20th Anniversary of the Invasion of Iraq

There will be times that people will do bad things, make piss poor decisions, and the company no matter how large goes belly up. SVB and the banking crisis were bound to happen because of the near zero low-interest rates that we got use to and then we had to raise interest rates in order to combat inflation. Covid is the same thing. It is similar to SARS but much, much worse in that you could not tell who had it and who didn't, yet just as contagious as SARS if you had it. For 9/11, the IATA, the international aviation transport association has warned us for years that our airport security pretty much was inadequate. We made the mistake of getting complacent that nothing could touch us because it assumed terrorists were poor, uneducated Muslims who wanted to take power from the rich type of thing. That is why when you learned who these terrorists were, how educated they were, and who they came from, then you knew how serious it was, and mostly because of the extreme Muslim interpretation from Saudi Arabia that fueled AQ and other Muslim terrorist groups. If you ever traveled internationally at that time, as I have, you could see a huge difference, even in Europe and civilized Asia such as Singapore, Japan, and Taiwan.

So, when 9/11 happened, our government reacted, hence why we passed Patriot Act 1 and 2. Not the perfect legislation, but it was also needed, well, most of it at least, to deal with the new threat and still have our rights intact. It is the same with Halloween. Today, kids go to homes that they know or if a neighborhood group has a list of "approved" homes or to Church and "Fall Festival." In the past, we could get home-baked cookies, candied apples, and other homemade goodies instead of candy. And we knew which home gave out the most candy or which home had the best food, or anything similar. Then in the mid-1980s, some yahoo decided to poison the kids with homemade goodies and the reaction was not to get them anymore. Same with the medicine you buy over the counter. Used to be a hell of a lot easier to operate those things in the 1970s. today, they are much toucher. Wonder why? Again some yahoo decided to contaminate the Tylenol that was made in Seattle or somewhere nearby and ship it all over the US. And so is Airport Security. In the 1960s and 70s, there were constant hijackings from some Shiite Muslim groups from Lebanon or someplace else. Usually in Europe or Asia. But we didn't improve our airline security until the infamous flight with a guy named D.B. Cooper. At that point, we began to instill metal detectors at the airports and you had to be inconvenienced a little. You didn't lose your freedom guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, but we were inconvenienced. Then the 9/11 hijackings and we thought they were playing from the same book as the 60s, 70s, and 80s. They didn't. And then we changed again.

And the point is this. Not everything has to be a conspiracy theory. That the government reacts more than is proactive. For your concept and idea, then the government would have to be proactive from every step of the crisis, and it cannot do that. Not because they can't but because the government does more reacting than anything else. And just too many people. The one thing that the government cannot do is keep a secret, period, because eventually it will leak somewhere, somehow.

 

Not IAEA inspections. We did try to inspect places with US military and intelligence, but even then, it was too late. However, the one concept that confused people was the idea of what WMD actually was. It was not necessarily a warhead, it was the research, and even arms Control international said there were still questions remaining in research documents, which they found very little of.

The irony is that most of their biological and chemical weapons came from France that they did have. Russia gave Syria some chemical weapons that were used in Aleppo. That is well documented. Syria got some Iraqi MIG 23s and 21s, among other aircraft, but that is all they got unless they got some of the research too. But the main problem was the IAEA who really had too many Richard Chamberlains there that gave Iraq way too much leeway in the inspection process. Finally, from 1992 to about 1996, it was the world vs Iraq. In 1996, that changed to Iraq and allies in the UN vs US and our constantly changing allies until 2003.

 

~ They still appear on Broadway ...

~ If it does the Capitola Hill cabal takes full advantage of the opportunity to sequester more power ...

 

Interesting column from The New York Times.

Was Iraq a Worse Disaster for America Than Vietnam?

At the 20th anniversary of the Iraq war, we stand in the same position relative to the initial invasion as America stood in 1985 relative to the 1965 arrival of our first combat troops in Vietnam. This makes it a useful moment to compare the two conflicts and their effects, and to consider — provisionally, always provisionally — which was more disastrous, which intervention deserves to be remembered as the worst foreign policy decision in our history.

For some time, even after my own initial support for the war dissolved and its folly became obvious, I doubted that Iraq could outstrip Vietnam in the ranks of American debacles. More than 12 times as many American troops died in the Vietnam War as died in Operation Iraqi Freedom and its aftermath. The bloodletting among Iraqis was terrible, but so was the civilian toll in Southeast Asia. The United States lost the Vietnam War completely; in Iraq we left behind an unsteady and corrupt republic rather than a new dictatorship, with a government that still allows an American military presence.

 

As for the wars themselves, Vietnam was much more destructive to americanism than Iraq.

Iraq was a function of 9/11, which was a false flag; so the comparison should be between the mess that was Vietnam and 9/11.

