2013/02/20

Hubris: Selling the Iraq War

.
This is a new documentary about the warmongering that led to the 2003 invasion of Iraq (about 45 minutes overall).

It's narrated by a host of a show on a left-leaning* TV network in the U.S., and this will no doubt lead to about half of the readers from the U.S. rejecting it as all kinds of crap. Well, the really far left of the U.S. is already nitpicking even in this documentary, and I suppose the other seven point something billion people of this planet are really more relevant than those Americans who still think the Iraq War was no racket.I also suppose they're on average more capable of learning, too.

 

 

 

 

 


The intro was a good one; the 2003 example may have been an especially disrespectful, brazen example, but it wasn't exactly unusual in its deception. Large-scale wars are rackets whenever the population is wise enough to remember the horrors and utter wastefulness of warfare. Warmongers need to deceive in order to overcome resistance. They hype up an external enemy, create fear, create hatred, mobilise special interests which would benefit from war and they use the proven method of overcoming rationality by repeating brazen lies over and over again till they kind of sound like conventional wisdom and then they fabricate some more or misrepresent some event to get a trigger pull.

Large and militarily relevant societies have the responsibility to ward against warmongers, for otherwise they may do great harm to themselves and to others.
The Neocons in 2003 were no better than Saddam in '90. I strongly believe they should only be allowed to breathe filtered air.

S Ortmann


P.S.: Background music and the choice of Maddow are questionable and details will no doubt be fact-checked in the next weeks. Yet, this would still be useful if it was fiction.

*: By American standards. About centre by German standards.
.

9 comments:

  1. Could you have possibly said that in a more offensive way? Maybe throw in a few references to us 'stupid rethuglicons' or 'teahadi$ts'?

    If you're going to alienate a large numbers of readers, you may as well go all the way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This blog did never pander to thin-skinned Americans. I suppose those who make up my readers are thick-skinned enough, and will more likely than not think I was writing about others.

      Besides; niceties should have no relevance in the context of an important topic.
      Those who supported or even elected warmongers need to earn niceness from ground up anyway.

      Delete
  2. I thought SO was being very mild, especially by USA standards.

    We are only responsible for what we are able, physically and mentally.
    That is the meaning of respons-able.

    It is no shame to fall down.
    It is only blameworthy to refuse to stand-up.

    It is not blameworthy not to know.
    But it is blameworthy to refuse to see.

    It is no shame to admit one was mislead into war.
    It is only blameworthy to continue on the wrong path after one real-eyes-ed the truth.

    He who does not correct himself,
    nor heeds the advice of his concerned allies,
    will be corrected by cause-and-effect.

    We don't honor our parents by blindly copying them,
    but we honor them by surpassing them.
    Honor your past by looking towards the future.

    Likewise you don't honor the sacrifice of your soldiers by insisting on misguidance.
    But to use their sacrifice to self-correct and improve yourselves and your nation.
    Do you think they deserve any less?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said! But I think the horse shit with WMDs was only able to have effect due to the precedent that was set by the september 11th attacks, and the horrendous amount of fear mongering generated by the media (who were in lock step with the greasy neocon scum@#$%). Americas aura of invulnerability was disrupted, and they became more amenable to the demands of a 'strong' leader.

      Hopefully, the yankees are not so myopic that they cannot see the reprecussions of continuing this stupid war on terror (or, as the PC obama administration calls it, the overseas contingency operation!), which has dragged on well past its expiry date thanks to the efforts of souless war profiteers. Al qaeda was stamped out within months of 911, there is literally nothing left of them!

      Delete
  3. German citizens are so fortunate that Chancellor Schröder did not want Germany to have any part in that war. I wonder if Germany would haved done differently had Chancellor Merkel been in power back then ...
    Charles_in_Houston_Texas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Schröder was overtly contra the war, but behind the scenes he supported the Bush administration.

      I suppose Merkel wouldn't have done much more. The probability of a successful Misstrauensantrag (her removal from office) if she had attempted to join the war of aggression would have been close to 100% and a substantial quantity of soldiers would have refused orders as illegal.
      Merkel is 100% about power, 0% about ideology. She wouldn't have risked power for a foreign policy game. Her party is staunchly pro-U.S., but Merkel herself is from East Germany and the pro-U.S. party line is only an ideology anyway...

      The Federal Constitutional Court might have intervened based on an emergency complaint as well.
      On the other hand - it didn't stop the participation in Kosovo '99, so it's a bit unpredictable.

      Delete
  4. Why Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld are not incarcerated in The Hague RIGHT NOW is beyond my comprehension. They are war criminals in every sense of the word...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "why" is actually easy, and I suppose the reason why they're not wanted by the court in The Hague is that they probably hope the U.S. will eventually join the treaty.
      Well, that and possibly some bias.

      Delete
    2. Why they're not immured in american prisons for their violations of american laws wrt war crimes is ... politically comprehensible but comprehensively disgusting

      Delete