War in Iraq Over

[billvon 3,068]

>So long as you fully understand what "military advisers" are, I suppose so.

Sorry, that was a joke. The US has a history of placing "non-military" advisers that turn out to be very . . . military, even if they're wearing comfortable shoes.

[normiss 848]

Historically, I think you could make a case for that movement being the predecessor to military action.

[mirage62 0]

You could BUT Obumer say no boots on the ground. Keep that in mind over the next few months.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[Amazon 7]

mirage62

You could BUT Obumer say no boots on the ground. Keep that in mind over the next few months.

Can I use some of my patented so called "Childish" terms that several of the always classy conservatives here put it in rebuttal to that in the turn about is fair play mode ????

[mirage62 0]

LOL. Is the word Obumer a play ground foul? If it is Amazon I'm sorry.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[kallend 2,106]

mirage62

OK, let me be clear....I was just fucking around about Canada. It's a great country with great people. I was responding in a childish manner to comments from a previous poster.

Canada is full of kung-fu killers and will descend upon its southern neighbor at any moment of their choosing and correct our out of control government (should another Republican EVER get elected)

Now will someone call off the mad moose's?

Just remember who burned the White House and Capitol in 1814.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

mirage62

Quote

Maybe one day you guys will learn that not everybody wants to be like the USA.

Yep, one day maybe Canada will grow a set..... Naaaaa never happen.

***
And maybe at the same time your soldiers will one day figure out they aren't always fighting to defend the freedom of Americans.

Hell MAYBE one day Canada will decide there is something WORTH fighting for................ Naaaaa never happen.

I see history isn't really your strong suit. Canada has a pretty decent history of stepping up when required. Iraq simply didn't fit those parameters.

No American Freedom was protected. There was no threat to the US, or any other part of the Western world. Iraq was not involved with 9/11. Other than the personal ego of your President at the time, there was no reason to go to war with Iraq.

[cgriff 0]

mirage62

Now will someone call off the mad moose's?

No! Send more mooses... moose... meese.. big furry tasty animals!

[Amazon 7]

mirage62

LOL. Is the word Obumer a play ground foul? If it is Amazon I'm sorry.

Just pointing out a double standard that some seem to throw around when ever I tried to "balance the books" so to speak.

I would prefer civil discussion but some are incapable of that.

[lawrocket 3]

It seems your opinion has shifted in the past few years from Bush's fault with bipartisan Congressional knowing complicityfor purpose of convenience to right-wing lies.

I don't think that the likes of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and John Kerry (who all voted for use of force in Iraq) were duped by Bush. They knew what Bush knew.

What has brought about this change? New information or a shortened memory?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

lawrocket

It seems your opinion has shifted in the past few years from Bush's fault with bipartisan Congressional knowing complicityfor purpose of convenience to right-wing lies.

I don't think that the likes of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and John Kerry (who all voted for use of force in Iraq) were duped by Bush. They knew what Bush knew.

What has brought about this change? New information or a shortened memory?

In the rush to allow the president to use force if needed to bring Sadaam to comply with all the terms of the agreements at the end of Desert Storm Many politicians were indeed duped.
I seem to remember them not quite voting for war ( weasel words that I am sure a lawyer would understand) but to get him to comply.

A realization of the state of mind of most ( NOT ALL) Americans after 9/11 is also instructive.... and why we have the Department of Homeland Security, the TSA and the Patriot Act that is now so vilified by those here who thought they were the greatest ideas EVER.

The madness that gripped so many did not allow the use of anything approaching common sense. We all know those who you hate so much an named above would have committed political suicide by going against the grain with the cherry picked evidence presented at the time. Even some of those in the administration at the time now realize how badly they were had and are rightfully so and that stench will always be attached to their names.

[mirage62 0]

Quote

Maybe one day you guys will learn that not everybody wants to be like the USA. And maybe at the same time your soldiers will one day figure out they aren't always fighting to defend the freedom of Americans.

Quote

I see history isn't really your strong suit.

And I sir can see that common sense isn't your strong suit. I fairly sure you don't have a damn clue what our soldiers think, as I'm pretty sure you haven't served in the American forces.

If you could have stuck with your snarky comment about Americans....I'd have past on a comment. After all your Canadian and can be proud of your country, if it makes you feel like a bigger man to make statements like that - cool.

The honor that it takes to serve, perhaps to not even totally agree and still serve is what set me off. Then again, I'm sure you understand that as your certainly served.

Somewhere....for somebody....doing...something.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[mirage62 0]

Quote

You could BUT Obumer say no boots on the ground. Keep that in mind over the next few months.

Hummm they just sent another 130..."none boots on the ground" What's that 630?

