US invasion of Iraq based on false report of Al-Qaeda's ties with Saddam

[capcc76]

The moral of the story here is quiet simple.

You bring down building like the twin towers, fly a plane into the Pentagon and target the White House and the US will respond harshly and with resolve. If you are connected to, even loosely or suspected, to the groups responsible you got serious problems coming your way.

Post 911 were very difficult times. The worst we have every dealt with.

Did Bush over react? Absolutely! But can you blame him? No. That happened on his watch and no way was he going to let anything like that happen again while he was in the White House.

If you are an Amerucan, you should appreciate it. The end justified the means and you can sleep peacefully at night and not worry about working in tall building or flying in airplanes.

If you are not American and do not like it, who cares. It's really none of your concern anyway unless you were from Iraq.

Edited December 13, 2014 by capcc76

[Chicog]

The moral of the story here is quiet simple.

You bring down building like the twin towers, fly a plane into the Pentagon and target the White House and the US will respond harshly and with resolve. If you are connected to, even loosely or suspected, to the groups responsible you got serious problems coming your way.

Post 911 were very difficult times. The worst we have every dealt with.

Did Bush over react? Absolutely! But can you blame him? No. That happened on his watch and no way was he going to let anything like that happen again while he was in the White House.

If you are an Amerucan, you should appreciate it. The end justified the means and you can sleep peacefully at night and not worry about working in tall building or flying in airplanes.

If you are not American and do not like it, who cares. It's really none of your concern anyway unless you were from Iraq.

Except 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, so I think you got the wrong country.

[Chicog]

I didn't think there was an intelligent person on the planet that thought that invasion was about anything other than lining the pockets of the Bush and Cheney families and their hangers on.

Apart from you me, and at least one other poster posting on here, I wonder how many were actually there for GW1 and 2?

Personally I thought it was all about keeping the obnoxious Al Sauds in power, good little lap dogs that they are.

Well GW1 was all about keeping the oil flowing and possibly scaring the Saudis into playing the right tune, but the second one was a money making venture, pure and simple.

[capcc76]

The moral of the story here is quiet simple.

You bring down building like the twin towers, fly a plane into the Pentagon and target the White House and the US will respond harshly and with resolve. If you are connected to, even loosely or suspected, to the groups responsible you got serious problems coming your way.

Post 911 were very difficult times. The worst we have every dealt with.

Did Bush over react? Absolutely! But can you blame him? No. That happened on his watch and no way was he going to let anything like that happen again while he was in the White House.

If you are an Amerucan, you should appreciate it. The end justified the means and you can sleep peacefully at night and not worry about working in tall building or flying in airplanes.

If you are not American and do not like it, who cares. It's really none of your concern anyway unless you were from Iraq.

Except 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, so I think you got the wrong country.

Dude? Not what I said. I acknowledged Iraq was a guilt by association or "loosely suspected" to be affiliated with or a viewed as threat. Iraq fit that definition.

[Tep]

The moral of the story here is quiet simple.

You bring down building like the twin towers, fly a plane into the Pentagon and target the White House and the US will respond harshly and with resolve. If you are connected to, even loosely or suspected, to the groups responsible you got serious problems coming your way.

Post 911 were very difficult times. The worst we have every dealt with.

Did Bush over react? Absolutely! But can you blame him? No. That happened on his watch and no way was he going to let anything like that happen again while he was in the White House.

If you are an Amerucan, you should appreciate it. The end justified the means and you can sleep peacefully at night and not worry about working in tall building or flying in airplanes.

If you are not American and do not like it, who cares. It's really none of your concern anyway unless you were from Iraq.

You absolve Bush. Many do not. Including me.

Do you remember his campaign platform. He was the Compassionate Conservative. He was the Education President. His father's machine tailored him with manufactured ideology. I recall what he said after the 9/11 attacks. He said something like 'we have found our mission'. The words are probably recorded somewhere but that is how I remember them. 'We have found our mission'. So easily he threw off the pretence that the machine invented for him abandoning everything that was designed to get him elected in favour of an expression of rage and death on any who did not side with him and his gang. Remember the Dixie Chicks? Remember a few brave people - not just Michael Moore but others? Any hint of opposition was viciously attacked.

More seriously, the Bush regime's over-reaction accelerated the existing tendency to move to the national security state and its implications throughout US domestic policy even under subsequent, non Republican administrations. There is a direct line between this and the emergence of so called 'home grown' terrorists in Western democracies and the creation of the abhorrent, radical groups like ISIS.

Your last two statements are unconscionable.

[Publicus]

Cheney, who appeared on Fox News this week, called the report a “terrible piece of work” and said it was “full of crap.”

If you want to see who’s really “full of crap,” watch the short clip

Darth Cheney naturally strode forward as the chief banger of Washington heads while G.W. and his SecState Colin Powell worked on foreign governments to join a coalition of the clueless. Powell lied while lying then suddenly there we were unmolested in Baghdad.

