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

[cybercoma]

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.

If freedom were such an important goal for the United States, then why don't they invade North Korea? The US didn't give a crap about Iraqi freedom. It was sold as punishment for not following UN orders and allegedly having WMDs. All of that nonsense thrown in there at the beginning of that speech about their freedom was window dressing. The entire substance of that speech was on the WMDs. He summarized the conflict in the final paragraph:

"Our nation entered this conflict reluctantly, yet with a clear and firm purpose. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. This will not be a campaign of half-measures. It is a fight for the security of our nation and the peace of the world, and we will accept no outcome but victory."

Bush's interest in Iraqi freedom is entirely absent when he discusses explicitly the conflict's purpose. Even when he does talk about their freedom in that speech, it is an after thought, the final item in a list of things that begins with the non-existent WMDs and Hussein's "support for terrorism," which was also an outright lie. That opening paragraph is beautiful. Just count the lies: 1) WMDs, 2) Saddam supported the terrorists, 3) Bush cared about Iraqi freedom. There isn't a single truth in there. And the idea that he even gives a fig about their freedom is belied by its absence in his closing paragraph where he discusses the mission's purpose. What a joke.

[Guest American Woman]

The US didn't give a crap about Iraqi freedom.

That's your opinion, nothing more, as you do not in any way speak for "the US." However, as I have proven, freedom for the Iraqi people was not something that 'didn't come up until much later, after the WMD claim fizzled out,' as claimed. It was there from the beginning. Edited April 29, 2013 by American Woman

[The_Squid]

"Bringing freedom to Iraqis" wasn't a reason until after the war already started and WMD weren't found and no links to Al Qaeda were ever found.

Your attempts at this revisionist history is dishonest and Transparent.

Edited April 29, 2013 by The_Squid

[g_bambino]

You did miss something.

Hm. Well, so I did. I guess I have to revise my earlier comment to "It certainly was never started mainly for the sake of freedom and democracy; for Congress that gave the necessary permission for the military deployment, it was all about security of the American people. The freedom and democracy for Iraqis explanation was given far more emphasis after the WMD one started to very openly fall apart."

[ed.: +]

Edited April 29, 2013 by g_bambino

[Guest American Woman]

"Bringing freedom to Iraqis" wasn't a reason until after the war already started and WMD weren't found and no links to Al Qaeda were ever found.

Your attempts at this revisionist history is dishonest and Transparent.

*sigh*

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22478-iraq-invasion-americas-shame-10-years-on/?p=897117

[Guest American Woman]

Hm. Well, so I did. I guess I have to revise my earlier comment to "It certainly was never started mainly for the sake of freedom and democracy; that explanation was given far more emphasis after the WMD one started to very openly fall apart."

Whoever said it was started "mainly" for that reason? It was, however, one of the main objectives of the war, from the very beginning.

As for how much emphasis it was given, you'll have to take that up with the media.

Edited April 29, 2013 by American Woman

[The_Squid]

Well then it was an absolute failure on all counts.... Freedom for Iraqis is more dangerous and violent than Saddam ever was.

[GostHacked]

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."

Well when you take out the dictator that kept them in check along with disbanding the police and military, what do YOU think would happen? Did you think they would all of sudden play nice? He was a brutal dictator, dealing with brutal factions. Yes they were kept in check, and now that is not happening. The USA has also had one horrible track record with their hypocritical approach towards Iraq. He was a frenemie during the Iraq-Iran war, and then because an enemy once chemical weapons were used.

The world has seen blunder after blunder in how the USA dealt with Iraq and that is the thing you need to consider. Your American myopic view of it all, is preventing you from looking at anything objectively.

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?

And you can't tell me that it's better for Iraqis now than it was under Saddam. I can tell you it's better for the petrodollar and western companies (yes include Canada in there too if you feel like it).

[jacee]

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?

You have pulled the wool so firmly over your own eyes there's no point in discussing.

[g_bambino]

It was, however, one of the main objectives of the war, from the very beginning.

Where's the evidence it was a main objective?

[Guest American Woman]

Where's the evidence it was a main objective?

