Dear Iraq:

[Just_A_Guy]

No.

Also: we told you so.

That is all.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[pam]

They wanted to do it on their own, so we should let them.

[Praetorian_Brow]

Invading a sovereign country under false pretenses, ousting the leader, dismissing all forms of internal security, promoting a form of governance that is largely unknown by the citizens, attempt to police them through brute force and the American people seem surprised the country is worse off than it was before.

Their government must be in dire straits if they asked their former invaders for assistance and it would be a huge blow to their independence. As noted by the article, Iraq refused to grant legal immunity to U.S. soldiers, which was requested by the American government in order to maintain a presence. Given that Shria law is a bit, medieval, it still leaves some strange questions as to why another country who supposedly has the bests interests of the occupied country, has no interest in said countries laws.

Seems a bit strange to occupy a country for close to 10 years, promote democracy at bayonet point and then say screw you, when they ask for help. Very strange.

Afghanistan will be much the same and the U.S. will be asking, what was the point. Before I get hate mail, I volunteered to go to Afghanistan, which is a big deal here and unfortunately I quit the army for personal reasons before going. As far I was concerned, going to Afghanistan was a career move, not some bid for protecting Freedom.

Afghanistan is where armies go to die, Alexander the Great lost an army there, the British tried and died, the Russians tried and died, but nope, history was ignored. Iraq is steeped in history and fighting that is like fighting water.

America’s nation-building at gunpoint - Stripes - Independent U.S. military news from Iraq, Afghanistan and bases worldwide

Edited August 18, 2013 by Praetorian_Brow

[NeuroTypical]

Invading a sovereign country under false pretenses

Heh. In the history of human civilization, how many invaded nations can you name, that admitted the invaders had legitimate reasons to do so? I inherited some pamphlets dropped on my father in WWII by the Germans - they sure seemed to think my dad was there under false pretenses.

ousting the leader

Because invading and leaving him there in desert shield turned out to be such a good idea. Tell me again who ended up delivering justice to Saadam? Was it the Americans?

dismissing all forms of internal security

Well that's just blatantly and obviously false. The Americans not only helped Iraq's fledgeling police force, but defended, fuelled, supplied, and paid for them for a long time. They worked hard to convince the Sons Of Iraq to stop fighting the Americans and work with them. Anyone who needs to see how wrong Praetorian's claim is, needs only search on some videos and articles from Michael Yon during his time as an embedded reporter. The one about bringing the police chief the goat is one of my favorites.

promoting a form of governance that is largely unknown by the citizens

Valid point. Even though the Saadam-era Iraqi constitution was largely similar to the US constitution, even though Saadam "won reelection" in the months before desert storm with 98% of the vote, yeah, both were shams and invalid, and Iraq knew nothing of representative democracy.

attempt to police them through brute force and the American people seem surprised the country is worse off than it was before.

Yep - we were hoping for something more like Germany or Japan. You're absolutely right - it didn't work out that way.

Given that Shria law is a bit, medieval, it still leaves some strange questions as to why another country who supposedly has the bests interests of the occupied country, has no interest in said countries laws.

You don't understand why a nation would want some of what another nation has, but wants to limit the costs of obtaining it?

Seems a bit strange to occupy a country for close to 10 years, promote democracy at bayonet point and then say screw you, when they ask for help. Very strange.

Help me understand correctly here - are you are advocating that US re-invade Iraq? What course of action here would not seem "strange" to you?

Afghanistan will be much the same

Oh man - if you were trying to establish credibility here, I'm afraid you just lost it. You don't have to do much reading to understand that Afghanistan and Iraq are most certainly not the same - in history, culture, reaction to events, or probable outcome.

Before I get hate mail

I have no intention of sending you (or anyone else) hate mail. I don't hate you - I don't even dislike you. Just disagree with a lot of stuff you're saying. You can understand that, right? My response to you is only an indication of disagreement, not of hate? (This one other guy I argued with on Iraq, accused me of being "a hater", but couldn't really say why. I'd like to avoid the same sort of playground insulting back-and-forthery here, if you're willing.)

As far I was concerned, going to Afghanistan was a career move, not some bid for protecting Freedom.

Thanks for the insight into who you are and what would motivate you to participate in what you consider the unjust invasion of another country.

Afghanistan is where armies go to die, Alexander the Great lost an army there, the British tried and died, the Russians tried and died, but nope, history was ignored.

Oh, it wasn't ignored. I wondered how they were going to have any different outcome, and I still wonder, but I've read enough to understand at least we went in hoping to learn what didn't work all the other times.

