Thread: Selling the Iraq War: The Rumsfeld Memos

There were considerable arguments for overthrowing the Hussein regime. It's too bad Rumsfeld was willing to be so dishonest and manipulative in selling it, if this story is true.

The argument was more considerable to overthrow Bush than Hussein.

I like how the exact same tactics are being used with Iran now. First they're saying Iran is a threat. Then they'll say we need to bring them democracy.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

The argument was more considerable to overthrow Bush than Hussein.

I like how the exact same tactics are being used with Iran now. First they're saying Iran is a threat. Then they'll say we need to bring them democracy.

That's impossible. Obama is an anti-war president.

Yeah. Because calling out a supposed leftist for the centrist he is totally means we should invade Iran.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Yeah. Because calling out a supposed leftist for the centrist he is totally means we should invade Iran.

I disagree. I don't think we should invade Iran.

Is Obama really a centrist? He signed the NDAA. That is probably the most right wing thing a U.S. president has ever done. Thanks to Obama and a bunch of Republicrats in Congress, the government now has the authority to indefinitely detain and even kill U.S. citizens without trial. Obama is making Bush look like a hippy. The NDAA makes the Patriot Act look like a stack of tickets to Woodstock.

The political parties in this country have no relation to political philosophy. Republicans cater to conservatives using religion, and Democrats cater to liberals using the word "middle-class." Then, after getting the votes, they pretty much do whatever Goldman Sachs et al tells them to do.

I'll listen to lectures from the USA about nuclear weapons when they've reduced their stockpile to zero.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'll listen to lectures from the USA about nuclear weapons when they've reduced their stockpile to zero.

Are you worried that we might nuke somebody in the name of Allah so we can bang virgins?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Are you worried that we might nuke somebody in the name of Allah Democracy so we can bang virgins set up puppet regimes?

fixed

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Are you worried that we might nuke somebody in the name of Allah so we can bang virgins?

No? I think the general idea is that they are what is called a 'deterrent', against foreign attack (although of course, historically the USA is the only nation to have actually used them in warfare).

It's just extremely hypocritical if you have one of these fancy deterrent things to go round telling others that they're not allowed one because deterrents are dangerous.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

fixed

Are you really worried that we will use nukes for that purpose? It would go very much against our world political interests and make the area we want to control uninhabitable. Jihadists don't have those concerns.

Originally Posted by Xei

No? I think the general idea is that they are what is called a 'deterrent', against foreign attack (although of course, historically the USA is the only nation to have actually used them in warfare).

It's just extremely hypocritical if you have one of these fancy deterrent things to go round telling others that they're not allowed one because deterrents are dangerous.

We are not concerned that Iran might have a deterrent. We are concerned about the fact that the Iranian government funds and trains jihadist terrorist groups. The fact that we are the only country to ever use nukes does not mean that we did not use them justifiably or that we are in no position to tell jihadist governments they can't have them. We used nukes to end World War II. Jihadists are far more irrational than that. Should Charles Manson be allowed to have nukes? Is the U.S. government in no position to tell him that he can't just because they used nukes to end World War II?

The leaders of Iran would not just sit around with nukes and say, "Golly gee, I hope nobody tries to attack us." Would y'all honestly not be worried if the Iranian government had nukes? For real?

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

MI6 and CIA were told before invasion that Iraq had no active WMD

Again, more of what we already knew/felt, but a little confirmation is nice, every now and then.

The general argument should be that nukes shouldn't exist whatsoever, not that some only *some* people should have them.

This is more a genuine inquiry than it is an argument, UM, so I hope it doesn't come across as the latter:

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Are you really worried that we will use nukes for that purpose? It would go very much against our world political interests and make the area we want to control uninhabitable. Jihadists don't have those concerns.

One might argue that the Iranian government may not have the same concerns as a 'jihadist'. I don't see any 'jihadist' political leaders going around blowing themselves up for their cause. And, make no mistake, nuking a U.S. territory would be tantamount to suicide. Would it not?

What about North Korea? They've been openly making threats to nuke us. Should we take them out, premptively?

Originally Posted by UM

We are concerned about the fact that the Iranian government funds and trains jihadist terrorist groups.

Can you honestly and unquivocally say that the U.S. Government does not?
That we don't fund 'terrorist groups' (omitting the word 'Jihadist' from the mix, because a terrorist is a terrorist), if those groups, at the time, can suit our agenda?

Originally Posted by UM

The fact that we are the only country to ever use nukes does not mean that we did not use them justifiably or that we are in no position to tell jihadist governments they can't have them. We used nukes to end World War II.

I only bring this up, because I'm honestly not 100% clear on the consensus for this. From what I've read, the jury is still out on whether the bombs (or at least, the second one) were actually necesarry in ending the war; something about the condition of the pending surrender being that Japan had to oust their ruler, which they refused to do (despite surrendering), so we dropped the second bomb on them. Was that justified? (Or do I have my facts crossed? History is not my strong point, so please correct me if I'm wrong.)

Originally Posted by UM

Jihadists are far more irrational than that. Should Charles Manson be allowed to have nukes? Is the U.S. government in no position to tell him that he can't just because they used nukes to end World War II?

Should a country that lies to its people, in order to galvanize a war that its people would have likely (and actually did) oppose), be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

Originally Posted by UM

The leaders of Iran would not just sit around with nukes and say, "Golly gee, I hope nobody tries to attack us." Would y'all honestly not be worried if the Iranian government had nukes? For real?

