ADVERTISEMENT

20 Years Later

Probably not, not without bombing the hell out of them.

ETA: And that wasn't Iraq. They were a decently "modern" population.
A big part of the Marshall Plan was simply feeding a starving population. I have German friends who remembered their childhood as constantly being hungry. When the US started supplying food, they were very grateful.

The Japanese expected mass slaughter after being conquered - it's what they would have done. They were so grateful to the US, they practically worshiped Macarthur as much as the Emperor.

In both cases, the the US was magnanimous in victory. They were also in Iraq and Afghanistan, but those goat-****ers took it as a sign of weakness, since they weren't utterly defeated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crayfish57
The Japanese expected mass slaughter after being conquered - it's what they would have done. They were so grateful to the US, they practically worshiped Macarthur as much as the Emperor.

As a general I have major qualms about Mac, but his leadership in Japan was outstanding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_6hv78pr714xta
I've often wondered how our intelligent agencies could have been so wrong. Clinton repeatedly referred to Iraq's WMDs and then Bush comes along and keeps repeating the same things.
Disinformation propagated by Saddam himself. He had come off a war with Iran and wanted to convince them - and the US - that he had WMDs. He moved facilities around and acted for all the world like he had them.

He never expected the US to invade, after we failed to take him out in the GW1. Again, he took that as a sign of our weakness, not realizing we were being magnanimous in victory.
 
Disinformation propagated by Saddam himself. He had come off a war with Iran and wanted to convince them - and the US - that he had WMDs. He moved facilities around and acted for all the world like he had them.

He never expected the US to invade, after we failed to take him out in the GW1. Again, he took that as a sign of our weakness, not realizing we were being magnanimous in victory.
Didn't he use chemical weapons against Iran? Seems like I read that somewhere... but it's possible that I dreamed that. :) :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Didn't he use chemical weapons against Iran? Seems like I read that somewhere... but it's possible that I dreamed that. :) :)

No one disputed he had used chemicals in the past. But the drumbeat was he had them in his current arsenal and was prepared to use them (along with -- hint hint -- maybe some super top secret nukes).
 
they lied their asses off.

off the charts dishonesty and idiocracy rule this board and the GOP.

and neither liars nor idiots can ever be reasoned or debated with.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Crayfish57
No one disputed he had used chemicals in the past. But the drumbeat was he had them in his current arsenal and was prepared to use them (along with -- hint hint -- maybe some super top secret nukes).
I'm still not convinced that he didn't have some chemical and maybe biological weapons that he sneaked into Syria. I know I read articles (if you could believe any of them is another matter) that said he was doing that. I don't think they believe he had nuclear weapons but was working on trying to get one. Even Iran doesn't have one yet, so they say, and they've been working for years on getting them. I think he wanted all the countries around him to think he had them so he could intimidate them. Clinton thought he had WMDs and so did a lot in congress and in the end I agreed more with Clinton's policies toward Iraq than I did with Bush's policies. I think it was you that said that some of those people hate each other so there's never gonna be peace in that area.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crayfish57
So you’re just here to shout?
I’ve been unable to discern his purpose for posting. Unless he truly is as stupid as his posting style, he knows that no one on either side or the middle thinks he’s a serious poster. He rarely gets a reaction or a serious reply as a result.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NPT and mcmurtry66
(along with -- hint hint -- maybe some super top secret nukes).
This was the most glaring bit. It's all well and good to say Saddam might have had chemical weapons and then label those as WMD (which, I'm guessing, quite a few nations have). But to then also argue he was hellbent on, and close to, putting together a nuclear weapons program and lumping that together with the chemical weapons as WMD was wrong.
 
This was the most glaring bit. It's all well and good to say Saddam might have had chemical weapons and then label those as WMD (which, I'm guessing, quite a few nations have). But to then also argue he was hellbent on, and close to, putting together a nuclear weapons program and lumping that together with the chemical weapons as WMD was wrong.

Suddam lost a dangerous game. He needed Iran to believe he had WMDs and could use them. His military would struggle mightily against Iran as it did in their war and he used WMDs.

At the same point, he needed us to believe there were no WMDs.

I suspect some of our intel that he had WMD came from misinformation designed for Iranian consumption. That was an impossibly narrow needle he tried to thread.

