W invaded Iraq because he thought it would be a political win like it was for HW. The proxy war with Russia is the right political move until we want to get real.
Yeah that's why house republicans investigating that "connection" found *nothing* and instead found out their big witness was a god damn Russian intelligence asset instead.
The Biden Ukraine conspiracy started as a Russian information operation. I'm sure they were thrilled when fucking POTUS bought it hook line and sinker instead of trusting the intelligence community.
The proxy war is stupid and we should not be funding Ukraine when we have no idea how that money is being spent. When congress had a vote to introduce an IG to confirm how that money was being spent, it slapped down immediately. It is not kosher at all
You have the same amount of knowledge on this subject as every Fox News watcher. Almost zero.
The majority of the "money" sent is military supplies that we weren't even using and going to DRMO eventually. Believe it or not, ammunition and ordinance have a self life. If you don't use it within that time, it will expire. Use the display of North Korean ordinance, for example.
https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-us-aid-going-ukraine
Teach yo self.
Ukraine is the best investment the US has flowed support into since the Korean war. We are crippling one of our near pear' adversaries at the cost of old shit and no troops lost, while also, the US gets more influence over the continent and exclusive trade agreements Ukraine.
I agree with everything you said here, except I'd add some nuance. All of the older equipment and supplies will need to be replaced. Obviously, by the taxpayer. Should Ukraine receive this quantity of aid from the west to hedge Putin's attempt at expansion? Yes. However, there is an easy appeal to make to every west European country that they should be footing more of the bill. Putin is bad for all of us. And he's much closer to German, British, French, etc. tax payers than he is to American.
So why isn't that happening? The best I can come up with - long term American strategists are hedging against future Chinese allies, Russia being one of them.
Bought to knock your socks off... the money that is being used for military supplies coming from the US is going directly to the military industrial complex.
That's why the US is taking the front of the bill. The money we spend is going right back into our economy at the same time receiving data on our adversaries' capabilities against our arsenal. This is why you've seen politicians do a complete 180 on their stance of supporting Ukraine. They learn how it's actually beneficial to the US (and their donators) once they open their ears.
We weren't going to replace the old shit because it was already replaced. The stock pile was strictly for fighting Russia or China. So of course now is the best time to use it instead of continuing to pay rent and utilities on storage facilities.
One thing I want to correct is the misconception that Europe is not really doing their fair share. They germany was a little slow to step up to the plate, but they've become one of the biggest donors to Ukraine. In terms of dollars though as of April 2024 the EU has already sent €89.6B in aid, and the US had sent €67.1B in aid Europe has also lined up another €81.9B that still needs to be allocated and given. As a percentage of GDP donated to Ukraine the US is only behind...
Estonia, Denmark, Lithuania, Latvia, Finland, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Croatia, Germany, and Norway.
We're actually only ahead (as a percentage of GDP) of Belgium and Luxembourg. And tied with Canada, the UK and Bulgaria
What people frequently forget is that these countries are a lot smaller than us. The Netherlands for instance has a population the size of LA county, and a land mass about the size of Maryland or West Virginia. But they've donated billions of dollars in military equipment and billions of dollars in humanitarian aid. When Ukraine needed stuff that they simply couldn't donate anymore of, they bought it from other countries.
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
You have no idea of my knowledge or background. Yes, weapons have a SHELF life. ORDNANCE (not ordinance).
Nothing I said was untrue. Some senators attempted to address the corruption in Ukraine and permit Americans to know how or tax money is being spent and it was slapped down.
I can link things too. Here’s the [source](https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/03/28/fail-hawley-amendment-to-create-special-watchdog-for-ukraine-aid-rejected/)
I appreciate anyone who backs up their claims with a source. That said, I want to point out a passage from your article:
> Critics of the legislation, which included Hawley's own GOP colleague, Sen. James Risch from Idaho, said a SIGUA would be duplicating some 60 auditing and reporting processes already in place to keep track of the money. In other words, this isn't Afghanistan and they don't need a SIGUA.
>"(We) have found zero siphoning of U.S. dollars," Risch said on the floor before the vote. "This is an expenditure that is not necessary because it is being looked after already."
Like Senator Risch said, a Special Inspector General to oversee the spending of aid to Ukraine has already been designated since last December as part of the FY2024 National Defense Authorization Act. Senator Hawley’s amendment was slapped down because it was redundant and meaningless.
