Does anyone care we won the war in IRAQ?

[NYcarbineer]

Uh..NO!

If in all these years SK hasn't figured out how to take care of themselves, they ain't gonna.

We were told war with Iraq was necessary because

1. Saddam was a tyrant who killed his own people.
2. Iraq had WMD's
3. Iraq violated ceasefire agreements
4. Iraq aided terrorists.

North Korea's behaviour satisfies every one of those conditions. Why isn't invading North Korea NECESSARY?????

If that was criteria we would have to invade about a hundred countries.

But we don't because we know it isn't necessary. Nor was Iraq.

Iraq was an unnecessary war where 4000+ Americans died unnecessarily and trillions of dollars were unnecessarily wasted.

 

[freedombecki]

Somehow, the victory we won, paying a high price in American lives and considerable money, may have been snatched away by leaving too soon and letting the enemies there know we are getting completely out by the end of this year. Below is the Iraq Traveler's Warning that just went into effect 10 days ago:

Travel Warning
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Bureau of Consular Affairs

Iraq link

September 13, 2011

The Department of State warns U.S. citizens against all but essential travel to Iraq given the dangerous security situation. Civilian air and road travel within Iraq remains dangerous. This Travel Warning replaces the Travel Warning dated April 12, 2011, to update information and to remind U.S. citizens of ongoing security concerns for U.S. citizens in Iraq, including kidnapping and terrorist violence.
The United States has reduced the number of U.S. military forces in Iraq and ended the combat mission there on August 31, 2010. Consistent with agreements between the two countries, the United States is scheduled to complete its withdrawal of military forces from Iraq by December 31, 2011.
Some regions within Iraq have experienced fewer violent incidents than others in recent years, in particular the Iraqi Kurdistan Region (IKR). However, violence and threats against U.S. citizens persist and no region should be considered safe from dangerous conditions. Attacks against military and civilian targets throughout Iraq continue, including in the International (or "Green") Zone (IZ). Methods of attack have included magnetic bombs placed on vehicles; roadside improvised explosive devices (IEDs); mortars and rockets; human- and vehicle-borne IEDs, including Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFPs); mines placed on or concealed near roads; suicide attacks; and shootings. Numerous insurgent groups remain active throughout Iraq. Although Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) operations against these groups continue, attacks against the ISF and U.S. forces persist in many areas of the country. U.S. citizens in Iraq remain at a high risk for kidnapping.
While sectarian and terrorist violence occurs at levels lower than in previous years, it occurs often, particularly in the provinces of Baghdad, Ninewa, Salah ad Din, Anbar, and Diyala.
The security situation in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region (IKR), which includes the provinces of Sulymaniya, Erbil, and Dohuk, has been more stable relative to the rest of Iraq in recent years, but threats remain. U.S. government personnel in northern Iraq are required to be accompanied by a protective security detail when traveling outside secure facilities. Although there have been significantly fewer terrorist attacks and lower levels of insurgent violence in the IKR than in other parts of Iraq, the security situation throughout the country remains dangerous. Increasingly, many U.S. and third country business people travel throughout much of Iraq; however, they do so under restricted movement conditions and almost always with security advisors and teams.
The Turkish military continues to carry out operations against elements of the Kongra-Gel terrorist group (KGK, formerly Kurdistan Workers’ Party or PKK) located along Iraq's northern border. Additionally, extensive unmarked minefields remain along the international border. The Governments of Turkey and Iran continue to carry out military operations against insurgent groups in the mountain regions. These operations have included troop movements and both aerial and artillery bombardments. U.S. citizens should avoid areas near the Turkish or Iranian borders because of these ongoing military operations. Borders in these areas are not always clearly defined. In 2009, three U.S. citizens were detained by Iranian authorities while hiking in the vicinity of the Iranian border in the Kurdistan region. The U.S. Embassy has limited resources to assist U.S. citizens who venture close to or cross the border with Iran. The Department of State discourages travel in close proximity to the Iranian border.
