Comment by somenameforme | Hacker News Reader

Comment by somenameforme | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

At the beginning of the Iraq War, and for sometime thereafter, we were led to believe that Iraq was actively developing WMD. We weren't invading a country, but saving the world from imminent catastrophe at the hands of an unhinged and crazy dictator.

The proof included claims by dozens of different intelligence agencies, testimony from high level insiders in the Iraq government, surveillance photos of mobile biological weapons laboratories, definitive proof of purchase of Uranium for nuclear weapons purposes, under oath testimony, and of course endless propaganda:

---

Washington Post - "Irrefutable" : https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/i...

NYTimes - "Irrefutable and Undeniable" : https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/opinion/irrefutable-and-u...

---

To imagine all of this was fabricated or based on lies would make even the most enthusiastic conspiracy theorist look at you a bit funny. These events played a major role in shaping my worldview. And what we're going through today is even more extreme.

The one bright side of this is that if we can manage to avoid nuclear annihilation, I expect an even larger chunk of the population will join the jaded and cynical asshole family. It's not a pleasant worldview, but probably necessary for the survival of humanity in the age of mass media and mass weapons.

It was all based on lies and fabrication without any conspiracy. You are assuming it requires a conspiracy to pull it off, but why would it? These agencies, media and companies are all interested in the same thing which is US hegemony and profits not the truth, that automatically makes them do this without need for any conspiracy.

And why wouldn't they? What exactly has been the punishment for so called reliable media for spreading lies over and over again? If anything they are considered more reliable than ever. Which means people consuming it are not interested in truth either.

> You are assuming it requires a conspiracy to pull it off, but why would it?

Some might find it implausible the media and legislators were so credulous.

I mean, Saddam did allow UN weapons inspectors in before the war, and nobody could direct them to any WMD. Even at the time, it took some serious mental gymnastics to believe spy agencies had all this evidence of a huge programme, and yet couldn't direct weapons inspectors to anything.

Looking into the history of it, I don't think there was any sort of systemic conspiracy, but a loose collection of incentives.

If you wanted to sell papers, you needed to sell stories about AMERICA STOPPING TERRORISM! How did you get access to stories of marines busting down doors and shoving the foreign looking faces of murderous terrorists into the dirt? Well you had to be known as a news source who said the right things, had the right attitude.

At these news organisations there were some editors who were mostly there before 9/11 happened who decided that supporting America was the crap and were pushing stories from any reporter who had "sources" that gave evidence of what was going down. Readers LOVED reading stories about heroes who kicked the ass of murderous terrorists. It was a feedback loop, the more hawkish you were the more you succeeded, the more dovish you were the more irrelevant you were.

You can't seriously compare the assertions pushed through the media after 9/11 to the multitudes of sensory and social evidence that Ukraine was attacked.

I opposed GWOT / going into Iraq after 9/11, I have not forgotten the collective national mania.

But the comparison you're drawing to Ukraine is nonsense. If you're at the point where you believe all the reports, images and interviews detailing the millions of refugees crossing out of Ukraine have been faked... I'm not sure how to help you.

> If you're at the point where you believe all the reports, images and interviews detailing the millions of refugees crossing out of Ukraine have been faked...

Clearly, that's not what the OP is saying.

I'm not comparing the worthiness of the two wars, I'm comparing the public excitement around the wars. I definitely am far more supportive of a defensive war than a pre-emptive war on general principle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com