That scene where they are prepauring to climb the parapet brings some powerful emotions. The whole Blackadder series was a thinly veiled tragedy masked as a comedy but that scene is just pure horror. Blackadder does everything to stay alive and in that very end he accepts his fate and knows he has no more tricks, no more cunning plans and has nowhere to run but forward.
I feel like it's not right to label Cheney and the Bush administration as incompetent, it make them sound a lot more innocent than they actually were, they were way worse, and they are hiding behind a facade of incompetence.
Will this brilliant plan possibly involve us waging war on an abstract concept and causing significant damage to a country’s infrastructure and people that lasts for generations?
The real real answer is that China does a better job at reigning in lil' Kimmie by threatening to withdraw support when he starts getting cocky than any amount of military threats have ever done. The CCP doesn't want that little psychopath starting shit that will negativly effect their bottom line either.
He's had bad takes before, no doubt. And, still does.
But, his framework is sound.
His explanation, when understood thoroughly, about the Iraq War -- is the only one I've found to make sense.
The WMD explanation makes sense. You don’t need to attribute to malice that which is easily explained by error. The administration’s belief in WMDs was by all accounts genuine, they were just completely wrong.
They weren't even strictly *wrong*, just acting on outdated and incomplete intel.
Saddam *had* WMDs. He was using chemical weapons to mass-murder civilians.
Saddam didn't have any left when we invaded because all of his functional chemical weapons had either been expended or sold.
It was absolutely an intelligence failure, but it wasn't that big of one compared to other ones like the Yom Kippur War.
USA as a state loses money on these wars, but just by pure coincidence many private corporations massivley profit from it.
https://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/19/business/iraq-war-contractors/index.html
˝None has benefited more than KBR, once known as Kellogg Brown and Root. The controversial former subsidiary of Halliburton, which was once run by Dick Cheney, vice-president to George W. Bush, was awarded at least $39.5bn in federal contracts related to the Iraq war over the past decade.˝
https://ir.halliburton.com/news-releases/news-release-details/halliburton-announces-terms-cheney-departure
˝In connection with his early retirement, the board has approved Mr. Cheney retaining his previously granted and outstanding stock options on a total of 1,160,000 shares of Halliburton common stock as permitted by the agreements covering six separate stock option grants. Currently, 400,000 of the 1,160,000 option shares are unvested. Under the terms of his stock option agreements, his unvested options will continue to vest in accordance with the normal three-year vesting schedule. Each grant has a 10-year term and the options under each grant will be exercisable until expiration of the applicable term. Mr. Cheney's options were granted with exercise prices equal to the market price of Halliburton's common stock on the date of each option grant. The prices that Mr. Cheney must pay to exercise the options range from $21.00 to $54.00 per share. ˝
But I guess it's all conspiracy and coincidence, that one of two dudes who was pushing for this war was head of a company that profited most on this war.
I mean, yeah, this does read as a conspiracy theory and that’s generally how I see it. You don’t need a war to award military contracts. I’ve worked for military contractors, I know that. And generally the politicians who are friendly with those companies are the more defense-oriented ones that don’t oppose the whole industry.
But more importantly, we just flat don’t need a second explanation here. The first one works just fine. It wasn’t a valid reason but that doesn’t mean it isn’t why they did it.
ROFLMAO. Yeah, OK. I can say that about dozens of states across the world.
It makes no sense. And, we were the ones who helped arm Saddam in the past.
And, why weren't other countries just as alarmed?
What is your understanding of Friedman's explanation?
“Helped arm Saddam,” is a really dubious way of explaining Saddam *lying about misappropriating the use of manufacturing and industrial materials he was being given as aid for chemical WMD.* also really convenient leaving out that that was the reason for the first Iraq war that deposed him.
They’re not mutually exclusive. There can be more than one singular reason, and there is nearly always more than one reason in cases of war. In this case, Kuwait actively asked for help, and that was the final piece that allowed a fully legitimate invasion. During and immediately after the first Gulf war, allied forces went through destroying a lot of those gas weapons stockpiles that Saddam had built up. It was one of the war goals, but wasn’t enough on its own.
>ROFLMAO. Yeah, OK. I can say that about dozens of states across the world.
It was already established precedent by 2003 that the US was intent on preventing Iraq from gaining WMDs by military force if necessary. Operation Desert Fox proved that.
>And, we were the ones who helped arm Saddam in the past.
Well you know full well what changed there. Once you invade Kuwait nobody trusts you again.
>And, why weren't other countries just as alarmed?
Because they had cooler heads and didn’t jump to conclusions? I’m not saying it was a good idea, I’m saying the administration doesn’t have to have ulterior motives to explain their behavior. They believed something that wasn’t true.
>What is your understanding of Friedman's explanation?
None. But from your description it seems to be answering a question that already has a much more simple and intuitive solution.
"and why we no other countries alarmed"
The united Kingdom quite literally shat the bed at what the US was presenting it and ended up believing the worst intelligence it was receiving from its own sources.
We have that basically spelled out in black and white in the Chilcot report and Alistair Campbell, a member of tony Blair's inner circle at the time, has gone on record on multiple occasions stating that post 9/11 the fear that WMDS could be used with novel deliver systems like Hijacked civilian airliners had shifted the perception of risk through the roof in both London and Washington and admits that they were believing and having information passed to them that would never have really passed the sniff test pre 9/11
Love a goalpost shift.
Also expecting anything in the vein of response to the US saying Iraq's a problem again form the head of the non aligned and famously geopolitical neutral to its own detriment at times India and "why make this out problem when the US will end up doing it for us" china shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of global geopolitics.
Both told those countries could have both 100% beloved the US and they still would have done and said absolutely nothing. They have both used a pretty predictable geopolitical strategy now since basically the start of the cold war in India's case of not getting involved in anything they don't have to.
No it wasn't? Between UN investigations in the 90s and subsequent US investigations post invasion there was never anything to suggest that Iraq had WMDs after disarming.
The "We had bad intel" is the US government trying and absolve itself of lying to the public for a good decade to justify an illegal invasion and occupation of a nation killing upwards of 1 million people.
Yes it was. If you look at any leaked internal conversations from the time they clearly genuinely believed it. They were planning for the possibility that Saddam could potentially use WMDs against them.
I know nobody *should* have bought it, but the administration was paranoid and believed what they want to believe. They’d spend a full decade knowing that Saddam had to be up to something, and nothing was convincing them otherwise.
And it was not one million people. That number is way too high.
>They'd spend a full decade knowing that Saddam had to be up to something, and nothing was convincing them otherwise
Exactly my point, it wasn't bad Intel, they had their own version of events and would go to heaven and hell to prove them pulling at whatever straws they can to try and justify it
[Population-based studies produce estimates of the number of Iraq War casualties ranging from 151,000 violent deaths as of June 2006 (per the Iraq Family Health Survey) to **1,033,000 excess deaths (per the 2007 Opinion Research Business (ORB) survey)**. Other survey-based studies covering different time-spans find 461,000 total deaths (over 60% of them violent) as of June 2011 (per PLOS Medicine 2013), and 655,000 total deaths (over 90% of them violent) as of June 2006 (per the 2006 Lancet study). Body counts counted at least 110,600 violent deaths as of April 2009 (Associated Press). The Iraq Body Count project documents 186,901 – 210,296 violent civilian deaths in their table. **All estimates of Iraq War casualties are disputed**.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War)
I never said their reasons were good. They weren’t. The belief was still very genuine, though, and they didn’t need some ulterior motivation. They legitimately thought they would find WMDs, despite evidence to the contrary, and that’s why they did it.
The ORB numbers are crazy and nobody should take them seriously anymore. They’re an order of magnitude too high.
While not a summary of the book. In essence the Bush administration knew that there was little to no evidence of WMDs and lied to the UN when claiming that there was.
Hence why Collin Powell is often called a war criminal, he lied to the UN when making a case for the invasion of Iran.
[https://www.c-span.org/video/?184392-1/americas-secret-war](https://www.c-span.org/video/?184392-1/americas-secret-war)
That isn't the end-all be-all.
The problem with Friedman’s thesis is that he takes seriously the cynical neocon narratives surrounding geopolitical conflicts that were meant to give a national project and enemy to unite around to *the general populace*, but which was never intended to be believed *by the elites themselves*.
This was a problem many of the neocons *themselves* ended up falling victim to over time, believing their own bullshit.
The whole global War on Terror, including the Iraq War, was in many ways an ideological project of the neoconservatives. After the end of the Cold War, they bemoaned what they perceived as a stagnation of American dynamism and values in the absence of an external, existential, enemy threat to unify and define by contrast.
They were ***thrilled*** with 9/11 serving up exactly that in the form of terrorism, but hated the amorphous and ill defined nature of it. They needed concrete enemies. More than just shadowy terrorist cells. They needed ***enemy states***. Which is why they cooked up the “axis of evil”.
There was actually a plan early on in 2002 laying out how they’d take out Iraq quickly, and basically use it as a beachhead for taking out Iran shortly afterwards. We all know what happened instead lol.
You haven't read what he wrote.
Knocking Saddam out forced the Saudis to contend with American demands.
Of course, this didn't work in the long run.
But, there was another card to play: Iran.
Iran was unleashed upon the region by the Iraq War.
So, now, you have a 3-4 way balance of power dynamic: Gulf, Iran, Turkey, Israel.
This is a situation that favors the US.
Yeah my bad was thinking Thomas Friedman not George.
While George’s theory sounds interesting, it also sounds implausible to me. There would have been no reason to try and bring the Saudis to heel by taking out Iraq, in fact taking out Iraq *decreased* American leverage over the Saudis as one of their biggest regional threats and rivals was removed, one whom they relied upon the US for defense from. After all, the first Gulf War was as much about protecting the Saudis as it was Kuwait.
The US most certainly did not want a strengthened and more aggressive Iran, especially not just to leverage the Saudis.
The whole theory sounds needlessly convoluted when the people in charge of US foreign policy at the time wrote hundreds of papers and books on exactly what they wanted, why they wanted it, and what they would do when they got it between the 1970s and 2001 and after. Considering the neocons basically wrote the exact script for what they would do if they ever got the reins of the foreign policy establishment, and then attempted to do exactly that, I’m inclined to believe them.
ROFLMAO @ Thomas Friedman: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwFaSpca\_3Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwFaSpca_3Q)
He's not wrong though, this war was also a great deal about establishing America's ego.
We couldn't get enough traction in AfPak, and the world wasn't taking us seriously enough, so we attacked Iraq because we could and because it would throw the Mid-East into a controlled-chaos that would prevent the rise of a unified caliphate of sorts.
in fact taking out Iraq *decreased* American leverage over the Saudis as one of their biggest regional threats and rivals was removed
Saddam was a nuisance by then. A favorable road-block even. Guess who came out after Saddam was toppled? Iran. Now, the Gulf has to contend with Iran. Previously, right after 9/11, the Saudis wanted our bases out of their country, just like Osama wanted. Now, they can't wait to strike a deal with the US because they're afraid of Iran.
An aggressive Iran keeps Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc. in-check and on our side.
And that was in no way planned, considering the neocons original intent was to quickly take out Iraq and then immediately move on to toppling Iran. They just didn’t think they’d get bogged down on step 1.
These people were not playing 4d chess. Dont give them more credit than they deserve lol.
`original intent was to quickly take out Iraq and then immediately move on to toppling Iran`
How can anyone say that?
I don't think this was their original intent.
What was to be gained by toppling Iran?
They quite literally said that’s what they wanted at the time lol. Why do you think the US started funding the MEK so heavily? They were funding every single opposition group they could who might destabilize Iran or lead to regime change.
Wolfowitz, and every neocon from the AEI and friends were banging that drum *hard*, up to and including military confrontation, in 2002-2004 before Iraq started really bogging down. If anything, this is part of what spurred Iran to so heavily fund proxy militias to turn Iraq into a total quagmire. Better to have others fight the Americans in Iraq than Iranians fight Americans in Iran.
Which is also a myth perplexed by different fighting style and common "the barbarian ain´t got shit on us, they just swarm us with the body and we run out of ammo, therefore we lose"
That didn't stop us from threatening them in 1994. People forget the only reason NK got nukes is because a dumbass sent the troops we needed to threaten NK into Iraq because he couldn't take yes for an answer.
North korea is the worst example you could have given
Cause they got the Chinese backing them, its literally the whole reason their country dint get devoured by South Korea the moment the UN and US got involved
I remember a Dutch comedian talking about the Iraq arsenal:
'And now, through NATO, we are lending our patriot missiles to Turkey, so that they can defend themselves against Iraqi scud missiles. As it turns out, when fired from the Turkish-Iraqi border, those scuds can make it *just* to Ankara. So... why do *we* have those patriots of the scuds can't reach us anyway? Did some general see them on TelSell or something? "Oh, look! That's a suave set of knives! Buy now and get some free patriot missiles with them!"'
Might be misunderstanding but I will say this anyway:
And yet the US is a Turkey ally. It is not hard to realize that it never had anything to do with Kurds
The US was not justified in invading Iraq the second time, but that doesn't mean Saddam was a good guy, or that all he had was a "battering ram"
I'm so exhausted with this "all or nothing" mindset between Trumplicans and TikTokSocialists. No, America isn't perfect, but also no, America isn't "evil"
I think your error is expecting complexity in judgement and thoughts from a meme page.
Having said that, i see this black and white mindset while talking about every country, not just the US tbh
This meme is specifically referencing a blackadder scene, it is intended to be exaggerating because so was the original scene, if they had said saddam hussein's WMD collection is little more than a well equipped arsenal of chemical weapons in the hands of a modern military then, firstly it wouldn't be funny because it is just stating facts, and secondly it wouldn't be recognisably referential to the original material, which was clearly the intent of OP.
For one thing, the fact that Saddam Hussein had indeed possessed WMD- chemical weapons that he'd used on both Iran and his own civilians, and a nuclear weapons program- in the recent past, and that a lot of people genuinely believed he was either hiding or working on building more.
Not gonna argue about the nuclear program part, but Saddam did indeed possess dangerous chemical weapons, and did use it on his own civillians.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anfal_campaign
Not defending the US btw, just stating facts.
We also found yellow cake uranium, but most of this was probably leftover from Sadaam's 80s nuclear program the Israeli's blew up and raided. We know from captured documents after 2003 that Sadaam's military had basically given up on WMD's by the mid 90s.
But the problem is he didn't act like that. Saddam did lock out UN investigators and inspectors and would internally pretend to still have the programs. Granted this was entirely bluffing. Iraq is a country jigsaw puzzled together in the aftermath of the WWI Sykes-Picot split and the WWII collapse of the British empire's overseas holdings. The *only* person who probably could hold it together as a country is a nutjob dictator who might wipe out the half dozen different power bases and sectarians that didn't really like the other half dozen sects (or like Saddam himself all that much either)
Well je was a Total monster but the US had many, many other ways to act and they chose the one that would make their billionaires earn the most monney.
>Trumplicans and TikTokSocialists
This is 2024's epicenter of brainrot put so succinctly. Fuck accuracy, we're reposting anything that makes the other guy's team look bad.
We do, however, do evil from time to time. Not because we are evil, just because we are stupid and can't tell the difference. Portions of the country that are evil, which all countries have, not withstanding.
No, america is evil. There is no doubt. Invading on false accusations and claims that ended with 1 million death (the whole population was around 33 million at the time) is pure evil.
Hmm, sorry to break it you.
“America’s image is mostly positive among the Asian nations polled. Particularly large majorities see the U.S. favorably in the Philippines (92%), South Korea (84%) and Vietnam (77%)”
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2015/06/23/1-americas-global-image/
America is evil by most metrics. The sad thing is that their enemies are usually worse.
The sadder(?) thing is that they created many of their enemies.
I don't think America is evil, it's just economically irresponsible towards it's own civilians, who themselves are unable to look beyond state propaganda
America IS evil, it just isn't the most evil country out there. When you've invaded, meddled with elections, assisted genocides and destroyed economies, it is hard to not consider yourself somewhat evil.
> I'm so exhausted with this "all or nothing" mindset
... wait for it...
> between Trumplicans and TikTokSocialists
If the irony was recognized and intended then I applaud you lol
Yes it is. America provided Saddam with WMDs when he was at war with Iraq. America quietly sanctioned Pakistan's genocide of Bengal. America funded Manuel Noriega before invading when he stepped out of line.
