patrick.net

socal2 says

Worth repeating.

Muslims have killed far more Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and the Middle East than the US (or Israel) could ever dream of. It is not even close.

To project all those sectarian/religious deaths on the US, Israel, France........West is to ape ISIS propaganda.

That doesn't then somehow negate the huge number of deaths of non-combatants caused by coalition forces. And there are many who lay the subsequent sectarian violence squarely at the door of the US and for pretty good reason.

Bigsby says

You can't possibly say that. 100,000 dead civilians isn't the propaganda figure, is it? That's one of the lower estimates. No one knows the exact figure, but coalition forces killed a great many people, about that there is no debate.

I am not disputing the 100,000 number, I am disputing the notion that the US killed all those people.

It was ISIS/AQI (and former Sunni Baathists) that were blowing up markets, schools and people lining up for government jobs killing 200-300 at a clip. The same Sunni group was blowing up Shia shrines and inviting Iranian-backed Shiite reprisals on Sunnis.

Sunnis were trying to kill there way back into power and US forces were largely protecting the majority Shia population and targeting the worst of the Sunni radicals.

Bigsby says

That doesn't then somehow negate the huge number of deaths of non-combatants caused by coalition forces. And there are many who lay the subsequent sectarian violence squarely at the door of the US and for pretty good reason.

By infantilizing Muslims pretending they have no responsibility for killing each other - plays right into ISIS' hands. Sunnis and Shias hated each other long before the US even fucking existed.

Islam will never have its much needed reformation when people like you continue to blame their MASSIVE dysfunction and centuries old sectarian problems on the US.

Besides, if you are going to argue that the US is solely responsible for all the deaths by liberating the majority Shias and Kurds from Sunni Baathist rule, than you must also argue that the US (Obama and Hillary) have all the blame for the 1000X worse violence and refugee crisis in the Region for pulling every last troop out of Iraq and toppling Libya on the way out of town creating an even bigger void.

I agree with thread's author. The people in Paris need to take a hard look at putting a stop to their central government exporting violence to other countries. According to Dr. Paul, the French government has been one of the most ardent when it comes to arming radical factions. To all the naysayer's I ask you to provide a single reference to this kind of thing happening anytime before the 90's when the US extended it's imperialism to the Middle East in Iraq.

The Islam practiced by the majority of believers advocates peace, not violence. Read the last few chapters of Malcom's X's autobiography about his trip to Mecca. Talk to an Islamic believer in your area, or a friend who knows one personally. Or maybe you believe Jonestown was a model of mainstream protestant beliefs? I know a first generation German migrant who told me Turkish Muslims have been living in Germany since the end of WWII, and they have been model German citizens.

The views expressed by many here are why Americans are seen as such arrogant assholes in much of the world.

A link to the Ron Paul interview:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-16/ron-paul-what-should-be-done-about-paris

socal2 says

I am not disputing the 100,000 number, I am disputing the notion that the US killed all those people.

If nobody knows what the real figure is, then how can you dispute how many the coalition forces killed?

socal2 says

It was ISIS/AQI (and former Sunni Baathists) that were blowing up markets, schools and people lining up for government jobs killing 200-300 at a clip. The same Sunni group was blowing up Shia shrines and inviting Iranian-backed Shiite reprisals on Sunnis.

Sunnis were trying to kill there way back into power and US forces were largely protecting the majority Shia population and targeting the worst of the Sunni radicals.

Yes, and what do you think the coalition forces did when they invaded, and then when they battled the insurgency? And most of the 100,000+ figures are for 2003-2006, a period before sectarian violence really took a grip, so the bombings you mention don't really figure in the totals mentioned.

NuttBoxer says

To all the naysayer's I ask you to provide a single reference to this kind of thing happening anytime before the 90's when the US extended it's imperialism to the Middle East in Iraq.

True, there were very few incidents, but they were fighting others around the world. The violence is documented far back beyond the '90s. Nobody disputed that meddling in the middle-east certainly caused some blowback. And then again, if you take an isolationist stance which is fine, you should be prepared for Israel annihilating its threatening neighbors (and they don't need US weapons for this, they got their own and enough money to buy plenty). Keeping out of the middle-east means telling nobody what to do, and you're giving the US not enough credit to trying to prevent a full blown war in the middle-east as well, amongst all the mistakes of interfering too much.

