Would you have supported the war if they hadn't lied?

[OrlandoGator]

Let's say in the run-up to war, the rationale was this (and not lies about al Qaeda or WMD):

- We feel it is strategically important in the War on Terror to establish a democracy in the Middle East.
- Saddam Hussein has a history of human rights violations and mass murder.
- We want to make an example of Iraq as a warning to other rogue nations like Iran and North Korea.
- Securing Iraqi oil will divert funding away from Saudi terrorists.

If this was presented as the rationale and we were not blatantly lied to about mushroom clouds and yellow cake and vials of anthrax, would your opinion be any different?

I ask this as a devil's advocate. My biggest problem with this war is that it was based on lies. I was raised to consider being lied to the worst insult imaginable.

For the record, my answer to the question is no...I do not think this war would have been worth it. I'm curious if any other DUers disagree.

[whatever4]

1. No. And I never believed they were being honest. It was too spun nm

[H5N1]

2. No way. Not I. No no no.

[NoSheep]

3. NO!

[Clark2008]

4. No. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and Saddam was contained.

Why go to war?

[RetroLounge]

5. Nope.

Still not a valid reason.

RL

[ewagner]

6. Not Iraq!

Not ever.....

[Midlodemocrat]

7. No.

Anything the BFEE is for, I am against.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Sadamn was continaed no need to go to war

[mandyky]

9. No, not for those reasons

Because anyone in the know, knew that the Iraqis would not take to being occupied. We had no clue about their country or culture.

What we should have done was to concentrate on Afghanistan. Period.
Iraq was GWB's grudge war plain and simple. "cause he tried to kill my dad".

[Patchuli]

10. No way!

I wanted our military to find Bin Laden. When they pulled the majority of troops out to go to Iraq, it seemed like the most insane thing they could do and it was. We never believed that load of horse shit and we are sorry that so many Americans fell for it.

[Brotherjohn]

11. HELL NO! The fact that they had to lie to gain support is answers your...

... question.

No other rationale, other than immediate self-defense, is good enough to invade and conquer a sovereign nation. They knew this, and there was no threat, so they had to lie.

[Just Me]

12. Nope! I would NEVER support an aggressive war for profit and power.

In my mind, that would be like sayin' since Hitler could seek world domination, why can't we?

[etherealtruth]

13. Simply put, NO! n/t

[Al-CIAda]

14. If TREASON had to be committted to lie us into war,

how 'justified' could such a crime be?


Total bullshit non-starter.

[napi21]

15. NO! But that's the reason they lied! Knew they couldn't sell it

on it's own merits!

I supported going after Osama and his top advisors. I'm still not sure that invasion of Afgan. was the greatest idea. Osama was supposed to be there, but did the entire country support him, or were they just hiding him??? I could have been convinced to attack the entire country because of their support for Osama, but unless they could have proven Saddam was working in colusion with Osama, Iraq was just a vendeta for "Daddy". I didn't, and wouldn't support that!

[CrispyQ]

16. No, no & hell no. -eom

[Booster]

17. No. It still boggles my mind that most of the highjackers were

Saudi, yet even today no one seems to care about that. I will never forgive the people in Congress who voted to give Bush the authority to attack Iraq when it was clear even to me at the time that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. To me, most of the people in Wash DC don't seem to have enough common sense to think for themselves - they also act like sheep and I find that disgusting - notice I said most, because there are some exceptions; it's just that the exceptions didn't have a voice loud enough to overcome the Kerry/Clinton/McCain, etc. voices.

[Carolab]

18. The point is, they HAD to lie because it wasn't justified. n/t

[skypilot]

19. "...strategically important in the War on Terror to...

...establish a democracy in the Middle East."

That is one of the things they are saying now since no WMD were found but I'm still wondering how this would have worked even if it had been their original reason. I don't see it. And it sure didn't help matters that they tried to "establish democracy" with Shock and Awe.

[prairierose]

20. NO! but then again...

I knew they were lying.

[GreenPartyVoter]

21. No. It was a bad war all the way through. Gandhi showed us other ways

of fighting oppression.

[johnnie]

22. No

It was crap from the beginning. Even before they started the big lies, it was already obvious they were going in there no matter what the UN found. They had their sights set on a war and there was no stopping them. I was against it from the get go.