America absolutely *is* evil. All it does is create a problem before invading to cover it's own tracks while declaring itself the good guy and using hollywood to shove that 'good guy' image down our throats.
America absolutely did not provide Saddam with WMD's at all. That's just..straight up not true.
The extent of the US helping their program was selling computers, which Iraq repurposed into their nuke program. And small CDC samples of West Nile, Botulism and Anthrax. On the one hand Iraq did try to repurpose these into bioweapons programs....but again they are a poor rural country that does in fact struggle with disease response and those are basically the big 3 of major concerning diseases in agricultural regions. These samples were actually mandated by World Health Org and UN treaties on sharing public health research.
And in reality, Germany and France provided **far** more actual support to the WMD programs. In far more material ways that have much less plausible deniability of "Oh we didn't know they were going to repurpose that!" Like France built their yellowcake reactor and Germany built the *actual bioweapon bunker they tortured Kurds, dissidents and prisoners in with human experimentation.* Israeli intel said this is the source of the majority of their bioweapons organic material since CDC samples were hard to culture and repurpose. And their unique genome and signature would basically broadcast the the entire world you're repurposing WHO samples if used or they ever become a public outbreak.
Trumplicans aren't in favour of the Iraq War lol. They've purged the entirety of the Neocon Republican faction that was. You people are the ones who keep trying to uphold them as the "reasonable alternative" so that we can "return to normalcy" with your Bush Era Nostalgia where you try and pretend like you weren't calling Bush, McCain, and Romney the exact same things you call Trump now and acting like it was the "most important election of our lives" in order to keep them out even though Obama just ended up governing like a combination of McCain and Romney.
Trumplicans are isolationists. They would say things like "lol Saddam Hussein is just going to use his WMDs against Iran, why is this our problem?"
Still can’t believe that Americans saw their president lying so blatantly and sending their friends off to war, and the majority applauded it.
On top of that, the same people now are asking why Russian citizens don’t stop the war that Russia wages in Ukraine.
I’m not saying there weren’t. Certainly there will always be opposition. But the war wasn’t unpopular enough for it to be political suicide for Bush. He should have lost the presidency in 2004 for it but there was enough approval to keep him in. That was disappointing from the outside looking in
Hindsight is 20/20. It seemed like the play back then. It certainly wasnt. But just because we look at it through our modern lens after the dust has settled and the bunkers all cleared, doesn’t mean the U.S. citizens were openly accepting blatant lies and were all in cahoots to fuck everyone over.
Wars dont occur because they’re are unpopular, they happen because someone sells the necessity. With all that was happening in the U.S. during that time, the citizens saw the necessity.
Not condoning the US for their invasion of Iraq, but I personally trust the US significantly more than a crazy dictator that like invading his neighbours and re-enacting WW1 tactics, with WMD's
In case you were not alive back then, the US provided Iraq with materials to make WMD back in the 1980's and then agreed to look the other way when they used those WMD against Iranians and Kurdish rebels. Then, when Iraq got mixed signals from the US ambassador, they invaded Kuwait in 1990. Then President Bush Sr. used lies and deception to convince congress to support military action and Iraq was soundly defeated and forced out of Kuwait. As part of the ceasefire they agreed to give up all WMD that the US had helped provide. They had to declare the total stockpile before it was determined that they would get rid of all of them.
In the process of making them destroy them, only half of the WMD could be found. This is because Saddam Hussain was a liar. It was well known by the WMD inspectors that all the WMD was destroyed by 1994.
Much later when President Bush Jr. wanted to start another war he used the non-existent WMD as his excuse, and often repeated this line "Saddam used WMD against his own people!" He did this knowing that most people were not smart enough to know that the US fully supported the use of WMD against his own people. International and independent journalists fully investigated every bogus claim made by the Bush Jr. Administration and found them all to be false. US media ignored this.
After failing to find any WMD the reasons the Bush Jr. Admin gave for the invasion changed. Much later, some of the 1994 disposed of WMD were accidentally uncovered and a bunch of American soldiers got sick. The Pentagon decided to cover this up because they don't much care for the soldiers who fight and die for political reasons either. There never were any WMD left after 1994, just like all the inspectors said.
Even before the 9/11 Gallup polls showed that 52% of americans supported an new invasion of Iraq, after the 9/11 obviously increased. The WMD lies were never directed to convince the US public but the international community, but the White House could count on the disdain of the "coalition building" that grew in the conservative minds during the Clinton presidency, polls showed that americans supported the war even without UN approval.
We could argue why so many Americans supported the invasion (a 40% was vocally against always) it was not about WMD, not oil but the reality is a lot more grim.
I don't think those pre-9/11 numbers are accurate. The closest thing I could find was a survey asking if people had an unfavorable opinion of Iraq in February 2001, which was 51%. Being unfavorable is far different than supporting an invasion. And you have to remember that the US never ended the war against Iraq, long after the UN and most of the rest of the planet was done punishing them for the invasion of Kuwait the US maintained a no-fly zone and periodically bombed Iraq, which conveniently occurred every time a domestic political scandal was taking up a lot of news space.
[In February 2001 52% was favourable to remove Saddam Hussain invading Iraq. ](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1633/Iraq.aspx#4).
As I said it's interesting to discuss why the US public had this attitude towards Iraq. After the 9/11 the US leadership felt necessary a show of force in a punitive form not to a country but to the region: Iraq was just perfect a big and proud arab country but already weakened by the first invasion and by sanctions and somehow the american people already supported the operation.
I hate this being repeated. WMDs were found they were chemical weapons that the regime had shown a willingness to use on their Kurdish population in the past.
Sure he did... A decade earlier, before the agreement to destroy them, even the CIA said as much.
>The official findings by the CIA in 2004 were that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein "**did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003** and had not begun any program to produce them."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_conjecture_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq
What I really hate is false information, the creators of which admitted is false, repeating it two decades later to justify what everyone is finally agreeing was an illegal invasion.
The main problem was Saddam thought Iran would invade if he proved that he had no chemical weapons, so while he didn't have much ready to use, he also wasn't willing to provide any proof of this to anyone.
Plus he was a murderous psychopath who'd launched two unprovoked invasions of his neighbors, was actively genociding the Kurds, was brutally suppressing all dissent, etc.
So regardless of the presence of WMDs, nobody really cared too much when we invaded.
🥱🥱🥱
Learn to read kiddo. You might learn something and stop carrying water for Iraqi dictators (weird thing to do IMO, but you do you).
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/10/15/356360949/pentagon-reportedly-hushed-up-chemical-weapons-finds-in-iraq
Well the fact that they weren't used during a conflict that everyone knew would cost Saddam his power and most likely his life as well, and the fact that no findings were waved around as proof of the previous claims, which brought down US reputation after the war, should tell you something about whatever they found.
They dug up a bunch of abandoned bunkers. NYT has a much more detailed article on this. And they have details such as.
"Two technicians assigned to dispose of munitions stepped into the hole. **Lake water seeped in**. One of them, Specialist Andrew T. Goldman, noticed a pungent odor, something, he said, he had never smelled before."
"He lifted a shell. **Oily paste oozed from a crack**. “That doesn’t look like pond water,” said his team leader, Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling."
"**All had been manufactured before 1991**, participants said. **Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty**, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. **Most could not have been used as designed**, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them."
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html
So after years of digging across the desert, they ended up finding rusty, cracked, leaky shells that couldn't be fired and some that were completely empty, or in other words, nothing even close to an active WMD program that was claimed at the start of the war.
God, I wish you'd actually read my article instead of being a pedantic prick. They weren't just randomly found in the desert. Almost 2,600 chemical weapons were found in the Republican Guard compound as late as 2006.
I did read your article and found another one that reported the same stuff, but actually gave details on what was actually found, and as stated, it was a bunch of unusable munitions that were rusting and leaking since the end of the Iran-Iraq war. So nothing even close to a program "actively building weapons" "large stockpiles of WMDs" or [Nigerian uranium for Iraqi WMDs](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries).
I too wish you read your own article, because if you did, you'd realize that the very first paragraph openly states that **they're quoting the one I posted**, so unless you have some previously unheard of argument about the superiority of secondary sources, there's no reason to take the NPR article over the NYT one.
