• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

10 Years On, Paul Wolfowitz Admits U.S. Bungled in Iraq

You can believe what you want to believe - as I said, the Chretien government's position on Iraq did indeed play a part in the demise of Chretien and then the Liberal government. Was it the sole cause? - No - and I never claimed it was.

If anything, his decision to not go bolstered his image and reputation, not the other way around.

our claim that millions from coast-to-coast marched against it is utter nonsense and I defy you to point out any credible source that would support such a claim.

D'uh, you're right. Brain fart on my part. I meant to write thousands. After all, we're a pretty small population.

adian public eventually tired of our role in Afghanistan and pushed for withdrawal but except for a few of the usual professional protestors and union operatives (often one and the same) few Canadians got overly worked up about the war in Iraq, even years after the fact when the rationale for entering Iraq became questionable.

The news today has Canadian quite proud of the fact that we did not participate. I was mostly not a fan of the Chretien government, but have to give them big kudos on this.
 
The Neocon criminals fooled most of the people most of the time, back in those Glory Days!

But they did not fool all the people, and I'm proud to be one of those not duped by those criminal bastards.
 
Gee Paul, tell us something we didn't know already.


The former deputy Pentagon chief, Paul Wolfowitz, a driving force behind the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, has conceded that a series of blunders by George W. Bush’s administration plunged Iraq into a cycle of violence that “spiralled out of control”.​


In an interview with The Sunday Times to mark the 10th anniversary of the Iraq invasion, he said there “should have been Iraqi leadership from the beginning”, rather than a 14-month occupation led by an American viceroy and based on “this idea that we’re going to come in like [General Douglas] MacArthur in Japan and write the constitution for them”.​



He accepted that too many Iraqis were excluded by a programme to purge members of the ruling Ba’ath party, that the dissolution of the Iraqi army was botched and that the “biggest hole” in post-war planning was not to anticipate the possibility of an insurgency.​


“The most consequential failure was to understand the tenacity of Saddam’s regime,” he said.​


Wolfowitz, 69, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington since he stepped down as World Bank president in 2007, has a somewhat diffident manner but he became animated as he reflected on the lead-up to the invasion and its aftermath.​



Read more: 10 Years On, Paul Wolfowitz Admits U.S. Bungled in Iraq | RealClearPolitics
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitterm
What's all this "10 year" bull****? The conflict in Iraq started in 1991 under Bush Sr, not 2003 under Bush Jr. Talk about getting your facts wrong, you're 12 years off.
 
If anything, his decision to not go bolstered his image and reputation, not the other way around.



D'uh, you're right. Brain fart on my part. I meant to write thousands. After all, we're a pretty small population.



The news today has Canadian quite proud of the fact that we did not participate. I was mostly not a fan of the Chretien government, but have to give them big kudos on this.

If you'll recall, Chretien fancied himself as the next Secretary General of the United Nations at the time the invasion of Iraq was being discussed at the Security Council - Chretien would have done zero that was contrary to the UN's position in the matter in order not to spoil his chances.

The Canadian public's position on Iraq has been a changing/evolving one and I agree with you that now most Canadians are pleased we did not actively participate. But at the time it was not so clear and many favored participation.
 
What's all this "10 year" bull****? The conflict in Iraq started in 1991 under Bush Sr, not 2003 under Bush Jr. Talk about getting your facts wrong, you're 12 years off.

It started then, but Bush I, unlike Junior, had the good sense to send Hussain packing out of Kuwait and then go home. Junior had to double down with a decade plus nation building project.
 
It started then, but Bush I, unlike Junior, had the good sense to send Hussain packing out of Kuwait and then go home. Junior had to double down with a decade plus nation building project.
...and therefore this is not the 10th anniversary, we're nearing the 22nd anniversary. Talk about media ****-ups.
 
but it is the tenth anniversary of the invasion.
Nope, we were already in Iraq. We didn't invade ****, we were already inside the country for 12 years by this point, enforcing the no-fly zone, conducting ground missions, all of it...for 12 ****ing years.

We were in Iraq for longer than we were in Afghanistan, and we're still in Afghanistan.
 
The Canadian public's position on Iraq has been a changing/evolving one and I agree with you that now most Canadians are pleased we did not actively participate. But at the time it was not so clear and many favored participation.


Change the bolded to "some" and I'll agree with you.
 
Nope, we were already in Iraq. We didn't invade ****, we were already inside the country for 12 years by this point, enforcing the no-fly zone, conducting ground missions, all of it...for 12 ****ing years.