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has sent an additional 130 military advisers to northern Iraq to help plan the evacuation of thousands of displaced people trapped by Sunni militants on Mount Sinjar, Defense Department officials said Tuesday, raising the possibility that a larger American force may eventually be needed in the rescue attempt

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[kallend 2,106]

lawrocket

It seems your opinion has shifted in the past few years from Bush's fault with bipartisan Congressional knowing complicityfor purpose of convenience to right-wing lies.

I don't think that the likes of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and John Kerry (who all voted for use of force in Iraq) were duped by Bush. They knew what Bush knew.

Disagree. The intelligence agencies report to the executive branch. The rest get what the executive branch wants them to get. Cheney even had his own "off the grid" Office of Special Plans going.

Maybe you haven't heard but the CIA even spies on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kpoe 0]

SkyDekker

No American Freedom was protected. There was no threat to the US, or any other part of the Western world. Other than the personal ego of your President at the time, there was no reason to go to war with Iraq.

Two things, quickly:

(1) You seem to imply that for the United States to engage in armed conflict it must first satisfy the condition that its sovereignty is threatened.

This sounds nice, but there is no basis in our history for such a condition. As you know (given your strong background in history), our very own revolution relied on foreign intervention. It's hard to take seriously an argument for why such intervention on behalf of our people is permissible but to do so on behalf of another group of people is somehow unacceptable.

(2) Okay, hollow threats to US liberty and freedom aside-- we're in agreement about the hollowness, I think, you also say there was no reason to go to war with Iraq.

This really trivializes the magnitude of the horror of Saddam's Ba'athist regime and the scale of violence inflicted upon so many people by his direct command. Say the war wasn't worth it, say it was poorly executed, say we shouldn't have done it, but don't say there was "no reason" to go to war with Iraq. That would be a lie.

Some general thoughts:

This is a pretty complicated situation that's arising in Iraq. Truthfully it has less to do with our withdrawal and more to do with al-Maliki's death grip on power, which comes at the cost of alienating religious minorities in the country that reside in Sunni dominated regions. This has made it somewhat easier for certain former Ba'athists, disgruntled about being excluded in Iraq's future, who also happen to have the knowledge and military experience from the old regime, to take over such regions.

On top of this, there's also the fundamentalist ISIS that we're hearing so much about. You'd think Ba'athism would be an enemy of ISIS (since it has traditionally been secular), but there's a weird sort of alliance of opportunity that's arising between the two. It seems the old Ba'athist crew (which was already pretty horrible and hell bent on maintaining power at all costs) may be willing to team up with these similarly authoritarian Islamic fundamentalists for the sake of getting some power back. The results are devastating.

One point that may be lost, I think, is that a lot of the horrible things that are happening are happening at the hands of the people we helped remove from power. These are those people, at least in many cases. The difference is that we are starting to get pictures and video of the sort of violence that only used to be documented in print.

I think we all probably agree that this is a deplorable tragedy that's unfolding. It's pretty pointless to argue over whether we do or don't have boots on the ground. The real question is whether or not we should do something, if so what that would entail, and the implications if we don't intervene.

Any takers?

[cgriff 0]

kpoe

I think we all probably agree that this is a deplorable tragedy that's unfolding. It's pretty pointless to argue over whether we do or don't have boots on the ground. The real question is whether or not we should do something, if so what that would entail, and the implications if we don't intervene.

Any takers?

Sure, I'll bite...

No, we should not do something. Yes, I realize that we at the very least exacerbated the situation there, so the argument will come from some that we need to "clean up our own mess." However, we've quite effectively proven that we cannot clean up messes, and attempting to do so just makes a bigger mess. It's long past time to bite the bullet, admit we are not the world's police or mommy or daddy, and try focusing on our own problems for a change.

It's sad that we spend so much time, effort, blood and money trying to make the rest of the world safe for democracy, while at the same time destroying our own republic

However, given your thoughts on interventionism, none of that will go over very well, will it?

[kallend 2,106]

kpoe

***

No American Freedom was protected. There was no threat to the US, or any other part of the Western world. Other than the personal ego of your President at the time, there was no reason to go to war with Iraq.

Two things, quickly:

(1) You seem to imply that for the United States to engage in armed conflict it must first satisfy the condition that its sovereignty is threatened.

This sounds nice, but there is no basis in our history for such a condition. As you know (given your strong background in history), our very own revolution relied on foreign intervention. It's hard to take seriously an argument for why such intervention on behalf of our people is permissible but to do so on behalf of another group of people is somehow unacceptable.