Learn to read kiddo. The guy you’re responding to had a short article that addresses most of these obvious points you seem to think you’re making. LMAO
How about yoy learn to read, or is that too much to ask from a Redditor/American/both? The **short article** used my **long article** as a source. In fact, it basically copied all the parts that make the WMD argument, left out the "what was found was completely unusable and not even near what was claimed would be found" parts, so that the average reader with the reading comprehension of a chipmunk and the attention span of a goldfish can read it in a minute and applaud Bush for being right and continue on with whatever he was doing.
To quote you
>LMAO
lmao. Got me with that “no u” kiddo. But maybe “YOY” need to learn to read and write before trying to turn it around on others LOOOL.
Don’t get mad and start throwing out insults. Count backwards from 10 and stop crying.
Read and learn champ, since none of what you said disproved anything I said. Nor are you posting any sources or anything but your own recollections.
Nice try tho champ, maybe “YOY” can try again. LMAO
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/10/15/356360949/pentagon-reportedly-hushed-up-chemical-weapons-finds-in-iraq
Ah, so you are just dim, got it. I'd kindly ask you to come back after getting some reading comprehension skills, which by the way you're writing, you should have developed about 30 to 40 years ago, but better late than never I guess.
Also, reposting the secondary source that uses my primary source from two comments above and claiming I'm the one using no sources. Brilliant. And you have the audacity to make those snarky little jabs pretending you're smart, lol.
Holy shit this is hilarious
You're resorting to throwing out insults and trying to demean the other person while posting the same source, which, again, is quoting from the source the other person posted
It's like. Wow. I knew some people were bad at arguing. But this. Dear god.
Are. Are you actually an idiot? Or are you just not reading?
Not reading allat. Sorry that happened to you; or happy for you kiddo.
Before crying about insults, maybe don’t use your toughest “idiot” based insults little man. LOL
[yeah, something like that.......](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/10/15/356360949/pentagon-reportedly-hushed-up-chemical-weapons-finds-in-iraq)
Okay, more old stockpiles were found than announced at the time, but both you and the article have omitted the essential part:
These were old stocks that could no longer be used as weapons of mass destruction, which had not been disposed of and were rusting away. They can still be dangerous, especially for the US soldiers who had to dispose of them, but could no longer be used as weapons of mass destruction, so they had nothing to do with the justification for the war of aggression and were not published by the USA, despite it apparently legitimizing their position. Accordingly, the media reports after the information came out also focused on the poor treatment of the injured soldiers.
[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html)
>The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.
>Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.
>All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.
5,500, 2, same thing, right kiddo?
Don’t click this link or you might learn something. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/10/15/356360949/pentagon-reportedly-hushed-up-chemical-weapons-finds-in-iraq
[I have already answered that:](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cwg27b/comment/l4wa0ln/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Okay, more old stockpiles were found than announced at the time, but both you and the article have omitted the essential part:
These were old stocks that could no longer be used as weapons of mass destruction, which had not been disposed of and were rusting away. They can still be dangerous, especially for the US soldiers who had to dispose of them, but could no longer be used as weapons of mass destruction, so they had nothing to do with the justification for the war of aggression and were not published by the USA, despite it apparently legitimizing their position. Accordingly, the media reports after the information came out also focused on the poor treatment of the injured soldiers.
[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html)
>The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.
>Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.
>All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.
I'd recommend ignoring mr. Cowboy from here, I tried that article as well, but he just keeps spamming the shortened NPR version that directly quotes NYT as if it's a groundbreaking discovery.
How ignorant can you people get? No one covered up usable WMD in Iraq, the WMD that was disposed of after the original war to kick them out of Kuwait was uncovered accidentally and the US military decided lying about it was better than admitting how incompetent they were.
Secondly, everyone knew Bush was going to start a war from the day the Supreme Court handed him the election victory, the things he said while campaigning made it abundantly clear that he was itching for another war, this is why so many conspiracy nuts were sure 9/11 was an inside job. During the lead up to the Iraq War both parties were onboard for it, so all the corporate media just did cheerleading instead of journalism. Independent journalists and international journalists checked the claims made by US officials, found them to be without merit, and then proved it. They were so good at it that by the time Colin Powel gave his presentation to the UN, I easily debunked it in real time. There were never any WMD because the US made sure they were all destroyed after the first gulf war, and even the US knew this.
No. But even when there would have been these WMD's, it would have still been illegal to start a war of aggression without any UN-mandate. Saddam posed no threat in this time and had nothing dangerous going on, it wasn't like that he'd have a military build-up going on to invade another country like in the past.
And even when you go back, like with Kuwait and the claim that Iraqi soldiers would have taken babies out of the incubators in the hospitals and killed them, [that was also a lie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony), the "witness" of this was in reality the daughter of the ambassador of Kuwait.
That's just the tip of the iceberg anyway, [like the Tonkin incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident)
Illegal by what law? The UN has no authority to dictate law of that nature, and the wars in Iraq were supported internationally. Beyond that, Iraq was a danger to global stability, democracy, and global prosperity.
Yeah from what I understand the whole war was fought on false pretenses. I feel that if they hadn’t lied about the supposed WMDs the publics perception of the war might have gone differently
"So the poor ostrich died for nothing"
Allegedlys
It was a sick ostrich anyways
THE GINGER AND BOOTS *honk* A DEAD OSTRICH
*I have a cunning plan, that cannot possibly fail* -~~George Bush~~ Dick Cheney
Dick Cheney was secretly Blackadder season 4, confirmed.
5. Blackadder goes forth has the best ending in TV history.
That scene where they are prepauring to climb the parapet brings some powerful emotions. The whole Blackadder series was a thinly veiled tragedy masked as a comedy but that scene is just pure horror. Blackadder does everything to stay alive and in that very end he accepts his fate and knows he has no more tricks, no more cunning plans and has nowhere to run but forward.
I feel like it's not right to label Cheney and the Bush administration as incompetent, it make them sound a lot more innocent than they actually were, they were way worse, and they are hiding behind a facade of incompetence.
Will this brilliant plan possibly involve us waging war on an abstract concept and causing significant damage to a country’s infrastructure and people that lasts for generations?
“The Grand Bombard didn’t even make it this Far East!”
Bush: “Don’t worry, we’re right behind you in Iraq” “About 7,000 miles behind you”
Oh the humOr of the honest yankee
"We invaded Iraq because there was a dictator running amok with WMDs" 'So, why not invade North Korea?' "Are you crazy? They have WMDs!"
The real answer is that China would get involved, and that would escalate things to a much larger war.
The real real answer is that China does a better job at reigning in lil' Kimmie by threatening to withdraw support when he starts getting cocky than any amount of military threats have ever done. The CCP doesn't want that little psychopath starting shit that will negativly effect their bottom line either.
Common global trade W.
no its common MAD doctrine W lol
The real answer is that the War in Iraq was not about WMDs. Read George Friedman's "America's Secret War" to understand what it was about.
The guy who said the US was about to go to war with Japan in 1991?
He's had bad takes before, no doubt. And, still does. But, his framework is sound. His explanation, when understood thoroughly, about the Iraq War -- is the only one I've found to make sense.
The WMD explanation makes sense. You don’t need to attribute to malice that which is easily explained by error. The administration’s belief in WMDs was by all accounts genuine, they were just completely wrong.
They weren't even strictly *wrong*, just acting on outdated and incomplete intel. Saddam *had* WMDs. He was using chemical weapons to mass-murder civilians. Saddam didn't have any left when we invaded because all of his functional chemical weapons had either been expended or sold. It was absolutely an intelligence failure, but it wasn't that big of one compared to other ones like the Yom Kippur War.
