Yes, the Pentagon divulged the truth when they reported no WMD and no Saddam/al Qaeda ties.
No..this would be more of that fog you prefer to pretend prevents the truth from being clear. Truth, being too incomprehensible, guarantees the senseless bitching.
You've got to be one of the very few left holding out on the protest that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or WMD. Perhaps you should remove the fog and look at the situation and assess it truthfully for a change. If there was no WMD and he was no immediate threat...then what is the reason for why would we remove him and ignite a democracy? Answering this means that you have to slide by the senseless bitching.
That's what happens every time we involve ourselves in regime change.
You avoided again. After helping them organize to fight the Soviets, would Afghanistan be in better shape had we set them on the correct path rather than rolling the dice? Avoid the reality all you want, but reality happens. Perhaps you aren't aware of this, but avoiding foriegn entanglements have always cost more American lives in the end. How long would it have taken for the Soviet Union to cost millions of American lives because we "refused to engage?" How long would it take for the Middle East to work itself into something that will cost hundreds of thousands of American lives if we merely pretend that we can "minding our own business?" Minding our own business introduced the world to two world wars. There does exist lessons.
Complain about smaller activities all you want, but it's those activities that hold back the big ones.
I have as much faith in the Iraq elections credibility as I do on the corrupt government we set up in Afghanistan.
Even the French had to vote in Napolean before they emerged from their decades of internal terror and got democracy right. I guarantee Iraqis get it right quicker with ours and the international community's help. Your "faith" is mere pessimism because you feel you must protest to your dying breath. Even the French quickly dropped a consulate building in Iraq once the international business started introducing itself.
We set up the same government in Afghanistan as we did Iraq. It's their culture that created the corruption. They too will work it out as the source of that corruption gets weeded out by their own.
If the Iraqis were so dissatisfied they would have rebelled against Saddam.
And if Germans were so dissatisfied with Hitler they would have simply rebelled and emerged successful. But people would have you believe that not all Germans were celebratory of Hitler's carnage (I guess white Europeans get the benefit of the doubt whereas brown Muslims get ****). History is full of oppressed and brutalized people unable to organize and lead successful campaigns against their brutes. Today, history has brought us to a period of globalization where one population's oppression and civil injustice affects things far from borders. Pretending otherwise will get you no where.
You don't really know much about the Iraqis do you? Hussein's army and police force were almost entirely made of the Sunni. Those few Shia in power that were in the south were watched very closely. Which means that any defiance was half-assed and loosely organized amongst watchful eyes. Even the Sunni spied on each other for fear of being accused of being a part of anything that defied Saddam Hussein. The Sunni terrorized the Shia. The Shia did rebell. Even under Clinton, they were slaughtered for their defiances. Do you even know that President Clinton ordered four separate bombing campaigns over Iraq during his 8 year term? Was this the way to do business? Contain a dictator we should have killed and merely bomb his cities out whenever he steps out of line?
But besides all of this, the thorn was Hussein and he needed to be removed opne way or another. If the Shia in Iraq couldn't do it then we would.
I would like to see them have a shot at determining their own future without the influence of military domination by the most powerful military on the planet.
Well, that's exactly what they have. After determining that Hussein's further existence would serve the West greater than an Iraq in the people's hands back in 1991, I fail to see where prior to 2003 that Iraqis had the ability to determine anything. I'm starting to see that you use "Iraqi" to equal only the Sunni. Many Iraqis rejoiced when Hussein was toppled because many more were not Sunni. Only the once empowered Sunni pouted and ignited slaughter (their behavior didn't work out very well in the end.)
So you prefer to ignore that Reagan removed Iraq from the state terrorist listing and provided the precursor for the internationally banned mustard gas that he used against his own people?
There's no reason to ignore anything. This is the history. You may as well chastize the American government for daring to call the Soviet Union an enemy after WWII. You're the one dodging the issues in favor of senseless black/white protest. You also seem to have a fetish with hating Reagan. Regean dealt with him as the shield in front of Khomeini. Bush dealt with him after he invaded Kuwait and ruptured the oil stability of the region. Clinton criticized Bush for allowing him to go home and wound up bombing him four separate times. Son of Bush was more than prepared to do the same until 9/11. Osama Bin Laden used the containment mission to justify 9/11. And in 2003, we faced our responsibilities and removed ourselves from the corrupt mission.
The reason we stopped after bombing Iraq back a century in the Persian Gulf War, because Iraq was no longer a threat to anyone. The only need to remove the Saddam regime was because they had nationalized Iraqi oil and kicked out Western oil.
