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

[GostHacked]

Good thing Iraq was brought some freedom.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/15/world/meast/iraq-violence/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Baghdad (CNN) -- A series of car bombings across Iraq on Monday killed at least 25 people and wounded more than 170 others, police said.

The 24 attacks took place in Baghdad, Kirkuk, Baquba, Tuz Khurmato and Hilla.

Two of the bombings pummeled a checkpoint near Baghdad's international airport.

Most of the attacks in Baghdad targeted Shiite areas, police told CNN. Al Qaeda in Iraq, made up of Sunni extremists, has claimed responsibility for many attacks in recent months.

This is going on almost daily in Iraq. And we are worried about what is going on in Syria? When do we go back into Iraq and save them from the terrorists? Or do we even give a crap now? Are they being selective in their outrage against Syria while ignoring what is still happening in Iraq?

[Guest American Woman]

Almost daily, eh? And I'm sure you have some proof of that? Hard to believe it's been 10 years - and Iraq isn't Camelot yet. Proof that it was wrong to bring democracy to Iraqis. Of course it would be so much better if Saddam were in power, because Iraq under Saddam = Camelot.

According to your line of thought, taking into the account the KKK et al and what the blacks were facing "almost daily" 10 years after the Civil War, freeing them was the wrong thing to do.

Edited April 15, 2013 by American Woman

[Rue]

The problem American Woman is that when you are the no.1 country of the world and you do step in to other nations, you then become the scapegoat for that nation's failures. Its easier for anti Americans now to simply blame them for the ills in Iraq. You know how that works. It i s all the US's fault.

Iraq itself bears nomoral culpability for its people.The Muslim extremist terrorist organizations using Islam as their pretext to kill fellow Muslims, that just convenently is ignored. It is all America's fault.

Do I think the US went in to protect oil interests, yes. Do I think the Bush regime was corupt and used the war as a contract orgy for Haliburton yes.

I strongly criticize the CIA's use of outsourced consultants and I strongly condemn Haliburton and its thousands of private security forces who acted and still act above the law.

However, I fully support the US Armed Forces who were ignored by Bush and used as a secondary force.

The US Armed Forces is not the scapegoat in this one. They were given an impossible situation. They specifically stated they could not be a long term occupation force and Bush and Chaney directly disobeyed the advise of their Joint Chiefs of Staff.

I can criticize the US for many things but I will say this-who else did anything? Who else did a phacking thing when Hussein was exterminating Kurds with gas?Where are all these anti Americans now? They want their cake and eat it too. When something goes wrong they want the US blamed for stepping in. If the US does not step in, they criticize them for not stepping in. I say bullshit on that kind of two faced arguement.

If the UN was not such an incompetent, corupted organization, it would have sent in a multi-national force to Iraq the moment it exterminated the Kurds en masse. It did not. It remained silent as it would with Rwanda, Mali, Biafra, Sudan, East Timor on and on.

The usual selectiveanti Americans can blame the US for the ills of the world but the reality is it is but one nation on a planet full of phacked up countries and can not solve the world's problems.

Say now, where was China, Russia when the Kurds were being gassed? Did you hear them say anything?

[GostHacked]

Almost daily, eh? And I'm sure you have some proof of that? Hard to believe it's been 10 years - and Iraq isn't Camelot yet. Proof that it was wrong to bring democracy to Iraqis. Of course it would be so much better if Saddam were in power, because Iraq under Saddam = Camelot.

Almost daily. Ok, well how about weekly?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22149863

At least 31 people have been killed and more than 200 others wounded in a series of early-morning explosions in cities across Iraq, officials say.

Attacks were reported in Baghdad, as well as Tuz Khurmatu and Kirkuk in the north and Nasariyah in the south.

The co-ordinated attacks occurred during the morning rush hour and mainly involved car bombs.

The violence comes ahead of Iraq's provincial elections on 20 April, the first in the country since 2010.

Monday's attacks were particularly broad in scope, with several cities hit, including Fallujah, Tikrit, Samarra and Hilla.

