So There Weren't Any WMD in Iraq? You Progressives Might Want To Read This.

[FaninAma]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?emc=edit_na_20141014&nlid=58569598&_r=1

Is Karl Rove really that big of an idiot? PersonallyI think his true bosses are the insiders that control both the GOP and the Democrats.

[IGotNoTiming]

It is downright deplorable.
We designed the weapons... I don't know where to begin....
Our government rallies our people, sells them the koolaid, and then f***s over the the troops who serve. I shouldn't be suprised , it is no different than what our gov did with Agent Orange...

[SoonerProphet]

Wait, I thought they shipped them all to Syria. Sure hope those neocons and the W. backers get their revisionist Iraqi war history on the same page.

[FaninAma]

Wait, I thought they shipped them all to Syria. Sure hope those neocons and the W. backers get their revisionist Iraqi war history on the same page.
I think Bush and Rove are jackasses and that they misused our military. Bush was a puppet and Rove answers to masters above and outside the level of both political parties.

That being said, I wouldn't consider the NYT as being a part of the GOP apparatus.

[SoonerProphet]

While I agree with the sentiments of all your points, I don't think the article was some kind of vindication for the disastrous reasoning behind invading in the first place.

[FaninAma]

I agree. Every 2-bit dictator in the region had WMDs. It was an excuse to go in and protect the US dollar's role as the world's reserve currency and to head off Iraq's goal of supplanting the House of Saud as the region's dominant political/economic power in the Islamic world.

But I am tired of the Democrats hiding behind this issue pretending they wouldn't have ridden to the rescue of the despots in Riyadh.

[dwarthog]

Wait, I thought they shipped them all to Syria. Sure hope those neocons and the W. backers get their revisionist Iraqi war history on the same page.

Seems the revisionism taking place right now is with this sudden view that it was an "active" wmd program as opposed to having WMD's.

Not that it really means much at this point in time.

[olevetonahill]

Wait, I thought they shipped them all to Syria. Sure hope those neocons and the W. backers get their revisionist Iraqi war history on the same page.


Seems the revisionism taking place right now is with this sudden view that it was an "active" wmd program as opposed to having WMD's.

Not that it really means much at this point in time.

The revisions are the Libs. They refuse to admit that roughly 75% of the US population wanted us to go into Iraq that and All the Big Libs of the Time voted for us to go in .
In hindsight we should have stayed the **** out But lets not kid ourselves we all wanted revenge and we were Piszed off.

[rock on sooner]

The revisions are the Libs. They refuse to admit that roughly 75% of the US population wanted us to go into Iraq that and All the Big Libs of the Time voted for us to go in .
In hindsight we should have stayed the **** out But lets not kid ourselves we all wanted revenge and we were Piszed off.

Welp, Ima left of center, a lib to most of y'all..Yup, I wanted revenge but I was
SCREAMING to stay the he!! out of Iraq and to finish the job in Afghanistan, because
that's where the main perp was, but, nooooo, let's go get Saddam! Stupid then, even
more stupid in hindsight!! In another thread some time back I laid out my reasoning
and put the blame where it belonged....revisionist? Naw, that label don't fit here.....

[olevetonahill]

Welp, Ima left of center, a lib to most of y'all..Yup, I wanted revenge but I was
SCREAMING to stay the he!! out of Iraq and to finish the job in Afghanistan, because
that's where the main perp was, but, nooooo, let's go get Saddam! Stupid then, even
more stupid in hindsight!! In another thread some time back I laid out my reasoning
and put the blame where it belonged....revisionist? Naw, that label don't fit here.....

Thats cause YOU aint Libtard. just a left of center dude who makes sense
I bet there aint 3 er 4 things we totally disagree about.
But we disagree with out being disagreeable LOL

[FaninAma]

If we are going to stay involved in the region we need to find a couple of reliable proxies in the region that will do the heavy lifting against the radicals. The problem with that is it is hard to know which direction they will go in the future. That is why we shouldjust stay out of the region.

[rock on sooner]

If we are going to stay involved in the region we need to find a couple of reliable proxies in the region that will do the heavy lifting against the radicals. The problem with that is it is hard to know which direction they will go in the future. That is why we shouldjust stay out of the region.

Welp, it's been 47 years since I was there. From all the news clips, articles
and general conversations, there is NOTHING that I saw has changed. I have
seen news clips that bring back the smell. Those folks respond to whoever
pays the most or gives them what they want. It is tribal, historically entrenched
and unchanging. It was that way when UBL was in Tora Bora and paid his way
with the warlords and everything points to nothing being different. Don't usually
agree with FaninAma, but he's right....stay out (or create glass..heh, that's just me).

[TAFBSooner]

The revisions are the Libs. They refuse to admit that roughly 75% of the US population wanted us to go into Iraq

True, but mostly because the country was lied to by the Establishment - Republicans, Democrats, media, etc. The NY Times was a big cheerleader for the war (and later apologized, and still later started banging war drums for the next adventure).


that and All the Big Libs of the Time voted for us to go in .

FIFY - Most of the Big Dems voted for us to go in. Lib <> Dem. Hillary voted yes (otherwise this forum woud be Hillaryfest 2012). Ted Kennedy voted no. Only one of these two is/was a Big Lib.
http://tedkennedy.org/ownwords/event/sais_iraq


In hindsight we should have stayed the **** out But lets not kid ourselves we all wanted revenge and we were Piszed off.

This is the biggest thing. Iraq never made any sense as "revenge." Saddam had nothing to do with AQ, and in fact was mortally opposed to them. In fact, he was one of ObL's main targets, being the secular tyrant that he was. Now, they were both Muslim, but if you're going to go seeking revenge on the basis of commonalities, we should also have been attacking Saudi Arabia (ObL's nationality, and source of his Wahabi ideology), or construction billionaires (ObL's prior vocation). On top of that, invading Iraq took resources away from Afghanistan and the hunt for ObL.

We knew that there would be chemical weapons in Iraq, because he had used them on the Kurds (an enemy tribe, not "his own people" except in Western eyes), and mostly because WE HAD FREAKIN' SENT THEM TO HIM! Because "he was a good guy" when he was fighting the Iranians, and we needed us somebody to fight those Iranians in the 1980's (since they were such ingrates for overthrowing our pet dictator the Shah). Then "he was a bad guy" for threatening Saudi Arabia in 1990, etc., etc., etc., and

somebody tell me why we should be intervening in the Middle East when we understand the place so damn well???