Did the Bush Administration deceive Americans into supporting the Iraq war?

[petros]

So Iraq should have just let them steal the oil and sabotage pipelines?

 

[earth_as_one]

The other issue were the billions that Kuwait owed Iraq for fighting a war against Iran (Iraq's version)... The Kuwaiti version is that the transfers were loans that Iraq had to pay back... During the war Kuwait did transfer billions to Iraq. But they stopped the transfers as soon as the war ended, leaving Iraq deeply in debt.

Kuwait also dumped billions of dollars worth of oil on the market (far above their OPEC agreements) creating an oil glut which drove down the price of oil, making Iraq's financial situation even more dire. Kuwait's actions were deliberate economic warfare.

Then there is the infamous meeting between Hussein and US ambassador April Glaspie where she stated that Americans "have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts" and that "the Kuwait issue is not associated with America" allegedly creating a perception that the US gave Saddam free rein to handle his disputes with Kuwait as he saw fit. Likely Hussein would not have invaded Kuwait had he been given an explicit warning that such an invasion would be met with force by the United States.
April Glaspie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sal]

The other issue were the billions that Kuwait owed Iraq for fighting a war against Iran (Iraq's version)... The Kuwaiti version is that the transfers were loans that Iraq had to pay back... During the war Kuwait did transfer billions to Iraq. But they stopped the transfers as soon as the war ended, leaving Iraq deeply in debt.

Kuwait also dumped billions of dollars worth of oil on the market (far above their OPEC agreements) creating an oil glut which drove down the price of oil, making Iraq's financial situation even more dire. Kuwait's actions were deliberate economic warfare.

Then there is the infamous meeting between Hussein and US ambassador April Glaspie where she stated that Americans "have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts" and that "the Kuwait issue is not associated with America" allegedly creating a perception that the US gave Saddam free rein to handle his disputes with Kuwait as he saw fit. Likely Hussein would not have invaded Kuwait had he been given an explicit warning that such an invasion would be met with force by the United States.
April Glaspie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The political game goes on...so many under currents and agendas etc.

 

[earth_as_one]

Most people voted that they believe the Bush administration deliberately deceived the American public into supporting the Iraq war.

So far ES hasn't voted or offered an alternative opinion other than those given in the poll. Why not?

 

[JLM]

So Iraq should have just let them steal the oil and sabotage pipelines?

Nope- I wonder what the equivalent of the F.B.I. is in that region? They should be easy to arrest- (just follow the holes in the ground a couple of feet from the border) , No need to blow up a whole country!

 

[earth_as_one]

The oil wells were on the Kuwait side of the border, but because of slant drilling they were taking oil from the Iraqi side of the border.

 

[petros]

Nope- I wonder what the equivalent of the F.B.I. is in that region? They should be easy to arrest- (just follow the holes in the ground a couple of feet from the border) , No need to blow up a whole country!

Did they "blow up the whole country"? Were they really letting babies die on hospital floors after yanking them out of incubators?

IRAQ WAR - Incubator Baby Death Lies & Liars - YouTube

So who/where is the law who nails liars?

 

[JLM]

The oil wells were on the Kuwait side of the border, but because of slant drilling they were taking oil from the Iraqi side of the border.

No kidding! -

 

[EagleSmack]

Most people voted that they believe the Bush administration deliberately deceived the American public into supporting the Iraq war.

So far ES hasn't voted or offered an alternative opinion other than those given in the poll. Why not?

I actually had to laugh when I saw that you made this thread shortly after I made you eat your words.

Are you sorry I am not playing? lol

Thanks! I did learn my lesson, ( I hope) I took the bait and replied to you against my better judgement... lol... to quote the bible...pearls before swine.

What bait? I asked a question. Of course I knew the answer but I love calling out people like you who simply make it up as you go.

So I am glad you learned your lesson.

But I did get the type of response I had imagined so thanks for proving me right once again. Everyone has something to teach us if we are open to it. What's that quote by Catherin Aird; if you can't be a good example you will just have to be a horrible warning.