The explosions were caused by 20 cars packed with explosives and three roadside bombs, AFP news agency reported.

There was another incident last week were around 50 were killed. And the week before that, it's been happening.

Sunni Islamist militants linked to al-Qaeda have attempted to destabilise the government by stepping up attacks, mainly on Shia but also Sunni targets this year.

Damn maybe the USA should go back, looks like Al-Queda is a problem again.

According to your line of thought, taking into the account the KKK et al and what the blacks were facing "almost daily" 10 years after the Civil War, freeing them was the wrong thing to do.

That does not fall into my line of thought.

[WWWTT]

I can criticize the US for many things but I will say this-who else did anything? Who else did a phacking thing when Hussein was exterminating Kurds with gas?Where are all these anti Americans now?

When Hussein was exterminating the Kurds and making war with the Iranians,they were getting all kinds of praise from the US!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Almost daily, eh? And I'm sure you have some proof of that? Hard to believe it's been 10 years - and Iraq isn't Camelot yet. Proof that it was wrong to bring democracy to Iraqis. Of course it would be so much better if Saddam were in power, because Iraq under Saddam = Camelot.

According to your line of thought, taking into the account the KKK et al and what the blacks were facing "almost daily" 10 years after the Civil War, freeing them was the wrong thing to do.

Are the Iraqis more "FREE" now?

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

Are the Iraqis more "FREE" now?

Let's see..... Saddam, a terrible dictator, vs. elections .....

I'll let you figure it out.

[Guest American Woman]

That does not fall into my line of thought.

So it's good that the slaves were freed, even though they faced terrible obstacles ten years later - but terrible that the Iraqis were freed from Saddam, because they are facing terrible obstacles ten years later. Yeah, that makes sense.

[Guest American Woman]

The problem American Woman is that when you are the no.1 country of the world and you do step in to other nations, you then become the scapegoat for that nation's failures. Its easier for anti Americans now to simply blame them for the ills in Iraq. You know how that works. It i s all the US's fault.

Of course it is. While the things that are better are never credited to the U.S.

Iraq itself bears nomoral culpability for its people.The Muslim extremist terrorist organizations using Islam as their pretext to kill fellow Muslims, that just convenently is ignored. It is all America's fault.

That's just it. They have freedom - elections vs Saddam. What they make of it is up to them. Is it better not to have given them the freedom to have elections? Would it have been better to leave Saddam in power - because things aren't a bed of Roses only ten years later? I suppose Iraq was just supposed to miraculously come together overnight. That it hasn't is the U.S.'s fault.

Do I think the US went in to protect oil interests, yes. Do I think the Bush regime was corupt and used the war as a contract orgy for Haliburton yes.

I strongly criticize the CIA's use of outsourced consultants and I strongly condemn Haliburton and its thousands of private security forces who acted and still act above the law.

However, I fully support the US Armed Forces who were ignored by Bush and used as a secondary force.

I never supported going to war, but as I've said, ridding Iraq of Saddam was not a bad thing. I hold out hope that the Iraqi people will have better lives. Just being able to vote in elections is a huge step forward. I think freedom is always something to strive for, and I think most people will pick freedom with more hardships over not having freedom.

The US Armed Forces is not the scapegoat in this one. They were given an impossible situation. They specifically stated they could not be a long term occupation force and Bush and Chaney directly disobeyed the advise of their Joint Chiefs of Staff.

It was an impossible situation in a lot of ways, but the goal of toppling Saddam was achieved. What the Iraqis do going forward is out of the U.S.'s hands, much less the military's.

I can criticize the US for many things but I will say this-who else did anything? Who else did a phacking thing when Hussein was exterminating Kurds with gas?Where are all these anti Americans now? They want their cake and eat it too. When something goes wrong they want the US blamed for stepping in. If the US does not step in, they criticize them for not stepping in. I say bullshit on that kind of two faced arguement.

Amen to that. So true.

If the UN was not such an incompetent, corupted organization, it would have sent in a multi-national force to Iraq the moment it exterminated the Kurds en masse. It did not. It remained silent as it would with Rwanda, Mali, Biafra, Sudan, East Timor on and on.