9/11 spawned The Patriot Act which is an absolute abomination to liberty and the rule of law.

Vietnam was intended to attack America psychologically.

So in final analysis, 9/11 and Vietnam were equally devastating - yet the American people by and large have no idea about either.

 

Thanks for your service.

 

no one supported the invasion but Bush, Congress voted to let the decider decide.... they did that so the decider could keep the war option on the table, not so he could go to war after the investigators found nothing

this was the plan, But iraq let the investigators in, and they concluded there was no WMD, but Bush could not wait, he told the inspectors to get out, he was going to war anyway, even though no WMD found

the inspectors were just a excuse for war, they did not think Iraq would let them in

http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2008/06/un-inspectors-were-right-iraq-was-not.html

"by 2002 the new Bush administration decided on war with Iraq. One of the problems they were faced with was how to justify it. In March 2002 British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s office suggested to the White House that a new round of U.N. inspectors could be the way to provoke a war. England believed that Iraq would refuse inspections and that could not only provide the legal justification for war, but also help build public support."

 

How quickly we forget

Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
-- President Bill Clinton (State of the Union Address), Jan. 27, 1998

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators.""Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
-- Sen. John Edwards (D, NC) Feb. 24, 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." "
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D, MA) Sep. 27, 2002

"Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."
-- State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) Oct. 2, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
-- Senator John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
-- Sen. Harry Reid (D. NV) Oct. 9, 2002


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
-- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
-- Ex President Bill Clinton, Jul. 22, 2003 (Interview with CNN Larry King)

I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening.
-- Rep. Richard Gephardt (D, MT) Nov. 2, 2003

 

See above and then watch this, you can skip to 1:40

Iraq kicked them out and then by force had to let them back in and Blix reported to the UN that Saddam was STILL not cooperating in the inspections and that was confirmed in the ISG findings. They were a joke from the start with Saddam literally having materials snuck out backdoors as they attempt to enter the front. They were like the Keystone Kops running around the country as Saddam played with them. And in the meantime was bribing UN officials and other countries to have the sanctions removed. And then as ISG stated within months he would have restocked his WMD arsenals and restarted his research into even more deadly forms and usages.

They had no problem justifying the support was overwhelming for the exact reasons the Clinton administration had stated as it left office and former officials still maintained. See above.

 

the investigators were allowed in... because Congress left the war option on the table if Iraq did not allow them in

the investigators said no WMD found... Bush told them to leave, he was going to war anyways

most Americans supported going to war if WMD found, when none was found, that should have been the end of it

 

They were kicked out in 1998! And when faced with either a use of military force Saddam let them back in but as Blix reported back to the UN he was STILL not cooperating and fully disclosing. Blix did not say they had completed their inspections by ANY stretch of your imagination. That is when the decision to invade was made. Blix was a joke, we found LOTS that he never even came close to finding. What don't you get here, Saddam was hiding the proscribed materials he needed to reconstitute his chemical and biological weapons stocks from the inspectors. And he was close to getting the sanctions and inspections lifted entirely after bribing UN officials and other countries with his oil money.

 

Osama neither planned nor executed the events of 11 September. Certain parties "on the inside" did that. The government's Global War Of Terror has been a good thing for the country.

 

Wait, you are saying that 9/11 was an inside job? Sorry I'm not taking that seriously. If there is one thing that should be clear after the past twenty years is that the government would never be able to pull that off.

 

I think it was a war Israel wanted:

“Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us?” Zelikow asked an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. In a rare moment of candour, Zelikow proceeded to explain that the real reason for preemptive war against Iraq was “the threat against Israel.”

https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/228689/Pentagon-author-exposes-Zelikow-s-key-role-in-9-11-cover-up

 

they were kicked out by Bush the day he declared war - right after the investigators that were allowed in gave their update that they found no WMD

we know now there was no WMD, not sure what your talking about

not sure how old you are, but many of us are old enough to remember what happened, too early to try and rewrite history

 

They were kicked out in 1998 by Saddam who in his last chance 4 years later still refused to cooperate as he continued his plans to get the sanctions lifted and restarting his WMD production and research. We know there were cache's of the hidden WMD that had somewhat degraded although still deadly along with his hidden cache's of proscribed precursor materials why do you keep ignoring that? Any ready to go WMD were the least of the worries. It is you whom I doubt is old enough to remember what were the circumstances or the results of our ISG inspections.

 

Like the Kennedy Assassination, the official narrative is hokum.

Once one can admit that - start pulling on a thread. Building 7 collapse is what started me looking - scientifically impossible.

That is just one of many miracles and scientific impossibilities that had to have happened for the official narrative to be true.

Predictably, they've scrubbed the internet of most of the evidence, so it's impossible for the weekend warrior to sort it out.