Iraq is steeped in history and fighting that is like fighting water.

Again, I'd refer anyone interested to read a little of what the Americans actually did to change from invader, to occupier, to rebuilder, to supporter/trainer, to all gone. It's all online and free - there's no reason to be locked into such a simplistic and false mindset as "America lost because we fought Iraq's history". Here's a decent example of some of what was actually happening:

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/battle-for-mosul-part-iii.htm

[Praetorian_Brow]

Coalition Provisional Authority Order 2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marshall Plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You take umbrage at my comparison of Iraq and Afghanistan as failed objectives, then compare those two to the rebuilding of Japan and Germany. Ridiculous. Germany as a nation accepted defeat, as did Japan and there was no significant resistance in preventing reconstruction.

I merely conclude that your patriotism was insulted on some level. I suppose Vietnam was considered a success for you as well. Arm chair commanders are always interesting to speak with, especially when they don't really seem to grasp a soldiers motives. As far as most troops are concerned, war is the highlight of their career and that patriotic crap only lasts until basic training, when bullets are flying and for stories to tell your family.

To answer your question, I am sure as an American you are well aware of the farce of weapons of mass destruction promoted by Bush to prop up ailing polls. Wonder what happened to General Powell, the guy who had to speak to UN because his civilian superiors told him to promote the war, well he essentially resigned out of shame, once he learned the whole motive was a sham. I guess that was conveniently forgotten by history.

Trainers would be a swell idea. Evidently, you think I am full of ...crap to be polite, but I think you merely conveniently forget reality as wishful thinking seems more appealing. I agree some good has come of the wars, but I would hazard a guess that if you asked any Iraqi or Afghani that they have a different idea of said...reconstruction.

Watch this, it will help you.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Praetorian_Brow

[NeuroTypical]

You take umbrage at my comparison of Iraq and Afghanistan as failed objectives

Maybe there's been a miscommunication. I didn't realize you were only talking about having failed objectives as how they were "similar". But now that I realize that's what you're talking about, let me change my answer.

I'm not sure we failed in Afghanistan, because I'm not exactly sure what the objectives were going in. The only things that makes sense was "Kill Bin-Laden", "deny al-qaeda a base of operations in Afghanistan", and "go neutralize al-qaeda in Afghanistan". Those have happened, eventually, sort of, at a pretty tremendous cost. Everything is expensive in Afghanistan.

I merely conclude that your patriotism was insulted on some level.

It looks like I've found a second person to argue Iraq with, who just can't avoid trying to make it personal. No really, my patriotism wasn't insulted. I don't hate you either. I just disagree with you. Can you accept those as facts? Or do you have to believe that an opposing viewpoint absolutely has to be personal at some level?

I suppose Vietnam was considered a success for you as well.

I was five at the time - not really paying enough attention to form an opinion at the time. 40 years of hindsight later, and I see Vietnam as part of the overall cold war - Vietnam was hardly a success, but the cold war was won.

Arm chair commanders are always interesting to speak with, especially when they don't really seem to grasp a soldiers motives.

It is true that sitting here opining about Iraq and talking about current events makes both of us armchair commanders. It is also true that I have never been in the military, whereas I take it you were, for a time, in Canada. I only have military parentage, and am surrounded by it here in Colorado Springs. So yeah, your time in the military gives a perspective that I lack. My wife and I are friends with many folks back from Iraq and Afghanistan, and have discussed matters deeply with them across years. And I have to tell you, that many of them have expressed opinions very, very different than yours. Like this:

As far as most troops are concerned, war is the highlight of their career and that patriotic crap only lasts until basic training, when bullets are flying and for stories to tell your family.

Perhaps it's different in Canada, but the vets I've talked to here in Colorado Springs, especially the ones who have seen combat, retain a strong sense of patriotism and national pride. So no, I don't think you get to just pull out your "I was in the military, and as far as most troops are concerned..." card that easily.

I am sure as an American you are well aware of...

So, let's count:

* I disagree with you, because my "patriotism was insulted on some level".

* I haven't been in the military, and therefore "don't really seem to grasp a soldiers motives"

* I believe what you want me to believe about Iraq, because I'm an American (and presumably, therefore, some sort of brain washed fool).

Why is it you are so intent on writing my story for me? Can't we just debate stuff without you getting all insulting and uncharitable and strawman-setting-uppy?

Let me ask again - can we please talk without getting personal? Insults aren't really helping...