NuttBoxer says

A link to the Ron Paul interview:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-16/ron-paul-what-should-be-done-about-paris

Apart from withdrawing from the middle-east Ron Paul also advocated securing and severely tightening the homeland borders and defending against anybody challenging western values.

NuttBoxer says

I agree with thread's author. The people in Paris need to take a hard look at putting a stop to their central government exporting violence to other countries.

Sheesh - more victim blaming.

How dare France or the West try to stop ISIS from taking more sex slaves, committing genocide against religious minorities and destroying ancient archaeological sites as they build their 7th century Caliphate?

Face it, Islam is in crisis right now. Globalization is forcing Muslims to deal with modernity, secularism and pluralism. Many don't like it. The majority of Muslims may be non-radical, but we have all seen what the radical 10-15% can do around the world. And even the moderate Muslims are growing more fundamentalist as evident by the massive increase in women being forced to wear burqas compared to Muslim women in Iran, Afghanistan and Egypt during the 1970's.

socal2 says

How dare France or the West try to stop ISIS from taking more sex slaves, committing genocide against religious minorities and destroying ancient archaeological sites as they build their 7th century Caliphate?

Not sure if you intentionally misconstrued my post, or just have a short attention span. As I mentioned the Ron Paul article points to France arming radical jihadists(Isis), not killing them. Maybe you aren't aware of the tension Russia has caused by actually helping Syria get rid of Isis, while the US tries to keep Isis active. Of course you probably also haven't read about how the US created Isis in the first place.

I don't blame the people killed in France, they were sheep readily sacrificed by their central government as it pursues it's own interests in Syria.

socal2 says

By infantilizing Muslims pretending they have no responsibility for killing each other - plays right into ISIS' hands. Sunnis and Shias hated each other long before the US even fucking existed.

I'm doing no such thing. Of course they hold responsibility for killing each other. That doesn't then somehow push aside the fact that the coalition forces killed tens of thousands of men, women, and children who played no part in the fighting.

socal2 says

Islam will never have its much needed reformation when people like you continue to blame their MASSIVE dysfunction and centuries old sectarian problems on the US.

Except again, I'm doing no such thing. I'm simply stating that the coalition forces were responsible for the deaths of a great many individuals in that region. That is a fact. That Muslims also kill one another for ridiculous sectarian reasons doesn't change that basic fact.

socal2 says

Besides, if you are going to argue that the US is solely responsible for all the deaths by liberating the majority Shias and Kurds from Sunni Baathist rule, than you must also argue that the US (Obama and Hillary) have all the blame for the 1000X worse violence and refugee crisis in the Region for pulling every last troop out of Iraq and toppling Libya on the way out of town creating an even bigger void.

Where did I say they were solely responsible? And those troops were pulled out on the back of an agreement reached by Bush, so blame Bush for that if you want to blame anyone. You can also blame Bush for doing absolutely nothing to prevent the descent into sectarian fighting, and in fact his policies - the break up of the army and the Baathists and allowing Nouri al-Maliki to take power - did a great deal to worsen the situation.

Bigsby says

If nobody knows what the real figure is, then how can you dispute how many the coalition forces killed?

I provided a link a few posts up from the UN and Wikileaks that say Muslims are responsible for the vast majority of the deaths in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

When we liberated France, Italy, South Korea, Belgium, Netherlands during WWII........did all the people go on a rampage killing each other like we see in Iraq? Sure there was some revenge killing against the Vichey and Nazi sympathizers, but nothing like the sectarian violence we see in the Middle East.

The massive violence, intolerance and backwardness we see in the Muslim/Arab world goes back centuries.

The moderate Muslims refugees fleeing to the West in Europe sure as shit knows who is killing them. Why are they fleeing to the West or France if they believe that France is responsible for exporting violence in the Region as NuttBoxer and Ron Paul dopes allege?

So please quit regurgitating ISIS prop. You only empower the radicals at the expense of the moderate Muslims by blaming all those deaths on America or the West.

NuttBoxer says

Not sure if you intentionally misconstrued my post, or just have a short attention span. As I mentioned the Ron Paul article points to France arming radical jihadists(Isis), not killing them. Maybe you aren't aware of the tension Russia has caused by actually helping Syria get rid of Isis, while the US tries to keep Isis active. Of course you probably also haven't read about how the US created Isis in the first place.

Now you are quoting Russian prop.

The West is trying to work with the least worst crazy Sunnis in the Region. We are targeting ISIS with our bombings while Russia is bombing our trained allies to keep Assad in power.

socal2 says

Sheesh - more victim blaming.

How dare France or the West try to stop ISIS from taking more sex slaves, committing genocide against religious minorities and destroying ancient archaeological sites as they build their 7th century Caliphate?

They aren't bloody trying very hard or very effectively. That is the point. They have half-cocked policies that seem to be doing nothing but worsening the refugee crisis. They've had no coherent plan for years now. Look at the bloody mess they made of Libya. You can't just bomb away somewhere and then leave the population to pick up the pieces and think that it's all going to work out in the West's favour.

Bigsby says

That doesn't then somehow push aside the fact that the coalition forces killed tens of thousands of men, women, and children who played no part in the fighting.

Again, according to the UN and Wikileaks cables, over 70% (the vast majority) of civilians were killed by Sunni/Shia radicals and the Taliban.

Just a few posts earlier, you are insinuating that America killed over 100,000 innocent civilians.

That is ISIS prop, straight up.

mell says

Apart from withdrawing from the middle-east Ron Paul also advocated securing and severely tightening the homeland borders and defending against anybody challenging western values.

Paul has often been incorrectly labeled an isolationist when he is the opposite. Not wanting to stick your nose into your neighbors/friends business without an invitation is not isolationist, it's being polite. And will actually encourage relations and trade. I doubt he has ever been a proponent of the DHS. More likely he is thinking of the old system where the states enforced their own borders. As a San Diegan I know for a fact things ran a lot smoother, and friendlier back then.

Bigsby says

They aren't bloody trying very hard or very effectively. That is the point. They have half-cocked policies that seem to be do nothing but worsening the refugee crisis. They've had no coherent plan for years now. Look at the bloody mess they made of Libya. You can't just bomb away somewhere and then leave the population to pick up the pieces and think that it's all going to work out in the West's favour.

I can't defend Obama and Hillary's foreign policy at all. They fucked a great deal up. And contrary to your assertion, the Iraqis and US generals wanted to keep US troops in Iraq after 2011. Here is a long report in the New Yorker from one of the best reporters in the Region (Dexter Filkins) quoting Maliki saying "he didn't know what to sell to the Iraq people" in terms of keeping US troops since Obama was so disengaged and determined to remove all troops before the 2012 election.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/04/28/what-we-left-behind

When Bush left office, Iraq was having elections and was much more stable. AQI was driven from the Sunni Triangle and ISIS didn't exist. The wider Middle East was very hopeful with the Arab Spring and even the Iranians were out in the streets protesting against the Mullahs.

Things were so stable, Joe Biden was crowing that Iraq will be Obama's greatest achievement!

https://www.youtube.com/embed/tLteUGkvpOc

Obama was in a similar situation as Clinton and Bush Sr were when the USSR imploded and were able to better manage the transition of a post-Communist world.

Wiser leaders could have managed this much needed transition. But instead, they pulled every fucking last troop from Iraq and toppled Gadaffi on the way out of town with no plan to help pick up the pieces. And now ISIS has filled the void causing the biggest human refugee crisis in modern history which is now spilling out on the streets of Paris.

socal2 says

I provided a link a few posts up from the UN and Wikileaks that say Muslims are responsible for the vast majority of the deaths in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

And go to any site on the topic and you'll see figures ranging from 110,000 or so right up to a million for the period of 2003-2006. Those figures predominantly reflect deaths caused by coalition forces.

socal2 says

When we liberated France, Italy, South Korea, Belgium, Netherlands during WWII........did all the people go on a rampage killing each other like we see in Iraq? Sure there was some revenge killing against the Vichey and Nazi sympathizers, but nothing like the sectarian violence we see in the Middle East.

The circumstances aren't remotely the same.

socal2 says

The massive violence, intolerance and backwardness we see in the Muslim/Arab world goes back centuries.

The moderate Muslims refugees fleeing to the West in Europe sure as shit knows who is killing them. Why are they fleeing to the West or France if they believe that France is responsible for exporting violence in the Region as NuttBoxer and Ron Paul dopes allege?

In what way has violence in the Arab world been any worse than in Europe or America over the centuries? I'd say it's been far far worse in Europe for starters.
And you'll find that for a multitude of reasons many of the Arab countries outside of Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey aren't letting the Syrians in. Where else do you imagine they would try to go in order to get work, food...? They blame Assad and ISIS for the troubles, but there are also plenty who blame the West for the deaths it's caused and the instability that has developed. That's pretty natural given what has unfolded in the last 12 years.

socal2 says

Again, according to the UN and Wikileaks cables, over 70% (the vast majority) of civilians were killed by Sunni/Shia radicals and the Taliban.

Just a few posts earlier, you are insinuating that America killed over 100,000 innocent civilians.

That is ISIS prop, straight up.

No, it's not. The 100,000 figure is the low end of estimates for the 2003-2006 period. The sectarian violence is largely post 2006, so how are the figures mentioned ISIS propaganda? The numbers aren't even coming from ISIS FFS.

NuttBoxer says

Not wanting to stick your nose into your neighbors/friends business without an invitation is not isolationist, it's being polite.

That these days is commonly referred to as isolationist in a globalized world, I don't care about the term. And there are plenty who argue you cannot look over a humanitarian crisis or genocide happening in any region. I tend to agree with not to meddle, but it is an interesting discussion and cannot be easily dismissed.

NuttBoxer says

And will actually encourage relations and trade. I doubt he has ever been a proponent of the DHS. More likely he is thinking of the old system where the states enforced their own borders. As a San Diegan I know for a fact things ran a lot smoother, and friendlier back then.

Yeah but encouraging trade has not much to do with securing the borders against immigration. The problem he has wit the DHS is the broad application of spying laws against their own citizens and partially abandoning habeas corpus. I agree mostly with him but again this has not much to do with securing borders and limiting immigration, esp. illegal from not desired parts and cultures. If states could run their own security business I suspect many would have followed Alabama and Michigan. And I am for less federal and more state government (of course then you also have to live without transfer payments). Legal immigrants paying their dues should always be the preferred (if not the only) way of handling immigration, it is only fair to those that come here legally and provide their skills and pay taxes and lawyer/DHS fees.

socal2 says

The West is trying to work with the least worst crazy Sunnis in the Region. We are targeting ISIS with our bombings while Russia is bombing our trained allies to keep Assad in power.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You know very clearly who Russia is helping, but not who the US/France is helping...

Maybe you should try actually talking to a Syrian to find out how they view things. I've seen a few interviews, and they were all pretty well off before US/France/England/Etc. started destabilizing their country and bombing their homes.

I guess you view Iraq as a giant success right? We HELPED lots of people their using the same techniques.

socal2 says

And contrary to your assertion, the Iraqis and US generals wanted to keep US troops in Iraq after 2011.

Where did I make that assertion? I said Obama implemented the plan agreed by Bush.

socal2 says

When Bush left office, Iraq was having elections and was much more stable. AQI was driven from the Sunni Triangle and ISIS didn't exist. The wider Middle East was very hopeful with the Arab Spring and even the Iranians were out in the streets protesting against the Mullahs.

Things were so stable, Joe Biden was crowing that Iraq will be Obama's greatest achievement!

Except it wasn't stable, which is why it would have been better for the troops to have remained (isn't hindsight a very convenient thing) and for that agreement not to have been signed (by Bush), but that was clearly not what the US electorate wanted, and with an election coming around do you really think any US leader would have backed out of that agreement? It would have been political suicide.

Bigsby says

No, it's not. The 100,000 figure is the low end of estimates for the 2003-2006 period, so how is that ISIS propaganda?

Because you are saying Americans killed all those Iraqis. When in fact most of the deaths came from AQI, Sunni Baathists and Iranian backed Shia militias.

The largest single day death tolls of civilians in Iraq (BY FAR) came from the massive suicide and truck bombs that were placed in markets, schools, Mosques and government buildings.

The SAME fuckers that just shot up Paris are the SAME ones that are holding sex slaves and committing genocide in places like Mosul.

Sure you can blame the US for not being able to stop the psychopathic hatred Muslims in Iraq have for each other, but that is a big difference than claiming America personally bombed and killed all those civilians.

US forces were killed and maimed by the thousands trying to keep the primitive Muslims from killing each other.

NuttBoxer says

Maybe you should try actually talking to a Syrian to find out how they view things. I've seen a few interviews, and they were all pretty well off before US/France/England/Etc. started destabilizing their country and bombing their homes.

Which Syrians are you talking about? The minority Allawites that ruled over the majority Sunni with Assad? Of course, they are pissed that they no longer have dictatorial rule over the majority Sunnis. Just like the Sunni Baathists were pissed when they lost dictatorial control over the majority Shia in 2003. Life's a bitch and there is no way the old European drawn borders were going to hold with minority sects brutally ruling over the majority populations.

And long before the US/France/England got involved in Syria, the Sunnis were peacefully protesting before Assad started using Russian and Iranian arms to rubble Syrian cities creating the biggest refugee crisis in modern history and radicalizing the remaining population to ISIS.

socal2 says

Because you are saying Americans killed all those Iraqis. When in fact most of the deaths came from AQI, Sunni Baathists and Iranian backed Shia militias.

Based on what? You are talking about deaths that largely occurred post 2006, so once again, how does that impact on the figures mentioned for 2003-2006?
socal2 says

The largest single day death tolls of civilians in Iraq (BY FAR) came from the massive suicide and truck bombs that were placed in markets, schools, Mosques and government buildings.

Based on what? There were massive bombing campaigns at the start of the invasion. How many civilians do you think died in those?

socal2 says

Sure you can blame the US for not being able to stop the psychopathic hatred Muslims in Iraq have for each other, but that is a big difference than claiming America personally bombed and killed all those civilians.

US forces were killed and maimed by the thousands trying to keep the primitive Muslims from killing each other.

And tens of thousands of women and children were killed and maimed in an illegal war, sold on the back of multiple lies.

white supremacists are just racist.

the IRA is an ethnic insurgency against colonialism. they don't kill because of religion.

maoists don't even believe in god! lol.

zionism is more of a nationalism than a religious thing (just ask Gary!)

Christian Right and Army of God? never heard of them.

u forgot to talk about the Crusades

Bigsby says

Except it wasn't stable, which is why it would have been better for the troops to have remained (isn't hindsight a very convenient thing) and for that agreement not to have been signed (by Bush), but that was clearly not what the US electorate wanted, and with an election coming around do you really think any US leader would have backed out of that agreement? It would have been political suicide.

Leaders are elected to lead. Obama could have easily convinced the US population to support 10,000 troops in Iraq back in 2010-11 since things were so stable.

We may be weary of war, but war is not weary of us.

Just in the last month, ISIS took down an airliner, inflicted the biggest attack on Paris since Nazi Germany, bombed Lebanon and causing one of the biggest refugee migrations in world history.

mell says

That these days is commonly referred to as isolationist in a globalized world, I don't care about the term. And there are plenty who argue you cannot look over a humanitarian crisis or genocide happening in any region. I tend to agree with not to meddle, but it is an interesting discussion and cannot be easily dismissed.

I don't agree with measuring isolationism by passive actions like not interfering. I think trade embargo's are a much better example since they are proactive, and hostile, creating tension, and a lack of relations(see US/Cuba).
As far as stepping in for cases like genocide, I'd say at a private level that sounds fine, but at a national level, almost never. The amount of cultural/historical knowledge needed before getting involved in a situation in another country is quite extensive. It's better to let the bad guys win by non-action, then inadvertently helping them win by mis-informed action.

As far as border security, before we spend money on fences and guards, we should cut-off all aid to illegals, and prosecute companies that hire them. If they don't have free housing/aid/healthcare, and employers are afraid of getting fined/imprisoned, so no jobs, what's their incentive to be here? If their country is so bad they still want to come, they should probably be seeking asylum when they get here, a legitimate reason for crossing illegally.

socal2 says

Leaders are elected to lead. Obama could have easily convinced the US population to support 10,000 troops in Iraq back in 2010-11 since things were so stable.

We may be weary of war, but war is not weary of us.

We'll never know, but my recollection is that the electorate were desperate for the troops to be pulled out. How would he have sold it to the population if things looked stable? Who knew that the policies brought about by Bush had completely gutted and corrupted the Iraqi military (the outsourcing of supplies for example leading to massive corruption and the huge ghosting of military units), and that faced by a few thousand lightly armed jihadists, that the whole structure would collapse? Apparently not enough people.

Bigsby says

And tens of thousands of women and children were killed and maimed in an illegal war, sold on the back of multiple lies.

Aaaaand back to the ISIS prop by claiming that Bush lied.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/XnjcofMFHsA

Bigsby says

We'll never know, but my recollection is that the electorate were desperate for the troops to be pulled out. How would he have sold it to the population if things looked stable?

You sell it by pointing to Germany, Italy, South Korea and Japan as the model. We had troops in those countries for decades after the wars to maintain the peace and provide a deterrent against the Communists.

South Korea was corrupt for decades and only really got their shit together in the 1980's, Now look at them as a powerhouse in the Region, let alone compared to the Frankenstein monster just north of their border. I think it was worth (and still worth) keeping troops in South Korea - don't you?

Besides, everyone in the world knew what would happen if we pulled out too soon from Iraq (let alone toppling Libya with no plan to stabilize afterwords). Here is our Nobel Peace Prize winning President saying that preventing genocide is not a good enough reason to keep troops in Iraq.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19862711/ns/politics-decision_08/t/obama-dont-stay-iraq-over-genocide/

socal2 says

Aaaaand back to the ISIS prop by claiming that Bush lied.

Seriously? You think that saying that the Bush government lied in the run up to the invasion of Iraq is ISIS propaganda? Trying to shift it to Democrats is pretty pathetic given everything you've just said about the leadership in place needing to be held responsible. That Democrats parroted the Republican line doesn't then mean that the Bush government weren't the ones pushing the lies, does it?

Bigsby says

Seriously? You think that saying that the Bush government lied in the run up to the invasion of Iraq is ISIS propaganda?

Yup - straight up ISIS prop.

Bigsby says

That Democrats parroted the Republican line doesn't then mean that the Bush government weren't the ones pushing the lies, does it?

Considering many of those quotes are from Democrats BEFORE Bush even took office - debunks your assertion that Bush made up "lies" to liberate Iraq.

There is a massive moral, legal and strategic difference in being wrong on some intelligence and knowingly lying to justify foreign policy. ISIS believes the latter to recruit their followers. And for some inexplicable reason, people like you seem happy to give ISIS a hand in their propaganda war.

socal2 says

There is a massive moral, legal and strategic difference in being wrong on some intelligence and knowingly lying to justify foreign policy

And that's why it is so deplorable that Bush, Cheney, et. al knowingly lied.

There can be very little doubt in this as the evidence is overwhelming.

tatupu70 says

And that's why it is so deplorable that Bush, Cheney, et. al knowingly lied.

There can be very little doubt in this as the evidence is overwhelming.

And here is another Prog pushing ISIS propaganda.

You a 9/11 troofer too? Bgmall needs someone to jerk-off with.

We wonder why even Moderate Muslims are suspicious of the West when dopey Leftists tell the Muslim/Arab world that we purposefully lied to go kill Muslims in the Middle East.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/vn_PSJsl0LQ

tatupu70 says

the evidence is overwhelming.

Where is the evidence they lied?

curious2 says

Where is the evidence they lied?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/10/yes_bush_lied_about_iraq_why_are_we_still_arguing_about_this/

https://consortiumnews.com/2012/04/26/bush-did-lie-about-iraq/

http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bush-lies.html#thirteen

http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bush-lies.html

http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/03/19/the-lie-that-got-us-in-the-bush-administration-knew-there-were-no-wmds-in-iraq/

“Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD,” the secret memo reads. “But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” from Tony Blair

http://www.alternet.org/story/16274/ten_appalling_lies_we_were_told_about_iraq

LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrilytold The New Republic: "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."

LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."

LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."

FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.

LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.

LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States."-- President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building program wasn't much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to say "plane"?

LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.

FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.

LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets."-- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.

FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, aspreviously reported on AlterNet the United States' own intelligence reports show that these stocks -- if they existed -- were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.

LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.

LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." -- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.

FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts -- including the State Department's intelligence wing in a report released this week -- have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were; facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.

