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

[GostHacked]

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

The fact that they have not done that in their entire history, is proof enough. Can't attack Russia or China without a MAD scenario taking place. Hence the USA would not attack anyone with the same kind of firepower or even half the firepower that the USA currently possesses.

Let me add something here. I would include WW1 and WW2 as examples but almost everyone got involved in both of those wars. The caveat I will provide is the fact that unilaterally the USA has not picked on anyone remotely close to it's firepower and capabilities.

[GostHacked]

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/

The invasion has been going on for some time when you understand that the FSA is western backed. But that notion was laughed at by some members of this board ... one of them was you.

Iran is not invading Syria, they are lending support, when you technically look at it.

[WWWTT]

No,what I am saying is that I will not defend or articulate a claim that you are making about my position if that claim is not what i was articulating.

WWWTT

[DogOnPorch]

The invasion has been going on for some time when you understand that the FSA is western backed. But that notion was laughed at by some members of this board ... one of them was you.

Iran is not invading Syria, they are lending support, when you technically look at it.

I still laugh at it. Huge piles of US aid....countless soldiers...tanks...ships...aircraft. Where are they again?

[GostHacked]

I still laugh at it. Huge piles of US aid....countless soldiers...tanks...ships...aircraft. Where are they again?

And you have been shown where you don't need a 'Made in the USA' sticker to show that support is in fact going to the Syrian rebels from NATO.

It's convenient to ignore much of what is known fact in order for you to maintain your position. Kind of like how you and I beat up on Betsy for much of the same.

[Guest American Woman]

No,what I am saying is that I will not defend or articulate a claim that you are making about my position if that claim is not what i was articulating.

So my question was - WHAT ARE YOU ARTICULATING?

Good Lord. If you can't answer that, if you can't clarify when asked, then this is a complete waste of time

[Guest American Woman]

The fact that they have not done that in their entire history, is proof enough.

Except, as has been pointed out, the U.S. HAS done it in its history. It's how our country was founded.

Can't attack Russia or China without a MAD scenario taking place. Hence the USA would not attack anyone with the same kind of firepower or even half the firepower that the USA currently possesses.

You have no proof of that. You might believe it, and it might be true as there's a reason NATO was formed, but it's nothing more than speculation If the U.S. felt China or Russia presented a great enough danger, do you think doing nothing would be the alternative? If you do, fine, but it's nothing more than your opinion. I would say it's quite clear that the U.S. was not going to sit back and do nothing during the threat of the Cold War; had that gone in a different direction, it's impossible to say what would have happened.

Let me add something here. I would include WW1 and WW2 as examples but almost everyone got involved in both of those wars. The caveat I will provide is the fact that unilaterally the USA has not picked on anyone remotely close to it's firepower and capabilities.

"Picked on?" I'm now wondering why I bothered responding at all, but I'll go ahead and bite - what reason would the U.S. have had to "pick on" anyone "remotely close to its firepower and capabilities?" Who, in your mind, does that list consist of?

Edited March 28, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

Except, as has been pointed out, the U.S. HAS done it in its history. It's how our country was founded.

Sure, so the newly formed USA fought back against the invading redcoats and this to you is an example of the US needing to invade another country of similar size/firepower? Really?

But taking on another country and a full on invasion are two different things. A country can be taken on through trade wars and currency wars without firing a shot. But I am specifically talking about full scale invasion/war of another country of similar size and military capabilities. That has not happened, history has proven that and I did leave out WW1 and WWII as examples for obvious reasons. During WWII the Soviets were essentially allies because they were fighting off Japan and Germany as well. But then they turned into the big 'threat' during the cold war.

You have no proof of that. You might believe it, and it might be true as there's a reason NATO was formed, but it's nothing more than speculation If the U.S. felt China or Russia presented a great enough danger, do you think doing nothing would be the alternative?

You cannot attack China or even the current state of Russia without getting a bloody nose. Mutual Assured Destruction. The USA knows this, China knows this, Russia knows this. I did not say doing nothing was an alternative as there are many things that can be done before a war is needed or justified.

If you do, fine, but it's nothing more than your opinion. I would say it's quite clear that the U.S. was not going to sit back and do nothing during the threat of the Cold War; had that gone in a different direction, it's impossible to say what would have happened.

Again, I am specifically talking about a full scale invasion which has not happened.

"Picked on?" I'm now wondering why I bothered responding at all, but I'll go ahead and bite

I wonder why you respond to some of my posts as well as you seem to be responding to something other than what I posted. I do try to make things as clear as possible, but maybe I need to dumb it down even more.

- what reason would the U.S. have had to "pick on" anyone "remotely close to its firepower and capabilities?" Who, in your mind, does that list consist of?

That is essentially what I asked you. But you replied with 'what makes you think I think anyone should be invaded'....

*taps the mic* .. this thing on?

[DogOnPorch]

And you have been shown where you don't need a 'Made in the USA' sticker to show that support is in fact going to the Syrian rebels from NATO.

It's convenient to ignore much of what is known fact in order for you to maintain your position. Kind of like how you and I beat up on Betsy for much of the same.

Again...I see the same media reports* you do but I'm failing to see the results of this massive NATO supply mission. Amir still carries his AK-47...Ahmed still drives his T-90. Each of these "rebels" carries a camera. Where is it? Note...I've found "rebels" shooting off a SCUD and it hitting its target. Surely there's footage of the crates of weapons arriving from NATO-land.

* the media...usually at a very safe distance these days.

