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

[WWWTT]

It would be a lot better than assuming that they aren't better off.

Yes of course!

I guess you just don't care what or how they feel do you?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

It sure is. Ten years didn't bring Camelot to Iraq, so getting rid of Saddam and Iraqis voting in elections isn't a good thing. As I pointed out, ten years after the slaves were freed, things weren't so great for them, either. Before their freedom, there was no KKK, they had a roof over their heads, food on the table, medical care, etc - so one can only conclude that it was wrong to free them, right? Considering how bad things were ten years after the Civil War started.

For the record, Saddam was the problem in Iraq before Saddam was removed; and all the bad stuff that went along with Saddam being in power.

Know what the big difference is,another country did not force anything on the US.

The US went through a civil war,big difference there American Woman.

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

Know what the big difference is,another country did not force anything on the US.

The US went through a civil war,big difference there American Woman.

So if Britain, say, would have waged war against the U.S. because of the oppression of the slaves - in desire to free the slaves - then the slaves would have been better off remaining slaves? Their freedom would have been a bad thing?

Edited April 18, 2013 by American Woman

[WWWTT]

No that's not it.

The ends do not justify the means.

The way something is done can lead to a much worse scenario as a result!

You are debating from a platform that the Iraqi's are now better off and that has not been established.

Back to your civil war parallel.

If Britain invaded the US to free African Americans from slavery,it is possible that things in the US could have been much worse!

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

No that's not it.

The ends do not justify the means.

The way something is done can lead to a much worse scenario as a result!

You are debating from a platform that the Iraqi's are now better off and that has not been established.

Back to your civil war parallel.

If Britain invaded the US to free African Americans from slavery,it is possible that things in the US could have been much worse!

So it was, in your opinion, wrong to go after Hitler - because "things could have been much worse?" We should let dictators et al do whatever they want - because things could be worse??

If that's truly how you feel, so be it. I, however, disagree.

Now one last time. I said that I never supported the war in Iraq but I hope that the Iraqis have a better life for Saddam being removed from power. I think the opportunity for democracy and free elections beats being under the tyranny of a cruel dictator. If you feel otherwise, if you would rather by under the tyranny of a cruel dictator, then we disagree.

Edited April 18, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

So it was, in your opinion, wrong to go after Hitler - because "things could have been much worse?" We should let dictators et al do whatever they want - because things could be worse??

If that's truly how you feel, so be it. I, however, disagree.

Now one last time. I said that I never supported the war in Iraq but I hope that the Iraqis have a better life for Saddam being removed from power. I think the opportunity for democracy and free elections beats being under the tyranny of a cruel dictator. If you feel otherwise, if you would rather by under the tyranny of a cruel dictator, then we disagree.

That's just it. Saddam had some backing from the USA to push back on Iran during the Iraq-Iran war. Then all of a sudden he became a tyrant and had to be dealt with. The undesired outcome was that Saddam got some power and invaded Kuwait. So getting involved there made matters worse. We never did see Iraqi's pour out into the streets celebrating Saddam's ousting/capture and eventual hanging. The Iraqi's did not greet the 'liberators'. And now we have an issue where the undesired outcome to fix another undesired outcome is also causing some undesired outcomes. Weekly terror attacks in Iraq and a style of government that is attempting to make closer ties with Iran.

Multiple failures here, and again to note the evidence that never was, all contributed to this outcome. Which any sane person with some logic saw that this was the inevitable outcome no matter how positive a spin the talking heads put on it.

[Guest American Woman]

That's just it. Saddam had some backing from the USA to push back on Iran during the Iraq-Iran war. Then all of a sudden he became a tyrant and had to be dealt with. The undesired outcome was that Saddam got some power and invaded Kuwait. So getting involved there made matters worse. We never did see Iraqi's pour out into the streets celebrating Saddam's ousting/capture and eventual hanging.

Who's this "we" you speak of? Perhaps one of us just wasn't seeing what was out there.

[GostHacked]

Who's this "we" you speak of? Perhaps one of us just wasn't seeing what was out there.

Since you are questioning who the 'we' I am speaking of, proves my point. The Iraqis did not greet the Americans as liberators. The Iraqis did not pour into the streets.

[Guest American Woman]

Since you are questioning who the 'we' I am speaking of, proves my point. The Iraqis did not greet the Americans as liberators. The Iraqis did not pour into the streets

Ummmm. You might want to reread my response - and what I was responding to.

"We never did see Iraqi's pour out into the streets celebrating Saddam's ousting/capture and eventual hanging."

Again. Who is this "we" you are speaking of? Perhaps one of us just wasn't seeing what was happening. I will add that it's still out there to see, so you might want to check it out; "better late than never," as they say.