Travelers should be aware that a potential threat of attack still exists when using commercial carriers to enter or depart Iraq, even though there have been no recent attacks on civilian aircraft. International carriers are routinely flying into Erbil and increasingly, into Baghdad. Infrequent indirect fire attacks have impacted on or near the Baghdad and Basrah airports. There has been no reported damage or injuries to commercial operations or personnel. In addition, there remains a high risk to road travelers as described above.
The U.S. Embassy is located in the International Zone (IZ) in Baghdad. The IZ is a restricted access area. As of June 30, 2009, Iraqi authorities assumed responsibility for control of the IZ. Travelers to the IZ should be aware that Iraqi authorities may require special identification to enter the IZ or may issue IZ-specific access badges. Some terrorist or extremist groups continue to target U.S. citizens for kidnapping. Individuals residing and traveling within the IZ should continue to exercise good personal safety precautions.
The U.S. government considers the potential threat to U.S. government personnel in Iraq to be serious enough to require them to live and work under strict security guidelines. All U.S. government employees under the authority of the U.S. Ambassador must travel in groups of two or more within the IZ and carry a working cell phone or radio when exiting the U.S. Embassy compound. U.S. government personnel require special permission and a protective security detail at all times when traveling outside the IZ and outside secure facilities, and may be prohibited from traveling to certain areas of Iraq based on prevailing security conditions. State Department​ guidance to U.S. businesses in Iraq advises the use of protective security details. Detailed security information is available at the U.S. Embassy website and at the U.S. Central Command website.
The U.S. Embassy provides services to the general public, including U.S. citizens, in Iraq. The ability of the U.S. Embassy to provide services to U.S. citizens outside Baghdad is particularly limited given the security environment. U.S. citizens who choose to visit or reside in Iraq despite this Travel Warning are urged to take responsibility for their own personal security and belongings (including their U.S. passports) and to avoid crowds, especially rallies or demonstrations. U.S. citizens who choose to travel in Iraq should be aware that Iraqi authorities have arrested or detained U.S. citizens whose purpose of travel is not readily apparent. Persons also have been detained for taking photographs of buildings or other scenic sites. All U.S. citizens in Iraq, including those working on contract for the U.S. government, are urged to inform the U.S. Embassy of their presence in Iraq by enrolling in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP)in order to obtain updated travel information. By enrolling, U.S. citizens make it easier for the Embassy to provide updated security information or to contact them in emergencies.
U.S. citizens may obtain the latest security information or other information about Iraq by contacting the U.S. Embassy, located in the International Zone, via email, landline (from U.S. dial 1-240-553-0581 ext. 4293 or 2413) or by accessing U.S. Embassy Baghdad's website. The after-hours emergency numbers are 011-964-770-443-1286 (from the United States) or 0770-443-1286 (within Iraq). As cell phone service is unreliable in Iraq, emergency calls may also be placed through the Department of State at 1-888-407-4747.
Travelers may obtain up-to-date information on security conditions in Iraq by calling 1-888-407-4747 toll free in the United States and Canada, or from other countries on a regular toll-line at 1-202-501-4444.
Stay up to date by bookmarking our Bureau of Consular Affairs website, which contains current Travel Warnings and Travel Alerts as well as the Worldwide Caution. You can also download our free Smart Traveler App for travel information at your fingertips. Follow us on Twitter and the Bureau of Consular Affairs​ page on Facebook as well.