"...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."

That was part of the mission. One of the three objectives.

[Guest American Woman]

Well when you take out the dictator that kept them in check along with disbanding the police and military, what do YOU think would happen? Did you think they would all of sudden play nice?

Of course not. You are the one who seems to think it should have happened "all of a sudden." So I'll ask you - did YOU think it would happen "all of a sudden??"

He was a brutal dictator, dealing with brutal factions.

Yes, he was brutal. He was a dictator. And the people were paying the price.

Yes they were kept in check, and now that is not happening.

That's sometimes happens when such drastic changes are made within countries/governments. I pointed out the KKK and the violence and the hardships that the Blacks faced 10 years after the Civil War, but I don't think most people would be ignorant enough to say that they were better off under slavery because of it. It took a lot more than 10 years to deal with it, too. Yes, what happened to them was horrible. But that doesn't mean they were better off under slavery. Yes, what's happening in Iraq is terrible, but that doesn't mean they were better off being "kept in check" by a brutal dictator. Hopefully Iraq, too, will be able to deal with it in time and come out better. But it's not something that would "suddenly happen."

The world has seen blunder after blunder in how the USA dealt with Iraq and that is the thing you need to consider. Your American myopic view of it all, is preventing you from looking at anything objectively.

Your anti-American biased view is preventing you from looking at anything objectively. You won't answer the question of whether or not Iraqis were better off under Saddam - you say that they may have been better off under a cruel dictator who "kept them in check" as you complain about being subjected to cctv cameras. And you claim that *I* can't see things objectively?? At least I don't demand freedoms for myself as I declare others may be better off being "kept in check" by a cruel dictator.

And you can't tell me that it's better for Iraqis now than it was under Saddam.

I sure can. Just as I can tell you that it was better for the Blacks after they were freed than it was under slavery - in spite of the violence and hardships they endured 10 years later.

[g_bambino]

"...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."

That was part of the mission. One of the three objectives.

That's the one mention that's so far been dug up. Meanwhile, freedom and democracy for Iraqis is absent from the Congressional resolution permitting the invasion; it was missing entirely from Powell's pitch to the UN; and in that same address by Bush that you quote above, no other mention of it was made, as opposed to the twice made reference to weapons of mass destruction. That hardly indicates freedom and democracy for Iraqis has a place as a "main reason" for the invasion at the time it began.

[Guest American Woman]

That's the one mention that's so far been dug up. Meanwhile, freedom and democracy for Iraqis is absent from the Congressional resolution permitting the invasion; it was missing entirely from Powell's pitch to the UN; and in that same address by Bush that you quote above, no other mention of it was made, as opposed to the twice made reference to weapons of mass destruction. That hardly indicates freedom and democracy for Iraqis has a place as a "main reason" for the invasion at the time it began.

That was in the president's address regarding the war. Two days after it started. When stating what the mission was. Good Lord. It most definitely was stated as a main objection. There were three objections mentioned in his address - freeing the Iraqis was one of them.

Edited to add:

You ask for proof, and then simply dismiss it.

Here's more:

The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban.

The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army and even within his own family.

On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents had been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents had been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners had been forced to watch their own children being tortured.

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity.

People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery, prosperity to squalor, self-government to the rule of terror and torture.

America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomen, Shia, Sunnis and others will be lifted, the long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

Iraq is a land rich in culture and resources and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/07/usa.iraq

YOU may not have been aware of it, but freeing the Iraqis was part of it all along.

Edited April 29, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

Of course not. You are the one who seems to think it should have happened "all of a sudden." So I'll ask you - did YOU think it would happen "all of a sudden??"

I believe that was covered and the answer is no, we knew it would not happen all of a sudden.

Yes, he was brutal. He was a dictator. And the people were paying the price.

And the west dealt with him anyways.

That

's sometimes happens when such drastic changes are made within countries/governments.

Drastic is an understatement. The military and police forces were disbanded. Sure seemed like a good idea at the time ... right?? So there was a complete security void which has yet to be put back into place fully.

