Iraq: The worst mistake in American History....or was it?

[CaptainCrunch]

The atomic bomb argument was an interesting one, but there are some key factors that have effected the argument.

In the 60 years since its been dropped there has been a tremendous amount of information gathered and analyzed that wasn't available when the decision was made. But there were some key factors that made the American's make the decision to drop not one, but two bombs.

1) The American military was horrified by the high cost of the Island hopping campaign, especially with Iwo Jima where the American Marines had to basically clean out every Japanese solider at an extremely high cost. The Japanese soldier had gained a reputation as fanatical, ruthless and the feeling was that they would never ever surrender. What added to that was the use of Kamikaze pilots and the use of manned torpedoes against the U.S. Navy. It gave a bleak picture that as long as the Japanese Military had the option of an honorable death there would be no diplomatic solution.

2) The firebombing while effective at destroying cities and killing civilians was deemed as ineffective because it didn't break the resolve of the Japanese Military to fight their way out of their predicament. The Japanese Military felt that if they could bleed enough lives from the American Military that U.S. civilian opinion would swing against continuing the war and force the American's to negotiate an end to the war that would leave the Japanese with their remaining holdings, and a chance to rebuild their military.

3) Propaganda broadcast from the Japanese mainland were intercepted which extorted the civilian population to fight against American invaders, one of the key phrases was that the Japanese Culture was to great to bow to any foreign invader.

4) With the collapse of the European war, Stalin had turned his eyes to attacking the Japanese. You have to remember that there was a historic grudge against Japan by the Russians. Also the seizure of key Japanese islands would give Stalin access to both more fresh water pacific ports and cause a loss of prestige to the American's if the Russians managed to capture Japan.

5) There were only two atomic bombs built because the designs were bulky and terrible and the refining of the end amount of fissionable material required a massive amount of material. The American's depleted their stock of weapons grade plutonium in the creation of the two bombs and it would take time to gather enough materials to fabricate more bombs.

6) The American's were tired of war, and seeing their generation of young men being bled dry. Combine that with the caluculated impact on the American economy if they continued to lose these men, and couldn't get them back into the factory. The feeling was that if the American did a naval blockade of the Japanese Islands surrender wouldn't happen for years, and it would have been the equivalent of a long slow death sentence of the Japanese civilian base, and an unrecoverable destruction of their economic base. The feeling was that a marine amphibious landing would result in the deaths of the majority of the Japanese Civilian base, and the intense city fighting would cause an unacceptable loss of marines, airforce and navy assets, which was a frightening concept when you consider that the Russian Military at the time was thought to be incredibly strong due to their thrashing of the German Army.

With all of those factors there was no choice, they dropped the first atomic bomb as a demonstration of the power of the atomic bomb, the Japanese didn't surrender, Stalin officially declared war and massed his forces. Its interesting to note that the Soviets siezed the Kuril Islands after the Japanese surrender creating a dispute that continues to sour Russia Japanese relationship.

Anyways, with Japan's refusal to surrender and pandora's box ripped open, the American's decided to deploy the second bomb in order to both force the Japanese to capitulate, and as a bluff to convince the Soviets that there were more bombs.

One of the reasons worked, the Japanese surrendered, but now there are several pieces of revisionist history that have stated that the Atomic Bomb drop was necessary, however based on the factors above and the climate at the time, there was no other decision to be made.

The second reason, the bluff at the Russians failed to work, Russian Intelligence was bad, however Stalin didn't really care his strategy was to bide his time, he appointed the repulsive Beria to oversea the program and the first Russian bomb the Joe-1 was detonated in 1949.

If the American's had had more then two bombs its reasonable to assume that there would have been a strong push to use it against Stalin as both a heavy stick, and a inducement for him to behave. America had a huge strategic advantage and frittered it away

With the detonation in 1949, MAD went into full force.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Read his speech regarding his reasons against the war.

Never mentions anything about poor intelligence. Or even about reading the intelligence reports and concluding that it wasn't good enough.

In fact, he doesn't even mention WMD outside of saying that Saddam tried to acquire nuclear, chemical or biological weapons....or wanted too at one point.

Here, a quote from Obama...



Yeah, indeed he read the intelligence reports.

I don't really get what you are going for here.

Bush and his cronies flat-out lied. They lied to everyone about everything. I don't know what intelligence reports you are talking about specifically, but I'm pretty sure they weren't handing out reports that let everyone know they were lying.