[steve2470]

23. No !!! no way nt

[kenny blankenship]

24. 1,3, and 4 are simply inadmissable as reasons

1,3, and 4 are simply inadmissable as reasons, no matter what else you add to them.

As for the remainder, without a UN Sanctioned authority to intervene to stop an ongoing genocide, or the addition of an imminent definable security threat to the United States, or pleas for emergency military assistance from neighboring states, then point #2, while admissable as a supporting argument in a larger case for intervention, is also not enough to legitimize the U.S. invasion and overthrow of the government of Iraq.

So without the addition of a demonstrable threat posed by Iraq against its neighbors, or a demonstrable threat against the safety of the United States, or a demonstrated flouting of the sanctions imposed on Iraq by the UN Security Council that rises to the level of "rearmament" of Iraq with forbidden WMDs, then you're not talking about justified casus belli, or a "humanitarian crusade", you're talking some Hitlerian excuses for an imperialist war of aggression against Iraq's people.

And that's exactly what Bush gave the world: excuses for rapacious war worthy of Hitler, as now clearly established by DSM and other revelations. Since that is indisputably the case, why argue about how we might have felt if things were slightly different, and what might have been? Circumstances would have to be COMPLETELY different to justify this act of war. The whole thing is a monstrous crime against the international order this country worked for and sacrificed the lives of its soldiers for during half a century or more of conflict.

[tabasco]

25. What ever happened to self-determination?

Why should American boys be dying for things that Iraqi boys should be dying for? It's not America's place to be the streetsweeper of the world. I long for the day that this Nation, or any other nation, no longer considers itself, or desires to be, a superpower.

If we went in as part of a UN mission with the UN in charge, I would support an intervention.

But the US coporate profiteers have invaded for all the wrong reasons. It never had anything to do with Hussein. It had everything to do with corporate profits. Just because they used different propaganda would not change my support for a war for corporate profits.

[wuushew]

26. John Kerry would think so

what would the right war at the right time be? Short of one country invading another to rationalize any other reason is the height of supreme arrogance. I mean how the hell did the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 get passed unanimously? In truth all Americans have a streak of authoritarianism deriving from the feeling that our culture is inherently superior to all others.

All truths or morality are relative to the individual. Its not hard to observe progressively poorer decisions being made as groups and governments exceed the natural scope of the power they derive from their respective populations.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. Well said. Very well said.

The sad fact is that the vast majority of the American people were bent on vengeance after 9/11 rather than finding, or even seeking, a "solution" to the "terrorist" problem.

[Eloriel]

63. The Iraq Liberation Act

(Wasn't it a resolution?? Pretty sure it was.)

That was greasing the wheels for what came after, and our stupid Dems fell for it. You can blame PNACers of course, and I'm pretty sure AIPAC, which yields unbelievable lobbying power in Washington, had a lot to do with it as well.

[Child_Of_Isis]

27. No. I don't believe in killing. n/t.

[Spike from MN]

28. No. There is no justification for a "preemptive" war.

I wouldn't put my life on the line for any of the things on your list so I certainly couldn't justify asking the men and women in our armed forces to do so.

[AllieB]

29. No; the above examples are poor rationales for an invasion of a sovereign

country.

[Brotherjohn]

30. Why, YES, of course!

It's perfectly acceptable to:

- Establish "democracy" at the point of a gun.
- Invade and conquer every country led by a tinpot thug/dictator.
- Use unilateral military action against entire nations, killing thousands of civilians in the process, for "demonstration" purposes.
- "Secure" the natural resources of any sovereign nation we want for our own political purposes.

:sarcasm:
:sarcasm:
:sarcasm:
:sarcasm:
:sarcasm:
:sarcasm:

[Spike from MN]

70. Oh man. I was hoping no one would bring this up.

"Invade and conquer every country led by a tinpot thug/dictator."

Now we have to invade ourselves. Well, I guess it's fitting since we WERE harboring the 9/11 terrorists. And we're harboring a whole bunch more at 1600 Pennsylvania and the surrounding area so I guess we really don't have a choice in the matter. It'll be a preemptive strike against ourselves. Gee, I might even have to consider enlisting for that one. ;)

[woofless]

31. NO

[MalibuChloe]

32. Nope

Even if he had WMDs, I wouldn't have supported it because he never threatened US with them. Now if he had them and declared war on the U.S., that would be different.

