The Top Ten Myths of the Iraq War

[Amazon 7]

Face it... you CONSTANTLY hear RIGHTWINGNUT RADIO rail on and on about how bad the UN is... Trying to take over the world.. yada yada yada..

YET when Dubya and friends decided to go chasing the oil revenues they could line their own pockets with.... they used the UN resolutions as an excuse to attack Iraq.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

It is simple, the CIA has obviously been infiltrated by the liberals and cannot be trusted....

[narcimund 0]

Quote

So why do you continue to parrot Bush's 2003 line? Even Bush himself no longer does that.

Because he staked his self-esteem on being right. It's an unfortunate psychological effect when it's so important to be right that one becomes willing to lose ALL attachment to reality to maintain the illusion.

It's like end-of-the-world cults whose prophecy dates come and go harmlessly. The cultists typically become MORE attached to the cult afterwards.

Except in this case even the leader of the cult is acknowledging the initial predictions weren't quite right.

This is how leaders lose control of their cults.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Except in this case even the leader of the cult is acknowledging the initial predictions weren't quite right.

Has he? The language has changed slightly, but the actions are still the same.

[billvon 3,090]

>The language has changed slightly, but the actions are still the same.

If by "changed slightly" you mean "now claiming the opposite of what he originally claimed" I would agree. I also agree his actions have not changed significantly.

[GQ_jumper 4]

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.

Quote

The US in no way "allowed" Turkish air strikes against the Kurds, we had little to no control over what the Turks did in that conflict. I can also name countless operators who would testify that we did everything possible to protect the Kurds, I can also name ten times as many Kurds who would give their lives to protect US soldiers out of gratitude for everything we have done for them over the years.

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

• Quote

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

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

Right. They were a temporary measure to help protect the Kurd uprising that Baghdad tried to suppress in the north and the retreating Shiites in the south. The US, Britain and France took part in patrolling the zones. France pulled out in 1996 because the "temporary" humanitarian mission had changed into something else. So basically, the war was over and two countries took it solely upon themselves to maintain these no fly zones over Iraq's sovereign airspace. Saddam never recognized them and there was no international support for the measure. So basically I can't say that his firing on our aircraft in his airspace could be considered an act of war. What if Iran started patrolling our airspace? Which would be the act of war, their invasion of our airspace and active targeting of our radar installations or our shooting at them?

You seem to be equating a "cease fire" with "peace". By firing on our aircraft, Iraq is breaking the cease fire agreed to, in order to end hostilities resulting from the ouster from Kuwait. There was still a state of war per se. Just like there is still a state of war between ROK and DPRK.

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!

[juanesky 0]

Quote

11. Killing thousands and thousands of innocent people sets them free.......


P.S Do you have the same Optician as the Monkey Man?

No, but probably has the s1ame Otorhinolaryngologist as this ahem, female dog

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

So why do you continue to parrot Bush's 2003 line? Even Bush himself no longer does that.

Because he staked his self-esteem on being right. It's an unfortunate psychological effect when it's so important to be right that one becomes willing to lose ALL attachment to reality to maintain the illusion.

It's like end-of-the-world cults whose prophecy dates come and go harmlessly. The cultists typically become MORE attached to the cult afterwards.

Except in this case even the leader of the cult is acknowledging the initial predictions weren't quite right.

This is how leaders lose control of their cults.

Wwwwhhhheeeeelllll, there it is then.

The all knowing puts a lid on it!

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

[philh 0]

Perhaps you should read a bit more. yes there were a few chemical weapons found but they were not miltarily significant.
Heres the whole story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3718150.stm

the justification for the war was
1 that Iraq had Wmds - they clearly didnt.
2 that Iraq was linked to AQ - they werent
3 that an invasion would free the iraqi people from a brutal dictator - that did happen, but Im not sure the state of chaos there now is necessarily better. Would you sooner live in Iraq now or in 2002?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

You seem to be equating a "cease fire" with "peace". By firing on our aircraft, Iraq is breaking the cease fire agreed to, in order to end hostilities resulting from the ouster from Kuwait. There was still a state of war per se. Just like there is still a state of war between ROK and DPRK.

I looked into it and you're right. It's interesting that we don't make "peace" anymore. Only "cease fire". Which brings me to ask the question, can you actually make a peace agreement if you never declared war?

P.S. In my search I did find that the Gulf War was indeed backed by a UN mandate based on numerous resolutions, starting with 660. It looks like 678 gave member states authority to use any means necessary to implement them.

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So why do you continue to parrot Bush's 2003 line? Even Bush himself no longer does that.

Because he staked his self-esteem on being right. It's an unfortunate psychological effect when it's so important to be right that one becomes willing to lose ALL attachment to reality to maintain the illusion.

It's like end-of-the-world cults whose prophecy dates come and go harmlessly. The cultists typically become MORE attached to the cult afterwards.