[WWWTT]

So it was, in your opinion, wrong to go after Hitler - because "things could have been much worse?" We should let dictators et al do whatever they want - because things could be worse??

If that's truly how you feel, so be it. I, however, disagree.

Once again,you are changing the events in order to make an comparison.

Saddam did invade Kuwait and was dealt with properly.

That did not happen in 2003.

WWWTT

[Rue]

Since you are questioning who the 'we' I am speaking of, proves my point. The Iraqis did not greet the Americans as liberators. The Iraqis did not pour into the streets.

Actually they did. Your attempt to revise history and suggest they did not is interesting. I suppose its like your claim the US cheered as Hussein exterminated Kurds. I love these little asides you throw out in your responses.

Still waiting for proof the US sat around cheering Hussein's extermination of Kurds by the way.

As for what happened when Hussein was toppled, all you have to do is go find the tapes and play them back.

This leads us to another statement you made to American Women claiming she should not assume Iraqis are better off then they once were. Your response in fact states her assumption of the positive is unsubstantiated but then you suggest your assumption of the negative is more plausible. That is illogical.

It is a fact that 2/3rd's of Iraq's population, i.e., the Kurds and Shiites did not want Hussein in ower and were both targets of his internal terrorism and so could not have been better off if he remained-that renders your assumption an absurdity.

That's not all. Of the remaining one third Sunni Iraqis the majority were not in Hussein's tribe and therefore were also terrorized and thousands were fleeing his regime reporting his crimes against humanity.

So to suggest Iraqis were better of under Hussein is illogical. No one is saying Iraq is utopia. Its a mess. But to suggest as you are that they were better off under a sociopathic murderer is illogical.

That is the logic that dictates Italy was better off under Mussolini because he made the trains run or Germans were better off under Hitler because he put everyone to work.

Its selective in analysis and therefore necessarily defective. However its clear what is beyond your selectivity-your bias against the US. Then again my bias is obviously pro US so we both in debating make assumptions what is a better off state, one under a brutal facist, or one currently engaged in a civil war but with a chance to emerge with consensus to run a nation more tolerant and able to recognize its differences internally.

Do you really think Iraqis who have never lived in a democratic regime would just instanteously change into one if the US never arrived? Really? Are you suggesting if they eventually rose against Hussein they would not be in the same position they are now and all the US did was hasten that fact?

Interestingly I have spoken to Iraqi refugees or ex patriots in Canada and whether they are Kurds, Shiites or Sunnis, they may disagree on everything else but not Hussein and his reign of pathological terrorism so to suggest his subtraction is not in itself positive, is illogical. To suggest otherwise is to suggest he was preferable to anything else-that is what your assumption concludes.

At the present time Iraq is in a state of civil war and you conveniently blame that on the US-another illogical assumption. The feuds between the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites has gone on prior to the US even existing as a nation and will continue.

If there is any chance of settling their feuds it would never have happened under Hussein's brutal facism. All Hussein did was suppress what is now being expressed. If you have a problem how about you look at the current cause of the problem-Muslim extremists claiming their version of religion entitles them to use violence against their OWN PEOPLE.

Do you not get it? Terrorists kill,torture, main their own people. They are not antiseptic freedom fighters who only fight the dreaded US colonialist monster. They terrorize, murder, rape, mutilate their own people. Their own people are fodder, a pretext just like the US is, to ratioanlize their terror activities.

They are about but one thing-aquiring power through terror and violence and crimes against humanity and for you to suggest a country is in a better state with such vigilante sociopathic murderers on the loose is illogical let alone absurd.

Yah blame the US the fact is they are not running around at the moment bombing mosques and innocent civilians. Your convenient selection of events that skips that part of the root cause of Iraq's problem is interesting.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Rue

[GostHacked]

Rue, glad to see you skipped over the entire oil thing. I guess you really still believe it was about freedom and democracy.

[Guest American Woman]

Rue, glad to see you skipped over the entire oil thing. I guess you really still believe it was about freedom and democracy.

What difference does "what it was about" make?? Freedom from a tyrannical dictator isn't good unless the whole campaign was altruistic?? The Civil War wasn't all about freeing the slaves, either, but that didn't make their freedom any less of a good thing. You aren't even aware that Iraqis cheered Saddam's capture and death. What Rue said was spot-on in so many ways.

[GostHacked]

What difference does "what it was about" make??

It makes a huge difference. We know that Curveball had made up all the evidence in which the Pentagon screamed as loud as they could saying that they need to do something about it. Those were bullshit reasons and now we know they were complete lies. You were against the invasion it seems but yet are completely apologetic towards the current situation. As I said, now that the 'war' is over this absolves the USA of any responsibility going forward.