Cheney, family, corporate friends, looted huge bucks out of Iraq and so did the Bushes. Of great importance to the Bushes, they got the guy who in 1993 had organized the failed assassination attempt against GHW Bush visiting Kuwait on the anniversary of its liberation from Saddam's (brief) grip. Whether the name is Saddam or Bush a dynasty doesn't like when one among 'em goes outside the rules.

Europe didn't like the whole of it because the neocons themselves went outside the rules of the US being the West's policeman to the world, to try instead to become its don.

Whether any of us likes it or not, the neocon notion is powerful in both US political parties that the only way for the ME to change is to change it. Kick 'em in the balls and break their face with your other knee.

Looking forward from this point, this is not good for Rand Paul, Chris Christey, Jeb Bush or other Republicans, nor for any Democrat who's not as neo or as con as Hillary Clinton is.

The dismal failure of the Arab Spring to affect change only served to make the neocons look like the latter day Theodore Roosevelt except to speak softly and now and then whack somebody with the big stick. Neocon ideologists in academia and in media are presenting the current ME chaos as a latter day Thirty Years War. The post 9/11 Homeland is safe and secure which means barring the unexpected we're going to be at this for a while yet.

[capcc76]

The moral of the story here is quiet simple.

You bring down building like the twin towers, fly a plane into the Pentagon and target the White House and the US will respond harshly and with resolve. If you are connected to, even loosely or suspected, to the groups responsible you got serious problems coming your way.

Post 911 were very difficult times. The worst we have every dealt with.

Did Bush over react? Absolutely! But can you blame him? No. That happened on his watch and no way was he going to let anything like that happen again while he was in the White House.

If you are an Amerucan, you should appreciate it. The end justified the means and you can sleep peacefully at night and not worry about working in tall building or flying in airplanes.

If you are not American and do not like it, who cares. It's really none of your concern anyway unless you were from Iraq.

You absolve Bush. Many do not. Including me.

Do you remember his campaign platform. He was the Compassionate Conservative. He was the Education President. His father's machine tailored him with manufactured ideology. I recall what he said after the 9/11 attacks. He said something like 'we have found our mission'. The words are probably recorded somewhere but that is how I remember them. 'We have found our mission'. So easily he threw off the pretence that the machine invented for him abandoning everything that was designed to get him elected in favour of an expression of rage and death on any who did not side with him and his gang. Remember the Dixie Chicks? Remember a few brave people - not just Michael Moore but others? Any hint of opposition was viciously attacked.

More seriously, the Bush regime's over-reaction accelerated the existing tendency to move to the national security state and its implications throughout US domestic policy even under subsequent, non Republican administrations. There is a direct line between this and the emergence of so called 'home grown' terrorists in Western democracies and the creation of the abhorrent, radical groups like ISIS.

Your last two statements are unconscionable.

I do not absolve Bush of crap. I think 911 happened because Bush was a sleep at the wheel and did not take chatter seriously. He then over reacted.

What happened, happened and cannot be undone. Nothing you do or say will change anything. I don't walk around harboring resentments against Japan or Germany. Move on, learn from history and try to do better in the future.

If you resent Bush or US because of what he did 10 years ago, so be it. Impacts you, but I doubt anyone else is losing sleep over it.

Bush has to live with his demons. I think he thought he was doing what was in best interest of country at the time, but would do it differently if having a do over button.

There are no do over buttons. Life is not a dress rehearsal. You should not judge unless you walked in his shoes and had to deal with such an extreme situation as a Nation's leader.

I stand behind my last two statements 100 %. This is not a popularity contest.

[Chicog]

I think he thought he was doing what was in best interest of country at the time, but would do it differently if having a do over button.

I think he's too thick to think at all. Everything he did was following instructions from Daddy and the rest of the team.

At least Reagan had the excuse of having spent most of his life being told what to say.

[MiKT]

I am a Brit, we invented freedom of speech, so I don't need any lectures on it. But a couple of quick questions maybe an expert like you can clear up for me.

If the Vietnam war was such a bad idea - why is Vietnam still such a s..t country as far as freedom is concerned. Go and make a few freedom speech's in HCM if you want to test that theory.

And please, please do not insult my intelligence by telling me that it was American bombing that made them the way they are now. Or even that Uncle Ho was a really great guy who only wanted peace on earth and goodwill to all named Jane(except the French).

Also where would you be now? sure as hell it would not be in the Southern Chinese province of Siam that would be here without the war.

Yes there were lots of bad things in the Vietnam war, but it also served a purpose that is all to often not recognised.

Many guys went there and died as did the American guys who died to free Europe from Hitler and Asia from the Japanese and many of them committed far worse atrocities than took place in Vietnam. I am not excusing this but I don't blame them and keep on bringing it up after so many years. I HATE revisionist history looking at things with todays eyes/values. If you were not of that time you don't know and you would not be able to be proud of your todays values if they had not done what they thought was necessary at the time.

To get back to the subject, do you really think that Saddam's regime was a good thing and freedom of speech would be thriving in Iraq if there had been no invasions?

Not to say it is now, but I like to think that in the long run the shake-ups in the middle East that started with the Gulf wars will eventually result in more real freedom for more people.