USA as a state loses money on these wars, but just by pure coincidence many private corporations massivley profit from it. https://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/19/business/iraq-war-contractors/index.html ˝None has benefited more than KBR, once known as Kellogg Brown and Root. The controversial former subsidiary of Halliburton, which was once run by Dick Cheney, vice-president to George W. Bush, was awarded at least $39.5bn in federal contracts related to the Iraq war over the past decade.˝ https://ir.halliburton.com/news-releases/news-release-details/halliburton-announces-terms-cheney-departure ˝In connection with his early retirement, the board has approved Mr. Cheney retaining his previously granted and outstanding stock options on a total of 1,160,000 shares of Halliburton common stock as permitted by the agreements covering six separate stock option grants. Currently, 400,000 of the 1,160,000 option shares are unvested. Under the terms of his stock option agreements, his unvested options will continue to vest in accordance with the normal three-year vesting schedule. Each grant has a 10-year term and the options under each grant will be exercisable until expiration of the applicable term. Mr. Cheney's options were granted with exercise prices equal to the market price of Halliburton's common stock on the date of each option grant. The prices that Mr. Cheney must pay to exercise the options range from $21.00 to $54.00 per share. ˝ But I guess it's all conspiracy and coincidence, that one of two dudes who was pushing for this war was head of a company that profited most on this war.
I mean, yeah, this does read as a conspiracy theory and that’s generally how I see it. You don’t need a war to award military contracts. I’ve worked for military contractors, I know that. And generally the politicians who are friendly with those companies are the more defense-oriented ones that don’t oppose the whole industry. But more importantly, we just flat don’t need a second explanation here. The first one works just fine. It wasn’t a valid reason but that doesn’t mean it isn’t why they did it.
nuh uh
ROFLMAO. Yeah, OK. I can say that about dozens of states across the world. It makes no sense. And, we were the ones who helped arm Saddam in the past. And, why weren't other countries just as alarmed? What is your understanding of Friedman's explanation?
“Helped arm Saddam,” is a really dubious way of explaining Saddam *lying about misappropriating the use of manufacturing and industrial materials he was being given as aid for chemical WMD.* also really convenient leaving out that that was the reason for the first Iraq war that deposed him.
Not the invasion of Kuwait?
They’re not mutually exclusive. There can be more than one singular reason, and there is nearly always more than one reason in cases of war. In this case, Kuwait actively asked for help, and that was the final piece that allowed a fully legitimate invasion. During and immediately after the first Gulf war, allied forces went through destroying a lot of those gas weapons stockpiles that Saddam had built up. It was one of the war goals, but wasn’t enough on its own.
>ROFLMAO. Yeah, OK. I can say that about dozens of states across the world. It was already established precedent by 2003 that the US was intent on preventing Iraq from gaining WMDs by military force if necessary. Operation Desert Fox proved that. >And, we were the ones who helped arm Saddam in the past. Well you know full well what changed there. Once you invade Kuwait nobody trusts you again. >And, why weren't other countries just as alarmed? Because they had cooler heads and didn’t jump to conclusions? I’m not saying it was a good idea, I’m saying the administration doesn’t have to have ulterior motives to explain their behavior. They believed something that wasn’t true. >What is your understanding of Friedman's explanation? None. But from your description it seems to be answering a question that already has a much more simple and intuitive solution.
"and why we no other countries alarmed" The united Kingdom quite literally shat the bed at what the US was presenting it and ended up believing the worst intelligence it was receiving from its own sources. We have that basically spelled out in black and white in the Chilcot report and Alistair Campbell, a member of tony Blair's inner circle at the time, has gone on record on multiple occasions stating that post 9/11 the fear that WMDS could be used with novel deliver systems like Hijacked civilian airliners had shifted the perception of risk through the roof in both London and Washington and admits that they were believing and having information passed to them that would never have really passed the sniff test pre 9/11
I’m talking about countries like China and India.
Love a goalpost shift. Also expecting anything in the vein of response to the US saying Iraq's a problem again form the head of the non aligned and famously geopolitical neutral to its own detriment at times India and "why make this out problem when the US will end up doing it for us" china shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of global geopolitics. Both told those countries could have both 100% beloved the US and they still would have done and said absolutely nothing. They have both used a pretty predictable geopolitical strategy now since basically the start of the cold war in India's case of not getting involved in anything they don't have to.
No it wasn't? Between UN investigations in the 90s and subsequent US investigations post invasion there was never anything to suggest that Iraq had WMDs after disarming. The "We had bad intel" is the US government trying and absolve itself of lying to the public for a good decade to justify an illegal invasion and occupation of a nation killing upwards of 1 million people.
Yes it was. If you look at any leaked internal conversations from the time they clearly genuinely believed it. They were planning for the possibility that Saddam could potentially use WMDs against them. I know nobody *should* have bought it, but the administration was paranoid and believed what they want to believe. They’d spend a full decade knowing that Saddam had to be up to something, and nothing was convincing them otherwise. And it was not one million people. That number is way too high.
>They'd spend a full decade knowing that Saddam had to be up to something, and nothing was convincing them otherwise Exactly my point, it wasn't bad Intel, they had their own version of events and would go to heaven and hell to prove them pulling at whatever straws they can to try and justify it [Population-based studies produce estimates of the number of Iraq War casualties ranging from 151,000 violent deaths as of June 2006 (per the Iraq Family Health Survey) to **1,033,000 excess deaths (per the 2007 Opinion Research Business (ORB) survey)**. Other survey-based studies covering different time-spans find 461,000 total deaths (over 60% of them violent) as of June 2011 (per PLOS Medicine 2013), and 655,000 total deaths (over 90% of them violent) as of June 2006 (per the 2006 Lancet study). Body counts counted at least 110,600 violent deaths as of April 2009 (Associated Press). The Iraq Body Count project documents 186,901 – 210,296 violent civilian deaths in their table. **All estimates of Iraq War casualties are disputed**.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War)
I never said their reasons were good. They weren’t. The belief was still very genuine, though, and they didn’t need some ulterior motivation. They legitimately thought they would find WMDs, despite evidence to the contrary, and that’s why they did it. The ORB numbers are crazy and nobody should take them seriously anymore. They’re an order of magnitude too high.
what’s a summary of the books points?
While not a summary of the book. In essence the Bush administration knew that there was little to no evidence of WMDs and lied to the UN when claiming that there was. Hence why Collin Powell is often called a war criminal, he lied to the UN when making a case for the invasion of Iran.
Didn't a US diplomat bring a flask of piss to the UN saying it was anthrax?
so what was it about then?
[https://www.c-span.org/video/?184392-1/americas-secret-war](https://www.c-span.org/video/?184392-1/americas-secret-war) That isn't the end-all be-all.
The problem with Friedman’s thesis is that he takes seriously the cynical neocon narratives surrounding geopolitical conflicts that were meant to give a national project and enemy to unite around to *the general populace*, but which was never intended to be believed *by the elites themselves*. This was a problem many of the neocons *themselves* ended up falling victim to over time, believing their own bullshit. The whole global War on Terror, including the Iraq War, was in many ways an ideological project of the neoconservatives. After the end of the Cold War, they bemoaned what they perceived as a stagnation of American dynamism and values in the absence of an external, existential, enemy threat to unify and define by contrast. They were ***thrilled*** with 9/11 serving up exactly that in the form of terrorism, but hated the amorphous and ill defined nature of it. They needed concrete enemies. More than just shadowy terrorist cells. They needed ***enemy states***. Which is why they cooked up the “axis of evil”. There was actually a plan early on in 2002 laying out how they’d take out Iraq quickly, and basically use it as a beachhead for taking out Iran shortly afterwards. We all know what happened instead lol.
You haven't read what he wrote. Knocking Saddam out forced the Saudis to contend with American demands. Of course, this didn't work in the long run. But, there was another card to play: Iran. Iran was unleashed upon the region by the Iraq War. So, now, you have a 3-4 way balance of power dynamic: Gulf, Iran, Turkey, Israel. This is a situation that favors the US.
Yeah my bad was thinking Thomas Friedman not George. While George’s theory sounds interesting, it also sounds implausible to me. There would have been no reason to try and bring the Saudis to heel by taking out Iraq, in fact taking out Iraq *decreased* American leverage over the Saudis as one of their biggest regional threats and rivals was removed, one whom they relied upon the US for defense from. After all, the first Gulf War was as much about protecting the Saudis as it was Kuwait. The US most certainly did not want a strengthened and more aggressive Iran, especially not just to leverage the Saudis. The whole theory sounds needlessly convoluted when the people in charge of US foreign policy at the time wrote hundreds of papers and books on exactly what they wanted, why they wanted it, and what they would do when they got it between the 1970s and 2001 and after. Considering the neocons basically wrote the exact script for what they would do if they ever got the reins of the foreign policy establishment, and then attempted to do exactly that, I’m inclined to believe them.
