Did the Bush Administration deceive Americans into supporting the Iraq war?
- Thread starter earth_as_one
- Start date
My point is that an intervention in Iraq 15 years after a genocidal attack which killed thousands of Kurds really didn't save any lives or improve conditions for Iraqis. IN fact, the US led invasion of Iraq created a humanitarian problem. After the invasion, Iraq fell into a state of lawlessness. Thousands of people were murdered and raped, while roving street gangs looted stores, banks and museums. Eventually the situation evolved into a religious war between Shiite and Sunni Muslims which killed tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands.
Whereas a UN intervention in the DRC in March 2003 using 1/100 of the resources used to invade Iraq could have saved millions of lives. Yet at the time, all we heard in the news was how bad the situation used to be in Iraq (portrayed in a way that it sounded like an ongoing problem) while the DRC's ongoing genocidal war rarely made the news.
Oh please, I do know better.
Please tell me, how many violent deaths in Iraq were attributable to Hussein or the Iraqi government from January 2000 until March 2003? Give me an estimate based on your perceptions. Dozens, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands... Seriously how many people were dying in Iraq at the time of the invasion while tens of thousands were dying in the DRC every month?
Last edited:
Perhaps many posters here (myself included at times) are putting the cart before the horse. Before we can discuss the validity of figures like Bush.........................and Obama, Clinton, Harper, Reagan, Idi Amin etc. we have to establish the validity of the myriad of news sources.
Here's some help:
US State Department Press Release:
Life Under Saddam Hussein: Past Repression and Atrocities by Saddam Hussein's Regime
122 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000;
23 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in October 2001; and
At least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001.
Nasty no doubt, but notice the numbers for 2002-March 2003? That's right none exist. Because Iraq was peaceful at the time the US invaded. Hussein was actually granting amnesty and freeing people from prisons in 2002-2003.
Meanwhile from 2002 until March 2003, while our news was going on and on about Hussein's atrocities during the 1980's and 90's, tens of thousands of people were dying each month in a genocidal civil war in the DRC.
So are you seriously telling me that the US government was concerned about the welfare of Iraqis? If that were true, lifting the economic embargo imposed on Iraq would have had an immediate benefit and cost no lives.
BTW, I was against Hussein since he came to power. I would have supported a humanitarian intervention in Iraq in 1991 during the popular uprisings and or even in the late 1980's when Iraq used CWs against Iran (with US support including satellite intel) or later when they used CWs against thousands of Kurds.
The idea that humanitarian concerns were a justification for the 2003 war is ridiculous.
US State Department Press Release:
Life Under Saddam Hussein: Past Repression and Atrocities by Saddam Hussein's Regime
122 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000;
23 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in October 2001; and
At least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001.
Nasty no doubt, but notice the numbers for 2002-March 2003? That's right none exist. Because Iraq was peaceful at the time the US invaded. Hussein was actually granting amnesty and freeing people from prisons in 2002-2003.
Meanwhile from 2002 until March 2003, while our news was going on and on about Hussein's atrocities during the 1980's and 90's, tens of thousands of people were dying each month in a genocidal civil war in the DRC.
So are you seriously telling me that the US government was concerned about the welfare of Iraqis? If that were true, lifting the economic embargo imposed on Iraq would have had an immediate benefit and cost no lives.
BTW, I was against Hussein since he came to power. I would have supported a humanitarian intervention in Iraq in 1991 during the popular uprisings and or even in the late 1980's when Iraq used CWs against Iran (with US support including satellite intel) or later when they used CWs against thousands of Kurds.
The idea that humanitarian concerns were a justification for the 2003 war is ridiculous.
Last edited:
You heard right. FDR knew all about. That's why our carriers were out at sea and some of them were even in the Atlantic Ocean of all places. US Aircraft Carriers out at sea... yeah right.
Though acting on faulty information isn't the best of diplomacy, Hussien wasn't exactly the sort of person in whose word one should place a lot of faith. It's all about trust.
Well if you listen to EAO... Hussein was a man of peace. Before 2003 Iraq was a peaceful nation.
Hussein may have been a scumbag but he did keep order in his country. Since the invasion, the country is in turmoil, hundreds of thousands have died and many more are refugees. All in all, the dissension was a bad one and has torn the country apart. I would say the country was better off with Hussein than with the US and its puppet government.
That's your argument? Those paper agreements are no where as valuable as the oil and the dollar that floated on it. I think that's a reasonable opinion.
Did you get a look at post WWII Germany and Japan? I guess they were better off too eh?
NEXT
Poor old Saddam was a scumbag but he obviously wasn't as big and bad as the scumbags who done him in was he? What's it come to Cliffy? When we are encouraged to celebrate bigger scumbags and their victories.
1) The burden of proof must always be on the accuser to prove guilt, not the accused to prove innocent. But the propaganda of the time led people to believe that absence of evidence proved Iraq had a WMD program and was hiding it.
2) I trusted the UN weapon inspectors and they found exactly what Iraq said they would find... nothing.
I don't think anyone trusted Hussein.
If I recall these states were the aggressors. Your analogy would be valid if Iraq won the war and post war US looked like post war Iraq.
I never said that. I said Iraq was peaceful more or less from 2000-2003. But if you disagree, feel free to prove it. Give me an example of an atrocity committed by Saddam Hussein from the time George Bush Jr. became President until he declared war on Iraq. Even the US government attributes only 153 deaths to Hussein during that period and all of those were people convicted of capital crimes.
Ref: Life Under Saddam Hussein: Past Repression and Atrocities by Saddam Hussein's Regime
(BTW, I disagree with the death penalty even for treason... however capital punishment for adultery IMO, is ridiculous)
Yes but his supporters LOVE him. In spite of evidence that he was probably the worst president in their history, destroyed their economy, is responsible for how many deaths (on both sides) could barely put a sentence together without prompters which he had problems reading, doesn't matter, his followers would STILL die for him.
So what does that say about those Americans? It astounds me to hear their defense to this day and they aren't all stupid but they are rabid.
I would love to hear an analysis of what could possibly make such sheeple? I find it quite fascinating.
OMG, that is the truth and about sums up everything.
Yes. And who put him into power in the first place to do exactly what he was doing. Until he got a bit uppity for them.
Right on with this comment.Poor old Saddam was a scumbag but he obviously wasn't as big and bad as the scumbags who done him in was he? What's it come to Cliffy? When we are encouraged to celebrate bigger scumbags and their victories.
yeah, remember that count...lol
opps my bad, I think I found a sheeple...not a big surprise at all.