So Rumsfeld proves he is a...

[Tigerpaw]

So, this is where I admit that back then I bought into the WMD argument, in part because of he did indeed gas the Kurds - that's irrefutable.  In fact, I lost a good friend (KC-135 pilot and former SAC B-52 nuke bomber) by mirroring what Rummy, Dicky and Bushie lied to us about - it was he and thousands of others who paid with years of their lives (some, the ultimate cost) by doing what we the public told them to do.  So, please forgive me for not wanting to dive into conflict so ardently, and for not taking much of anything Rummy has to say as worth a hill of beans.

Sorry about your friend.  Was he there as something other than a pilot?  I work on the aircraft you describe, and don't think we lost any in Iraq.  I am genuinely curious, and not trying to be a dick.  I was over there doing things unrelated to my normal job.

[turnone]

Rumsfeld publically declared the Iraq war would cost 2-3 Billion. Boy, time has changed, it's likely to exceed a Trillion before it's all said and done. He was also part of the circular arguments for war. Leaking info to the media that was false so they could later claim their leaked info as source material. Totally a war of choice. And our troops were unprepared. A national shame really.

There was no magnificent invasion as stated earlier. It was just a matter or a $500 billion war machine invading a vastly inferior military. There was no resistance to speak of that I recall. We overwhelmed them and that was that UNTIL we realized that we didn't PLAN accordingly for the aftermath. Apparently a war of choice was a bad choice. There was never a need to invade Iraq.

Don't give me the bad guy argument. Dozens of bad or worse guys around the world we are friendly with or aloof to.

Not hard to dig up the picture of rumsfield shaking the hand of SH when he was business friendly. Hypocritical Bull Shit. And for those who still hold on to the 'hidden' WMD argument, YOU are part of the problem. Stop being so damn gullible.

The war was a huge fucking mistake and there isn't any reasonable argument for it now.

If you think a country has the right to invade another country because it 'might' have weapons that would harm you (Bush Doctrine), then please tell me exactly how that stops us from invading just about every country on the map?? Or other countries from doing the same?

Let me simplify it for you. I can invade and kill my neighbor just because he has guns that he might use to kill me. Makes sense????

No, it's fucking stupid. You can't just invade anyone. Saddam Hussein showed no real aggression towards America. Iran on the other hand, chants death to America as a national slogan. Pakistanis say this by the millions and we give them $6-7 Billion annually and they gave away 'nuclear warhead info'. North Korea developed the bomb during the Bush years and we didn't do shit about that.

How do you morons sleep at night believing this Iraq and WMD shit?

[smccrory]

Sorry about your friend. Was he there as something other than a pilot? I work on the aircraft you describe, and don't think we lost any in Iraq. I am genuinely curious, and not trying to be a dick. I was over there doing things unrelated to my normal job.

Hi Tigerpaw, I didn't mean to imply he was wounded or killed - my sloppy choice of words. I lost him as a friend and he lost 3+ years of private life refueling jets in-theater. He was (is?) a pilot. Name's Keith. He was pulled out of reserve life with a lovely new girlfriend into wartime. Of everyone, he perhaps had it the easiest, but I think he associated the hypocrisy of warhawkishness with me being at home, doing the same job on the same schedule arm-chair quarterbacking global events without having to pay for it first-hand. Unfair, but I understand. I fell for George/Dick/Don's maneuvers.

[Tigerpaw]

Hi Tigerpaw, I didn't mean to imply he was wounded or killed - my sloppy choice of words. I lost him as a friend and he lost 3+ years of private life refueling jets in-theater. He was (is?) a pilot. Name's Keith. He was pulled out of reserve life with a lovely new girlfriend into wartime. Of everyone, he perhaps had it the easiest, but I think he associated the hypocrisy of warhawkishness with me being at home, doing the same job on the same schedule arm-chair quarterbacking global events without having to pay for it first-hand. Unfair, but I understand. I fell for George/Dick/Don's maneuvers.

I am glad he is ok.  I thought there was something lost in translation.

[DAC]

Putin is a punk. Invaded Crimea without admitting he invaded Crimea, talking shit... He's a toddler.

He's also very dangerous. Punk toddlers are like that sometimes.

[Strictly Street]

Bingo!  Although the right wingers would tell you that the WMDs were never found because they were sold to Iran and N Korea.

 

Actually they were rumored to have been moved to Syria where they turned up during the Syrian civil war.

Remember that Obama drew the "Red Line" in the sand over their use?