So not only was the Iraq invasion not about freedom and democracy, the Pentagon lied about the evidence that demanded such immediate action,

Also the civil war in the USA is not quite comparable to this situation, and that has been addressed already here in this thread. But do skip over that as well, helps your point better

The civil war was an internal matter of the USA. IN this case the USA helped clear the way for sectarian civil unrest within Iraq.

Freedom from a tyrannical dictator isn't good unless the whole campaign was altruistic?? The Civil War wasn't all about freeing the slaves, either, but that didn't make their freedom any less of a good thing. You aren't even aware that Iraqis cheered Saddam's capture and death. What Rue said was spot-on in so many ways.

Half the country was for slavery and the other half not for slavery. Also Rue's point is off the mark, I said they did not greet the USA as liberators when the invasion started. That said nothing towards how the death of Saddam was received.

It was never about freedom and democracy. That's my whole point. It was about the oil and the US petrodollar and the ability to maintain that monopoly through brute force.

Edited April 19, 2013 by GostHacked

[Guest American Woman]

So, again, since it wasn't all about freedom and democracy, that somehow makes the resulting freedom and democracy bad?? It means things would be oh-so-much-better if Saddam were still in power??

[g_bambino]

It was never about freedom and democracy. That's my whole point. It was about the oil and the US petrodollar and the ability to maintain that monopoly through brute force.

It certainly was never started for the sake of freedom and democracy; that "explanation" was brought in after the WMD one started to very openly fall apart. However, it must've been for more than "the petrodollar"; that's just too simple. Wider geopolitical factors must have been of (equal or more, I'm not sure) significant influence in the decision to invade that particular country.

[ed.: +]

Edited April 19, 2013 by g_bambino

[GostHacked]

So, again, since it wasn't all about freedom and democracy, that somehow makes the resulting freedom and democracy bad?? It means things would be oh-so-much-better if Saddam were still in power??

They may not have been better, but they were not at each others throats as much. Saddam kept them in check. Remove that and civil unrest was the only inevitable outcome.

[Guest American Woman]

They may not have been better, but they were not at each others throats as much. Saddam kept them in check. Remove that and civil unrest was the only inevitable outcome.

So if people can be "kept in check" by tyranny and dictatorship, that's better than freedom and democracy??

Edited April 19, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

It certainly was never started for the sake of freedom and democracy; that "explanation" was brought in after the WMD one started to very openly fall apart. However, it must've been for more than "the petrodollar"; that's just too simple. Wider geopolitical factors must have been of (equal or more, I'm not sure) significant influence in the decision to invade that particular country.

[ed.: +]

It was named "Operation Iraqi Freedom" from the git-go, not "after the WMD one started to very openly fall apart."

[g_bambino]

It was named "Operation Iraqi Freedom" from the git-go...

That was the name. Still, almost all (if not all) the justification for the invasion before it happened was the threat posed by Saddam's supposed weapons of mass destruction. Congress' joint resolution allowed the President to authorise the invasion on the grounds of "defend[ing] the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and... enforc[ing] all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." Only once, among 23 paragraphs in the preamble to the resolution (which has no legal force), is the citizenry of Iraq and their safety (but not freedom or democracy) mentioned.¹

[Guest American Woman]

That was the name. Still, almost all (if not all) the justification for the invasion before it happened was the threat posed by Saddam's supposed weapons of mass destruction. Congress' joint resolution allowed the President to authorise the invasion on the grounds of "defend[ing] the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and... enforc[ing] all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." Only once, among 23 paragraphs in the preamble to the resolution (which has no legal force), is the citizenry of Iraq and their safety (but not freedom or democracy) mentioned.¹

Yes, that was the name; so the "explanation" for the war being about freeing the Iraqis was not just brought about after the WMD one began to fall apart, as you claim. The idea of freeing the Iraqis from Saddam was there from the beginning of the war, and not just as an "explanation" brought it "after" anything. The idea of the war was to get rid of Saddam. Surely you recognize that.

Edited April 19, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

Another week and another bombing and multiple dead.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/23/world/meast/iraq-violence/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Baghdad (CNN) -- Violence erupted in Iraq on Tuesday, with more than 30 slain and dozens injured in an atmosphere beset with political and Sunni-Shiite tensions.

At least 28 people were killed and more than 70 wounded in northern Iraq on Tuesday in fighting between security forces and gunmen, police said. The incident took place in Hawija, in Kirkuk province.

Earlier, at least four people were killed and 13 others were wounded when two roadside bombs exploded, one after another, outside a Sunni mosque in southern Baghdad, police said. The incident occurred in the neighborhood of Dora while Sunni worshipers were leaving the mosque, police said.