Wonder what happened to General Powell

Well, after he got the boot as Bush's Sec of State, he retired from public life despite numerous offers from numerous places. He joined a silicon valley venture capital firm, did a bunch of his own armchair generalling, got on the board of directors of Steve Case's Revolution Health, serves on the BoD of the Council on Foreign Relations, and is generally running around getting paid for speeches like any famous former beltway insider. He made some noises about being an Obama cabinet member, but received no nominations. I'm sure he's far, far richer than I will ever be.

the guy who had to speak to UN because his civilian superiors told him to promote the war, well he essentially resigned out of shame, once he learned the whole motive was a sham.

Well, maybe you know something the Washington Post doesn't, but they said that Andrew Card asked him to resign.

I agree some good has come of the wars, but I would hazard a guess that if you asked any Iraqi or Afghani that they have a different idea of said...reconstruction.

Well, until around 2010, I was following several Iraqi blogs, run by Iraqis, in English. They had an interesting mix of reactions about America's involvement. They all were united in hating Saadam, and praising Bush for toppling the regime. But there were mixed reactions about what happened after, what was happening then, and what would happen in Iraq. The notion that "any Iraqi" would disagree that any good came from the wars, is blatantly false. "Many Iraqis", sure. "any Iraqi", no.

Watch this, it will help you.

I've seen links to this over the years, ok - tell you what. I'll watch it.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[yjacket]

I will 2nd watching the video "Why we Fight".

I didn't serve in the military, but I had a brother who served in the Marines in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I was involved in the government for a while and when Iraq first started I was 100% on board, then the more and more that I have learned and some of the things that I have seen, read, and heard have left me 100% against it. While some of the comments of Praetorian_Brow might be a little rough around the edges, I agree with a lot of his sentiments.

Some good will come of Iraq just as some good comes from all things that happen in life; however it does not negate the fact that invading Iraq was factually, ethnically and morally wrong. It was an unjust war. The US attacked another country who had not attacked the US. It was a war of aggression, not a war of defense.

All the justifications given at the time for war, WMD, terrorists, etc. were proven to be factually false. Not only were they factually false, but the administration was pressuring the individuals in charge of delivering the intelligence to come up with the "right" answer. Look no further than Curveball: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant). The administration had been looking for a way to get Saddam and 9/11 provided the opportunity to do so.

It is quite sad that over 10 years later, 4500 Americans dead, the untold amount of soldiers suffering from PTSD, the massive amount of physical injuries, over 787 billion wasted, and documented Iraqi civilian deaths of over 100,000, evidence of fabrication of the justification to go to war, no WMD, no terrorists (at the time of invasion-they are obviously there now!), that many people cannot come to grips with the fact that the US waged an unjust, immoral war. The costs of this war have far outweighed any possible good that will come from it.

If all that is justified by overthrowing a punk, 2-bit no threat dictator over half a world away, then we should have invaded North Korea, Iran and a whole host of other countries a long time ago.

Too many people in the US suffer from a bad case of Nationalism, not Patriotism. Nationalism is "My country is always right". Patriotism is "The ideals of my country are always right, but sometimes my country commits acts that are not in line with those ideals and I will protest those acts".

Edited August 18, 2013 by yjacket

[NeuroTypical]

All the justifications given at the time for war, WMD, terrorists, etc. were proven to be factually false.

...

It is quite sad that over 10 years later, 4500 Americans dead, the untold amount of soldiers suffering from PTSD, the massive amount of physical injuries, over 787 billion wasted, and documented Iraqi civilian deaths of over 100,000, evidence of fabrication of the justification to go to war, no WMD, no terrorists (at the time of invasion-they are obviously there now!), that many people cannot come to grips with the fact that the US waged an unjust, immoral war.

Well, that's sure not true. Holy cow, yjacket, who told you that?

Do you remember the major media reports covering the saber rattling just prior to March 2003? They were about WMD and support for terrorism, yes, but they were also about Saadam throwing out UN weapons inspectors, enforcing UN resolution 1441, and high corruption of the oil-for-food program.

No, there were no official ties between Saadam's regime and Al-Qaeda. But for the love of pete yes, there were clear, long-established, obvious, undeniable ties between Saadam and terrorists. After the war, they found bomb vest factories. Before the war, well, Saadam wrote checks to the families of anyone who would explosively martyr themselves in Israel and kill some Jews. Saadam had no ties to terrorism? Good grief.

