US invasion of Iraq based on false report of Al-Qaeda's ties with Saddam

[Morch]

Four pages of US bashing over Iraq.

What about Tony Blair and the British Parliament? Don't the Brits have their own intelligence?

The Brits provided 1/3 of the troops for the invasion of Iraq.

Some conspiracy nutters keep saying it was about oil. The US didn't take any of Iraq's oil. Neither did anyone else. It did stop Hussein from taking Kuwait's oil.

22 countries participated in the war in Iraq. Now they like to hide their heads in their butts and act like it was only the US. Hypocrites.

Someone said it was because Saddam had said he would take only Euros for oil. The US can get Euros. The US never needed oil from Iraq. It's main suppliers were Mexico, Canada and Saudi and itself.

Some hate so much they will ignore facts and go on and on for pages when in fact their own countries were in that war all the way.

It's dumbfounding and those poster make themselves look like idiots.

" 22 countries participated in the war in Iraq. Now they like to hide their heads in their butts and act like it was only the US. Hypocrites."

Hey Neversure it's America that is the hypocrite if it won't shoulder most of the blame. At least the activities of other participating countries will now be scrutinised by an international criminal court, whereas your country won't? more Brit s will face the British judicial system and suffer the consequences of their actions than any one in America

Iraq torture claims: New allegations against British soldiers to go to International Criminal Court

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraq-torture-claims-new-allegations-against-british-soldiers-to-go-to-international-criminal-court-9923409.html

No, they will suffer the consequences of British leadership going along with the USA and British leadership signing up treaties which make its people subject to certain rules.

[Chicog]

For all you whingers...that say Bush is a criminal, and America screwed up...

Let the next homeland attack be on your country...in your airplanes, and against your buildings.

a few thousand cry at your ignorance...in their graves.

hope you remain ignorant.

We already had it, remember? London 7/7, Madrid Bombings.

None of which were prevented by Bush's money-making ventures into Iraq and Afghanistan.

I mourn the 3000+ that died on 9/11, but perhaps punishing the Saudi Arabians that fund Al Qaeda would have been a better bet.

Oh yes, but that might have upset "Bandar Bush" and the family, right?

You talk about the ignorance of others?

Bless.

[Chicog]

Dude? Not what I said. I acknowledged Iraq was a guilt by association or "loosely suspected" to be affiliated with or a viewed as threat. Iraq fit that definition.

The definition was horse poo.

Iraq was absolutely no threat to any of its neighbours or the US.

It was all lies.

Having said that, I suspect the Arab spring would have had a good chance of kicking off what's happening now, if Iraq had been left to its own devices (excuse the pun, they didn't exist!).

[impulse]

I always wondered why America attacked Iraq after 9/11. 19 of the 21 hijackers were from

Saudi Arabia, so logically America should have attacked them in retaliation. Oh wait guess

that would have slowed down oil to America....

Simpler than that, really. Dubya went in to pay back an attempt on his Daddie's life. It's a Texas face thing.

Cheney had tons of Halliburton stock in a "blind trust". I wonder how he made out on that deal (blind trust- nod, nod, wink wink)?

To be fair, only a small portion of America's oil comes from the Middle East. And a small portion of the oil from the Middle East goes to the USA. The USA does have an interest in keeping the world economy going by insuring that there is enough oil available and sea lanes open to power the economic engines. But it's just the corporations that have the interest in where it's coming from and who gets the drilling and service work.

Frankly, I'd just as soon China, Japan, India and Europe pay to keep their own sea lanes open and safe from pirates (otherwise, tankers cannot get insurance and economies grind to a halt).

Or maybe just send them a bill for having the US Navy doing it. Take it off the $$ trillions we owe them...

[BKKBobby]

I just read the headline. I dont give the text a second. The INVASION of Iraq was bullshit. It might not be about oil but it was about politics and might have been about geopolitics. Stupid Bush just did what he wanted least. He gave Iran more power and now its officially the main player in the region. There was no valid reasons for an invasion. We knew this since the first US soldiers went on Iraqi soil, haha. You should not ask a american if it was worth it! Ask random Iraqis if millions dead and more millions displaced or becoming refugees were worth it to get rid of Saddam Hussein!

[Ulysses G.]

Iraq was absolutely no threat to any of its neighbours or the US.

Tell Iran and Kuwait that, just for starters. More nonsense.

[chuckd]

I always wondered why America attacked Iraq after 9/11. 19 of the 21 hijackers were from

Saudi Arabia, so logically America should have attacked them in retaliation. Oh wait guess

that would have slowed down oil to America....

