# How Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld got the US to invade Iraq



## KLW (27 Mar 2008)

This is a two part,four hour documentry recently shown on the show Frontline.

This is not some loony lefty documentry saying that 9/11 was a government setup or that Iraq was all about oil.

So please keep that in mind if you feel skeptical to watch this.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/


----------



## KLW (27 Mar 2008)

The driving Ideology that drove Americans into the Iraq war.

PNAC-The "Project for a new American Century"is a document that came from Cheney,Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to name a few,who want Americans to take advantage of the lack of any opposing superpower so that Americans can relatively control the world's economys.

They miss the Cold war and started by lying about the threat that Iraq possesed and wanted to keep fooling enough Americans so that they can continue to conquer.

Here's their website.

http://newamericancentury.org/

Information about what the group does and wants.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

It all started in the 70's with Cheney and Rumsfeld with Team B

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/2822.html


----------



## aesop081 (27 Mar 2008)

KLW said:
			
		

> This is a two part,four hour documentry recently shown on the show Frontline.
> 
> This is not some loony lefty documentry saying that 9/11 was a government setup or that Iraq was all about oil.
> 
> ...



I watched both parts of the show. I thought it was well done overall but as with everything else on the subject, i am not forming my opinion based solely on this show and am not willing to accept everything they had to say. The Title of "Bush's war" says to me that the creators have a bias against the current US administration, hence why i watched the show with scepticism.


----------



## Yrys (27 Mar 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The Title of "Bush's war" says to me that the creators have a bias against the current US administration



I didn't watch it, but it could also be seen as war that was start under Bush administration, or war that Bush and his administration
push for ... Only that title seems a meager clue as the bias of the creator ...


----------



## KLW (27 Mar 2008)

Frontline isn't the Enquirer,they've researched everything quite well and don't any kind of bias that I've seen from them except for seeking the truth.


----------



## Franko (27 Mar 2008)

Watched the two part Frontline as well. Very revealing as to the way policies are done in the Bush office.

Stunningly sometimes....however my skepticism wasn't swayed one iota.

Regards


----------



## aesop081 (27 Mar 2008)

KLW said:
			
		

> Frontline isn't the Enquirer,they've researched everything quite well and don't any kind of bias that I've seen from them except for seeking the truth.



I never said that it was tabloiid TV or that it was not well researched. Read my post carefully. I said i thought it was well done. That being said, all media have some form of bias to some extent. A media, PBS, that is funded by its viewers ( an american public very hostile towards the war and towards the administration) is certainy worth taking with a grain of salt no matter how well researched and how well intended.


----------



## KLW (27 Mar 2008)

Bias is irrelevent if what is said is true.


----------



## Yrys (27 Mar 2008)

KLW said:
			
		

> Bias is irrelevant if what is said is true.



I disagree, because light put on truth will make it (truth) seems different, depending of angle ...

Just look at MSM articles vs what people in those 'evenements' are relating afterwads...


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (27 Mar 2008)

Welcome to Army.ca.  

Bias exists and 'truth' is a difficult thing to determine in these matters.  I watched the show and found it interesting if indeed a little biased.  I read "Bush's War" in 2003, so the Afghan aspect wasn't all that new.  People against the Iraq war and worried about neo-cons probably _loved_ the show.   

Are you here to educate us?


----------



## ghyslyn (27 Mar 2008)

I'll agree with Yrys here, bias can be created with facts, by presenting only the facts that support a certain view, and/or the way that the facts are presented.


----------



## KLW (27 Mar 2008)

Those are then halftruths,and what I've been researching about Bush's and the Neocons objectives coincided with what the Frontline episode reported.

I don't know how someone could make a case with the Frontline report and spin it to make them look like they're good guys looking out for us.


----------



## Yrys (27 Mar 2008)

KLW said:
			
		

> Those are then halftruths



On the risk of my post being erased as not contining anything more then a "+1 " post :


No .


----------



## KLW (27 Mar 2008)

Yes,you can say I like to educate others,especially those who can't comprehend what's going on.

Either you comprehend it or you don't.

It won't make anyone a hippie or commie if you do understand.


----------



## PMedMoe (27 Mar 2008)

KLW said:
			
		

> Yes,you can say I like to educate others,especially those who can't comprehend what's going on.
> 
> Either you comprehend it or you don't.
> 
> It won't make anyone a hippie or commie if you do understand.



