- Joined
- Nov 10, 2012
- Messages
- 5,660
- Reaction score
- 1,252
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
except that Germany declared war on the USA. Iraq never did.
Makes little difference, similar rulers, tactics, and outcomes
except that Germany declared war on the USA. Iraq never did.
Not really true....Clinton was busy bombing Kosovo at the time and didn't have the propaganda machine initiated for Iraq...that occurred after 9/11 when people were gullible enough to believe Hussein had ties to that attack..
Makes little difference, similar rulers, tactics, and outcomes
A declaration of war makes little difference?
How about a nation that actually had the power to carry out its imperialistic goals, as opposed to one that had no such power?
A declaration of war makes little difference?
How about a nation that actually had the power to carry out its imperialistic goals, as opposed to one that had no such power?
So you support any dictator in the world murdering, raping, and molesting people whether they be Jews or from Iraq?
Interesting?
There are some pretty massive problems with your narrative.
1. I'm not sure how it make sense to compare the removal of a brutal dictator (your words) to a butterfly spreading its wings. That is just nonsensical.
2. Actually Saddam is ranked fairly high in terms of the amount of people slaughtered under his rule. Between the al-Anfal Campaign and the suppression operations of the 1990's it is estimated Saddam's regime directly murdered almost half a million of its citizens. This puts him somewhere in between Mengstu and Pol Pot, so let's not quibble: he was a monster.
3. Iraq's acquisition of chemical weapons has sourced to a huge variety of countries and petrochemical companies that exported chemical compounds and in some cases synthesized materials to Iraq. The largest patrons were the Netherlands, Germany, France, Singapore, Brazil, etc. The United States provided comparatively little and nor did the Commerce Department approve the direct export of chemical products to Iraq.
4. Desiring that neither Iranian theocracy nor the fascistic government of Iraq would dominate the region was not a sin on the Reagan administration. Like Kissinger quipped "It's a pity they can't both lose." Absent of direct intervention, the only tool the US had was tinkering with the levers of supply and support and fighting on the margins to prevent one side from claiming victory. Rumsfeld's visit to Baghdad took place in this context.
5. No question the decision to abandon the Kurds, and specifically the Barzani's without warning is one of the darkest blemishes Kissinger has to his name. However it is again worth noting that absent actual intervention like we had in 2003 there was not a huge amount that could have been done beyond funneling arms and supplies to the Kurds which we had been doing.
6. The Kurds should be outside national controls, they have a Federal agreement with the central government and quite frankly the KRG is an exemplar of what the Iraq War could still accomplish.
7. The elections were hardly shams, that was the whole problem remember? Allawi's Iraqqiya list won a slim majority over Malaki's list, however it took months of painstaking negotiations to get a coalition agreement and keep the government standing. Despite the flaws the situation was resolved via a political resolution, not death squads. Moreover the recent local elections once again have shown that power can and has shifted electorally in the country.
8. The proponents of the Iraq War are usually not arguing that in 2013 Iraq is better than it was in 1979 (before the Iran-Iraq war and the tightening of Saddam's group) what they have usually argued is that Saddam's removal and the implantation of democratic rule offers Iraq the chance at a better future than its ever expected before and the situation is continually improving.
Stalinist domination of Western Europe, and the deaths of tens of millions in Asia under the boot of Imperial Japanese rule isn't concerning to you?
Is it concerning to me? Yes. Does that mean we should of got directly involved if we were not attacked and not declared war upon? No. I think we should of kept up aid to the allied forces if we were not attacked but if we were not directly attacked or declared war upon i still think we shouldn't get involved.
Then I guess it was lucky for civilized people everywhere that the Japanese attacked us and Hitler declared war on us.
:2usflag::2usflag::2usflag::2usflag::2usflag:
We are not the policemen of the world. The US military should only be used for defense of the US. Not what we think is the best interest of Iraq or X country.
Lucky for me my post had nothing to do with Iraq.
:2usflag::2usflag::2usflag::2usflag::2usflag:
That why i said "X" country.
Yes. Does that justify our actions in Iraq? No.Its not our job to overthrow foreign nations leaders.
