spanishspy
Fleet admiral
Posts: 10,366 
Likes: 1,587
|
Post by spanishspy on Aug 17, 2018 17:38:17 GMT
Not necessarily. The invasion of Iraq was brought about because the US lost most of its intelligence in Iraq after Desert Fox in 1998. Since they were blindsided by 9/11, there was a fear that Hussein was planning something and so Iraq was invaded preemptively. Not something that I knew. Rummy certainly wanted war with Saddam but the whole idea that Bush 43 was all set to avenge his daddy just seems rather too simplistic. For the record I got this from the book Fiasco: the American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2003-2005 by Thomas Ricks. Perhaps one of the best books on the conflict written as of yet. |
|
spanishspy
Fleet admiral
Posts: 10,366
Likes: 1,587
|
Post by spanishspy on Aug 17, 2018 17:42:01 GMT
Not necessarily. The invasion of Iraq was brought about because the US lost most of its intelligence in Iraq after Desert Fox in 1998. Since they were blindsided by 9/11, there was a fear that Hussein was planning something and so Iraq was invaded preemptively. We agree to disagree about this. My personal view about this is different, based on the behaviour of the USA after 911. For me it was a brutal war of agression, fueld by an angry kid (Bush junior) who wanted to kill the person who had tried to kill his daddy. If we keep in mind that bush junior was a mental wreck and heavy drug addicted (alcohol) and his father saved him, he had a very strong personal tie to him. All stuff that happened make crystal clear that the USA knew exactly that Saddam had 100% nothing to do with the 911-terrorists or weapons of mass destruction. So the people who blame the USA for creating the IS are quite true, because even if i agree about the evilness of Saddams regime (brutal dicator), the USA were gigantic diletants in not doing it right, leaving a mess that created the IS in iraq. So no, they knew exactly what they did, that it was illegal and that they were lying as much as one could lie. From the level of "nastiness" it is on par with "seit 5:45 Uhr wird zurückgeschossen". Not in the sense of comparing Bush with hitler, but the level of rude lying was the same. The UN basically laughed loud as they presented their "evidences"... everybody knew 100% that it was a lie... Powell itself showed clearly that he was ashamed about telling that brutal nonsense. So, as long as bush junior was president he would have started a war with iraq, with or without 911. It is ironical that Saddam would have fought the IS or better it never would have been created if the USA had not removed him. Not that i mourn about his dead or that his regime was destroyed, but it was still a brutal lie that ruined ANY credibility the USA had. Now, if the USA claim something everybody in the world just think "these liars tell lies". So Bush junior destroyed the credibility of the USA for 30-40 years at last. Only if the next 3 presidents all appologize, blame bush as a brutal liar and that they appologzie in public for these criminal lies they could hope to rebuild some credibility in the world. Sorry to say it in these "brutal" way, but if the USA claim something it is allways just a lie. Thanks to Bush junior and his lies about Iraq. I'd like to know what books you're getting this from. I got this from the Thomas Ricks book I mentioned in my reply to James G. The case that is made, with a lot of documentation, is that the idea for the invasion started with Paul Wolfowitz who was totally convinced that what was going on with Iraq was a second Holocaust. Wolfowitz persuaded Douglas and Feith, who persuaded Bush and the rest of the Pentagon. |
|
steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Aug 17, 2018 21:21:54 GMT
We agree to disagree about this. My personal view about this is different, based on the behaviour of the USA after 911. For me it was a brutal war of agression, fueld by an angry kid (Bush junior) who wanted to kill the person who had tried to kill his daddy. If we keep in mind that bush junior was a mental wreck and heavy drug addicted (alcohol) and his father saved him, he had a very strong personal tie to him. All stuff that happened make crystal clear that the USA knew exactly that Saddam had 100% nothing to do with the 911-terrorists or weapons of mass destruction. So the people who blame the USA for creating the IS are quite true, because even if i agree about the evilness of Saddams regime (brutal dicator), the USA were gigantic diletants in not doing it right, leaving a mess that created the IS in iraq. So no, they knew exactly what they did, that it was illegal and that they were lying as much as one could lie. From the level of "nastiness" it is on par with "seit 5:45 Uhr wird zurückgeschossen". Not in the sense of comparing Bush with hitler, but the level of rude lying was the same. The UN basically laughed loud as they presented their "evidences"... everybody knew 100% that it was a lie... Powell itself showed clearly that he was ashamed about telling that brutal nonsense. So, as long as bush junior was president he would have started a war with iraq, with or without 911. It is ironical that Saddam would have fought the IS or better it never would have been created if the USA had not removed him. Not that i mourn about his dead or that his regime was destroyed, but it was still a brutal lie that ruined ANY credibility the USA had. Now, if the USA claim something everybody in the world