What's new

Invasion of Iraq

Invasion of Iraq

  • Still support W and his decision

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    17
We will never learn our lesson until either:

1. An amendment is passed which forces Congress to actually declare war when we go to war (a full repeal of the war powers act). And when war is declared, each congressman must send one member of his/her immediate family to fight on the front lines. Until that happens? Congress will be more than happy sending white rednecks, Latinos, and blacks to fight.

2. The draft is Reinstituted when we go to war. Suddenly Americans might actually pay attention to what congress and the president are doing. Force every American to slap some skin into war and suddenly war won't be our national past time anymore.

Example: Utah is about as gun-ho about war as they come! Yet, we're one of the lowest for voluntary recruits. Ironic isn't it? We love war, as long as its someone else doing all the fighting.
 
...I think we will look back at Iraq much like we do with vietnam today. The trillions flushed down the toilet and the thousands dead, died in a worthless war. One that could have and should have been easily avoided. I find great irony from the right that claims that our government can't do anything right domestically then starts illegal wars to spread our government abroad...

I'm not sure how we look back at Viet Nam today. I think given its current economic position and economic growth and the fact that it now has diplomatic relations with most other countries, there are certainly those who feel the effort was successful in the long-run.

The entire rationale for the Viet Nam war was much different than our involvement in the Gulf region. Somewhat along the same lines as WWI and WWII, the reason were couched in the language of "making the world safe for democracy" - battling against a Communist takeover and the fear of the "Domino Effect" - - it was certainly not a battle over access to resources like that which motivated our involvement in the Persian Gulf region.

Also, some of our support for Saddam Hussein and Iraq had to do with our hatred for Iran and the Ayatollah after they took over the US Embassy in 1979 and held the Embassy staff hostage for over a year.

The years of our involvement in Viet Nam were turbulent, to be sure - but I think much of that turbulence had to do with other things that were going on in society (Civil rights, Women's rights, etc) and disagreements about the war were just one more thing added to the mix. Plus, there were organizations such as SDS that in theory may seem to have been organized around the issue of the war in Viet Nam but were in reality much more far reaching in their desired goals.

And again, I think our motivation for involvement in the Persian Gulf region is far different and is far more motivated by economic goals.
 
I don't think so.

I don't think even Kuwait would prefer radical Islam to Saddam. Iraq is now a nest of anarchists, terrorists, and radicals. We opened a can of worms when we invaded. A can whose top was sealed as long as Hussein and his Baath party remained in power. Some countries should never have democracy. Iraq, with all of its different factions, should have remained what it was. Now, all hell is loose.

Dude come on

The fact that you put the Kurds on your list of groups that would prefer that Saddam is still in power shows how little you have actually looked into the situation.

Shiite/Iran ^ditto

Kuwait is probably more complicated being a Sunni majority country but Kuwait supported the invasion in 2003. Saddam saw Kuwait as a natural part of Iraq. Saddam was a sword hanging over the heads of Kuwaitis. I imagine that while most Kuwaitis probably have serious objections to the way the occupation was handled I doubt many would say that things were better with Saddam.
 
I think people really fail to comprehend that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands if Iraqis in the years following the first gulf war.

But according to some there are certain people who deserve to live under a ruthless dictator and can't be trusted with democracy, ever. I can only assume it is because they are inferior to real humans like any person who would make such an outrageously offensive comment like that.
 
I think people really fail to comprehend that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands if Iraqis in the years following the first gulf war.

But according to some there are certain people who deserve to live under a ruthless dictator and can't be trusted with democracy, ever. I can only assume it is because they are inferior to real humans like any person who would make such an outrageously offensive comment like that.

How many people do you think have died since America invaded?
 
How many people do you think have died since America invaded?

The think the question you are trying to ask is "How many more or less people died in Iraq than would have died if USA hadn't invaded?"

The answer is nobody knows. My guess is overall a lot more people have died, but that has a lot to do with imported suicide bombers.
 
How many people do you think have died since America invaded?

What I hear is that everything was pretty good under Saddam. Iraq was stable. There was peace and prosperity...etc.

That's not true. Iraq wasn't doing just fine until we invaded and screwed up the good thing they had going.
 
I'm not sure how we look back at Viet Nam today. I think given its current economic position and economic growth and the fact that it now has diplomatic relations with most other countries, there are certainly those who feel the effort was successful in the long-run.

Can you tell me what the Viet Nam War accomplished that made this happen? After we pulled out, the SVA crumbled and it became a communist nation - which is exactly what would have happened if we weren't there to begin with. That and they would have had about a million or so more people.
 
Can you tell me what the Viet Nam War accomplished that made this happen? After we pulled out, the SVA crumbled and it became a communist nation - which is exactly what would have happened if we weren't there to begin with. That and they would have had about a million or so more people.

And it still is a Communist country as fas as I know. As is China. But both have growing economies and are no longer the typical "stagnant" state-run economies that they were 30 years ago. And both have diplomatic relations with most other countries, and tourism is flourishing. I'm not sure exactly WHY that is - - I was not trying to comment on the results of the war in Viet Nam, and what the effects of our involvement had on the current status of the country. Just saying that the situation in Viet Nam after 40 years is far different than the situation in Iraq after 25 years. Maybe in another 15 years Iraq's situation will more closely parallel Viet Nam's.

What I hear is that everything was pretty good under Saddam. Iraq was stable. There was peace and prosperity...etc.

That's not true. Iraq wasn't doing just fine until we invaded and screwed up the good thing they had going.

I was trying to google to find links but I don't have the right keywords to find what I'm looking for. But regarding the atrocities committed by the Iraqis, there was a bit of a PR campaign that went on before the first Gulf War in the 1990's where a NYC public relations firm was hired to do work for an anti-Saddam group to make him look bad. They "documented" a number of atrocities, many of which turned out to be exaggerated and some even fabricated completely. I think it came to light several years later, in the mid-90's. The point was to strengthen the case for a US-led attack to the American public, as well as to elected officials and others around the world. It was a bit of a scandal when it came out.

As I recall, the PR firm was the same one that Big Tobacco hired in the 50's to make the case that cigarette smoking did not pose any increased health risks. I'm not sure if the firm was named in that movie that came out a few years ago, and I don't remember the name of the movie so I can't look that up either.

At any rate, I'm not saying Saddam was a "good" guy by any means, only that I'm never quite sure what to believe when it comes to these sorts of things because there is manipulation that often does take place.

EDITED: Found this link - https://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html
 
Last edited:
I am not sure how much of the "Bush lied" argument I buy but I think it was a bad decision.

I supported Afganistan and still think it was the right decision. I never agreed with Iraq. I think G.W. Bush has a score to settle and I do not want America acting unilaterally as the worlds police man. Especially when we pick and choose what people are worth saving and which are not.
 
https://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

...The American public was notoriously reluctant to send its young into foreign battles on behalf of any cause. Selling war in the Middle East to the American people would not be easy. Bush would need to convince Americans that former ally Saddam Hussein now embodied evil, and that the oil fiefdom of Kuwait was a struggling young democracy. How could the Bush Administration build US support for "liberating" a country so fundamentally opposed to democratic values? How could the war appear noble and necessary rather than a crass grab to save cheap oil?

"If and when a shooting war starts, reporters will begin to wonder why American soldiers are dying for oil-rich sheiks," warned Hal Steward, a retired army PR official. "The US military had better get cracking to come up with a public relations plan that will supply the answers the public can accept."

Steward needn't have worried. A PR plan was already in place, paid for almost entirely by the "oil-rich sheiks" themselves.

Packaging the Emir
US Congressman Jimmy Hayes of Louisiana -- a conservative Democrat who supported the Gulf War -- later estimated that the government of Kuwait funded as many as 20 PR, law and lobby firms in its campaign to mobilize US opinion and force against Hussein. Participating firms included the Rendon Group, which received a retainer of $100,000 per month for media work, and Neill & Co., which received $50,000 per month for lobbying Congress. Sam Zakhem, a former US ambassador to the oil-rich gulf state of Bahrain, funneled $7.7 million in advertising and lobbying dollars through two front groups, the "Coalition for Americans at Risk" and the "Freedom Task Force." The Coalition, which began in the 1980s as a front for the contras in Nicaragua, prepared and placed TV and newspaper ads, and kept a stable of fifty speakers available for pro-war rallies and publicity events.

Hill & Knowlton, then the world's largest PR firm, served as mastermind for the Kuwaiti campaign. Its activities alone would have constituted the largest foreign-funded campaign ever aimed at manipulating American public opinion. By law, the Foreign Agents Registration Act should have exposed this propaganda campaign to the American people, but the Justice Department chose not to enforce it.

Nine days after Saddam's army marched into Kuwait, the Emir's government agreed to fund a contract under which Hill & Knowlton would represent "Citizens for a Free Kuwait," a classic PR front group designed to hide the real role of the Kuwaiti government and its collusion with the Bush administration. Over the next six months, the Kuwaiti government channeled $11.9 million dollars to Citizens for a Free Kuwait, whose only other funding totalled $17,861 from 78 individuals. Virtually all of CFK's budget -- $10.8 million -- went to Hill & Knowlton in the form of fees.

The man running Hill & Knowlton's Washington office was Craig Fuller, one of Bush's closest friends and inside political advisors. The news media never bothered to examine Fuller's role until after the war had ended, but if America's editors had read the PR trade press, they might have noticed this announcement, published in O'Dwyer's PR Services before the fighting began: "Craig L. Fuller, chief of staff to Bush when he was vice-president, has been on the Kuwaiti account at Hill & Knowlton since the first day. He and [Bob] Dilenschneider at one point made a trip to Saudi Arabia, observing the production of some 20 videotapes, among other chores. The Wirthlin Group, research arm of H&K, was the pollster for the Reagan Administration. ...

Hill & Knowlton was the firm that also did work for the tobacco companies throughout the 50's and 60's.
 
I am not sure how much of the "Bush lied" argument I buy but I think it was a bad decision.

Yeah, I agree. I don't think Bush said "A" when he knew the case was "B". What he did is tell his people to go out and make the case for war. Now that's all well and good when you're formulating tax policy or health care policy; but when you use that process to make a decision that will result in the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, some would argue that's just as bad and irresponsible as lying.

I never agreed with Iraq.

Could have used you here in early 2003. I'm pretty sure there were less than 5 people on this board that were against the war back then.
 
Yeah, I agree. I don't think Bush said "A" when he knew the case was "B". What he did is tell his people to go out and make the case for war. Now that's all well and good when you're formulating tax policy or health care policy; but when you use that process to make a decision that will result in the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, some would argue that's just as bad and irresponsible as lying.



Could have used you here in early 2003. I'm pretty sure there were less than 5 people on this board that were against the war back then.

It's easy to get caught up in the moment. Also hindsight is 20/20.

But I didn't like it for a few reasons.

1. Felt to much like the Bush family handling old grudges to me

2. We are not the world police

3. If we are to be the world police then be fair about it and take action in places like Africa

4. Iraq was not related to 9/11. Even back then that wasn't the argument right? It was WMD's.

5. If we are to go after nations with WMD's then here we come China, Russia, Israel, France, England, India, Pakistan...

6. We had enough on our plates with Afghanistan and hunting down other terrorist orgs.
 
It's easy to get caught up in the moment. Also hindsight is 20/20.

But I didn't like it for a few reasons.

1. Felt to much like the Bush family handling old grudges to me

2. We are not the world police

3. If we are to be the world police then be fair about it and take action in places like Africa

4. Iraq was not related to 9/11. Even back then that wasn't the argument right? It was WMD's.

5. If we are to go after nations with WMD's then here we come China, Russia, Israel, France, England, India, Pakistan...

6. We had enough on our plates with Afghanistan and hunting down other terrorist orgs.

"Hindsight is 50/50"-- Bolerjack 2012
 
I don't have enough time right now to respond to all the points...

But a few points I wanted to address.