[Rue]

Rue, glad to see you skipped over the entire oil thing. I guess you really still believe it was about freedom and democracy.

Actually I did not. I specifically addressed it numerous times in other threads on this topic and even in this series of threads.

I again point out the logic of your statement is defective. The fact that the West and not just the US has ulterior interests including oil in Iraq, which motivates foreign policy does not negate the fact that Hussein engaged in genocide against Kurds and for that reason alone should have been taken out,

Attempting as you have, to justify his reign saying he is entitled to commit genocide makes no rationalsense. Suggesting two wrongs make a right, i.e., the US is an evil oil greedy imperialist does not change the fact that Hussein engaged in genocide.

Its interesting because as a Zionist I have been accused on this forum of supporting Nazism and now I am questioned because I applaud the removal of a tyrant who used gas to engage in genocide against innocent civilians. Yep. Nazi.

The whole point of my posts to date have been to criticize the ulterior motives of not just US foreign policy but all countries foreign policies that often place financial interests above basic humanitarian considerations. That said, to simply turn this into a black and white one proposition, i.e., you can't criticize or want to dispose of Hussein because your only motive for doing so is oil, is illogical. Its possible the two coincide. That was the point.

The point also is you save y our selective criticism of the US. You don't criticize China for propping tyranical regimes in Sudan and Iran or running a slave nation. Nope.

You don't criticize any of the political Islamist terror cells operating in Iraq or their tie in to Iran or Al Quaeda, nope.

Its all the US's fault.

No one, not me,not American Woman, no on has suggested the US went into Iraq for purely benevolent reasons. I said from the get go it was also for ulterior motives. I also said it is hypocritical for other nations to benefit from the US invasiomn of Iraq by getting access to oil but sitting back and letting the US take sole criticism.

Everyone of us dependent on oil is why the world's nations have governments that tailor foreign policy to the securing of oil through the propping of selected foreign governments.

That said if you want to look the other way on political Islamist extremist terrorism and Hussein and say his people were better off under this genocidal maniac and there would have been no terrorism in his country or the Middle East except for the US and Israel be my guest. Been there. Done that.

Also be my guest blame American Woman, myself, Lindsay Lohan, the US, whoever for the state of chaos in Iraq. Don't look to the political Islamic extremists terrorizing the nation. Just blame it on Lindsay and me.

I will say it one last time. The US Armed Forces never asked to remain in Iraq. You have an issue take alook at the Bush regime and specifically the tie in between Chaney-Rumsfeld and the amounts of money paid out to Haliburton over Iraq.

The US government and its taxpayers were used to prop a Haliburton operation. Pure and simple. That operation has bankrupt the nation and ironically the oil reserves in Iraq are being profited by a small cabal of Iraqis who watch their own people live in squalor. No one is stopping the government today from using its wealth to rebuild its nation. No one. You won't see a penny of that oil money go to helping its people.

Find me one regime in the Middle East whose government has used its oil wealth for its people. Go on. look. Who United Arab Emirates? Saudi Arabia? Its people live without any democratic rights run by tribes of paid off fellow citizens whose sole claim to legitimacy is through in-breeding/ Who else? What Sudan? Libya? Egypt? Yemen? Iran? Syria?Lebanon?Jordan?Oh do say.All model nations without coruption.No wait, its the US's fault for that.

Say where were you when Arafat took billions, not just millions of dollars in foreign aid and re-routed it to his personal

bank accounts?

What you think he was a US dupe.No he was protected by La Deuxieme Bureau of France which assured he could ship his drugs to Marseilles and on to the US in return for his brokering deals for them with corupt Arab regimes.

What you going to suggest China doesn't prop corupt regimes and turn them into colonies? Russia? Give me a break.

This is not the shame of the US what goes on. It is the shame of the global community. We are all tied up in the coruption by chosing as consumers to engage in certain lifestyle decisions one of them being dependency on petrol and cars.

Edited April 23, 2013 by Rue

[Guest American Woman]

The idea that people are "better off" under a tyrannical dictator because they "keep the people in check" still has me flabbergasted. And this from someone who complains about homeland security and CCTV cameras......

[GostHacked]

The idea that people are "better off" under a tyrannical dictator because they "keep the people in check" still has me flabbergasted. And this from someone who complains about homeland security and CCTV cameras......

I am surprised you don't complain about the ever increasing surveillance that is being implemented across the board. But anyways, Saddam was not a nice guy but, if he managed to keep the factions from fighting and killing each other, I may consider that better than having the mass deaths due to weekly bombings now that those same factions can no longer can be kept in check.