The war in Iraq

[Rugbypup]

Rugbypup, were they lying if they truly believed at that time the information was valid?

Believed? But on what basis? When the people ask, the government answers. Did they? Not to the UK people. They said they had evidence, but it was never provided before or after war was declaired.

Hence, they lied to us. (us as in the UK before someone else bites me.)

 

[dong20]

Rugbypup, were they lying if they truly believed at that time the information was valid?

The whole point is that they didn't believe it, they merely wanted us to believe they did.

 

[Rugbypup]

The whole point is that they didn't believe it, they merely wanted us to believe they did.

Yes, exactly, so they lied to us as a nation and UK soldiers died.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Cheers Dong, but I think my post was clear enough that I was talking only about the UK peoples.

All i asked was will someone please say, hopfully an American member, what reasons were you as a nation given to go to war on?

Why were they in Iraq? I've already said why we were there.

Insinuating anti americanism is the approved trend though on LPSG.

No, it wasn't clear.

Anyway, if that was your point, once again... the same exact thing could be said (and has been said) to absolve the US. The American people were lied to by Bush et al. So if you can so readily accept your excuse for the UK's involvement, why is it so hard for you to accept the same exact reason for the US involvement, even when said excuse has been offered time and again?


If you're looking for specific rationale used in the deception of the American people, which it seems by your last post you are, you should be able to look up that information as well as anyone else. but anyway, those were also largely the same:

-WMDs in Iraq
-Saddam's history of using WMDs
-Saddam's human rights violations
-Saddam's obstinance toward UN weapon inspectors and UN/US sanctions (lack of cooperation with investigators, aggression toward foreign aircraft in or near Iraqi airspace, etc)
-alleged ties to Al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups
-alleged nuclear weapons program
-alleged chemical/biological weapons production

retroactively, some of these reasons were added for both the initial invasion and continued occupation:
-spreading democracy in the middle east
-setting an example for the region
-stabilizing the region
-fighting the terrorists "over there so we don't have to fight them here"
-fight Al-Qaeda (who, after the US invaded, actually did start showing up in Iraq)
-pressure against other regimes in the region to democratize or desist weapons research
-preventing sectarian violence
-etc

 

[SteveHd]

The whole point is that they didn't believe it, they merely wanted us to believe they did.

Is there proof they didn't believe it?

Yes, exactly, so they lied to us as a nation and UK soldiers died.

You only mentioned: UK soldiers died ... very telling.

 

[dong20]

Is there proof they didn't believe it?

Is there proof they did?

Only UK soldiers died ... very telling.

It's factually correct (UK soldiers did die) and he didn't say only, you did - he was writing from a UK perspective...

 

[Rugbypup]

No, it wasn't clear.

Anyway, if that was your point, once again... the same exact thing could be said (and has been said) to absolve the US. The American people were lied to by Bush et al. So if you can so readily accept your excuse for the UK's involvement, why is it so hard for you to accept the same exact reason for the US involvement, even when said excuse has been offered time and again?

Could or was, this is my question, what were you told at the time?

Jesus, am i speaking swahili?

I'm not absolving the UK of anything, I'm saying, once again, the reasons we, the UK, were given for war, by the UK government, was a lie about weapons of mess destruction.

A lie, because British intelligence made a claim, with no eveidence, that the UK government sold to the people, very weakly, in a shit load of spin.

What part of that has anything to do with the Americans?

My question was, as it's always been, what were the American nation told at the time that was the reason for you to go to war, ie, why were you in Iraq.

Please, put down the sword, it's a question not a attack on Americans?

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

I'm not absolving the UK of anything, I'm saying, once again, the reasons we, the UK, were given for war, by the UK government, was a lie about weapons of mess destruction.

Americans were told the same exact things that Brits were. This is why your question is so perplexing. see above edit.

I was assuming you would know all of that. So I was also assuming your question was not legitimate and was instead rhetorical and you were trying to prove some other point.

 

[Rugbypup]

You posted you edit before i finished my post.

Yes, i could look it up, but that's not the same as asking a living American for their point of view. Which despite the number of time i get bashed for being anti american on this site, I am interested in.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Orson Scott Card's take in September of 2002 if you want a little historical American perspective:

War Watch - September 16, 2002 - The Ornery American

He's wrong, of course, but he also more articulately states the case for war than most of the conservative talking heads out there did at the same time.

and I wasn't bashing you I honestly didn't understand the question.

 

[JustAsking]

You want lies about going to war in Iraq? Here are 935 of them. At some point one has to give up the notion of "misunderstanding", or "faulty intelligence".