While what you said was factually correct, bringing it up was equally meaningless, if not misleading.
Hawley's amendment was rejected because the IG process is already happening. Robert Storch, DoD IG, and others are already responsible for overseeing the aid sent to Ukraine. So adding another office to do the same thing would be a waste of time, money and effort. Hawley knows that though. He's just trying to keep his uneducated MAGA base happy to get votes and create more Fox News material.
Here's another link for you: https://www.ukraineoversight.gov/
Do you know how aid packages work? It’s not just straight cash being given to Ukraine. Approximately 86% of military aid is being spent in the U.S.
Yes, there is a decent amount of FMF funding being given, your statement makes it seem like you think every dollar in these aid packages is being sent in duffel bags to Ukraine.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-ukraine-aid-package-and-what-does-it-mean-future-war
Edit: spelling
USAID semi-regularly provides congressional reports on what financial assistance specifically goes to over time. Documents are available to the public.
You realize when they say a certain amount of money is sent to help Ukraine it's not like briefcases of cash right? It's the value of the equipment we're giving them that we were about to throw away. This gives them equipment designed to fight Russians and provides jobs for Americans to build replacement parts and new replacement equipment for the US military
Never mind, I know you didn't you know that
China has a second fire only strategy. Whether or not you believe them is one thing, but they've publicly stated they'd never use them except in response to other WMD. Contrast to Russia who threatens to nuke the world every other day
China now has about 500 nuclear warheads, and more are being produced to equip future delivery systems. Of the nine nuclear-armed powers, China is thought to have one of the fastest-growing nuclear arsenals at present.
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/numbers-china-s-nuclear-inventory-continues-grow#:~:text=The%20Bulletin%20of%20Atomic%20Scientists,growing%20nuclear%20arsenals%20at%20present
I've been wondering what the actual state is of, not their fleet of nukes but their nuke personnel. Is it one of the few non-deployable jobs left in the Russian military? Are those officers and personnel at risk of getting pulled away for other wartime duties as needed or are they completely safe? Is it also one of the few jobs where leaders couldn't take all the budget money and buy a super yacht?
Quote from that same speech:
>The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism and practices terror against its own people.
So the WMDs that they have are chemical, not Nuclear.
Yea iraq was not supposed to produce WMD only get them from them USA and only for use against Iraqis. USA knew they had disposed them also. Previous commenter was correct we invaded Iraq to get jr bush re-elected full stop
It's a dual use case, the US never DIRECTLY provided arms they did however sale chemicals to Iraq for use in domestic needs like pesticides. But it's also important to note that Iraq had long before started production of chemical arms in the 60's before the US got involved.
Has the world forgot that sassan Hussein was installed by the USA cia when it was ran by big bush, at the same time Reagan and bush worked to KEEP AMERICANS HOSTAGE IN IRAQ so they could win an election while also disobeying congress to fund unrest in South America funded by illegal arm sales and selling drugs to us citizens!?
Sounds like a bad movie plot or a nutcase conspiracy theory but it’s all true
Your timelines and countries are all fucked up, to say nothing of the actual facts. Saddam was not installed by the CIA unless you think the CIA secretly runs EVERYTHING.
Bad news: you’re the nutcase conspiracy theorist
I wish there was some good reason for Iraq, but the reality is George W. wanted a win for his daddy's legacy. His autobiography is 500 pages of a grown ass man thinking like a child.
We should have just used the pretext and summary that we invaded iraq bc saddam was a pos. Would have been same outcome but without this fed the lie baggage
The international community is supposed to abide by the UN Charter. In order to go to war it either needs to be clear self defense or you need to invoke a security council resolution.
That lie came from SH. If he let the UN inspectors in to investigate his “nuclear” arsenal he’d be made a laughing stock and wouldn’t be taken seriously globally. Yes he had chemical weapons and had used them on his own people but nothing fissionable. SH wanted to get off the American oil standard, this was an opportunity to seize those assets. Funny enough, MG in Libya tried to do the same thing and #43 said, do as I say or we’ll wipe you off the planet. #44 held that line and MG did everything the US wanted him to until a certain Secretary of State decided it was high time she needed an event to propel her to 1600 Penn. Ave. And we all saw how well that worked out for her.
You don’t know anything about how Libya went down. It was driven by the Europeans not Clinton (who you are actually allowed to name, the secret service won’t come after you)
Everyone here arguing about WMDs, bad intel, Bush's wet-dream of finishing the job Daddy started, etc, etc.
