What was your stance on the Iraq War ?

[Lord Osmund de Ixabert]

I retrospect, I was right about everything. I called out 9/11 as an inside job from the beginning. I supported Saddam Hussein from the beginning. I never believed in the existence of weapons of mass destruction.

For what it's worth, I wrote this in April of 2003:​

​

Rumsfeld professed his conviction that the likelihood of ever unearthing any tangible evidence for weapons of mass destruction would be tenuous, comparing the endeavour to an elusive "treasure hunt," wherein one roams the earth with the faintest of hopes, yet never certain of encountering the object of desire. But what was the chief impetus for this bellicose intervention? If memory serves me correctly, it revolved chiefly round the purported existence of weapons of mass destruction.​

​

​

 

[Charles Silvius Haddock]

I believe the real justification for it was that Saddam was trying to weaponise OPEC and form an Arabist bloc hostile to US interests in the region. We can see what has happened since the demise of Saddam. It's de facto split into (at least) 3 warring states. Though the US military may've pulled out, the US Embassy is still there in the "green zone" in Baghdad, the Western oil companies are still operating, Western mercenaries are still involved in various manoevres, etc. I would say the divided / civil war condition it's in now is the way the Western powers wanted it.

 

[Grug Arius]

I believe the real justification for it was that Saddam was trying to weaponise OPEC and form an Arabist bloc hostile to US interests in the region. We can see what has happened since the demise of Saddam. It's de facto split into (at least) 3 warring states. Though the US military may've pulled out, the US Embassy is still there in the "green zone" in Baghdad, the Western oil companies are still operating, Western mercenaries are still involved in various manoevres, etc. I would say the divided / civil war condition it's in now is the way the Western powers wanted it.

I believ the west has fallen short on a few goals

I think the current state of affairs in mesopotamia is a partial realization of the contingency plan

The original plan - as conceived by Bush and the neocons - of a vassal state ( similar to Germany) not being realized; collapsing towards a strengthening of the Shia and thus Iran, they then shift into the contingency of maintaining as much of the victory spoils as possible, while disrupting Iranian influence.

The attempted coup in Syria was pursuant to limiting Iran's expanding regional power, with the added hopes for some of reviving the goal of 'spreading western democracy' - part of the contingency plan

Admittedly the west has achieved some limited objectives but the cost was enormous, and very importantly there is a land route open for Tehran to Damascus.

 

[Charles Silvius Haddock]

I think ideally they wanted captive regimes in both Iraq and Syria, but don't really have the capacity to build such puppets anymore, so this situation of divide and rule is the best they can accomplish at this point in time.

 

[William Score]

I was opposed to this disgraceful war when it began. I was even at real life protests . Odd how the democrats habe become the "war party" again after the bush years and they have more or less abandoned anti war talk in favor of full on social engineering. Whatever else has changed..this remained a disaster of an event and in many ways ushered in the dscline of Americas image abroad in a way that none of our cold war conduct (questionable as it may have been) could have .

 

[piscamaniac]

I was against the first gulf war as a blatantly manufactured crisis via ZOG meddling. The official justification for the later Iraq war was obvious nonsense: any such weapons of mass destruction would have been obliterated during the gulf war and subsequent Clinton bombing campaigns; I never bought into any of that nonsense. Iris support the invasion, however, for a couple of reasons regarding Saddam himself. After the gulf war I viewed Saddam as a spent force, his rule was also more tyrannical (manipulating sanction shortages to tighten his trip on power. I considered a transition to a Shiite regime would improve conditions for the Iraqi people. What I underestimated was the future incompetence and off the scale corruption of the ZOG occupation.

 

[kanethenotorious]

I can sneak this in, because Ixabert isn't browsing lately, but I recall Ixabert being an Iraq War supporter when he was in his pro-Jew phase. Maybe he went back to not being an Iraq War supporter. I was pro-Hussein the whole time, even in my pro-Jew phase.

 

[Gawn Chippin]

I would have preferred invading Saudi Barbaria, taking their oil from them instead

 

[Cole of Them Northwoods]

I'm inlistin'.

 

[Buglord]

It was very scary (I was a young boy). Afghanistan was also a scary war as neighbors went to fight and then came back in caskets. Being a strapping young lad I could only hear what my parents and the media were thinking and while there may have been reservations the post 9/11 world sort of stripped away most objections as white America was not quite thinking correctly as to what the goals and objectives were going to be in Iraq.

I believe the real justification for it was that Saddam was trying to weaponise OPEC and form an Arabist bloc hostile to US interests in the region. We can see what has happened since the demise of Saddam. It's de facto split into (at least) 3 warring states. Though the US military may've pulled out, the US Embassy is still there in the "green zone" in Baghdad, the Western oil companies are still operating, Western mercenaries are still involved in various manoevres, etc. I would say the divided / civil war condition it's in now is the way the Western powers wanted it.

I do believe part of the justification was to finish the Gulf War's objectives which were to push Iraq firmly out of the Russia/China sphere of influence and to create a friendly state in the Middle East who would keep Europe awash in cheaper energy. As to the weaponization of OPEC, I think the entire organization was already a weapon against US interests. If anything the goal may have been to scare straight other members of OPEC as to what will happen if they attempt to pull some of the shenanigans they did in the 1970s (Considering the current war in Ukraine and what happened to Libya the message did not get across).

 

[kanethenotorious]

I believe the objective was to set up a Democracy in Iraq (meaning a capitalist regime that is friendly to America), but the problem is that Saddam Hussein served as a functional secular leader. He was ruling over a bunch of religious fanatics. If you take out Saddam, you only put something like ISIS in charge. Basically the United States underestimated what Saddam Hussein was dealing with.

 

[Mike]

My stance on the 2003 Iraq invasion was opposition, and no I am not making that up or conveniently misremembering the past as many, especially politicians, are prone to do. I specifically remember, and will relate to you now, being in the lounge of an Elks chapter in 2002 or thereabouts with a particular good friend of mine, at a table filled with regular conservative/moderate Americans, drinking beer and discussing the fact that Hussein was not responsible for the 9-11 attacks, the WMD threat was not credible, and the whole idea of invading was idiotic. Another friend of mine pointed out that America was out for revenge, and though I was making good points, that was simply the way it was. I can't say he was wrong. At the time regular Americans were primed due to the 9-11 attacks and susceptible to the sort of manipulation that we saw.

 

[surenot]

At that age i was still a classical liberal that was anti-war that had total mistrust in the government. Anti-war types like chomsky and oliver stone made it easy.