I think we had people in power that hated Saddam and were eager to believe the worst. He provided them with the worst even if it didn't exist.
 
Suddam lost a dangerous game. He needed Iran to believe he had WMDs and could use them. His military would struggle mightily against Iran as it did in their war and he used WMDs.

At the same point, he needed us to believe there were no WMDs.

I suspect some of our intel that he had WMD came from misinformation designed for Iranian consumption. That was an impossibly narrow needle he tried to thread.

I think we had people in power that hated Saddam and were eager to believe the worst. He provided them with the worst even if it didn't exist.
That is a good summary... agree 100%.
 
This was the most glaring bit. It's all well and good to say Saddam might have had chemical weapons and then label those as WMD (which, I'm guessing, quite a few nations have). But to then also argue he was hellbent on, and close to, putting together a nuclear weapons program and lumping that together with the chemical weapons as WMD was wrong.
They knew they had to play the nuke card to get the public buy in they needed.
 
They knew they had to play the nuke card to get the public buy in they needed.
Yeah, I can remember yelling at the TV screen any time that came up at the time and my wife getting mad at me.

The neocon, democracy-spreading rationale was the one I think could have generated majority support. But to follow through on that would have required a real, decades-long (century’s long?) commitment to nations building. America might not have supported that, although there was a real zeal for nationalism and sacrifice after 9/11.

Of course, as we saw in Afghanistan, that kind of nation/culture building most likely would have failed. I remember some Middle East analysts at the time saying such a project had a better chance of succeeding in Iran due to its more urbane and educated population that was still there after their revolution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TommyCracker
Yeah, I can remember yelling at the TV screen any time that came up at the time and my wife getting mad at me.
Shit, you oughta see my wife if Joy Reid comes on the screen. She'll glare at me and may physically attack me to get the remote to change teh channel such is her hatred. I, of course, hide the remote.
 
The neocon, democracy-spreading rationale was the one I think could have generated majority support. But to follow through on that would have required a real, decades-long (century’s long?) commitment to nations building. America might not have supported that, although there was a real zeal for nationalism and sacrifice after 9/11.
We had our shot. It's gone.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: anon_6hv78pr714xta
Shit, you oughta see my wife if Joy Reid comes on the screen. She'll glare at me and may physically attack me to get the remote to change teh channel such is her hatred. I, of course, hide the remote.
I think your wife and I would get along.
 
Suddam lost a dangerous game. He needed Iran to believe he had WMDs and could use them. His military would struggle mightily against Iran as it did in their war and he used WMDs.

At the same point, he needed us to believe there were no WMDs.

I suspect some of our intel that he had WMD came from misinformation designed for Iranian consumption. That was an impossibly narrow needle he tried to thread.

I think we had people in power that hated Saddam and were eager to believe the worst. He provided them with the worst even if it didn't exist.
His own Generals thought they had them and they’d be delivered for their use during our invasion.
 
the govt lied their asses off regarding Nam.

they lied their asses off regarding Iraq.

some people just never figure it out, no matter how blatantly obvious it is..

others have as big a problem with truth as our govt has over the yrs.
 
This was the most glaring bit. It's all well and good to say Saddam might have had chemical weapons and then label those as WMD (which, I'm guessing, quite a few nations have). But to then also argue he was hellbent on, and close to, putting together a nuclear weapons program and lumping that together with the chemical weapons as WMD was wrong.
Did you see the effect of Covid by the Chinese?
 
I was for it, heck, even Rock was for it. We were all wrong. I trusted Colin Powell and Tony Blair.

Some of that is unfair in that I am not sure how reliable our Intel was. Did they know how reliant Intel was on Curveball? They should have been but maybe not.

Ukraine is different to an extent, it isn't American blood. And it isn't hard to imagine an invigorated Russia teamed with China as a serious threat.
Iraq and Ukraine are two totally different things. One was a misjudged foray into a sectarian Balkanized country based off shoddy intelligence and post 9/11 paranoia.

The other is helping defend a friendly country against a country which has been our enemy since before some people’s grandparents were born. We are upholding our end of the Budapest memorandum by providing aid and intelligence assistance to Ukraine because we stand with our friends (and we shouldn’t shy away from helping them decimate Russia’s military either)

The what aboutisms about Iraq absolutely do not apply to Ukraine
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT