braces_for_impact

I don't recall ever being in support of killing innocent civilians anywhere...

Ion

That's a no to "Iraq must disarm.", which Bush officially yelled 48 hours before attacking Iraq.

So the French and Germans in U.N. were right to oppose a war on Iraq, based on the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction as claimed by U.S. -with bully methods- in the U.N. Security Council:

the Weapons of Mass Destruction don't exist, but they were lied about by the Bush Administration

As for the 'Claim B' by Bush, i.e. 'liberation' of Iraq, the newspapers I read tell me that this 'liberation' of Iraq by U.S.-only, not by U.N., is as much a liberation as the invasion of Afghanistan by U.S.S.R. in 1980 was, or the attempted invasion of Finland by U.S.S.R. in 1945 was:

the Iraqis say no to this 'liberation', thanks.

Dr Rick

We were duped.

The invasion of Iraq was an aggressive imperial action designed to expand the American empire, send a warning to those that oppose it, enrich some already very rich friends of Buch and Cheney, field test and demonstrate Lockeed's and Raytheon's newest weapons systems, and destabilize the world so that US civil freedoms can be further restricted in the name of "fighting terrorism."

We already had de facto control over the oil rishes of Saudia Arabia and Kuwait; with the light, sweet crude Iraq now in our pockets, it's only "reasonable" to make Iran the next target. That's why Iran is so much more of a "threat" than that nuclear-armed, weapons-bazaar oppressive dictatorship known as North Korea.

The United States is an empire; it is not the first, and may not be the last.

Machiavelli

I can't believe people actually try to make this argument. It's like words don't mean anything to them and noone should be accountable to them.

:banghead:

If there are no weapons, there was no threat, and the war is unconstitutional. But apparently noone thinks this is something the president should be accountable for.

Despite this, we have to deal with what we have. And in my opinion, right now, we have a golden opportunity to demonstrate even handedness fairplay to the world, particularly the muslim world. If we continue our old line of pandering to Israel and passifying muslim leaders with huge oil profits, it's gonna get messy.

Machiavelli

What do you consider an empire?

HaysooChreesto!

Sorry you're so mad. I was for the invasion and I'm still glad it happened. I never cared about WMD's and I stated that here several times. A US friendly government in the ME is a huge strategic adavantage and that's what I hoped for. Call it PNAC or whatever floats your boat, but if the citizens of Iraq end up with the same rights that the US grants its own citizens then it will be a huge success.

How Iraq turns out is now up to the Iraqi people. If they fall prey to an Ayatollah type, that's on them. If a government develops that looks like the majority of the wretched Arab world that's also on them.
At this point, I'll say with some confidence that people who have lived under a secular dictatorship probably have no desire to live under theocratic or monarchic tyranny. So they have a chance. And without US military intervention their future would be as dismal as the present and past they've endured.

So many people cry and wail about how the US does nothing to help third world countries run by despots. But when they do, the wailing becomes even louder. Frankly, it's old.
Does the US have interests in the region? Of course. So what? The end result will hopefully be a move towards real democracy in the Arab world where none-literally none exists now.
And if it fails? Oh well. Then at least America provided Iraqis with some semblance of hope for a while. Then whatever despot takes over can go back to ruling the nation with an iron hand.
The war will have been nothing more than a brief interruption of the Arab status quo.

Zar

I really don't understand these people who say the war on Iraq was "net beneficial" and leave it at that.

First of all, we haven't the slightest indication that it has been "net" beneficial yet for anyone on the planet by any measurement whatsoever. Our involvement with Iraq before this certainly wasn't "net" beneficial. I just don't know what is meant by this. Perhaps they only mean that we shot our collective wad and now the initial uncomfortable and icky wrangling with world opinion is past. It all seems so calm -- from across the Atlantic. So now we may as well sigh a collective sigh and say "it was all for the best" from our suburban enclaves.

Very unreal.

And who was it that made life so miserable for so many Iraqis before this? The United States has had a large hand in this over the last decade and even before then. Do I really have to reapeat this? If anyone has been a benefactor to Iraq, it certainly isn't the U.S.

Also, "benefit" is in the eye of the beholder. Why do we need to take over the process of handing Iraqis what WE think they ought to have to make OURSELVES feel better about what we've done? This has nothing to do with us. And this is long from over. A number of possibilities could very well develop that, to our American eyes, are more like a setback than an improvement. And in the process of steering things our way, we'll likely be forced to do some nasty things. We are already using the Baath party apparatus to maintain control.

Scott Ritter said it best that if we really wanted something better for the Iraqis, we would have lifted the sanctions on ordinary life long ago and allowed the populace to gain some cohesion and strength against Saddam. A middle class, which was beginning to develop in Iraq before all this, would be the best remedy to extremism and Saddamism.

But this takes a long view and a real sense of benevolence, neither of which the U.S. possesses in leadership or in its populace. We are a depraved nation of killer soccer moms.

Gurdur

ROFL !

Recognising irony is truly not an ability of some.

Zar

Lamma,

Are you the monarchist or is that someone else?

BTW, I don't wail about America not helping everyone on the planet. I wail about the U.S. helping despots, installing dictators and fomenting coups. The U.S. as world policeman is what I want curtailed. So I stand in direct and diametrical opposition to you, who are totally gung-ho to have the U.S. rule the world by force.

Gurdur

Naaaw, you're thinking of Leonarde.
Lamma is the nihilist.