The bombing of Bhagdad

[Must_B_Free]

Do you think they thought that it was going to be like the effect of the atomic bomb on Japan? What a miscalculation.

Was it even necessary or was it just to secure rebuild contracts for the US spoils winners?

As I recall, they got to Bhagdad and there was no resistance. Seems like they didn't even need to bomb. At the time it seemed like they just did it because that was the plan and they didn't feel like changing it.

[NJCher]

1. yes--I recall a general coming out and saying this

Not long after, a retired general came out and said as much. The bombing was ineffective. He also tried to get the ear of the Pentagon and being a former part of the "machine," he did get their ear. They did not, however, change their strategy, despite being shown upfront how wrong it was.

Anybody remember this general's name? I recall he got a lot of his information right off the Internet. He was on 60".


Cher

[knowbody0]

2. targets were 0 for 50

our smart bombs and missles rarely hit the intended target
shock and awe was a horrific war crime

[0rganism]

3. There weren't enough quality targets in Afghanistan...

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking...."

Richard Clarke on 60 Minutes

[leftchick]

4. remember the restaurant targeted for Saddam?

omg, this is bringing back some bad memories. The US used some "precision guided" missiles into a block in Baghdad supposedly targeting Saddam and ended up killing many innocent people. The whole thing was BS and yes I am sure it was about trying out new expensive killing toys to see how they worked and to place new orders. Disgusting! :puke:

[DoYouEverWonder]

5. Ever notice how undamaged Saddam's palaces where

after we got there? It seems we didn't want to damage the real targets because we had other plans for them?

[Deja Q]

7. I recall a pic of the troops eyeing his palace and draping a big US flag

Yup. So soon after the invasion began, did that pic come out. Of course, that came out after 2 soldiers had raised the US flag in place of the Iraqi flag. (but at least those two had been told to take them off the respective flagpoles as we really were there to liberate and not occupy, what a fucking lie.)

Do as ye say, not do as ye do. I doubt God's gonna like anyone at this point.

[CWebster]

6. The latest propaganda is

Saddam planted the seeds of the insurgency before the US attacked.

But weren't we led to believe that the people of the Country under Saddam's thumb would welcome us as liberators with arms open wide while we drain their oil? The fact that entire scheme was hatched by neocons with strong ties to the Israeli rightwing and propped up by conmen like Chalabi didn't win hearts and minds in the Islamic world. So, it can't be admitted that the insurgency might just be ordinary Iraqis fighting a hostile occupation, it is neccessary to paint it as the influence of foreign terrorists or masterminded by Saddam.

And the loyal opposition sits on their hands for fear that the media will chop off their hands should they not toe the official line.

What to do about our press? Even in our local paper, the front page shows a chart with the US down on the list of Tsunami funds, after Australia, Germany, Japan, but on the oped page shows cartoon of Uncle Sam shouldering the entire globe.

The disconnect between the front page reality and the official propaganda is part of the wall of illusion that goes unchallenged.

The same PR campaign they used to roll into Iraq will now be used to roll over Social Security. Who is gonna stop them?

The ultimate ending will be:

Drunken frat boy ran Country into ditch.

[Deja Q]

8. WHAT?! Where did you hear that? I know the M$M has said some really

k00ky stuff, but this new claim of idiocy takes the cake.

Still. France can say the same when they invade liberate the South, yes? :eyes: (of course, that claim CAN be substantiated. Yipes.)