I just don't believe in Bush's "Minority Report" mentality - attacking someone because you think they might possibly someday attack you.

Imagine if every nation had that level of paranoia.

[understandinglife]

33. NO. I was telling people that Bush would do this before the 2000 ...

... national election and have been absolutely against it.

It's time to return to our roots.

John Quincy Adams -- "(America) goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

Matthew Donaldson, an independent visual artist from Auckland. “On this, the 60th anniversary of Hiroshima's bombing, my grief for all of those murdered and yet to be murdered by America's weapons - of mass destruction or otherwise - overwhelms me” said Matt.

It overwhelms me, as well, Mathew.

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - How ever long it takes, the day must come when tens of millions of caring individuals peacefully but persistently defy the dictator, deny the corporatists their cash flow, and halt the evil being done in Iraq and in all the other places the Bu$h neoconster regime is destroying civilization and the environment in the name of "America."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. No. Even if the lies had been true. eom

[KnaveRupe]

35. Preemptive war under those circumstances is illegal.

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Iraq_War_is_Illegal


So, since I'm neither a war criminal nor a supporter of war crimes, I would NOT support the war under those circumstances.

Pretty much a no-brainer, no?

[krkaufman]

36. No, still wouldn't have supported the war...

... but I would have a modicum more respect for the Admin if they had been honest about their reasons for going to war. (Not that any of the bullet items listed capture their "hidden" reasoning.)

None of the reasons listed warrant unilateral invasion of another country, destabilizing the region, and diverting resources from the *real* threat and infant democracy in Afghanistan.

[wtbymark]

37. (1) No, (2) No, (3) No, (4) No

(1) "war against terrorism" is a rouse, in fact it doesn't mean anything, it's an abstact metephore for something that hasn't even been defined.
(2)None worse than any other dictatorship, which there are dozens of
(3)to make an 'example' out of any country is imperialism
(4)securing Iraq oil, regardless of the circumstances, is an imperial offensive - stealing from the citizens of iraq.

Bogus premise, bogus argument

[BeFree]

38. Democracy at the end of a gun barrel?

No. The war was nothing but a brutal attempt to steal from Iraq what a very few Americans decided they could, using our military as an offensive force.

Remember that Hussien was prepared to surrender. He foresaw the destruction of his country, even though our politicians did not.

Hussien had pretty much complied with the UN demands and our politicians lied to us saying he had not. They simply had to rush to war to keep the truth from being known.

This war is the most ignoble thing America has ever undertaken. It must be refuted at every opportunity, as Ms. Sheehan has done.

[Individualist]

39. NO!

[bunkerbuster1]

40. Yes, but I supported the war anyway, in spite of what I assumed were lies.

I'm one of those foolish New Republic-reading Democrats who believed all the stuff you posted; but more importantly to me, I thought our ongoing policy of containment was producing more misery to ordinary people than would be likely to occur with a short, victorious military campaign.

Y'see, I'm one of those foolish New Republic-reading Democrats who had faith in the ability of our military and intelligence community to use the resources they had to secure a relatively small country, restore order, and create a new government after a few months of martial law.

which is why I'm probably more pissed than your average Joe about the way Bush has botched this (or not botched it, but purposely made it painful and difficult, depending on how cynical I'm feeling on a given day.)

[OrlandoGator]

46. I am in the same boat...I'm pissed because I trusted them.

And like you, I think that makes me even more pissed than the average person who was against the war all along.

If, as the Bush administration told us:

- Saddam was stockpiling mass quantities of WMD,
- Saddam had direct dealings with al Qaeda agents,
- Saddam was trying to acquire enriched uranium to build a nuke,
- We knew exactly where all the WMD were located.

I supported attacking Iraq pre-emptively. Maybe that doesn't make me "true blue" but I really think that after 9/11 we needed to attack everyone even remotely responsible.

[Armstead]

41. No. There are reasons we don;t do things like that

Life would be a lot easier if we could outst every dictator who deserves ousting, and used military force to solve every injustice and crisis in the world.

But we don't, usually, because people with any brains are aware of the law of unintended consequences. By attenmpting to solve one mess in the wrong way, we are likely to create bigger messes.

We don't invade North Korea for obvious reasons. We shouldn't have invaded Iraq for the same reasons.

[Beaverhausen]

42. NO!!! and they knew it - that's why they lied. Your list are all lies too

-Iraq had nothing to do with terrorists.

-Saddam was contained and had committed most of his murders many years ago. There are many more evil dictaors in the world.

-Iran and North Korea seem really scared of us now...NOT.

-the only thing we secured is Halliburton's profits

[Beelzebud]

43. NO. Because without the lies there would be no war!

The lies are the catalyst that got this war in Iraq started.

Had the truth been told, we wouldn't be there right now...

[Walt Starr]

44. Yes, but if they had tried to build a coalition based upon the truth

Most likely Saddam would have left Iraq peacefully and a United Nations peacekeeping force could ahve moved in for the transition. This would have abrogated the necessity of armed conflict.

The reason why there is no way that would have happened is the Bush cronies would not have made any money from that approach.

[wuushew]

50. That seems like a slippery slope to me

how does one differentiate between "human rights concerns" and more nefarious things like corporate interests? In our current political system the rights of corporations reign supreme. How does one objectively and in a binary fashion determine what "proper" intervention is.

Are whole cultures worthy of extinction since they practice things like cannibalism or subjugation of women? Cultural structures like that of Saudi Arabia stem from the historical and geographic realties of that region. I have never been happy with man second guessing the results of complex systems.

The United States is not an altruistic nation and in fact many debate whether altruism as a concept even exists. The French did not help the Americans against the British for the hell of it nor did the Russians in WWII. The idea that we as a righteous country are unique is a self-perpetuating mythology which serves as a mental enabling agent in our various extra-territorial adventures.

Please remember that treaties and obligations can start conflict just as easily as they prevent them. The British and French had no interest in the Balkans prior to WWI. The obligation to intervene dragged a whole continent into a bloody meat grinder. Conversely the stability afforded by organizations such as NATO serve as a rebuttal. Anyway you cut it declarative stances on foreign policy cannot be made.

[Walt Starr]

62. Actually, I think the U.N. has always done a good job on these issues

and certainly, making the case for regime change based upon human rights abuses would have been doable.

As evidence I cite Milosevic.

Also, the threat of force lead up to Saddam stating he would leave just prior to the invasion, so getting him out (and probably all of his cronies) was a very doable proposition.

[wuushew]

65. Except that the U.N. had no role in the attack on Kosovo

The issue and authority to do so was never explored because of supposed Russian veto threat on the Security Concil. Surely lame duck President Bill Clinton could have spent some political capital criticizing the Russian support of the Serbian nation.

NATO acted outside its own authority since none of the countries bordering Serbia were member nations at the time. The domino destabilization theory used to justify the intervention operates on the same pre-emption principles that Iraq did.

Should NATO have pre-emptively attacked the Warsaw block based on speculative possibility of future attack?

[Walt Starr]

66. I'm not saying a possibility of a future attack

because, quite frankly, where Iraq was concerned there was no possibilty of that whatsoever.

Human Rights violations are a legitimate reason for regime change. And as I stated, an international coalition would have been capable of forcing the issue without resorting to armed conflict.

[WMliberal]

47. no way on ALL justifications given

Justification 1- An unjust means corrupts a just ends.
Justification 2-There are worse dictators and governments than Saddam and the Ba'athists. If we're going to war to get rid of bad guys, then lets get rid of the worst first.
Justification 3-And what if NK decides to retaliate and nuke Seoul, Tokyo, or Hawaii to "make an example" of how they're not afraid of our threats? "Making examples" works both ways.
Justification 4- Finding alternative sources of energy, less waste of energy, and conservation will wean us of that kind of need for oil. If we didn't need it so bad, we wouldn't have to go to war for it.

[sandnsea]

48. No. That's what Afghanistan was supposed to do

Not only am I pissed about the Iraq war lies, I think I'm even more pissed about Afghanistan. If I'd known we were going to fuck up that country too, I wouldn't have supported war there either.

[mongo]

49. NO!

and your average blue collar American would not have supported it either.

Support is waning for this war every day. I hear it from my customers.

[SalmonChantedEvening]

60. Had there been no lies, there would have been no war.

It was, and continues to be, sold on lies.

[TNOE]

51. NO

And I still feel like puking when I remember the moment "Shock N Awe" started - I've never been so ashamed to be an American - well afterwards sure, now many times - but that was certainly a first. DISGUSTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Eloriel]

52. HELL No. n/t since nothing else needs to be said on this

[uppityperson]

53. No, none of these are good enough reasons

Not good enough to invade and occupy Iraq.

[Junkdrawer]

54. I'll bet they "focus grouped" that long ago and found it's a loser...

to say nothing of the international implications. We invaded with the fig leaf of "self defense".

For the record: I said No when I thought he might have some weapons.

[spuddonna]

55. No, to quote George Bush, "We are not nation builders..." n/t

[CWebster]

56. Its all about

what Israel wants.

[lonestarnot]

57. NO.

[texanwitch]

58. No.

[rman]

59. That's just more lies.

Democracy? Established by a nation that is sliding ever closer to despotism? Do we need to get into the Patriot Act, Gitmo, Downing Street Memos, Wilson/Plame, the elections, PNAC?

Saddam's human rights violations. Utter hypocrisy. The US has a history of supporting dictators who arguably have done worse things then Saddam. The US supports a dictator as long as he supports US interests - which is mainly resources.

Iraq, Iran and N Korea are not "rogue nations". It is a fictitious term invented by the US as a way to discredit those nations it wants to attack.

The oil thing is half-truth-half-lie - "perhaps the blackest of all lies", as Bill Moyers would say. Securing Iraqi oil will divert oil to the US. Simple as that. Subsequently "elements within" the US fund the terrorists. Do we need to get into the Sibel Edmonds story?

[Cats Against Frist]

61. I call bullshit on a lot of people who, here, are saying "no."

The interesting thing about the Iraq invasion, is that it's kind of contrarian. Remember your question asks SPECIFICALLY that if the reasons stated, above, were the rationale for the war, would supporters support it.

Remember, the ideologues behind the war, were and are, in fact, neoconservatives -- who are not really conservative, at all. They're cold-war liberals-turned hawks, Jewish intellectuals -- remember, Richard Perle says he's a registered Democrat, and I believe him. Before Bushler was elected the neocons supported the far more hawkish John McCain.

Their very program -- IF believed -- IS, in fact, liberalism. It's not pacifism, per se, but it is, in fact, the kind of social engineering, sprung from modernity, that is the hallmark of liberalism -- all the way from Rousseau, through Marx -- that insists that an authority can envision a "just society," i.e. socialism, the removal of dictators, etc., and rationally act to bring about intended results.

If action is not a viable option, then why do organizations like the International Red Cross, and Amnesty International, exist? So they can ho-hum report some genocide, and everyone says, "that's nice," and goes back to tofu-kebabs? Sanctions can be almost as brutal as war, and three Clinton military operations -- Rawanda, Bosnia and Somalia -- were actions taken to minimize genocide and brutality. In addition, Clinton was bombing targets in Iraq. Many people, here, lent and continue to lend President Clinton support. Kennedy originally sent troops to Vietnam.

Let's add a fifth condition to your list -- what if the UN had voted that military action was necessary to remove Saddam Hussein? It is not implausible that if the U.S. had come to the UN without a purse full of bullshit, that a different outcome may have been engendered. Would people support it, then?

Also, hindsight is 20/20 -- knowing this outcome -- this brutal, violent outcome makes it hard to support any operation -- BUT, is this outcome a result of the poor planning, on behalf of the incompetent Bush administration, and the ideologically ambitious, but strategically oblivious, neoconservatives? What if the war had been planned, better?

Pacifism is not a modern or rational position -- it is a postmodern, or even, depending on the belief system, a classical or religious position. It assumes that no one authority can envision a desired moral outcome and rationally bring about that outcome OR it assumes a moral aboslute of nonviolence which is fixed, even in the face of great injustice, or the potential or a more practically healthy outcome.

The Suskind quote about "history's actors," was very important -- the "new reality," that has, in fact, been created is that Orwellian kind of binary switch -- conservatives (the rank & file) support a war effort, on behalf of social engineering (or were tricked into supporting it for that, amongst other reasons), and liberals do not support social engineering or the "just society" -- the main reason being, because we knew the people -- the oil people -- that let the neocons under their wing, had anything but altruistic motives in mind, and the stated altruistic motives -- and the defensive motives -- of the neocons were noble lies -- when, in fact, allegiance to a foreign flag, and deep-seated ideological racism and religious hatred, are, in fact the real motivations.