Simpler than that, really. Dubya went in to pay back an attempt on his Daddie's life. It's a Texas face thing.

Cheney had tons of Halliburton stock in a "blind trust". I wonder how he made out on that deal (blind trust- nod, nod, wink wink)?

To be fair, only a small portion of America's oil comes from the Middle East. And a small portion of the oil from the Middle East goes to the USA. The USA does have an interest in keeping the world economy going by insuring that there is enough oil available and sea lanes open to power the economic engines. But it's just the corporations that have the interest in where it's coming from and who gets the drilling and service work.

Frankly, I'd just as soon China, Japan, India and Europe pay to keep their own sea lanes open and safe from pirates (otherwise, tankers cannot get insurance and economies grind to a halt).

Or maybe just send them a bill for having the US Navy doing it. Take it off the $$ trillions we owe them...

"Cheney had tons of Halliburton stock in a "blind trust". I wonder how he made out on that deal (blind trust- nod, nod, wink wink)?"

This might help satisfy your curiosity about Cheney's Halliburton stock. It would seem George Washington University made out rather well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<from the article>

Cheney cashed in his remaining stock options gradually, starting with selling 100,000 Halliburton shares in May 2000, for an immediate profit of $3m. In 2005, Cheney exercised most of what remained of his Halliburton stock options for a $6.9m profit, all of which he donated to charity. (Most of it was donated to the Richard B Cheney Cardiac Institute at George Washington University.)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/08/dick-cheney-halliburton-supreme-court

[impulse]

So he dumped the last of his options after the invasion (with $$$ billions of no-bid contracts going to Halliburton), then thought the better of keeping the proceeds and donated them to a charity that treats the very health problem that plagues him.

I count 2 issues there.

[Ulysses G.]

Who cares what charity he donated the money to? The Cheney/Bush/Republican haters get carried away with dishonest spin and petty nitpicking.

[impulse]

That's kind of like calling the kettle black, given the I Hate Obama tirades so prevalent here...

[Ulysses G.]

So, your defense is that it is OK to post nonsense because some other people do.

[Chicog]

Iraq was absolutely no threat to any of its neighbours or the US.

Tell Iran and Kuwait that, just for starters. More nonsense.

Do try and keep up. My comment was in response to someone claiming that Iraq was a suspect and/or threat post 9/11.

After GW1 had finished, the only people he was a threat to were Marsh Arabs and revolting Shi'a.

[impulse]

So, your defense is that it is OK to post nonsense because some other people do.

No. I'm saying that educated people often have diametrically opposed opinions on complex subjects, and it doesn't necessarily make either one of them an idiot. Or a hater. Or a liberal surrender monkey. Or a war mongering hawk.

[up-country_sinclair]

That's kind of like calling the kettle black, given the I Hate Obama tirades so prevalent here...

You're spot on, and it's quite dumbfounding, really.

The anti-everything Obama cabal that populates the World News section is really quite ridiculous. Just like the anti-everything Bush crowd was 10 years ago.

The normal, rational people who populate the middle need to tune out these hyper-partisans whose primary focus is denigrating the President and his political party. They're not interested in cooperation or collaboration, it's all or nothing with them.

And the sad thing is that they actually consider themselves informed on the issues (and they'll repeatedly tell you how informed they are), but all they're really doing is regurgitating the biased opinion pieces they came across because they were suckered by clickbait. They're worse than being uninformed, they're misinformed.

[up-country_sinclair]

So, your defense is that it is OK to post nonsense because some other people do.

No. I'm saying that educated people often have diametrically opposed opinions on complex subjects, and it doesn't necessarily make either one of them an idiot. Or a hater. Or a liberal surrender monkey. Or a war mongering hawk.

Yes, Yes, Yes!

Thank you.

But regrettably your common sense post is going to largely fall on deaf ears (or is it blind eyes?).

[LuckyLew]

How do people get off blaming the US or "Bush" for something they were up to their eyeballs in too?

Hypocrites.

what b*******t

22 countries provided troops for the war in Iraq and I'll bet yours was one of them. Even Thailand provided troops.

Your comment stands (for you) if your country wasn't one of them, but for others blaming all on the US, they are full of bullshit.

USA gets blamed because they were the leader of the pack

"You are either with us or against us"

[Ulysses G.]

Iraq was absolutely no threat to any of its neighbours or the US.

Tell Iran and Kuwait that, just for starters. More nonsense.

Do try and keep up. My comment was in response to someone claiming that Iraq was a suspect and/or threat post 9/11.

Hindsight is always 20/20. The National Intelligence Estimate of 2002 contended with high confidence that "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs" contrary to UN resolutions. The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and France all agreed with this assertion. Iraq WAS perceived as a threat at the time.

