A great memo from Rummy
"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Rummy to Bush on Iraq. Un-fvcking-believable.
These are some movies of mine. Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/lanser87
His statement is true in some occasions but to wage war on a country on no evidence is a rubbish reasoning. You could probably list all the members of al qaeda on a single sheet of paper prior to all these wars... Rumsfield royally eff-ed up the political landscape of the middle east.
shareDemocrats were on board with going to war with Iraq as GWB actually took the time to get Congressional approval first, unlike the usurper in chief now that legislates from the White House and changes laws willy nilly according to his pen, totally bypassing congress and senate. Do you remember John F Kerry and Hilary Clinton approving the use of military on Iraq? Look it up as they voted for it.
share[deleted]
They did find Weapons of Mass destruction. They found chemical weapons. Weapons of mass destruction is not just limited to nuclear weapons. It includes biological weapons which Saddam had plenty of. He used it in the Iran/Iraqi war. He also used it on the Kurds. During the gulf war, us soldiers had gas masks just in case the Iraqi army used chemical weapons. After the gulf war, Saddam said he had biological weapons but they were for defense purposes.
Did we find nuclear weapons?? no.
One of the main sources of US intelligence was from a defecting Iraqi nuclear scientist. He worked for Saddam on enriching uranium in Iraq.
There are two reasons why you'd enrich uranium; 1) building a nuclear reactor 2)making a nuclear weapon (in our current state of world affairs, the UN, US and nuclear disarmament committie etc is petrified of the idea of an unstable country selling its nuclear arms into the black market).
Iraq was not planning on building a nuclear reactor. Thus, they did have strong evidence that they were planning on building a nuclear weapon. Iraq had a boatload of oil so they had no reason to build a nuclear reactor. After the war they partially enriched Uranium. It wasn't good enough for a nuke though.
The political landscape has completely changed now. Thus, the international community trade embargo's any country that plans on proliferating nuclear weapons.
You can read more about this in the US commissions report in 2011 or 2012. It's really tough to analyze what is right from wrong b/c there are so many international laws. Some countries just don't care about the international laws. Most of these countries are not an active member in the international community IE (North korea, myanmar, present Iran).
I just finished watching this doc. Compared to the "Fog of War" this doc sucked.
1) Some of Morris's questions were pointless. Why bring up Guantanomo Bay prison abuse. Rumsfeld was not directly responsible for it. Torture... maybe but not prisoner abuse. He did not ask a single question about Afghanistan. Culture/ why we failed. What problems he ran into the war and what he did to try to fix it. etc.
2) Donald Rumsfeld talks in semantics. It's really hard to understand what he really means b/c he's sometimes very literal but sometimes he's talks in metaphors.
One thing i did like about the movie was morris chronicled Rumsfelds early years in public service. This was interesting to hear about.
but here is my issue. why would the America attack Iraq for chemical weapons when America gave Saddam the chemical weapons in the first place? If chemicals are against international law, then America was just as wrong as Saddam. i mean they knew Saddam was a brutal dictator and you still give him chemical weapons ?
shareThe brainwashing of people like you never ceases to amaze me. The United States has more weapons of mass destruction - including the most nuclear weapons - than any other country yet somehow feels that it is justified in telling Iraq and others that they can't have them. Given that the United States is easily the most aggressive, warmongering nation on the planet - having started two illegal wars and killing hundreds of thousands of people in this century alone - exactly what right do you have to decide that other countries can't have the same weapons you already possess? If nukes are so bad then why did you give them to Israel? The sheer arrogance of Team America is beyond belief...
Some countries just don't care about the international laws.
Yes, true, and The United States is far and away the best example. This century they have:
1. Started two illegal wars.
2. Tortured people with authorisation from the President and Vice President (who are war criminals who should both be in prison).
3. Spied on private citizens and governments around the world.
4. Entered a sovereign nation (Pakistan), without telling them and murdered a person there without ever providing evidence of that person's guilt.
5. Imprisoned people indefinitely without trial and without legal representation.
6. Implemented the Patriot Act, which contravenes International Law.
Should I go on? There's plenty more. Basically there is no country on Earth which flouts International Law more than the United States. As if all that wasn't bad enough though, your insatiable greed drove the world economy to the brink and almost destroyed everything. Of course ... you then refused to do anything to fix the problems - because you're the greediest nation on Earth - so you may well destroy us all yet.
Here's a News Flash for you: you're not the good guys, you're the bad guys... share
You are applying facts and logic. Something the brainwashed FoxBots can't handle.
You have to remember, these people get their "news" from a network that claimed "Americans won't care about the release of the Downing Street Memo" (not to mention a network that sued for its right to lie to viewers). That was only the smoking gun that proved that BushCheneyRummyWolfie were going to get their Iraq war even if they had to order the CIA to fabricate Intel to do so.
Although now, they have a Pavlovian response to facts and logic.
BENGHAZI! (Baaaaaa)
Got 13 Channels of $hit on the TV to Choose From
That's because Congress was deliberately lied to by the Bush Administration. Of course they voted for war, they were fed a steady stream of "intelligence" that at best was totally unreliable and at worst was outright fabricated.
Tales of yellowcake uranium purchases from Africa (false), clandestine meetings between Iraqi intelligence and high-level Al Qaeda leaders (false), bioweapons labs north of Baghdad (false), UAVs modified to spray bioweapons on NYC (ridiculously false) and on and on and on. None of it was true. None. The yellowcake lie was based on forged intelligence documents and even the Bush Admin was forced to admit that one wasn't true. No bioweapons labs were ever found, nor any biological weapons of any kind. Most of the nuclear weapons "intel" came from an alcoholic former Iraqi engineer turned cab driver who was deemed mentally unstable.
Were it any other country on earth who invaded a sovereign nation killing 150,000 people and occupying it for ten years based on that kind of "intelligence", its leaders would be on trial at the Hague.