Success in Iraq

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

My diatribe on the situation:

Success HAS been achieved in Iraq!

The goal was to secure freedom. This has been done. The people are now free to battle in the streets, attack each other, and split into factions. This couldn't have happened under Saddam!

The goal was to bring democracy to Iraq. This has been achieved. What is democracy but the majority of the people voting and getting their way? The majority of Iraqis have spoken, and they want a nation where they are free to explore their factional differences and do whatever they want. They have also spoken that they do not want the Americans around.

The rhetoric is that if we don't stay over there, they'll be over here. Well, I haven't seen a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9-11, however, we've now lost more Americans in battle than we did that day, not counting the tens of thousands of 'free' Iraqis who are now dead who likely would be alive if we'd stayed away. By sending our people over there, they were set up to be killed not only in battle but in terrorist attacks, ambushes, and by land mines. Civilians working for the postwar effort have also been brutally tortured and killed. Now we have 3 more missing men taken by the terrorists. They wouldn't have been able to get to them in America. This whole 'go over there or they'll be over here' logic is also flawed because the terrorist attacks are kept in check by homeland security, and no army is going to dare attack the US mainland.

If it's all the same to you, I'll take my chance with the phantom, mythical possibility of a terrorist attack over the death, destruction, and cost of money and lives going on over there now. The main goal of Iraqi freedom has been won. If the US stays, it will not be giving the Iraqis what they want, but what the US wants, which is Imperialism and 'taking over' in the style of the old Empires. I hope our government will wake up and see this soon.

 

[butter7]

I don't know, but it seem to me that from the very begining, Iraqi war is all about what US want?

War against terrorism, isn't it the reason formally annouced by the government? I doubt Iraq people saw themselves as terrorists, as the way US government saw them.

If history do go as a circle, the impact will happen long time after the war. No one can predict the result. Since this time, the whole arabic world is not happy....

 

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

The US tried its best to say that it was all for Iraq even calling the war "Operation Iraqi Freedom" but of course that was never really true. I only hope that the people over there who hate the US will only hate the government and not the people because please know that a majority of us are against the war.

 

[verte76]

It depends on what you mean by success. As you say, they have the right to foiht each other in the streets. But I don't think this is what Bush and Co. had in mind when they invaded. So by their standards it's not really success.

 

[butter7]

The US tried its best to say that it was all for Iraq even calling the war "Operation Iraqi Freedom" but of course that was never really true. I only hope that the people over there who hate the US will only hate the government and not the people because please know that a majority of us are against the war.

I think most people would understand the difference, but I doubt they could let it go...and that's exactly what I was worrying about...

If the government keep repeat making this kind of short-sighted decision in future, one day they will be left no choice but seal the border. No one get in, no one get out. It's gonna be enemies everywhere.

 

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

It depends on what you mean by success. As you say, they have the right to foiht each other in the streets. But I don't think this is what Bush and Co. had in mind when they invaded. So by their standards it's not really success.

I know, I was actually being ironic and sarcastic. They didn't get what they wanted, but they did achieve the goals in a strange way. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic. The main point here is that there really isn't any good excuse for continuing the war.

 

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

I think most people would understand the difference, but I doubt they could let it go...and that's exactly what I was worrying about...

I know they can never let go of their rage, but only direct it in the right direction. Lots of us disagree with what's been done so don't hate us for it please.

If the government keep repeat making this kind of short-sighted decision in future, one day they will be left no choice but seal the border. No one get in, no one get out. It's gonna be enemies everywhere.

What a disaster. There are already too many factions who hate each other forced to live together and that's the biggest problem.

 

[butter7]

I know they can never let go of their rage, but only direct it in the right direction. Lots of us disagree with what's been done so don't hate us for it please.



What a disaster. There are already too many factions who hate each other forced to live together and that's the biggest problem.

I guess, the best thing to do, is to gather people, and make your voice strong enough to be heard by those who might hate your guys. Prevent the problem from happening is much better than clean the mess later.

Just my two cents.

Honestly, I have no idea how it could be done, since the troops still in Iraq. But US gonna look "great" in history from now on, with not only Korea, Vietnam, but also Iraq on the list.

 

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

There's already a hopeless mess now

 

[Yahweh_OMG]

It is a total mess.... successful??? Well, if I remember correctly, a success is when something is better than before.... and I highly doubt it is better now. With 35 people dying every day for 2 years(including US troup) I don't call it a success....

Big big big mistake of the Bush government.....