[camble]

Iraq was invaded for business reasons.

[Chicog]

Iraq was absolutely no threat to any of its neighbours or the US.

Tell Iran and Kuwait that, just for starters. More nonsense.

Do try and keep up. My comment was in response to someone claiming that Iraq was a suspect and/or threat post 9/11.

Hindsight is always 20/20. The National Intelligence Estimate of 2002 contended with high confidence that "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs" contrary to UN resolutions. The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and France all agreed with this assertion. Iraq WAS perceived as a threat at the time.

Yes, and we know now that it was all rubbish.

I should add that plenty of people knew then it was rubbish too.

[Ulysses G.]

We also know that if Saddam Hussein had let the United Nations weapons do their jobs, there would have been no invasion. Iraq secretly maintained the intellectual and physical capacity to produce WMDs and intended to restart production once sanctions were lifted, so it is not like they were no threat at all.

[Traveler19491]

What is conveniently overlooked in all this flowery rhetoric is that the Bush-Cheney administration could not have taken the action they did without the broad approval of the Democratic Senate and House of Representatives.

At the time the vote was taken in 2002, there were only 49 Republican members of the Senate. Without at least one vote from either a Democrat or an Independent, the Iraq war Resolution would not have passed and the Iraq war would never have occurred.

A total of 29 Democrats voted for the resolution, and they were: (from link provided below)

Sens. Lincoln (D-AR), Feinstein (D-CA), Dodd (D-CT), Lieberman (D-CT), Biden (D-DE), Carper (D-DE), Nelson (D-FL), Cleland (D-GA), Miller (D-GA), Bayh (D-IN), Harkin (D-IA), Breaux (D-LA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Kerry (D-MA), Carnahan (D-MO), Baucus (D-MT), Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Torricelli (D-NJ), Clinton (D-NY), Schumer (D-NY), Edwards (D-NC), Dorgan (D-ND), Hollings (D-SC), Daschle (D-SD), Johnson (D-SD), Cantwell (D-WA), Rockefeller (D-WV), and Kohl (D-WI).

Notice any prominent names on that list?

The Congressional members were fully briefed by the intelligence community prior to their votes. They didn't go into this blindly.

Sen. Levin voted against the resolution and now it is his "gotcha" moment and perhaps a little payback for his own Amendment to the Iraq War Resolution being defeated by a Senate vote of 75-24. He wanted the action to be approved by the UN.

This is all the dying swan song of the Reid controlled Senate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Bravo, you got your facts straight about the 29 Democrats who voted for the resolution. Just one problem...what did they base their decision on? The only information available to them was the information conveniently provided by the Bush administration's intelligence community. Information manufactured to provide exactly the scenario that the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld troika wanted them to have. So, faulty decisions based on faulty information.

[up-country_sinclair]

We also know that if Saddam Hussein had let the United Nations weapons do their jobs, there would have been no invasion. Iraq secretly maintained the intellectual and physical capacity to produce WMDs and intended to restart production once sanctions were lifted, so it is not like they were no threat at all.

What?

You've made countless posts stating in no uncertain terms that the UN cannot be trusted. And now you're posting that they should be allowed to do their jobs?

It's no wonder that so many posters openly question your credibility. Not only do you frequently post counter-factual information, but you also sneak this sort of BS into your posts.

Simply put, you can't have it both ways.

[Ulysses G.]

Find me one post where I questioned the UN Weapons Inspectors or posted counter-factual information. My complaints have been about the hypocrites in the - so-called - UN "Human Rights" Council and I have provided plenty of evidence of their hypocrisy. Your constant distortions of the truth and foolish spin really gets boring.

[Soutpeel]

Iraq was invaded for business reasons.

So was Afghanistan, Unocal, pipelines and first post invasion president in Afghanistan just happened to be an advisor to Unocal prior to being "elected"

[Asiantravel]

We also know that if Saddam Hussein had let the United Nations weapons do their jobs, there would have been no invasion. Iraq secretly maintained the intellectual and physical capacity to produce WMDs and intended to restart production once sanctions were lifted, so it is not like they were no threat at all.

What?

You've made countless posts stating in no uncertain terms that the UN cannot be trusted. And now you're posting that they should be allowed to do their jobs?

It's no wonder that so many posters openly question your credibility. Not only do you frequently post counter-factual information, but you also sneak this sort of BS into your posts.

Simply put, you can't have it both ways.