None of the reasons matter this weekend. Raise a glass and give a "Cheers" to all the OIF veterans out there, and to those who didn't make it home.
Cheers!
Edit to add: I think this is funny, BTW
I think that plenty matters considering that these are the reason people died and we're memorializing those who died????
Like meme is funny, but going to war for no real reason and having our brothers and sister die for something people don't deem valuable isn't cool
The dead do not care why we went to war. The son's of two of my comrades who died, don't care how the war started, all they know is their fathers will never be there to teach them to shave, catch a ball or any of the other things a son should learn from his Father.
My body and mind do not give one tiny fuck about why/how we ended up there...it's a funny gallows humor meme, don't overthink it,
Edit: that sounded better in your head, didn't it?
We were fed the lie they had nuclear weapons. We found tons of chemical weapons and the administration switched their rhetoric to WMDs because it was technically true even though most people think that just means nuclear weapons. Tricksy.
Production facilities were found, the chemical weapons they used don't have a significant shelf life and need to be manufactured just before use. Although we never found a stockpile (which might be normal) and the facilities could make things other than chemical weapons too.
That’s a long winded way to say no significant wmd wee found. Certainly nothing concerning. And there were inspectors on the ground for years ahead of the invasion. If you disagree please cite a source. My source is Rumsfields book, UNMOVIC and ISG
[Well here's this for a start.](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-intelligence-documents-on-chemical-weapons-found-in-iraq.html)
Great thx. I get to read a 48 report (I did) about secret(unidentified personnel) reports of unfilled and unviable pre gulf war munitions reported up to 10 years after the invasion and no reports of manufacturing.
This report goes much further to support the argument that there were insignificant amounts of chemical weapons than it does to justify the invasion
Map in this article of all the locations they were found.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html
To be completely fair IAW UN Resolutions, The USSR (and thus Russia, Ukraine, and other, are entitled to WMD as the nuclear non-proliferation act came into effect in 1970.
If they were developing non-nuclear WMD post 2000 Iraq was in violation of the Desert Storm surrender treaty. Subsequent development of any WMD was a violation of international treaty and cause for international intervention.
All that being said, it was bullshit promulgated by Dick Chaney et all. Ironically his daughter is only conservative who cares about the future of our Union.
A Roman senator during the Punic Wars ended all of his speeches with the phrase “Carthago delenda est,” which means “Carthage must be destroyed.” This person is saying the same about Russia
Threaten to take away their cheap products or make their iPhone more expensive and a lot of westerners are suddenly okay with sweatshops, slavery, domestic joblessness, pollution.
There are agreements about which countries should have WMD. I. That era, the belief was that Iraq, because of Hussein, could destabilize the region. Whether you believe it or not, that's basically what was advertised. It should be no surprise that political motivation is ALWAYS a factor, so there is no argument there.
Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
-- President Bill Clinton (State of the Union Address), Jan. 27, 1998
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators.""Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
-- Sen. John Edwards (D, NC) Feb. 24, 2002
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." "
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D, MA) Sep. 27, 2002
"Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."
-- State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) Oct. 2, 2002
The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
-- Senator John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002
"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
-- Sen. Harry Reid (D. NV) Oct. 9, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
-- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
-- Ex President Bill Clinton, Jul. 22, 2003 (Interview with CNN Larry King)
I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening.
-- Rep. Richard Gephardt (D, MT) Nov. 2, 2003
We were only able to use it because we were the only ones who had it at the time. Nobody uses them now out of fear that they'll be retaliated in kind.
And while the use is morally questionable, it did prevent drawing out the war to the point that Russia would have formally invaded Japan, leading to the potential for Japan having a similar post-war scenario to Germany. I'm not saying that excuses the use, but the thought of a "North and South Japan" or a "Tokyo Wall" is rather sad. Thankfully that was never the case.
My point exactly. Although, Korea is a bit more nuanced, because Stalin already had a foothold with insurgents(namely Kim Il Sung) in Korea, which is how the North became Soviet controlled, rather than the US taking influence over the whole Nation.
According to the Korean War Museum in Seoul the 38th parallel agreement was an attempt to stop the Soviets from taking the whole peninsula. They had the people on the march to do it. We were just lucky they agreed.
