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

[KHONDAHM]

Point of clarification:

WWII did significantly help the US out of the depression. Not only did it stimulate the economy and create jobs, but it also wiped out the industrial capacity in Germany, Japan, England, and other countries leaving the US as the only major participant with it's manufacturing capacity not only intact, but greatly expanded. With it's global competition wiped out, the US economy surged on the strength of it's industrial output and exports for decades after WWII. Japan, Germany, etc. have since rebuilt their manufacturing capacity and have been whupping the US's arse ever since. Aided by (mostly) Republican policies which further dismantled the US's manufacturing capacity and workforce.

And to answer the OP, yes I have been ashamed since Bush went rogue on the UN. It was clear that (and has since been proven) the world's most powerful military in the hands of the village idiot could not be a good thing. As I type this, my sister's only child and my only nephew is preparing for deployment to Iraq where he will be manning a .50 at the last checkpoint of one of our major bases. All because the village idiot refused to believe and/or could not comprehend the intelligence coming back which did not support his agenda: Iraq had no WMDs and was in no way connected with 9/11.

[Khun Paul]

[quote]While everyone is drifting off topic, then answer me this. If Albania attacked Turkey from behind, would Greece help ?

Nope Turkey as a Muslim country, coming in from behind is a form of birth control, so they might enjoy it.......

[TJ]

Point of clarification:

WWII did significantly help the US out of the depression. Not only did it stimulate the economy and create jobs, but it also wiped out the industrial capacity in Germany, Japan, England, and other countries leaving the US as the only major participant with it's manufacturing capacity not only intact, but greatly expanded. With it's global competition wiped out, the US economy surged on the strength of it's industrial output and exports for decades after WWII. Japan, Germany, etc. have since rebuilt their manufacturing capacity and have been whupping the US's arse ever since. Aided by (mostly) Republican policies which further dismantled the US's manufacturing capacity and workforce.

No. WWII did not help the U.S. out of the depression. It continued until the tyrant FDR died and businesses could expect some lessening of government malintervention.

Sending millions of U.S. citizens overseas to be killed and maimed and paying them subsistance wages is not a reasonable policy to reduce unemployment. Monopolizing scarce resources for war material caused untold businesses to greatly reduce their production with a great many going out of business all of which resulted in a huge loss of jobs. Wartime rationing and want did not stimulate the economy. Disrupting and destroying international trade was not beneficial to the national economy. The automobiles being manufactured for civilian use went to zero. The military equipment and materials left at the end of the war were of insignificant use to peace-time production. The tens of millions coerced from U.S. taxpayers to buy political partners after the war were never helpful to the average U.S. citizen. The personal disasters to U.S. families were immense and financially burdening. The U.S. went into recession shortly after WWII.

How could anyone believe that U.S. exports were improved by a bankrupt and destroyed world. You have been badly informed of wartime economics. The regulations, taxes, tarrifs, union privilages, and other politically instituted detriments to manufacturing were legislated mostly by democrats IMO.

[LoveDaBlues]

union privilages, and other politically instituted detriments to manufacturing were legislated mostly by democrats IMO.


lol, yea the Republicants would love to keep working people plodding along with no rights in the workplace

[NOLA]

LoverDaBlues...right on...republicans will never do any good for ther working man.

[wynnsiensheng]

I am not ashamed about an alliance of countries invading what was perceived to be a "rogue" country that had aquired WMD. The fact that legitimately elected politicians reached a decision and decided to act, is IMO, what they are elected to do.

What I find to be totally unacceptable is that those same politicians did not resign when it became clear that their conclusions about WMD were wrong and that precious lives had been lost as a result of their flawed judgement. No politians took the honourable course and resigned theor posts to accept responsibility for their actions.

The removal of Sadaam is neither here nor there. There are plenty of tyrents in the world and nobody cares, so long as they are perceived to be aligned with the western countries (Saudi being a prime example but pick any Middle East country). The issue with Iraq was WMD, not Sadaam.

I don't expect leaders of countries to be 100% right, 100% of the time, I do expect them to take responsibility if they lead us to war on a false premise.

Unfortunately, I am too often disappointed.

[nkstan]

I am not ashamed about an alliance of countries invading what was perceived to be a "rogue" country that had aquired WMD. The fact that legitimately elected politicians reached a decision and decided to act, is IMO, what they are elected to do.

What I find to be totally unacceptable is that those same politicians did not resign when it became clear that their conclusions about WMD were wrong and that precious lives had been lost as a result of their flawed judgement. No politians took the honourable course and resigned theor posts to accept responsibility for their actions.

The removal of Sadaam is neither here nor there. There are plenty of tyrents in the world and nobody cares, so long as they are perceived to be aligned with the western countries (Saudi being a prime example but pick any Middle East country). The issue with Iraq was WMD, not Sadaam.

I don't expect leaders of countries to be 100% right, 100% of the time, I do expect them to take responsibility if they lead us to war on a false premise.

Unfortunately, I am too often disappointed.

