my thoughts on the iraq war

i was thinking about the war in iraq and how its not really the presidents fault. well the responsibility falls on him and in the end it is his fault but please, just listen to my thought. military commanders make descions based on the info they have. for example a general gets info that terrorists are held up in a building, he authorised a bombing of that building. there are no terrorists in that building but civilins, and they all die from the bombing. now the responsibily falls on him and it is his fault, but its not really his fault beacuse of the bad info. he made the best descion based on the info he had, this is how the military works. if this general was right and there was terrorists in that building he would have done a good job, but beacuse he was wrong, he authorised the killing of civilins. now look at bush and the war in iraq. the C.I.A., KGB, and MI5 (the 3 biggest intellegence agiencies in the world) all said iraq had weapon of mass destruction. iraq used to make and use WMD's, they have the factories, materials, and people to make WMD's. now take all that info into account and i think we would all come to the same conclusion. iraq has WMD's. so in the end it is his fault beacuse he made the descion to go to iraq. but if the C.I.A., KGB and MI5 had the correct info we wouldnt be there in the first place. so who's fault is it really? please tell me what you think.

 

Sorry but your supposition is wrong. Most intelligence agencies in the world tried to tell this administration that the reports on WMD were false. Our administration chose to inflate them. Not our generals. They were ordered to attack based on false and inflated intelligence, manipulated by this administration. The buck started and stops with Cheney and Bush.

 

if that was true, then why isnt bush being inpeached? look at what happend to clinton, he was impeached over a blow job, and lieing to the public. dont you think if bush falsified documents he would have been imepached also? i guarntee if there was any proof of falsifing documents to go to war bush would be in court right now.

 

clinton was 'impeached' because he lied under oath to congress. bush has NEVER under oatch to have been held accountable before congress, so these two are like comparing apples and oranges.

the Generals execute the war, bush created it. he knew the intel was iffy but persued the war anyway, in my opinion, becuase of a personal vendetta against Saddam. I fully believe and always will, that the second bush was elected, he was trying to find a way to go back into Iraq and get Saddam.

 

Before the war, there was very little difference of opinion between U.S., British, German, Israeli, Russian, the UN and French intelligence with regard to whether or not Iraq had WMD.

Many anti-war folk refer to the ISG report and often quote the final report on Iraq WMD, the Duelfer Report. Here are some quotes that are often reiterated.

Here are some more quotes by Dr. David Kay that are not heard that often.

It should also be noted that Congress made use of the same information in voting for regime change and for the war and to fund the war. And, it should also be pointed out that many critics in Congress made statements in their understanding of the use of intelligence that were far more declarative and aggressive than the President and the members of his Administration.

 

History will tell the truth in the long run and I don't think Bush and Cheney will be portrayed as innocent dupes.

Perhaps we are supposed to forget about Chalabi's contribution to the entire mess:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E6DD113DF93AA1575AC0A9659C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/C/Chalabi,%20Ahmad

Chalabi has received his payoff:

http://www.ocnus.net/artman2/publish/International_3/Chalabi_returns_to_Prominence_and_Power.shtml

I know I rest better knowing he's in charge of the restoration of public services....NOT!

 

I think you're buying into the 'blame the intelligence' strawman arguement.

y'see, the intelligence was pretty much unequivocal: "saddam does not have WMDs, and if he did, he wouldn't use them against the us or it's allies (he was more concerned with iran than israel)."

Bush very obviously cherry-picked the intelligence. The proof is in his using information that he knew for a fact to be fake (the yellow cake from niger, and the mobile weapons labs).

to cary your metaphor to the breaking point: it's like the general had been told "there aren't any enemies in the building", and he decided that what they had said was "there ... enemies in the building".

 

I hope you are right. But it can only happen if people are informed and demand accountability.

 

I don't know if you guys have short memories, or weren't politically astute in the times leading up to 9/11 and after, or have just bought into all the pre 2004 election BS. After 9/11 Bush said in a speech to congress that we were going after any country who harbors or aids terrorists. There was great applause from both sides of the isle, and a LOT of support from the American people. According to this strategy, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lybia, and North Korea were on the list of countries that would be attacked, or at least considered.