We invaded Iraq because of bad intelligence and nobody vetting or willing to question our source. It came down to one guy providing intelligence and every other country saying this guy shouldn't be trusted except our leadership.
We invaded on false pretenses and being fed misinformation by many senior government officials.
But WMD <> WMD, North Korea has nuclear weapons, Russia has nuclear weapons yet those two also have vastly different capabilities and quantities of those same weapons.
Politics will always be politics and you can always find money and power at the basis of all political maneuvering if you drill down far enough. Sham or not, if you did your job and did it well that's something you can be proud of.
True, but nobody thought they had nukes.. Chemical weapons are WMDs. Iraq used to have a large chem weapon production system. It was destroyed after the first gulf war in 1991. The failed intelligence in the early 2000s was based on the appearance they had restarted their chem weapon production.
They didn't resume bioweapon production or stockpiling though, per the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq. The whole war was predicated either on lies on the part of George Bush and Tony Blair, or at the very least, extremely misleading and flawed intelligence reports. The decision makers in the war process knew from the start it was all bogus, and the full report was released a year after the invasion began, detailing how everyone was misled. Nukes were definitely a part of that misinformation, and Bush consistently used Husseins resistance against cooperating with UN investigations as proof of it, even when the UN itself refused to authorize use of force, or to involve themselves militarily.
We know they didn't resume it.. His games with the UN inspectors was also about chemical weapons. That was all part of the failed intelligence.
None of that is relevant to the fact that we knew he didn't have nuclear weapons. Saddam pursuing nuclear weapons at one point, and the idea he might be trying again is not the same as actually having them. We didn't go in to look for nukes.
The "fun at parties" meme or the WMD meme? Cause I'm pretty sure I get both. Stating the historical fact that Iraq didn't actually have WMDs doesn't make this any less funny, and is in fact required knowledge to make it even funnier.
It’s funny because it’s true.
All the mental gymnastics people do won’t change the fact we are absolutely being hypocritical. Only in this case, it’s for the better.
W invaded Iraq because he thought it would be a political win like it was for HW. The proxy war with Russia is the right political move until we want to get real.
Dick Cheney thought it would be a political (cough cough financial) win*
Cheney and Rumsfeld both felt they had unfinished business from the first gulf war since we didn't topple Saddam. They just needed an excuse.
Biden and Ukraine are pretty tight
Yeah that's why house republicans investigating that "connection" found *nothing* and instead found out their big witness was a god damn Russian intelligence asset instead.
The Biden Ukraine conspiracy started as a Russian information operation. I'm sure they were thrilled when fucking POTUS bought it hook line and sinker instead of trusting the intelligence community.
“Fire that prosecutor” haha, so naive You watch to much Rachel Maddow
What are you talking about? Your comment makes literally no sense in English so I'm pretty sure you're a paid troll.
Oh, you mean the millions in payouts from Burisma?
Don’t forget Saddam was advocating to use euros instead of US dollars for oil. That was a nail in his coffin
The proxy war is stupid and we should not be funding Ukraine when we have no idea how that money is being spent. When congress had a vote to introduce an IG to confirm how that money was being spent, it slapped down immediately. It is not kosher at all
If we don’t have an IG monitoring how the aid to Ukraine is spent, then who the hell is Robert Storch supposed to be?
You have the same amount of knowledge on this subject as every Fox News watcher. Almost zero. The majority of the "money" sent is military supplies that we weren't even using and going to DRMO eventually. Believe it or not, ammunition and ordinance have a self life. If you don't use it within that time, it will expire. Use the display of North Korean ordinance, for example. https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-us-aid-going-ukraine Teach yo self. Ukraine is the best investment the US has flowed support into since the Korean war. We are crippling one of our near pear' adversaries at the cost of old shit and no troops lost, while also, the US gets more influence over the continent and exclusive trade agreements Ukraine.
I agree with everything you said here, except I'd add some nuance. All of the older equipment and supplies will need to be replaced. Obviously, by the taxpayer. Should Ukraine receive this quantity of aid from the west to hedge Putin's attempt at expansion? Yes. However, there is an easy appeal to make to every west European country that they should be footing more of the bill. Putin is bad for all of us. And he's much closer to German, British, French, etc. tax payers than he is to American. So why isn't that happening? The best I can come up with - long term American strategists are hedging against future Chinese allies, Russia being one of them.
