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

[DogOnPorch]

"Betsy history" I'll indeed call it. But it fits in well with today's History Channel tripe.

MacArthur vs Caesar?? Rommel vs Disraeli?? Churchill vs Henry the 8th??? Who would win in a boxing match?? Find out on H2 after 'Hairy Bikers' and 'Pawnathon Tibet' with 'Mike Tyson's Celebrity Historical Boxing Match'.

[bush_cheney2004]

So provide the link where the US invades Spain or the UK(or the British empire or any of its countries ie.England Scotland,etc)

WWWTT

The US "invaded" Spain's Cuba and Philippine Islands in support of insurgent rebellions, and after the Treaty of Paris, Spain's empire ceased to exist.

But of course, you will move the goal post again.

[WWWTT]

LOL!

Spain was no where near the size of the US!

Man you got to be freekin kidding?!?!?!?

WWWTT

[DogOnPorch]

The US "invaded" Spain's Cuba and Philippine Islands in support of insurgent rebellions, and after the Treaty of Paris, Spain's empire ceased to exist.

But of course, you will move the goal post again.

Until you feel shame and admit the Moon Landings were rigged...heheh.

[Guest American Woman]

Canada!

Now how about telling me exactly who you think the U.S. should have attacked in the past 100 years, but didn't.

[WWWTT]

Strawman

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

Strawman

So you don't have an answer? Then I can only conclude that even according to you, the U.S. has not attacked a country larger than itself in the past 100 years because there was no reason to.

[GostHacked]

So you don't have an answer? Then I can only conclude that even according to you, the U.S. has not attacked a country larger than itself in the past 100 years because there was no reason to.

What makes you think any country needed to be attacked in the first place? Don't forget the USA did not really get involved in WWII until they were hit at Pearl Harbor. But since then, they've had a plethora of reasons to invade other countries. Many on false pretenses and complete propaganda.

Should we be happy with 'well Saddam was bad anyways so it does not matter what we said before' or should we be pissed that blatant lies and propaganda for the war was brushed off with the excuse provided?

Could the war have been sold to the American population without 9/11 ?

Could the war have been sold based on the real reasons they wanted to go in?

Easily the Bush admin could have said outright from the start it was part of the US public law? We know that freedom and democracy was not even part of the plan for the invasion. So not even a reason. It was about resources, specifically oil. That is not even contested anymore.

Meh so Bush lied but who cares, Iraq is a shining beacon of democracy and freedom because Saddam is gone..... right?

But here is the nice thing now, since the war is 'over' whatever happens to Iraq now is up to them. Almost absolving the USA of any guilt or responsibility that might be felt by the administration or the public.

Has any of this brought about any kinds of peace in the area? Who cares, Al-queda is Iraq's problem now ...

[Guest Derek L]

So provide the link where the US invades Spain or the UK(or the British empire or any of its countries ie.England Scotland,etc)

WWWTT

As BC said......as for the British.......Well that whole North American thing..........None the less, nobody suggested that the United States would nor should invade mainland communist China.........But, like I've stated, through conventional means alone, they have the ability to bring China's economy to a screeching halt within a mater of weeks if they so desired.

[Guest Derek L]

LOL!

Spain was no where near the size of the US!

Man you got to be freekin kidding?!?!?!?

WWWTT

And England was not the size of Spain..........What's your misguided point?

[WWWTT]

So you don't have an answer?

Yes that's right,I do not have any answers for your strawman!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

As BC said......as for the British.......Well that whole North American thing..........None the less, nobody suggested that the United States would nor should invade mainland communist China.........But, like I've stated, through conventional means alone, they have the ability to bring China's economy to a screeching halt within a mater of weeks if they so desired.

Yes I am aware of the fantasies that you frequently describe to everyone here on MLW.

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

What makes you think any country needed to be attacked in the first place?

What makes you think I think any country needed to be attacked? I'm not the one saying the U.S. hasn't attacked any country larger than itself because it won't do that. In order to say that's the reason the U.S. hasn't attacked a larger country, one can only assume the person making the judgement feels as if there are nations that the U.S. would have attacked but for their size. Hence my question. Who should the U.S. have attacked? If the answer is no country, then the conclusion is based on nothing (other than, most likely, bias).

Yes that's right,I do not have any answers for your strawman!

It's not a strawman at all. In order for you to conclude that the U.S. wouldn't attack a country larger than itself because it hasn't, then you must think there's a country that should have been attacked - but wasn't, due to its size. If there are no countries that you feel the U.S. should have taken on, you conclusion is, as I said above, based on nothing.

