995 when iraq admitted to a biological weapons program undetected by US intelligence...

Everyone knows that Hussein was contained and toothless. He was happy to funnel his Oil For Food kickbacks into lavish palaces and rule the 1/3rd of Iraq he still controlled. He wasn't a threat to his neighbors and he wasn't a threat to you.

Yes, they were all really, really bad people. So is Castro. So was Mao Tse Tung. So is Robert Mugabe. So was Muamar Khaddafi. The list goes on. Going to go charging in where ever a bad guys rules and collapse the government, disband the armies and destroy the place just to get rid of him?

But why the focus specifically on Hussein? He'd been hobbled for a decade by sanctions. No fly zones meant he didn't have much influence outside the middle third of his country. He had nothing to counter the US invasion, let alone project his power against the US.

Exactly. He had nothing real. All he had were his lavish palaces and aspirations to rule.
In other words, he was dangerous…

The reason the US invaded Iraq is simple and Boo has already expounded clearly on it: PNAC. They hounded Clinton to go to war with Iraq. They desired the war. They needed a catalysing event to put the works into motion. That was 9/11. But even before that, Bush was telling his people to find him a way to wage war with Iraq. Amidst the wreckage of the Pentagon on 9/11 Rumsfeld is heard screeching to his aide to make a link to "S.H." and not just "UBL"...to "go massive", involving things "related and not." In the following days he and Wolfie and others were planning for war with Iraq. This had nothing to do with WMDs, mushroom clouds, drones of death, mystery ships, inspections, petulance on Saddam's part or yellowcake" from Niger. All that nonsense was stovepiped bluster designed to scare the American people and their political representatives into supporting the PNAC call for war.

It was them pouncing on the catalysing and catastrophic events of 9/11.

Yeah, I don’t think so…
PNAC only comes out when you're crying conspiracy...

[KanuckiStang]

Originally Posted by enkahootz

Yeah, they gave up on the WMDs in the 80s right? C’mon…

No, he gave up on his WMD weapons after the Persian Gulf War...after his military had been flattened and his country divided into thirds by no-fly zones. He may have hoped to reconstitute them some day but Hope != WMD.

After the 1991 war, UN weapons inspectors, tipped off by an iraqi defector, uncovered a much more extensive program to develop nuclear weapons than the CIA had estimated.

And then there's Kamel who told inspectors that all WMD stocks had been destroyed after the war, a claim backed by another military aide defector.

It happened again in 1995 when iraq admitted to a biological weapons program undetected by US intelligence...

Ah, but you said "And he had been caught with WMDs (throughout the 90s)." which is an exaggeration. He was caught with aspirations, not WMDs.

Exactly. He had nothing real. All he had were his lavish palaces and aspirations to rule.
In other words, he was dangerous…

Yeah, I don’t think so…
PNAC only comes out when you're crying conspiracy...

LOL, you don't think so because you're ignorant of the facts.

Here's their letter to Clinton, from their own website:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

You might want to spend a bit of time examining the names of the signatories.

Here's their essay called "Rebuilding America's Defenses":

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf

whereupon they talk about the need for a "catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbour" (see page 50-51) to bring about a rapid, revolutionary change.

PNAC letter-writer Rumsfeld did utter those words:

"With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in520830.shtml

Richard Clarke corroborates the claim that Iraq war plans were being drawn up even before the 9/11 smoke cleared:

"After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in607356.shtml

And we all know how Rumsfeld and Feith created their own little propaganda factory called the Office Of Special Plans -- OSP -- to generate the "intel" the administration wanted to disseminate to the masses. We know how Cheney leaned on CIA analysts like Greg Thielmann:

"Greg Thielmann, a retired State Department official who evaluated weapons intelligence for Secretary of State Colin Powell until last September, said "Iraq posed no imminent threat to either its neighbours or to the United States."

"Cheney’s argument was basically for pre-emptive war and regime change rather than for disarmament," Thielmann wrote in an e-mail response to questions. "If the U.N. would have been able to resolve the open WMD questions – and it was making progress – Cheney would have still favored pre-emption and regime change.

"But the American people wouldn’t accept that as justification for war, so he needed to scare them with a bogus nuclear weapons charge and anger them with a spurious al-Qaeda link. It worked.""

http://www.thebriefingroom.com/archi...raq/index.html

So maybe you can come up with some real rebuttal to these facts. A snide "yeah, I don't think so" is pretty lame.

[orangikan]

Originally Posted by enkahootz

Why?
Well, the short answer is, he had already made power plays in the form of a war with iran

A power play we backed to the hilt. His invasion of Iran was welcomed by our govt. We backed it with $ and intel.

And he had been caught with WMDs (throughout the 90s).

And when he used them against Iran we said NOTHING!

Does/did anyone really believe he was about to settle for what he had, that he had given up the business of “evil-doings” and had now changed his ways?

The "anyone" is the majority of the World's intel which showed him to be a third rate military power with a depleted infrastructure, no Air Force, 2/3 of the country against him - but militarily subdued by him, and thus sucking dry his military ability - no friends in the ME. In short a cripple.

Just for shits and giggles, check out some of the adventures of his two sons…
For their actions alone, he should have been removed…

Well if we are in the business of removing every sociopathic leader with sociopathic sons, we'd be knee deep in pointless invasions.

[Betrade]

Originally Posted by ironwest

Since Bush is still in white house, either these are not true, or democrats are too stupid. I do not think anyone in congress is stupid.

In the years since 911, I have yet to talk to a single person that ever thought that we went to war in Iraq because Iraq had something to do with 911. The theory was never put forward by the administration either. It's sort of an urban legend of the left.

The fact that Saddams' regime paid the families of suicide bombers to kill jews was well known long before 911, but no informed person ever thought that Sadaam was behind 911. It's a ridiculous assertion. Anyone who believed this hasd to hear ot drom someone else, and then fail to check the facts, and repeart the story.

The war in Iraq is a continuation of the first one, as a result of sadaam not abiding by the cease fire terms and the numerous UN resolutions that no one but the US and Britian were willing to take the lead on when it came to enforcement. It's really that simple.

Clinton attacked, (operation desert fox, along with our pilots defendimng themselves when necessary for years) our planes were fired on for years before that on a daily or weekly basis at times, the no fly zones were constantly being violated, the oil for food programm was being skimmed to the tune of billions, and the UN knbew it all along. In fact, it was the largest known theft in the history of the world.