Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Or that WMDs as described by the Bushies existed on the day of invasion in 2003.
Yeah, all those Democrats in the Clinton administration thought he had them and was a danger in using them..
what idiots
Clinton didn't invade Iraq. Now who's the idiot?
We did Iran a favor. Iran and Iraq were longtime enemies. Now Iran has a better relationship with the Iraqi government than the US. We gave Iran a new ally.
Well, remember what Saddam did in 1990-1991 to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel? We did the region and the world a favor by removing Saddam. Yes, everyone including Iran benefited because Saddam was a threat to the whole world!
Bush 41 suckered Saddam by giving him the "green light" to invade Kuwait.
Saddam/Glaspie Transcript: Is the US State Department still keeping April Glaspie under wraps?
I know right. I read with amazement all the time about people thinking that they should be feeding the starving in America. That they need shelter.The Iraqis were responsible for removing SH, not us, although the Reagan administration armed him.
Neo-cons are simply idiotic.
I know. When I read the previous posts, the ignorance is stunning. Who are we to decide people need to be "liberated"? And did they thank us? It's 10 years of "liberation" this week. Where is the "thanks"? And now Iran has a "new best friend". And these right wingers are so ignorant, they can't even see it.
Stop the bullshit guys. Iraq was barely being maintained. They were under sanctions and being watched every day. They had no industry. The people were suffering. Their youth was killed after wars with Iran and the US. They were a broken country.
Just stop the bullshit and look at the facts. Not the ones made up by Republicans.
No their hate speech comes from an interpretation of their religious book that calls for them to take the world over by force.
Republicans helped them write their religion into their constitution:
Full Text of Iraqi Constitution
Article 2:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
What do Republicans think about the fact they built an Islamic right wing country and thousands of Americans died and trillions spent to do it?
The initial phase of the war was quick. But no one said that all the work the US had to do in the country was DONE on May 1, 2003. Bush's speech in 2003 from the Aircraft Carrier actually list the fact that there was more work to do in Iraq and NO withdrawal of any troops was announced.
Some Iraqi's did, others did not.
Some mentioned that as a possibility, but President Bush did not.
It could be, its still being built at the moment. Better a semi-democracy than Saddam's continued reign in power and all the threats and dangers that would go with that.
The United States was already boming Iraq, before the start of the invasion. In fact, the United States had bombed Iraq every single year since the 1991 Gulf War. The reason, they were an immediate threat that had to be prevented from gaining the capabilities it once had prior to the 1991 Gulf War.
At one time they did have such massive stockpiles. Now, the means from preventing them from obtaining such stockpiles again had been damaged or destroyed, the sanctions and weapons embargo. With those containment measures damaged or destroyed, invasion and regime removal became a necessity in order to prevent Saddam from rebuilding is stockpiles.
Yes it did. Saddam's regime and the threat it posed to the region and the world is gone. A democratic government has replaced Saddam. It is a government that is peaceful towards its neighbors unlike Saddam. Oil supply vital to the global economy in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia is now much safer than it was ten years ago.
The United States spent more bailing out car companies in Detroit than it did on the War in Iraq. Total spending on the war was a fraction of the overall defense budget. Invading in 2003 prevented a far worse war in the future from happening. One that would have killed far more lives and put in jeopardy energy supplies vital to the global economy.
Wow. Haven't met too many people who agree with the Iraqi War. Not so sure I like it lol. Let me let you in on something there Iraqi War lover, if the Iraqis had it so bad, and NEEDED to be liberated, then how come they didn't pick up all the guns they had, and fuckin fight Saddam themselves. And don't sit there and tell me that they couldn't because of oppression because when America showed up (100 times stronger than Saddam's puny army), they sure as hell picked up guns and fought us.e.
The United States invaded Iraq to protect its own security, not to liberate the Iraqi's although that was a good side effect. The Iraqi people had risen up dozens of times to try and overthrow Saddam. Saddam slaughtered 300,000 Shia and Kurds in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War when significant portions of both ethnic groups rose up against him. Thats 300,000 in just a few months! The most bloody episodes in Iraq's history occured while Saddam was in power, not after. Over a million were killed in his bloody invasion and war with Iran. These numbers are many times greater than the numbers seen killed in the aftermath of the US invasion.
Yes, there were several elements of Iraqi society that resisted the US invasion, but there were also several elements that fought against Iraqi insurgents and fought to help preserve the work that the United States was doing in Iraq. The Iraqi insurgents lost. The United States won. The government that the United States help to install is still there.