After the victories in Afghanistan, I knew we would be going on to other countries based on what Bush had said. I really thought the next country would have been Iran, and I was trying to figure out why Bush wanted to go on to Iraq next. But then I remembered the ultimate goal - there were at least 5 other countries on the list. If you're going to do this, the best choice would be Iraq. We had Afghanistan. If we had a foothold in Iraq too then we attack Iran from 2 borders and also we would be bordered with Syria. That was the war strategy, and to politically justify it, they used WMD as a way to start the war with Iraq.

Saddam wanted to appear threatening to Iran, so he made it appear that he was hiding WMD. He said it himself. You have to remember times were different then. The president had a LOT of support from the american people. 70-80%. BOTH sides saw the intelligence reports and said Iraq was building and hiding WMD. The UN agreed and unanimously signed a resolution stating that Iraq had to come into compliance and demonstrate that they were complying. Iraq did not do what was required by the UN. Bush also had the support of congress. He didn't lie to him. He acted on the same intelligence that they saw as well. They all decided to support him on the war in Iraq.

So why the big change? The 2004 election was coming up and Bush's popularity rating was still pretty high. The democrats had to differentiate themselves from the Bush administration, so now, all of a sudden we had to get out of Iraq.

Don't believe me? Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLrjGq-V700

With Michael Moore's BS film, the democrat's lies, and yes, the lack of WMD found in Iraq, the American people's support for the war started dropping. Bush could no longer fight the war against terrorists that he wanted, and initially had support for.

Iraq may not have had the WMD, but it is still a strategic fight. The vast majority of Al Qaeda's fight against the US has been happening in Iraq - not in the US.

Should we change directions in the war? Maybe. We should always be flexible in how we fight wars. But don't start rewriting history. This atmosphere of BS between republicans and democrats is hurting our country. The US cannot fight this war the way it needs to be fought with all the BS going on, and I wonder if in the future we are in another war... can we ever be in the fight for more than a couple of years before an election comes along and we start fighting eachother?

 

:lol:

 

One of the truest posts I've read here in a while.

 

:lol:

 

Please explain. What is false about what was posted. Do you deny that the democratic party want to have their cake and eat it too?

 

Wacky and Stiffy (damn, did I say that?) are completely correct. We lost several thousand people to an alleged terrorist plot and the majority of America wanted revenge. We didn't see hundreds of thousands of lives lost in an immoral war fought on multiple fronts, we saw people jumping from 90+ stories up in the WTC towers and the towers subsequently collapsing.

We've been misled. No, we've been lied to and people have died and other people have made millions of dollars on the blood of those who died. This is a clear cut case of the monkey fucking the football at our expense and it needs to be put right and right now or we'll be looking over our shoulders for eternity. The US is currently the most hated nation in the world thanks to our "elected officials" We already have 80 million muslims pissed off at ALL of us. And you don't think it could get worse?

 

:lol:

 

Higherthanhell, did you look at my post above? Did you look at the video? Where is it wrong?

 

Don't expect HTH to actually answer your questions or contribute anything to this forum. I have been here long enough to know that all she does is throw out insults.

 

Your seeing the picture that has been painted, not the real deal.

Forget about why we are here and there, thats unimportant... the reason any of this happened is because of 9/11. Who flew the planes, what exactly happened... we can't say for sure. But we can say without a shadow of a doubt that it did NOT happen as the american people have been lead to believe.

Please explain tower 7, I'll forget about everything else, if you can simply explain how a building caves in on itself for no reason.

From there on you must question everything...

Lies surrounding 9/11, lies surrounding WMD's... and you feel this is somehow justified? Is it ok to kill thousands of people so that few may benefit from the deaths of thousands more?

Honestly if it doesn't piss you off that your government killed its own people to serve an agenda, I fear you may never open your eyes to the truth.

 

That's why we're in the Middle East. For justice.

If it requires me to drop LSD before my eyes can be opened to such a "truth," I'm afraid I'm going to have to pass.

 

:lol: