The Top Ten Myths of the Iraq War

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

To MH: Thank you for posting this. Seems to be a definite lack of criticism that has any substance to it, instead there is just a lot of appealing to emotions.

Why should we go back and rehash the details of this crap again? Basically each point made in the original post is simply a repost of a pro-war argument. It just seems that someone thinks that if you tidy them up into a top ten list that people are somehow supposed to think that they're all accurate and present a valid case for war. Call it "Rose Colored Revisionism" if you will.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

smarm·y (smär'mē) Pronunciation Key
adj. smarm·i·er, smarm·i·est

Hypocritically, complacently, or effusively earnest; unctuous. See Synonyms at unctuous.

How nice that you are able to post word definitions.

Last week you had it pegged it as "a word Lush Rimjob used", while making a bogus claim, that you never did own up to.... now, less than a week later, you are using it yourself.

Prior to your getting in a tizzy about it last week, the word had been posted eight times in the preceding 2 1/2 months (I'm not counting quoted posts).

Most of those posts were mine.

What was that big hit for The Persuaders?

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

>1-No Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

There were no WMD's. Every single investigator we sent over there agrees. Sorry. That's not opinion; that's reality intruding on what was once a neo-con dream.

>3-Sanctions were working.

The sanctions were officially implemented to stop his WMD program; that worked. We also hoped that it would remove him from power; that part didn't.

>5-The Invasion Was a Failure.

It got Saddam; in that way it was a success. Other goals:
Find his WMD's - failure.
Liberate the Iraqis from death squads, mass graves and torture chambers - failure.
Protect the WMD fixin's we knew about - failure.
Create a stable democracy in the middle east - failure.


>6-The Invasion Helped Al Qaeda. Compared to what?

Exactly; that's the question. It's stronger today. If we had concentrated on getting Bin Laden instead of pulling troops out for Iraq, would Al Qaeda have been weakened? Most likely. If we had all those hundreds of billions for covert operations to ferret out Al Qaeda cells in the US and other countries, would they have been weakened? Almost certainly. Instead, it is growing stronger and is pulling off attacks against western targets. We have failed in our efforts to destroy them.

That's not to say that we will not someday succeed. To do that, we need the sort of manpower and money that we are currently throwing away in Iraq.

>10- The War in Iraq is Lost.

It's about as "lost" as Vietnam was. That is to say, we can keep throwing cannon fodder at it for as long as we like. The solution to Iraq will be found in a conference room, not on a battlefield - despite what the clueless "anything other than complete and absolute WWII-style victory is defeat" types claim.

What a bunch of bullshit!

MH is absolutely right about the WMDs found there. It doesn't rise anywhere near to what was expected, but to say it was nothing is bullshit.

Al Qaeda is not stronger than before. When presented with intelligence (internal AQ communication) that supports that they are hurting very badly, you said that it was probably a plant, and that it isn't worth the bother of following up (I'm paraphrasing, of course, from a much earlier thread). That certainly is having it both ways, isn't it? There has been more internal AQ communication to support that conclusion recently, but it sure is easy to dismiss it as planted evidence to throw us off, that is if you don't want to believe it.

We certainly have won the war. We didn't wait to see if Japan and Germany would be peaceful, without insurgency, before declaring victory in Europe of Japan, did we?

S. Vietnam was winning (mostly on their own) when we decided to stop helping them. Even when they weren't so much on their own, we hobbled ourselves with stupid rules of engagement and such. We have learned the lesson to not do that again.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

To MH: Thank you for posting this. Seems to be a definite lack of criticism that has any substance to it, instead there is just a lot of appealing to emotions.

Why should we go back and rehash the details of this crap again? Basically each point made in the original post is simply a repost of a pro-war argument. It just seems that someone thinks that if you tidy them up into a top ten list that people are somehow supposed to think that they're all accurate and present a valid case for war. Call it "Rose Colored Revisionism" if you will.

Even this reply to MH's post is more substantial than the name calling that has filled other replies.

Don't you think we get tired of having to "go back and rehash the details..." when crap gets posted that we think is wrong? I suppose that since you know that you are correct and others are wrong, that makes it different, eh?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Don't you think we get tired of having to "go back and rehash the details..."

Apparently not as tired of it as I am.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

Don't you think we get tired of having to "go back and rehash the details..."

Apparently not as tired of it as I am.

OK then, no need to reply to threads such as this. No need to aggravate yourself.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[DZJ 0]

Quote

What a bunch of bullshit!