#1 Of course Bush lied. Who controlled the intelligence community? Anyone who wants to know the scoop on this needs to read the book, "Fiasco."
https://www.amazon.com/Fiasco-American-Military-Adventure-Iraq/dp/0143038915
or Hubris
https://www.amazon.com/Hubris-Inside-Story-Scandal-Selling-ebook/dp/B000JMKR3E
Or another book called W (I think. I can't remember the name or author. It was fantastic though. I'll need to search my library for it).

Bush purposely put into place yes men who would quickly look for evidence of WMDs rather than looking at evidence and allow the evidence to build a case for WMDs. Huge difference between looking for evidence of a problem (WMDs) and looking at evidence and seeing that there might be a problem (potential development of WMDs).

Bush has a real complex with his brother and dad. He wanted to become a new "Reagan" like character and outshine both his father and Jeb. So he wanted to have a "tear down that wall" like legacy in the Middle-East. Iraq was the perfect target.

#2 Yes, things were a lot better under Hussein. Under Hussein, utilities worked, order was maintained, people had jobs, we had a check against Iran's power, and radical Islam (our biggest threat) wasn't allowed to flourish. Saddam wasn't going to mass kill anyone anymore. Half of his country was under a no fly zone. After the Persian Gulf War, Saddam toned things down and concentrated mostly on maintaining order and his own power. This worked to our advantage. He kept radical Islam out while we kept him in check at a fraction of a cost of an all out invasion.

Shia didn't live in fear of being axed (post PG war). Sunnis were employed and kept radical Islam out. Kurds weren't being attacked by radical Islamic groups.

Iraq was clearly better off under Hussein. I don't know how you can argue against this seeing how Iraq is teetering on anarchy and falling either under Shia-Iran control or radical Islamic control (ISIS)

#3 How the hell was the Vietnam War successful? We lost. Thousands died and billions were spent and the country STILL went Communist. Under Communism, that country has flourished! It's now one of our greatest allies in Asia. The Domino Theory was wrong. Ho Chi Minh wasn't interested in spreading Communism like the Soviets were. He merely wanted to unite his country. Hell, just read his own Declaration of Independence shortly after WWII ended:

"All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free.


The Declaration of the French Revolution made in 1791 on the Rights of Man and the Citizen also states: "All men are born free and with equal rights, and must always remain free and have equal rights."

Those are undeniable truths.

Nevertheless, for more than eighty years, the French imperialists, abusing the standard of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, have violated our Fatherland and oppressed our fellow*citizens. They have acted contrary to the ideals of humanity and justice.


In the field of politics, they have deprived our people of every democratic liberty.

They have enforced inhuman laws; they have set up three distinct political regimes in the North, the Center, and the South of Vietnam in order to wreck our national unity and prevent our people from being united.

They have built more prisons than schools. They have mercilessly slain our patriots; they have drowned our uprisings in rivers of blood.

They have fettered public opinion; they have practiced obscurantism against our people.

To weaken our race they have forced us to use opium and alcohol.

In the field of economics, they have fleeced us to the backbone, impoverished our people, and devastated our land.

They have robbed us of our rice fields, our mines, our forests, and our raw materials. They have monopolized the issuing of bank*notes and the export trade.

They have invented numerous unjustifiable taxes and reduced our people, especially our peasantry, to a state of extreme poverty.

They have hampered the prospering of our national bourgeoisie; they have mercilessly exploited our workers.

In the autumn of 1940, when the Japanese Fascists violated Indochina's territory to establish new bases in their fight against the Allies, the French imperialists went down on their bended knees and handed over our country to them.

Thus, from that date, our people were subjected to the double yoke of the French and the Japanese. Their sufferings and miseries increased. The result was that from the end of last year to the beginning of this year, from Quang Tri province to the North of Vietnam, more than two million of our fellow citizens died from starvation. On March 9, the French troops were disarmed by the Japanese. The French colonialists either fled or surrendered showing that not only were they incapable of "protecting" us, but that, in the span of five years, they had twice sold our country to the Japanese.

On several occasions before March 9, the Vietminh League urged the French to ally themselves with it against the Japanese. Instead of agreeing to this proposal, the French colonialists so intensified their terrorist activities against the Vietminh members that before fleeing they massacred a great number of our political prisoners detained at Yen Bay and Caobang.