I fully understand your feelings!The problem is political parties and loyalty politicians feel they must maintain,In the American system,unlike many parlimentary systems,there is to many positions at stake.And the fact that the two competing parties have such different agendas in so many areas other than the war,it is just not a rational thing to do!
Some of the blame for faulty intelligence can be laid at the doorstep of prior administrations and their reactive cutbacks and throttling of human intelligence agencies and their abilities,

It was so easy to assume that WMD's existed,as Saddam had them and used them in the past which led the majority of Americans to believe they still existed.Saddams rhetoric and uncooperative actions,tended to confirm that they had not been destroyed and his concerted rhetoric mirrored that of other Islamic extremists and their desire to terrorize the ''West''!Having to rely on intell from informants rather bonafide agents on the ground are the main reasons so many judgement mistake were made about the politics and the WMD's,IMO!Time seemed to be of the essence,waiting for the UN do dillydally around,was not something that would have been OK,if those weapons existed and were put to the disposal of terrorists!

[DesertStorm]

union privilages lol, yea the Republicants would love to keep working people plodding along with no rights in the workplace

I have to vote for them because of my military pension.

It's a total trap!

You've made this a great thread, folks!

[KHONDAHM]

It was so easy to assume that WMD's existed,as Saddam had them and used them in the past which led the majority of Americans to believe they still existed.Saddams rhetoric and uncooperative actions,tended to confirm that they had not been destroyed

We must not forget that, as later revealed by Saddam during interrogation, he kept his neighbors in check and his hold on power by pretending he had WMDs although he had already "voluntarily" FULLY complied with the UN resolution to disarm and discontinue his WMD program. And YES, he did allow the UN inspectors in and YES they found nothing. The IAEA then informed the UN, but Bush ignored them. So, at that point he was like "Damn, I let you guys poke around long enough and there is nothing to see, so get out of my country". Which as a sovereign leader in his sovereign country, he was well within his rights to do.

In layman's terms, he shot his rabid guard dog long ago but kept a recording on blast. Is that a reason for the dog catcher to invade his home to get a dog that makes a lot of noise, but hasn't been seen in 10 years? I think not.

No, I don't condone any of his actions, but I can appreciate his behavior in the context of his perspective. It is this lack of context and appreciation for his point of view that Bush brushed aside to rain down the destruction of the US military - resulting in the deaths of over a hundred thousand people to date. This could have and should have had a diplomatic solution. That failure of diplomacy was Cowboy Bush's, IMHO.

@TJ, clearly you are mis-educated about the economic impact and benefits of war. Then again, perhaps you are not interested in the facts. I will not attempt to educate you here. You can Google it and read up on the real facts rather than making up your own.

[fredwilliams]

Was Saddam 'legally' executed?

His grandchildren were certainly murdered in cold blood.

[nkstan]

It was so easy to assume that WMD's existed,as Saddam had them and used them in the past which led the majority of Americans to believe they still existed.Saddams rhetoric and uncooperative actions,tended to confirm that they had not been destroyed

We must not forget that, as later revealed by Saddam during interrogation, he kept his neighbors in check and his hold on power by pretending he had WMDs although he had already "voluntarily" FULLY complied with the UN resolution to disarm and discontinue his WMD program. And YES, he did allow the UN inspectors in and YES they found nothing. The IAEA then informed the UN, but Bush ignored them. So, at that point he was like "Damn, I let you guys poke around long enough and there is nothing to see, so get out of my country". Which as a sovereign leader in his sovereign country, he was well within his rights to do.

In layman's terms, he shot his rabid guard dog long ago but kept a recording on blast. Is that a reason for the dog catcher to invade his home to get a dog that makes a lot of noise, but hasn't been seen in 10 years? I think not.

No, I don't condone any of his actions, but I can appreciate his behavior in the context of his perspective. It is this lack of context and appreciation for his point of view that Bush brushed aside to rain down the destruction of the US military - resulting in the deaths of over a hundred thousand people to date. This could have and should have had a diplomatic solution. That failure of diplomacy was Cowboy Bush's, IMHO.

@TJ, clearly you are mis-educated about the economic impact and benefits of war. Then again, perhaps you are not interested in the facts. I will not attempt to educate you here. You can Google it and read up on the real facts rather than making up your own.

so Saddam,after capture admits that he allowed everyone to believe he had WMD's,but bears no responsibilty for the attack?Believing that he had them,rather than disposing of them,you say their should have been a diplomatic solution?Obviously you are talking from an after the fact perpective,right?Or do you think we should have patiently alowed the possibilty of them being used in America by terrorists?Wow?
So saddam claims he got tired of acting subservient in his own country,after he fantastic cooperation with weapons inspectors and decided enough was enough and you empathize with his position and believe he was truthful and right ?Wow!!
Bush is the bad guy for taking prudent action ,with plenty of time given to show proof of compliance,to insure taser possibilty that they would be used agaianst us?Wow!

[parrot]

"I have to vote for them because of my military pension."

Reminds me of the villagers who take 500 baht for their vote. What does your military pension have to do with who you vote for?