So, months after the war, we are once again where we started -- with plenty of rhetoric and absolutely no proof of this "grave danger" for which O.J. Smith died. The Bush administration is now scrambling to place the blame for its lies on faulty intelligence, when in fact the intelligence was fine; it was their abuse of it that was "faulty."

Rather than apologize for leading us to a preemptive war based on impossibly faulty or shamelessly distorted "intelligence" or offering his resignation, our sly madman in the White House is starting to sound more like that other O.J. Like the man who cheerfully played golf while promising to pursue "the real killers," Bush is now vowing to search for "the true extent of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs, no matter how long it takes."

On the terrible day of the 9/11 attacks, five hours after a hijacked plane slammed into the Pentagon, retired Gen. Wesley Clark received a strange call from someone (he didn't name names) representing the White House position: "I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein,'" Clark told Meet the Press anchor Tim Russert. "I said, 'But -- I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence.'"

And neither did we.

Sorry - need something better than the hacks at MotherJones, Salon and Antiwar sources.

Just take the Occam's Razor approach. Why would Bush knowingly lie about WMD's to justify war and not have a plan to plant some warheads and barrels of Anthrax to cover up their tracks? Seriously, how hard would it be to sneak some stuff in when we had 100,000+ troops in the country? Do you really believe a group of people who are criminal enough to lie to start illegal wars didn't think a lack of WMD's would come back to bite them?

Also, you didn't address the video I posted earlier that quotes all those Democrats making the same claims about Iraq's WMD's BEFORE Bush was even elected. Are all those Democrats part of a "neocon" cabal and lying too?

Finally, they did find WMD's in Iraq for years after the liberation. Here is a story about one of the biggest finds. These chemical warheads were some of the listed WMD's we KNEW Iraq had, but were never provided to UN inspectors.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have-bought-and-destroyed-iraqi-chemical-weapons.html?_r=1&assetType=nyt_now

But I suppose you will choose to continue to ape ISIS propaganda to meet your ideological purposes while you do great harm to our country and Western civilization.

And the typical lazy response. Forget the sources--they clearly list the lies. Which ones do you think are incorrect and why?

socal2 says

Why would Bush knowingly lie about WMD's to justify war and not have a plan to plant some warheads and barrels of Anthrax to cover up their tracks? Seriously, how hard would it be to sneak some stuff in when we had 100,000+ troops in the country? Do you really believe a group of people who are criminal enough to lie to start illegal wars didn't think a lack of WMD's would come back to bite them?

I don't think anyone has ever claimed Bush to be a genius. And a conspiracy large enough to plant WMDs in a foreign country would be difficult to keep quiet. I imagine he figured he could claim faulty intelligence when the shit hit the fan--he'd be impeached when the public found out he planted WMDs.

socal2 says

Are all those Democrats part of a "neocon" cabal and lying too?

Iraq did have WMDs at some point in their history--they used chemical weapons against Iran. But, yes, some (a lot) of Dems followed the war cry lest they be labeled soft on terrorism.

socal2 says

Finally, they did find WMD's in Iraq for years after the liberation. Here is a story about one of the biggest finds. These chemical warheads were some of the listed WMD's we KNEW Iraq had, but were never provided to UN inspectors.

So, some Iraqi found a small stockpile of 20+ year old weapons and sold them to the US. I don't think that's what Bush was proclaiming and using as a basis for war. They couldn't be provided to the UN inspectors because someone had stolen them already.

tatupu70 says

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/10/yes_bush_lied_about_iraq_why_are_we_still_arguing_about_this/

From that article:

"That’s a lie, and senior Bush officials did it often. There’s no better example of this than the aluminum tubes.
***
A number of intelligence agencies believed that the tubes were, in fact, made for uranium enrichment. There were, however, a number of dissenting views, including from the State Department and the intelligence arm of the Department of Energy, the agency responsible for maintaining the United States’ nuclear arsenal (i.e. the people who actually know this stuff). DOE determined that the tubes were completely impractical for use in uranium enrichment, and were probably intended for use in conventional rockets. The State Department came to a similar conclusion.

That falls pretty squarely in the “lie” category, to my judgment."

Do you see the problem with that judgment?