MH is absolutely right about the WMDs found there. It doesn't rise anywhere near to what was expected, but to say it was nothing is bullshit.

IIRC, the 'WMD' found in Iraq were a quantity of old artillery shells and mortar rounds with obsolete chemical fillings. Hardly the arsenal of nerve gas, bioweapons and nuke programmes in progress that we were assured were there to be found.

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

What a bunch of bullshit!

MH is absolutely right about the WMDs found there. It doesn't rise anywhere near to what was expected, but to say it was nothing is bullshit.

So when the president goes on national TV and says this....

BUSH: Oh, absolutely. Everybody was wrong on weapons of mass destruction. I would ask people to go back and look at the comments of many of the Democrat leadership prior to my arrival in Washington, DC, people who'd looked at the same intelligence I looked at. I'd look at the people's comments when the run-up to the war. They had looked at the same intelligence I had looked at. It was pretty well universally thought he had weapons. And there was an intelligence failure, which we're trying to address. But I was as surprised as anybody he didn't have them.

...you're saying he's lying?

[Peter_Phile 0]

Quote

Quote

What a bunch of bullshit!

MH is absolutely right about the WMDs found there. It doesn't rise anywhere near to what was expected, but to say it was nothing is bullshit.

So when the president goes on national TV and says this....

BUSH: Oh, absolutely. Everybody was wrong on weapons of mass destruction. I would ask people to go back and look at the comments of many of the Democrat leadership prior to my arrival in Washington, DC, people who'd looked at the same intelligence I looked at. I'd look at the people's comments when the run-up to the war. They had looked at the same intelligence I had looked at. It was pretty well universally thought he had weapons. And there was an intelligence failure, which we're trying to address. But I was as surprised as anybody he didn't have them.

...you're saying he's lying?

he wouldn't know what fucking day it was unless his aids told him

[GQ_jumper 4]

BUSH: Oh, absolutely. Everybody was wrong on weapons of mass destruction. I would ask people to go back and look at the comments of many of the Democrat leadership prior to my arrival in Washington, DC, people who'd looked at the same intelligence I looked at. I'd look at the people's comments when the run-up to the war. They had looked at the same intelligence I had looked at. It was pretty well universally thought he had weapons. And there was an intelligence failure, which we're trying to address. But I was as surprised as anybody he didn't have them.

Quote

I wish I could find that list of quotes I used to have of all the Dems. swearing up and down that Saddam had WMD's, these would be the same people who today swear they knew from the start that there were none in country. The majority of these quotes were made pre 9-11 as well, and they for the most part included statements about taking Saddam out of power by use of force, funny ho some people like to play to what's popular.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

• Quote

[Remster 30]

Quote

you're saying he's lying?

Of course not.


He's just an idiot.

Remster

[livendive 8]

Quote

Even this reply to MH's post is more substantial than the name calling that has filled other replies.

I specifically pointed out that Mark's post said in one paragraph that the sanctions needed to be ended in order for WMD programs to be restarted, and in another it said "The sanctions were working" was a myth. That's dishonesty.

In another thread on here you're talking about how word's meanings are important. Please explain how the statement "Iraq is in a state of civil war" is a myth. I'll help you out with a definition. Civil war is "A war between factions or regions of the same country" or "A state of hostility or conflict between elements within an organization"

The second "myth"/debunking doesn't even make sense. "The 2003 Invasion was Illegal. Only according to some in the UN." If it's only according to some in the UN, it's not really a myth, is it? And if it's according to more than some in the UN, than the debunking doesn't work.

Overthrowing Saddam only helped Iran. That's a top ten myth? Really? There's thousands of people out there propogating this?

The Invasion Was a Failure. Saddam's police state was overthrown and a democracy established, which was the objective of the operation. On the one hand, this invasion was about WMDs, or it was at least sold as such, and we all know it. To state otherwise is to be dishonest. On the other hand, if the objective was already accomplished, why the fuck is Bush sending in *more* troops?

It's a myth that the invasion help al Queda? al Queda was not hiding in Iraq, thus invading Iraq simply committed our troops to a task other than chasing down al Queda. Additionally, our continued occupation has made a shitload more terrorists than it has killed. How many car-bombings were going on in Iraq before we got there? How many suicide bombings? How many people killed as a result of such terrorism attacks? So we quit chasing down al Queda and moved into a country that wasn't particularly prone to terrorism problems, and once there made many more friends for al Queda than they previously had (the enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that). Letting them off the hook and giving them many more allies sounds like helping them to me.