Exactly. I have lost all faith and respect in the UN in that regard through all of this.

The usual selectiveanti Americans can blame the US for the ills of the world but the reality is it is but one nation on a planet full of phacked up countries and can not solve the world's problems.

That's true - and all the negativism and criticism and outright anti-Americanism doesn't help. When I hear people happily proclaim that China is going to be the strongest country I have to wonder where they are coming from. It's as if a lot of these people will cut off their nose to spite their face.

Say now, where was China, Russia when the Kurds were being gassed? Did you hear them say anything?

Nope. Not a thing. And I don't hear them criticized for it, either.

[WWWTT]

Let's see..... Saddam, a terrible dictator, vs. elections .....

I'll let you figure it out.

Ya actually I'll get my info from an Iraqi who actually votes in these elections.

And I won't forget to ask them if the US/coalition invasion and the continued violence is all worth it!

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

Ya actually I'll get my info from an Iraqi who actually votes in these elections.

And I won't forget to ask them if the US/coalition invasion and the continued violence is all worth it!

You do that. Go to Iraq and ask an Iraqi.

[Rue]

When Hussein was exterminating the Kurds and making war with the Iranians,they were getting all kinds of praise from the US!

WWWTT

Please provide an example where the US government did the above. Come on. That is an irresponsible thing to say.

[Rue]

Fair is fair. The US is not perfect and the very thing that makes it imperfect is why it can discuss its imperfections-the ability for its people to openly challenge and criticize it.

The legal system may not be perfect but the US military law prevailed and held soldiers accountable for illegal behaviour and the JAG's office was a principal player in exposing illegal work done by contracted persons claiming to have been hired by private government sponsored contractors and even the CIA.

My point is a hell of a lot of countries are dependent on the oil in Iraq that the US secured not just the US and they directly benefit from the US going in and riding piggyback on its efforts. Britain was there. I can understand why Canada's Prime Minister Chretien at the time did not want to be party to a non UN approved invasion but me personally I think it is hypcrotical for Western nations to bad mouth the US for what it did and at the same time directly financially benefit from what they did.

Do I want the international law ignored and nations running rough shod on one another no. However I go back to the UN. It has failed to be a credible international organization capable of overseeing international civility. It has been permanently compromised by coruption (financial) and by

politics (human right violating nations pointing the finger at the US or Israel while ignoring autrocities elsewhere).

I prefer the Canadian foreign policy approach of today. I am not a conservative necessarily with all its financial policies, more like a blue liberal or red tory but I strongly support its foreign policy stance. To pretend we are not the US's ally when it goes into Afghanistan or these terrorist compromised nations is b.s. I think our involvement in Libya, was called for. I think our support of the British and US in Afghanistan was called for.

I support France's initiative in Mali. Do I think we are not colonial imperialist swine? No. I am not naive. I know Western nations do things to protect their financial interests. However if they coincide with eradicating terrorism, give me a break, don't pander to me that I should adapt some namby pamby approach that re-defines terrorists as freedom fighting anti imperialists. They are not.

Do I want peace in Iraq? Of course. Do I think it can happen as long as the current religious extremists run rough shod-no.

I think Muslim religious extremists are exploiting their monopoly on religion in Arab nations to justify political extremism and terrorism. I think it holds its peoples hostage. I think for me Arab countries whose governments are not seperated from Muslim extremist religious views remain in an arrested state of development unable to even conceive of democratic standards let alone institutions to implement democratic policies and programs.

Where I have differed in the past with JBG and some other critics is that I do not believe the majority of Muslims in these nations if given a true opportunity would embrace terrorism and if given an option of more moderate approach I believe would take it. Am I naive? Yes for sure.

I however believe terrorism is a matter of a violent minority able to control a basically passive majority. I believe it is possible to empower a moderate majority to liberate itself from a violent minority by not justifying terrorism as freedom fighting-by not trying to refine it as acceptable leftist ideology and by calling it out for what it is and confronting it-violent facism.