9/11 Pearl Harbor is still a good watch though. At least it asks questions - which serfs are never supposed to do.

 

OK this thread is about Iraq. There is already a whole section for conspiracy theories about 9/11, JFK, flat earth, the moon landing or whatever.

 

No need to be snarky mike... you and I agree on most things, so we can leave it at that.

That said, I know it's a tough pill to swallow, especially for people who served. My time in the military is what started me down the path to not believing much of anything my government said.

The U.S. Government is beyond corrupt. Decisions are never made in the best interests of the people or the country.

Trump is not part of the good ol' boy corruption club, which is why they are trying so hard to eliminate him.

Iraq, 9/11, Vietnam, Korea, et al, they're all tied together.

 

Bush up the ante by calling for direct regime change, linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11 terrorist attacks, and had, without a doubt, weapons of mass destruction, aka the bomb so to speak.. None of the statements you cited called for that. In fact, they are in reference to the UNSC resolutions, all of them, which have been passed to comply with said UNSC resolutions.

 

Well as a fellow military veteran I'm surprised that you are not more skeptical of the idea that the government could pull of such multipoint plans competently involving thousands of people and keep it all secret.

 

You'd be amazed at what they get away with.

Dig into Operation Gladio... decades long, thousands of innocent people killed. Oktoberfest bombing, Belgium train bombing, the Ag bank bombing in Italy, and dozens of others.

The BBC did a decent documentary about 40 years ago, it was ultimately proven in court in the Vincent Vincguerra case, and the EU issued an official condemnation of Gladio; yet, people still never heard of it, or believe wikipedia that says it was an innocent "stay behind operation", or believe it all a fabrication made up by conspiracy nuts, etc.

The EU condemnation, and the evidence exposed in the Vincguerra trial were still only the tip of a very large iceberg. Several "terrorists" were found hanged in their cells before they could stand trial - suicides, like Jeffrey Epstein

This a pretty good documentary... shorter than the BBC program.

 

Bush never claimed Saddam was tied to the 9/11 terrorist so stop with that canard. Bush didn't up anything he continued to recognize the threat Saddam posed and was growing just like the Clinton administration did. All those statements hinge on WMD you obviously did not read them. Try again and this time try to acutally refute them. Saddam was in gross violation of the UNSC resolutions and sanctions and had been given his last, this is it, we really mean it this time chance. But as the Clinton administration clearly expressed that was all folly. He was NEVER going to comply and would ALWAYS be a thread, including a WMD threat, to his own people, the region and the world.

What was your alternative than to use military force to remove him and his sons and his regiem?

 

Much can be accomplished from the inside by way of training exercises. That week several were running under the banner of Vigilant Guardian. That's the easiest way to get innocent folks involved in an innocent manner.

First query that morning from FAA controllers to NORAD, "is this real life or training exercise?" That's paraphrased.

 

Bush publicly blamed Saddam Hussein or Iraq for the events of 9/11 in several speeches provided in the link below. Others include Rumsfeld, Cheney, and other Bush Administration officials, and so forth. This was not a Democrat-only issue Blues. The GOP was in this to the fullest. Democrats you mentioned again were using the UNSC resolutions on Saddam Hussein and were trying to use the UN to go after Saddam, not the US.

I never believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11, and we have the 9/12 truthers and a whole bunch of other groups trying to rewrite the timeline and who was responsible for 9/11, the beginning of the Tea Martive movement, and the alternate reality politics. The good news is that most people ignored that garbage, even if it was on 60 minutes or other programs. However, the UNSC sanctions were being challenged, mostly by Germany France, Iraq, and Russia. China was on the fence at that time. Blix wanted to continue the inspections but was willing to give way too much leeway to Iraq in order for the inspections to be effective. We had two choices, acquiesce or invade. What we should have done is call out Germany and France for supporting Saddam Hussein and violating the sanctions. But we didn't do that for fear that NATO may be dissolved, mostly by France.

My argument is we should have invaded for the right reasons because Saddam was ignoring international law, we should have invaded to complete the IAEA inspections, not use 9/11 or terrorism as an excuse. That is a much tougher sell to the public, but it could have been done if GWB and the GOP were patient enough. Again, you are thinking linear here Blues. What gets Bush in trouble is that he did use terrorism, namely 9/11, and he had WMD, specifically inferring that Saddam was a direct threat to the security interests of the USA, aka, he will launch the bomb at us to start WW3, which was the talk in a lot of extreme hard right circles, that Saddam was the anti-Christ. One particular pastor named John Hagee made that in one of his sermons in 2002, along with some other televangelists that made the claim.

https://sgadaria.expressions.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Iraq-article_Gershkoff_Kushner.pdf

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2021/09/17/9-11-and-iraq-the-making-of-a-tragedy/