Now it's certainly debatable/valid that the Democrats and Congress should have voted against this war, but very little of the blame lies on them. The people who make the real decisions made the real decisions.

It's like this...

Defendant: "Your honour, my friend told me he bought the car at Sunridge Nissan. I had no idea he forged the bill of sale and burned down the showroom".

Judge: "You are just as guilty as him for accepting a ride".

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Bush and his cronies flat-out lied. They lied to everyone about everything. I don't know what intelligence reports you are talking about specifically, but I'm pretty sure they weren't handing out reports that let everyone know they were lying.

How did they lie?

Every report that Bush and his administration used to orchestrate the war was available to everyone in Congress. Even if Dean wants to say that the intelligence they received was 'corrupt'....nothing was mentioned in the Senate Report in the intelligence gathered on Iraq leading up the war.

Also, Bush and his 'cronies' do not generate intelligence. And like I said earlier, there was almost 100% support from the US intelligence community in regards to the intelligence they found. IIRC, the only thing some had a problem with was the 'nuclear'....side to the whole equation.

So until you provide evidence to prove that Bush lied....you're wrong.

You'll probably be hard-pressed to find it to...considering that nothing in the Senate report mentioned anything about 'lying'.

Nor does it mention anything about falsely generated evidence.

Nothing.

Now it's certainly debatable/valid that the Democrats and Congress should have voted against this war, but very little of the blame lies on them. The people who make the real decisions made the real decisions.

Sure.

Congress has to declare war. Like Hoz said...the whole 'checks and balances' side to this didn't exist.

They were as dubious to the whole idea as Bush and his 'cronies.'

Including Tenet.

I mean, when the Director of the CIA comes and tells you its a 'slam dunk' case....what would you do?

It's like this...

Not really.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

How did they lie?

Every report that Bush and his administration used to orchestrate the war was available to everyone in Congress. Even if Dean wants to say that the intelligence they received was 'corrupt'....nothing was mentioned in the Senate Report in the intelligence gathered on Iraq leading up the war.

Also, Bush and his 'cronies' do not generate intelligence. And like I said earlier, there was almost 100% support from the US intelligence community in regards to the intelligence they found. IIRC, the only thing some had a problem with was the 'nuclear'....side to the whole equation.

So until you provide evidence to prove that Bush lied....you're wrong.

You'll probably be hard-pressed to find it to...considering that nothing in the Senate report mentioned anything about 'lying'.

Nor does it mention anything about falsely generated evidence.

There have been numerous books published and interviews given by insiders saying the evidence was at best "hand picked" to fit the agenda. You follow this stuff closely enough to know this is true.

There was not and is not "almost 100% support" from the intelligence folks and there never was. It's quite well known that this "Curveball" character was a loon and a liar from the get-go, and that's only one example.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

There have been numerous books published and interviews given by insiders saying the evidence was at best "hand picked" to fit the agenda. You follow this stuff closely enough to know this is true.

Yes, all those 'insiders.'

I'm surprised that the Senate Report never mentioned them. Surely if they have 100% verified proof that Bush and his 'cronies' hand-picked evidence, they'd have brought it up.

There was not and is not "almost 100% support" from the intelligence folks and there never was. It's quite well known that this "Curveball" character was a loon and a liar from the get-go, and that's only one example.

Curveball was a intelligence 'failure.'

Tenet was responsible for bringing him in and using his so-called intelligence as a major requisite for going to war.

Seriously, if the guy in charge of my intelligence comes up to me and says with 100% certainty that the intelligence they have gathered is correct....I'd go to war too. Unless of course you believe Tenet was in on the whole deal to cook the evidence. They must have not paid him enough though....as he left the CIA and wrote a book blaming Bush about everything.

'Slam Dunk.' I bet his publisher said that too.

Course, it didn't help that the Germans kept their mouths shut about his validity. Guess they were concerned about the whole oil for food scandal .

[T@T]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't mean to sound callous, even though I obviously do, but in the end, screw 'em. They started it.

It could be argued the Americans forced the attack on Pearl Harbor, they cut off oil supplys to the japs, they funded the Chinese war effort against the Japs, hell they even had squadrons of American pilots in repainted P-40's shooting down the Japs.

Corner a cat long enough they eventually come out scratching.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yes, all those 'insiders.'

I'm surprised that the Senate Report never mentioned them. Surely if they have 100% verified proof that Bush and his 'cronies' hand-picked evidence, they'd have brought it up.

Curveball was a intelligence 'failure.'

Tenet was responsible for bringing him in and using his so-called intelligence as a major requisite for going to war.