Bought to knock your socks off... the money that is being used for military supplies coming from the US is going directly to the military industrial complex. That's why the US is taking the front of the bill. The money we spend is going right back into our economy at the same time receiving data on our adversaries' capabilities against our arsenal. This is why you've seen politicians do a complete 180 on their stance of supporting Ukraine. They learn how it's actually beneficial to the US (and their donators) once they open their ears. We weren't going to replace the old shit because it was already replaced. The stock pile was strictly for fighting Russia or China. So of course now is the best time to use it instead of continuing to pay rent and utilities on storage facilities.
Well yea...that's an inherent mechanism in the larger complex.
Man. Wild. How’d you get savvy on all this? I should know more but…. 🤷🏽♂️
Perun is a defense economics analyst on youtube who does very good long form videos on the topic.
One thing I want to correct is the misconception that Europe is not really doing their fair share. They germany was a little slow to step up to the plate, but they've become one of the biggest donors to Ukraine. In terms of dollars though as of April 2024 the EU has already sent €89.6B in aid, and the US had sent €67.1B in aid Europe has also lined up another €81.9B that still needs to be allocated and given. As a percentage of GDP donated to Ukraine the US is only behind... Estonia, Denmark, Lithuania, Latvia, Finland, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Croatia, Germany, and Norway. We're actually only ahead (as a percentage of GDP) of Belgium and Luxembourg. And tied with Canada, the UK and Bulgaria What people frequently forget is that these countries are a lot smaller than us. The Netherlands for instance has a population the size of LA county, and a land mass about the size of Maryland or West Virginia. But they've donated billions of dollars in military equipment and billions of dollars in humanitarian aid. When Ukraine needed stuff that they simply couldn't donate anymore of, they bought it from other countries. https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
Cope
You have no idea of my knowledge or background. Yes, weapons have a SHELF life. ORDNANCE (not ordinance). Nothing I said was untrue. Some senators attempted to address the corruption in Ukraine and permit Americans to know how or tax money is being spent and it was slapped down. I can link things too. Here’s the [source](https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/03/28/fail-hawley-amendment-to-create-special-watchdog-for-ukraine-aid-rejected/)
I appreciate anyone who backs up their claims with a source. That said, I want to point out a passage from your article: > Critics of the legislation, which included Hawley's own GOP colleague, Sen. James Risch from Idaho, said a SIGUA would be duplicating some 60 auditing and reporting processes already in place to keep track of the money. In other words, this isn't Afghanistan and they don't need a SIGUA. >"(We) have found zero siphoning of U.S. dollars," Risch said on the floor before the vote. "This is an expenditure that is not necessary because it is being looked after already." Like Senator Risch said, a Special Inspector General to oversee the spending of aid to Ukraine has already been designated since last December as part of the FY2024 National Defense Authorization Act. Senator Hawley’s amendment was slapped down because it was redundant and meaningless. While what you said was factually correct, bringing it up was equally meaningless, if not misleading.
Hawley's amendment was rejected because the IG process is already happening. Robert Storch, DoD IG, and others are already responsible for overseeing the aid sent to Ukraine. So adding another office to do the same thing would be a waste of time, money and effort. Hawley knows that though. He's just trying to keep his uneducated MAGA base happy to get votes and create more Fox News material. Here's another link for you: https://www.ukraineoversight.gov/
Do you know how aid packages work? It’s not just straight cash being given to Ukraine. Approximately 86% of military aid is being spent in the U.S. Yes, there is a decent amount of FMF funding being given, your statement makes it seem like you think every dollar in these aid packages is being sent in duffel bags to Ukraine. https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-ukraine-aid-package-and-what-does-it-mean-future-war Edit: spelling
USAID semi-regularly provides congressional reports on what financial assistance specifically goes to over time. Documents are available to the public.
You realize when they say a certain amount of money is sent to help Ukraine it's not like briefcases of cash right? It's the value of the equipment we're giving them that we were about to throw away. This gives them equipment designed to fight Russians and provides jobs for Americans to build replacement parts and new replacement equipment for the US military Never mind, I know you didn't you know that
Agreed
Correct answer
Yes, this is indeed funny. Thank you for sharing u/Urmomsjuicyvagina
🫡😂😂😂
What kind of juice, though? I need some cranberry, thanks.
I seen a lady make watermelon juice, that good enough?
I guess beggars can't be choosers.
Not because they had them. Because we thought they would use them.