 

After Assad fell there was that clean-up operation where Russia took most of them for safe keeping.

Odd nobody remembers that. I guess enough time passed that Bush couldn't be blamed for it so nobody bothered with it.

Still a favorite talking point though. Continue...

Edited March 27, 2014 by Strictly Street

[turnone]

Actually they were rumored to have been moved to Syria where they turned up during the Syrian civil war.

Remember that Obama drew the "Red Line" in the sand over their use?

After Assad fell there was that clean-up operation where Russia took most of them for safe keeping.

Odd nobody remembers that. I guess enough time passed that Bush couldn't be blamed for it so nobody bothered with it.

Still a favorite talking point though. Continue...

Convenient rumors so people can hold onto that WMD belief in Iraq. Regardless SH never threatened the USA with them so we didn't need a trillion dollar war to prevent something that was super fucking unlikely.

In addition, Syria is still lead by Assad and the chemical weapons are being destroyed as we speak. Russia is involved to save Assad's ass.

It's fairly easy for a country to create their own chemical weapons which is much more likely than Syria just having those missing ones from Iraq.

It's not about blaming Bush. It's about stupid unnecessary wars under false pretenses and stupid shit like the Bush Doctrine.

Wanna guess how many countries have chemical weapons and compare to those we invaded over them? Remember the use of chemical weapons by SH was in the early 80's and Rumsfield was still going to Iraq on behalf of Reagan.

[Strictly Street]

Convenient rumors so people can hold onto that WMD belief in Iraq. Regardless SH never threatened the USA with them so we didn't need a trillion dollar war to prevent something that was super fucking unlikely.

In addition, Syria is still lead by Assad and the chemical weapons are being destroyed as we speak. Russia is involved to save Assad's ass.

It's fairly easy for a country to create their own chemical weapons which is much more likely than Syria just having those missing ones from Iraq.

It's not about blaming Bush. It's about stupid unnecessary wars under false pretenses and stupid shit like the Bush Doctrine.

Wanna guess how many countries have chemical weapons and compare to those we invaded over them? Remember the use of chemical weapons by SH was in the early 80's and Rumsfield was still going to Iraq on behalf of Reagan.

 

Easy there, lets dial it down a notch or two please.

 

There is no question that he had them and used them on the Kurds in 1988 for one.  The the Shiite uprising of 1991 was another example. The political theater provided by the blaming Bush for not finding them doesn't really have much to do with whether or not Hussein had them. Pretty clearly he did, and clearly he used them. How many he had isn't so clear.

 

A former General said he was moving them as early as 2003 perhaps before. He even detailed how they were moved in his book about it. (Georges Sada's book “Saddam’s Secrets”) I don't know why he would lie about it at this point in time. Keeping in mind he is a former Air Force General for Iraq and probably doesn't play American politics. Perhaps he and others who claim they were there are keeping the "Convenient rumors" alive.

 

It's not beyond believability or even military tactics and planning that Hussain would not want to be caught with them. It's also pretty believable that he knew something was going to happen. He may have been deluded into thinking he had a chance of winning but it isn't likely and he wasn't stupid enough to not cover his bets.

 

The claim that Bush knowingly lied about Saddam’s WMD does not pass the logic test. If President Bush fabricated claims about WMD, then he would have known in advance that the WMD stockpiles would not be found. If Bush was so unethical and unscrupulous as to lie to start the war in the first place, the logical course of action would be to import WMD along with Coalition military supplies being shipped to Iraq. Bush could have planted fake WMD and arranged to have the UN inspectors and the ISG find them. He would have been vindicated in the eyes of the world. Instead, Bush was as surprised as the rest of the world when Saddam’s stockpiles were not found. The egg on Bush’s face is the strongest argument in favor of his honesty. Being wrong is not lying. Lying requires an intent to deceive that is absent from Bush’s Iraq claims.

 

So when it comes to "Convenient rumors" I have to ask who are the rumors convenient for? It would seem they aren't really convenient for anybody.

 

The USA has a long history of interfering in the affairs of the Middle East. Obama's backing of the loosing side in Egypt shows that we are still at it.

 

"USA Police force to the world" seems to be what your really upset about. Not sure I can argue that one.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Strictly Street

[turnone]

Easy there, lets dial it down a notch or two please.

 

 

Iraq war is the greatest blunder of American Government in my life time only challenged by the War on Drugs.  I was born in 1972 for reference.  I try not to think about it much anymore, but it astounds me that so many still believe it was the right thing to do.  But many less today than before as we look back upon it.  