Except in this case even the leader of the cult is acknowledging the initial predictions weren't quite right.

This is how leaders lose control of their cults.

Wwwwhhhheeeeelllll, there it is then.

The all knowing puts a lid on it!

Wwwweeeeee are still waiting to hear why you disbelieve the CIA, the Iraq Survey Group and even your fearless leader.

...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Wwwweeeeee are still waiting to hear why you disbelieve the CIA, the Iraq Survey Group and even your fearless leader.

YOU'VE been disagreeing with everything else he's done all along - now it's suddenly wrong to do so?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Guest]

Quote

Perhaps you should read a bit more. yes there were a few chemical weapons found but they were not miltarily significant.
Heres the whole story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3718150.stm

the justification for the war was
1 that Iraq had Wmds - they clearly didnt.
2 that Iraq was linked to AQ - they werent
3 that an invasion would free the iraqi people from a brutal dictator - that did happen, but Im not sure the state of chaos there now is necessarily better. Would you sooner live in Iraq now or in 2002?

Saddam will still a state-supporter of terrorism. Witness the payouts to families of Palestinian suicide bombers...and what was Abu Nidal doing in Baghdad before Saddam sent a bang-bang squad to put Nidal's lights out just before the invasion? Nidal had been living there for years, under Saddam's protection. When he became too much of a liability, Saddam had him rubbed out.

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

Quote

Wwwweeeeee are still waiting to hear why you disbelieve the CIA, the Iraq Survey Group and even your fearless leader.

YOU'VE been disagreeing with everything else he's done all along - now it's suddenly wrong to do so?

When he comes around to MY position, why would I disagree with him?

...

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

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

Quote

Perhaps you should read a bit more. yes there were a few chemical weapons found but they were not miltarily significant.
Heres the whole story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3718150.stm

the justification for the war was
1 that Iraq had Wmds - they clearly didnt.
2 that Iraq was linked to AQ - they werent
3 that an invasion would free the iraqi people from a brutal dictator - that did happen, but Im not sure the state of chaos there now is necessarily better. Would you sooner live in Iraq now or in 2002?

Saddam will still a state-supporter of terrorism. Witness the payouts to families of Palestinian suicide bombers...and what was Abu Nidal doing in Baghdad before Saddam sent a bang-bang squad to put Nidal's lights out just before the invasion? Nidal had been living there for years, under Saddam's protection. When he became too much of a liability, Saddam had him rubbed out.

mh

.

Is this like the US suddenly deciding that the IRA was a liability after turning a blind eye for two decades?

...

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Wwwweeeeee are still waiting to hear why you disbelieve the CIA, the Iraq Survey Group and even your fearless leader.

YOU'VE been disagreeing with everything else he's done all along - now it's suddenly wrong to do so?

When he comes around to MY position, why would I disagree with him?

I am glad you are so flexible

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

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Wwwweeeeee are still waiting to hear why you disbelieve the CIA, the Iraq Survey Group and even your fearless leader.

YOU'VE been disagreeing with everything else he's done all along - now it's suddenly wrong to do so?

When he comes around to MY position, why would I disagree with him?

I am glad you are so flexible

No, I was correct in spring 2003 and I'm still correct. Bush has acknowledged that he was wrong (kind-of - he actually acknowledges that his information was wrong). Still a few people like you out there, clinging to the forlorn hope that the intel wasn't bad after all.

No one but a moron would have actually believed the stuff the White House was telling us. And Powell's presentation to the UN was just embarrassing.

As I wrote in this forum on March 15, 2003: "You could not convict anyone of shoplifting on "evidence" that tenuous, yet you would go to war over it? "

And a month earlier I had written in this forum: "Unfortunately the stuff that Secretary Powell showed last week was not very convincing, not remotely as convincing as the presentation made by Adlai Stevenson during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In fact, some of it was so unconvincing that some people are suggesting the CIA set him up to look bad."

...

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Wwwweeeeee are still waiting to hear why you disbelieve the CIA, the Iraq Survey Group and even your fearless leader.

YOU'VE been disagreeing with everything else he's done all along - now it's suddenly wrong to do so?

When he comes around to MY position, why would I disagree with him?

I am glad you are so flexible

No, I was correct in spring 2003 and I'm still correct. Bush has acknowledged that he was wrong. Still a few people like you out there, clinging to the forlorn hope that the intel wasn't bad after all.

No one but a moron would have actually believed the stuff the White House was telling us. And Powell's presentation to the UN was just embarrassing.

As I wrote in this forum on March 15, 2003: "You could not convict anyone of shoplifting on "evidence" that tenuous, yet you would go to war over it? "

And a month earlier I had written in this forum: "Unfortunately the stuff that Secretary Powell showed last week was not very convincing, not remotely as convincing as the presentation made by Adlai Stevenson during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In fact, some of it was so unconvincing that some people are suggesting the CIA set him up to look bad."

