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

[cybercoma]

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.

I addressed this exact thing twice already. You're intentionally ignoring what I've said, so I'll assume you have nothing to say about it.

[Guest American Woman]

I addressed this exact thing twice already. You're intentionally ignoring what I've said, so I'll assume you have nothing to say about it.

Nothing needed to be said about it as far as the point I've made - which is that freeing the Iraqi people was an objective, part of the mission, from the get-go, in spite of claims to the contrary. It was clearly stated. That is a fact.

"It was nothing more than rhetoric used sparsely in speeches as window dressing." - your opinion, nothing more. Fact is, it was out there from the beginning.

"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." Again, your opinion. He clearly stated it when speaking of the mission, clearly stating it as an objective.

Edited April 30, 2013 by American Woman

[Moonlight Graham]

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.

Freeing the Iraqis was part of the sales pitch as I remember, just not the most important part. Once WMD's weren't found in Iraq, it then became the primary "raison d'etre" that the Bush admin used to legitimate the US and coalition being in Iraq.

[cybercoma]

Once WMD's weren't found in Iraq, it then became the primary "raison d'etre" that the Bush admin used to legitimate the US and coalition being in Iraq.

This is true. And that's because they were looking rather foolish for invading a country that posed no threat to anyone other than their own people. As far as being a threat to its own people, there are far worse countries, countries the US was and still is in bed with.

[GostHacked]

Done with reading your post right there. Grow up.

Well it's a fact, you have a reading comprehension issue. You gave me crap for conjecture and projection in another thread and yet you are doing the same thing here. But then you re read it and apologized for it and conversation between us stopped right there for that thread.

Don't hate me because you read something that is not there.

Kind of like how Bush thought there was WMDs in Iraq .. where are they now?? I've heard Syria.

[g_bambino]

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.

The claim being contested now is yours: "It was a main objective".

One could see freedom and democracy for Iraqis as one of the main reasons given for the invasion only if one deliberately belittles the amount of focus and oratory that was dedicated to threats to Americans and the rest of the West from a crazed dictator with nuclear and chemical weapons. In reality, it was, at best, 10% attention to the fomer, 90% attention to the latter (observable even in the very speeches you point to).

[ed.: sp, +]

Edited April 30, 2013 by g_bambino

[Guest American Woman]

Well it's a fact, you have a reading comprehension issue. You gave me crap for conjecture and projection in another thread and yet you are doing the same thing here. But then you re read it and apologized for it and conversation between us stopped right there for that thread.

I literally misread "could" for "would," as I explained. It had nothing to do with "reading comprehension" and everything to do with misreading one word.

Don't hate me because you read something that is not there.

Like I said ... grow up.

And with that, this conversation between us is also stopped.

Edited April 30, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

The claim being contested now is yours: "It was a main objective".

One could see freedom and democracy for Iraqis as one of the main reasons given for the invasion only if one deliberately belittles the amount of focus and oratory that was dedicated to threats to Americans and the rest of the West from a crazed dictator with nuclear and chemical weapons. In reality, it was, at best, 10% attention to the fomer, 90% attention to the latter (observable even in the very speeches you point to).

[ed.: sp, +]

OMG. Now you are going to analyze it by percent?? It was an objective. It was a main objective. The name given to Operation Iraqi Freedom is testament. The reference to it in the address to the nation at the start of the war as one of the goals, as the mission, attests to that fact. It's not something that just came up later as you claim. It was there from the beginning. You can deny it, but that doesn't change the facts.

Furthermore, YOU don't live in the U.S. and don't know how much attention was put out there to the public. How many emails did you get from US and State Senators/Congressmen, from the White House, from political parties? How much mail? How much local television coverage? There is more to life than what you read about/hear in the media.

You asked for proof that it was an objective from the beginning - and I gave it. Yet here you are still going on about it as if your claim means more than the reality. As I said before, media coverage colors a lot of these things, too; but freeing the Iraqis was always part of the mission/reason for the invasion - as also stated in the Congressional Resolution for authorization of military force against Iraq, as repression of the Iraqi people was in violation of the UN Security Council Resolution 688.

You can keep denying it, keep insisting that it wasn't a factor, a major objective, from the beginning - but I have shown that not to be true.

[The_Squid]

Amazing the lengths some people will go to justify something that was completely unjustifiable.

As if an outsider bringing "freedom" at the end of bombs and guns has been some sort of benign benefit for Iraqis... like a divine, holy crusade of some sort...

[g_bambino]

It was an objective.

That has been conceded.

It was a main objective.

No evidence of that has yet been provided.

[Guest American Woman]

Amazing the lengths some people will go to justify something that was completely unjustifiable.

As if an outsider bringing "freedom" at the end of bombs and guns has been some sort of benign benefit for Iraqis... like a divine, holy crusade of some sort...

Who, exactly, is trying to "justify" anything??

Amazing the lengths some people will go to avoid admitting that any good at all could have possibly resulted from the war.

Are you saying it would be better if Saddam were still in power? That a cruel dictator is better than a chance at democracy?

Are you saying slaves in the U.S. were better off as slaves because they faced violence and hardships 10 years after the Civil War? That freedom wasn't a benefit for the slaves because it was brought at the end of cannons and guns and they had no say in it?

Edited April 30, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

That has been conceded.

No evidence of that has yet been provided.

Just because YOU don't accept the evidence doesn't mean that it hasn't been provided.

The fact that you concede that it was always an objective speaks for itself.

