does anyone believe now that Cheney and Rumsfeld toppled Saddam because they thought he was oppressing Iraqis and sponsoring terrorism?
Their complete failure to plan what a post-Saddam Iraq might look like suggests to me they didnt give a fuck about Iraqis. Suspect Blair might have thought he was saving the world but Cheney and Rumsfeld, no
(, Wed 17 Aug 2016, 21:11, Share, Reply)
Certainly, after hearing someone with such reliable information like Michael Moore, what other conclusion could you draw?
(
BrokenCoccyx doesn't mind if you grope on, Wed 17 Aug 2016, 21:59,
Share,
Reply)
Don't get me wrong, I think MM is a fat cunt as much as the next man
But the view that the Iraq war was doing the iraqis a favour seems completely discredited now.
(, Wed 17 Aug 2016, 22:13, Share, Reply)
I don't think there was much love lost with the Iraqis. One group of corrupt people replaced with another who ran like sissies when the first group decided to kick a little ass, leaving all that fancy weaponry for the taking.
And when the US is still in Japan, Bosnia, Germany, Cuba and every other country it pummeled, to say that we had to leave because the Iraqis wouldn't cut a deal is just plain embarrassing.
(
BrokenCoccyx doesn't mind if you grope on, Wed 17 Aug 2016, 23:09,
Share,
Reply)
I think Hitchens stand point was always an emotional one
I think he witnessed or was deeply troubled by Sadam's use of chemical weapons against the Kurds in the early 90's
The whole thing about WOMD is dumb anyway. Chemical weapons are horrific, aye, but hard to store (they hydrolyse easily), disperse asymmetrically and defo not as effective as, say, a Daisy Cutter.
(
colmcq2, Thu 18 Aug 2016, 12:05,
Share,
Reply)