What a waste this selfish administration has made of America's accomplishment. I don't know if America can afford this expensive defeat, wrested from the victory our men and women in uniform earned us the hard way. Now, American citizens are not safe in this country the Obama administration has surrendered to be a future hellhole for America.

 

[idb]

Somehow, the victory we won, paying a high price in American lives and considerable money, may have been snatched away by leaving too soon and letting the enemies there know we are getting completely out by the end of this year. Below is the Iraq Traveler's Warning that just went into effect 10 days ago:

Travel Warning
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Bureau of Consular Affairs

Iraq link

September 13, 2011

The Department of State warns U.S. citizens against all but essential travel to Iraq given the dangerous security situation. Civilian air and road travel within Iraq remains dangerous. This Travel Warning replaces the Travel Warning dated April 12, 2011, to update information and to remind U.S. citizens of ongoing security concerns for U.S. citizens in Iraq, including kidnapping and terrorist violence.
The United States has reduced the number of U.S. military forces in Iraq and ended the combat mission there on August 31, 2010. Consistent with agreements between the two countries, the United States is scheduled to complete its withdrawal of military forces from Iraq by December 31, 2011.
Some regions within Iraq have experienced fewer violent incidents than others in recent years, in particular the Iraqi Kurdistan Region (IKR). However, violence and threats against U.S. citizens persist and no region should be considered safe from dangerous conditions. Attacks against military and civilian targets throughout Iraq continue, including in the International (or "Green") Zone (IZ). Methods of attack have included magnetic bombs placed on vehicles; roadside improvised explosive devices (IEDs); mortars and rockets; human- and vehicle-borne IEDs, including Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFPs); mines placed on or concealed near roads; suicide attacks; and shootings. Numerous insurgent groups remain active throughout Iraq. Although Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) operations against these groups continue, attacks against the ISF and U.S. forces persist in many areas of the country. U.S. citizens in Iraq remain at a high risk for kidnapping.
While sectarian and terrorist violence occurs at levels lower than in previous years, it occurs often, particularly in the provinces of Baghdad, Ninewa, Salah ad Din, Anbar, and Diyala.
The security situation in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region (IKR), which includes the provinces of Sulymaniya, Erbil, and Dohuk, has been more stable relative to the rest of Iraq in recent years, but threats remain. U.S. government personnel in northern Iraq are required to be accompanied by a protective security detail when traveling outside secure facilities. Although there have been significantly fewer terrorist attacks and lower levels of insurgent violence in the IKR than in other parts of Iraq, the security situation throughout the country remains dangerous. Increasingly, many U.S. and third country business people travel throughout much of Iraq; however, they do so under restricted movement conditions and almost always with security advisors and teams.
The Turkish military continues to carry out operations against elements of the Kongra-Gel terrorist group (KGK, formerly Kurdistan Workers’ Party or PKK) located along Iraq's northern border. Additionally, extensive unmarked minefields remain along the international border. The Governments of Turkey and Iran continue to carry out military operations against insurgent groups in the mountain regions. These operations have included troop movements and both aerial and artillery bombardments. U.S. citizens should avoid areas near the Turkish or Iranian borders because of these ongoing military operations. Borders in these areas are not always clearly defined. In 2009, three U.S. citizens were detained by Iranian authorities while hiking in the vicinity of the Iranian border in the Kurdistan region. The U.S. Embassy has limited resources to assist U.S. citizens who venture close to or cross the border with Iran. The Department of State discourages travel in close proximity to the Iranian border.
Travelers should be aware that a potential threat of attack still exists when using commercial carriers to enter or depart Iraq, even though there have been no recent attacks on civilian aircraft. International carriers are routinely flying into Erbil and increasingly, into Baghdad. Infrequent indirect fire attacks have impacted on or near the Baghdad and Basrah airports. There has been no reported damage or injuries to commercial operations or personnel. In addition, there remains a high risk to road travelers as described above.
The U.S. Embassy is located in the International Zone (IZ) in Baghdad. The IZ is a restricted access area. As of June 30, 2009, Iraqi authorities assumed responsibility for control of the IZ. Travelers to the IZ should be aware that Iraqi authorities may require special identification to enter the IZ or may issue IZ-specific access badges. Some terrorist or extremist groups continue to target U.S. citizens for kidnapping. Individuals residing and traveling within the IZ should continue to exercise good personal safety precautions.
The U.S. government considers the potential threat to U.S. government personnel in Iraq to be serious enough to require them to live and work under strict security guidelines. All U.S. government employees under the authority of the U.S. Ambassador must travel in groups of two or more within the IZ and carry a working cell phone or radio when exiting the U.S. Embassy compound. U.S. government personnel require special permission and a protective security detail at all times when traveling outside the IZ and outside secure facilities, and may be prohibited from traveling to certain areas of Iraq based on prevailing security conditions. State Department​ guidance to U.S. businesses in Iraq advises the use of protective security details. Detailed security information is available at the U.S. Embassy website and at the U.S. Central Command website.
The U.S. Embassy provides services to the general public, including U.S. citizens, in Iraq. The ability of the U.S. Embassy to provide services to U.S. citizens outside Baghdad is particularly limited given the security environment. U.S. citizens who choose to visit or reside in Iraq despite this Travel Warning are urged to take responsibility for their own personal security and belongings (including their U.S. passports) and to avoid crowds, especially rallies or demonstrations. U.S. citizens who choose to travel in Iraq should be aware that Iraqi authorities have arrested or detained U.S. citizens whose purpose of travel is not readily apparent. Persons also have been detained for taking photographs of buildings or other scenic sites. All U.S. citizens in Iraq, including those working on contract for the U.S. government, are urged to inform the U.S. Embassy of their presence in Iraq by enrolling in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP)in order to obtain updated travel information. By enrolling, U.S. citizens make it easier for the Embassy to provide updated security information or to contact them in emergencies.
U.S. citizens may obtain the latest security information or other information about Iraq by contacting the U.S. Embassy, located in the International Zone, via email, landline (from U.S. dial 1-240-553-0581 ext. 4293 or 2413) or by accessing U.S. Embassy Baghdad's website. The after-hours emergency numbers are 011-964-770-443-1286 (from the United States) or 0770-443-1286 (within Iraq). As cell phone service is unreliable in Iraq, emergency calls may also be placed through the Department of State at 1-888-407-4747.
Travelers may obtain up-to-date information on security conditions in Iraq by calling 1-888-407-4747 toll free in the United States and Canada, or from other countries on a regular toll-line at 1-202-501-4444.
Stay up to date by bookmarking our Bureau of Consular Affairs website, which contains current Travel Warnings and Travel Alerts as well as the Worldwide Caution. You can also download our free Smart Traveler App for travel information at your fingertips. Follow us on Twitter and the Bureau of Consular Affairs​ page on Facebook as well.