Is it concerning to me? Yes. Does that mean we should of got directly involved if we were not attacked and not declared war upon? No. I think we should of kept up aid to the allied forces if we were not attacked but if we were not directly attacked or declared war upon i still think we shouldn't get involved.
If these groups cared about human rights at all they would be all over Obama over his policies, you will have to do better.
And it does not excuse our efforts to keep him in power when he was at his murderous worst.
In late 1983, Reagan secretly allowed Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, to transfer US weapons to Iraq; Reagan also asked the Italian prime minister to channel arms to Iraq
December 1983 was a particularly interesting month; it was the month that Donald Rumsfeld paid a visit to Saddam Hussein in Baghdad as Reagan's envoy.
Rumsfeld claims now that the meeting was about terrorism in Lebanon.
But State Dept. documents show that in fact, Rumsfeld was carrying a message from Reagan expressing his desire to have a closer and better relationship with Saddam Hussein.
Just a few months before Rumsfeld's visit, Iraq had used poison gas against Iranian troops. This fact was known to the US. Also known was that Iraq was building a chemical weapons infrastructure.
NBC and The New York Times have recently reported that Rumsfeld was a key player in the Reagan administration's strong support for Iraq, despite knowing of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. This relationship became so close that both Reagan and VP Bush personally delivered military advice to Saddam Hussein. [1]
1984
In March, the State Dept. reported that Iraq was using chemical weapons and nerve gas in the war against Iran; these facts were confirmed by European doctors who examined Iranian soldiers
The Washington Post (in an article in Dec.1986 by Bob Woodward) reported that in 1984 the CIA began secretly giving information to Iraqi intelligence to help them "calibrate" poison gas attacks against Iranian troops.
1985
The CIA established direct intelligence links with Baghdad, and began giving Iraq "data from sensitive US satellite reconnaissance photography" to help in the war.
This same year, the US House of Representatives passed a bill to put Iraq back on State Dept. supporters of terrorism list.
The Reagan administration -- in the person of Secretary of State George Schultz -- pressured the bill's sponsor to drop it the bill. The bill is dropped, and Iraq remains off the terrorist list.
Iraq labs send a letter to the Commerce Dept with details showing that Iraq was developing ballistic missiles.
Between 1985-1990 the Commerce Dept. approved the sale of many computers to Iraq's weapons lab. (The UN inspectors in 1991 found that: 40% of the equipment in Iraq's weapons lab were of US origin)
1985 is also a key year because the Reagan administration approved the export to Iraq of biological cultures that are precursors to bioweapons: anthrax, botulism, etc.; these cultures were "not attenuated or weakened, and were capable of reproduction."
There were over 70 shipments of such cultures between 1985-1988.
The Bush administration also authorized an additional 8 shipments of biological cultures that the Center for Disease Control classified as "having biological warfare significance."
This information comes from the Senate Banking Committee's report from 1994. The report stated that "these microorganisms exported by the US were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."
Senator Riegle, who headed the committee, noted that: "They seemed to give him anything he wanted. It's right out of a science fiction movie as to why we would send this kind of stuff to anybody."
We ****ed up when we consolidated Saddam's power in Iraq under Reagan and Bush I, and then we ****ed up again when we invaded Iraq to get big oil back in for the first time since 1973. The only way we could have ****ed up more would have been by making our occupation permanent as McCain wanted to do.
It wouldn't be the first, or last, time that we followed the old adage: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Saddam did not need our help to consolidate his power.
The decision to support him against Iran followed an assessment that his grip on power was not threatened. The oil we protected in the first Gulf War was the oil in the Saudi and Kuwaiti fields. Iraqi oil was never a war aim.eace
As far as Germany goes the reasons were similar
And how did that practice work out for us and the poor Iraqis?
Only if you ignore the Shi'a and Kurdish movements seeking to overthrow the government, and his belligerent, Iran
Cheney's own task force report in 2002 spells out why Saddam's practice of withholding oil to drive up prices had to be stopped and recommended military action.
The Iraqis are better off. The Shia & Kurds had no chance. You have read Cheney's task force report?
That's hyperbole nonsense as well. That kind of comment can never be taken seriously.