[DogOnPorch]

Nice shot. FSA troops hit a Russian made helicopter with their Russian made SA-7 Grail/Стрела. Now let's see a Stinger knock down an Apache.

[GostHacked]

Again...I see the same media reports* you do but I'm failing to see the results of this massive NATO supply mission. Amir still carries his AK-47...Ahmed still drives his T-90. Each of these "rebels" carries a camera. Where is it? Note...I've found "rebels" shooting off a SCUD and it hitting its target. Surely there's footage of the crates of weapons arriving from NATO-land.

* the media...usually at a very safe distance these days.

My prediction was correct. You did ignore it.

[DogOnPorch]

My prediction was correct. You did ignore it.

You showed me reports...not the real McCoy.

[GostHacked]

You showed me reports...not the real McCoy.

[DogOnPorch]

That's not NATO weapons arriving in Syria. Certainly there must be SOME physical evidence this is truly what's happening.

Meanwhile, I hear that during the invasion of Kuwait, Iraqi soldiers torn babies from incubators and stepped on them.

Gotta be true....

[GostHacked]

That's not NATO weapons arriving in Syria. Certainly there must be SOME physical evidence this is truly what's happening.

Meanwhile, I hear that during the invasion of Kuwait, Iraqi soldiers torn babies from incubators and stepped on them.

Gotta be true....

Whatever sells a war.

[DogOnPorch]

For GH....

Anyways...I'm sure as soon as you even catch a whiff of a NATO weapon arriving in Syria, you'll be hot to post it at that point. This thread is about how tiny, weak and shameful the United States is.

[WWWTT]

then this is a complete waste of time

Finally,you are talking some common sense!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Here's a little more shame the US has to bear

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/03/2013312175857532741.html#.UVWc0eB7n8s.facebook

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

U.S. 'shame' was seen flying from Missouri to South Korea in the form of two B-2 bombers, the same ones used in Iraq. These aircraft can drop GPS and laser guided 'shamelets' on the enemy.

Edited March 29, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest Derek L]

Here's a little more shame the US has to bear

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/03/2013312175857532741.html#.UVWc0eB7n8s.facebook

WWWTT

Aljazeera?

Large quantities of DU bullets were also expended in the Iraqi environment. Between 2002 and 2005, the US armed forces expended six billion bullets according to the figures of the US General Accounting Office. That is 250,000 bullets per "insurgent" killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. An accurate tally of the numbers of bombs and the locations of bombings in Iraq is being compiled by the US Air Force. This information can be utilised in future studies to assess Iraqi public metal exposures and possible differential exposures in that population.

Well the expenditures of ammo might be true, said numbers (From their own imbedded link no doubt) are associated with “small arms” ammunition, as such, said expenditures do not rely on depleted uranium.

[waldo]

Aljazeera?

your LOL of Aljazeera is based on what?

Epidemic of Congenital Birth Defects in Iraqi Cities

Abstract

Between October 1994 and October 1995, the number of birth defects per 1,000 live births in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 1.37. In 2003, the number of birth defects in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 23 per 1,000 live births. Within less than a decade, the occurrence of congenital birth defects increased by an astonishing 17-fold in the same hospital. A yearly account of the occurrence and types of birth defects, between 2003 and 2011, in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital, was reported. Metal levels in hair, toenail, and tooth samples of residents of Al Basrah were also provided. The enamel portion of the deciduous tooth from a child with birth defects from Al Basrah (4.19 μg/g) had nearly three times higher lead than the whole teeth of children living in unimpacted areas. Lead was 1.4 times higher in the tooth enamel of parents of children with birth defects (2,497 ± 1,400 μg/g, mean ± SD) compared to parents of normal children (1,826 ± 1,819 μg/g). Our data suggested that birth defects in the Iraqi cities of Al Basrah (in the south of Iraq) and Fallujah (in central Iraq) are mainly folate-dependent. This knowledge offers possible treatment options and remediation plans for at-risk Iraqi populations.

[Guest Derek L]

your LOL of Aljazeera is based on what?

Epidemic of Congenital Birth Defects in Iraqi Cities

Their contradictory reporting and connotations of the wanton usage of DU penetrators by US forces…………As such the rest of their story & sources becomes suspect in my opinion due to their sloppy skewing of facts.

[waldo]

Their contradictory reporting and connotations of the wanton usage of DU penetrators by US forces…………As such the rest of their story & sources becomes suspect in my opinion due to their sloppy skewing of facts.

so... just based on the article then? Or do you have larger/grander concerns with Al Jazeera... that might negate some of the broader critical review (and awards) it receives?

[Guest Derek L]

so... just based on the article then? Or do you have larger/grander concerns with Al Jazeera... that might negate some of the broader critical review (and awards) it receives?

Just based on the sole article, I don’t really turn to their organization for “news”. With that said, many reports and stories in the MSM are inaccurate when delving into technical aspects of a given story, even the ones I turn to (Fox, CBC, National Post) and I’ve criticized even their reporting.

IIRC, I think in one of our past exchanges I’ve even chastised the NP (yet I still read them daily). Haven’t you also chastised inaccurate MSM reporting associated with scientific/environmental stories?

[waldo]

Haven’t you also chastised inaccurate MSM reporting associated with scientific/environmental stories?

certainly... but you answered my question that your concerns were not broader - that they were based on the article. That's also why I provided the study link/quote highlighting the birth defect problem is real - while the ultimate cause remains under study.