We were in Iraq for longer than we were in Afghanistan, and we're still in Afghanistan.

OK, if you say so. Sure, we did have some people in Iraq, but sending the troops across the border with the goal of deposing the government sure looked like an invasion to me.
 
Change the bolded to "some" and I'll agree with you.

Actually, before the invasion, while Canada was still working with the US and Britian to get the UN to sanction the action, a majority of Canadians approved - the lone exception being Quebec where they oppose any Canadian action anywhere.
 
OK, if you say so. Sure, we did have some people in Iraq, but sending the troops across the border with the goal of deposing the government sure looked like an invasion to me.
And that first occurred in 1991. They decided to halt, and we played silly-games for 12 years, but the invasion didn't begin in 2003. The invasion ended in 2003.

It may also interest you to know that the modern 'war on terror' began in the 70s when Iran took American hostages.

#history
 
Actually, before the invasion, while Canada was still working with the US and Britian to get the UN to sanction the action, a majority of Canadians approved - the lone exception being Quebec where they oppose any Canadian action anywhere.

Ahhh... 71% of Canadian disapproved.
 
By calling this the 10th anniversary, you are forgetting and thus dishonoring all the veterans who died in Iraq during the previous 12 years.
 
Ahhh... 71% of Canadian disapproved.

..... of Canadian involvement without UN sanctioned approval. The Canadian people, on the whole, supported the Canadian government for not participating without UN approval yet also supported the US and President Bush in taking military action against Saddam. It's reflective of the Canadian people's love and respect for the US but also it's respect, at the time, for the UN process to seek agreement on such actions.
 
Again, this poll was taken before the invasion began March 19, 2003 and was reflective of Canadians general preference to be part of a UN sanctioned invasion of Iraq, not a US led invasion.

Exactly what I found admirable about the Canadians prior to our invasion. I also admired their non-belligerent status during the Vietnam War.
 
What's all this "10 year" bull****? The conflict in Iraq started in 1991 under Bush Sr, not 2003 under Bush Jr. Talk about getting your facts wrong, you're 12 years off.

GHWB accomplished the task he said we needed to, which was to kick Saddam's ass out of Kuwait. It was over in just 100 days. Ten years ago, his son restarted the conflict on March 20, 2003 with Shock 'N Awe.
 
GHWB accomplished the task he said we needed to, which was to kick Saddam's ass out of Kuwait. It was over in just 100 days. Ten years ago, his son restarted the conflict on March 20, 2003 with Shock 'N Awe.
You're citing only one operation within the conflict. The conflict was on-going for 12 years with enforcement of the no-fly zone and spec ops missions.
 
You're citing only one operation within the conflict. The conflict was on-going for 12 years with enforcement of the no-fly zone and spec ops missions.
Only one maybe, but it caused almost 4500 of our brave servicemen their lives.
 
Only one maybe, but it caused almost 4500 of our brave servicemen their lives.
Mhmm....at this point you should be more worried about the fact that those special war powers are still in the President's possession. Congress has don nothing to take those powers back. Any president can still do whatever they want with the military without further Congressional authorization.

There's nothing to be don about the 4500 who are already dead, but if you don't want to add to them then the War on Terror needs to be de-authorized.
 
And that first occurred in 1991. They decided to halt, and we played silly-games for 12 years, but the invasion didn't begin in 2003. The invasion ended in 2003.

It may also interest you to know that the modern 'war on terror' began in the 70s when Iran took American hostages.

#history

According to ARGO, and as history shows, it actually began when our CIA overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh.
 
According to ARGO, and as history shows, it actually began when our CIA overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh.
I haven't seen argo yet but I like how obama tried to use it for cover over lybia.
 
At no point in the article does Wolfowitz say that invasion was the wrong choice.

It should... Paul Wolfowitz is one of the lowest of the low. In fact, he's the American equivalent of Saddam Hussein...along with his partners in Crime and suck buddies, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.
 
I haven't seen argo yet but I like how obama tried to use it for cover over lybia.

Recognizing that there is certainly propaganda value to the movie, Hollywood doing the bidding of the CIA I suppose, it really was a good movie. They are entitled to take artistic license, but the movie was great. I was just in my 20's when that all happened, and I had forgotten some of the details.

In the first few moments of the movie, they recapped the events leading up to the event, and I thought it was pretty even-handed, for it made it clear that the US had overthrown a legitimate government. It explained pretty well the reasons for all the animosity towards the US.
 
Back
Top Bottom