They NEVER asked the United States to "liberate" them. They NEVER asked the United States to come over and instal a democracy in their country. So I ask you, what reason did WE have in going over there and doing it? Say what you want about Saddam, but he posed NO threat to us, and he kept a tight ring on his country. All the sectarian violence and killings that you have seen for the past 10 years never happened when Saddam was in power.
Saddam invaded and attacked four different countries while he was in power, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel. He threatened the worlds vital oil supplies in the persian gulf with siezure and sabotage. The global economy is dependent on such energy supplies for survival. In 1990, Saddam invaded and annexed Kuwait, cutting off an important portion of global oil supplies which would later cause the 1991 recession. The United States and coalition attacked Iraq's forces in Kuwait and successfully removed them from the country as well as invading much of southern Iraq. The United States agreed to leave Saddam in power, but only on the condition that he be disarmed of all WMD, and be put permanently under sanctions and a weapons embargo to help contain Saddam from rebuilding his military and threatening Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the region.
The sanctions and weapons embargo put in place to help contain Saddam and prevent him from rebuilding his military started to fall in apart in 1999. Neighboring countries like Syria stopped enforcing it and started to benefit from Saddam's black market selling of oil. China violated the sanctions and weapons embargo by helping to install a new air defense system to help Iraq shoot at US Air Craft patrolling the no fly zones in southern Iraq and Northern Iraq. France and Russia also started violating the sanctions and embargo. With the means of containment collapsing, regime change became the only option to PREVENT Saddam from rebuilding his military and WMD capacity. Thats why it became a necessity to remove Saddam's regime from power in 2003!
I'm not defending Saddam either, so don't put words in my mouth. He was a fucked up individual and there is no disputing that. But there are PLENTY of those kind of leaders around the world.
s
Saddam's regime, is the first since Adolf Hitler in the 1940s to INVADE and ANNEX another independent country! Saddam's regime, is also the first since World War I to use chemical weapons against another country.
So no, there are not plenty of other kinds of leaders like Saddam. In the modern world, Saddam is unique and one of a kind.
People have forgotten that Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, and we didn't pile into that war, we somehow managed to mind our own business,
and someone we managed to survive.
Why did THAT approach suddenly stop being an option by 1990??
Why was not doing what had worked in 1980 a better idea?
Not doing what we did in 1980 got us 2 Iraq wars, 9/11, and an Afghan war. How was that the better outcome?
In the early nineties, we retaliated when Hussein invaded and occupied an ally.
Within months, Hussein, scared for his power, agreed to and signed a treaty with us....and in return, we agreed to leave Iraq and let him run his country.
As the years passed, Hussein opted to no longer follow the terms of the treaty.
In an effort to ensure he follows through with his end of the treaty, we warned him...over and over....that he is to adhere to the terms he agreed to or suffer the consequences of our attacking his regime and removing him from power.
He dared us to...
So we did.
They set up checkpoints and killed anyone trying to leave the country when they invaded Kuwait. Thousands of women were kidnapped raped killed and brought back into Iraq to be sex slaves when the US came to liberate Kuwait. We should have had Saddams head then. We were justified to liberate Iraq but we should have soundly defeated the enemy set up a Kurdish Nation in the North and left.
They set up checkpoints and killed anyone trying to leave the country when they invaded Kuwait. Thousands of women were kidnapped raped killed and brought back into Iraq to be sex slaves when the US came to liberate Kuwait. We should have had Saddams head then. We were justified to liberate Iraq but we should have soundly defeated the enemy set up a Kurdish Nation in the North and left.
Bush 41 suckered Saddam into invading Kuwait by giving him the infamous "green light"...
Saddam/Glaspie Transcript: Is the US State Department still keeping April Glaspie under wraps?
Bush never said Saddam could invade Kuwait and then annex the country wiping it from the face of the earth. Plus, once US troops started deploying to Saudi Arabia and August and Saddam was told to leave, he had the opportunity to. Even when Saddam was given a deadline to leave in November of 1990 for January 15, 1991, he still did not leave.
Even if you believe the idea that there was some type of mis-communication, NOTHING, there was no mis-communication after that. Saddam didn't leave because he had always fully intended to invade Kuwait and annex the country regardless of what the United States did. He believed he could defeat the United States and the Coalition in battle if it came to war. He did not believe the United States would be willing to suffer high casualties which he believed he could inflict on the United States.
Wow. Haven't met too many people who agree with the Iraqi War. Not so sure I like it lol. Let me let you in on something there Iraqi War lover, if the Iraqis had it so bad, and NEEDED to be liberated, then how come they didn't pick up all the guns they had, and fuckin fight Saddam themselves. And don't sit there and tell me that they couldn't because of oppression because when America showed up (100 times stronger than Saddam's puny army), they sure as hell picked up guns and fought us.e.
