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

[GostHacked]

Ummm. Yeah. I do want replies to what I said to be about what I am writing as opposed to off-the-wall "guesses" about what I am writing. 'Nuff said.

Articulation of making a point results in less confusion from other posters about what you are trying to put forth.

[Guest American Woman]

Articulation of making a point results in less confusion from other posters about what you are trying to put forth.

Reading comprehension and getting out of one's own mindset result in a better understanding of what I am clearly putting forth. One can be as articulate as the world's most articulate speaker and some here would still be "confused," as you put it, and making off the wall "guesses" about what was being said. But thanks for your input.

Edited March 23, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

Reading comprehension and getting out of one's own mindset result in a better understanding of what I am clearly putting forth. One can be as articulate as the world's most articulate speaker and some here would still be "confused," as you put it, and making off the wall "guesses" about what was being said. But thanks for your input.

IF the majority of people have no real clue as to what you are saying, then it would be up to you to word it so people can understand. I'll go back to posting about stuff relevant to the topic now.

[WWWTT]

Articulation of making a point results in less confusion from other posters about what you are trying to put forth.

Oh no,I clearly understood what she was writing in this case.

I'm just not going to further entertain her ramblings.

She does this sidestepping all the time.

When she does not like your response,she changes the subject by trying to point fault towards you.

Very simple but annoying tactic really.

And not a very good one.

WWWTT

[GostHacked]

Oh no,I clearly understood what she was writing in this case.

I'm just not going to further entertain her ramblings.

She does this sidestepping all the time.

When she does not like your response,she changes the subject by trying to point fault towards you.

Very simple but annoying tactic really.

And not a very good one.

WWWTT

I get it now. Quite understandable.

[DogOnPorch]

Uhhhh...nobody here invaded Iraq. Not even AW.

As I said...it was a questionable move in my books...invading Iraq...with Afghanistan not yet pacified. But there it is. A done deal. Both places are pacified on a global level. Sure...they kill each other for various reasons...mostly religious. But that's not that unusual. They kill each other without the US's help ALL the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia%E2%80%93Sunni_relations

[bush_cheney2004]

Uhhhh...nobody here invaded Iraq. Not even AW.

As I said...it was a questionable move in my books...invading Iraq...with Afghanistan not yet pacified. But there it is. A done deal.

But based on responses here, apparently it would have been far more acceptable to conduct a (continued) tactical and strategic bombing campaign resulting in thousands of deaths and the identical destruction of infrastructure. So it never was about "dead Iraqis".

[DogOnPorch]

But based on responses here, apparently it would have been far more acceptable to conduct a (continued) tactical and strategic bombing campaign resulting in thousands of deaths and the identical destruction of infrastructure. So it never was about "dead Iraqis".

I never believe the 'Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children??' line, either. It's faux outrage more at the US's ability to change the planet than worry that wee Akmed or Abdul isn't going to get to see Disney World.

[Guest American Woman]

I never believe the 'Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children??' line, either. It's faux outrage more at the US's ability to change the planet than worry that wee Akmed or Abdul isn't going to get to see Disney World.

Considering how many children were reportedly suffering and dying under the sanctions, it's a difficult 'concern' to take seriously from some. There seems to be a lot more judgement and demonizing of those involved in the decisions - make that Americans involved in the decisions, as those who care so much about the children are all but dismissing Canada's role/actions - and I think that's what it all comes down to/what it's mostly about: ie: 'Bad U.S.!!'

At any rate, I didn't support the war and I've never "justified" anything regarding it, but I also realize that the safety of Americans/westerners isn't on my shoulders, nor do I have all of the information that the leaders have access to available to me; so while I may be critical, I try to refrain from the holier-than-thou personal judgement that so many here seem to feel so qualified to make. When one is responsible for the lives of those who elected them, it's likely not quite so easy to sit back and do nothing.

