Iraq Invasion - America's Shame... 10 years on

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada imports oil and distillates to the tune of about 1 million bpd (average), with sources including Norway, Iraq, Algeria, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, U.S. and other nations depending on market conditions. The lack of investment in east-west pipelines and refining capacity makes this necessary (economics).

[GostHacked]

Whose intel was that support based on again?

Based on an Iraqi defector who was later on found out to have fabricated the whole stories.

Remember the dead babies tossed out of incubators?? Also turned out to be fake. Anything to pull at idiots with big hearts.

Another bit .. the Valarie Plame incident. Politically motivated

Aluminum tubes?? Fake.

Yellow cake from Nigeria?? Fake.

WMDs?? Oh somewhere to the north south east west of Baghdad. Where again?

Good track record, unfortunately the US government can count on the American population for being stupid with the ADHD to forget all of this for the next country that "needs" to be invaded.

Syria have oil?

[DogOnPorch]

Considering even the USA imports less than 5% of it's oil from Iraq, it's a non starter. But good to know you value a tank of gas over the life of a human.

Yes, yes, Mrs Lovejoy....won't SOMEBODY think of the children??

[GostHacked]

Maybe we can think about the soldiers instead.

[Shady]

Blame everyone but Saddam.

[GostHacked]

Blame everyone but Saddam.

Over a decade of sanctions and an invastion on false pretenses resulted in about 5000 American soldiers dead (more than the number of people who died in 9/11) and estimates of over a million Iraqi deaths from both.

Yes Saddam invaded Kuwait back then, so why was he not dealt with completely at that time? If anything the lack of a total solution at that time gave rise to the current problems we are seeing there now.

But this is what you get for wanting to start trading in oil in another currency and not the US petro-dollar. Gaddafi got the same fate. And now Libya is paradise compared to the 'tyrannical dictatorship' that was Gaddafi.

Maybe after a decade of sanctions allowing the Iraqi military to be decimated, allowed for an easier invasion campaign by the US military. As they say, it was a walk in the park.

At least under Saddam he kept the factions within the country at bay and prevented a good majority of the violence from happening (regardless of his dictatorship like governance) now they are openly fighting with each other and weekly we see things blow up there and scores of people are dead.

I guess this is what democracy and freedom really look like.

[Shady]

Over a decade of sanctions and an invastion on false pretenses resulted in about 5000 American soldiers dead (more than the number of people who died in 9/11) and estimates of over a million Iraqi deaths from both.

Yes Saddam invaded Kuwait back then, so why was he not dealt with completely at that time? If anything the lack of a total solution at that time gave rise to the current problems we are seeing there now.

But this is what you get for wanting to start trading in oil in another currency and not the US petro-dollar. Gaddafi got the same fate. And now Libya is paradise compared to the 'tyrannical dictatorship' that was Gaddafi.

Maybe after a decade of sanctions allowing the Iraqi military to be decimated, allowed for an easier invasion campaign by the US military. As they say, it was a walk in the park.

At least under Saddam he kept the factions within the country at bay and prevented a good majority of the violence from happening (regardless of his dictatorship like governance) now they are openly fighting with each other and weekly we see things blow up there and scores of people are dead.

I guess this is what democracy and freedom really look like.

He not only invaded Kuwait, but repeatedly violated the ceasefire agreement. He also refused weapons inspections for several years. Why did he comply with the charade of the false WMD pretense? Pretty stupid if him, no?

Anyways, I'm not surprised you're defending him. You're constantly defending the likes of Chavez as well. Is that what democracy looks like too?!?!? LOL.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Shady

[GostHacked]

He not only invaded Kuwait, but repeatedly violated the ceasefire agreement. He also refused weapons inspections for several years. Why did he comply with the charade of the false WMD pretense? Pretty stupid if him, no?

Anyways, I'm not surprised you're defending him. You're constantly defending the likes of Chavez as well. Is that what democracy looks like too?!?!? LOL.

There is no way I am defending the likes of Saddam. Being critical of the obvious bullsh!t reasons for the war does not mean I am a fan of Saddam. But you can ignore that fact if it helps you make a better argument for the war.

[DogOnPorch]

There is no way I am defending the likes of Saddam. Being critical of the obvious bullsh!t reasons for the war does not mean I am a fan of Saddam. But you can ignore that fact if it helps you make a better argument for the war.

Nonsense. You'd look good with some epaulettes, a mustachio and a beret. Then you can think of the children all the time like Saddam did with his baby milk factories dotting the landscape.

[Moonlight Graham]

The way the Iraq War was sold and how it played out is a different issue than IF the removal of Saddam Hussein was beneficial overall to western, middle-eastern, and global security (and that of Iraqis themselves).

I'm willing to at least hear and debate the argument that given the horrific sanctions that kept Saddam's regime contained, eventually it may have been necessary to remove him from power, be it UN-sponsored invasion or Clinton-style clandestine operations (which would have been much harder if not impossible, since with Saddam gone his regime, led by his sons, would still have been intact). If the sanctions were kept for years/decades following 2003, possibly hundreds of thousands more of lives could have been lost. If the sanctions were removed or weakened, Saddam could have restarted his WMD/nuclear programs. Kind of screwed either way.

What isn't arguable is that the Bush admin did it the wrong way, they lied their way into a war without an truthful debate on the matter with the US people and internatational government leaders and their constituents. The Bush admin lied to me, you, and every government in the world so they could start their BS war. They also conducted the war in a horribly incompetnant fashion, not to mention breaking international law (including torture: Abu Ghraib etc.). Key members of both the Hussein regime and the Bush admin all deserve a toasty place in hell.

[Shady]

There is no way I am defending the likes of Saddam. Being critical of the obvious bullsh!t reasons for the war does not mean I am a fan of Saddam. But you can ignore that fact if it helps you make a better argument for the war.