Nice........

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

[freethefly 6]

Quote

From the Strategy Page:

January 28, 2007: The Top 10 Myths of the Iraq War in no particular order. There are more, but ten is a manageable number.

1-No Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Several hundred chemical weapons were found, and Saddam had all his WMD scientists and technicians ready. Just end the sanctions and add money, and the weapons would be back in production within a year. At the time of the invasion, all intelligence agencies, world-wide, believed Saddam still had a functioning WMD program. Saddam had shut them down because of the cost, but created the illusion that the program was still operating in order to fool the Iranians. The Iranians wanted revenge on Saddam because of the Iraq invasion of Iran in 1980, and the eight year war that followed.


2-The 2003 Invasion was Illegal. Only according to some in the UN. By that standard, the invasion of Kosovo and bombing of Serbia in 1999 was also illegal. Saddam was already at war with the U.S. and Britain, because Iraq had not carried out the terms of the 1991 ceasefire, and was trying to shoot down coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone.


3-Sanctions were working. The sanctions worked for Saddam, not for Iraq. Saddam used the sanctions as an excuse to punish the Shia majority for their 1991 uprising, and help prevent a new one. The "Oil For Food" program was corrupted with the help of bribed UN officials, and mass media outlets that believed Iraqi propaganda. Saddam was waiting out the sanctions, and bribing France, Russia and China, with promises of oil contracts and debt repayments, to convince the UN to lift the sanctions.


4-Overthrowing Saddam Only Helped Iran. Of course, and this was supposed to make Iran more approachable and open to negotiations. With the Iraqi "threat" gone, it was believed that Iran might lose its radical ways and behave. Iran got worse as a supporter of terrorism and developer of WMD. Irans clerical dictatorship did not want a democracy next door. The ancient struggle between the Iranians and Arabs was brought to the surface, and the UN became more active in dealing with problems caused by pro-terrorist government of Iran. As a result of this, the Iranian police state has faced more internal dissent. From inside Iran, Iraq does not look like an Iranian victory.


5-The Invasion Was a Failure. Saddam's police state was overthrown and a democracy established, which was the objective of the operation. Peace did not ensue because Saddam's supporters, the Sunni Arab minority, were not willing to deal with majority rule, and war crimes trials. A terror campaign followed. Few expected the Sunni Arabs to be so stupid. There's a lesson to be learned there.


6-The Invasion Helped Al Qaeda. Compared to what? Al Qaeda was a growing movement before 2003, and before 2001. But after the Iraq invasion, and especially the Sunni Arab terrorism, al Qaeda fell in popularity throughout the Moslem world. Arab countries cracked down on al Qaeda operations more than ever before. Without the Iraq invasion, al Qaeda would still have safe havens all over the Arab world.


7-Iraq Is In A State of Civil War. Then so was Britain when the IRA was active, and so is Spain today because ETA is still active. Both IRA and ETA are terrorist organizations based on ethnic identity. India also has tribal separatist rebels who are quite active. That's not considered a civil war. This is all about partisans playing with labels for political ends, not accurately describing a terror campaign.


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.


9-The Iraq War Caused Islamic Terrorism to Increase in Europe. The Moslem unrest in Europe was there before 2001, and 2003. Interviews of Islamic radicals in Europe reveals that the hatred is not motivated by Iraq, but by daily encounters with hostile natives. Blaming Islamic terrorism on Iraq is another attempt to avoid dealing with a homegrown problem.


10- The War in Iraq is Lost. By what measure? Saddam and his Baath party are out of power. There is a democratically elected government. Part of the Sunni Arab minority continues to support terror attacks, in an attempt to restore the Sunni Arab dictatorship. In response, extremist Shia Arabs formed vigilante death squads to expel all Sunni Arabs. Given the history of democracy in the Middle East, Iraq is working through its problems. Otherwise, one is to believe that the Arabs are incapable of democracy and only a tyrant like Saddam can make Iraqi "work." If democracy were easy, the Arab states would all have it. There are problems, and solutions have to be found and implemented. That takes time, but Americans have, since the 18th century, grown weary of wars after three years. If the war goes on longer, the politicians have to scramble to survive the bad press and opinion polls. Opposition politicians take advantage of the situation, but this has nothing to do with Iraq, and everything to do with local politics in the United States.


mh

.

Email me and I'll send a brochure for some ocean front property that I have for sale here in Missouri.
SHEESH... some folks will buy anything

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

Perhaps you should read a bit more. yes there were a few chemical weapons found but they were not miltarily significant.
Heres the whole story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3718150.stm

the justification for the war was
1 that Iraq had Wmds - they clearly didnt.
2 that Iraq was linked to AQ - they werent
3 that an invasion would free the iraqi people from a brutal dictator - that did happen, but Im not sure the state of chaos there now is necessarily better. Would you sooner live in Iraq now or in 2002?