I don't come on this forum pretending freedom flotillas are not being maniulated by Hamas for political reasons. I don't come on this forum unable and forbidden from admitting Hamas and Hezbollah exist.

I don't come on this forum to hate Muslims either. I come on this forum to criticize anti Americans if their anti Americanism is based on looking the other way about terrorism.

What are we supposed to believe the world should have sat by silently and let Hussein exterminate Kurds? How many more holocausts and Armenias do we need for phacks sakes before we do something?

What compels us to say enough is enough when we see innocent civilians being slaughtered?

How does the UN justify its silence? Tibet, the Kurds, Rwanda and Mali citizens, Biafrans, Sudanese, East Timorese, on and on and on and on. Enough. No more holocausts. No more mass starvations like in the Ukraine and Ireland and other nations caused by deliberate political warfare, no more mass murders like Mao's cultural revolution-enough.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Rue

[Moonlight Graham]

I don't know if it's even possible, but I'd be interested to see some kind of statistically legitimate nation-wide poll of Iraqis on whether they think they are better off with or without Saddam, or if they think the US-led invasion was a net negative or positive for them...or some question like that. That's the only opinion that matters on whether the invasion was better for Iraqis or not.

Unfortunately, everyday Iraqis never had much input on whether they wanted the invasion, or Saddam removed by Western militaries and replaced by a "democracy", What kind of "democracy" is forced upon a country without any regard of whether they want it or not, designed and implemented by a foreign invading power? The whole "freedom" and "democracy" jive in Iraq is complete bulls**t. Freedom from what, and for whom? "Government of the people, by the people, for the people" by arse. The regime change in Iraq was quite obviously US-led imperialism, with US/Western security interests in mind, not so much the political rights and well-being of the Iraqi people.

[GostHacked]

So it's good that the slaves were freed, even though they faced terrible obstacles ten years later - but terrible that the Iraqis were freed from Saddam, because they are facing terrible obstacles ten years later. Yeah, that makes sense.

That is not falling into my line of thought either.

There were no weekly bombings in Iraq prior to the outing of Saddam. Al-Queda was not a problem before Saddam was removed. Saddam did not work with Al-Qeuda but now Al-queda is causing trouble all over Iraq. But why don't we give a crap about the terrorists ruining the new found freedom of Iraqis? Why are the things going on in Syria more important than was is going on in Iraq?

Either you are with us or the terrorists. Iraq is a candidate for humanitarian aide because of these bombings occurring weekly. But whooooaaaaa saber rattling against NK is talk of the town, and we MUST go in if Syria uses chemical weapons, no matter if used by Assad of the rebels.

Rue

I support France's initiative in Mali. Do I think we are not colonial imperialist swine? No. I am not naive. I know Western nations do things to protect their financial interests. However if they coincide with eradicating terrorism, give me a break, don't pander to me that I should adapt some namby pamby approach that re-defines terrorists as freedom fighting anti imperialists. They are not.

What is so different about Mali? We can agree that Al-Queda is also to be reported causing trouble in Mali, but why not fix things like Iraq first?

But you do elude to the real reason Iraq was invaded.

My point is a hell of a lot of countries are dependent on the oil in Iraq that the US secured not just the US and they directly benefit from the US going in and riding piggyback on its efforts. Britain was there. I can understand why Canada's Prime Minister Chretien at the time did not want to be party to a non UN approved invasion but me personally I think it is hypcrotical for Western nations to bad mouth the US for what it did and at the same time directly financially benefit from what they did.

It was never about democracy or freedom, it was about the oil. And all the other countries took part in making money after the fact. It's all a scam and Iraq paid for it all with oil and blood.

So next time I hear crap about 'humanitarian aide' I'll have to laugh, because they are lying to us .... again.

[WWWTT]

You do that. Go to Iraq and ask an Iraqi.

Ya actually that would be a good thing to do!

A lot better than just assuming that they are better off!

WWWTT

[GostHacked]

Ya actually that would be a good thing to do!

A lot better than just assuming that they are better off!

WWWTT

I am sure they appreciate Americans telling them how they should feel about their new found freedom.