What a waste this selfish administration has made of America's accomplishment. I don't know if America can afford this expensive defeat, wrested from the victory our men and women in uniform earned us the hard way. Now, American citizens are not safe in this country the Obama administration has surrendered to be a future hellhole for America.

What a waste this selfish administration has made of America's accomplishment. I don't know if America can afford this expensive defeat, wrested from the victory our men and women in uniform earned us the hard way. Now, American citizens are not safe in this country the Obama administration has surrendered to be a future hellhole for America.

What what what what what what!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????

 

[rdean]

We should have never invaded Iraq in 1991. Iraq's dispute with Kuwait was none of our business.

Had we not meddled in Arab affairs at that point, we would not have eventually ended up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden would not have been handed his excuse to launch a jihad or whatever against the US, 9/11 would not have happened, Bush would not have been able to distort 9/11 into a justification for invading Iraq again.

Bush Sr. never invaded Iraq. He stopped at the border because he didn't want to "own" the rebuilding.

We were asked by Arab allies to force Saddam out of Kuwait. We didn't "meddle".

We did the right thing. Bin Laden was evil. What he did was because he was evil. What we did was because it was right.

Move on to Bush Jr. Now that guy lied. He tricked America into invading Iraq. He disgraced the office of presidency.

Too often, both sides fall into these "lies" and "distortions". But it was only a few years ago. Not enough time to rewrite history.

THE only people wh re wrote history with this event is on your side
GWB spent 18 months after 9-11trying to get Saddam to do the right thing
No once did he mince words on what this country was going to do.

I will give you credit for acting like an adult his time
but there is one thing about all of this that has bothered me sense 1-27-2003

Hans Blix made it clear that Saddam was lying and the very things GWB was saing he confirmed
Anthrax
nerve gas and huge stock piles of munitions

never hear about that "lie"

why is that

Which all magically disappeared? Do the right thing? Why do Republicans think the US can just go around the world and tell other countries what to do?

And let me tell you something. If Saddam had all those weapons, he would have used them when he was chased out of Kuwait. So then Republicans say he got them after Bush Sr.

Bush Sr. had been a military officer during World War II. He had been head of the CIA. He had been Vice President and finally he was president.

Republicans insult him terribly by even suggesting that he chased Saddam back to Iraq and then turned his back on him. Didn't keep an eye on him. Ignored him. Of course he didn't. It's ludicrous to think he did. He was not incompetent. The problem is that he would have to be a total moron to make what his son did plausible.

Bush Jr. being the arrogant little twerp he was didn't ask his father anything. If he had, we never would have invaded Iraq. You know Bush Sr. had satellites permanently parked over Iraq. We would never be told, but do we really have to be?

George Bush, Sr. from his own book, "A World Transformed", written in 1998 (chapter 19, page 489). Why he didn't remove Saddam Hussein from power at the end of the Gulf War:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have ... incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different and perhaps barren outcome."

Too bad Bush Jr. didn't read his dad's fucking book. It would have saved this country about 4,000 lives, 50,000 fewer injured and at least a trillion dollars.

 

[flacaltenn]

The is the largest stupid ass partisian pissing match of my lifetime. NEITHER side is willing to face up the historical facts and the decision that this country faced in 2001.

For 12 years -- we locked down the Iraqis in a hell hole with a mad man. Our embargo by MODERATE sources contributed to the deaths of over 150,000 Iraqis. We bombed them DAILY, We took away the keys to their economy, We locked down their borders and their skies. They watched their children die for lack of medical care. To do that, we had to keep a couple extra carriers groups in the Gulf and bases in Saudi. And towards the end --- only Britain was still sharing the burden of containment.

Germany and France were holding industry expos and job fairs in Baghdad in the last years. The UN had bastardardized the Oil for Food program into a crony corruption circus beyond belief.

The CONTAINMENT WAS CRUMBLING. The choices were clear. Let the embargo end and ease Iraq back into trade -- which is what the UN inspections were clearly indicating. OR -- Remove Saddam and allow Iraq to reboot their govt.

NO AMERICAN politician had the GUTS to suggest the former solution favored by the EU and the rest of the world. (except arguably Kucinich and Paul and maybe a couple others). So the problem was largely ignored and we had to endure the spectacle of Clinton making the same air-headed pronouncements about WMDs and dangers of Saddam on the eve of the Impeachment and he PUMMELED that country just because he could. And a Sec State that called the containment deaths in Iraq all "justifiable".

THose WERE the choices. History will write it that way. At LEAST a decision was made that ENDED the nightmare of 12 years of embarrassing sucky US policy.

Now I'm gonna destroy all that credible history and logic with this...

