• Uriel238 [all pronouns]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    We invaded Iraq on the pretense that they were getting yellowcake from Nigerian suppliers, and US suppliers were in Nigeria trying to sell yellowcake to Saddam Hussein. He wasn’t interested.

    We knew he wasn’t interested because Joseph Wilson, a US diplomat, was involved in the efforts to make the sale. Hussein saw which way the wind was blowing.

    When George W. Bush started talking about invading Iraq (in speeches blending vitriol against Hussein and anger over 9/11) Wilson published a report about how Hussein totally wasn’t buying Yellowcake, which he knew about. And in response, the Bush administration burned Valerie Plame, who was Wilson’s wife and an actual CIA operative who was active and abroad.

    She made it home safely, and could no longer work as a CIA operative. In the cold war, burning a spy for political reasons showed CIA you were careless, and deserved to receive a tape of ten hours of your loved one screaming as she was tortured to death. But those were different times, and presidents then had a few more scruples (and knew not to do that).

    According to Al Franken, about 75% of ground troops during the Iraq war believed they were there as revenge for the 9/11 attacks, even though Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. A friend of mine in Virginia noted his teen daughter was taught in American History we were provoked to go into Iraq because of the 9/11 attacks and the International War on Terror. I was around in 2003 watching Republicans nation wide saying torture is AOK and waterboarding isn’t really torture (until they went to have a SERE guy waterboard them for size. They all thought it was pretty terrible and even maybe torturous). Still, it was pretty clear that the IWoT and Iraq were separate things, even though the White House liked to conflate the two in speeches. Hussein and Al-Qaeda did not get along.

    I remember the US attacked Iraq because Hussein allegedly had WMDs. The US couldn’t find any. The US had strong intel beforehand there were no WMDs in Iraq and that Iraq was still recovering from the 1990-1991 gulf war.

    I think George W. Bush and Dick Cheney just wanted to kill and torture some Arabs for being too brown and because they couldn’t kill Saudis (like Osama Bin Laden, who figured largely in planning the 9/11 attacks). All the WMD nonsense was a deliberate lie.

  • adj16@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    3 months ago

    Why did you use this meme template and then make literally no reference to its conversation

      • hydroptic@sopuli.xyzOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Absolutely, I’m going to throw myself on my sword any moment now.

        I love it when people get big mad about IMPROPER USE OF MEMES, it’s almost as funny as people taking NCD seriously. Honestly I should make a few that are wrong on purpose just for the tears.

  • YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    3 months ago

    I was just a kid in the lead up to Iraq and I could see through the bullshit with this argument. If they had wmd we wouldn’t invade.

    • Jesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      3 months ago

      Putting aside the inspectors at that time were calling BS on the Bush administration, let’s pretend the intelligence real and not a lie.

      Technically, they were claiming that Iraq had the materials to make WMDs, but they did not have the ability to launch a strike on the US. Russia has been able to strike the US for decades.

    • I'm back on my BS 🤪@lemmy.autism.place
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think there is a major difference between chemical weapons and bombs that can be used for terrorist attacks versus nuclear ICBMs. One thing is to invade a country that can use chlorine gas against our troops, but placing the existence of our country and possibly humanity on the line is another thing entirely. Iraq could have potentially used gas attacks against it’s population, allied populations and troops. However, Russia could nuke the hell out of NATO and cause a catastrophic worldwide famine for decades.

    • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      There’s a difference between WMDs that can reach the US, and ones that can only be deployed locally. Russia has the former (and a lot of them), hence no invasion.

    • NecroParagon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s funny how the talk from Russia about using nukes if their international border was crossed vanished immediately after it was crossed. Hard to garner sympathy from the world about being invaded when you’re waving around a nuclear saber

  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    3 months ago

    In my mind, the main difference is that they thought Iraq was working on the technology, not that they had it. If it’s being developed but it’s not complete, the superpower can basically wrestle their way in and go “no you fucking don’t” like an older brother ripping your favorite snack from your hands.

    Meanwhile, we know damned well Russia already has assembled WMDs, that are presently sitting on ICBM rockets, with navigation targets pointed at American cities, that can be armed and fired within minutes of the order being given.

    The same way the USA does (just for… Non American targets).

    The whole WMDs in Iraq thing was basically international bullying.

  • tabularasa@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    You’ve fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well known is this; never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line! Aha ha ha ha…