Does anyone else feel ashamed about what we did in Iraq?

[nkstan]

Wasn't that the crux of the matter though, - that many wanted Saddam out/a regime change, for a variety of reasons which we all know of, but couldn't justify action on those grounds, so pursued the WMD as the grounds/justification.

I don't think their were many people other than the Russians,the French and some other countries doing big business subverting the sanctions,outside the Bath ruling party,that didn't want regime change!It might have been A FACTOR in the decision process,but the dissenters are using that FACTOR and any other one they can think of to discount the the WMD issue and possible proliferation into the hands of terrorists.I repeat,there was no reasonable doubt that Saddam had WMD's,by any Western Gov't as there was no proof of their destruction,an agreement that allowed Saddam to not be removed from power under Papa Bush!

[jackspratt]

After the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, the United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi chemical weapons and related equipment and materials throughout the early 1990s, with varying degrees of Iraqi cooperation and obstruction.[1] In response to diminishing Iraqi cooperation with UNSCOM, the United States called for withdrawal of all UN and IAEA inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox. The United States and the UK asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD in 2003, and that he was clandestinely procuring and producing more. Inspections by the UN to resolve the status of unresolved disarmament questions restarted from November 2002 until March 2003,[2] under UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which demanded Saddam give "immediate, unconditional and active cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspections, shortly before his country was attacked.[3]

During the lead-up to war in March 2003, Hans Blix had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting "proactive" but not always the "immediate" Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take “but months” to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.[4] The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.[5][6][7] Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress,[8] President Bush asserted peaceful measures couldn't disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War,[9] despite multiple dissenting opinions[10] and questions of integrity[11][12][13] about the underlying intelligence.[14] Later U.S.-led inspections agreed that Iraq had earlier abandoned its WMD programs, but asserted Iraq had an intention to pursue those programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted.[15] President Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was "the intelligence failure" in Iraq,[16] while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq".[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_w ... estruction

My underlining, for emphasis!

[jackspratt]

Iraq had no WMDs, nor was there any credible evidence it did so.

There was no credible evidence of a connection between Saddam/Iraq and Al Quaeda.

Iraq had no capacity to attack the US either directly, or through a terrorist organisation. Nor had it stated any intention to do so.

Amazing what a selective memory mixed with a little hindsight can do. :-"

Perhaps you would like to point out the selective parts of my memory, jimbo.

[jimboLV]

Well jack, for starters, you said "...there WAS no credible evidence....". If you look at the quotes I posted earlier, a lot of people thought otherwise. And I only posted quotes from leading Democrats. There were lots of similar quotes from Republicans, government officials, world wide leaders, and not the least every major intelligence agency in the West, all of whom though at the time that the evidence was credible. Or is it your position that they were not credible because they later were proven to be false? That's hindsight. Right or wrong they were thought to be credible AT THE TIME. So you either conveniently forgot about that or do you maintain that they knew they were not credible and the whole thing was a massive conspiracy to start a war and make lots of money building bombs? Makes the alleged 911 cconspiracy look like child's play.

The bottom line is that AT THE TIME most thought that Iraq was a threat to the world and supported the effort to neutralize him, including a bipartisan majority in the US House and Senate.

[jackspratt]

jimbo people saying they believe something is true doesn't make it true.

I would suggest that the standard of evidence (not belief) required is pretty high when you are contemplating the invasion of another country, with the inevitable death and destruction that will follow.

Scott Ritter, who had lead the inspections team in Iraq for many years didn't believe sufficient evidence was there, as early as 2002. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm

Hans Blix, who lead the later UN team, expressed similar views - as you can see from my wiki quote above.

This was credible evidence from people who were in a position to know - and was all in the public domain prior to the invasion, so hindsight is not needed.

I guess the "most" you refer to means in the US. That certainly wasn't the case throughout most of the rest of the world, including Australia which was party to this unjustified and contrived invasion.

[KHONDAHM]

@Jimbo
Errrr...you're blowing in the wind a bit thar. JS has refuted every one of your allegations with fact. You refute facts with more allegations. Weak.

[SanukJoe]

IF most of the world would be convinced of WMD being in Iraq they would have approved the UN Security Council resolution that the US wanted to use force in Iraq. That resolution was dismissed because of lack of evidence!

That was the opinion of the world, the US ignored it and launched the invasion and ocupation!

