Comment by jmacd | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmacd | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I will never ever forget watching Colin Powell deliver his Iraq speech. I was a child and very impressionable. I had the Desert Storm trading cards. All of them. I thought wow here is this credible general telling us how how bad these people are.

Years and years later I understood the depravity of his speech and the actions of the "the west" in starting that war. I think it is the only time in my life that I felt truly betrayed, and the realization happened while I was thinking about the topic in a grocery store aisle. My hands felt clammy.

Even more years later my job at a large software company had me extremely close to Powell. Like in the same room with him for long stretches of time and having 1-on-1 conversations. Every fibre in me wanted to say to him, calmly: You told a lie and it killed a lot of innocent people. Their lives matter too.

I didn't say it. I did my job and kept it at that. I don't know to this day if I had a moral obligation to say something, but ultimately I didn't because I knew he didn't care.

So yes, false flags. They only happen when something is inevitable. War is here.

Except…Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN did not lead to the invasion of Iraq. He was there to persuade the UN to pass a second resolution supporting military action against Iraq and at that he failed.

George Bush was going to invade Iraq either way, and he did. Of course, Powell’s speech did not help the credibility of the US.

>Powell’s speech did not help the credibility of the US.

That is revisionist, and 100% incorrect. Bush did not have much credibility on the world stage or even at home. Powell did. When he co-signed what Bush and the other warmongers were saying, the public became willing to accept the necessity of the war.

I vividly remember the speech and the absolute difference it made in most people's minds about the pending invasion, not just globally but among the US general public as well. He was one of the few people with credibility on both sides of the aisle and on the world stage.

Yep. And in doing so, he ruined his rep and career because he didn't have the balls to go against "President" Cheney and the neocon hawks. Powell showed his true colors that he was an obeyer and purveyor of lies, neither a teller of truths nor a leader, and beat the drums to war at the UN based on "facts" like WMDs that didn't exist. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, it had everything to do with Cheney seizing a crisis to pocket money. W was a feckless, Idiocratic pot smoker riding daddy's coat tails.

Didn't Powell build his career in part on lying about the My Lai massacre because he was told to? I'm too young to know, but did he really have a reputation as someone who would refuse to lie if the White House told him to lie?

> Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN did not lead to the invasion of Iraq. He was there to persuade the UN to pass a second resolution supporting military action against Iraq and at that he failed.

Powell knew it was going to fail, because he knew the contrary information available from UN inspectors that was going to be presented at the same meeting and which was already broadly available to decision-makers. The target of the UN speech wasn't the UN, it was domestic public opinion. And many who were not ideologically aligned with the President or previously committed to the war were, if not actually sold on the war, at least made afraid of Iraq’s potential by that speech (I had a lot of people say report their personal response along those lines to me at the time.)

It was an important, key part of the domestic propaganda campaign, despite the venue.

> George Bush was going to invade Iraq either way, and he did.

Which is why I wince at the fact that I ever supported this crime. It had nothing to do with the American interests, but that didn’t stop the bloodshed.

Now they’re determined to do it all over again, saying the same malarkey they said back then about protecting freedom or something.

I guess he only tried to invade. That's fine then /s

Even though the WMD charge appears in hindsight to be fabricated, Sadam invaded Iran (1980), continued war with Iran (until 1988), used the Iraq military to level entire Kurdish villages, used mustard gas and other chemical agents against the Kurds, and invaded Kuwait (1990).

Objectively good world leader, he was not.

Sure but that was not the pretext they used. They used fabrication instead.

Absolutely. They lied. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, we'll probably know. But even at the most charitable, they circulated intelligence that they knew to be unreliable while concealing that unreliability.

An annoying thing about the word "lie" is that it is defined in some definitions as "an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive". By this definition it is impossible to unintentionally lie. Another definition of lie is "an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker or writer". You'll find both definitions at [1]. This makes this discussion about what Colin Powell said difficult, because as you point out, it's hard to know to what extent Powell actually knew for sure that he was making false statements about Iraq, given the assessment of foot soldiers at the CIA and the intent of Saddam to mislead the West for his own benefit.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

If Team America World Police imperial global colonization authority with military bases all over the world like the friggin Roman Empire must right every regime, then it needs to invade Russia, North Korea, China, Malaysia, Indonesia, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Myanmar too.

Because evil exists is not a reason to not confront evil.

America lied (either intentionally or unintentionally) about the reasons for invading Iraq post-9/11.

But that isn't to say that removing Saddam Hussein from power wasn't a global or regional good.

It's trendy and low-hanging fruit to bash the American military for international involvements, or its many failures.

But it's equally important to note that the times America has turned inward and taken a more isolationist stance have resulted in the greatest turns away from international diplomacy and transgressions of international human rights.

The alternative to "Team America World Police imperial global colonization authority with military bases all over the world like the friggin Roman Empire" is not "life as we know it, minus America."

It's every country is one dictator or military coup away from becoming an undemocratic state. So I'd weigh how happy a citizen of Myanmar or Venezuela are with their life vs the ugliness of American military power.

> needs to invade Russia

Having lived next to Russia I’d love to see it wiped off the map. Easily the worst nation in the world. Basically a terrorist state. Disgusting.

The thing is propaganda is always necessary to initiate a war. Because people won't agree to mass killing unless they can believe they are fighting evil.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com