4 ms·

Downing street memos, Rumsfeld memos, the Project for a New American Century Report, Hans Blix assertions that there were no WMDs, historical acts of aggression

Downing street memos, Rumsfeld memos, the Project for a New American Century Report, Hans Blix assertions that there were no WMDs, historical acts of aggression in other countries, subsequent acts of aggression in other countries, and post-hoc assertions that WMDs were not the main reason for invasion, among other evidence all show that the invasion of Iraq was geo-strategic and not primarily based on disarming Iraq of WMDs, though some senior officials were led to believe that. http://www.globalresearch.ca/secret-memo-by-donald-rumsfeld-proves-iraq-war-started-on-false-pretenses/5323576 http://www.globalresearch.ca/secret-memo-by-donald-rumsfeld-...

Uhhrrr 13y ago
Eh, there's no way that Rumsfeld memo is "How to start a war". Note that the first reason depends on Saddam attacking the Kurds - not very actionable for the US!
- foobarqux 13y ago
  > Eh, there's no way that Rumsfeld memo is "How to start a war It literally says "How start" meaning "how [to] start [Iraq war]". > Note that the first reason depends on Saddam attacking the Kurds - not very actionable for the US! Sure it is. Arming and supporting the Kurds to conduct instigating attacks or incursions is just one way.
  - Uhhrrr 13y ago
    It literally says "How start", but does not literally say "how to start". "How start" could also be "How [would it] start". Don't let MSNBC do your thinking for you! >Arming and supporting the Kurds to conduct instigating attacks or incursions is just one way. Then it would have said something like: "Kurds provoke", not "Saddam attacks". In any event, we wouldn't have stepped in just based on a Kurd attack. The response would still be dependent upon Saddam.
shawn-furyan 13y ago
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch.ca http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch.ca Biases matter. My first impression reading your link was that this is a crazed rant, not a rational, methodical weighing of the available evidence. These sort of organizations exist to continually whip up a froth of partisan furor, and so are always suspect. This is not a good source if your goal is to do anything other than preach to your own choir. This is the type of "proof" that keeps ideological opponents talking past each other. Honestly, I lean liberal, but I make a concerted effort not to get frothed up by liberal media. I think that on balance those sources cause more harm than good. And really, life just doesn't fit into nice little outrage inducing narratives, but you would never know it if you only consumed these sort of news sources. [edit 3:27 CDT to add the commentary, i.e. everything other than the link]
- foobarqux 13y ago
  I just took one of the first links, you can find the memo in many places, including Wikipedia.
  - shawn-furyan 13y ago
    You responded to a criticism of source usage with a much, much worse source. You also rattled off a bunch of assertions as if they were unquestionably true without providing citation. Whatever your intention, you didn't really address my criticism in a constructive way that was likely to bring anyone to your way of thinking that wasn't already there. [Edited for clarity]
    - foobarqux 13y ago
      The Rumsfeld memo was reported by MSNBC but after review, prompted by your criticism, I am not satisfied with the credibility of the document. The Downing Street Memo was widely reported in major newspapers and contained among other things the passage "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Blix: http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/18/opinion/iraq-war-hans-blix/ http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/18/opinion/iraq-war-hans-blix/ This is a nice summary of regime change http://publicintellectualsproject.mcmaster.ca/democracy/reality-denial-steven-pinkers-apologetics-for-western-imperial-violence/ http://publicintellectualsproject.mcmaster.ca/democracy/real...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

Uhhrrr 13y ago

Eh, there's no way that Rumsfeld memo is "How to start a war". Note that the first reason depends on Saddam attacking the Kurds - not very actionable for the US!

foobarqux 13y ago
> Eh, there's no way that Rumsfeld memo is "How to start a war It literally says "How start" meaning "how [to] start [Iraq war]". > Note that the first reason depends on Saddam attacking the Kurds - not very actionable for the US! Sure it is. Arming and supporting the Kurds to conduct instigating attacks or incursions is just one way.
- Uhhrrr 13y ago
  It literally says "How start", but does not literally say "how to start". "How start" could also be "How [would it] start". Don't let MSNBC do your thinking for you! >Arming and supporting the Kurds to conduct instigating attacks or incursions is just one way. Then it would have said something like: "Kurds provoke", not "Saddam attacks". In any event, we wouldn't have stepped in just based on a Kurd attack. The response would still be dependent upon Saddam.

shawn-furyan 13y ago

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch.ca http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch.ca Biases matter. My first impression reading your link was that this is a crazed rant, not a rational, methodical weighing of the available evidence. These sort of organizations exist to continually whip up a froth of partisan furor, and so are always suspect. This is not a good source if your goal is to do anything other than preach to your own choir. This is the type of "proof" that keeps ideological opponents talking past each other. Honestly, I lean liberal, but I make a concerted effort not to get frothed up by liberal media. I think that on balance those sources cause more harm than good. And really, life just doesn't fit into nice little outrage inducing narratives, but you would never know it if you only consumed these sort of news sources. [edit 3:27 CDT to add the commentary, i.e. everything other than the link]

foobarqux 13y ago
I just took one of the first links, you can find the memo in many places, including Wikipedia.
- shawn-furyan 13y ago
  You responded to a criticism of source usage with a much, much worse source. You also rattled off a bunch of assertions as if they were unquestionably true without providing citation. Whatever your intention, you didn't really address my criticism in a constructive way that was likely to bring anyone to your way of thinking that wasn't already there. [Edited for clarity]
  - foobarqux 13y ago
    The Rumsfeld memo was reported by MSNBC but after review, prompted by your criticism, I am not satisfied with the credibility of the document. The Downing Street Memo was widely reported in major newspapers and contained among other things the passage "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Blix: http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/18/opinion/iraq-war-hans-blix/ http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/18/opinion/iraq-war-hans-blix/ This is a nice summary of regime change http://publicintellectualsproject.mcmaster.ca/democracy/reality-denial-steven-pinkers-apologetics-for-western-imperial-violence/ http://publicintellectualsproject.mcmaster.ca/democracy/real...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]