The United States invaded Iraq to protect its own security, not to liberate the Iraqi's although that was a good side effect. The Iraqi people had risen up dozens of times to try and overthrow Saddam. Saddam slaughtered 300,000 Shia and Kurds in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War when significant portions of both ethnic groups rose up against him. Thats 300,000 in just a few months! The most bloody episodes in Iraq's history occured while Saddam was in power, not after. Over a million were killed in his bloody invasion and war with Iran. These numbers are many times greater than the numbers seen killed in the aftermath of the US invasion.
Yes, there were several elements of Iraqi society that resisted the US invasion, but there were also several elements that fought against Iraqi insurgents and fought to help preserve the work that the United States was doing in Iraq. The Iraqi insurgents lost. The United States won. The government that the United States help to install is still there.
Saddam invaded and attacked four different countries while he was in power, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel. He threatened the worlds vital oil supplies in the persian gulf with siezure and sabotage. The global economy is dependent on such energy supplies for survival. In 1990, Saddam invaded and annexed Kuwait, cutting off an important portion of global oil supplies which would later cause the 1991 recession. The United States and coalition attacked Iraq's forces in Kuwait and successfully removed them from the country as well as invading much of southern Iraq. The United States agreed to leave Saddam in power, but only on the condition that he be disarmed of all WMD, and be put permanently under sanctions and a weapons embargo to help contain Saddam from rebuilding his military and threatening Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the region.
The sanctions and weapons embargo put in place to help contain Saddam and prevent him from rebuilding his military started to fall in apart in 1999. Neighboring countries like Syria stopped enforcing it and started to benefit from Saddam's black market selling of oil. China violated the sanctions and weapons embargo by helping to install a new air defense system to help Iraq shoot at US Air Craft patrolling the no fly zones in southern Iraq and Northern Iraq. France and Russia also started violating the sanctions and embargo. With the means of containment collapsing, regime change became the only option to PREVENT Saddam from rebuilding his military and WMD capacity. Thats why it became a necessity to remove Saddam's regime from power in 2003!
I'm not defending Saddam either, so don't put words in my mouth. He was a fucked up individual and there is no disputing that. But there are PLENTY of those kind of leaders around the world.
s
Saddam's regime, is the first since Adolf Hitler in the 1940s to INVADE and ANNEX another independent country! Saddam's regime, is also the first since World War I to use chemical weapons against another country.
So no, there are not plenty of other kinds of leaders like Saddam. In the modern world, Saddam is unique and one of a kind.
Whatever helps you sleep better at night my friend. And if you are trying to convince me that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was justified on our part, just stop lol you are wasting your time, as I will NEVER believe what we did in Iraq was "justified."
Bush 41 suckered Saddam into invading Kuwait by giving him the infamous "green light"...
Saddam/Glaspie Transcript: Is the US State Department still keeping April Glaspie under wraps?
Bush never said Saddam could invade Kuwait and then annex the country wiping it from the face of the earth. Plus, once US troops started deploying to Saudi Arabia and August and Saddam was told to leave, he had the opportunity to. Even when Saddam was given a deadline to leave in November of 1990 for January 15, 1991, he still did not leave.
Even if you believe the idea that there was some type of mis-communication, NOTHING, there was no mis-communication after that. Saddam didn't leave because he had always fully intended to invade Kuwait and annex the country regardless of what the United States did. He believed he could defeat the United States and the Coalition in battle if it came to war. He did not believe the United States would be willing to suffer high casualties which he believed he could inflict on the United States.
President Bush could have stopped the invasion by having our embassador tell him in no uncertain terms that we would defend Kuwait as if we had a mutual defense pact with them.
Iraq would have never bothered us at all if we had left it alone in 1991.
People have forgotten that Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, and we didn't pile into that war, we somehow managed to mind our own business,
and someone we managed to survive.
Why did THAT approach suddenly stop being an option by 1990??
Why was not doing what had worked in 1980 a better idea?
Not doing what we did in 1980 got us 2 Iraq wars, 9/11, and an Afghan war. How was that the better outcome?
When Iran started winning, Raygun supported Saddam with money and replacement parts for his military. In fact Raygun opened the flood gates on Western technology sales from our allies too. That's how Saddam was able to aquire his advanced Chemical and Biological weapons and start his clandestine nuclear bomb program.
Bush never said Saddam could invade Kuwait and then annex the country wiping it from the face of the earth. Plus, once US troops started deploying to Saudi Arabia and August and Saddam was told to leave, he had the opportunity to. Even when Saddam was given a deadline to leave in November of 1990 for January 15, 1991, he still did not leave.