 

[D_Roland_D_Hay]

There were several reasons given...mostly it had to do with the "war on terrorism" that Mr. Bush is trying to win. I think many Americans would claim that they were deceived as well.

 

[Rugbypup]

Did the USA openly call the reasons you've given about a load of shit like the English did?

The UK people on mass, objected to the war be we still when in, we felt forced into it.

What did Americans feel about it?

Many in the UK had no real understand why America was there as Osama Bin Laden, who bombed the twin towers was based in Afganistan.

To us, Americans got a real bad rap as war mongers.

 

[JustAsking]

There were several reasons given...mostly it had to do with the "war on terrorism" that Mr. Bush is trying to win.

That's interesting. Then why did he invade the one country that had a purely secular regime and no terrorists?

 

[Rugbypup]

Is it fair to say, that America, shocked and grief stricken by the twin towers slaughter, were united under the banner of 'a war against terrorism' with which the American government acted as they saw fit?

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Yes, many in America openly opposed the war even from the very beginning. They were in the minority. The spinsters had done their job.

When Saddam was deposed and the Battle for Baghdad was over, their numbers grew. The Americans were sold on a quick and painless little war. Those who thought that it was a bad idea were ridiculed by the spinsters and were told this war might last a few months at most, that the country was so oil rich that it would pay for its own reconstruction, that the American troops would be greeted as liberators, and that once Saddam was out of the way democracy would flourish and all would be right as rain.

As the weeks and months dragged on public opinion turned increasingly more and more against the war. You can find charts that track this change. The 2006 mid-term elections, in which Democrats won significant victories in both houses of congress, was seen by most as a referendum on the war and the president and as evidence that the American people were now staunchly against both.

Nobody here wanted to set up permanent military bases in Iraq or to permanently occupy the country. The people who were speaking against the war from the start accused Cheney and Rumsfeld of secretly wanting to do this, though everyone openly denied it and those people were again chided for being unpatriotic. Now... 5 years in... we have McCain who is arguing that staying for another 100 years would be perfectly okay, and Bush who, in his latest attack on the constitution, basically told Congress to piss-off when they said he could not use tax payer money to build permanent bases in Iraq. This is unconstitutional because it's supposed to be the power of Congress to approve what can and cannot have taxpayer money spent on it. Not much has been said about it, though.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Is it fair to say, that America, shocked and grief stricken by the twin towers slaughter, were united under the banner of 'a war against terrorism' with which the American government acted as they saw fit?

Bush and the neocons wanted to take out Saddam anyway. Some (idiots) say that the 9/11 attacks were staged to get support for this... but that doesn't make sense. If anything 9/11 delayed the war in Iraq since Bush was obligated to go after the Taliban first. However, the open-ended "war on terror" dovetailed nicely into the war in Iraq as to many Americans they can't tell one Muslim country from the next. The WMD charge was trumped up in the wake of 9/11 as a convenient excuse, and the Bush doctrine: that of preemptive military action against potential terrorists, was born. It's likely that even this doctrine, though, was just a ruse to support the administration's legitimate goals.

Also... the president did enjoy massive support following 9/11, as any sitting president in a similar situation would have. In times of national crisis partisan bickering tends to give way to national solidarity, and some would-be detractors of the war were silenced out of fear of going against the majority.

 

[D_Roland_D_Hay]

That's interesting. Then why did he invade the one country that had a purely secular regime and no terrorists?

You're guess is as good as mine... I am not justifying anyones actions, but this was one of the main themes we were given for going to war.

 

[JustAsking]

Did the USA openly call the reasons you've given about a load of shit like the English did?

The UK people on mass, objected to the war be we still when in, we felt forced into it.

What did Americans feel about it?

Many in the UK had no real understand why America was there as Osama Bin Laden, who bombed the twin towers was based in Afganistan.

To us, Americans got a real bad rap as war mongers.

There were a lot of us who felt that way, pup. But what happened was that the Bush administration pulled what I call a "McCarthy". And that is to whip up the nationalistic notions of the American people so strongly that to offer any dissent was considered "unpatriotic". In fact, GWB suggested that time after time.

Americans are very vulnerable to manipulation like this, and it is unfortunate that it is so easy to do. The sentiment was so strong that most elected officials voted the way the public sentiment was going.

A famous quote comes to mind:

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”​

A couple more quotes come to mind:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”​

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”​

Can anyone identify who said these things?

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Goebbels, of course, Nazi minister of propaganda.