It took a lot more than 10 years to deal with it, too. Yes, what happened to them was horrible. But that doesn't mean they were better off under slavery. Yes, what's happening in Iraq is terrible, but that doesn't mean they were better off being "kept in check" by a brutal dictator. Hopefully Iraq, too, will be able to deal with it in time and come out better. But it's not something that would "suddenly happen."

Getting rid of Saddam was up to the Iraqis.

Your anti-American biased view is preventing you from looking at anything objectively.

It's not anti-American. I like what America used to be, not what it has become.

You won't answer the question of whether or not Iraqis were better off under Saddam - you say that they may have been better off under a cruel dictator who "kept them in check"

I don't HAVE an answer. I can't say they are better off now than before. I can say that the business relationship for the west is better than under Saddam.

And you claim that *I* can't see things objectively??

And you did not support the invasion of Iraq and you are still trying to play a horrible Devil's Advocate.

At least I don't demand freedoms for myself as I declare others may be better off being "kept in check" by a cruel dictator.I sure can. Just as I can tell you that it was better for the Blacks after they were freed than it was under slavery - in spite of the violence and hardships they endured 10 years later.

The thing was with slavery is that the change came from within. Edited April 29, 2013 by GostHacked

[Guest American Woman]

I believe that was covered and the answer is no, we knew it would not happen all of a sudden.

So why are you on about how it's not Camelot only ten years later? Of course it's not surprising that there are serious problems; anyone who thought otherwise would be either naive or a fool. But because things are bad now doesn't mean they will be down the line. Because things are bad now doesn't mean it wasn't a good thing that Saddam was taken out.

It's not anti-American.

Says you. I say there's plenty of anti-American sentiment coming from you.

I don't HAVE an answer. I can't say they are better off now than before.

You sure seem to have no problem saying they are worse off. That's the way you are always presenting it. Seems to me you do have an answer. You just won't take a stand.

I can say that the business relationship for the west is better than under Saddam.And you did not support the invasion of Iraq and you are still trying to play a horrible Devil's Advocate.

I'm not trying to "play" anything. Seems to me you are the one who has to desperately stick to your guns; ;it's black or white. You didn't support the war, therefore you cannot see/admit that anything good may have come out of it. I didn't support it, but I can see - and admit - that it's better to have a shot at freedom/democracy than to be endlessly under the power of a cruel, tyrannical dictator. I can say that freedom is better than being "kept in check" by a cruel dictator. That you could make such a claim - as you complain about things such as homeland security/airline security/cctv cameras - is mind boggling.

The thing was with slavery is that the change came from within.

Really? The slaves started the Civil War? They rebelled and demanded freedom? They were American citizens? Their freedom wasn't the result of others' actions?

But here's a question - is freedom any less valuable depending on the source? What if the British had decided that slavery was wrong and attacked the U.S. to free the slaves - would that have made their freedom a bad thing?

[GostHacked]

So why are you on about how it's not Camelot only ten years later? Of course it's not surprising that there are serious problems; anyone who thought otherwise would be either naive or a fool. But because things are bad now doesn't mean they will be down the line. Because things are bad now doesn't mean it wasn't a good thing that Saddam was taken out.

Here would be a good test.

If given the chance to take a vacation in Iraq, would you chose the Iraq of today or the Iraq under Saddam? Please articulate as clear as you can for your stance on either.

Says you. I say there's plenty of anti-American sentiment coming from you.

Then I'd say there is plenty of anti-Canadian in your posts, if you want to use the same measure. The USA did go it alone in Iraq, so whatever path Iraq is on now, for better or worse (still to be determined) is on the USA.

You

sure seem to have no problem saying they are worse off. That's the way you are always presenting it. Seems to me you do have an answer. You just won't take a stand.

Living in fear of a brutal dictator or living in fear from secular violence is still living in fear. IN terms of sectarian violence I will say Saddam did what he could to keep the factions from the continued violence we see on a weekly basis there. That is exactly what was expected when a complete security vacuum was created by disbanding the military and police.

