Selling the Iraq War: The Rumsfeld Memos

[Oneironaut Zero]

Hubris: Selling the Iraq War - The Rumsfeld memos - The Maddow Blog I'm at work, so I haven't had a chance to watch the video yet, but just placing this here because of what was in the text (much of which we all knew, in our hearts). Enjoy.

[Universal Mind]

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.

[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.

[Universal Mind]

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.

[Original Poster]

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

[Universal Mind]

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.

[Original Poster]

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.

[Xei]

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

[Universal Mind]

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?

[Darkmatters]

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

[Universal Mind]

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. 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

[Oneironaut Zero]

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

[Xei]

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.

[Oneironaut Zero]

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.

[Descensus]

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