Why is it America's job to get rid of dictators by invasion?
By your thinking, anyone that didn't believe the 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq are Muslim eh? LOL! That's some logic you've got going for you there!
Was it patrotic for Bush to lie too? Why is it America's job to get rid of dictators by invasion?
Militarily all at all those would be suicide and I am all against that for USA. But perhaps you are implying dealing with them all at once but with various non-military methods maybe?
Chalabi did what a patriot concerned about the rule of his country by a psychopathic fascistic dictator would do, he exaggerated the information to bring about an invasion. The war can be justified with or without WMD's. Easily.
I give up. You guys win. Bush wanted to kill Iraqis for fun and profit. All the the intelligence, all of it was cherry picked. All of it came from liars. All of it was manufactured.Wasn't the only lie either. Look up Chalibi and his heros in error. Also see the misinformation we got from al Libi through torture. The misuse of intel was important concerning Iraq.
What?If you have the ability to add, you will see that more than half the congressional Democrats voted against the war vs almost every single Republican that voted for the war, which is what I state before.
But is is noted that you are so ashamed of that fact that you would try to obscure it.
He actually was helping Iran. You may want to read up on their connection. And no, there is no valid justification for invasion with or without wmds. Imperialism didn't work all that well for The British.
I give up. You guys win. Bush wanted to kill Iraqis for fun and profit. All the the intelligence, all of it was cherry picked. All of it came from liars. All of it was manufactured.
Happy?
It does not matter. You will continue to believe what you want to believe. I will believe based on what I know happens in the all source analysis of intelligence. We will continue to believe different things based on what we bring to the table.
I've met members of the INC and he is not a puppet of Iran, he is a Shia Iraqi who has connections with many of his co-religionists political parties such as al-Wefaq in Bahrain, it would be ludicrous to expect prominent Shia or Kurdish politicians not to have some connections with Iranian politics or to make ventures and meetings in line with them. Moreover yes the invasion can be justified on the grounds of removing Saddam Hussein from power, toppling his fascist regime, and allowing the implantation of a representative government.
No, I can't be. We are the immoral rulers of the world. Wars need valid justification. See just war theory.
As for the Iraq and Iran, Iran did not need a puppet to be better off with Saddam gone. Iran won with our invasion, and even helped us go in. As I noted earlier, Chalibi was with them as well. Some might call us useful idiots.
Some might call us useful idiots.
I gave you the justification, feel free to dispute it. And I think your knowledge of Chalabi, the INC, and the coterie of Iraqi exiles who helped form the interim government and the exile congress is limited.
Except the Iranian regime doesn't own Iraq. Iraq has emerged from crippling UN sanctions to become a prime development aid country. Iraqis vote and have human rights. Thusfar, the Iranian regime has lost and finds itself with a war platform at its door.
People confuse friendly relations with a democratic Iraq, with a large Shia population and many Shia political parties, and an Iranian satrapy.
Enough to know Chalibi and his connection with Iran is why we left the Iraqis hanging the first time. Again, as for justification, we're not rulers of the world. Our own standard, by which we justified stopping Iraq in Kuwait, says we were not justified.
Again, Iraq does not have to belong to Iran to help Iran. And voting isn't magic. You might want to check those human rights. Iraqis have suffered a lot.
Chalabi's connections to Iran had nothing to do with our abandonment of the Iraqi people in the revolutions of the 1990's of which Chalabi spent most of his time in Kurdistan supporting and fighting alongside the Peshmergha with his meager resources. The abandonment of the Iraqi people stemmed from cowardliness at the top of the American political-military establishment, uncertainty and virtually political illiteracy about the region, kow-towing to the concerns of some of our regional allies like Turkey and Saudi Arabia, etc. It was a black mark that the Invasion of Iraq partially atoned for. Our justification is that we removed a fascistic blood sucking regime, saying "we aren't rulers of the world" is not an argument.
A fledgling democracy that is on friendly terms with the world and the US, that has human rights and shares a border is not "the Iranian regime won". They are far less insolated than before. In fact, they're very exposed. And they are not takin' over Iraq anytime soon.
No, I believe your wrong about that. I linked much on this over the years.
The world is full terrible regimes. We even have friendly relations with some. No, we need a better reason.
No said they were taking Iraq over. They don't have to. Saddam gone makes life easier for them in a lot of ways. They don't need to own Iraq or take Iraq over.
What astoundingly immoral logic. "There are horrible regimes, we are friendly with some, therefor we should not overthrow or work against any horrible regimes." The United States does have relationships with less than savory governments and regimes, but there is far more nuance and complexity in our relationship with lets say Saudi Arabia, a country which for better or worse has a genuinely well liked royal family in the form of the al-Saud and has been moving (ploddingly) towards a more modern, slightly more democratic society--- and the butchery of Saddam Hussein. We pick our battles based upon priorities and interests, with an eye towards expanding liberal and democratic hegemony.
You know what they need? Security. They're not getting the bomb and their front door is open. Compared to the West, Saddam was a pansy. We can regime change and nation build. If they don't think so, they can look next door.
The mere act of picking your battles is less than moral. No, we didn't take any high ground with Iraq. We wanted something (see what I said earlier about a base) a took it because we could. Nothing noble bout it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?