[DogOnPorch]

What makes you think I think any country needed to be attacked? I'm not the one saying the U.S. hasn't attacked any country larger than itself because it won't do that. In order to say that's the reason the U.S. hasn't attacked a larger country, one can only assume the person making the judgement feels as if there are nations that the U.S. would have attacked but for their size. Hence my question. Who should the U.S. have attacked? If the answer is no country, then the conclusion is based on nothing (other than, most likely, bias).It's not a strawman at all. In order for you to conclude that the U.S. wouldn't attack a country larger than itself because it hasn't, then you must think there's a country that should have been attacked - but wasn't, due to its size. If there are no countries that you feel the U.S. should have taken on, you conclusion is, as I said above, based on nothing.

Plus, if one has any clue about the US's nuclear policy, they'd know that attacking another country by first strike is an uncomfortable reality. We best pray to the God in betsy's thread that the US does not need to attack another nuclear power.

[GostHacked]

What makes you think I think any country needed to be attacked? I'm not the one saying the U.S. hasn't attacked any country larger than itself because it won't do that.

And with good reason, going up against a comparable opponent would mean large casualties and deaths on both sides. Would the american population agree or support a full on war with Russia? We know that Russia is not the same level as it was under the Soviets, but still would be a bloody nose for the USA. Hence the reason there has been no invasion into Syria two years on because Syria has some big friends.

In order to say that's the reason the U.S. hasn't attacked a larger country, one can only assume the person making the judgement feels as if there are nations that the U.S. would have attacked but for their size. Hence my question. Who should the U.S. have attacked?

So my question of 'what makes you think that a country needs to be invaded' is relevant. I am not calling for invasions of other countries, and that goes for countries large and small.

If the answer is no country, then the conclusion is based on nothing (other than, most likely, bias).It's not a strawman at all. In order for you to conclude that the U.S. wouldn't attack a country larger than itself because it hasn't, then you must think there's a country that should have been attacked - but wasn't, due to its size. If there are no countries that you feel the U.S. should have taken on, you conclusion is, as I said above, based on nothing.

Well considering I asked the question of 'why should any country be attacked in the first place' but you seem to think that means that some country SHOULD have been invaded.

Was Iraq worth it?

[DogOnPorch]

Syria has traditionally been in the Soviet/Russian camp since the 1970s. A de-facto Warsaw Pact nation. Surely, you know what they were. Israel is far more likely to put the boots to the place if things get rough rather than the US. The US literally has little interest in Syria other than regional stability. Iran, however, seems to value Syria as a conduit to attack Israel. Thus, much effort is being mustered by Iran to save Assad's rear-end. Including sending troops...weapons...etc. Estimates are in the 50,000 range and climbing...more than a traditional division's worth of Iranian soldiers. Sounds like 'the invasion of Syria' has already started.

http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/03/28/israeli-intel-iran-has-deployed-50000-troops-in-syria/

[WWWTT]

In order for you to conclude that the U.S. wouldn't attack a country larger than itself because it hasn't, then you must think there's a country that should have been attacked - but wasn't, due to its size. If there are no countries that you feel the U.S. should have taken on, you conclusion is, as I said above, based on nothing.

Oh so now you are re defining what my original comments were!

Another twist.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Hence the reason there has been no invasion into Syria two years on because Syria has some big friends.So my question of 'what makes you think that a country needs to be invaded' is relevant.

AW also made the claim that the US has a tremendous burden being the world defenders(or something along those lines)

WWWTT

Edited March 28, 2013 by WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

AW also made the claim that the US has a tremendous burden being the world defenders(or something along those lines)

In reality, it was nothing along those lines.

[Guest American Woman]

Oh so now you are re defining what my original comments were!

Another twist.

So what is your proof that the U.S. wouldn't take on a country larger than itself? Or do you admittedly have none?

[Guest American Woman]

Plus, if one has any clue about the US's nuclear policy, they'd know that attacking another country by first strike is an uncomfortable reality. We best pray to the God in betsy's thread that the US does not need to attack another nuclear power.

Amen to that.

[WWWTT]

In reality, it was nothing along those lines.

Yes I forgot that you always change your position

My apologies.

[WWWTT]

So what is your proof that the U.S. wouldn't take on a country larger than itself? Or do you admittedly have none?

Why would I try to defend something you are making up(claiming that I make this position)?

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

Yes I forgot that you always change your position

My apologies.

I'll accept your apologies for making a false claim. What I actually said is still there, for everyone to see.

[Guest American Woman]

Why would I try to defend something you are making up(claiming that I make this position)?

I'm not asking you to "defend" anything; I was asking you to explain your reasoning for your position.

So you are saying that it's not your position that the U.S. wouldn't take on a country larger than itself?