So if someone doesn't agree with your opinion, they can't comprehend what's going on?
Wow, you really are here to educate others.  :


----------



## Red 6 (27 Mar 2008)

I watched this program and thought it was very interesting and informative. It was especially interesting to hear about the differences in what Rumsfeld thought was needed in terms of troop level and force structure for the initial assault into Iraq and what the military commanders wanted. (I didn't hear thius mentioned, but as I understand it, this was the prime reason why General Shinseki, the Army CoS, was sent packing.) If nothing else, it puts done to the myth that the administration lets the military execute their missions how/when/with what forces the military commanders see fit.

I agree that facts can be presented in a leading way to influence what you think. Find a person who doesn't know anything about WW2, then show them a bunch of pictures of dead French citizens that were killed by allied bombing and pictures of ruined French cities. Explain that all and then explain to him all these losses were due to Allied military powers. Then, ask him to form an opinion based on this information. You haven't told him a single lie, but with no other information, you've painted a picture that can't help that person to conclude that our campaign in France was a brutal, destructive war. 

I'm an American and my feeling about OIF are complex. To be frank, I haven't sorted out exactly how I feel. But I know one thing. I'm not going to let any TV show, no matter how well presented, make my decision for me. The ex-Iraqi government did an awfully convincing job to make the world believe they had WMD programs and capabilities. I also know how brutal and repressive the ex-Iraqi government was. I saw the proof with my own eyes in 1991 and to me, a world without Saddam Hussein is far preferable to one with him in it. And I don't want us to lose. If we cut and run, regardless of how anyone feels about the war, it'll be a long, time time before we find another real ally willing to stand with us. 

Just for the record, I'm a democrat and have been for many years. But as an American, I know we cannot just leave Iraq. What troubles me is how many people want us to lose the war. I just don't understand that. 

cheers, Mark


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Mar 2008)

I am more interested in what people feel would have been the likely future of Iraq had Bush not have pressed for an invasion. I am still awaiting people to explain to me how & why the US/UK were going to maintain a 200,000 man army in the field to counter Saddam and if that military force was withdrawn how the UNSC was going to maintain compliance? The US/UK were spending billions to maintain the no-fly zones to protect Iraqis from Saddam, were they expected to do so for the next 20 years? Hans Blix’s reports to the UNSC were quite clear, Saddam was not being helpful and was trying to circumvent sanctions. The sanctions themselves were collapsing, France, Russia, China were all owed huge amounts of money by Saddam and the only way he could pay them off and obtain new equipment was to give them access to the oil fields and cheap oil. It was in the interests of those countries to maintain him in power despite his horrible human rights record and his incredibly and huge bad environmental destruction, caused during his invasion of Kuwait and the suppression of the Marsh Arabs. Please explain to me in detail how you saw the next 20 years play out without this event, what do you think about Saddams sons succeeding him, was condemning the Iraq people to perpetual misery a viable option? Saddam also spent most of his time in power in conflict with someone, did you expect that to change and why? 

Red 6 you should read Corba II, it talks quite a bit about Rummy's ideas.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Mar 2008)

KLW said:
			
		

> Those are then halftruths,and what I've been researching about Bush's and the Neocons objectives coincided with what the Frontline episode reported.



And my time reading up on all this has taught me to never take anything at face value. Its not because this show agreed with you thoughts that it makes it the absolute truth.



			
				KLW said:
			
		

> Yes,you can say I like to educate others,especially those who can't comprehend what's going on.
> 
> Either you comprehend it or you don't.



I comprehend the politics of all this quite well thank you very much. I neither need nor want to be "educated" by you. You expressed your opinion of the show as i have mine. I dont need / wish for you to agree.

As far as bias is concerned, your "Obama" comment in another thread points to yours.......


----------



## 1feral1 (27 Mar 2008)

KLW said:
			
		

> Bias is irrelevent if what is said is true.




Sounds like you have a agenda which is not so hidden.


----------



## Bane (27 Mar 2008)

Red 6 said:
			
		

> (I didn't hear thius mentioned, but as I understand it, this was the prime reason why General Shinseki, the Army CoS, was sent packing.)



Hey Red 6,
Just to clarify.  Shinseki wasn't sent packing.  He had a disagreement with the administration to be sure, however, if you look at his term of service, he did a full 4 year term which is far and away the standard for an Army CoS (the last guy to do more than 4 years was Marshall I believe, ending in 1945). It just seemed like he got punted because of the timing of everything.


----------



## Red 6 (27 Mar 2008)

Thanks for the info Bane. I'll check that out.

cheers, Mark


----------



## a_majoor (27 Mar 2008)

I had a bit of a laugh about the opening of this thread, after reading the "Project for a new American Century" back when; it was quite clearly aimed at countering the People's Republic of China as America's potential peer competitor. History moved in quite different directions than the writers of the Project had envisioned.