8-Iraqis Were Better Off Under Saddam. Most Iraqis disagree. Check election results and opinion polls. Reporters tend to ask Iraqi Sunni Arabs this question, but they were the only ones who benefited from Saddams rule.

Have you asked all the dead Iraqis and their families? The 3.7 million refugees? I can't find it now, but last week I read an article that said 90% of Iraqis consider Americans there to be "occupiers" rather than "liberators". Sure, I can't cite it, but neither did the author who picked the word "most" above. Is there any substantiation at all for the debunking of this supposed "myth"? What question on the ballot gave election results that show Iraqis were not better off under Saddam? I bet there was no such question. This entire thing is so subjective as to be absurd, and the debunking is supposition at best.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Do you have the next 10 ready to go? I would like to see them spelled out as well as you did the first 10 here.....and to view the next round of PAs

They're not his. This is the second copy I've gotten in the last half hour. I'm trying to decide if this is simply a case of rosey revisionism or if maybe it's a test piece launched onto the net by Bush's lawyers to work out their defense in case they have to make a flight to the Hague

P.S. Careful with how "facts" are used. Yes, Iraq did fire on the US military in the no fly zones. But the no fly zones were an incursion into soverign Iraqi airspace as a "humanitarian" action by the US and Britain. The UN never officially recognized them and they are a part of no security council resolution.

The no-fly zones were part of the cease fire, and Operation Desert Storm was not a "UN" event either.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you have the next 10 ready to go? I would like to see them spelled out as well as you did the first 10 here.....and to view the next round of PAs

They're not his. This is the second copy I've gotten in the last half hour. I'm trying to decide if this is simply a case of rosey revisionism or if maybe it's a test piece launched onto the net by Bush's lawyers to work out their defense in case they have to make a flight to the Hague

P.S. Careful with how "facts" are used. Yes, Iraq did fire on the US military in the no fly zones. But the no fly zones were an incursion into soverign Iraqi airspace as a "humanitarian" action by the US and Britain. The UN never officially recognized them and they are a part of no security council resolution.

The no-fly zones were part of the cease fire, and Operation Desert Storm was not a "UN" event either.

The United Nations never authorized the no-fly zones. From Iraq's perspective, this is a case of foreign military aircraft encroaching upon the air space of a sovereign nation. As a result, Iraq--like any country--has every legal right to fire upon them.

When the cease-fire in the Gulf War went into effect in March 1991, the Kurds in the north and the Shiite Muslims in the south launched a rebellion against Saddam Hussein's regime. The United States banned the use of Iraqi fixed-wing aircraft, which could be of danger to American personnel, but allowed Iraq to use helicopter gunships, which were crucial in reversing the tide of the rebellions and resulted in brutal repression by the Iraqi armed forces against the rebellious populations. In response, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 688, demanding that Iraq cease its repression of minority communities in the country.

No enforcement mechanisms were specified, however.

Despite this, the United States, Great Britain, and France declared a "No-Fly" zone in northern Iraq, forbidding Iraqi military aircraft from entering the area. A second no-fly zone was later established in the south and expanded a few years later. Once the situation stabilized, France withdrew from its enforcement of the no-fly zone, though British and American planes continue to patrol the no-fly zones, which now extend to the majority of the country's airspace.

According to two State Department reports in 1994 and 1996, the creation and military enforcement of "no-fly zones" in fact do not protect the Iraqi Kurdish and Shiite populations from potential assaults by Iraqi forces. The straight latitudinal demarcations of the no-fly zones do not correspond with the areas of predominant Kurdish and Shiite populations. In addition, the targets of the American and British air strikes have no relation to preventing Iraqi attacks against vulnerable minorities. That the United States has allowed the Turkish Air Force to conduct bombing raids within the northern Iraq "no-fly zone" against Kurdish targets is but one indication of the lack of concern about actually protecting the Kurdish population.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,089]

>MH is absolutely right about the WMDs found there.

"My summary view, based on what I've seen, is we're very unlikely to find large stockpiles of weapons. I don't think they exist." - David Kay, top US weapons inspector in Iraq.

We "found no evidence Iraq had stockpiled unconventional weapons" - David Kay again.

Hmm. Believe pro-war internet posters who claim to have secret knowledge of Saddam's weapons program, or believe the #1 US arms inspector in Iraq? Tough call. But I think I'll go with Mr. Kay.

Truth is sometimes painful to swallow, but avoidance of it leads to some pretty silly claims.