Well, we didn't stop bombing him did we? But this aside....since we can agree that Hussein was of no immediate threat, why then remove him after 9/11? Why not simply replace him with another dictator that would give all of his oil to the evil American empire? Answering this means you will have to get past the protestor brick wall of complaining.
Oh that's right, I forgot that a free market stops at our borders.
What does this have to do about anything? I talked about oil being a matter of warfare since the 1950s and you carry on about a free market as if the Soviet Union wasn't seeking to dominate the region. Last I checked they weren't about the free market and therefore demanded Western competition for the resource. Avoiding again? Complaining about a war that freed people and offerred them something we denied them for over a decade as a simpleton's cry of "No War For Oil," is avoiding the ugly truth about the global demand for oil. But speaking of free markets...now Iraq can play. I guess it doesn't stop at the American borders. But if you had it your way, Iraq would still not be a player today.
If that were the case we would have ended our military occupation years ago and let them get on with it without our military interference in their affairs.
You are avoiding again. Why would we seek to ignite a democracy in this region when a handy dandy dictator would have sufficed? "Our" military interference is why they aren't on an Al-Queda/Tali-ban path today. Leaving years ago would have cost "our" military much more deaths later.
The reality of it is that it was all about making Iraq safe for the Western oil for the first time in 35 years, protected by the most powerful military on the planet.
Safe under a dictator or safe under a democracy in a region that has never really had the opportunity thanks to the West's dictators? Avoid all you want, but you are talking in circles to cling to senseless griping.
Morality (or lack there of) is the only thing that separates us from terrorists.
And dictators only when convenient, right? But protestors often define the word as anything that allows them to wash their hands of their responsibility. Morality means allowing others to suffer at our prescriptions and cheering for them to step up against the odds we placed in front of them? Give me a break. Sooner or later the dominoes of colonialism and the Cold War have to stop falling. If Iraq prefers dictators, then they will fail. If they prefer democracies, then they will succeed. Thus far they have fought very hard for democracy and an international relationship.
Little late thinking about that now aren't you? We've known for 40 years that we could no longer produce as much oil as we consumed.
Well, it's a little late for a lot of things. Such is history and the learning of mistakes. But you're avoiding again. The Soviet Union and China know as well as the intelligent world that oil builds the militaries that dominate the globe. It was the lack of oil import that really knocked out Germany. It was oil (88 percent from America's reserves and business) that feuled the Allies on. With them seeking to gobble up after WWII, there was no choice but to involve ourseleves in the race if only to deny them their influence for it.
But the Cold War is over now isn't it? One day we will be off oil. But in the mean time, look around your house and start the exhaustive count of oil products throughout. Reality will always trump sanctimonous gibberish.
Our lack of planning does not justify killing other people for their oil.
Killing them for it or freeing them for it? If it was just a matter of killing them for it a handy dandy dictator would have sufficed after Hussein wouldn't it? Besides I see through your crocodile tears. You didn't shed any for them when Hussein was pumping oil for food or when Hussein was given back his throne in 1991. Prior to 2003, this would have been the only real opportunity for the Kurds and the Shia to rebel successfully. But we denied it then didn't we? Back to that "morality" (or lack thereof) word.
Complete and utter bull****. If Saddam were still allowing Western oil in Iraq and accepting our bribes for sweet deals, we would would still be supporting him, just as we did when he was at his murderous worst.
Oh, I'm about to embarras you now...
You see...the "if" game just doesn't work here. What are the facts? The Cold War is over and it is within where we turned our backs on "our" dictators as they kept the "peace." It seems like America is moving on from this period despite your demands to concrete within. "If" the population of Iraq would have behaved niceley under a Western friendly dictator, then why a democracy? Still avoiding this. You just can't come to acknowledging "because it was the right thing to do" for fear that you may chink away at your protestor stage. And maintaining that at all costs really matters.
I am being completely honest. You just can't handle knowing that we would start a war over oil.
I don't think you are and I believe I'm the one that stated that we have been playing the oil stability game long before 2003. Maybe you can't handle that. If you are being honest then you have made yourself useless to the topic because you unwittingly keep avoiding the truths.
But you know what? After all your bitching and refusals to get past the brick walls that protestors create for themseleves, Iraq got invaded and they have a democracy. So what really does your stubborn self righteous status do for you?
didn't you know? it was part of our dastardly plan to spend a ton of lives and money invading a country and then giving it back. just like...... all empires.......