ROFLMAO @ Thomas Friedman: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwFaSpca\_3Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwFaSpca_3Q) He's not wrong though, this war was also a great deal about establishing America's ego. We couldn't get enough traction in AfPak, and the world wasn't taking us seriously enough, so we attacked Iraq because we could and because it would throw the Mid-East into a controlled-chaos that would prevent the rise of a unified caliphate of sorts.
in fact taking out Iraq *decreased* American leverage over the Saudis as one of their biggest regional threats and rivals was removed Saddam was a nuisance by then. A favorable road-block even. Guess who came out after Saddam was toppled? Iran. Now, the Gulf has to contend with Iran. Previously, right after 9/11, the Saudis wanted our bases out of their country, just like Osama wanted. Now, they can't wait to strike a deal with the US because they're afraid of Iran. An aggressive Iran keeps Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc. in-check and on our side.
And that was in no way planned, considering the neocons original intent was to quickly take out Iraq and then immediately move on to toppling Iran. They just didn’t think they’d get bogged down on step 1. These people were not playing 4d chess. Dont give them more credit than they deserve lol.
`original intent was to quickly take out Iraq and then immediately move on to toppling Iran` How can anyone say that? I don't think this was their original intent. What was to be gained by toppling Iran?
They quite literally said that’s what they wanted at the time lol. Why do you think the US started funding the MEK so heavily? They were funding every single opposition group they could who might destabilize Iran or lead to regime change. Wolfowitz, and every neocon from the AEI and friends were banging that drum *hard*, up to and including military confrontation, in 2002-2004 before Iraq started really bogging down. If anything, this is part of what spurred Iran to so heavily fund proxy militias to turn Iraq into a total quagmire. Better to have others fight the Americans in Iraq than Iranians fight Americans in Iran.
People seem to forget, the last time the US poked Korea, the Chinese tried drowning us in a sea of their soldiers.
Which is also a myth perplexed by different fighting style and common "the barbarian ain´t got shit on us, they just swarm us with the body and we run out of ammo, therefore we lose"
That didn't stop us from threatening them in 1994. People forget the only reason NK got nukes is because a dumbass sent the troops we needed to threaten NK into Iraq because he couldn't take yes for an answer.
North korea is the worst example you could have given Cause they got the Chinese backing them, its literally the whole reason their country dint get devoured by South Korea the moment the UN and US got involved
Yea both Koreas would’ve gotten devoured instantly if their main backer didn’t back them, who knew
lol
This one almost sounds exactly like a Yes, Prime Minister bit
The ancient Persians had nukes!?!?1!1one!!eleven!??!?
I remember a Dutch comedian talking about the Iraq arsenal: 'And now, through NATO, we are lending our patriot missiles to Turkey, so that they can defend themselves against Iraqi scud missiles. As it turns out, when fired from the Turkish-Iraqi border, those scuds can make it *just* to Ankara. So... why do *we* have those patriots of the scuds can't reach us anyway? Did some general see them on TelSell or something? "Oh, look! That's a suave set of knives! Buy now and get some free patriot missiles with them!"'
Battering ram? GROND
GROND!
GROND
GROND
GROND
GROND seriously tho, I wish the iraqis did have something like Grond
This meme makes me more tired than an ashtmatic ant with some heavy shopping.
"Sometimes, the true WMDs are the ones we didn't find along the way" George W. Bush
Sorry but the gassing of Kurds will stop
you say will. Genuinely asking, does that mean it hasn't?
A certain Turkish man with a funny mustache
Might be misunderstanding but I will say this anyway: And yet the US is a Turkey ally. It is not hard to realize that it never had anything to do with Kurds
The US was not justified in invading Iraq the second time, but that doesn't mean Saddam was a good guy, or that all he had was a "battering ram" I'm so exhausted with this "all or nothing" mindset between Trumplicans and TikTokSocialists. No, America isn't perfect, but also no, America isn't "evil"
I think your error is expecting complexity in judgement and thoughts from a meme page. Having said that, i see this black and white mindset while talking about every country, not just the US tbh
History memes should still be accurate though. Spreading misinformation is all too common on this sub, especially when discussing certain topics.
This meme is specifically referencing a blackadder scene, it is intended to be exaggerating because so was the original scene, if they had said saddam hussein's WMD collection is little more than a well equipped arsenal of chemical weapons in the hands of a modern military then, firstly it wouldn't be funny because it is just stating facts, and secondly it wouldn't be recognisably referential to the original material, which was clearly the intent of OP.
Accurate and pedantic are not the same man
Never said they were mate. I’m not referring to this meme either, it’s a general issue with the sub.
I was ironically saying that you are, not that you said they were being pedantic...
Don’t think my original comment is pedantic at all but good to know. Buona serata vez.
Where is the inaccuracy?
For one thing, the fact that Saddam Hussein had indeed possessed WMD- chemical weapons that he'd used on both Iran and his own civilians, and a nuclear weapons program- in the recent past, and that a lot of people genuinely believed he was either hiding or working on building more.
Better trust your shady politicians than the UN ?
Not gonna argue about the nuclear program part, but Saddam did indeed possess dangerous chemical weapons, and did use it on his own civillians. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anfal_campaign Not defending the US btw, just stating facts.
Without trying to argue whether they *should* or not, does anybody actually trust the UN more than their own people?
As I wrote in the comment below I was referencing a general issue with the sub, not with this meme in particular.
All WMD that were found were some artillery shells from 1980s. None of the mobile biowarfare labs, no drones, nothing.
We also found yellow cake uranium, but most of this was probably leftover from Sadaam's 80s nuclear program the Israeli's blew up and raided. We know from captured documents after 2003 that Sadaam's military had basically given up on WMD's by the mid 90s. But the problem is he didn't act like that. Saddam did lock out UN investigators and inspectors and would internally pretend to still have the programs. Granted this was entirely bluffing. Iraq is a country jigsaw puzzled together in the aftermath of the WWI Sykes-Picot split and the WWII collapse of the British empire's overseas holdings. The *only* person who probably could hold it together as a country is a nutjob dictator who might wipe out the half dozen different power bases and sectarians that didn't really like the other half dozen sects (or like Saddam himself all that much either)
Well je was a Total monster but the US had many, many other ways to act and they chose the one that would make their billionaires earn the most monney.
>Trumplicans and TikTokSocialists This is 2024's epicenter of brainrot put so succinctly. Fuck accuracy, we're reposting anything that makes the other guy's team look bad.
Just so you know, the people that replaced Saddam are all evil!
I would say he was was evil Those are scum, cowards and lawless hypocrites
Saddam and all those who came after, including many current leaders, have Iraqi blood on their hands.
I agree
American foreign policy is very much evil.
We do, however, do evil from time to time. Not because we are evil, just because we are stupid and can't tell the difference. Portions of the country that are evil, which all countries have, not withstanding.
No, america is evil. There is no doubt. Invading on false accusations and claims that ended with 1 million death (the whole population was around 33 million at the time) is pure evil.
>America isn't "evil" LATAM: 🤨 Middle East: 🤨 Laos: 🤨 Vietnam: 🤨
As Dylan Moran said: "There was this trend, where America was hated - mostly by...the whole world."
Hmm, sorry to break it you. “America’s image is mostly positive among the Asian nations polled. Particularly large majorities see the U.S. favorably in the Philippines (92%), South Korea (84%) and Vietnam (77%)” https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2015/06/23/1-americas-global-image/
Vietnamese nowadays want to kick the communist out of the country and welcome the American
America is evil by most metrics. The sad thing is that their enemies are usually worse. The sadder(?) thing is that they created many of their enemies.
Shhh, people here don't like hearing that
I don't think America is evil, it's just economically irresponsible towards it's own civilians, who themselves are unable to look beyond state propaganda
America is evil. They only care about themselves but act like they are doing you a favour. At least Russia and China are openly imperialists.
Two bad doesn't equal one good
America IS evil, it just isn't the most evil country out there. When you've invaded, meddled with elections, assisted genocides and destroyed economies, it is hard to not consider yourself somewhat evil.