Notwithstanding all this, our fellow*citizens have always manifested toward the French a tolerant and humane attitude. Even after the Japanese putsch of March 1945, the Vietminh League helped many Frenchmen to cross the frontier, rescued some of them from Japanese jails, and protected French lives and property.

From the autumn of 1940, our country had in fact ceased to be a French colony and had become a Japanese possession.

After the Japanese had surrendered to the Allies, our whole people rose to regain our national sovereignty and to found the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.

The truth is that we have wrested our independence from the Japanese and not from the French.

The French have fled, the Japanese have capitulated, Emperor Bao Dai has abdicated. Our people have broken the chains which for nearly a century have fettered them and have won independence for the Fatherland. Our people at the same time have overthrown the monarchic regime that has reigned supreme for dozens of centuries. In its place has been established the present Democratic Republic.

For these reasons, we, members of the Provisional Government, representing the whole Vietnamese people, declare that from now on we break off all relations of a colonial character with France; we repeal all the international obligation that France has so far subscribed to on behalf of Vietnam and we abolish all the special rights the French have unlawfully acquired in our Fatherland.

The whole Vietnamese people, animated by a common purpose, are determined to fight to the bitter end against any attempt by the French colonialists to reconquer their country.

We are convinced that the Allied nations, which at Tehran and San Francisco have acknowledged the principles of self-determination and equality of nations, will not refuse to acknowledge the independence of Vietnam.

A people who have courageously opposed French domination for more than eight years, a people who have fought side by side with the Allies against the Fascists during these last years, such a people must be free and independent.

For these reasons, we, members of the Provisional Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, solemnly declare to the world that Vietnam has the right to be a free and independent country-and in fact is so already. The entire Vietnamese people are determined to mobilize all their physical and mental strength, to sacrifice their lives and property in order to safeguard their independence and liberty.

#4 Like Iraq, we can piss away thousands more lives and trillions more and it'll still be a mess. You have too many factions. Gameface, it's not so much that people don't deserve liberty but that a certain country with too many factions CANNOT HANDLE democracy. See, Iraq wasn't ever supposed to be. I know you can shoot stuff real good being in the armed forces and all, but your history is lacking. The British created Iraq after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. They drew lines on a map and said, "Walla! Iraq!" But just because they drew lines on a map didn't mean they got along or even identified themselves as Iraqis.

Anarchy ensued for years and years until Saddam's Baath Party came into power. Iraq couldn't handle democracy before Hussein came into power and it certainly hasn't been able to handle it after he was taken out.
 
Last edited:
#2 Yes, things were a lot better under Hussein. Under Hussein, utilities worked, order was maintained, people had jobs, we had a check against Iran's power, and radical Islam (our biggest threat) wasn't allowed to flourish. Saddam wasn't going to mass kill anyone anymore. Half of his country was under a no fly zone. After the Persian Gulf War, Saddam toned things down and concentrated mostly on maintaining order and his own power. This worked to our advantage. He kept radical Islam out while we kept him in check at a fraction of a cost of an all out invasion.

Stopped reading. This is so ****ing insane I'm done. Done.
 
Wait, no I'm not. Thriller, please explain in detail why Iraqis should never have Democracy and it is optimal for them to live under a tyrant.

TIA *******
 
One last thing...

Our Constitution doesn't allow us to invade countries because... We feel like it.

We aren't supposed to be in the nation building business.

If we hope to remake countries in our own image then we'll be at perpetual war. We had just as much of a moral right to invade Iraq as they did us. No nation in history has ever "invaded to liberate countries." It always becomes an unrighteous tyranny, no matter how altruistic our intentions might be.

Gerry McNamara actually declared this in his book as one of his lessons from the Vietnam War.

If the United States is going into the invade to liberate business then I want no part of this country anymore.
 
Wait, no I'm not. Thriller, please explain in detail why Iraqis should never have Democracy and it is optimal for them to live under a tyrant.

TIA *******

Seriously? This is the level of communication you aspire to now? You've been reported.
 
Back
Top