America acted like a bully who got a black eye and just had to kick someone's ass to prove how tough we are.  

Iraq had nothing to do with 911.  19 of the 21 hijackers were Saudi.  A friend so we did nothing.  

 

Most of the 'hawks' in politics never spent a day in service of any branch of military, but happily send others to die and to get physically and mentally fucked up to serve a political purpose.  And while there at it, many of their friends and associates make millions of dollars for war profiteering.

 

So, I will try to be calm and talk in a manner that isn't too offensive.  But forgive me if I fail at that.

 

For the record, I served 6 years in the Navy on a Trident Submarine.  

 

 

There is no question that he had them and used them on the Kurds in 1988 for one.  The the Shiite uprising of 1991 was another example. The political theater provided by the blaming Bush for not finding them doesn't really have much to do with whether or not Hussein had them. Pretty clearly he did, and clearly he used them. How many he had isn't so clear.

 

Not once have I questioned whether SH used chemical weapons.  This usage was merely an excuse to go to war.  It was well known he was using chemical weapons when Rumsfiled went to meet with him.  They seem friendly enough in this video.

 

 

How many he had or if he had them is part of the question.  After the first Iraq war, many were destroyed.  Maybe he kept some or made more, or maybe not.  All we know for sure is he had them in the 80's and none were found despite huge effort in the early 2000's.  Anything else is just guessing and I don't quite think guessing is worth a 2 Trillion dollars, do you?  Regardless if he had them or not, going to war over them was just and EXCUSE.

 

 

A former General said he was moving them as early as 2003 perhaps before. He even detailed how they were moved in his book about it. (Georges Sada's book “Saddam’s Secrets”) I don't know why he would lie about it at this point in time. Keeping in mind he is a former Air Force General for Iraq and probably doesn't play American politics. Perhaps he and others who claim they were there are keeping the "Convenient rumors" alive.

 

It's not beyond believability or even military tactics and planning that Hussain would not want to be caught with them. It's also pretty believable that he knew something was going to happen. He may have been deluded into thinking he had a chance of winning but it isn't likely and he wasn't stupid enough to not cover his bets.

 

Former Generals said a lot of shit that turned out to be false.  The truth is they didn't know what SH really had.  All they kept saying is that the 'other' people were in charge.  It was in SH's best interest to lead people to believe he had a large amount of them.  No evidence of them was presented.  Writing shit in a book doesn't make it true.  AKA, the bible.

 

If you were about to be overrun, wouldn't you want to use all your weapons?  It's seems more plausible that he didn't have any to use that's why none were used when defending against the USA.  Regardless, we don't know for sure.  All we know is none were found.

 

 

 

The claim that Bush knowingly lied about Saddam’s WMD does not pass the logic test. If President Bush fabricated claims about WMD, then he would have known in advance that the WMD stockpiles would not be found. If Bush was so unethical and unscrupulous as to lie to start the war in the first place, the logical course of action would be to import WMD along with Coalition military supplies being shipped to Iraq. Bush could have planted fake WMD and arranged to have the UN inspectors and the ISG find them. He would have been vindicated in the eyes of the world. Instead, Bush was as surprised as the rest of the world when Saddam’s stockpiles were not found. The egg on Bush’s face is the strongest argument in favor of his honesty. Being wrong is not lying. Lying requires an intent to deceive that is absent from Bush’s Iraq claims.

 

So when it comes to "Convenient rumors" I have to ask who are the rumors convenient for? It would seem they aren't really convenient for anybody.

 

I haven't claimed he knowingly lied. I 100% believe Bush thought SH had them and the ends would justify the means.

What he did was only believe the evidence that supported the theory and discredit the evidence that pointed against it. There was plenty of information on both sides of the argument.  But since Bush believed they were there, we went in and looked hard.  None were found.

Regardless, whether they were there or not, is not the argument I am making.  The war was unnecessary because there was NO IMMINENT THREAT!!!!  WMD or not, we went to war because we wanted to.  The drum beat to war was thumping hard and we couldn't let doubt or facts get in the way.  The mind was made up and Bush was no pussy.

While we were at war with Iraq, Pakistan who hates ACTUALLY have and had Nuclear weapons.  Sold the tech to N. Korea who developed Nuclear weapons.  Iran has chemical weapons and are developing nuclear war heads.  All of this shit was going on while we went to war with Iraq on the CHANCE that they still had them.  

 

Please provide evidence that SH was using such weapons or threatening others with them.  