In the words of

:

Hitchens: You even said, (extraordinarily to me), that there was no terrorist in Iraq before 2003. Do you know nothing about the subject at all? Do you wonder about how Mr. Zarqawi got there under the rule of Saadam Hussein? Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal, the most wanted man in the world who was sheltered in Bahgdad? The man who pushed Leon Klinghoeffer off the boat was sheltered by Saadam Hussein. The man who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993 was sheltered by Saadam Hussein. And you have the nerve to say that terrorism is caused by resisting it and by deposing governments that endorse it.

Reagan: No, what I did say was Iraq was not a center of terrorism before we went in there, but it might be now. [He goes on to claim Hitchens' logic could be used to justify invading Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from.]

Hitchens: Uh, no. Excuse me. The hijackers may have been Saudi and Yemeni, but they were not envoys of the Saudi Arabian government.

Reagan: Zarqawi was not an envoy of Saadam Hussein!

Hitchens: Excuse me - when I went to interview Abu Nidal, (then the most wanted terrorist in the world) in Bahgdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi state (while being the most wanted man in the world). The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government to the murderers of Leon Klinghoeffer, and to Mr. Yassin who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bomb in 1993. How can you know so little about this and be occupying a chair?

yjacket, could I respectfully suggest that you take a second look at whatever sources told you otherwise? You've been lied to, for years, and bought into a notion that some folks tried and then abandoned years ago.

If all that is justified by overthrowing a punk, 2-bit no threat dictator over half a world away, then we should have invaded North Korea, Iran and a whole host of other countries a long time ago.

No threat? Excuse me? Exactly how many times does a government need to try to assasinate a former US president before they become a threat? How many terrorist bomb vests does a government need to produce and ship to Israel? How many most-wanted-terrorists in the world does a government need to shelter and aid, before they can be considered a threat?

Too many people in the US suffer from a bad case of Nationalism, not Patriotism. Nationalism is "My country is always right". Patriotism is "The ideals of my country are always right, but sometimes my country commits acts that are not in line with those ideals and I will protest those acts".

You may be right. Is it your contention that because I disagree with you, I suffer from this "bad case of Nationalism"? Do you need to insult me like Praetorian? I sure hope that's not what you meant. Edited August 19, 2013 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[mirkwood]

I work with quite a few veterans. Two of my partners served in Baghdad and were part of an MP unit that found warehouses full of WMD's. They also participated in the recovery of a missile that was fired at them and knocked down by a Patriot battery. The missile contained chemical munitions. I have no reason to doubt thier stories. I have asked them why these incidents were not in the news. They both shrugged thier shoulders.

Firsthand accounts outweigh the jingoistic news media that some people take as thier information sources with no cross checking for credibility.

[Praetorian_Brow]

There was no active chemical weapons program for years and they did have stockpiled munitions, much like every country on Earth had at one time. Terrorism will always exist, domestic or international and its wise to be vigilant. Ironically, by invading both countries, terrorism has increased. What about all those drone strikes? Seems a strange way of defending "Freedom" by disregarding sovereignty and the legal process, by firing missiles at people. Do you think their children are going for forget and move on? Nope, they will get back in the only way they know how. Another man's terrorist is another man's patriot.

Canada did not go to Iraq, despite it being requested by Bush because our Prime Minister did not agree that it was merited. Unfortunately, Bush insulted most of the long time American allies by stating that his allies had to be with him or against him. Canada has been in Afghanistan since 2001 and our military might be considered a joke by American standards, despite its high professionalism, but considering that we have barely 70 000 full time military and 30 000 reserve, our contribution is respectable.

The Afghan war was mildly justifiable as the Afghan people were suffering and were harbouring Bin Laden, although, ironically, I don't really see the U.S. attacking Pakistan for harbouring him there. Pakistan has a policy of taking money from the U.S. but sponsoring unrest in Afghanistan, as Afghanistan is to Pakistan, what North Korea is to China. A buffer.

Regarding your nationalism, it was not intended to be insulting, rather it was an observation as on a personal level you seemed keen to justify a war of aggression for any reason, while disregarding the unjust circumstances. I realize that no matter how much rhetoric or "evidence" is pointed in your direction, nationalism will be far more important than the rational or results. Its actually quite frightening to know that the colour guard of democracy and human rights is so keen on war.

Either way, Iraq is in more trouble than it was before and I am sure the people know that.

[mirkwood]

Radical Islam is the root of terrorism, not the drone strikes. Radical Islam always has been and always will be the enemy of anyone who does not believe as they do. They will seek to kill the infidel simply for not believing as they do. They have never had problems gaining recruits. It is how they believe.

[yjacket]

Do you remember the major media reports covering the saber rattling just prior to March 2003? They were about WMD and support for terrorism, yes, but they were also about Saadam throwing out UN weapons inspectors, enforcing UN resolution 1441, and high corruption of the oil-for-food program.