I console myself about the WMD lies and BUshes decision to do it the "hard way" by entertaining the one conspiracy theory that I personally hold. And that is that the DEMS went along with the decision largely because the nation's leaders KNEW of things that the public didn't. I personally believe that there was no real opposition to Bush's decision in D.C. because the leadership on both side knew that Saddam had been implicated in some actual hostile action against the US. That would be one of the following.

1) The downing of Flt 800 which occurred on Iraqi Freedom Day and had dozens of credible witnesses testifying to a missile strike off the NY coast.

2) The Anthrax incidents.

3) The 1st bombing in 93 of the WTCenter. Many of the prime suspects had known ties to Iraq.

4) Any other incident that COULD have been an actual act of aggression against the US.

Why else would DEM leadership essentially mimic the same lies and ignore the UN inspection reports and the beliefs of European allies?

Anyway -- carry on.. BUt remember that a choice NEEDED to be made. The containment was no longer an option. Someone grew a pair and made a choice.

 

[bobcollum]

On a side note, what about the angle used to justify the ongoing and seemingly endless influx of regional insurgents that if I recall was "we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here"?

Are all the terrorists gone?

Someone has already said and I think it's appropriate to say victory based on the initial objectives wasn't surprising, it was like big-leaguers against kids. It was unnecessary and we're not safer than we were before the invasion....sure it's opinion because safety on that scale is hard to quantify, but I'll believe my own eyes and ears instead of what you're trying to sell me.

 

[MikeK]

We did pretty much win it.

What did we really win?

You cannot figure that out?
what did go there to do?

1) weapons? gone

What weapons? Are you one of those who still believe there were WMDs in Iraq that we still haven't found?

2) Saddam? gone.

So what? How did that help us? It cost us nearly five thousand American lives and has punched a giant hole in our economy.

3) Dictatorship? gone.

So what? There are still dozens of far worse dictatorships in the world, some which represent a real danger to us. Hussein posed absolutely no danger to us -- in fact he was our friend and ally during our period of hostility with Iran. And if we had left him alone in Kuwait, then backed his inevitable invasion of Saudi Arabia, we would be sitting in the catbird seat by now and paying .50 a gallon for gas. But why didn't we do that:

That's why.

4) AL quid-ea in Iraq? broken

Saddam Hussein was secular, therefore an enemy to Al Qaeda. He would not have tolerated an Al Qaeda presence in Iraq. So you really need to purge your mind of all the propaganda the right-wing propagandists have pumped in there.

Iraq was to George W. Bush what Poland was to Hitler in 1939 -- a military aggression. A criminal invasion of a virtually defenseless sovereign nation for no legitimate or justifiable purpose. The Weapons of Mass Destruction motive was an insidiously contrived deception.

Finally, the last time the U.S. was at war was in 1945. Vietnam was not a war. It was an aggression. Iraq was not a war. It was an unlawful invasion and occupation.

Because we send troops to die in armed combat does not mean we are at war. We are at war when there is a chance we can lose and be occupied or destroyed. The Iraqi military was at war for a very brief time. Some of them still are at war. We were never at war in Iraq.

What we are doing in Iraq is emulating the Roman Empire -- which History has shown is not a good idea.

 

[Unkotare]

The Iraq - Kuwait war was none of our business. George Bush made it our business because of the oil.

And thus, 9/11 happened because of the oil.

You're a myopic, ignorant, dishonest fool.

 

[Unkotare]

What did we really win?

You cannot figure that out?
what did go there to do?

1) weapons? gone

What weapons? Are you one of those who still believe there were WMDs in Iraq that we still haven't found?


So what? How did that help us? It cost us nearly five thousand American lives and has punched a giant hole in our economy.

3) Dictatorship? gone.

So what? There are still dozens of far worse dictatorships in the world, some which represent a real danger to us. Hussein posed absolutely no danger to us -- in fact he was our friend and ally during our period of hostility with Iran. And if we had left him alone in Kuwait, then backed his inevitable invasion of Saudi Arabia, we would be sitting in the catbird seat by now and paying .50 a gallon for gas. But why didn't we do that:

That's why.

4) AL quid-ea in Iraq? broken

Saddam Hussein was secular, therefore an enemy to Al Qaeda. He would not have tolerated an Al Qaeda presence in Iraq. So you really need to purge your mind of all the propaganda the right-wing propagandists have pumped in there.

Iraq was to George W. Bush what Poland was to Hitler in 1939 -- a military aggression. A criminal invasion of a virtually defenseless sovereign nation for no legitimate or justifiable purpose. The Weapons of Mass Destruction motive was an insidiously contrived deception.

Finally, the last time the U.S. was at war was in 1945. Vietnam was not a war. It was an aggression. Iraq was not a war. It was an unlawful invasion and occupation.

