←back to thread

Death of Michael Ledeen, maker of the phony case for the invasion of Iraq

(www.spytalk.co)
93 points nabla9 | 8 comments | 25 May 25 07:08 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
stormfather ◴[25 May 25 16:24 UTC] No.44088898[source]▶
I've never understood what the real reason we invaded was. I just know it wasn't what we said, or oil.
replies(21): >>44088923 #>>44088932 #>>44088946 #>>44089002 #>>44089003 #>>44089018 #>>44089021 #>>44089058 #>>44089081 #>>44089124 #>>44089165 #>>44089259 #>>44089287 #>>44089572 #>>44091946 #>>44091963 #>>44092172 #>>44094240 #>>44094718 #>>44094727 #>>44098577 #
dragonwriter ◴[25 May 25 16:43 UTC] No.44089003[source]▶
A US invasion, occupation, and political reformation of Iraq to serve as a lever for a pro-US series of regime changes in the Middle East were central ideas of the Project for a New American Century, from which the Bush Administration drew heavily for its defense and foreign policy officials (as well as VP.)
replies(3): >>44089236 #>>44089668 #>>44122481 #
rich_sasha ◴[25 May 25 18:11 UTC] No.44089668[source]▶
Methods aside, it is funny how quickly Republicans went from "we want to rule the whole world" to "we want nothing to do with the world and btw, foreigners get out".
replies(1): >>44089895 #
1. brookst ◴[25 May 25 18:39 UTC] No.44089895[source]▶
Now they just want to annex Canada and Greenland, and hand over the US’s role in UN, WHO, and economic development to China.
replies(1): >>44091710 #
2. swat535 ◴[25 May 25 22:15 UTC] No.44091710[source]▶
How realistic is the idea of the U.S. annexing Canada, and what would that even look like in practice?

Is there any historical, legal, or strategic precedent that would make this even remotely feasible? And given the likely short political shelf life of the current U.S. administration, would any of this outlast the next four years anyway?

replies(4): >>44093435 #>>44094166 #>>44098399 #>>44099390 #
3. brookst ◴[26 May 25 02:36 UTC] No.44093435[source]▶
No, it’s all somewhere between bluster and fantasy. But it speaks to the US oligarchs’ mindset.
4. toyg ◴[26 May 25 05:12 UTC] No.44094166[source]▶
I mean, historical precedents for land grabs abound, but after the 1918 Wilson Doctrine (a US creation, btw) there is nothing. Colonialism is over and blatant imperialism doesn't work; we hold this as self-evident truth.

Then again, certain governments continue to act like we were still in the XIX century so "might makes right" (Russia, Israel, China, Morocco, Turkey...). If one is not ashamed to be in such an esteemed company, everything is possible.

replies(1): >>44095179 #
5. janalsncm ◴[26 May 25 08:17 UTC] No.44095179{3}[source]▶
Given that this is about the invasion of Iraq, I wouldn’t exclude the US from that list.
6. michael1999 ◴[26 May 25 15:31 UTC] No.44098399[source]▶
Recent history tells that once one moron US president decides to start an illegal war, both parties are happy to continue it for a couple of decades.
replies(1): >>44108371 #
7. ben_w ◴[26 May 25 17:14 UTC] No.44099390[source]▶
> How realistic is the idea of the U.S. annexing Canada, and what would that even look like in practice?

They've tried twice already, the second time the Canadians (/British at the time) burned down the White House: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington

8. michael1999 ◴[27 May 25 16:18 UTC] No.44108371{3}[source]▶
Iraq is a country: - with 45 million people - speaking languages other than english - a quarter of the way around the world - next to Iran and Turkey who could spoil US operations

And Bush still destroyed it with ease. The idea that the USA couldn't annex Canada by force is just silly.

We'd fight, and slit your throats in the dark. But there are some of us who'd just roll over, or welcome you with open arms. Just look at the morons in Alberta talking USA annexation -- they're probably 10% of the population. That's enough for a Quisling regime.