You didn't answer why Saddam went along with the charade.

[GostHacked]

What isn't arguable is that the Bush admin did it the wrong way, they lied their way into a war without an truthful debate on the matter with the US people and internatational government leaders and their constituents. The Bush admin lied to me, you, and every government in the world so they could start their BS war. They also conducted the war in a horribly incompetnant fashion, not to mention breaking international law (including torture: Abu Ghraib etc.). Key members of both the Hussein regime and the Bush admin all deserve a toasty place in hell.

This articulates my point better.

[GostHacked]

You didn't answer why Saddam went along with the charade.

I don't have to, because I don't have an answer to that. Maybe ask Rumsfeld.

[WWWTT]

Wrong...the four day bombing campaign at over 100 sites was also intended to decapitate Saddam's regime. Would it be OK to just 'attack' Toronto and Ottawa instead of invading Ontario ?

No sorry wrong again!

Missle attack or a spurattick bombing is not the same as invading.

WWWTT

[Shady]

I don't have to, because I don't have an answer to that. Maybe ask Rumsfeld.

You don't have an answer because it doesn't fit with the rest of your ridiculous posts. Great picture from the early 80s. What's it got to do with Saddam going along with the charade in 1998 and 1999 and 2000 and 2001? Or is it just another one if your ad hominems because you deliberately avoid the issue at hand?

[GostHacked]

You don't have an answer because it doesn't fit with the rest of your ridiculous posts. Great picture from the early 80s. What's it got to do with Saddam going along with the charade in 1998 and 1999 and 2000 and 2001? Or is it just another one if your ad hominems because you deliberately avoid the issue at hand?

1st - you don't have a clue what an 'ad hominem' is. Each time you have used it has been incorrect.

2nd - if I don't know something I don't know something. And there are other things that I don't know that I don't know.

And how is the picture not relevant to your question?

[Shady]

1st - you don't have a clue what an 'ad hominem' is. Each time you have used it has been incorrect.

2nd - if I don't know something I don't know something. And there are other things that I don't know that I don't know.

And how is the picture not relevant to your question?

What does that picture have to do with Saddam's violation of the terms of the ceasefire and his refusal of weapons inspectors?

[GostHacked]

What does that picture have to do with Saddam's violation of the terms of the ceasefire and his refusal of weapons inspectors?

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-534798.html

Newly released documents show that U.S. officials, including Defense

Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, played a leading role in building up Iraq's

military in the 1980s when Iraq was using chemical weapons, a newspaper

reports.

It was Rumsfeld, now defense secretary and then a

special presidential envoy, whose December 1983 meeting with Saddam

Hussein led to the normalization of ties between Washington and Baghdad,

according to the Washington Post.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build

up his arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons, it was

revealed last night.

As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a secret

meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military

assistance for his war with Iran.

The CIA had already warned that Iraq was using chemical weapons

almost daily. But Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive

in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam

to buy supplies from American firms.

They included viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague,

according to the Washington Post.

The extraordinary details have come to light because thousands

of State Department documents dealing with the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq

war have just been declassified and released under the Freedom of

Information Act.

At the very least, it is highly embarrassing for 70-year-old Mr

Rumsfeld, who is the most powerful and vocal of all the hawks

surrounding President Bush.

He bitterly condemns Saddam as a ruthless and brutal monster and

frequently backs up his words by citing the use of the very weapons

which it now appears he helped to supply.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2004/03/iraq-m19.html

The US government faced an added political difficulty in the form of

Iranian allegations, starting on October 22, 1983, that Iraq was using

poison gas—a violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol to which the US, Iraq

and Iran were all signatories. Publicly, the US government took the

position that it did not have enough information to determine whether

Iraq had used chemical weapons.

Privately, however, Reagan

administration officials had no doubts that Iraq had used chemical

weapons. The main question for them was how to keep boosting the Iraqi

war effort, while appearing to remain committed to the Geneva Protocol.

In other words they turned a blind eye at the time, but used the same pretext for a war later on. A familiar tactic we call flip floppin !!!!

At least he was their bastard!

[Shady]

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-534798.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2004/03/iraq-m19.html

In other words they turned a blind eye at the time, but used the same pretext for a war later on. A familiar tactic we call flip floppin !!!!

At least he was their bastard!

I'll ask again. What does that have to do with Saddam's violation of the agreed upon terms after his invasion of Kuwait? What does that have to do with his refusal of weapons inspections from 1997 to 2001?

[GostHacked]

I'll ask again. What does that have to do with Saddam's violation of the agreed upon terms after his invasion of Kuwait? What does that have to do with his refusal of weapons inspections from 1997 to 2001?

History and context. Turning a blind eye to atrocities when it is beneficial for someone.

[bush_cheney2004]

When and if another "Iraq" situation presents itself, the U.S. will INVADE.....because...it can.

[Shady]

History and context. Turning a blind eye to atrocities when it is beneficial for someone.

So because the two countries were at one time allies, it meant that Iraq could violate conditions of the ceasefire agreement? What? Huh?

[GostHacked]

So because the two countries were at one time allies, it meant that Iraq could violate conditions of the ceasefire agreement? What? Huh?

When did he gas the Kurds? Who turned the blind eye?

[Shady]

When did he gas the Kurds? Who turned the blind eye?

And so that means Iraq is allowed to violate the terms of the agreed upon cease fire after its invasion of Kuwait? What? Huh?

[Black Dog]

Not in a free market economy……….There’s all sorts of money to be made in military expenditures……..The manufactures themselves, shareholders and the employees, from professionals and engineers to union line workers………

Indeed the U.S. military is the world's largest welfare program.