Because we send troops to die in armed combat does not mean we are at war. We are at war when there is a chance we can lose and be occupied or destroyed. The Iraqi military was at war for a very brief time. Some of them still are at war. We were never at war in Iraq.

What we are doing in Iraq is emulating the Roman Empire -- which History has shown is not a good idea.

You're an ignorant fool, and you should be grateful that your betters make the decisions that keep you safe enough to spew such nonsense. saddam was an opportunist looking to set himself up as the 'big man' in the region and he was willing to use the trend of radical Islamitization throughout the Arab world to further his own ends. That's why in the years leading up to his demise he used all the money the corrupt Europeans made sure he got to build dozens of Mosques in Iraq, to 'reward' the families of suicide bombers in Palestine, and to threaten his other neighbors while trying to build a coalition with Iran and Syria (of which he of course saw himself as head). He envisioned this coalition sweeping westward and destroying Israel and leaving himself in the catbird seat.

There is evidence of al-qaeda presence in Iraq prior to the war, and no reason to believe he wouldn't do anything he thought would aid in harming US interests.

We knew, as the entire world knew, that he had WMDs, and although what we expected was not found in Iraq after we quickly crushed his armed forces, a significant amount of such weapons were in fact found that violated the terms of the ceasefire of the first Gulf War. Yes, weapons of mass destruction that were hidden from inspectors and that violated the terms ending that war.

The 'definition' of war that you just pulled out of your ass is entirely meaningless.

 

[rdean]

Bush Sr. never invaded Iraq. He stopped at the border because he didn't want to "own" the rebuilding.

We were asked by Arab allies to force Saddam out of Kuwait. We didn't "meddle".

We did the right thing. Bin Laden was evil. What he did was because he was evil. What we did was because it was right.

Move on to Bush Jr. Now that guy lied. He tricked America into invading Iraq. He disgraced the office of presidency.

Too often, both sides fall into these "lies" and "distortions". But it was only a few years ago. Not enough time to rewrite history.

THE only people wh re wrote history with this event is on your side
GWB spent 18 months after 9-11trying to get Saddam to do the right thing
No once did he mince words on what this country was going to do.

I will give you credit for acting like an adult his time
but there is one thing about all of this that has bothered me sense 1-27-2003

Hans Blix made it clear that Saddam was lying and the very things GWB was saing he confirmed
Anthrax
nerve gas and huge stock piles of munitions

never hear about that "lie"

why is that

Which all magically disappeared? Do the right thing? Why do Republicans think the US can just go around the world and tell other countries what to do?

And let me tell you something. If Saddam had all those weapons, he would have used them when he was chased out of Kuwait. So then Republicans say he got them after Bush Sr.

Bush Sr. had been a military officer during World War II. He had been head of the CIA. He had been Vice President and finally he was president.

Republicans insult him terribly by even suggesting that he chased Saddam back to Iraq and then turned his back on him. Didn't keep an eye on him. Ignored him. Of course he didn't. It's ludicrous to think he did. He was not incompetent. The problem is that he would have to be a total moron to make what his son did plausible.

Bush Jr. being the arrogant little twerp he was didn't ask his father anything. If he had, we never would have invaded Iraq. You know Bush Sr. had satellites permanently parked over Iraq. We would never be told, but do we really have to be?

George Bush, Sr. from his own book, "A World Transformed", written in 1998 (chapter 19, page 489). Why he didn't remove Saddam Hussein from power at the end of the Gulf War:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have ... incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different and perhaps barren outcome."

Too bad Bush Jr. didn't read his dad's fucking book. It would have saved this country about 4,000 lives, 50,000 fewer injured and at least a trillion dollars.

I quote Bush Sr. from 1998. He explained exactly what would happen and it did. And still the right wing fantasizes. I just don't get it.

 

[MikeK]

1) There never were any weapons. We've gone over this.
2) Saddam was our man. So yeah, we got rid of our own guy when it suited us.
3)The country is far more unstable now than it was with Saddam.
4)Al-Qaeda was never shown to be there in the first place.

So, yeah. We "won" if you live in a logical fallacy.

Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq - U.S. Senate - FOXNews.com
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
Iraq did have chemical WMD, WikiLeaks documents reveal - NYPOST.com


This is not surprising news to anyone not predisposed to call President Bush a liar about WMD.

Ed Morrissey:

In this case, the surprise isn't the data but the source. Wikileaks' new release from purloined files of the Department of Defense may help remind people that, contrary to popular opinion and media memes, the US did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and in significant quantities. While the invasion of Iraq didn't find huge stockpiles of new WMDs, it did uncover stockpiles that the UN had demanded destroyed as a condition of the 1991 truce that Saddam Hussein abrogated for twelve years.