Edited April 30, 2013 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

You know, it's probably best to just stop responding to American Woman when she chooses to ignore completely what is being said. I'm sure she understands the argument you're making bambino, since we're not allowed to say other posters don't understand things. So that leaves willfully ignoring what you're saying. And at that point, it's not even worth continuing the discussion.

[g_bambino]

Just because YOU don't accept the evidence doesn't mean that it hasn't been provided.

(Ah, here come the emoticons...) Just because you say I can't accept evidence that has been provided doesn't mean the evidence has been provided. Point me to the evidence, if it has been provided, please.

The fact that you concede that it was always an objective speaks for itself.

All it speaks for is I admitted you were right about one point.

[Guest American Woman]

(Ah, here come the emoticons...) Just because you say I can't accept evidence that has been provided doesn't mean the evidence has been provided. Point me to the evidence, if it has been provided, please.

All it speaks for is I admitted you were right about one point.

Ah, here come the comments about the emoticons.

Again. Your lack of acceptance of the evidence isn't the measure of whether or not it's been provided.

[eyeball]

It's the measure of importance that's lacking in the evidence you provided. It's so minuscule as to be unacceptable.

[The_Squid]

Who, exactly, is trying to "justify" anything??

ummm... you. I thought that was obvious.

Amazing the lengths some people will go to avoid admitting that any good at all could have possibly resulted from the war.

Now you are changing the goalposts... Saddam is gone... woohoo... hundreds of thousands of dead and sectarian violence bordering on civil war... oooops....

Are you saying it would be better if Saddam were still in power? That a cruel dictator is better than a chance at democracy?

Yes, it probably would have been better. Less Iraqis dead... less American/British soldiers dead.... less money wasted waging war....

Perhaps there would have been an uprising... perhaps not... Americans waging war is not a bringer of democracy.

Are you saying slaves in the U.S. were better off as slaves because they faced violence and hardships 10 years after the Civil War? That freedom wasn't a benefit for the slaves because it was brought at the end of cannons and guns and they had no say in it?

When did I say anything about slaves in the US of A? LOL Wow.... now I am pro-slavery! Probably not the best argument you've ever made.... lol

[g_bambino]

Your lack of acceptance of the evidence isn't the measure of whether or not it's been provided.

The measure of whether or not its been provided is your ability to prove its been provided. You've already ignored one request to do so.

[Guest American Woman]

ummm... you. I thought that was obvious.

Just giving you the benefit of the doubt before saying how ridiculously wrong you are. I've never even attempted to "justify" the war in Iraq.

Now you are changing the goalposts... Saddam is gone... woohoo... hundreds of thousands of dead and sectarian violence bordering on civil war... oooops....

Changing the goal posts?? Methinks you aren't following along. All I've ever been discussing in this thread is Saddam being gone.

Yes, it probably would have been better. Less Iraqis dead... less American/British soldiers dead.... less money wasted waging war....

Good to know that you think a cruel dictator is better than a chance at Democracy. I happen to disagree.

Perhaps there would have been an uprising... perhaps not... Americans waging war is not a bringer of democracy.

It was the bringer of a chance at Democracy as they are no longer ruled by a cruel dictator and are having elections.

When did I say anything about slaves in the US of A? LOL Wow.... now I am pro-slavery! Probably not the best argument you've ever made.... lol

You didn't. I clearly did. I raised the question of whether people are better off enslaved and by the same token under the control of a cruel dictator because everything isn't coming up roses within 10 years. So. Do you have any answers? Or is "LOL"ing all you are capable of?

[Guest American Woman]

ummm... you. I thought that was obvious.

Just giving you the benefit of the doubt before saying how ridiculously wrong you are. I've never even attempted to "justify" the war in Iraq.

Now you are changing the goalposts... Saddam is gone... woohoo... hundreds of thousands of dead and sectarian violence bordering on civil war... oooops....

Changing the goal posts?? Methinks you aren't following along. All I've ever been discussing in this thread is Saddam being gone.

Yes, it probably would have been better. Less Iraqis dead... less American/British soldiers dead.... less money wasted waging war....

Good to know that you think a cruel dictator is better than a chance at Democracy. I happen to disagree.

Perhaps there would have been an uprising... perhaps not... Americans waging war is not a bringer of democracy.

It was the bringer of a chance at Democracy as they are no longer ruled by a cruel dictator and are having elections.

When did I say anything about slaves in the US of A? LOL Wow.... now I am pro-slavery! Probably not the best argument you've ever made.... lol

You didn't. I clearly did. I raised the question of whether people are better off enslaved and by the same token under the control of a cruel dictator because everything isn't coming up roses within 10 years. So. Do you have any answers? Or is "LOL"ing all you are capable of?

[Guest American Woman]

The measure of whether or not its been provided is your ability to prove its been provided. You've already ignored one request to do so.

I'm not playing your game.

[g_bambino]

I'm not playing your game.

If you think providing proof is a game, then, apparently you can't play.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited April 30, 2013 by g_bambino

[Guest American Woman]

If you think providing proof is a game, then, apparently you can't play.

[ed.: c/e]

I already provided the information you are asking for. I won't be repeating it over and over at your request. I don't play that game.

[g_bambino]

I already provided the information you are asking for.

No, you didn't. What you've provided is evidence that you're confused by the difference between "a factor" and "a major factor". Either that, or you have a malfunctioning sense of perspective.

[GostHacked]

Just because YOU don't accept the evidence doesn't mean that it hasn't been provided.

The fact that you concede that it was always an objective speaks for itself.

Where are those pesky WMDs anyways?