There ya go... ;-) and thanks for the warning. :lol:

Proved you right? Awwww... c'mon Sal. You don't expect me to believe that now do you? Trying to save some face? tsk

 

[earth_as_one]

Yes ES I admitted I was wrong when I said you believe Hussein had something to do with 9/11. A post in 2008 clearly shows that at that time (2008 ) you didn't believe Hussein was involved.

But I was unable to prove whether or not you believed Iraq possessed WMDs at the beginning of the 2003 war.

I can't decide whether you supported your country invading occupying Iraq because you were deceived or you saw through the BS and are just callous regarding the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

 

[Corduroy]

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?

You seem insistent on arguing a point I'm not making. This is typical among people who hold strong opinions on this topic. You only want to argue one thing and deviations are ignored to reiterate your point.

I can summarize your post in two points.

1. Saddam Hussein was genocidal and brutalized his people, but was worse in the past than he was just before the invasion.
2. Overthrowing Saddam Hussein wasn't as urgent as the ongoing genocide in the Congo.

You fail to realize that neither of these points has any bearing on my point, nor do I buy that those points follow logically towards non-intervention. For starters, I'm not saying that Iraq was more urgent than the Congo. That's the second time I've made that clear. More importantly, Saddam Hussein isn't redeemed for refraining from mass murdering people for 10 years. You said yourself that you would have supported humanitarian intervention at the time of Hussein's worst crimes. In my opinion, the idea that a man should be punished for a heinous crime becomes more urgent and the injustice more egregious the longer he is allowed to move freely in luxury and adoration. I'm not following your logic that Hussein was alright because he wasn't mass murdering Kurds between some arbitrary date before the war.

I suspect your argument can be more explained with this analogy: a friend of mine always tells this story about her time at university. In 2000, a protest banner demanded foreign intervention in Afghanistan to stop the Taliban. A year later, after September 11, the banner was changed to demand the US get out of Afghanistan. You supported intervention in Iraq when certain Western powers were against it and went against intervention when those same powers supported it. I don't buy the flimsy logic that things weren't as bad in Iraq in 2003 and that's why you don't support invasion. I don't believe you are that irrational to believe such a thing, but I do believe that you have a knee jerk propensity to oppose American foreign policy even if it contradicts your previous opinions.

I could be mischaracterizing you though. I do think that your intellectual integrity is stronger than most around here, you're just sometimes wrong for the right reasons

 

[L Gilbert]

Please vote in the poll above. You can vote multiple times and the results are public.

Did the Bush Administration deliberately deceive Americans into supporting the 2003 war against Iraq?

You're kidding, right?

 

[JLM]

You're kidding, right?

You'd think there's enough new sh*t happening in the world that we can quit rehashing the old sh*t.-

 

[EagleSmack]

Yes ES I admitted I was wrong when I said you believe Hussein had something to do with 9/11. A post in 2008 clearly shows that at that time (2008 ) you didn't believe Hussein was involved.

But I was unable to prove whether or not you believed Iraq possessed WMDs at the beginning of the 2003 war.

I can't decide whether you supported your country invading occupying Iraq because you were deceived or you saw through the BS and are just callous regarding the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

So you created this WHOLE THREAD for ME!

Are you feeling cheated?

 

[L Gilbert]

So you created this WHOLE THREAD for ME!

Are you feeling cheated?

lol.

 

[EagleSmack]

You're kidding, right?

No he's really not. You can vote for each and every reason! Isn't it a great poll?

 

[darkbeaver]

No he's really not. You can vote for each and every reason! Isn't it a great poll?

He also supports the two state solution.

 

[L Gilbert]

No he's really not. You can vote for each and every reason! Isn't it a great poll?

I would have said "yes, it's a great poll" if it had some humor or wasn't so pathetic. But it doesn't.

 

[EagleSmack]

I would have said "yes, it's a great poll" if it had some humor or wasn't so pathetic. But it doesn't.

Lets just say it was a Poll of Passion... or a Thread of Passion for EAO.

 

[Goober]

Was the purpose of this Thread just to go trolling????