Glenn Reynolds:

I SAID BEFORE THAT WIKILEAKS' JULIAN ASSANGE WAS CLEARLY A TOOL, BUT WHOSE? Well, so far the two biggest scoops from the latest document dump are that the infamous Lancet study was bogus, and that WMDs were found in Iraq in quantity. Neither of these stories is actually news to people who were paying attention, but now - conveniently enough just before an election, and even nicely timed for George W. Bush's new book release - these stories are getting a fresh round of play. . . .

The Lancet studies on Iraqi deaths, one released the weekend before the 2004 election, the second released less than a week before the 2006 election, not only wildly overestimated Iraqi deaths from the war, they smeared the US military. The civilian casualties were horrific but nowhere near what those two bogus studies purported to show.

As for WMD, no new weapons were found but the fact that there was so much of it still in Iraq after the UN was supposed to have gotten rid of it is significant. Don't expect any apologies from the rest of the world or even any acknowledgment that they were wrong. The narrative is set and nothing will change it.


WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results | Danger Room | Wired.com

What exactly was it we went over now?
you really want tot do this again?
I ask a question does anyone care we won?
yes or no?

The term, Weapon of Mass Destruction, has been adulterated by redundant usage. It was coined in reference to nuclear and sub-nuclear devices. The chemical devices referred to in the topic report were sold and delivered to Saddam by the United States during Iraq's war with Iran and were for the most part rendered useless by decay.

The question you and all those who wish with all their might that Hussein really did possess WMDs should ask yourselves is if he really did have those weapons why did he not use them against us when we invaded and virtually destroyed his country -- instead of hiding in a hole? Do you think it's because he didn't want to offend us?

You were lied to! So rather than using your mental energies to perpetuate and affirm that lie you should part the veil and try to see what's been on the other side all along.

 

[MikeK]

The objectives were pretty much met, Saddam is no more and his government is toppled. We paid a heavier price than was expected in my opinion, but we pretty much did what we came to do, now whether you believe we should have went in or not is a different discussion.

I thought we invaded to stop Sadam from launching nukes and such?

That was 1 of the reasons.

That's what we were told was a reason. But it was a lie. And we had plenty of cause to know it was a lie.

 

[Unkotare]

The term, Weapon of Mass Destruction, has been adulterated by redundant usage. It was coined in reference to nuclear and sub-nuclear devices. .

Wrong. It always included chemical and biological weapons.

 

[Unkotare]

I thought we invaded to stop Sadam from launching nukes and such?

That was 1 of the reasons.

That's what we were told was a reason. But it was a lie. And we had plenty of cause to know it was a lie.

It was not a lie and you obviously cannot prove your stupid assersion no matter how many times you repeat it.

 

[Unkotare]

[ if he really did have those weapons why did he not use them against us when we invaded and virtually destroyed his country -- .

Because he still held out hope of surviving and didn't want a nuke up his ass.

 

[Unkotare]

[

George Bush, Sr. from his own book, "A World Transformed", written in 1998

Too bad Bush Jr. didn't read his dad's fucking book. It would have saved this country about 4,000 lives, 50,000 fewer injured and at least a trillion dollars.

Hey shitforbrains, does '1998' come before or after '2001'? Take your time, it's not a trick question.

 

[Londoner]

You cannot understand Saddam Hussein without at least going back to the removal of the popular, democratically elected Mossadegh (in Iran) in the 50s. The US & Britain wanted to replace Mossadegh with someone more willing to play ball with western energy needs (i.e., someone willing to open national resources to foreign capital. Mossadegh wanted independence from Western tinkering. This is somewhat understandable, not least because British Imperialism was not the best of times for the region). In any case, to solve the problem presented by Mossadegh and his desire for independence, the US and Britain inserted the Shaw, who was a brutal dictator & correctly perceived as a western puppet - hated by his own people (but very friendly to Western energy needs). The US insertion of the Shaw lead to a backlash in the form of Ayatollah Kohemeni, which backlash reached an apex with the hostage crisis (a clear signal to Washington that they were sick of Superpower intervention).

So what happened when the US lost the Shaw, a crucial asset in the world's most vital energy region?

Reagan, who came to power during this mess, turned to Iraq (because it was imperative that we not lose control of the region to the Soviets. [Funny, but I suspect the rightwing simply doesn't know the long history of Cold War maneuvering in the region. This is scary because it makes them less able to hold their government accountable when important questions of war arise]). Regardless, Reagan - some say out of necessity - strengthened Hussein's bid to consolidate power. Again, Saddam seemed like our only viable option in the region. This is why Reagan - against the wishes of the world community - removed Iraq and Hussein from the list of terrorist nations. Needless to say, Bush 41 continued our support of Hussein with major weapons and financial support. In fact, Hussein was a US ally during the infamous gassing of the kurds. I'm guessing this is one of the things that made Hussein too much of a risk. It's pretty clear that the US never fully trusted him, but again: they were desperate when they lost the Shaw. Of course, when Hussein moved into Kuwait, the US had to discipline him. I suspect that they were always biding their time with Saddam, waiting for the right context to replace him and create a more stable balance of powers, aligned in favor of western energy needs.