 

Regarding you assertion that Bush could have had WMD's planted in Iraq is just crazy.  There is no way that could happen.  Way too many people would have to be involved and some one would have leaked the info.  It's crazy if you think the government can pull something like that off.  Just no way.  Too many people from all walks of life would have to be involved.

 

Plenty of news leaks made it seem that many WMD's were found during the war.  Polls bear this out and large portions of the American public believed that WMD's had been found.

 

So when it comes to "Convenient rumors" I have to ask who are the rumors convenient for? It would seem they aren't really convenient for anybody.

 

The USA has a long history of interfering in the affairs of the Middle East. Obama's backing of the loosing side in Egypt shows that we are still at it.

 

"USA Police force to the world" seems to be what your really upset about. Not sure I can argue that one.

 

It is convenient for those hanging on to the justification of war in Iraq to think that there were and we just didn't find them. That somehow SH would let his country be over run and just hide the weapons. 

 

Yes, the USA interferes a lot.  Some of it is righteous, especially when we live up to the ideals that we espouse.

 

What pisses me off is the great cost of such incorrect assertions.  Our political leaders made a strong argument that there was NO DOUBT that SH had WMD and it was a threat to us.  Well it turns out, it wasn't that big of a threat and maybe he didnt' have them at all.  Meanwhile, those that did, just got stronger.  The war in Iraq made Iran stronger as an example.

 

Costs of the mistake:

190,000 people were killed.

Of those almost 4500 were US military and another 3,400 civilian contractors.

Over 2 Trillion dollars.  (Funny how the same people hate when we spend money on health care or education).

Tens of thousands of war vets came home with deep physical and mental scars.

 

Compare Iraq today to the year 2000 and tell me it was worth a tiny fraction of that.  I don't think so.

 

So all of the above because we 'thought' he had WMD and that was enough to invade.

 

If you think this is just police work for the world, let's take for a moment that the local police had the 'bush doctrine' power.  If you have a weapon (gun or otherwise) they could invade your house, kill the head of house hold and anyone who got in the way just to ensure you don't use your gun in a harmful, no self defense way.  

 

I stand by my assertion that this is fucking stupid and no one should believe this whether at the local lever or the international border level.

[Pokey]

WMD's aside.....what about the argument that he was harboring terrorists? If that was in fact true, then going in whether we all agreed or not seems more legit. Of course I have very mixed emotions about the whole cluster, and it is very much a cluster in multiple ways and for multiple reasons.

[turnone]

WMD's aside.....what about the argument that he was harboring terrorists? If that was in fact true, then going in whether we all agreed or not seems more legit. Of course I have very mixed emotions about the whole cluster, and it is very much a cluster in multiple ways and for multiple reasons.

Also part of the case for war that turned out to be bull shit. SH was only interested in himself and fought against anything that threatened his power in Iraq including radical or political Islam.

All reports have concluded no credible links to SH and terrorism outside of Iraq.

At least one World Trade Center bomber lived in Iraq for years but that doesn't mean SH was a supporter. How many world criminals live in the USA?

Then compare Iraq to places we call friends and those seem to harbor and create the most terrorists.

Can't say that was worth all the killings and the two trillion dollars spent.

[Strictly Street]

 

 

Iraq war is the greatest blunder of American Government in my life time only challenged by the War on Drugs.  I was born in 1972 for reference.  I try not to think about it much anymore, but it astounds me that so many still believe it was the right thing to do.  But many less today than before as we look back upon it.  

America acted like a bully who got a black eye and just had to kick someone's ass to prove how tough we are.  

Iraq had nothing to do with 911.  19 of the 21 hijackers were Saudi.  A friend so we did nothing.  

 

Most of the 'hawks' in politics never spent a day in service of any branch of military, but happily send others to die and to get physically and mentally fucked up to serve a political purpose.  And while there at it, many of their friends and associates make millions of dollars for war profiteering.

 

So, I will try to be calm and talk in a manner that isn't too offensive.  But forgive me if I fail at that.

 

For the record, I served 6 years in the Navy on a Trident Submarine.

 

[snip to save real estate on the page]

 

 

You may have misread the post. Pretty sure you missed the point of the last line.

 

""USA Police force to the world" seems to be what your really upset about. Not sure I can argue that one."

 

Your post indicates that you don't think we should be the worlds policeman.

My last line of my post indicates that I'm not sure i could make an argument against your statement.

 

It does cost a lot of money that could be spent elsewhere for results that aren't always clear.