Joe

[jimboLV]

jimbo people saying they believe something is true doesn't make it true.

credible [ˈkrɛdɪbəl]
adj
1. capable of being believed
2. trustworthy or reliable

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/credible

Jack I didn't say it was true, I said the fact that so many apparently believed it made it credible at the time. There's a difference. The point being that allegations that it was all fabricated by Bush and Cheney are untrue and made by people like yourself who conveniently forget that the war was supported by most officials both in the US and abroad. I posted dozens of quotes, FACTS to refute your ALLEGATIONS. You posted quotes by Hans Blix, noted pacifist, and Scott Ritter, former FOX news analyst and alleged sex criminal.

[jimboLV]

SanukJoe do you really believe the UN Security Council represents the opinion of the entire world?

[cookie]

jimbo people saying they believe something is true doesn't make it true.

this seems to be the problem with most of the statements here:
I believe,
I think
they believed,...

the conclusion stays the same:
this war was an unnecessary, wanted and pre- emptive war, which was badly fought on top of it....

[SanukJoe]

SanukJoe do you really believe the UN Security Council represents the opinion of the entire world?

Jimbo, the United Nations (UNITED NATIONS!) is an institute that represents most countries of the world.

The UN Security Council is part of that institute and is used for short term reaction on urgent problems in the world. It has the power to justify military actions.
There are 15 members, 5 with veto right (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States) and 10 non-permanent members.

Although not all UN member countries are represented in the UN SC, their resolutions are respected by all their members.

The resolution the US wanted, to use force in Iraq, was dismissed by the UN SC because of lack of evidence.
That is a fact Jimbo, not an opinion or what a lot of people believed.

Normally the US should have respected that dismissal of their proposed resolution, being part of the UN SC, but that would be too much for the Bush administration. So the US said: thank you UN SC, we don't care about your opinion and we will invade and occupy Iraq. The rest of the story is known.

Joe

[Texpat]

IF most of the world would be convinced of WMD being in Iraq they would have approved the UN Security Council resolution that the US wanted to use force in Iraq. That resolution was dismissed because of lack of evidence!

That was the opinion of the world, the US ignored it and launched the invasion and ocupation!

Ummm, you might want to look up the September Dossier.

I'm repeatedly told Britain has the greatest military intelligence in the world. Are we to believe they 1. fabricated everything 2. just got it wrong 3. Were under an evil spell of Dubya and his henchmen?

Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Assessment of the British Government, also known as the September Dossier, was a document published by the British government on 24 September 2002 on the same day of a recall of Parliament to discuss the contents of the document.

The decision to liberate Iraq was not made in a vacuum by one man. Get over it.

[nkstan]

SanukJoe do you really believe the UN Security Council represents the opinion of the entire world?

Jimbo, the United Nations (UNITED NATIONS!) is an institute that represents most countries of the world.

The UN Security Council is part of that institute and is used for short term reaction on urgent problems in the world. It has the power to justify military actions.
There are 15 members, 5 with veto right (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States) and 10 non-permanent members.

Although not all UN member countries are represented in the UN SC, their resolutions are respected by all their members.

The resolution the US wanted, to use force in Iraq, was dismissed by the UN SC because of lack of evidence.
That is a fact Jimbo, not an opinion or what a lot of people believed.

Normally the US should have respected that dismissal of their proposed resolution, being part of the UN SC, but that would be too much for the Bush administration. So the US said: thank you UN SC, we don't care about your opinion and we will invade and occupy Iraq. The rest of the story is known.

Joe

If you believe all of that,then it is easy to understand your position!
I believe that the UN is made up of a bunch of selfserving Nations,that don't respect any other Nations resolutions that don't serve their interest.A giant bogged down bureaucracy that can not get out of its own way!IMO.it serves one purpose,which is an opportunity for opposing Nations reps to have communication without losing face publicity!
The Security council members with veto power,negates any real cooperative possibilties in all areas without 100% agreement!It is an institution that is mostly funded by the USA,while the other countries pick our pockets!

In regards to Irag,the first 3 members,you mentioned,of the security council,would never had approved an attack against Saddam until they personally felt a serious threat against from him,all 3 were benefiting economicaly from their relations with Saddam,subverting sanctions and would have stalled and stalled until American had either a greater anxiety attack or suffered a WMD attack from terrorists!Even then they would have stalled and stalled,their goal being to personally gain ,at all opportunities,from Americas loses,as long as they had reasonalble confidence that they could manage the time span of destruction w/o getting sucked into the negative economics involved between the USA and them.Everything is selfish politics,very little concern about humanity other than BS rhetoric noted by comparing charitable aid to many human tradgedies in progress at the moment that far surpass the deaths from direct warfare!