The foreign intervention in the revolution was very definitely in the French interest. Don't for a moment think Louis was being altruistic about the freedoms and tax burdens of the colonists. The French were not fighting FOR the Americans, they were fighting AGAINST the British in a continuation of the Seven Years War.

I don't think the US has a very good track record of intervention when its sovereignty is not threatened.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

(1) You seem to imply that for the United States to engage in armed conflict it must first satisfy the condition that its sovereignty is threatened.

Not quite what I was implying. The given reason for going into Iraq was because of their threat to the Western World and American freedoms. The soundbites coming back from American soldiers is usually along the lines of being proud to protect American freedoms, or something similar to those lines.

Quote

Okay, hollow threats to US liberty and freedom aside-- we're in agreement about the hollowness, I think, you also say there was no reason to go to war with Iraq.

This really trivializes the magnitude of the horror of Saddam's Ba'athist regime and the scale of violence inflicted upon so many people by his direct command. Say the war wasn't worth it, say it was poorly executed, say we shouldn't have done it, but don't say there was "no reason" to go to war with Iraq. That would be a lie.

That wasn't the stated reason at the time. That is revisionist history when it turned out the original reasons where either a lie, or an epic failure by your intelligence agencies.

Nobody is disputing the SH was a bad man doing a lot of bad things. If that is a reason to invade the country, you have many more countries to go.

Quote

This is a pretty complicated situation that's arising in Iraq. Truthfully it has less to do with our withdrawal and more to do with al-Maliki's death grip on power, which comes at the cost of alienating religious minorities in the country that reside in Sunni dominated regions.

You don't go in and upset the apple cart, you most likely don't have the current situation.

If your stated reason was that you wanted to make life better for the people of Iraq, then you have a moral obligation to get back in there and do so. Right now you have made a bad situation much worse.

[Amazon 7]

kallend

******

No American Freedom was protected. There was no threat to the US, or any other part of the Western world. Other than the personal ego of your President at the time, there was no reason to go to war with Iraq.

Two things, quickly:

(1) You seem to imply that for the United States to engage in armed conflict it must first satisfy the condition that its sovereignty is threatened.

This sounds nice, but there is no basis in our history for such a condition. As you know (given your strong background in history), our very own revolution relied on foreign intervention. It's hard to take seriously an argument for why such intervention on behalf of our people is permissible but to do so on behalf of another group of people is somehow unacceptable.



The foreign intervention in the revolution was very definitely in the French interest. Don't for a moment think Louis was being altruistic about the freedoms and tax burdens of the colonists. The French were not fighting FOR the Americans, they were fighting AGAINST the British in a continuation of the Seven Years War.

I don't think the US has a very good track record of intervention when its sovereignty is not threatened.

The bigger prize in that very first global war was India..... America was just a sideshow for Britain and France.

[ryoder 1,590]

al-Maliki *finally* agrees to GTFO of the way: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/14/iraqi-prime-minister-maliki-step-aside-abadi

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[tkhayes 348]

mirage62

Tk, for the most part I find almost 100% of you post to be ridiculous.

Whatever caused the "mess" there is a mess. So now we should do nothing and let the "JV" team to get stronger.

Obama will screw this up.

yes in fact I believe we SHOULD DO NOTHING. WHile that may be hard for you to fathom, it is a reality.

Obama will screw this up? John McCain would screw this up. Romney would screw this up. Sarah Palin would screw this up. ANYONE would screw this up, as you say, given that there is absolutely NO SOLUTION to the issue. i am all about fixing things that we can fix. And in the same light I am not interested in spending time and money trying to fix things that cannot be fixed.

No solution? Stay the fuck out of it until one appears on the horizon and then work towards it.

[kpoe 0]

kallend

The foreign intervention in the revolution was very definitely in the French interest. Don't for a moment think Louis was being altruistic about the freedoms and tax burdens of the colonists.

I don't think the US has a very good track record of intervention when its sovereignty is not threatened.

So long as we can agree that there are viable reasons for a country to enter into an armed conflict besides protecting their own sovereignty, the point stands. Once you can admit that, then you can begin to consider the merits of those other reasons.

I agree that we don't have a good track record when it comes to intervention, but I don't think that's a sufficient argument for not intervening in the future.

SkyDekker

That wasn't the stated reason at the time. That is revisionist history when it turned out the original reasons where either a lie, or an epic failure by your intelligence agencies.