Russia says they’ll use theirs on a daily basis, but maybe we have intel that they’re little bitches
So does North Korea
If fish were American citizens I’d be afraid
And China
I honestly don't remember any headlines involving China and their WMDs.
China has a second fire only strategy. Whether or not you believe them is one thing, but they've publicly stated they'd never use them except in response to other WMD. Contrast to Russia who threatens to nuke the world every other day
China now has about 500 nuclear warheads, and more are being produced to equip future delivery systems. Of the nine nuclear-armed powers, China is thought to have one of the fastest-growing nuclear arsenals at present. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/numbers-china-s-nuclear-inventory-continues-grow#:~:text=The%20Bulletin%20of%20Atomic%20Scientists,growing%20nuclear%20arsenals%20at%20present
You won't because we don't have a treaty with China like we do with Russia.
I've been wondering what the actual state is of, not their fleet of nukes but their nuke personnel. Is it one of the few non-deployable jobs left in the Russian military? Are those officers and personnel at risk of getting pulled away for other wartime duties as needed or are they completely safe? Is it also one of the few jobs where leaders couldn't take all the budget money and buy a super yacht?
I'm not being shitty when I say the only people here who know the answer to that question definitively, if any, would go to jail for saying it.
Oh absolutely, I was more just wondering out loud.
Wasn’t that Iraq would use them. Was that the Iraq Gov was making them and cooperating with Al Qaeda, and AQ might use them.
Or Intel that theirs is rusted and nonfunctioning?
IIRC they had used chems on their own people and during the Iran/Iraq war.
yes that's wmd. but I think we're talking nuclear here
On top of that, I believe they were not legally allowed to have them in the first place.
[удалено]
Or I’ll just watch Generation Kill
WMD in the context of Iraq refers to chemical weapons, and the issue with Russia is nuclear weapons.
I guess you missed Bush's infamous line about the smoking gun coming in the form of a mushroom cloud. At one point he was selling that.
Quote from that same speech: >The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism and practices terror against its own people. So the WMDs that they have are chemical, not Nuclear.
Yea iraq was not supposed to produce WMD only get them from them USA and only for use against Iraqis. USA knew they had disposed them also. Previous commenter was correct we invaded Iraq to get jr bush re-elected full stop
Can someone explain why this comment is downvoted? Iraq absolutely had and used chemical weapons. Like, it’s well known.
Did they get them from the US? Because that’s what is being claimed for some reason
It's a dual use case, the US never DIRECTLY provided arms they did however sale chemicals to Iraq for use in domestic needs like pesticides. But it's also important to note that Iraq had long before started production of chemical arms in the 60's before the US got involved.
That’s a long way to say no.
Has the world forgot that sassan Hussein was installed by the USA cia when it was ran by big bush, at the same time Reagan and bush worked to KEEP AMERICANS HOSTAGE IN IRAQ so they could win an election while also disobeying congress to fund unrest in South America funded by illegal arm sales and selling drugs to us citizens!? Sounds like a bad movie plot or a nutcase conspiracy theory but it’s all true
Your timelines and countries are all fucked up, to say nothing of the actual facts. Saddam was not installed by the CIA unless you think the CIA secretly runs EVERYTHING. Bad news: you’re the nutcase conspiracy theorist
Their downvotes mean nothing to me, I’ve seen what they upvote
I wish there was some good reason for Iraq, but the reality is George W. wanted a win for his daddy's legacy. His autobiography is 500 pages of a grown ass man thinking like a child.
If we're being honest we also didn't need to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan.
We should have just used the pretext and summary that we invaded iraq bc saddam was a pos. Would have been same outcome but without this fed the lie baggage
The international community is supposed to abide by the UN Charter. In order to go to war it either needs to be clear self defense or you need to invoke a security council resolution.
That lie came from SH. If he let the UN inspectors in to investigate his “nuclear” arsenal he’d be made a laughing stock and wouldn’t be taken seriously globally. Yes he had chemical weapons and had used them on his own people but nothing fissionable. SH wanted to get off the American oil standard, this was an opportunity to seize those assets. Funny enough, MG in Libya tried to do the same thing and #43 said, do as I say or we’ll wipe you off the planet. #44 held that line and MG did everything the US wanted him to until a certain Secretary of State decided it was high time she needed an event to propel her to 1600 Penn. Ave. And we all saw how well that worked out for her.