 

[Dreadsox]

The United States did not enter into Iraq unilaterally. THey worked through the UN Security Council. There were 17 Resolutions involving Iraq giving chance after chance to verifiably disarm. Resolution 1441 gave the United States full authority to act. The subsequent resolutions after liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein support this as well. There were well over 50 countries who supported this historic event. Saddam is gone, and Iraq is free. Mission accomplished.

 

[Irvine511]

The United States did not enter into Iraq unilaterally. THey worked through the UN Security Council. There were 17 Resolutions involving Iraq giving chance after chance to verifiably disarm. Resolution 1441 gave the United States full authority to act. The subsequent resolutions after liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein support this as well. There were well over 50 countries who supported this historic event. Saddam is gone, and Iraq is free. Mission accomplished.

thank goodness someone finally has the courage to speak the TRUTH! as well as recognize the critical support the Marshall Islands gave the invasion!

 

[verte76]

How about Denmark's 250 troops? The piddling number given by the Czech Republic and Bulgaria? How about Turkey's vote not to let us use their land? Some coalition this was to begin with, and then they pulled out. Meanwhile the big shots didn't want to do it. This hasn't stopped my arch-conservative uncle's French cheese passion. "Freedom fries" my ass.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Well, the former Polish president, Kwasniewski, said in an interview that the decision for Poland to go to Iraq was because they felt they had to support the Americans. It was because the fall of the Soviet Union, which the US had some share in, and the support for Poland to build up a functioning state made them feel comitted.

I don't know if that's true for the other former Eastern bloc countries as well.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Iraq under Saddam was a land of flying kites and chocolate rivers, just ignore the dungeons and food shortages.

If you want cheap oil then lift Sanctions as quid pro quo to Saddam. If you want to get rid of Saddam and get cheap oil and a strategic ally then stick a benign dictator in charge and keep the state apparatus in the same condition. The way that it has played out doesn't make sense for an oil grab or an imperialistic takeover.

 

[Irvine511]

Iraq under US occupation is a glorious, righteous land of freedom and opportunity and the coalition has had nothing but tremendous success after success in what everyone knew from the beginning was a 50 year project, just ignore the mass death, millions upon millions of refugees, a non functioning government, and worsening regional instability.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The problem is not military, it is political.

The sovereign Iraqi government is the mask of theocrats, a different stripe of theocratics nihilists are determined to destroy it to enable the formation of a Sunni Islamist state in central Iraq and use mass murder of civilians to that end, regional powers have an interest in internal Iraqi instability until the USA can enter a period of international malaise.

And all of this has nothing to do with the case for removing Saddam when his actions had consistently seemed to support the idea that the regime retained WMD or the effects of the sanctions on the Iraqi population (again mass death) but the approach to the post-bellum situation and the reconstruction (of a state that was broken since the Iraq/Iran war).

 

[butter7]

The problem is not military, it is political.

The sovereign Iraqi government is the mask of theocrats, a different stripe of theocratics nihilists are determined to destroy it to enable the formation of a Sunni Islamist state in central Iraq and use mass murder of civilians to that end, regional powers have an interest in internal Iraqi instability until the USA can enter a period of international malaise.

And all of this has nothing to do with the case for removing Saddam when his actions had consistently seemed to support the idea that the regime retained WMD or the effects of the sanctions on the Iraqi population (again mass death) but the approach to the post-bellum situation and the reconstruction (of a state that was broken since the Iraq/Iran war).

I don't know if anyone have take a notice to the fact that Iraqi problem was Iraqi people's business, not some one else's, until the day that one stepped in....

 

[Irvine511]

The problem is not military, it is political.

the US military can do anything.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I don't know if anyone have take a notice to the fact that Iraqi problem was Iraqi people's business, not some one else's, until the day that one stepped in....

It wasn't when Saddam annexed Kuwait and the successive decade of no-fly zones and crippling sanctions enforced by the international community. Containment was pursued to ensure that Saddam would eventually declare any banned weapons or be overthrown; Bush forced it to regime change (ultimately fufiling the goals of the Iraq Liberation Act by different means) but it was at the end of a very long road of interference under the auspices of international security.

 

[butter7]

It wasn't when Saddam annexed Kuwait ...

Did you remeber which year is that when it happened?

And which year did US send troops to Iraq to pull down Saddam's government? Did Iraq still have military power control over other countries by that time?

 

[A_Wanderer]

And what happened in the intervening period? What was known about Saddams arsenel in 2002-2003?