And that justifies War? I didn't know that another country had to bow down and worship the UN or they get bombed. That's a funny definition of when we should sent men and women to die for their country. I thought they were dying for our freedoms . . . nope I guess they are dying because another country thumbed their nose at the US.

Middle-Eastern politics is the height of brinkmanship and bravado. If as a middle-eastern leader one does not threaten, or puff oneself up it is a sign of weakness, that one is not fit to lead. It is one of the things Saddam did not understand about the US. I am convinced that he honestly did not believe the US would invade until it was too late. From Saddam's perspective the more he bowed to the US/UN, the weaker he looked to his neighbors.

No, there were no official ties between Saadam's regime and Al-Qaeda.

My point exactly! So we have the god-given duty and right to invade, bomb, and overthrow any country who harbors men who the US claim are terrorists. This line of reasoning has given us the secret US backed wars in Libya, Syria, the weapon-running in Libya that led to the attack on the annex, the Drone wars attacking any country, the killing of American citizens by drones, etc. Where and when does it end?

How I love the founder's of this country. How I wish we would heed their wise counsel from John Q. Adams: "She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

Exactly how many times does a government need to try to assasinate a former US president before they become a threat?

The article you referenced was from 1993! That justifies a war started in 2003? That makes a lot of sense. As for WMD was concerned, Iraq had no active WMD program. Yes some WMD was found, but none of it was new, their program had stopped ~1998.

You may be right. Is it your contention that because I disagree with you, I suffer from this "bad case of Nationalism"?

. No, I do not intend to insult you. I find it interesting that you seem to be taking offense or claiming that someone is insulting you, however. The US has a very militaristic culture and a very Nationalistic one. It is an extreme reaction to the 70s and the Vietnam War. It went from spitting on soldiers (completely unacceptable), to disagreeing with how the military is being used is un-Patriotic.

I understand it is extremely hard for many people to understand and admit that the Iraq War was unjustified. It takes a complete role-assessment and an admission of guilt, fault and contrition. Thankfully, more and more people are understanding that we should have never gone into Iraq.

IMO, one of the reasons why it has taken so long is that for the average American there is a complete disconnect between War and what happens at home. The US can fight a war and everything hums along fine at home, there is no sacrifice for the average American. No increase in taxes, no sacrifice of goods. Of course we should eliminate every evil in the world, we can do it with no sacrifice on our part. When a war is fought, the people of the country waging the war must sacrifice, otherwise war is too easy, it is too simple to just say, let's invade xyz. If it requires sacrifice, individuals will be much more circumspect about the circumstances under which war is waged.

Edited August 19, 2013 by yjacket

[FunkyTown]

Radical Islam is the root of terrorism, not the drone strikes. Radical Islam always has been and always will be the enemy of anyone who does not believe as they do. They will seek to kill the infidel simply for not believing as they do. They have never had problems gaining recruits. It is how they believe.

I am uneasy with this mode of thinking.

Islam has been around for about 1400 years.

Prior to September 11th, would you say that most terrorist attacks were done by Islamists? And if not, do you think there might be more political than religious motivation for these attacks?

On the topic at hand:

The US destabilized a region. More people have died since the Iraq war started than died under the previous 20 year regime. It was done because, according to the government at the time:

09/18/2002, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense (before Congress)

"We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons. His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons -- including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas. ... His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons—including anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox." (presentation to Congress)

10/7/2002, George W. Bush, President

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

11/01/2002, George W. Bush, President

"... for the sake of protecting our friends and allies, the United States will lead a mighty coalition of freedom-loving nations and disarm Saddam Hussein. See, I can't imagine what was going through the mind of this enemy when they hit us. They probably thought the national religion was materialism, that we were so selfish and so self-absorbed that after 9/11/2001 this mighty nation would take a couple of steps back and file a lawsuit.

Was Saddam Hussein evil? Undoubtedly. But the justification for the war never came to fruition.

Worse, this is a highly balkanized area. There will be genocide unless someone is there for the next 50 years. Or more.

The US has a choice: They can simply keep hands off, in which case the genocide will occur and the survivors will hate the US - Either because the US abandoned them in their time of need(Like they did with Osama Bin Ladin and his war with the Soviet Union) or because they disliked the US prior to taking over.

Or they can send in their boys, who will be killed in roadside bombs and assassinations, and this will occur for the next 50 years(Similar to the UK and Ireland).