Seriously, if the guy in charge of my intelligence comes up to me and says with 100% certainty that the intelligence they have gathered is correct....I'd go to war too. Unless of course you believe Tenet was in on the whole deal to cook the evidence. They must have not paid him enough though....as he left the CIA and wrote a book blaming Bush about everything.

'Slam Dunk.' I bet his publisher said that too.

Course, it didn't help that the Germans kept their mouths shut about his validity. Guess they were concerned about the whole oil for food scandal .

I find it truly mind-boggling, knowing what we know now, that anyone still believes this whole WMD thing was completely legitimate and the gangsters really believed Iraq was a threat to the world.

It was not true. None of it. Do you think they believed with actual certainty that there were rolling weapons factories and giant underground warehouses chock-full of all sorts of nasty stuff? Do you really think they are that incompetent? Really?

I think one of the "insiders" was Richard Clarke. I don't think Colin Powell is too impressed with what he had to say or the little vial of icing sugar he had to hold up either.

[chris lindberg]

Interesting thread, "The Fog of War" does have a lot previously unknown/unheard information anout the U.S./Japan War.

We watched another real interesting film in class today, don't remember the name....(some German word?)

It pretty much blamed the Central Bank for starting WW1, WW2 & the Vietnam war.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by chris lindberg

Interesting thread, "The Fog of War" does have a lot previously unknown/unheard information anout the U.S./Japan War.

We watched another real interesting film in class today, don't remember the name....(some German word?)

It pretty much blamed the Central Bank for starting WW1, WW2 & the Vietnam war.

I would really be interested in how that blame was created. Can you give us a 10,000 foot view?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I find it truly mind-boggling, knowing what we know now, that anyone still believes this whole WMD thing was completely legitimate and the gangsters really believed Iraq was a threat to the world.

I find it mind-boggling that people still believe believe Saddam was a viable thread to 'American' security....with or without WMD.

I wish the US would have focused on Afghanistan....but alas that wasn't the case.

I believe Saddam had WMD at one point....but I think the US intelligence community really screwed up the 'when' portion of that argument. Obviously he never had them when they invaded.

Of course, he could have moved them right before the invasion....but I'm sure the US would have spotted trucks going into Syria by satellite. Unless of course they did.

I honestly believe Bush went to war thinking the intelligence was viable and correct. I don't believe he lied at all.

But I do think he went in thinking it would be easier than it actually turned out to be. Personally, some of the reports I read leading up to the invasion suggested that the US would be there 5-10 years securing the country. Seems like their timeline was correct.

And lets not even mention the contracts the DoD gave out....many of which weren't even completed correctly. I mean, if you pay Company X 50 million dollars to build 10 schools...and they build 5, but send you a bill for 200 million, you end up wondering what is going on.

Yet, I still think some sort of success can be reached....Iraq 'must' be able to self-govern by the time the US leaves. And I think they will. The surge went well....casualties are down almost 60%. Its good news.

Mistake or not...I hope it turns out.

It was not true. None of it. Do you think they believed with actual certainty that there were rolling weapons factories and giant underground warehouses chock-full of all sorts of nasty stuff? Do you really think they are that incompetent? Really?

Saddam tried once before...why wouldn't he have tried again?

According to the FBI agent...he was 'surprised' the US invaded. Now is he feeding them useless information to manipulate public support against the government, or is he telling the truth? You never know.

But the CIA believed they had WMD.....what kind of information do you and I have to say otherwise? We're the ones looking back and saying, 'what the hell went wrong?' Nice when hindsight is 20/20.

We have no idea what they knew at the time.

I think one of the "insiders" was Richard Clarke. I don't think Colin Powell is too impressed with what he had to say or the little vial of icing sugar he had to hold up either.

I think Powell documented the screwups very well.

Including Tenet inserting the 'Curveball' thing into his speech right before he delivered it to the UN.

[Vulcan]

I don't know Azure, you can't believe Hillary was that stupid but you think George was, so it's OK?

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Azure

I believe Saddam had WMD at one point...

well duh, he gassed his own people in 1988.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Azure

I honestly believe Bush went to war thinking the intelligence was viable and correct. I don't believe he lied at all.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I don't know Azure, you can't believe Hillary was that stupid but you think George was, so it's OK?

I think both of them are stupid in a way....for letting any of this happen.

But at least Bush has stood by his 'stupidity'....from the get-go....Hillary has let popular opinion dictate her stance.

Thats why I don't like her.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Prove it.

