The Republican Fraud That Misled Us Into War

#26
#26
Vol Main said:
I think Obama was one of the few who voted against it. Yes and no, meaning not exactly. They voted for the authorization, but it only gave Bush authority to act under certain conditions. Of course, everyone should have known that Bush was lying his way into the war, that he would not hesitate to lie about the conditions being met, so establishing conditions that he would lie about was irresponsible.
Click to expand...
Obama wasn’t in the senate at the time, so he didn’t vote against it. He was outspoken against the war in the lead up to the invasion, but it’s easy to do that when you’re a state senator. The best case for going to war with Iraq was actually made by Hillary Clinton on the senate floor when she announced her support for the invasion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol Main, Orangeslice13 and lukeneyland
#30
#30
Vol Main said:
It could be better, but the fact is that the Neoconservatives who planned and executed the Iraq War were ensconced into the Republican Party, not the Democratic Party. Numerous of them are still there, wanting to regain their former influence.
Click to expand...
unfortunately it is much more than just the neocons.
 
#32
#32
Boston Vol said:
Obama wasn’t in the senate at the time, so he didn’t vote against it. He was outspoken against the war in the lead up to the invasion, but it’s easy to do that when you’re a state senator. The best case for going to war with Iraq was actually made by Hillary Clinton on the senate floor when she announced her support for the invasion.
Click to expand...

Without being a Hillary hater, I do have a few harsh judgments about her foreign policies. I could list a few, but will stay on topic by repeating that those who voted for the Iraq War Resolution knew or should have known what the Bush Administration was doing. I believe that Clinton knew. They covered themselves by including conditions which the President had to state, and they either knew or should have known that Bush, Cheney, and their crew would just tell whatever lies the Resolution required the Administration to tell.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: midnight orange
#33
#33
Sandman 423 said:
unfortunately it is much more than just the neocons.
Click to expand...

More, yes, but I would not say much more. Of course, that depends on how you view Neoconservatives. The leading Neocons were radically pro Israel. Some carried Israeli passports. Of course, that aspect of the issue tends to be ignored because discussing it is like poking a hornet's nest. Would be interesting contribution to discuss the different interest groups which piled on with support, but there is no doubt about the leadership role of Neoconservatives in planning and directing the war. That role for U.S. intervention against Iraq went back to at least 1996.
 
Last edited:
#34
#34
Vol Main said:
More, yes, but I would not say much more. Of course, that depends on how you view Neoconservatives. The leading Neocons were radically pro Israel. Some carried Israeli passports. Of course, that aspect of the issue tends to be ignored because discussing it is like poking a hornet's nest. Would be interesting contribution to discuss the different interest groups which piled on with support, but there is no doubt about the leadership role of Neoconservatives in planning and directing the war. That role for U.S. intervention against Iraq went back to at least 1996.
Click to expand...
I think you are giving people to much credit. Just follow the money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb and hog88
#35
#35
lukeneyland said:
Woodrow really messed up the world when he got us into WW1. WW2 had to happen, dislike FDR but won’t hold that over him
Click to expand...

Again, this topic needs clarity. Including WWI and WWII in its discussion might add perspective, but the actors are different; the time periods are different. They are different subjects unless you want an open ended discussion of all U.S. military interventions.
 
#37
#37
Vol Main said:
Those merit attention. Call me old fashioned, but I like to focus on what I'm doing, and right now that concerns our going to war with Iraq.
Click to expand...
Yep... which wasn't even conceivable while Trump was in office, but now seems like a likely scenario... along with other hot spots in that hemisphere.
 
#38
#38
MG1968 said:
Roosevelt looked the other way and used the Japanese “sneak” attack on Pearl Harbor as the pretext to war with Nazi Germany.

But, tell us how it’s only the republicans that do this.
Click to expand...
Funny, Germany declared on us before we did them.

And Pearl Harbor wasnt the only Japanese attack on US territory on Dec 7th 1941. And there were several other "incidents" between the US and Japan before then.
 
#39
#39
MG1968 said:
Yet it was a “sneak attack.”
Click to expand...
Yeah the pacific is a big funking oceans
with about a dozen US held islands closer to Japan than Hawaii. I guess you think they should have been tracking the radio silent japanese fleet since it left port via satellites to know where exactly they were going to attack and when.
 