But here is the confusing part.

The rightwing keeps referring to Saddam without knowing the full history of our relationship with him. It seems at least probable that this animal would never have been able to consolidate power without Reagan's Support in the 80s - especially given Iran's desire and capacity to destroy him.

Here is why I mention this stuff. I want to ask the right-wingers a favor? Stop getting your information from the Republican Party, which controls talk radio. I don't want you to accept my narrative either; I just want you to spend more time studying the history of the region. This will help you hold our presidents accountable when they ask the nation to go to war - which is bankrupting the taxpayer. If you are so worried about evil dictators, than stop voting for politicians who put these dictators in power. At least study the region so that you can contribute to the dialogue.

Below is a link to a pretty good overview of American intervention in the region written by the right-leaning CATO institute. I'm only asking you to read one small history of the region, written by an organization which does not like liberal democrats. You don't want to end up like JRK, who means well but doesn't talk about history with any degree of complexity. He seems to be getting 100% of his information from government t - Republican government. Don't trust Washington for your history. Do some work.

Start studying here: Scribd

We're begging you to become more educated on this stuff. We're begging you to ask your leaders better questions. We can't afford your stupidity any longer. We've run out of money.

 

[flacaltenn]

Londoner:

I don't see anything NEW here that I haven't heard on "right wing talk radio". So what if the US has a bad track record of picking convienient volatile fools?

As I said in a post above http://www.usmessageboard.com/4182604-post165.html. The choice in 2001 was what to do when the God awful 12 year containment of Saddam crumbled. Which it was in the process of doing.. The Germans and French were doing business in Baghdad, the UN was shoveling cash from Oil for Food and we either had to start leveraging down the sanctions and normalizing like most of the EU favored -- Or remove the bastard.

Those WERE the choices. THAT'S the important point. At least Bush MADE a choice. And he had very little resistance from our Brit buds or his political opposition at the time.

It's the Idiotic American Leftists that PRETEND there was another choice. That somehow we'd keep the Iraqis in lockdown til Hell froze over. That would be morally insane...

So which choice should us DUPES have chosen?

 

[MikeK]

Artillery shells with sarin in binary agent form are quite significant.

Really? Then why didn't he use them against us when we invaded his country and drove him to flee and hide in a hole? Do you think it's because he didn't wish to hurt our feelings?

"It often takes a great deal of intelligence to see that which is right before our eyes." [ Edmond Duranty ]

 

[MikeK]

Iraq is no longer a state sponsor of terror using a bribery scheme to subvert the UN Security Council.

Iran and Syria know our military is not the paper tiger scared by some saber rattling.

France, Germany, Russia and China know that they can't use the UN to dictate our defense.

None of those reasons can possibly justify the loss of thousands of our military men and women.

Iraq ONCE possessed WMD. We know that because WE sold them to them during the Reagan Administration. But there were no significant WMD ever found.

Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11.

Iraq never sought "yellow cake".

Iraq was no threat to us or any other nation.

Iraq was 100% contained.

Am I glad we won? Of course. We should celebrate the victory. But was there really any other possible outcome?

Bottom line? We won. We should be glad we won. But we should never have invaded in the first place. There was no reason to send our kids there to fight and die.

Yes. We should celebrate victory. But we should learn from this and never wage war without proper authentication or threat to us or our interests. Invading Iraq was a vary, very bad decision.

.

ok the weapons
Don't expect any apologies from the rest of the world or even any acknowledgment that they were wrong. The narrative is set and nothing will change it.
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results | Danger Room | Wired.com
ok the yellow cake
Evidence of WMDs presence in Iraq. - a knol by Luis T. Puig
The yellow cake was discovered by US troops after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility south of Baghdad, and was placed under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency."
It was not about Saddam being contained
I also would like to remind you that the UN made the accusation of 6500 munitions that were missing, along with a large amount of anthrax and nerve gas 6 weeks prior to our invasion
how did we know then he was not a threat?
we do now, your right on now

Just because you find something on the Internet does not mean it is credible.

The cite you've referenced; Knol, and the writer of the piece, Luis T. Puig, have no credentialed authority. They are unknown. So the content of that website amounts to a propaganda effort by someone friendly to the Bush Administration.

Go here for the facts: snopes.com: Yellowcake Uranium Removed from Iraq