Even if you believe the idea that there was some type of mis-communication, NOTHING, there was no mis-communication after that. Saddam didn't leave because he had always fully intended to invade Kuwait and annex the country regardless of what the United States did. He believed he could defeat the United States and the Coalition in battle if it came to war. He did not believe the United States would be willing to suffer high casualties which he believed he could inflict on the United States.
President Bush could have stopped the invasion by having our embassador tell him in no uncertain terms that we would defend Kuwait as if we had a mutual defense pact with them.
Saddam would not have cared, and Saddam never suggested to any diplomat that he was about to invade and annex another country. The evidence that Saddam did not care what the United States did is seen what he did in the five months after he invaded Kuwait. As the United States built up its forces on the ground and told Saddam to leave Kuwait. He didn't. If this was all a simple mistake as you claim, Saddam would have turned his forces around and left the country in August of 1990. Instead he stayed despite the build up forces in Saudi Arabia, despite being given a deadline to leave in January 1991 and despite being told that we would go to war to remove him from Kuwait. SADDAM STAYED DESPITE ALL THAT! He got the message and he new before hand that the United States would respond this way. He wanted Kuwait and was willing to go to war to keep it!
Iraq would have never bothered us at all if we had left it alone in 1991.
I agree we should have let Sadam annex Kuwait. It's not like the Kuwaitis are grateful!
If we didn't invade then Sadam would have still been our friend, we would be getting cheap oil from Sadam and the Saudis and Sadam Sunni Iraq would have been the polarizing force to the Ayatollahs Shia Iran!
President Bush could have stopped the invasion by having our embassador tell him in no uncertain terms that we would defend Kuwait as if we had a mutual defense pact with them.
Saddam would not have cared, and Saddam never suggested to any diplomat that he was about to invade and annex another country. The evidence that Saddam did not care what the United States did is seen what he did in the five months after he invaded Kuwait. As the United States built up its forces on the ground and told Saddam to leave Kuwait. He didn't. If this was all a simple mistake as you claim, Saddam would have turned his forces around and left the country in August of 1990. Instead he stayed despite the build up forces in Saudi Arabia, despite being given a deadline to leave in January 1991 and despite being told that we would go to war to remove him from Kuwait. SADDAM STAYED DESPITE ALL THAT! He got the message and he new before hand that the United States would respond this way. He wanted Kuwait and was willing to go to war to keep it!
The crisis between Kuwait and Iraq had been brewing since the end of the Iran/Iraq war. Of course he cared what the USA, his most powerful ally at the time, would do if he took military action against Kuwait. And just like when he use chemical weapons against the Iranians and later the Kurds, the US adminstration offer harsh words but took no action against him and continued the most favored trading status for Iraq. I'm sure he took the waivering of the Bush Administration as a sign that the game was still on. Once he was stabbed in the back by his so call ally he wasn't about to back down.
People have forgotten that Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, and we didn't pile into that war, we somehow managed to mind our own business,
and someone we managed to survive.
Why did THAT approach suddenly stop being an option by 1990??
Why was not doing what had worked in 1980 a better idea?
Not doing what we did in 1980 got us 2 Iraq wars, 9/11, and an Afghan war. How was that the better outcome?
When Iran started winning, Raygun supported Saddam with money and replacement parts for his military. In fact Raygun opened the flood gates on Western technology sales from our allies too. That's how Saddam was able to aquire his advanced Chemical and Biological weapons and start his clandestine nuclear bomb program.
France's involvement in Iraq's nuclear program started in the mid-1970s five years before Saddam ever invaded Kuwait. The Iraqi's already had manufatured their own chemical weapons before the start of the Iran-Iraq war and first used them in 1982!The Soviet Union, not the United States was the primary supplier of weapons to Iraq. In fact, the Soviet Union and China sold Iraq 100% of its main battle tanks, armored personal carriers, and 80% of its artillery and combat aircraft. There were over 1,000 Soviet military personal on the ground in Iraq training Iraq Republican Guard forces for the entire Iran/Iraq war. Of the funding that came from western and middle eastern countries, only about 5% came from the United States. The United States did provide Saddam with 5 Billion dollars, transport helicopters, technical support and repair for electronics and computers and several hundred trucks for military transport. No actual weapons, although Iraq did legally obtain biological stocks that could later be weaponized. But those biological stocks were available to any country not under sanctions.
Saddam's Iraq was a client state of the Soviet Union. Ironically while the United States did assist Iraq, it provided no actual weapons. It did provide 2,000 Tow missiles to Iraq's enemy Iran during the Iran/contra deal.