just think "these liars tell lies". So Bush junior destroyed the credibility of the USA for 30-40 years at last. Only if the next 3 presidents all appologize, blame bush as a brutal liar and that they appologzie in public for these criminal lies they could hope to rebuild some credibility in the world. Sorry to say it in these "brutal" way, but if the USA claim something it is allways just a lie. Thanks to Bush junior and his lies about Iraq. I'd like to know what books you're getting this from. I got this from the Thomas Ricks book I mentioned in my reply to James G. The case that is made, with a lot of documentation, is that the idea for the invasion started with Paul Wolfowitz who was totally convinced that what was going on with Iraq was a second Holocaust. Wolfowitz persuaded Douglas and Feith, who persuaded Bush and the rest of the Pentagon. nah, no books. Just day-by-day-real-life politics... normally i read 4-5 newspaper, all from different approaches (from simple right to die hard leftist), then i do a bit research and look into the news on TV. I remember as Powell had to show the "evidences"... everyone in the room knew he was lying as much as one person could lie. He also was very unhappy about it, i think basically they had hold a gun on his wifes head so he did it (to describe it a bit colorful)... otherwise i doubt he would have told that BS he said. the biggest problem i have with it, the USA can now tell what ever they want, they will be seen as evil liars (they were in the iraq-question)... instead of looking for an alliance that try to remove saddam (brutal evil dicator) they lied stupidly... and ruined any credibility... Now the antiamericans just need to point a finger to "iraq-lies" and nobody could counter it. We not even have started with AbuGreib, torturing, etc... that also killed the "USA". Unfortunatly, even with trump beeing president, the USA is still a useful and worthy partner... but honestly, if your partner torture and kill with drones at will (and is so bad that they on a regular base kill many innocents because they are dumb as one could be), you have no interest in beeing to near to them. The anti-americans - esp. in europe now could tell "Putin is right", or "Putin need the Ukraine and the crimea, because lying USA"... and other BS... but Russia and Putin are no friend of the western world, they are competitors... it is just difficulty, either with Bush junior or Trump to defend the behaviour of the USA, esp. if now the USA does everything to be the ENEMY... I doubt that another president (i wouldn´t be sure that Trump do not do 4 more years) would or could fix that. For europe this mean we need now a complete own foreign policy, but that cannot work in the actual style. That is the huge problem. Netherlands or germany are a shit in the corner, only France and UK with nukes have some influence... but the idea that suddenly half the EU-members build nukes is frightening, too. By the way, the 2%-rate for the defence is the one thing i agree wholeheartly with Donald Trump. The europeans had spent way to little money for their defence... |
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Aug 19, 2018 3:34:02 GMT
Without 9/11, there definitely is no Invasion of Iraq as that was an event particular to the Post-9/11 times of the day. Another re-run of Operation Fox, however, is certainly possible and indeed likely based on the same intelligence getting into U.S. hands as per OTL.
Perhaps more critically, without 9/11 and the re-focusing of the FBI to do Counter-Terrorism, there probably is no Great Recession. As early as 2004 the FBI was getting reports and did some cursory looking into of the financial irregularities going on but ultimately didn't have the resources or inclination to go after it. Here, they probably will and that could nip the problem before it spirals out of control.
Also, without 9/11, the Post-American psychology doesn't develop which probably does lead to some sort of North American Union. You already saw the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, the Independent Task Force on North America and Wikileaks back in 2011 released cables from the time that had U.S. officials talking about a currency union and single market.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Aug 20, 2018 10:58:06 GMT
Without 9/11, there definitely is no Invasion of Iraq as that was an event particular to the Post-9/11 times of the day. Another re-run of Operation Fox, however, is certainly possible and indeed likely based on the same intelligence getting into U.S. hands as per OTL. Perhaps more critically, without 9/11 and the re-focusing of the FBI to do Counter-Terrorism, there probably is no Great Recession. As early as 2004 the FBI was getting reports and did some cursory looking into of the financial irregularities going on but ultimately didn't have the resources or inclination to go after it. Here, they probably will and that could nip the problem before it spirals out of control. Also, without 9/11, the Post-American psychology doesn't develop which probably does lead to some sort of North American Union. You already saw the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, the Independent Task Force on North America and Wikileaks back in 2011 released cables from the time that had U.S. officials talking about a currency union and single market. That is quite interesting. Some very different ideas there which I hadn't considered. |
|