You might be willing to risk your family and Nation on the rulings of the UN,I would never!It would be like waiting for the Thai Tourist police from Bangkok,protecting your family in Udon from perceived or real threats of harm!

[Khun Paul]

Oh god why do I bother trying to even speak with sense, when so many of you are tied up in historical rhetoric, accusations and counter accusations.
I personally don't give a damn who said what and why or even attempting to justify what anyone said. It happened accept it.
The war happened, my god the First World War started over something far less. Look how many people that killed. Grow up especially the people who keep quoting their so-called political representatives.

As for decrying the UN, we ain't got anything else at the moment that seems to work, occasionally slowly and inefficiently but in the main it works.

Can not one of you make a decision with out resorting to quotes. Answer the bloody question, are you ashamed or not. Quite simple for the educated I thought, although over the past few pages, a seemingly difficult task for even the most of you.
Well gentlemen answer please.

[nkstan]

KP,are you suggesting no back and forth dialogue involving the questions,just Yes or NO?

[Khun Paul]

Yes, lets see what we all think, I have stated my views quite clearly, we could discuss the reasons why or not as the case may be for ever, in fact this post could be the longest ever over this subject, but the question has to answered and so far not many have done so, just ducked behind the rhetoric.

SO YES JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION SUCCINCTLY

[nkstan]

Yes, lets see what we all think, I have stated my views quite clearly, we could discuss the reasons why or not as the case may be for ever, in fact this post could be the longest ever over this subject, but the question has to answered and so far not many have done so, just ducked behind the rhetoric.

SO YES JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION SUCCINCTLY

''SO YES JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION SUCCINCTLY'',sounds like a new category!This one is ''Debates and Discussions''!

[jackspratt]

jimbo people saying they believe something is true doesn't make it true.

credible [ˈkrɛdɪbəl]
adj
1. capable of being believed
2. trustworthy or reliable

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/credible

Jack I didn't say it was true, I said the fact that so many apparently believed it made it credible at the time. There's a difference. The point being that allegations that it was all fabricated by Bush and Cheney are untrue and made by people like yourself who conveniently forget that the war was supported by most officials both in the US and abroad. I posted dozens of quotes, FACTS to refute your ALLEGATIONS. You posted quotes by Hans Blix, noted pacifist, and Scott Ritter, former FOX news analyst and alleged sex criminal.

Whatever labels you want to put on Blix and Ritter doesn't change the fact that they were on the ground in Iraq, and had a far better idea of what was going on. Or perhaps they were lying because they were not in lockstep with the premeditated course of action of Bush & Co!

I think the term I used consistently was "credible evidence". I also don't believe I have said Bush and Cheney fabricated the "evidence".

Quotes by officials are not "facts".

[SanukJoe]

Ummm, you might want to look up the September Dossier.

I'm repeatedly told Britain has the greatest military intelligence in the world. Are we to believe they 1. fabricated everything 2. just got it wrong 3. Were under an evil spell of Dubya and his henchmen?

Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Assessment of the British Government, also known as the September Dossier, was a document published by the British government on 24 September 2002 on the same day of a recall of Parliament to discuss the contents of the document.

The decision to liberate Iraq was not made in a vacuum by one man. Get over it.

Texpat is getting Brittle! Suddenly he uses British intelligence to insinuate the Bush administration invaded Iraq because MI5 and/or MI6 told him to do so...

As you keep using the word "liberate" tell me what country occupied Iraq so it had to be liberated?

The US did the same as Iraq did with Kuwait: invade and occupy!

The president of the US is called "Commander in Chief" - says enough right?

To KP:
quote: As for decrying the UN, we ain't got anything else at the moment that seems to work, occasionally slowly and inefficiently but in the main it works.

Very well said. One can read the US opinion about the UN (Nkstan/Jimbo) but it is better than nothing and it has proven to be working, even sometimes slowly. Some (or many) US people seem to think that any regulation that didn't come from inside the US is useless, worthless BS and does not have to be respected. That's a shame and worsens the already bad reputation that US people have (in general) around the world.

To respond to your thread question: I don't feel ashamed for what WE?? did in Iraq but I feel ashamed what has been done to Iraq, the country is destroyed and open territory for terrorists.

Joe

[nkstan]

Hey all you ''Bush Basher-Obama worshippers'',reconcile this staement!

''US President Barack Obama in a YouTube message on Friday thanked US troops back from Iraq for their "dedication" and "courage" that "has made America safer." =D> =D>