>We certainly have won the war.

Then game over! I assume you support bringing home troops who have completed their missions.

>S. Vietnam was winning (mostly on their own) when we decided to stop helping them.

So your take on Vietnam was that our biggest mistake - was not staying longer? Hmm. I think you're in a pretty infinitesimal minority there.

[jumprunner 0]

You, with all the other conservatives, can jam as much rhetoric into the situation as you want, but it is still as meaningless as it has always been.

Seeing is believing, rhetoric is BS. Its that simple. There is no reason for the Iraq war other than to wage a war of aggression for profitable purposes, there was no terrorism at all directed at the US from Iraq, the economy has been held down to astronomical lows since Bush has been in office because Bush nor the Repulicans support the working class, and the standard of living in this country has been degraded to all time lows for the majority of the population.

Like I said, seeing is believing, and your arguments hold no ground at all.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

The no-fly zones were part of the cease fire, and Operation Desert Storm was not a "UN" event either.

The United Nations never authorized the no-fly zones. From Iraq's perspective, this is a case of foreign military aircraft encroaching upon the air space of a sovereign nation. As a result, Iraq--like any country--has every legal right to fire upon them.

Like I said, Operation Desert Storm was not a UN action. The cease fire was not a UN action.

Iraq's perspective didn't mean anything in the cease fire, as it was unconditional to any Iraqi terms.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[rushmc 23]

You then should have the best idea of what "retoric" is

....you just proved that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Nicely done. And it brought out the expected insults from the expected people rather quickly. It is interesting to see the reactions when detail and fact are used against imotional irrational thought processes.

It consists of totally dishonest misrepresentations, skewed irrationally to appeal to emotions, and is not even worthy of a point by point response. Billvon still hit a couple of them though, so see those. Also, if the WMD programs were shut down to lack of money, doesn't that mean the sanctions were working?

Blues,
Dave

there is some dishonesty in this post but it is not from me or to whom you replied

All of the facts posted here have come out in the news sparingly. Most of the info was not (nor will it ever be) on ABC, CNN, NBC, cbs, NPR, HNN et al or any more than a second or two.

Why, does not support their political goals.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

I specifically pointed out that Mark's post said in one paragraph that the sanctions needed to be ended in order for WMD programs to be restarted, and in another it said "The sanctions were working" was a myth. That's dishonesty.

I reject your assertion of dishonesty.

The purpose of the sanctions was not to put WMD programs on hold for as long as close scrutiny is enforced by inspectors. The purpose was to ensure that Iraq would not restart them when the Hans Blix left. Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 102]

Obviously, Bush has concluded that he didn't want to claim the hundreds of old shells, etc as worthy of even mentioning. I'm not a politician, so I think they are worth mentioning.

Someone in a previous described being present when some of these were found, he thought they were worth mentioning too. My memory is that even Blix thought there would be more found.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

I specifically pointed out that Mark's post said in one paragraph that the sanctions needed to be ended in order for WMD programs to be restarted, and in another it said "The sanctions were working" was a myth. That's dishonesty.

I reject your assertion of dishonesty.

The purpose of the sanctions was not to put WMD programs on hold for as long as close scrutiny is enforced by inspectors. The purpose was to ensure that Iraq would not restart them when the Hans Blix left. Hans Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance, was he? I understand he didn't support invasion as a response, but SH completely refused to comply with the cease agreement in many ways. The sanctions were only accomplishing a very short term objective.

As Mark said in the original post, the problem was "Saddam had all his WMD scientists and technicians ready", i.e. they were still alive and in Iraq. The sanctions were working. He had no operating WMD programs. To get the longer term results you speak of, what would we have had to do, wait for everyone to die?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[sundevil777 102]

Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance. I think that that the sanctions were "workiing" is only the most superficial and temporary sense, not accomplishing the overall goal.

So, I say that your position is dishonest. The sanctions were not workiing in a sustainable way, and that is important. I could make a clever analogy to reinforce my claim, but I try to avoid them.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[livendive 8]

Quote

Blix was not satisfied with Iraqi compliance. I think that that the sanctions were "workiing" is only the most superficial and temporary sense, not accomplishing the overall goal.

Honestly, I though the overall goals were to tie Saddam's hands and prevent him from developing WMDs, so as to keep him from being any further threat to his neighbors. What were the additional objectives that were not being realized?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[sundevil777 102]

Blix could not even confirm that the sanctions were keeping the programs on hold.

So, I think they were working in only the most superficial sense.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am