I'm not trying to "play" anything. Seems to me you are the one who has to desperately stick to your guns; ;it's black or white. You didn't support the war, therefore you cannot see/admit that anything good may have come out of it.

I didn't support it, but I can see - and admit - that it's better to have a shot at freedom/democracy than to be endlessly under the power of a cruel, tyrannical dictator. I can say that freedom is better than being "kept in check" by a cruel dictator. That you could make such a claim - as you complain about things such as homeland security/airline security/cctv cameras - is mind boggling.

That real change could only come from within, not from the out. That was my point.

Really? The slaves started the Civil War? They rebelled and demanded freedom? They were American citizens? Their freedom wasn't the result of others' actions?

You have some serious reading comprehension issues and now YOU are the one projecting/conjecturing. Something you gave me crap for in another thread.

Consistency is key in holding a solid stance one way or another, and you are consistence in a couple areas, but not in the good areas.

But here's a question - is freedom any less valuable depending on the source? What if the British had decided that slavery was wrong and attacked the U.S. to free the slaves - would that have made their freedom a bad thing?

Freedom is always valuable. It's the method to which it comes forth, is where I have the issue.

The civil rights movement in the USA regarding blacks came from within the USA. There was no outside force to bring about the change. It was not easy and in time it was a good thing and everyone is better for it. But it was done THEIR way.

The difference in Iraq is the change came from outside. It was not done THEIR way.

Edited April 29, 2013 by GostHacked

[g_bambino]

That was in the president's address regarding the war.

Put that one part of one sentence in the bigger context and see how much empasis it was given.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/07/usa.iraq

Three paragraphs compared to 42 dedicated to threats to America and the West through Saddam's insanity, evasion, and dishonesty, weapons of mass destruction (chemical and nuclear), aerial vehicles, and terrorism. Even George indicated just how "central" freedom and democracy to Iraqis was.

[ed.: -]

Edited April 29, 2013 by g_bambino

[Guest American Woman]

Put that one part of one sentence in the bigger context and see how much empasis it was given.

Three paragraphs compared to 42 dedicated to threats to America and the West through Saddam's insanity, evasion, and dishonesty, weapons of mass destruction (chemical and nuclear), aerial vehicles, and terrorism. Even George indicated just how "central" freedom and democracy to Iraqis was.

[ed.: -]

The fact remains, it was a goal from the beginning. It was a main objective. It was clearly stated as part of the mission in a rather short address about the war. *I* heard about freeing the Iraqis - I was aware of it - from the beginning. It was clearly stated as a goal from the beginning. That you see it differently doesn't change the reality.

[Guest American Woman]

You have some serious reading comprehension issues

Done with reading your post right there. Grow up.

[g_bambino]

The fact remains.. It was a main objective.

No, that's not yet been established as a fact.

[Guest American Woman]

No, that's not yet been established as a fact.

Yes, it has. It was clearly stated as such. That is a fact.

It was stated as one of the three objectives when Bush gave an address regarding the war. Two days after the war started, as a matter of fact. It was stated as a desire/goal in speeches that Bush made to the American people before the war. I gave an example of that, too.

You asked for proof that freeing the Iraqis isn't something that just came into play after the claim of WMD fizzled out, as you claimed; I clearly gave it, and now all you do is argue that it means nothing.

Again. Just because you weren't aware of it doesn't mean others weren't. It was an initial goal. It's clearly stated as such. That you continue to argue otherwise is rather telling .....

[cybercoma]

Yes, it has. It was clearly stated as such. That is a fact.

it wasn't clearly stated. That's the problem. It was nothing more than rhetoric used sparsely in speeches as window dressing. When he didn't even mention it in the section where he talks about the PURPOSE for the intervention, then it's not at all clear that it was a MAIN objective or priority.

[Guest American Woman]

it wasn't clearly stated. That's the problem.

Yes, it was clearly stated:

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.

"To free the Iraqi people." That's pretty clear. It would be difficult to state it more clearly.

[jacee]

Yes, it was clearly stated:

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.

"To free the Iraqi people." That's pretty clear. It would be difficult to state it more clearly.

And you believe those were the only motives?