Free Republic

That kind of moral challenge pits life, even though fearful and oppressed, against imprisonment, torture, and execution.

We saw that here in the Greatest Country in the World as well.

The number of people who would turn on their fellow citizens and willingly ostracize them simply to get along with the regime was shocking.

We know that Stanley Milgram ran his experiments at Yale after the arrest of Adolf Eichmann brought the Holocaust back to the front pages; he wanted to see if enough people could be found here in the US to construct and man death camps similar to how Germany did.

When he was later asked if he thought this country had such people found in it, he was reporter to have said that he could have iund enough people to build and man such a large network without leaving New Haven.

There is no choice really.

There's only 92 million of them. 🙄

WMD’s were a fraud perpetrated by a weak and doubleminded President.

Forget GWB for a minute.

"And today the United States must destroy the same regime because a nuclear-armed Saddam will place the security of our entire world at risk. And make no mistake about it, if and once Saddam has nuclear weapons, the terror network will have nuclear weapons. And once the terror network has nuclear weapons, it is only a matter of time before those weapons will be used.

You cannot prevent a dictator who has used terrorism in the past, who cavorts and supports and encourages terror organizations, from using this weapon by giving it to someone, by having them threaten to use it against his enemies. Once one of the terror regimes, once one of the principal regimes in the terror network has nuclear weapons, you cannot prevent the terror network from having nuclear weapons.

Two decades ago, it was possible to thwart Saddam's nuclear ambitions by bombing a single installation. But today, nothing less than dismantling his regime will do, because Saddam's nuclear program has fundamentally changed in those two decades. He no longer needs one large reactor to produce the deadly material necessary for atomic bombs. He can produce it in centrifuges the size of washing machines that can be hidden throughout the country. And I want to remind you that Iraq is a very big country. It is not the size of Monte Carlo. It is a big country.

And I believe that even free and unfettered inspections will not uncover these portable manufacturing sites of mass death. So knowing this, I ask all the governments and others who oppose or question the President's plan to look at it from the other end of the logic: Do you believe that action can be taken against Saddam only after he builds nuclear bombs and uses them?" - Bibi Netanyahu, testifying to the Committee on Government Reform in the US House of Representatives, 09/12/2002. www.govinfo.gov

Was Bibi Netanyahu part of the Bush vendetta? If not, did he ever offer an apology for this testimony?

I just don't buy any of what I am hearing on this subject.

Bibi threw the first punch; let him deal with the consequences.

WMD’s were a fable and feeble justification for Bush’s War.

Iran’s potential nuclear capabilities are a factual threat to the U.S, Israel, and the world.

Forgive me for not buying it.

The government of the Greatest Country in the World committed a crime against humanity of catastrophic scale based on the threat of WMDs. Nobody even resigned over this.

Now I'm being fed the same line. (But this time, we really do mean it.)

Too bad.

would that be like having a big rock on the runway?

That's my question. Could he tell the difference, as he was landing a plane?

(Did he try to save an animal or did he try to prevent flipping his plane over?)

I found out how by 2003, Bush had already made up his mind to invade Iraq and go after Saddam because of their threat to his dad's life. In early 2003 Bush told his aides to come up with a viable justification for the invasion. WMD's was the answer.

Well then, I applaud you.

But you understand that because of this Bright, Shining Lie told by the American government 22 years ago (and the war crimes it subsequently carried out), we are in a position where nobody believes what the American government is telling them today.

So let's put the 2003 WMD crowd on trial, and then we'll talk about the next imminent nuclear threat to the world.

Let the Persians have a legit voting system. If they can.

And if they vote for someone we don't approve of, we'll just do a replay of the 1953 coup d'état the CIA pulled off in Iran.

Iraq had nothing like this. Not even close.

Then we first have the trials. The entire Bush WH and everyone in Congress who supported the war.

Once that has been done, the sentences given, and the prison doors secured, we can talk about the next imminent nuclear threat to the world.

If the neocons succeed on making it an initiative to try some “regime change” and “nation building,” then the whole picture changes.

Suppose they succeed in simply getting the US military involved at all, and have the heat that is currently focused on Israel shifted over to the United States?

WMDs and Iraq was a Bush fiction he used to retaliate against Iraq because of his dad. A futile Bush personal vendetta at the cost of many American and other lives.

WMD and the Iraq “threat” was a fiction.

Is that the new line?

Was that your position in 2003? (Because if you pushed against the official narrative here in 2003, you would have been tossed off the site.)

Let's assume that what you are saying is true. Has anybody been hauled off to the Hague in handcuffs for this?

(You understand, of course, why nobody's buying the snake oil this time.)

Police beat Orthodox Jews in Israel protesting mobilization and Netanyahu’s war this evening

If Israeli Jews themselves have no interest in militarily defending Israel, how can any non-Israeli Gentile be considered antisemitic for taking the same position?

How did we ever get to this place where we are now?

Anything but a very limited surgical strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would be totally acceptable

A military action against Iran or any other sovereign nation would be an act of war.

Why would you green-light an act of war by the US against Iran?

You forgot this one:

September 1980: US supports Iraq in its war with Iran, providing economic, military, and intelligence aid.

It will be our fight if Iran gets the bomb.

We'll pick it up at that time.

Somehow, despite Kruschev declaring he would bury us, we managed to get along with him and then eventually see his own country's collapse.

Yes, we had to treat him as a human being. No, we couldn't just bulldoze through countries like we can today, what with him holding a nuclear bomb over our heads.

Somehow, we survived.

You’re ignoring America’s national interest in preventing a rogue enemy nation from going nuclear.

We've been hearing bullschitt about rogue nations going nuclear for the past thirty years, James; that rogue nation is always just around the corner, we just missed it, the WMDs are being driven into _____ (fill in your next country of opportunity here), we're sorry so many of you were killed and maimed.

What are some of the unintended consequences of getting involved, a major immigration movement in Europe further spreading Jihadis all over the place.

Everyone loves to criticize Europe for their criticism of us when we upend countries across the ME, but it's Europe who has to deal with the humanitarian crises we create, not us.

Stumble into another yet another country in the ME, and like clockwork, displaced refugees will be showing up on Europe's doorstep, courtesy of Uncle Sam.

I love the Isreael first screechers: "oh look, evil Iran hit a hospital/infrastructure/residential building!!!"

We certainly deserve better propaganda than what they've been feeding us, which I find almost insulting.

It is incredibly disingenuous of the author to point fingers at Iran for anything the country does in its response to Israel's attack on the country.

There's a reason people don't start wars, and it's the same reason you don't start fights with strangers: You have no idea whom you're dealing with, and you've no moral high ground to claim when he beats you senseless. (You've broken the first rule, why should he follow any of them?)

There's a brief explanation here about how the misunderstanding of Genesis 12:3 is causing no small amount of disruption in world politics.

www.rumble.com

Sure, Saddam had not enriched it or built a bomb, but “no yellowcake?”…That was simply a ridiculous lie. 550 METRIC TONS of the stuff. NEVER forget that again.

The yellowcake uranium you describe here was a known item; the International Atomic Energy Agency and UN weapons inspectors knew of this before the war even began. (They had been regularly inspecting it, for crying out loud.) That uranium was pulled out of Iraq in 2008 because the country still had not stabilized, five years after our invasion.

The claim in the run-up to the war was that Hussein had attempted to buy yellowcake from Niger in 2001; it was all bullschitt.

In 2008, everyone knew exactly where that yellowcake had come from. Fast forward 17 years, and maybe there is enough distance to create a myth about it.