[Guest American Woman]

Ya actually that would be a good thing to do!

A lot better than just assuming that they are better off!

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

Edited April 18, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

I am sure they appreciate Americans telling them how they should feel about their new found freedom.

Yes, I'm sure they appreciate it much more when Canadians do.

[Guest American Woman]

That is not falling into my line of thought either.

There were no weekly bombings in Iraq prior to the outing of Saddam. Al-Queda was not a problem before Saddam was removed. Saddam did not work with Al-Qeuda but now Al-queda is causing trouble all over Iraq. But why don't we give a crap about the terrorists ruining the new found freedom of Iraqis? Why are the things going on in Syria more important than was is going on in Iraq?

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.

Edited April 18, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

Yes, I'm sure they appreciate it much more when Canadians do.

I am sure that is supposed to sting, but you are right, those pesky Iraqis should be proud of the fact that there are a lot of deaths from terrorism. I am sure living in fear of the enemy you don't know is as good as living in the fear of the enemy you DO know.

If you are truly about humanitarian aide, then you would support an effort to go back into Iraq and help solve the mess that the USA (along with the UN Canada, UK ect sharing the blame) helped to create. How's the freedom in Libya going? Why were the uprisings in Bahrain squashed, while NATO backs the rebels in Syria?

There is so much inconsistency in the approach in all of these cases, it's not hard to see the double standard put forth here. It's hypocrisy is simply indefensible.

You really think that all this is for freedom and humanitarian aide? Hell no, these people and countries are being used like pawns. Friends of convenience for the sake of doing business and making money off them while stealing resources.

Both Saddam and Gaddafi were a direct threat to one thing American. That one thing is the greenback petrodollar. Both Saddam and Gaddafi wanted to start trading oil in something other than the globally dominated US petrodollar. They wanted to create another market to trade on. This would have created competition in global markets which would put the petrodollar at risk. Nations wanting to get into another market could/would ditch the petrodollar and trade in another currency. The petrodollar could no longer dominate the market and nations would consider dumping their petrodollar reserves for another currency, The USA could not buy back all those petrodollars considering the state of the debt load is pegged at around 16 trillion.

This means a quick and painful collapse of the US petrodollar, hence the collapse of he US dollar and the economy in general. So a good way to avoid that crunch is to invade those countries that would be a direct threat to the monopoly the petrodollar currently maintains through brute force.

Otherwise if competition were allowed in the markets then we'd be seeing a much lower cost of oil and all of the products that come from it. You'd instantly see it in the price of gas.

[eyeball]

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.

Problems and bad stuff like the support he had from us diddlers? That was as bad as it gets alright.

Edited April 18, 2013 by eyeball

[Guest American Woman]

I am sure that is supposed to sting,

Not at all. Simply pointing out what a ridiculous concept it is; what an ignorant comment it was, as you both go on and on about how Iraqis feel.

Edited April 18, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

Not at all. Simply pointing out what a ridiculous concept it is; what an ignorant comment it was, as you both go on and on about how Iraqis feel.

Right, so you can go on and on about how they feel, but I cannot? No wonder the inconsistencies and hypocrisies reconcile in your head. It's a complete fantasy.

[Guest American Woman]

Right, so you can go on and on about how they feel, but I cannot? No wonder the inconsistencies and hypocrisies reconcile in your head. It's a complete fantasy.

First of all, I've never gone on and on about how they feel. I've simply pointed out that they are no longer under a dictator, that they have elections, and that I hope life becomes better for them as a result of being freed from Saddam's tyranny.

Secondly, I've never made a ignorant comment such as yours re: Canadians: I am sure they appreciate Americans telling them how they should feel about their new found freedom.

In that light, in response, I repeat: Yes, I'm sure they appreciate it much more when Canadians do.

So in summary, YOU are the 'inconsistent, hypocritical one - living in complete fantasy.' What a completely ignorant statement and response.

Now if you want to continue to make it about me personally, go for it. It'll just confirm what I've already said.

Edited April 18, 2013 by American Woman