Saddam will still a state-supporter of terrorism. Witness the payouts to families of Palestinian suicide bombers...and what was Abu Nidal doing in Baghdad before Saddam sent a bang-bang squad to put Nidal's lights out just before the invasion? Nidal had been living there for years, under Saddam's protection. When he became too much of a liability, Saddam had him rubbed out.

mh

.

Pretty much what the US did to Saddam. Oh, less you have forgotten, Saddam was one of our great allies. Once he fell out of favor it was time to take him out. This makes us much like him.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Wwwweeeeee are still waiting to hear why you disbelieve the CIA, the Iraq Survey Group and even your fearless leader.

YOU'VE been disagreeing with everything else he's done all along - now it's suddenly wrong to do so?

When he comes around to MY position, why would I disagree with him?

I am glad you are so flexible

No, I was correct in spring 2003 and I'm still correct. Bush has acknowledged that he was wrong. Still a few people like you out there, clinging to the forlorn hope that the intel wasn't bad after all.

No one but a moron would have actually believed the stuff the White House was telling us. And Powell's presentation to the UN was just embarrassing.

As I wrote in this forum on March 15, 2003: "You could not convict anyone of shoplifting on "evidence" that tenuous, yet you would go to war over it? "

And a month earlier I had written in this forum: "Unfortunately the stuff that Secretary Powell showed last week was not very convincing, not remotely as convincing as the presentation made by Adlai Stevenson during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In fact, some of it was so unconvincing that some people are suggesting the CIA set him up to look bad."

Nice........

Yep.

...

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

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I looked into it and you're right. It's interesting that we don't make "peace" anymore. Only "cease fire". Which brings me to ask the question, can you actually make a peace agreement if you never declared war?

A declaration of war does not mean that a state of war would exist. A state of war can exist without a declaration of war.

Quote

P.S. In my search I did find that the Gulf War was indeed backed by a UN mandate based on numerous resolutions, starting with 660. It looks like 678 gave member states authority to use any means necessary to implement them.

The UN backed it, but it wasn't a UN operation. The coalition was not created out of a UN sanction, unlike the Korean conflict.

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!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Is this like the US suddenly deciding that the IRA was a liability after turning a blind eye for two decades?

Clearly the world doesn't want the US acting as the cop, putting down all 'bad' people. So it should be no surprise that the US instead picks on those who act against our interests.

[AFJumper03 0]

I never reply to posts like this, and I almost never post on DZ.com at all, but I'm sitting alert and bored, and Dave is on this thread so I though I'd get him riled up :)

One thing I've noticed over the last ten years or so is that the American public is more and more unable to deal with the fact that it is impossible to make everyone happy. The damned if you/damned if you don't issues that arise in every major subject in politics these days are sickening. The rise of the internet and forums like this that give the average citizen a voice to thousands are only making things worse.

Lets dumb it down a little.
The US has traditionally been one of the only nations other than the UK to consistently give money and the lives of its citizens to help other nations in trouble who are our allies. True, alot of the time it is in our best intrests as a nation to help them (money, land, etc.). Lately though, the general public is very quick to attack the government for getting involved in "other people's problems". But, the public is just as quickly to attack when we DON'T help.

Rwanda, Somila, Iraq, Kuwait, Bosina, the list goes on and on. For every horrible place we try to make better, there are 10 we aren't helping.

Honestly I can't wait until people start protesting in the streets in China saying "Why aren't we stop the genocide in sub-saharan Africa?!"

Everyone hates the cops, until they are getting robbed, and then they just complain that they weren't there.

America IS the world's police officer. We adopted the role probably when we stuck our nose in WWI. And thats probably a good thing. Because if we didn't you can bet your ass the French wouldn't. I'm not saying that we are doing the right thing in Iraq or elsewhere.

you know that if we didn't go into Iraq everyone of the self-serving assholes in our government would be the first ones to get in front of TV when another plane flew into a tower or a car bomb went off in NYC and say "See I told you we needed to take a harder stance on terrorism."

Polictians will always back pedal when something goes wrong and pretend that they didn't support it. Thats why they are scum-sucking politicians. There are a few honest, geniune people in our government, but they wont ever get elected to the highest positions. They aren't "firm enough." I love it when politicans admit to mistakes or answer questions like "you know, I really don't know how to solve that problem." rather than bullshit you.

This is officially a ramble on post so I'm going to close it up with this statement.

I'm glad Bush's approval rating is low. It means he made tough decisions and didn't bend to public opinion polls. A president with an 80% approval rating would probably look like one of these morons on American idol.

and I'm not going to go through the spell checker, because I've been awake for 36 hours and its too much work