[KHONDAHM]

@NKSTAN
For the record, I was in favor of more inspections at the time. It seemed nonsensical to me that JUST because some tyrant (who attempted to assassinate Bush Sr. following the first war) allegedly had WMDs, there was no evidence linking that particular tyrant to the 9/11 attacks. Like Colin Powell, I was very skeptical. What was coming out of the State Department was contradicting what was coming out of the CIA and State was pushing back. Knowing what I knew about the history of the CIA, it just seemed too convenient and rushed to hop from Afghanistan to Iraq on the basis of circumstantial evidence at best. Even after watching Powell fall in line behind Bush, put his personal and diplomatic credibility on the line, and make the case, it still seemed a bit fishy and STILL circumstantial. The best quality evidence presented publicly were some manifests and inconclusive photos. If one allowed oneself to accept that the IAEA and others were damn good at their job - indeed THE best in the world with full access to all intelligence as well as real-time support during inspections - and had vetted all leads, then one could also accept that "Hey, it is unlikely he has anything".

NOBODY can prove a negative just like you cannot prove to us that you are not a terrorist. Go ahead, prove to us that you are not a terrorist. You may open your home to us for inspection, but after a few months (hahaha) of poking around and finding nothing, you are probably going to ask us all to leave, right? After which, we should take that to mean you are hiding something and therefore we should declare that we have the right to inspect your home further with a 4 ton backhoe, right?

The rationale that was used by Bush the village idiot was not rational to rational people (such as the French at the time).

[Texpat]

Western countries (US, UK, France) wasted 10 years, TEN YEARS, enforcing UN sanctions and no-fly zones across Iraq. I personally logged about a year living in tents in the Saudi lost quarter.

*%#* that!

Ten years of that joke. Tens of thousands of military from various nations bunked in Turkey and Saudi and Kuwait while Saddam thumbed his nose at everyone ... Why doesn't the UN charge ME countries with policing their neighbors?

The plans were laid under the Clinton administration -- long before Dubya was president. People who want to criticize the liberation of Iraq don't care to remember any of this.

[nkstan]

Of course,If I opened my home to you,coopersted in all ways,such as showing you evidence of my compliance,I would tire of your BS and tell you to leave!That is not a fair analogy of the Saddam situation!
He interfered constantly,provided no evidence of their destruction which was his obligation!He constantly played out the scenario to make people believe he had WMD's(you even quoted his saying so),yet ,now you expect everyone should have believed that their were no weapons and that he was not a threat as you state you believed?
With the shock of 9/11 and our vulnerbility that accompanied it,with the overwhelming majority of Americans believing otherwise,you were so convinced that Saddam was not a threat?
Congratulations on being right,the problem would have been gigantic if you were wrong and I believe that the ''evidence'' you are talking about was clear as mud at the time!
Again,I believe time was of the essence,without clear bonafide human intelligence to indicate otherwise!
To think that Saddam wasn't responsible is ludicrous,IMO,when all he had to do was show evidence of compliance and cooperation and assistance to verify proof of their destruction!

[KHONDAHM]

@NKSTAN
You are making my point. Forget about me. THE STATE DEPARTMENT WAS RIGHT! It was the State Department that vetted the intelligence and TOLD BUSH IRAQ WAS NO THREAT and had NO CONNECTION TO 9/11. Please tell us you are at least aware of that fact. So Bush had special interests in one ear feeding him and the public the lies the public needed to hear to support the case for war and then he had State under Powell telling him the FACTS. It is a matter of documented history which he chose to believe and which he chose to ignore. The consequences of which have brought both countries to their knees.

Read about it: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_H ... ected=true

@Texpat
Misbehavior does not a case for invasion and regime change make. At least not to a rational person or leader. There are/were countries all over the world in flagrant violation of UN mandates (insert Isreal, China, former USSR states, several S. American states, several African states, Cuba, etc. here). Many of those states were also actively antagonizing their neighbors. It is tolerated as diplomacy continues.

Tolerance and compromise are the point of diplomacy.

[nkstan]

KD,the STATE DEPT. is not a reliable INTELLIGENCE GATHERING AGENCY!!!Never has been!

[KHONDAHM]

KD,the STATE DEPT. is not a reliable INTELLIGENCE GATHERING AGENCY!!!Never has been!

No argument about it's charter, but they are responsible for consolidating intelligence and predicting an outcome of various scenarios. Heck, even Cheney predicted the aftermath of going downtown spot on 10 years prior. There is a video of a speech he gave during the 90's somewhere. Looking at it now, it is either really prescient or really planned...

[Texpat]

Well, I'm not ashamed.

Saddam and his rotten children are dead and Iraq has a representative government elected by the citizens.

Yeah, pretty happy with the outcome.

[jackspratt]

Iraq mission 'not accomplished'

Seven years after the US military went into Iraq, president Barack Obama will mark the end of combat operations with an address from the Oval Office.

Some 300 soldiers from the 4th Stryker Brigade are now heading home - the last of the combat troops to leave the country.

However, they leave behind a country which still does not have a functioning government and is facing a spike in violence.

In the past 48 hours, dozens of people have died in a string of apparently coordinated suicide bombings.........

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... ion=justin

What use is a representative government if it is not functioning?