Prove it that he intentionally lied, and fabricated evidence leading up to the Iraq War.

Prove that he and his cronies cooked intelligence reports. Prove it.

Your logic makes no sense. If Bush was lying from the start, why wouldn't he send in a black-ops team and plant WMD in Iraq? That way he can justify his war...Cheney can justify making millions....public support for the war would probably still be up at 40-50%....and nobody could in theory say he 'lied.' I mean, if the guy is such a crony, and Cheney is so greedy, why wouldn't they make sure all those ends were covered?

Its funny really. Seems like its popular to say that Bush lied....the whole world believes it already because of the 'spin' the media has used to turn 'intelligence failure' into 'Bush lied - people died.'

Yet, every single report dedicated to finding out that exact so-called 'lie'...has ONLY talked about a massive intelligence failure.

Nothing has been documented about Bush 'lying'......except for those 'insiders'....who suddenly come out and write books telling the whole world how Bush forced the intelligence community to generate evidence that would prove Saddam had WMD. Yet, the real sources....those who investigated the WHOLE fiasco, never said anything about that.

So who are we going to believe? Insiders who take advantage of popular opinion and write books? Or a Senate Intelligence Committee who gathered ALL the evidence available and came to a different conclusion?

Lying is a pretty big demeanor...and by theory, it should be sufficient groups to impeach a President. If Bush did lie....don't you think the Democrats would push the impeachment process? There is a reason the majority of them are staying away from that. And I firmly believe it is because they failed the American people as well.

But hey, lets elect Clinton. I'm sure she'll change her stance a couple millions times before the primaries are even over.

'I supported it.....'

'Obama didn't support it...therefore he appeased Saddam...'

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think both of them are stupid in a way....for letting any of this happen.

But at least Bush has stood by his 'stupidity'....from the get-go....Hillary has let popular opinion dictate her stance.

Thats why I don't like her.

Aha, so you admire someone who puts his hand in the fire and when he realizes it's starting to burn, he still keeps it there.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Aha, so you admire someone who puts his hand in the fire and when he realizes it's starting to burn, he still keeps it there.

You think its that simple?

According to that...

Bush asks Congress to declare war, which they do based on the intelligence they 'glanced' at.

Invade Iraq....cripple the infrastructure, remove Saddam from power, cripple the economy, basically cripple the whole country....but hey, we didn't find any WMD.

Pull out, leave the country in shambles....most likely a civil war considering the absence of a government. Vietnam all over again...after the US pulled out.

You think thats what Bush should have done? Because that is exactly what Hillary has done.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Azure

You think its that simple?

According to that...

Bush asks Congress to declare war, which they do based on the intelligence they 'glanced' at.

Invade Iraq....cripple the infrastructure, remove Saddam from power, cripple the economy, basically cripple the whole country....but hey, we didn't find any WMD.

Pull out, leave the country in shambles....most likely a civil war considering the absence of a government. Vietnam all over again...after the US pulled out.

You think thats what Bush should have done? Because that is exactly what Hillary has done.

How long should the US stay there?

Many lives will it take before someone comes to their senses

Do you think the civil war is going to end anytime soon?

Persoanly i think the US govt is going to have to admit defeat and pull out of Iraq sooner than later. I don't see them winning this civil war.

Soldiers are doing double duty while others aren't allowed to retire.

People are on to Bush and all and aren't enlisting like they used to.

[badnarik]

i dont think congress ever declared war, am i wrong?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

You think its that simple?

According to that...

Bush asks Congress to declare war, which they do based on the intelligence they 'glanced' at.

Invade Iraq....cripple the infrastructure, remove Saddam from power, cripple the economy, basically cripple the whole country....but hey, we didn't find any WMD.

Pull out, leave the country in shambles....most likely a civil war considering the absence of a government. Vietnam all over again...after the US pulled out.

You think thats what Bush should have done? Because that is exactly what Hillary has done.

Well you can't conduct a war and foreign policy based on a lie, which Bush seems determined to do. It's time to take your hand out of the fire and start treating it. Whether that involves doing a quick or slow withdrawal, I'm not sure what the next president will do, but they have to remove the people profiting from this war. Those profiting have no wish to end this war and that includes politicians and media as well as the usual suspects in the military industrial complex. Who knows in some convoluted way, they're so corrupt they may even be propping up these terrorists. They're getting their arms from some where. They certainly haven't come close to getting Osama bin Laden and when you consider his families close ties to Bush's family, well I won't ask you to connect the dots because that isn't your forte.