Much more prescient documents were Robert Kaplan's "The Coming Anarchy", and Samuel Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations?" but writers, even ones of the stature of Kaplan or Huntington, rarely set the stage for foreign policy.

As for Iraq, there are many threads here which examine the tangled motives and history, but one thing which is quite clear is Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime had been identified as a grave threat and remarked upon by the American President in 1998. People who can prove Bill Clinton's neo-con credentials are quite welcome to do so.

modified to correct grammer.


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Mar 2008)

PBS is a publicly funded liberal agenda driven organization. Unless its the civil war I stay away from any of their programs dealing with the here and now. I used to be a big McNeill-Leherer junky but after McNeill left any pretense of objectivity seemed lacking. If PBS didnt get public funding they wouldnt be able to stay in business. Just the title of this thread I think is revealing.To the left Cheney and Rumsfeld are evil incarnate.

Iraq was invaded because they essentially thumbed their nose at the UN. They could have complied and avoided an invasion entirely.Instead Saddam decided to play rope a dope because he had strong backing in the UN from Russia,France and Germany who he thought would provde cover from US power.Saddam is to blame for his own destruction. Saddam's violation of UN resolutions gave the US all the legal justification for invading Iraq needed.


----------



## 1feral1 (27 Mar 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Iraq was invaded because they essentially thumbed their nose at the UN. They could have complied and avoided an invasion entirely.Instead Saddam decided to play rope a dope because he had strong backing in the UN from Russia,France and Germany who he thought would provde cover from US power.Saddam is to blame for his own destruction. Saddam's violation of UN resolutions gave the US all the legal justification for invading Iraq needed.



Exactly!

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## KevinB (27 Mar 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Iraq was invaded because they essentially thumbed their nose at the UN. They could have complied and avoided an invasion entirely.Instead Saddam decided to play rope a dope because he had strong backing in the UN from Russia,France and Germany who he thought would provde cover from US power.Saddam is to blame for his own destruction. Saddam's violation of UN resolutions gave the US all the legal justification for invading Iraq needed.



and there endeth the lesson.
 (sounded better than +1   )


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Mar 2008)

KLW,

Everyone here is entitled to their opinion. If you have an agenda to push, without taking dissenting opinions into consideration, this is the wrong site for you. Go back and read the guidelines you agreed to, to be a member here. You have been advised.  You won't be again.
Milnet.ca staff


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Mar 2008)

KLW said:
			
		

> Bias is irrelevent if what is said is true.



Prove it's true.



> *Those are then halftruths,and what I've been researching about Bush's and the Neocons objectives coincided with what the Frontline episode reported.*
> I don't know how someone could make a case with the Frontline report and spin it to make them look like they're good guys looking out for us.


Post your research  endnotes.

You show up here spouting your 'knowledge' with no backup or references. Really, you only have an opinion. Just like assholes, everyone has one. Your's hold no more water than anyone else's, unless you can back it with experience, like many here, or verifiable fact, of which you have none.

If your coming to the table, be prepared. If you're not prepared, quit wasting our time with useless anti 'whatever' opinion and drivel.

Milnet.ca Member


----------



## KLW (28 Mar 2008)

Whatever,I can't argue with a bunch of stupid crazy fascist scumbags.

I'm outta here you pathetic vermin.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (28 Mar 2008)

KLW said:
			
		

> Whatever,You can't argue with a bunch of crazy stupid fascist scum.
> 
> I'm outta here you pathetic vermin.



You are the weakest link.....

Goodbye.


----------



## aesop081 (28 Mar 2008)

Banned

Milnet.ca staff


----------



## 1feral1 (28 Mar 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> You are the weakest link.....
> 
> Goodbye.




What? He forgot the words 'baby killers'.

We all seen this coming  ;D

Ha!

Wes


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Mar 2008)

KLW said:
			
		

> Whatever,with a bunch of stupid crazy fascist scumbags.
> 
> I'm outta here you pathetic vermin.



Well there is some truth in this statment _I can't argue _  : So why start something you can't finish?

by the way you forgot to label me as a Muslim(yes I am), babykilling, ex-NDPer, global warming denier, burn in hell disbeliever  :-*


----------



## ghyslyn (29 Mar 2008)

What I find funny is that he accused all those who argued against him as "fascist"

In my opinion fascism is generally agreed as forcing your opinion unto others, well he came in here saying there is only one truth, while his opposition said that everyone is entitled to their opinions.

tsk tsk tsk, how fascist of you guys to be open to people having opinions. lol


----------