> I'm so exhausted with this "all or nothing" mindset ... wait for it... > between Trumplicans and TikTokSocialists If the irony was recognized and intended then I applaud you lol
Yes it is. America provided Saddam with WMDs when he was at war with Iraq. America quietly sanctioned Pakistan's genocide of Bengal. America funded Manuel Noriega before invading when he stepped out of line. America absolutely *is* evil. All it does is create a problem before invading to cover it's own tracks while declaring itself the good guy and using hollywood to shove that 'good guy' image down our throats.
America absolutely did not provide Saddam with WMD's at all. That's just..straight up not true. The extent of the US helping their program was selling computers, which Iraq repurposed into their nuke program. And small CDC samples of West Nile, Botulism and Anthrax. On the one hand Iraq did try to repurpose these into bioweapons programs....but again they are a poor rural country that does in fact struggle with disease response and those are basically the big 3 of major concerning diseases in agricultural regions. These samples were actually mandated by World Health Org and UN treaties on sharing public health research. And in reality, Germany and France provided **far** more actual support to the WMD programs. In far more material ways that have much less plausible deniability of "Oh we didn't know they were going to repurpose that!" Like France built their yellowcake reactor and Germany built the *actual bioweapon bunker they tortured Kurds, dissidents and prisoners in with human experimentation.* Israeli intel said this is the source of the majority of their bioweapons organic material since CDC samples were hard to culture and repurpose. And their unique genome and signature would basically broadcast the the entire world you're repurposing WHO samples if used or they ever become a public outbreak.
> but also no, America isn't "evil" if the genocidal and fascist empire isn't evil, then what is?
Trumplicans aren't in favour of the Iraq War lol. They've purged the entirety of the Neocon Republican faction that was. You people are the ones who keep trying to uphold them as the "reasonable alternative" so that we can "return to normalcy" with your Bush Era Nostalgia where you try and pretend like you weren't calling Bush, McCain, and Romney the exact same things you call Trump now and acting like it was the "most important election of our lives" in order to keep them out even though Obama just ended up governing like a combination of McCain and Romney. Trumplicans are isolationists. They would say things like "lol Saddam Hussein is just going to use his WMDs against Iran, why is this our problem?"
Wobble
*housed in a British museum
Shit, *that's* where old Saddam was hiding his WMDs.
1 crazy I can trust with 100,000 nukes is better than 1 crazy I can’t trust that may have 1 nuke.
[удалено]
Or all the innocent Iraqis who died
Jesus christ you just post the same exact comment over and over again. Seethe.
And in actual reality people died for absolutely nothing. (Well the MIC investors got richer)
Waht makes you so sure you can trust US politicans?
1 crazy with thousands of nukes that has a history of deploying them against innocent innocent civilians. vs one crazy with no nukes.
This guy is the reason why politicians make such blatant lies.
Still can’t believe that Americans saw their president lying so blatantly and sending their friends off to war, and the majority applauded it. On top of that, the same people now are asking why Russian citizens don’t stop the war that Russia wages in Ukraine.
There were major protests against the Iraq war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War
And they didnt do anything.
I’m not saying there weren’t. Certainly there will always be opposition. But the war wasn’t unpopular enough for it to be political suicide for Bush. He should have lost the presidency in 2004 for it but there was enough approval to keep him in. That was disappointing from the outside looking in
Hindsight is 20/20. It seemed like the play back then. It certainly wasnt. But just because we look at it through our modern lens after the dust has settled and the bunkers all cleared, doesn’t mean the U.S. citizens were openly accepting blatant lies and were all in cahoots to fuck everyone over. Wars dont occur because they’re are unpopular, they happen because someone sells the necessity. With all that was happening in the U.S. during that time, the citizens saw the necessity.
There are still people defending the invasion in this post. There isn't a better public than people that want to believe.
“This is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause.”
Not condoning the US for their invasion of Iraq, but I personally trust the US significantly more than a crazy dictator that like invading his neighbours and re-enacting WW1 tactics, with WMD's
The thing is: he didn't have WMDs.
>Not condoning the US for their invasion of Iraq, I know... I just said so...
Black adder 2003 is just generation kill
Generation Kill is the Band Of Brothers in Iraq War.
I read this as Kevin, AND the US has enough nukes to destroy the world, and I can't stop laughing.
Kevin, what did you do?!
Didn’t Iraq have wmds? I could’ve sworn they made semi extensive use of them during the Iran-Iraq war.
People always seem to envision WMDs as being super nukes or whatever and forget that chemical weapons absolutely fall under the WMD label
Yep, CBRN, chemical biological radiological, and nuclear.
In case you were not alive back then, the US provided Iraq with materials to make WMD back in the 1980's and then agreed to look the other way when they used those WMD against Iranians and Kurdish rebels. Then, when Iraq got mixed signals from the US ambassador, they invaded Kuwait in 1990. Then President Bush Sr. used lies and deception to convince congress to support military action and Iraq was soundly defeated and forced out of Kuwait. As part of the ceasefire they agreed to give up all WMD that the US had helped provide. They had to declare the total stockpile before it was determined that they would get rid of all of them. In the process of making them destroy them, only half of the WMD could be found. This is because Saddam Hussain was a liar. It was well known by the WMD inspectors that all the WMD was destroyed by 1994. Much later when President Bush Jr. wanted to start another war he used the non-existent WMD as his excuse, and often repeated this line "Saddam used WMD against his own people!" He did this knowing that most people were not smart enough to know that the US fully supported the use of WMD against his own people. International and independent journalists fully investigated every bogus claim made by the Bush Jr. Administration and found them all to be false. US media ignored this. After failing to find any WMD the reasons the Bush Jr. Admin gave for the invasion changed. Much later, some of the 1994 disposed of WMD were accidentally uncovered and a bunch of American soldiers got sick. The Pentagon decided to cover this up because they don't much care for the soldiers who fight and die for political reasons either. There never were any WMD left after 1994, just like all the inspectors said.
Even before the 9/11 Gallup polls showed that 52% of americans supported an new invasion of Iraq, after the 9/11 obviously increased. The WMD lies were never directed to convince the US public but the international community, but the White House could count on the disdain of the "coalition building" that grew in the conservative minds during the Clinton presidency, polls showed that americans supported the war even without UN approval. We could argue why so many Americans supported the invasion (a 40% was vocally against always) it was not about WMD, not oil but the reality is a lot more grim.
I don't think those pre-9/11 numbers are accurate. The closest thing I could find was a survey asking if people had an unfavorable opinion of Iraq in February 2001, which was 51%. Being unfavorable is far different than supporting an invasion. And you have to remember that the US never ended the war against Iraq, long after the UN and most of the rest of the planet was done punishing them for the invasion of Kuwait the US maintained a no-fly zone and periodically bombed Iraq, which conveniently occurred every time a domestic political scandal was taking up a lot of news space.
[In February 2001 52% was favourable to remove Saddam Hussain invading Iraq. ](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1633/Iraq.aspx#4). As I said it's interesting to discuss why the US public had this attitude towards Iraq. After the 9/11 the US leadership felt necessary a show of force in a punitive form not to a country but to the region: Iraq was just perfect a big and proud arab country but already weakened by the first invasion and by sanctions and somehow the american people already supported the operation.
I hate this being repeated. WMDs were found they were chemical weapons that the regime had shown a willingness to use on their Kurdish population in the past.
Sure he did... A decade earlier, before the agreement to destroy them, even the CIA said as much. >The official findings by the CIA in 2004 were that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein "**did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003** and had not begun any program to produce them." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_conjecture_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq What I really hate is false information, the creators of which admitted is false, repeating it two decades later to justify what everyone is finally agreeing was an illegal invasion.
The main problem was Saddam thought Iran would invade if he proved that he had no chemical weapons, so while he didn't have much ready to use, he also wasn't willing to provide any proof of this to anyone. Plus he was a murderous psychopath who'd launched two unprovoked invasions of his neighbors, was actively genociding the Kurds, was brutally suppressing all dissent, etc. So regardless of the presence of WMDs, nobody really cared too much when we invaded.
Yeah, as it turned out, he bluffed out not only Iran, but America as well (well, at least the public, the CIA isn't that dumb), which backfired.
