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

[g_bambino]

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.

A name and an explanation/justification/reason are not the same things. In fact, a name can be a misnomer; sometimes deliberately. In this case, the mission was called Iraqi Freedom, but nowhere in the actual Congressional motion required to carry out the mission is the freedom of Iraqis, nor democracy for them, even hinted at. Do you have examples of any official in the early days citing the liberation of Iraqis as even a secondary reason for the invasion? What did Colin Powell say about it in his presentation to the UN?

But, yes, the removal of Saddam was one key goal; a necessary one. That, though, still doesn't mean the plan was initially to remove him to pave the way for democracy and freedom in Iraq; it was in the beginning all about removing a tyrant who, with his massive arsenal of weaponry, was a threat to the West.

[jacee]

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......

The idea that it's better to kill a million innocent people to get to him has me flabergasted!

To get to Iraq's oil and minerals, even more disgusting.

Americans murdered many more civilians than Saddam ever did.

You are on very shaky ground AW ... quicksand.

Don't even try ... !

[Guest American Woman]

A name and an explanation/justification/reason are not the same things. In fact, a name can be a misnomer; sometimes deliberately. In this case, the mission was called Iraqi Freedom, but nowhere in the actual Congressional motion required to carry out the mission is the freedom of Iraqis, nor democracy for them, even hinted at. Do you have examples of any official in the early days citing the liberation of Iraqis as even a secondary reason for the invasion? What did Colin Powell say about it in his presentation to the UN?

But, yes, the removal of Saddam was one key goal; a necessary one. That, though, still doesn't mean the plan was initially to remove him to pave the way for democracy and freedom in Iraq; it was in the beginning all about removing a tyrant who, with his massive arsenal of weaponry, was a threat to the West.

Why couldn't the goal have been to pave the way for democracy because he was a threat to the west AND for the sake of the Iraqis? The US didn't go in trying to take over, which it could have. Therefore, as I see it, it was also for the sake of the Iraqis. Some, though, seem to think there can never be any good motives coming from the west. Care about the Iraqis? No way! This IS the US we're talking about, eh?

At any rate, you were wrong. Freeing the Iraqis from Saddam is not something that was just brought in after the whole WMD thing proved wrong. Or however you put it. It is something that was there from the beginning. Which was my point.

[g_bambino]

Why couldn't the goal have been to pave the way for democracy because he was a threat to the west AND for the sake of the Iraqis?

There's nothing to say it couldn't have been. The question here is: was freedom and democracy for Iraqis tabled as a justification for the launch of the operation? My memory and the evidence I provided already says no, it wasn't.

At any rate, you were wrong. Freeing the Iraqis from Saddam is not something that was just brought in after the whole WMD thing proved wrong.

I may well be wrong. So far, though, you've provided no tangible proof that says I am, despite my request for it.

[jacee]

Why couldn't the goal have been to pave the way for democracy because he was a threat to the west AND for the sake of the Iraqis?

In a dreamworld perhaps. Do you ever take off your rose-coloured glasses?

The US didn't go in trying to take over

Really? That was just a bonus? It's just a coincidence that the US is now propping up a government that's receptive to US industrialists? ... A puppet government that bears NO resemblance to democracy?

Therefore, as I see it, it was also for the sake of the Iraqis.

Hold onto your dreams ... but watch out for the delusions.

[Guest American Woman]

In a dreamworld perhaps. Do you ever take off your rose-coloured glasses?

Really? That was just a bonus? It's just a coincidence that the US is now propping up a government that's receptive to US industrialists? ... A puppet government that bears NO resemblance to democracy?

Hold onto your dreams ... but watch out for the delusions.

I'm really not interested in this type of 'discussion.' Lay off the "rose colored glasses" crap and perhaps I will be interested.

[jacee]

I'm really not interested in this type of 'discussion.' Lay off the "rose colored glasses" crap and perhaps I will be interested.

It's just a coincidence that the US is now propping up a government that's receptive to US industrialists? ... A puppet government that bears NO resemblance to democracy?

Answer?

[cybercoma]

I may well be wrong. So far, though, you've provided no tangible proof that says I am, despite my request for it.

You know very well that the proof doesn't exist. I remember watching Powell's presentation to the UN and following this development rather closely at the time and Iraqi freedom was the furthest thing from their reasons. It was all about WMD and Iraq allegedly not allowing UN inspectors to do their job.

Edited April 29, 2013 by cybercoma

[Rue]

The idea that it's better to kill a million innocent people to get to him has me flabergasted!

To get to Iraq's oil and minerals, even more disgusting.

Americans murdered many more civilians than Saddam ever did.

You are on very shaky ground AW ... quicksand.

Don't even try ... !

Speaking about shady ground what an absurd thing to say. Using your analogy the world should have remained silent to Hitler because of all the civilians that died in WW2 as a result of fighting him. Love the logic there.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Rue

[Rue]

It's just a coincidence that the US is now propping up a government that's receptive to US industrialists? ... A puppet government that bears NO resemblance to democracy?

Answer?

You mean like the ones in Sudan,Mozambique,Angola, Syria, Tibet? No of course not. In your dream world no one but the US props governments. When China or Russia does it, silence.

The world is not quite as selective as you would have it. In fact the entire world is a series of inter-connected spheres of influence and the influence is designed to protect the self-interests of many business people not just Americans.

Tell me are your hands clean? Do you live a life where you do not purchase any consumer product that comes from an immoral source?