" It's no wonder that so many posters openly question your credibility "

touché

[Chicog]

We also know that if Saddam Hussein had let the United Nations weapons do their jobs, there would have been no invasion. Iraq secretly maintained the intellectual and physical capacity to produce WMDs and intended to restart production once sanctions were lifted, so it is not like they were no threat at all.

And we also all know that the "Coalition" had complete control over Iraqi airspace and could have hit anything with a few (cheap) surgical strikes.

But there was nothing to bomb and no money to be made.

The "evidence" used to justify this invasion was concocted bovine manure.

I can't believe you are defending this rubbish.

What next, Nixon was innocent?

[Ulysses G.]

So The Intelligence agencies of the USA Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and France were all lying?

I don't think that Iraq should have been attacked, but that does not mean that there were not plenty of reasons to do so.

[NeverSure]

Four pages of US bashing over Iraq.

What about Tony Blair and the British Parliament? Don't the Brits have their own intelligence?

The Brits provided 1/3 of the troops for the invasion of Iraq.

Some conspiracy nutters keep saying it was about oil. The US didn't take any of Iraq's oil. Neither did anyone else. It did stop Hussein from taking Kuwait's oil.

22 countries participated in the war in Iraq. Now they like to hide their heads in their butts and act like it was only the US. Hypocrites.

Someone said it was because Saddam had said he would take only Euros for oil. The US can get Euros. The US never needed oil from Iraq. It's main suppliers were Mexico, Canada and Saudi and itself.

Some hate so much they will ignore facts and go on and on for pages when in fact their own countries were in that war all the way.

It's dumbfounding and those poster make themselves look like idiots.

" 22 countries participated in the war in Iraq. Now they like to hide their heads in their butts and act like it was only the US. Hypocrites."

Hey Neversure it's America that is the hypocrite if it won't shoulder most of the blame. At least the activities of other participating countries will now be scrutinised by an international criminal court, whereas your country won't? more Brit s will face the British judicial system and suffer the consequences of their actions than any one in America

Iraq torture claims: New allegations against British soldiers to go to International Criminal Court

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraq-torture-claims-new-allegations-against-british-soldiers-to-go-to-international-criminal-court-9923409.html

Oh, but I thought it was the US that was guilty of war crimes and here we have the UK up to its eyeballs in it. Have any Brits on here been moaning about how badly the US treats prisoners? Hypocrites?

To answer your question, if the UK is such a puzzy that it will let a conglomeration of other countries rule it (oh I forget, yes it does starting with the EU and the UN) then that's tough for its people. The tendency of the UK to join groups that rule it will be its downfall. It is being overrun by nasty immigrants who are dangerous and who suck up public benefits. It is being outbred by those people. Now it will let an international group put the hurts to its citizens.

There used to be a UK. It's all gone. All that's left of the UK are the feathers.

[Chicog]

So The Intelligence agencies of the USA Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and France were all lying?

Pretty well, yes. Or as the British did, they "sexed up" intelligence material to make it look more significant than it actually was.

I'd go as far as saying that they all knew the war was needless. But money talks.

Apart from Israel, the others all made good money out of it (although the USA may have paid them off like they did in GW1). Israel had the added bonus of neutering one of their political enemies, although I'm fairly certain that in retrospect they probably wish they hadn't.

A TRILLION dollars or more down the pan, much of it paid to Cheney and Bush's friends and a whole lot more unaccounted for.

More than 4,000 US servicemen killed.

Amazing that you still defend what this traitor did to the people who served him.

[boomerangutang]

I think people as a species developed technology too soon, in relation to the development of their minds. Take forests for example. The ax and handsaw were in development for hundreds of years. Many forests were clear cut just with axes and saws (Ceders of Lebanon, about 1,000 years ago). Then chainsaws came along, about 60 years ago, and forest destruction hastened dramatically. It's only in the past few decades that a minority of people have realized that we should try to preserve forests, not destroy them. Yet preserving forests is far down peoples' list of priorities, ....far behind economics, pleasure, health, family, religion, politics, i-phones, pensions, etc.

With warfare, it's similar. There have been man-killing tools since the first stones and sticks was picked up and used. Now we have atomic bombs. But how far has Man's consciousness developed in the past quarter million years? Not much. People are still quick to anger, to blame, fixated upon revenge, property/people control, losing face, and all sorts of other primitive emotions. You can teach an ape to push a button which launches an ICBM, but that doesn't make the ape any more decent of an individual. No offense to apes.

It would have been far better if Mankind's wisdom had developed faster, and technology had developed much slower. Then perhaps our species would not be wiping out the last bits of forests (and destroying seas), and continuing to get angry/offended at the drop of a hat, and go looking for the closest weapon to blow the head off the person who angered her/him.