No, it's definitely not revisionist history, but I can understand why you think it is. The truth is that the treatment of his own people and the crazy things he'd do to stay in power played a huge role in the decision to invade Iraq. But don't take my word for it, read the War Resolution yourself:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/pdf/PLAW-107publ243.pdf

For your convenience, some of those reasons:

Quote

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United
Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Also don't forget about the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, passed unanimously in the Senate and with 90% support in the house, with the stated policy to "remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power." That would probably be a good source of the reasons we wanted to do it, right?

https://beta.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ338/PLAW-105publ338.pdf

Some of the reasons:

Quote

(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish
civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing
an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.

(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against
Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing
an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects
that affect the town today.

(7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas
near the border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of
a renewed invasion of or attack against Kuwait.

(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts
to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power
in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

Unfortunately the administration did sell the war hard publicly on the idea of WMDs, and I think that was a huge mistake. They focussed far too much on ultimately faulty intelligence instead of focusing on what was established fact.

SkyDekker

Nobody is disputing the SH was a bad man doing a lot of bad things. If that is a reason to invade the country, you have many more countries to go.

This is a cop out, honestly, and I hear it a lot. Saddam Hussein and his regime were particularly gruesome. Honestly I'd be in favor of doing whatever is possible to stop mad men from committing the sort of atrocities that he was known for, any time, any where. Don't delude yourself into thinking that he was just as bad as every other tyrannical dictator. THAT would be revisionist history. It would be really convenient too. But the truth is much more messy, and creates a much harder moral problem to consider.

cgriff

However, given your thoughts on interventionism, none of that will go over very well, will it?

I'm in favor of doing whatever is possible to prevent the brutal genocide of the Kurdish people. What's happening right now is not acceptable. I don't like getting involved in foreign conflicts, but when women and children are being executed and in some cases buried alive in mass quantities, and when they're begging for help (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/iraqi-who-survived-saddam-hussein-4047266), it's time to step the fuck up.

It's difficult, though. Of course it is. It's very easy to be exhausted with Iraq and avoid getting involved. Administration officials did mislead the public and that makes people very skeptical about what we do there, and for good reason.

The real test of moral and political courage would be the willingness to stand up, acknowledge past mistakes, but still maintain that we're not going to let Islamic authoritarians of any type massacre an ethnic population in the most gruesome manner imaginable.

The easy way out, of course, is to shake our heads and say "not our problem". But that's obvious. Of course it's not our problem. It's the problem of the people getting forced out of their homes and marched to a mountain top to starve to death in the name of Islam, or the child that's holding on to life while getting dirt buried on top of her. It's their problem, but they don't have the means to solve it themselves. So do we let them die?

That answer, to me at least, is obvious. The trickier bit comes in figuring out the best way to help them without actually growing Islamic fundamentalism in the process. That should be the topic of discussion, really. Letting a genocide occur should be a non-option, but instead we need to be asking how we ought to act in a way that doesn't actually encourage this sort of thing in the future or come back to haunt us.

[Arvoitus 1]

How about North Korea? Are you willing to invade that place because its run by a bad dude?

Your rights end where my feelings begin.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council

Israel does the same same thing and continues ot do so. I don't see the US invading Israel.

Quote

Also don't forget about the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, passed unanimously in the Senate and with 90% support in the house, with the stated policy to "remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power." That would probably be a good source of the reasons we wanted to do it, right?

No, that is exactly what lead to the disck swining contest between Jr and Sr. Sr. didn't finish after the Kuwait invasion by Iraq. Jr. wanted to show daddy he could do better.

Quote

This is a cop out, honestly, and I hear it a lot. Saddam Hussein and his regime were particularly gruesome. Honestly I'd be in favor of doing whatever is possible to stop mad men from committing the sort of atrocities that he was known for, any time, any where. Don't delude yourself into thinking that he was just as bad as every other tyrannical dictator. THAT would be revisionist history. It would be really convenient too. But the truth is much more messy, and creates a much harder moral problem to consider.

But SH was nowhere near alone in his gruesome behaviour in current times or recent history.

North Korea
Host of African and Middle Eastern countries
Cambodia
Let's not forget the US didn't get actively and directly involved with fighting the structured genocide of jews in Germany until Japan attacked Pearl Harbour and after Germany declared war on the US.

Using the argument you were going in to save the day just doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.

Quote

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United
Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

First part didn't end up being true. And if the US had waited a couple of days (maybe weeks) the UN was about to prove that. Obviously the invasion needed to happen prior to that rapport coming out.

Coincidence? Personally, I don't think so.

[kallend 2,106]

kpoe

This is a cop out, honestly, and I hear it a lot. Saddam Hussein and his regime were particularly gruesome. Honestly I'd be in favor of doing whatever is possible to stop mad men from committing the sort of atrocities that he was known for, any time, any where.

I guess we still have a lot of invading to do, then. Lots of nasty, brutal dictators left in the world.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.