Going in to Iraq was a mistake. But the only choice now is to either accept that your people will be killed for the mistake made and that the costs will be astronomical, or you can pull out in which case genocide is the only possible response. A genocide created by the US's mistake.

I respect and love the US, and I hate this particular choice - There isn't any really good choice. But innocent lives will be taken now that there is a power vacuum. The US can only decide if it will be over a long time or a short time and who will pay that price.

[yjacket]

Radical Islam is the root of terrorism, not the drone strikes. Radical Islam always has been and always will be the enemy of anyone who does not believe as they do. They will seek to kill the infidel simply for not believing as they do. They have never had problems gaining recruits. It is how they believe.

Ah, the hook, line, and sinker the American public has been sold for so long. They hate us b/c we are infidels, b/c we are free, etc.

There always have been and always will be radical elements in any religion. For those who lead, the Osama Bin Laden's of the world, they use Religion as a wrapper for their motives.

Read http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver:

"(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?

Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

a) You attacked us in Palestine:

(i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily."

The number one reason from their perspective they are attacking us is because they claim we attacked first!!!

Everyone loves to quote the second half of Osama's letter claiming America is decadent, but they always forget the first thing written was because he claimed we attacked first.

Foreign policy, Islam, etc, is much more than just they hate us, there are a lot of reasons why. Whether or not their claim is justified requires a little research into understanding why he claimed we attacked first.

And if you are living your life in a simple town in the middle of Iowa and some Drone from China came and bombed your house and killed your entire family except you, what would you do? You would do everything in your power to kill those who killed your family, religion would have very little to do with it.

Edited August 19, 2013 by yjacket

[NeuroTypical]

no terrorists (at the time of invasion-they are obviously there now!)

Hi yjacket,

Could I ask you to respond to my post addressing this belief? Are you still of the impression that there were no terrorists in Iraq at or before the time of the invasion?

I mean, it seems like you're shifting the goalposts here. You started with some pretty bold claims:

"All the justifications given at the time for war, WMD, terrorists, etc. were proven to be factually false."

No, that's not true.

"...no terrorists (at the time of invasion-they are obviously there now!)"

No, that's not true either.

Now that I answer your false claims, and point out the falseness, you brand me a war justifier, and try to feel my pain about how hard it must be to have to do a "complete role-assessment and an admission of guilt, fault and contrition."

Do you see how this might come across as a tad insulting?

Look, you can make a good argueable case that the 2nd Iraq war was not justified. But surely, you can do it without making false claims to support your beliefs. Surely, there are enough true claims you can make? That's pretty much my main point of disagreement with you. If you would just stick to the true stuff, and abandon all the false made up stuff, you'd still have a pretty good case to make...

I find it interesting that you seem to be taking offense or claiming that someone is insulting you, however. The US has a very militaristic culture and a very Nationalistic one. It is an extreme reaction to the 70s and the Vietnam War. It went from spitting on soldiers (completely unacceptable), to disagreeing with how the military is being used is un-Patriotic.

Thank you for clarifying that you were not intending to insult me. Just to make sure you know: I am not taking offense. I am not angry. I am not a hater. I am not accusing anyone of being unpatriotic. I am not locked in the throes of extreme blind nationalism. I am not beholden to US media. I am not blindly content to remain unaware of the realities outside of my own borders.

And yeah, no really, if you keep responding to my posts by creating this strawman image of me that looks like that guy, it really does speak to the strength of your argument. You should be able to just discuss things, without having to opine sadly about how it's not my fault I'm a blind deluded sheltered ignorant media dupe suffering from cognitive dissonance.

But now, for a breath of fresh air, here's something you said that I totally and completely agree with, and wish more people understood:

Middle-Eastern politics is the height of brinkmanship and bravado. If as a middle-eastern leader one does not threaten, or puff oneself up it is a sign of weakness, that one is not fit to lead. It is one of the things Saddam did not understand about the US. I am convinced that he honestly did not believe the US would invade until it was too late. From Saddam's perspective the more he bowed to the US/UN, the weaker he looked to his neighbors.

This is why I never really get worked up when the latest Iranian president is threatening to rain fire and doom down on America's cities. That's what' presidents of Iran do - that's what they've been doing for 30 years.

However, just because I don't think there's a high risk of them using nukes on me, I still support them not getting nukes.

Praetorian and yjacket, do you disagree? Do you think the US or the international community should allow Iran to develop the means to create, arm, and deliver a nuclear warhead?

Edited August 19, 2013 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Praetorian_Brow]

I can understand Iran being part of the middle Eastern picture, but I am slightly confused as to why that would justify the Iraq situation, which was the main drive of this topic. Perhaps the topic drifted that way out of convenience, as defending that position has reached an impasse.