Hah.

[eyeball]

You mean like the ones in Sudan,Mozambique,Angola, Syria, Tibet? No of course not. In your dream world no one but the US props governments. When China or Russia does it, silence.

What's stopping the US from making a bunch of noise about how evil it is to prop up dictators?

[g_bambino]

You know very well that the proof doesn't exist. I remember watching Powell's presentation to the UN and following this development rather closely at the time and Iraqi freedom was the furthest thing from their reasons. It was all about WMD and Iraq allegedly not allowing UN inspectors to do their job.

Well, there's a part of me that says I may have missed something. But, otherwise, yea, it's pretty clear democracy and freedom for Iraqis was barely, if at all, mentioned as a justification for the invasion in the lead-up to it and in its early days. Only after the WMDs failed to materialise did the plight of the Iraqi people become the reason why the mission was launched (and continued).

[Guest American Woman]

Well, there's a part of me that says I may have missed something. But, otherwise, yea, it's pretty clear democracy and freedom for Iraqis was barely, if at all, mentioned as a justification for the invasion in the lead-up to it and in its early days. Only after the WMDs failed to materialise did the plight of the Iraqi people become the reason why the mission was launched (and continued).

You did miss something. As I said, the freedom of the Iraqi people was not something that came about "only after the WMDs failed to materialise"

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030322.html

President Discusses Beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom

President's Radio Address

For Immediate Release

Office of the Press Secretary

March 22, 2003

[Excerpts - emphasis all mine]

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. American and coalition forces have begun a concerted campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein. In this war, our coalition is broad, more than 40 countries from across the globe. Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.

A campaign on harsh terrain in a vast country could be longer and more difficult than some have predicted. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable, and free country will require our sustained commitment.

Edited April 29, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

Another week and another bombing and multiple dead in Iraq.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22335017

At least 18 people have been killed and dozens injured by five car bombs in Shia-majority provinces of southern Iraq, officials say.

In the deadliest attack, two bombs went off in the town of Amara, killing at least nine people and wounding dozens.

An army raid on a Sunni anti-government protest camp last week has sparked a wave of violence.

[Guest American Woman]

Another week and another bombing and multiple dead in Iraq.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22335017

Too bad they no longer have a cruel, tyrannical dictator to "keep them in check.," eh?

[GostHacked]

Too bad they no longer have a cruel, tyrannical dictator to "keep them in check.," eh?

No worries, the US has absolved itself of responsibility. So blame the Iraqis now.

What country is next on the list?

[Guest American Woman]

No worries, the US has absolved itself of responsibility. So blame the Iraqis now.

What country is next on the list?

I didn't say a word about blame. I said that it's too bad that they don't have a cruel, tyrannical dictator to "keep them in check," eh? It's such a shame that Saddam isn't around any more, right? Why not answer the question? Why skirt around it with this irrelevant type of response?

So. Yes or no? Is it, or isn't it, too bad that they no longer have a cruel, tyrannical dictator to - using your words - "keep them in check?"

Edited April 29, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

I didn't say a word about blame. I said that it's too bad that they don't have a cruel, tyrannical dictator to "keep them in check," right? It's such a shame that Saddam isn't around any more, right? Why not answer the question? Why skirt around it with this irrelevant type of response?

There is no way I can answer this question that would be acceptable for you.

So. Yes or no? Is it, or isn't it, too bad that they no longer have a cruel, tyrannical dictator to - using your words - "keep them in check?"

There is no way I can answer this question that would be acceptable for you.

[Guest American Woman]

There is no way I can answer this question that would be acceptable for you.There is no way I can answer this question that would be acceptable for you.

It doesn't have to be "acceptable" to me. I'm just interested in your answer. Yes, or no.

Edited April 29, 2013 by American Woman

[jacee]

I didn't say a word about blame. I said that it's too bad that they don't have a cruel, tyrannical dictator to "keep them in check," eh? It's such a shame that Saddam isn't around any more, right? Why not answer the question? Why skirt around it with this irrelevant type of response?

So. Yes or no? Is it, or isn't it, too bad that they no longer have a cruel, tyrannical dictator to - using your words - "keep them in check?"

Are you saying it had nothing to do with Bush pandering to US corporate greed for Iraqi resources?

[Guest American Woman]

Are you saying it had nothing to do with Bush pandering to US corporate greed for Iraqi resources?

Why don't you try actually reading what I say/what I've said before responding to my posts, ok? Thanks.

Edited April 29, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

Why don't you try actually reading what I say/what I've said before responding to my posts, ok? Thanks.

That's a good one for you. But at least you apologized in that thread for your reading incomprehension.

[Guest American Woman]

That's a good one for you. But at least you apologized in that thread for your reading incomprehension.

So the answer to the questions is - yes or no?

It's too bad that they don't have a cruel, tyrannical dictator to "keep them in check," eh? It's such a shame that Saddam isn't around any more, right?

Edited April 29, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

So the answer to the questions is - yes or no?

It's too bad that they don't have a cruel, tyrannical dictator to "keep them in check," eh? It's such a shame that Saddam isn't around any more, right?

I don't have an answer to this question.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't have an answer to this question.

Why not? Why can't you take a stand? You criticize the current situation, blaming the U.S. - you have no problem with that - yet if it wasn't the current situation, it would still be a cruel, tyrannical dictator "keeping them in check."

So why do you have no problem criticizing the U.S. for removing Saddam - yet you can't say they were better off under Saddam?