If only the children who were killed on 9-11 warranted the same tears from the 'what about the children!' crowd, I might give them more points in the 'caring' department; but as it stands, sadly, I think criticizing the U.S. is more important than the welfare of the children to some. In that regard, I can only repeat that I hope for the best for the Iraqis - I expect it will take time, as these things do, but at least now there's hope for a future that was not possible under Saddam.

In that regard, it's interesting that I've seen a few "has the U.S. learned its lesson?" type comments, but none along the line of whether or not would-be tyrants have perhaps learned that they won't necessarily get away with whatever they like. The posters who admittedly long for Saddam being back in power blow my mind as I can only surmise that their hatred of the U.S. is stronger than any concern they have for the children.

Edited March 23, 2013 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Considering how many children were reportedly suffering and dying under the sanctions, it's a difficult 'concern' to take seriously from some. There seems to be a lot more judgement and demonizing of those involved in the decisions - make that Americans involved in the decisions, as those who care so much about the children are all but dismissing Canada's role/actions - and I think that's what it all comes down to/what it's mostly about: ie: 'Bad U.S.!!'

I have no real beef with Canada's decision to "stay out" (wink wink), just the post invasion pleading for access to contracts. Canada was already stretched to the max for Afghanistan, and could have contributed very little to the actual 'invasion' by Chretien's own admission.

At any rate, I didn't support the war and I've never "justified" anything regarding it, but I also realize that the safety of Americans/westerners isn't on my shoulders, nor do I have all of the information that the leaders have access to available to me; so while I may be critical, I try to refrain from the holier-than-thou personal judgement that so many here seem to feel so qualified to make. When one is responsible for the lives of those who elected them, it's likely not quite so easy to sit back and do nothing.

Many, many millions of Americans opposed the war, but as you say, elected representatives made decisions in a methodical manner over the course of many months / years. Status quo Iraq was a long festering sore that was no longer tolerable in the wake of 9/11, and the prime ministers of the UK and Australia agreed.

If only the children who were killed on 9-11 warranted the same tears from the 'what about the children!' crowd, I might give them more points in the 'caring' department; but as it stands, sadly, I think criticizing the U.S. is more important than the welfare of the children to this ilk. In that regard, I can only repeat that I hope for the best for the Iraqis - I expect it will take time, as these things do, but at least now there's hope for a future that was not possible under Saddam.

Indeed....several members here openly supported the idea that the 9/11 victims "had it coming" or "deserved it" in the context of U.S. foreign policy, but curiously did not hold Iraq to the same standard.

In that regard, it's interesting that I've seen a few "has the U.S. learned its lesson?" type comments, but none along the line of whether or not would-be tyrants have perhaps learned that they won't necessarily get away with whatever they like. The posters who admittedly long for Saddam being back in power blow my mind as I can only surmise that their hatred of the U.S. is stronger than any concern over the children.

Agreed.....they hope that the cost in blood and treasure would materially prevent the U.S. from ever doing such a thing again....and they would be very wrong, not understanding the United States at all.

[DogOnPorch]

AW...

The word is Schadenfreude and many Canadians suffer from it when it comes to the USA. Everybody else gets a pass. Even Saddam who never had any chemical weapons. Poor thing. But, if he did, you KNOW Donald Rumsfeld dropped them off in person.

[WWWTT]

But based on responses here, apparently it would have been far more acceptable to conduct a (continued) tactical and strategic bombing campaign resulting in thousands of deaths and the identical destruction of infrastructure. So it never was about "dead Iraqis".

Actually if I recall correctly,after Saddam started to finally co operate and it was shown by the inspectors,sanctions should have been lifted!

Now that's the real reason why the US invaded,wasn't it?

WWWTT

[Shady]

Actually if I recall correctly,after Saddam started to finally co operate and it was shown by the inspectors,sanctions should have been lifted!

Now that's the real reason why the US invaded,wasn't it?

WWWTT

No, he never fully cooperated. Regardless, he violated agreed upon terms of a ceasefire several times, all of which could have been responded to with force. He's the reason there were two gulf wars. Responsibility ultimately rests with him and his regime.

[WWWTT]

Not towards 2002 and 2003 Shady.

In fact,Iraq was co operating so well,and the inspectors liked what they were seeing so much,sanctions would have to be lifted.

But that's when Bush and his war pigs started escalating their false accusations and propaganda.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

But based on responses here

Based upon your comments,I would say that bush_cheney2004=Shady!

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

Not towards 2002 and 2003 Shady.

In fact,Iraq was co operating so well,and the inspectors liked what they were seeing so much,sanctions would have to be lifted.

No...he only partially "cooperated" after the US and UK went desert camping in Kuwait with over 200,000 troops. Hans Blix was still reporting problems for the inspection teams.

But that's when Bush and his war pigs started escalating their false accusations and propaganda.

No...the WMD "propaganda" had existed for the past dozen years, including Clinton Administration attacks and UN sanctions, supported and enforced by Canada.

[WWWTT]

Ah so we finally get to the root of Bush's desire to expediate the US invasion.

The Iraq's could never be co operating because the US must invade!

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

Ah so we finally get to the root of Bush's desire to expediate the US invasion.

The Iraq's could never be co operating because the US must invade!

Regime change in Iraq was a matter of U.S. Public Law going back to 1998, long before Bush came along. Invasion was just the most straightfoward way to finally achieve the longstanding US/UK objective.

The U.S. could have "invaded" whenever it pleased.

[WWWTT]

At least we are all here to discuss the shame of the disgraceful acts of the US.

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

At least we are all here to discuss the shame of the disgraceful acts of the US.

No....I am here to celebrate the projection of U.S. power and removal of a brutal dictator from Iraq. "Shame" might work in Canada, but not the USA, which is, for the most part, SHAMELESS.

[WWWTT]

You have a link to back your claim?

From what I remember,someone on this thread provided a link that put your view in a lower ranked level of popularity.

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

You have a link to back your claim?

From what I remember,someone on this thread provided a link that put your view in a lower ranked level of popularity.

Is the United States of America not currently engaged in military operations around the globe ? Are America's drone death bots not attacking and killing perps and "innocent civilians" in Afghanistan, Yemen, and Pakistan ? Has the "link" you refer to translated to a change in U.S. power projection ?

Any regrets about Iraq does not equate to shame at a national level.

[Guest Derek L]

This makes no sense?

I guess if you can not further elaborate,than you are reduced to "straw man" .

WWWTT

I asked you above:

The NDP was initially supportive of military action in Libya and by extension the removal of wacky Gaddafi…And Gaddafi willingly gave up WMD research in the post 9/11 environment…

What is the difference between Libya and Iraq?

So, why did the NDP support military action in Libya and not Iraq?

[GostHacked]

Regime change in Iraq was a matter of U.S. Public Law going back to 1998, long before Bush came along. Invasion was just the most straightfoward way to finally achieve the longstanding US/UK objective.

The U.S. could have "invaded" whenever it pleased.

What jurisdiction does US law have over the sovereignty of another nation when no direct threats have ever been made against the US from Iraq? IS Kuwait a NATO member which would warrant the attack? We can talk in the context of oil and resources which are now to be revealed as the main reason. And in a sense talking about that context makes the US Law meaningless anyways.

[Guest Derek L]

What jurisdiction does US law have over the sovereignty of another nation when no direct threats have ever been made against the US from Iraq? IS Kuwait a NATO member which would warrant the attack? We can talk in the context of oil and resources which are now to be revealed as the main reason. And in a sense talking about that context makes the US Law meaningless anyways.

I guess Saddam didn’t have a law banning the toppling of his regime……As to oil and “real reasons”, the requirement of security and stability of the Persian Gulf region and it’s oil reserves has been stated policy of a great many nations since oil was first discovered…….It’s too bad many didn’t figure that out until after the war.