While it makes me uncomfortable that any nation possess nuclear weapons, I disapprove that a nation could dictate what another nation can and cannot do, based on the potential for development and the U.S. sanctions seem to have only added hardship to their people. Its not hard to train citizens to hate another country when said country is dictating terms.

[FunkyTown]

"All the justifications given at the time for war, WMD, terrorists, etc. were proven to be factually false."

No, that's not true.

"...no terrorists (at the time of invasion-they are obviously there now!)"

No, that's not true either.

Tricky question: The justification given to the rest of the world was that Iraq had Al Qaeda terrorists.

There was an anthrax threat at some point, but Al Qaeda is a religious-based organization while Hussein ran a familial military junta.

He was no more associated with Al Qaeda than most people here. He was evil, certainly, but he wasn't what the rest of the world was told was a reason the US went to war.

Specifically: The US' first argument to go to war was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, up to and(Potentially including) nuclear weapons. There were no giant cannisters of sarin gas found. There were no true WMDs as we consider it now, and certainly no stockpile. This is where the classic line came:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

That, while true, didn't engender any type of trust in the initial arguments to invade. You'll note that relations cooled during the Iraq episode between Canada and the US as Canada didn't agree to invade, citing almost exactly the same arguments here:

"There's no evidence of WMDs or Al Qaeda links to the ruling class. We can't invade a sovereign nation because of the potential for threat or any war at any time can be justified."

I stand by that.

Now that it's happened, however, the justification is near irrelevant. Now the question is:

How do we clean up this mess?

There are a lot of people dying - Iraqis, Americans, innocents and not-so-innocents. The whys aren't as important now. Iraq is a highly balkanizes place. There aren't very many good ways out. I don't know what the right thing to do is.

[Just_A_Guy]

Canada has been in Afghanistan since 2001 and our military might be considered a joke by American standards, despite its high professionalism, but considering that we have barely 70 000 full time military and 30 000 reserve, our contribution is respectable.

Indeed; and I post the link below out of pure childishness:

SatireWire: CANADIAN WARSHIP SEIZES TANKER IN... WAIT... CANADA HAS A WARSHIP?

[NeuroTypical]

Tricky question: The justification given to the rest of the world was that Iraq had Al Qaeda terrorists.

Let's set up the tricky question properly. One of the justifications (and one the administration did quite a bit of backtracking, clarifying, distancing on, before the war started), given to the rest of the world was that Iraq had Al Qaeda terrorists.

This is a better way to put it. Because again, yes, you can make a good case for the war in Iraq not being justified. You're making the case now, in fact.

But I was there, and I remember. I remember the whole left-of-center world erupting loudly at the phrase "al-qaeda in Iraq". I remember the salivation and hand-rubbing, as they cemented the comments/videos/news reports/newspaper articles into their long-term memory, books, articles, magazines, and hyperlinks. They knew the administration screwed up, and it would cost them dearly in future elections.

I remember the whole right-of-center world doing damage control. Specifically saying "wait - our main justification isn't al-qaeda in Iraq! Our main justification is [loose groupings of other things, like yellowcake, and 1441, and Hans Blix is a weenie, and state sponsor of terrorism, and drumming up sympathy for the Iraqi people, and pushing dreams of a stable, etc, etc]."

I remember the left-of-center world not caring. Bush would pay for saying "al-qaeda in Iraq". The right became weakened and exploitable after using the phrase. And the left-of-center folks continute to exploit and not care to this day - as evidenced by your post.

but Al Qaeda is a religious-based organization while Hussein ran a familial military junta.

He was no more associated with Al Qaeda than most people here. He was evil, certainly, but he wasn't what the rest of the world was told was a reason the US went to war.

Yep. I've known and accepted this since before Gulf war II. It would be nice if you would accept that I knew it, and was talking about it, since before Gulf war II as well.

(Oh, and for the record, I don't make fun of the Canadian military much. I was actually housed in a military installation in Montreal back in the '90's, who leased out the campus to corporate interests. I learned a thing or two about you guys. Easy to poke fun of, but yes, still worthy of a measure of respect.)

Now that it's happened, however, the justification is near irrelevant. Now the question is:

How do we clean up this mess?

I agree that's the question. Gotta be careful of the definition of 'we' though.

I see folks on the left continuing to make political hay out of the current situation in Iraq. Praetorian seems to think "send trainers" would be a good solution. The OP says "they wanted us to leave, we left - they're on their own".