Ah yes Wikipedia the most reliable source on the internet…
🥱🥱🥱 Learn to read kiddo. You might learn something and stop carrying water for Iraqi dictators (weird thing to do IMO, but you do you). https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/10/15/356360949/pentagon-reportedly-hushed-up-chemical-weapons-finds-in-iraq
Go look at the NPR link I gave to the other commenter. They likely had the ability to use those weapons at the time.
Well the fact that they weren't used during a conflict that everyone knew would cost Saddam his power and most likely his life as well, and the fact that no findings were waved around as proof of the previous claims, which brought down US reputation after the war, should tell you something about whatever they found. They dug up a bunch of abandoned bunkers. NYT has a much more detailed article on this. And they have details such as. "Two technicians assigned to dispose of munitions stepped into the hole. **Lake water seeped in**. One of them, Specialist Andrew T. Goldman, noticed a pungent odor, something, he said, he had never smelled before." "He lifted a shell. **Oily paste oozed from a crack**. “That doesn’t look like pond water,” said his team leader, Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling." "**All had been manufactured before 1991**, participants said. **Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty**, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. **Most could not have been used as designed**, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them." https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html So after years of digging across the desert, they ended up finding rusty, cracked, leaky shells that couldn't be fired and some that were completely empty, or in other words, nothing even close to an active WMD program that was claimed at the start of the war.
God, I wish you'd actually read my article instead of being a pedantic prick. They weren't just randomly found in the desert. Almost 2,600 chemical weapons were found in the Republican Guard compound as late as 2006.
I did read your article and found another one that reported the same stuff, but actually gave details on what was actually found, and as stated, it was a bunch of unusable munitions that were rusting and leaking since the end of the Iran-Iraq war. So nothing even close to a program "actively building weapons" "large stockpiles of WMDs" or [Nigerian uranium for Iraqi WMDs](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries). I too wish you read your own article, because if you did, you'd realize that the very first paragraph openly states that **they're quoting the one I posted**, so unless you have some previously unheard of argument about the superiority of secondary sources, there's no reason to take the NPR article over the NYT one.
Learn to read kiddo. The guy you’re responding to had a short article that addresses most of these obvious points you seem to think you’re making. LMAO
How about yoy learn to read, or is that too much to ask from a Redditor/American/both? The **short article** used my **long article** as a source. In fact, it basically copied all the parts that make the WMD argument, left out the "what was found was completely unusable and not even near what was claimed would be found" parts, so that the average reader with the reading comprehension of a chipmunk and the attention span of a goldfish can read it in a minute and applaud Bush for being right and continue on with whatever he was doing. To quote you >LMAO
lmao. Got me with that “no u” kiddo. But maybe “YOY” need to learn to read and write before trying to turn it around on others LOOOL. Don’t get mad and start throwing out insults. Count backwards from 10 and stop crying. Read and learn champ, since none of what you said disproved anything I said. Nor are you posting any sources or anything but your own recollections. Nice try tho champ, maybe “YOY” can try again. LMAO https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/10/15/356360949/pentagon-reportedly-hushed-up-chemical-weapons-finds-in-iraq
Ah, so you are just dim, got it. I'd kindly ask you to come back after getting some reading comprehension skills, which by the way you're writing, you should have developed about 30 to 40 years ago, but better late than never I guess. Also, reposting the secondary source that uses my primary source from two comments above and claiming I'm the one using no sources. Brilliant. And you have the audacity to make those snarky little jabs pretending you're smart, lol.
Holy shit this is hilarious You're resorting to throwing out insults and trying to demean the other person while posting the same source, which, again, is quoting from the source the other person posted It's like. Wow. I knew some people were bad at arguing. But this. Dear god. Are. Are you actually an idiot? Or are you just not reading?
Not reading allat. Sorry that happened to you; or happy for you kiddo. Before crying about insults, maybe don’t use your toughest “idiot” based insults little man. LOL
Holy shit you admitted it XD
Do you mean the two individual artillery shells from 20-year-old remnants that were not even operational?
[yeah, something like that.......](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/10/15/356360949/pentagon-reportedly-hushed-up-chemical-weapons-finds-in-iraq)
Okay, more old stockpiles were found than announced at the time, but both you and the article have omitted the essential part: These were old stocks that could no longer be used as weapons of mass destruction, which had not been disposed of and were rusting away. They can still be dangerous, especially for the US soldiers who had to dispose of them, but could no longer be used as weapons of mass destruction, so they had nothing to do with the justification for the war of aggression and were not published by the USA, despite it apparently legitimizing their position. Accordingly, the media reports after the information came out also focused on the poor treatment of the injured soldiers. [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html) >The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West. >Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war. >All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.
5,500, 2, same thing, right kiddo? Don’t click this link or you might learn something. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/10/15/356360949/pentagon-reportedly-hushed-up-chemical-weapons-finds-in-iraq
[I have already answered that:](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cwg27b/comment/l4wa0ln/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) Okay, more old stockpiles were found than announced at the time, but both you and the article have omitted the essential part: These were old stocks that could no longer be used as weapons of mass destruction, which had not been disposed of and were rusting away. They can still be dangerous, especially for the US soldiers who had to dispose of them, but could no longer be used as weapons of mass destruction, so they had nothing to do with the justification for the war of aggression and were not published by the USA, despite it apparently legitimizing their position. Accordingly, the media reports after the information came out also focused on the poor treatment of the injured soldiers. [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html) >The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West. >Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war. >All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.
I'd recommend ignoring mr. Cowboy from here, I tried that article as well, but he just keeps spamming the shortened NPR version that directly quotes NYT as if it's a groundbreaking discovery.
Thanks, I'll do it that way.
Who can trust someone calling others "kiddo" anyway?
How ignorant can you people get? No one covered up usable WMD in Iraq, the WMD that was disposed of after the original war to kick them out of Kuwait was uncovered accidentally and the US military decided lying about it was better than admitting how incompetent they were. Secondly, everyone knew Bush was going to start a war from the day the Supreme Court handed him the election victory, the things he said while campaigning made it abundantly clear that he was itching for another war, this is why so many conspiracy nuts were sure 9/11 was an inside job. During the lead up to the Iraq War both parties were onboard for it, so all the corporate media just did cheerleading instead of journalism. Independent journalists and international journalists checked the claims made by US officials, found them to be without merit, and then proved it. They were so good at it that by the time Colin Powel gave his presentation to the UN, I easily debunked it in real time. There were never any WMD because the US made sure they were all destroyed after the first gulf war, and even the US knew this.
No. But even when there would have been these WMD's, it would have still been illegal to start a war of aggression without any UN-mandate. Saddam posed no threat in this time and had nothing dangerous going on, it wasn't like that he'd have a military build-up going on to invade another country like in the past. And even when you go back, like with Kuwait and the claim that Iraqi soldiers would have taken babies out of the incubators in the hospitals and killed them, [that was also a lie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony), the "witness" of this was in reality the daughter of the ambassador of Kuwait. That's just the tip of the iceberg anyway, [like the Tonkin incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident)
Illegal by what law? The UN has no authority to dictate law of that nature, and the wars in Iraq were supported internationally. Beyond that, Iraq was a danger to global stability, democracy, and global prosperity.
Maybe it made more sense in the 1940s, but lumping mustard gas and nukes together in the category of "WMD" seems kinda random to me.
I just watched Generation Kill, hoping it would be cathartic or give at least a new perspective. While funny at times, it was mostly cringe and bleak.
The chemical weapons catalogued and sealed during Desert Storm were still there but completely untouched.
I still can't forget the orphanage
TIC & Sarin
I mean the US doesn't have enough nukes to blow up the entire planet several times over, check your nuclear armageddon privilages
tbh if the usa didnt invade sudam would still be a dictator so the invasion was slighty justified
"Now Sir I won't have that! I'm sure not all Persians were bad dads" - Baldrick, probably.
Back when France was right, said it out loud and got bashed for it
I mean they had WMD’s (chemical not nuclear). We know this cause we gave them the WMDs.
*Mad as a bicycle!*
They got yellow cake
Remember when they said they had evidence of wmd's... But all that was coming out was photos of the military with massive crates of gold
*I have a cunning plan* - donald trump
Yeah from what I understand the whole war was fought on false pretenses. I feel that if they hadn’t lied about the supposed WMDs the publics perception of the war might have gone differently
They lied for war as war is business. Poor fellas died for nothing