I don't disagree that it was a politically timed race to war, but it's foolish to pretend that everybody knew there were no WMD at the time. And the continuous death toll of sanctions was very high and suffered by the civilian populus - the status quo with Iraq in 2002-2003 was a guaranteed bad choice.

 

[butter7]

And what happened in the intervening period? What was known about Saddams arsenel in 2002-2003?

Again, it's Iraqi people's business. As long as he didn't invade other countries, it's only national conflicts, and only the nation has the right to solve it.

 

[A_Wanderer]

But with a track record of not only invading other countries but also genocide with WMD and a stream defectors saying that Saddam intended to reconstitute his programs does it remain an internal matter. If your consistent then you will say it does, as would pretty much any internal crimes against humanity.

What are the limits of state sovereignty?

 

[butter7]

But with a track record of not only invading other countries but also genocide with WMD and a stream defectors saying that Saddam intended to reconstitute his programs does it remain an internal matter. If your consistent then you will say it does, as would pretty much any internal crimes against humanity.

What are the limits of state sovereignty?

Can a judge say one person is guilty because he was suspect preparing to do some crime, but haven't got it done yet?

If this logic works, the men who walk on the streets ever set eyes on me should be called criminals too, for having some THOUGHTS. Don't need to mention these who tried to flirt with me.

And we can also say US's action was against an independent country's state security. If Saddam government should be pull down by a foreigh military force for threat international security, so does the Bush government, for invadation. Why put double standard to others and yourself?

 

[verte76]

Can a judge say one person is guilty because he was suspect preparing to do some crime, but haven't got it done yet?

If this logic works, the men who walk on the streets ever set eyes on me should be called criminals too, for having some THOUGHTS. Don't need to mention these who tried to flirt with me.

And we can also say US's action was against an independent country's state security. If Saddam government should be pull down by a foreigh military force for threat international security, so does the Bush government, for invadation. Why put double standard to others and yourself?

Absolutely. You hit the nail on the head.

 

[A_Wanderer]

If your isolationist I hope that you are consistently isolationist.

The burden rested on Saddam to verifiably disarm and the thresholds shift when it is with weapons that can kill tens of thousands - it didn't happen in the years without inspectors and it didn't have time to happen in the move to war. Saddam thought the USA was bluffing while bluffing the world (read neighbouring threat Iran) with a strategic ambiguity.

Saddams rule was a slaughter; I don't think that anybody who considers themselves in solidarity with the Iraqi people to be doing them a favour by saying that he had a right to mass murder in the name of internal security. I also think that the removal of Saddam was a good thing, I think that there are decades of stupidity and calculated evil that went into US FP in the region and the big blunders have the US spending lives and coin to effectively assist Iran today.

So governments are bad, standing armies should be abolished and resistance to dictatorships should be supported (the value of US support is probably highlighted with what happened to the Shiites when they rose up).

 

[Dreadsox]

I don't know if anyone have take a notice to the fact that Iraqi problem was Iraqi people's business, not some one else's, until the day that one stepped in....

The fact is that Saddam Hussein invaded two of his neighbors in 1990. The fact is that Saddam Hussein used NBC weapons.I I guess that kind of made him everyones problem, except for those with short term memory. That is the reason the UN passed resolution after resolution. It was Iraq's responsibility to live up to the terms of the cease fire agreed to in 1991. They did not, and the UN got teeth and authorized the US to take action through Resolution 1441.

 

[Dreadsox]

Can a judge say one person is guilty because he was suspect preparing to do some crime, but haven't got it done yet?

If this logic works, the men who walk on the streets ever set eyes on me should be called criminals too, for having some THOUGHTS. Don't need to mention these who tried to flirt with me.

And we can also say US's action was against an independent country's state security. If Saddam government should be pull down by a foreigh military force for threat international security, so does the Bush government, for invadation. Why put double standard to others and yourself?

You write as if the Gulf War and Cease Fire agreed to by Saddam Hussein were not important to the situation. In 1990 Saddam Hussein invaded two of his neighbors. In the 1980's Saddam Hussein used NBC weapons against his own citizens and Irans. There is a difference between international law, and cease fire agreements. You are disreguarding the fact that Iraq, under the Gulf War Cease fire agreed to certain conditions that were not met. They did not verifiably disarm. The UN Authorized the world to take action through Resolution 1441. The USA and its Coalition Alllies were operating under the full authority of the UN Security Council. The occupation of Iraq was authorized by the UN Security Council. The US was not acting unilaterally.

 

[A_Wanderer]

You know, stealing the account details of a member is a bannable offence