#40
#40
Guess we are going to blame Vietnam on Eisenhower and Nixon forgetting LBJ who was the one to really escalate it.
 
#41
#41
LouderVol said:
Funny, Germany declared on us before we did them.

And Pearl Harbor wasnt the only Japanese attack on US territory on Dec 7th 1941. And there were several other "incidents" between the US and Japan before then.
Click to expand...

What were these incidents prior to PH? I know of some blustering but can't think of any "hot" incidents.
 
#42
#42
Godfatha said:
Guess we are going to blame Vietnam on Eisenhower and Nixon forgetting LBJ who was the one to really escalate it.
Click to expand...

Ike does deserve blame for Vietnam, Ho wasn't a devout communist he just wanted the French out of Indochina. He actually tried to see Ike to ask for his help is getting the French out and Ike refused the meeting and started sending arms to the French.

.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PEPPERJAX
#43
#43
hog88 said:
Ike does deserve blame for Vietnam, Ho wasn't a devout communist he just wanted the French out of Indochina. He actually tried to see Ike to ask for his help is getting the French out and Ike refused the meeting and started sending arms to the French.

.
Click to expand...
True but lots of people are willing to let LBJ slide for it
 
#45
#45
Rasputin_Vol said:
Oh, and BTW, I think you will find that most conservatives on here will admit that the Iraq invasion was a disaster. I'm not sure you are going to get the reaction or pushback that you were maybe fishing for.
Click to expand...

yeah NOWWW they admit the Iraq invasion was a disaster

when republicans were pushing for it though, if you questioned the decision you were automatically deemed anti-American
 
#46
#46
Godfatha said:
Guess we are going to blame Vietnam on Eisenhower and Nixon forgetting LBJ who was the one to really escalate it.
Click to expand...
Meh, I think you blame Vietnam on the early remnants of the "Deep State", spearheaded by Allan and John Foster Dulles, which gave us the inseparable blending of the CIA and State Department that we saw from Operation Ajax in Iran and the coup in Guatemala to what we saw in Ukraine and Syria during the Obama administration. Which may have been the reason for Eisenhower warning us about the military industrial complex in his farewell address.
 
#47
#47
hog88 said:
What were these incidents prior to PH? I know of some blustering but can't think of any "hot" incidents.
Click to expand...
Panay Incident, they blew up a US coastal ship visiting the chinese more than a year before, not sure on the exact year in the 30s.

I dont know if there were any deaths, but when they closed the Chinese port cities there was some violence keeping our merchants and military out. Not sure if we were officially part of the peacekeeping force after the Chinese civil war or if we were there just to protect our trade interest.
 
#48
#48
LouderVol said:
Panay Incident, they blew up a US coastal ship visiting the chinese more than a year before, not sure on the exact year in the 30s.

I dont know if there were any deaths, but when they closed the Chinese port cities there was some violence keeping our merchants and military out. Not sure if we were officially part of the peacekeeping force after the Chinese civil war or if we were there just to protect our trade interest.
Click to expand...

I think that was in 36 or 37. Not sure why the boat was that far upriver but the Japanese ended up paying the survivors and families of the dead. There were several incidents between the Japanese and the peacekeeping forces in China during the mid to late 30s.
 
#49
#49
Vol Main said:
Again, this topic needs clarity. Including WWI and WWII in its discussion might add perspective, but the actors are different; the time periods are different. They are different subjects unless you want an open ended discussion of all U.S. military interventions.
Click to expand...
WW1 was a catastrophe for us. We lost an obscene amount of people but worse than that we set the table for the issues that we’d face in the next hundred years. Had we not partook the conflict likely would have ended in some sort stalemate and the German Monarchy would have at least survived for the time being. That’s obviously not how it played out, not only did we provide a vacuum of power for Hitler to eventually fill, but we also neutered the Germans military capabilities during the twenties. Which then allowed the Communist in Russia to solidify themselves and begin to spread across Eastern Europe. So essentially by joining WW1 we helped create an opportunity for Hitler and Global Communism. There’s no way that the German Monarchy would have allowed Communism to exist long term had they survived past WW1. Ok there’s my spiel
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top