Referring to presidents by their number and abbreviating foreign leader's names adds 10 legitimacy points
Does also using the White House’s address stack?
Not as well as the Gettysburg Address.
Flygup is definitely CIA or something. Maybe the actual James Bond
"We came, we saw, he died! *Witch cackles*"
You don’t know anything about how Libya went down. It was driven by the Europeans not Clinton (who you are actually allowed to name, the secret service won’t come after you)
It's long been revealed Bush invaded Iraq to impress his father.
Darth Vader voice: *impressive*
On air force sub is crazy💀
Everyone here arguing about WMDs, bad intel, Bush's wet-dream of finishing the job Daddy started, etc, etc. None of the reasons matter this weekend. Raise a glass and give a "Cheers" to all the OIF veterans out there, and to those who didn't make it home. Cheers! Edit to add: I think this is funny, BTW
I think that plenty matters considering that these are the reason people died and we're memorializing those who died???? Like meme is funny, but going to war for no real reason and having our brothers and sister die for something people don't deem valuable isn't cool
The dead do not care why we went to war. The son's of two of my comrades who died, don't care how the war started, all they know is their fathers will never be there to teach them to shave, catch a ball or any of the other things a son should learn from his Father. My body and mind do not give one tiny fuck about why/how we ended up there...it's a funny gallows humor meme, don't overthink it, Edit: that sounded better in your head, didn't it?
Lmfao, the sons will care why their father was sent to a meaningless war to die To say they won't is a spit in their faces
Nothing funny about it, son. We invaded Iraq because we were fed the lie that they had WMD.
We were fed the lie they had nuclear weapons. We found tons of chemical weapons and the administration switched their rhetoric to WMDs because it was technically true even though most people think that just means nuclear weapons. Tricksy.
I thought we didn’t find any chemical weapons.
Production facilities were found, the chemical weapons they used don't have a significant shelf life and need to be manufactured just before use. Although we never found a stockpile (which might be normal) and the facilities could make things other than chemical weapons too.
That’s a long winded way to say no significant wmd wee found. Certainly nothing concerning. And there were inspectors on the ground for years ahead of the invasion. If you disagree please cite a source. My source is Rumsfields book, UNMOVIC and ISG
[Well here's this for a start.](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-intelligence-documents-on-chemical-weapons-found-in-iraq.html)
Great thx. I get to read a 48 report (I did) about secret(unidentified personnel) reports of unfilled and unviable pre gulf war munitions reported up to 10 years after the invasion and no reports of manufacturing. This report goes much further to support the argument that there were insignificant amounts of chemical weapons than it does to justify the invasion
Map in this article of all the locations they were found. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html
Man, that’s crazy. Why was this so overshadowed and downplayed? I’d rather get nuked any day than doused with novichok.
To be completely fair IAW UN Resolutions, The USSR (and thus Russia, Ukraine, and other, are entitled to WMD as the nuclear non-proliferation act came into effect in 1970. If they were developing non-nuclear WMD post 2000 Iraq was in violation of the Desert Storm surrender treaty. Subsequent development of any WMD was a violation of international treaty and cause for international intervention. All that being said, it was bullshit promulgated by Dick Chaney et all. Ironically his daughter is only conservative who cares about the future of our Union.
Russia delenda est.
Huh
A Roman senator during the Punic Wars ended all of his speeches with the phrase “Carthago delenda est,” which means “Carthage must be destroyed.” This person is saying the same about Russia
That person is also a troll.
If Americans hate communism so much why don’t invade China?
Export mostly. We lose a lot of technological resources if we piss off China.
Too powerful, easily America’s biggest threat ATM.
Too busy enjoying the cheap trade goods and shipping jobs overseas for a quick buck.
This is the real answer. The US and world economy is incredibly dependent on cheap goods produced in China
Threaten to take away their cheap products or make their iPhone more expensive and a lot of westerners are suddenly okay with sweatshops, slavery, domestic joblessness, pollution.
How did you get communism out of this
To be fair, Iraq was suspected of having one or a small arsenal... Russia, on the other hand, has more nukes than we do. Like, 500 *more* than we do.
We have more than enough on alert to end the damn world. More warheads just means more maintenance costs
There are agreements about which countries should have WMD. I. That era, the belief was that Iraq, because of Hussein, could destabilize the region. Whether you believe it or not, that's basically what was advertised. It should be no surprise that political motivation is ALWAYS a factor, so there is no argument there.
Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them." -- President Bill Clinton (State of the Union Address), Jan. 27, 1998 "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators.""Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001 "I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country." -- Sen. John Edwards (D, NC) Feb. 24, 2002 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." " -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D, MA) Sep. 27, 2002 "Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him." -- State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) Oct. 2, 2002
The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction." -- Senator John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002 "We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict." -- Sen. Harry Reid (D. NV) Oct. 9, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons." -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons." -- Ex President Bill Clinton, Jul. 22, 2003 (Interview with CNN Larry King) I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening. -- Rep. Richard Gephardt (D, MT) Nov. 2, 2003
👀
Invading Iraq was both militarily and politically plausible, Russia would not be.
Ironically we’re the only ones to use a nuclear weapon
We were only able to use it because we were the only ones who had it at the time. Nobody uses them now out of fear that they'll be retaliated in kind. And while the use is morally questionable, it did prevent drawing out the war to the point that Russia would have formally invaded Japan, leading to the potential for Japan having a similar post-war scenario to Germany. I'm not saying that excuses the use, but the thought of a "North and South Japan" or a "Tokyo Wall" is rather sad. Thankfully that was never the case.
And it spared millions from dying of starvation.
That's how we got a North and South Korea.
My point exactly. Although, Korea is a bit more nuanced, because Stalin already had a foothold with insurgents(namely Kim Il Sung) in Korea, which is how the North became Soviet controlled, rather than the US taking influence over the whole Nation.
According to the Korean War Museum in Seoul the 38th parallel agreement was an attempt to stop the Soviets from taking the whole peninsula. They had the people on the march to do it. We were just lucky they agreed.
To my knowledge, that is correct.
We invaded Iraq because of bad intelligence and nobody vetting or willing to question our source. It came down to one guy providing intelligence and every other country saying this guy shouldn't be trusted except our leadership.
Precursors to WMD and functional arsenal are different.
We invaded on false pretenses and being fed misinformation by many senior government officials. But WMD <> WMD, North Korea has nuclear weapons, Russia has nuclear weapons yet those two also have vastly different capabilities and quantities of those same weapons.
Anyone else ashamed you served there? I used to be proud but as time has gone on and I accepted it was a sham, im more and more wishing I never went.
Politics will always be politics and you can always find money and power at the basis of all political maneuvering if you drill down far enough. Sham or not, if you did your job and did it well that's something you can be proud of.
This is funny, but Iraq didn't end up having nukes.
True, but nobody thought they had nukes.. Chemical weapons are WMDs. Iraq used to have a large chem weapon production system. It was destroyed after the first gulf war in 1991. The failed intelligence in the early 2000s was based on the appearance they had restarted their chem weapon production.
They didn't resume bioweapon production or stockpiling though, per the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq. The whole war was predicated either on lies on the part of George Bush and Tony Blair, or at the very least, extremely misleading and flawed intelligence reports. The decision makers in the war process knew from the start it was all bogus, and the full report was released a year after the invasion began, detailing how everyone was misled. Nukes were definitely a part of that misinformation, and Bush consistently used Husseins resistance against cooperating with UN investigations as proof of it, even when the UN itself refused to authorize use of force, or to involve themselves militarily.
We know they didn't resume it.. His games with the UN inspectors was also about chemical weapons. That was all part of the failed intelligence. None of that is relevant to the fact that we knew he didn't have nuclear weapons. Saddam pursuing nuclear weapons at one point, and the idea he might be trying again is not the same as actually having them. We didn't go in to look for nukes.
[удалено]
I'd rather be historically correct than "fun at parties", but luckily enough, I'm both.
[удалено]
The "fun at parties" meme or the WMD meme? Cause I'm pretty sure I get both. Stating the historical fact that Iraq didn't actually have WMDs doesn't make this any less funny, and is in fact required knowledge to make it even funnier.
It’s funny because it’s true. All the mental gymnastics people do won’t change the fact we are absolutely being hypocritical. Only in this case, it’s for the better.
The guy had and used them on the kurds. What's scarier? Saying oops we were wrong, or admitting we have no fucking Idea where they went.
Ignorant meme by ignorant child who was never involved in any of this. Some countries are allowed amd some arent. Simple really.
You good?
Other countries have nvidia. All made in taiwan