Any other ideas?

[Praetorian_Brow]

Indeed; and I post the link below out of pure childishness:

SatireWire: CANADIAN WARSHIP SEIZES TANKER IN... WAIT... CANADA HAS A WARSHIP?

You will claim its satire, but its insulting. However, all is fair in love and war.

Ask for Saudia Arabia's input, as they understand the region more and would garner more respect from Iraqis.

Edited August 19, 2013 by Praetorian_Brow

[NeuroTypical]

Canadian humor is superior in most ways to US humor. And, unlike a lot of people in the US, Canada and Great Britain actually have an understanding of irony.

[Quin]

Canada also has the entire HM army/navy/air/SS 5&6/ etc. behind her... Which I think a lot of Americans forget.

Aussies,GB, CA... Each with their own PMs, but all under 1 crown. And then, also us jarheads (and squids, grunts, air farce) down here... Because they're not only our largest trading partner, but when we don't have an international catastrophe at the helm beating our best and longest allies about like a piñata... The Commonwealth is armed to the teeth.

... Q, formerly one of Uncle Sams Misguided Children, who thoroughly appreciates the ratio of 1 Mountie : 1 riot. Crazy Canuks welcome on my flank any day of the durn week. Course, then Ill rib the blazes outta you, but hey. What's a little healthy competition between people carrying fully automatic weapons? Nothing could POSSIBLY go wrong.

[yjacket]

I think FunkyTown did a pretty good job of summing things up.

I don't particularly care to get into it, but I'll try to explain, what were the original justifications of going to war.

Claim #1: Iraq had an active WMD program. False.

#1a: Iraq had massive stockpiles of WMD. False.

My goodness, simply read Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not that wiki is the end all-be all of knowledge, but it is there in black and white.

From wiki, the ISG found the following:

"Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of [iraq's WMD] policy. All senior level Iraqi officials considered Iran to be Iraq’s principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerations, but secondary."[100]

"Saddam did not consider the United States a natural adversary, as he did Iran and Israel, and he hoped that Iraq might again enjoy improved relations with the United States, according to Tariq ‘Aziz and the presidential secretary."[100]

Evidence of the maturity and significance of the pre-1991 Iraqi Nuclear Program but found that Iraq's ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after that date;

Concealment of nuclear program in its entirety, as with Iraq's BW program. Aggressive UN inspections after Desert Storm forced Saddam to admit the existence of the program and destroy or surrender components of the program;

After Desert Storm, Iraq concealed key elements of its program and preserved what it could of the professional capabilities of its nuclear scientific community;

Saddam's ambitions in the nuclear area were secondary to his prime objective of ending UN sanctions; and

A limited number of post-1995 activities would have aided the reconstitution of the nuclear weapons program once sanctions were lifted.

The report found that "The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but [there is] the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability."

Claim #2: Fighting Iraq helps fight terrorism. Again look at Rationale for the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Was there a terrorist in Iraq, probably, was terrorism a main problem emanating from Iraq that threatened the US, no.

You claim that my responses are false, when in actuality they are very true general statements, in order to turn a my generally true statements into a falsehood one has to be extremely pedantic.

I merely stated that in multiple posts you have asked STTE of "are you insulting me?", if that isn't looking for a fight, I'm not sure what is.

Edited August 20, 2013 by yjacket

[NeuroTypical]

Was there a terrorist in Iraq, probably, was terrorism a main problem emanating from Iraq that threatened the US, no.

Thank you for replying, yjacket. So, the guy who pushed Leon Klinghoeffer off the boat, the guy who mixed the bombs for the first World Trade Center bombing, and Zarqawi, all sheltered by the Iraqi government, and Zarqawi actually operating out of an Iraqi government office, and you're willing to admit that there "probably" was "a terrorist in Iraq".

I think folks reading this thread can reach their own conclusions. I'll add "pedantic" and "looking for a fight" to things you've called me, and take that as my answer to my question about you wanting genuine debate.

[pam]

Canada did not go to Iraq, despite it being requested by Bush because our Prime Minister did not agree that it was merited. Unfortunately, Bush insulted most of the long time American allies by stating that his allies had to be with him or against him. Canada has been in Afghanistan since 2001 and our military might be considered a joke by American standards, despite its high professionalism, but considering that we have barely 70 000 full time military and 30 000 reserve, our contribution is respectable.

My understanding is that Canada had agreed to enter the war if the UN sanctioned it. Since it wasn't they refused to send troops. However, they had agreed to provide moral support to the US and the UK and according to some leaked documents had also agreed to support it.