Iran and state terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, what do you think about North Korea? Do you not feel that pose a similar (in terms of rhetoric) threat? Again, should we go in an take care of things, pre-emptively?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

One might argue that the Iranian government may not have the same concerns as a 'jihadist'. I don't see any 'jihadist' political leaders going around blowing themselves up for their cause. And, make no mistake, nuking a U.S. territory would be tantamount to suicide. Would it not?

I want to say first that my views of when and how to use war as a method have changed a lot since the days you and I debated the Iraq War. I don't think we should invade Iran with 150,000 soldiers and give them a new government and spend decades preserving it. If they ever get close to having nukes, I think we should send special forces in to take down the facilities and possibly the leaders. I don't support anything more extreme than that. Trying to give democracy to a country in which most of the population doesn't want it bad enough to fight to the death for it is a disaster. I can see that now.

The Iranian government trains and funds Hezbollah, a jihadist group.

Iran and state terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jihadists are different from the IRA, communists who want to take over the world, and silly dictators who want to sound big and bad on the news. Jihadists have a strong religious conviction that the greatest thing they can do for Allah is to die for him in the process of killing "infidels." The Soviets wanted to live. Kim Jong Il wanted to live. His silly school boy looking son wants to live. The IRA wants to live. Jihadists want to die. That is what makes them extra scary. Nuking the United States would be suicide, but we are dealing with the suicidal homicidal. I think Hezbollah with nukes is completely out of the question, and that is why the Iranian government can never have them.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

What about North Korea? They've been openly making threats to nuke us. Should we take them out, premptively?

I am not sure. I think they are a big joke, but we can't have the world thinking we take such threats lightly. As far as I know, the leaders of North Korea care about self-preservation, so I don't think they would ever be idiotic enough to attack us.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

Can you honestly and unquivocally say that the U.S. Government does not?
That we don't fund 'terrorist groups' (omitting the word 'Jihadist' from the mix, because a terrorist is a terrorist), if those groups, at the time, can suit our agenda?

Our government does a lot of sick stuff, but I have no reason to believe that they are training suicide bombers who would love to use nukes against people for being infidels in the holy land. If such a bizarre thing turned out to be the case, I would really hope our nukes get dismantled in a hurry.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

I only bring this up, because I'm honestly not 100% clear on the consensus for this. From what I've read, the jury is still out on whether the bombs (or at least, the second one) were actually necesarry in ending the war; something about the condition of the pending surrender being that Japan had to oust their ruler, which they refused to do (despite surrendering), so we dropped the second bomb on them. Was that justified? (Or do I have my facts crossed? History is not my strong point, so please correct me if I'm wrong.)

The Japanese military mentality was very much like the North Vietnamese military mentality. It was one of extremely hard headed refusal to surrender. I think blowing up entire cities at once was the only thing that had any hope of getting the Japanese to surrender. They didn't even surrender after the first atomic bombing. They didn't surrender immediately after the second one. Now, that is my answer to what it would take to get the Japanese to surrender. At this point, I am not even sure we should have imposed the embargo that inspired Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. Japan was taking over a lot of Asia, but we and our allies had been doing the same damn thing too. Japan really pissed us off with their meddling in French Indochina. FRENCH Indochina. France, our ally, had taken them over. So what was the validity of the complaint against Japan? I think they were way out of line in attacking Pearl Harbor, though. We couldn't let that slide, but I think we should have sent special forces and spies over to take out the leaders. Then we all needed to get our asses out of lands that were not ours.

Yeah, we required them to ditch their emperor position for an acceptable surrender, and they wouldn't do that at first. After they surrendered, we rewrote their constitution and drastically changed their government. As a result, Japan is one of the greatest countries in the world now. We and Japan went through Hell in our conflict, but it had a happy ending.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

Should a country that lies to its people, in order to galvanize a war that its people would have likely (and actually did) oppose), be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

As sick as that is, I think it depends on the threat it poses. I am not the least bit worried that our government is going to use nukes on anybody unless it is absolutely necessary. Most likely, we will never use nukes again. However, I think having them keeps a lot of people in line and makes the probability of us being invaded by a foreign military about 0%. They can't scare away the jihadist groups, though.

There was apparently a certain degree of manipulation involved in pushing for the Iraq War, but keep in mind that we got the WMD intelligence from the CIA and five other governments. In light of that, a few inspectors' opinions didn't mean that much. There were many other reasons too. I don't believe in the Iraq War any more, but I do give a significant amount of understanding for it. We had some real issues to deal with. At this point, I think we need to get all of our troops out of the Middle East and tell Israel that if they want to have a Jewish democracy in an Islamic hornets' nest that is considered holy land by both religions, they're on their own.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

Again, what do you think about North Korea? Do you not feel that pose a similar (in terms of rhetoric) threat? Again, should we go in an take care of things, pre-emptively?

I don't think they are a threat, but I am not sure what we should do with them if they ever do get close to having nukes. Even if Bozo the Clown threatens to nuke us, we need to take him seriously when he has nukes and we should probably make an example of him. The North Koreans have shot some fireworks into the ocean a few times, and it has been laughable. I think it is way too backward ass of a country to be a real threat any time soon.