Ten Lies We Were Told About Iraq

i still think they are going to have to withdraw after a while. they just won't be able to stay there for years

This from the same person who thought the Americans were going to die in the thousands fighing Saddams 'special republican guard'? rofl

fuck u america, your time will come.

I think there is two or three people here trying to convince themselves the war was wrong, if they repeat it often enough and ad in quotes from extremist anti US propaganda sites they might succeed in brain washing themselves.

Trapper said,

I think it's the same discussion we have had 1000 times...


I think there is two or three people here trying to convince themselves the war was wrong, if they repeat it often enough and ad in quotes from extremist anti US propaganda sites they might succeed in brain washing themselves.

If those resolutions were enough to go to war, then the UN would have supported it.

The UN did not support the war therefore those resolutions don't have enough backing to go to war.

DEPUTY DEFENSE Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has given away the game. In a recent Vanity Fair magazine interview, he acknowledged that all of this discussion about needing to go to war on Iraq in order to disarm the country was just, as he called it, "bureaucratic."

It was a way of selling the war because it was a goal that different parts of the government and allies of the U.S. could agree on. But it was just a public relations lie in order to get people on board for a war that was being fought for other reasons.

If you look at public support for the war, it was based on a deliberate lie that there was a connection between Iraq and the September 11 attacks. Public opinion polls show that nearly half of the U.S. population believed there was a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, when absolutely no evidence exists for this claim.

The Bush and Blair governments repeatedly talked about the ties between Iraq and international terrorism generally--and specifically al-Qaeda, even though al-Qaeda has a long history of hostility toward the government of Iraq. The intelligence community in the U.S. and Britain consistently said that they had no evidence to link the two.

On May 30, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof quoted an anonymous Defense Intelligence Agency source who was "privy to all the intelligence there on Iraq." He told Kristof, "The American people were manipulated. The Al-Qaeda connection and nuclear weapons issue were the only two ways that you could link Iraq to an imminent security threat to the U.S."

Greg Thielmann, who retired last September after 25 years in the State Department--the last four in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research--said, "The administration was grossly distorting the intelligence on both things." Interestingly, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman’s reaction to all this is to say it’s perfectly okay that the U.S. can get away with these kinds of lies and arrogance.

Control of oil is the primary motivation for this war. It’s why Iraq was a target for war. It’s why the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein in the 1970s and ’80s when he was an ally and a friend--when Donald Rumsfeld met with him in Baghdad. It’s why the U.S. is going to occupy Iraq until it can impose a government that’s suitable to U.S. interests. And it’s why Iran and Syria are now in the crosshairs.