Perhaps this source might help:

"In his book, Courage and Consequence, Rove calls the “lie” charge “a poison-tipped dagger aimed at the heart of the Bush presidency” and blames himself for “a weak response” that underestimated “how damaging this assault was.”
***

Tellingly, throughout that period, as Bush blithely lied about the Iraq War history, he was never challenged to his face by the mainstream U.S. journalists who politely listened to the lies. Indeed, some big-name journalists even adopted Bush’s false narrative as their own."

Why did NBC "News" (owned by a military industrial contractor), for example, fail to challenge the official narrative? Why did MSNBC fire Phil Donahue? Partisans and sectarians prove their loyalty by embracing their crowd's most extreme positions and rejecting evidence based decisionmaking. As each major party devolves into its own partisan / sectarian crowd dynamic, providing loyalty, "both sides" miss the elephant in the room.

The result is a policy environment dominated by people who can believe whatever they want to believe, and hardly anybody checks for evidence, because most either don't care or fear seeming disloyal. Most people are partisan or sectarian, alas, and the Interwebs have had at best mixed effects: people who care about evidence are better able to find more of it, but the majority who care only about supporting a partisan position (or "judgment") can reinforce their own belief, like bgamall finding "evidence" of his conspiracies. It would be inconvenient to acknowledge the real problem with the Iraq war, because that would implicate people in both parties (e.g. then-Senators Clinton and Kerry, both of whom voted to authorize it) and the commercial news, so instead the partisan narrative must blame everything on the evil "other side".

To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go to war with the [administration] you have, not the [administration] you might want or wish to have. Authorizing the faith-based W administration to launch what W called "a crusade" was like giving a 10yo permission to bring a loaded assault rifle to school. But, it conferred tremendous power on both major political patronage networks, including their commercial "news" mouthpieces, who channel debate into the approved lanes.

curious2 says

The result is a policy environment dominated by people who can believe whatever they want to believe, and hardly anybody checks for evidence, because most either don't care or fear seeming disloyal. Most people are partisan or sectarian, alas, and the Interwebs have had at best mixed effects: people who care about evidence are better able to find more of it, but people who care only about supporting a partisan position (or "judgment") can reinforce their own belief, like bgamall finding "evidence" of his conspiracies. It would be inconvenient to acknowledge the real problem with the Iraq war, because that would implicate people in both parties (e.g. then-Senators Clinton and Kerry, both of whom voted to authorize it) and the commercial news, so instead the partisan narrative must blame everything on the evil "other side".

I must confess that I don't grasp your point here. I will fully agree if it is to condemn Democrats, media members, etc. along with the Bush administration. There is no doubt that they should have had contacts within the intelligence community that should have been telling them what was going on. But I don't think that changes my point that lies were told.

tatupu70 says

I don't think anyone has ever claimed Bush to be a genius. And a conspiracy large enough to plant WMDs in a foreign country would be difficult to keep quiet. I imagine he figured he could claim faulty intelligence when the shit hit the fan--he'd be impeached when the public found out he planted WMDs.

I love how the Bush-haters vacillate between him being an evil Machiavellian liar able to bamboozle Democrats and the world about Iraq WMDs, but when challenged on the obvious of question of why he didn't plant some evidence to save his presidency, "Oh he was just too stooopid!"

tatupu70 says

Iraq did have WMDs at some point in their history--they used chemical weapons against Iran. But, yes, some (a lot) of Dems followed the war cry lest they be labeled soft on terrorism.

Watch the video again. Many of the Democrat quotes were BEFORE 9/11 or before Bush took office.

What war cry are you talking about?

tatupu70 says

So, some Iraqi found a small stockpile of 20+ year old weapons and sold them to the US. I don't think that's what Bush was proclaiming and using as a basis for war. They couldn't be provided to the UN inspectors because someone had stolen them already.

Also love how the ISIS propagandists move the goal posts giving Saddam every benefit of the doubt.

"Small stockpile"? It was 400 warheads! It's a joke to believe that anyone could steal these rockets living under the Stalinist Police-State of Saddam Hussein and not end up in a wood chipper or mass grave.

These were some of the very KNOWN WEAPONS UN inspectors had on a list to dismantle. But for some inexplicable reason, Saddam chose to keep them hidden and lost his regime (and life) as a result.