Now, the condition, above that states, "- We want to make an example of Iraq as a warning to other rogue nations like Iran and North Korea." IS a reason for a liberal to answer "no," because it is not a clear-cut, or necessarily morally based position, but a strategic one. I wonder, if that condition were removed, and replace with UN approval and a Democratic President, at the helm, how many people would say "yes."

[rman]

69. I call bullshit on the lies of the OP

I already did actually.
In case you missed it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4295624&mesg_id=4296241

But i'll add:
If the admin hadn't lied about their reasons for going to war they'd have said "for oil and imperialism".
And a vast majority would have said "no thanks".

[Cats Against Frist]

74. There are a lot of "potential hypotheticals" involved

Reason number one really isn't a lie, it's an unproven idea. Reason number two has basis in reality, with rationalization and bad information, on all sides. Reason no. 3 is, again, an unproven idea, and worse, has no moral purpose -- only strategic purpose and the last one doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

My post, actually, though, was based on assuming that if the rationale were for human rights abuses, and/or any plausible safety considerations for the U.S., with UN approval and a Democratic President.

I didn't support this war, because I knew they were fucking lying, and I dislike both neocons and corpo-fascists. I wouldn't support the war under a Democratic President, for human rights reasons, either -- because I'm a libertarian. I do think, however, that "perception" is an amazing thing, and that there would be more supporters, under different conditions.

I think the above list is flawed, because the person is trying to say the "true" motivations -- but those weren't the true motivations, at all. The true motivations were neoconservative concern for Israel and Palestinian hatred, oil, foreign contracts, the selling off of Iraqi infrastructure and other spoils, and military stratego - and possibly personal revenge, on behalf of the pretzeldent.

And, if they'd oome out and said that -- I would first, congratulate a Republican for actually voicing what he or she REALLY stands for, and then I'd tell them, "fuck no."

[marions ghost]

64. Nah

:thumbsdown:
:thumbsdown:
:thumbsdown:
:thumbsdown:

The run-up to the war had all the earmarks of a pre-meditated con job. It's played out in reality exactly as it did in my worst nightmares. After the First Gulf War the Bush Crime Family was not finished with Iraq if they could get another crack at it. Obviously there were a lot of other options other than total occupation of the country but 9-11 sealed it--the ONLY rationale they needed. Liberating the Iraqis is BS. It's all the usual money and power grab, with a dash of revenge. And now The Noble Cause is a royal sinkhole. Deja Vu. This must NEVER happen again.

[warrens]

67. Maybe after Saudi Arabia and Pakistan

I never saw any reason to invade Iraq. Still don't.

[rasputin1952]

68. No...I was, and still am, in favor of getting bin-Laden and all of the

others involved in 9-11 and subsequent attacks.

But the onlys reason for going into Iraq, were #1: Oil; #2: personal vendetta against Saddam for Bush I.

This was the most ill-conceived military situation in modern history., and it is all for personal gain for the cabal...:grr:

[MojoXN]

71. No, I wouldn't have supported the war in any case.

MojoXN

[Terran]

72. Hell no

Because they still would have been lying, or not telling the full truth. Saddam was about to covert his oil sales to euros, and that is a *major* reason why we (they, excuse me) went ahead and did this.

[kenny blankenship]

73. I think what speculation in America along these lines demonstrates

is a frightening lack of awareness in America that war between nation states is ILLEGAL, except in extraordinary and legally defined circumstances, the most likely of which depend upon either the justification of self-defence against an imminent threat, or upon authorization by the United Nations Security Council. And neither of those justifications were met during the run-up to war, lies or no lies.

I don't mean to sweep up the original poster in this complaint or single him out, because what I'm objecting to is something that appears to be a culture-wide ignorance about the actual legal state of things, following the Second World War and following treaty laws and international norms and organizations that WE, THE UNITED STATES, insisted be created.

Americans need to wake the fuck up already: you cannot go around invading or bombing bothersome countries because you FEEL like doing it. Not even if you think your reasons are good ones, and your government isn't necessarily lying about everything, as they were in this case.

[mcar]

75. I didn't support the war at the beginning and I don't support it now.

n/t

[OrlandoGator]

76. Kick.