I think you will find that with most things related to democratic traditions, the Ancient Greeks are the ones to take credit. Including freedom of speech (for qualified citizens of course in that context). I would probably dispute with you on the extent to which the non-elites in Britain ever had any freedom of speech until probably the era of universal suffrage.You start with that howler and just get worse as you go on. The old Domino Theory? Really? Are

there actually people still around that espouse this discredited nonsense. Intervention in Vietnam prevented Thailand from being taken over by the Red Chinese! Go look up the Sino Vietnamese War. It was in 1979. Look at the causes. Understand the complexities of the region and the impact of ignorant cold war inspired foreign policy. The Chinese took territory away from the Vietnamese in that conflict. It was pointed out to me when I walked to the border of Vietnam and China in Lang Son Province and the Vietnamese described what it was like waking up in the city to an invading Chinese army. And Vietnam was the next domino to fall unless the Americans stopped it. On the drive to that province, it was pointed out to me where the Vietnamese had stopped a similar Chinese invasion of the 1st century and the role of the Trung Sisters and of later invasions. Vietnam and China were not fellow-travellers. They may have been opportunistic allies at various points but you think they were ever going to subjugate themselves to China?

I am from that Vietnam War period. My country ignominiously participated in that affair. I had friends whose family members were killed. I was too young but my siblings were not and one faced conscription and one fought in that conflict. My memory is of the anti-war demonstrations and their demonisation by the hawks of the time.

You apply your particular and peculiar analysis of history to the issue of the invasion of Iraq. You justify it on the basis that Saddam was a bad man and Iraqis did not have freedom of speech. There was significant opposition to the US unilateral actions. I was also part of that time. There was much made of the rejection of the UN mandate process. People were bullied into acquiescence. They now see that this acquiescence was based on fabrications founded on an ideological agenda. Now that actual facts are coming out, your own attempts at revisionism look more like recidivism.

Many of us watched with horror as the case was made for war with iraq using fabrications and 'sexed up' documents. Opponents who voiced concerns and protested at these fabrications were vilified. Perhaps you remember the British UN weapons inspector, David Kelly? I think many are rightfully outraged and I support demands for accountability.

e

Ho, ho ,ho, the Vietnamese stopped the Chinese invasion in the 1st Century and the Japanese stopped the Chinese Invasion with the divine wind and the Koreans stopped the Chinese and the Japanese in the (oh, silly me no they did not) but the Thai's stopped the Burmese with a couple of ladies from Korat. I think you are confusing democracy and free speech, have you never heard of Greek slaves, not too much freedom of speech there. If you want a history lesson on free speech try starting with the Magna Carta and mmm perhaps you have never heard of Wat Tyler or even a certain Willy Shakespeare, don't recall them being very hiso.

Bit more history, have you ever been to Phu Hin Rong Kla and seen the Chinese communist defences (later joined by some Thai students and now very rich singers) but originally only a forward base for the Russian backed, Chinese backed, communist take over of Thailand. If you like walking, follow the (pre HCM trail) infiltration routes from the border down into Phitsanulok.

Domino howler, ???, if the Americans had not been here in force during the seventies supporting the Thai Army, for sure Thailand would have been taken over by Chinese communists, what system of Government do they have in Laos and Cambodia?.

I think that if the French had pulled out of Vietnam in the 50's things might have been different, but maybe not, look at Korea, 60 + years of war and still only a fragile armistice between North and South. The communists do not believe in free speech or democracy(check out Hong Kong) and the war in Vietnam was only a logical (given the thinking of the time) extension of the Korean conflict.

And, it is a simple fact that if the Chinese had seriously wanted to take over Vietnam they could have done so and subjugated them just like the Japanese did in Korea.

So Saddam was only a slightly naughty man - mmm check with the Kurds and Kuwaitis on that one.

Now David Kelly, that is an interesting name, are there actually people still around that espouse his discredited nonsense? If he was so right, I go back to my earlier question of why American troops are still in Iraq cleaning up (at a lot of risk to themselves) chemical weapons of Mass destruction (again like to check with the Kurds on how destructive)and the obvious fact that a lot of the stocks were transfer to Syria along with much of the Iraq airforce.

How do you bully half the UN into joining in a war? Most (and I do mean most) British people hated Saddam's lot after the first Gulf war and were only unhappy that he was not finished of the first time around. Only thing before the first Gulf war, was nobody could decide who was worse, Iraq or Iran but tended to support Iraq as the lesser of the two evils (I will give you this was probably the wrong choice).

All wars are probably for the wrong reasons one way or another, but it's the infighting inter-American politics that constantly blame one side or the other for the wars that weakens America's much needed influence in the world and makes it that much harder for democracy and free speech to be spread a little further that so annoys American supporters like myself.

Yes it is nice to be "whiter than white" on torture or misbehaviour by a few soldiers, but to make so much of it only makes it easier for the forces of evil to justify their mass murders, rapes, subjugation and mutilation of women and violent destruction.

Get over yourselves!

[Neurath]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"It hasn't made our world anymore safer."

There is really no way to know that.

If there is really no way to know that, then there is really no way that 'making the world safer' should have been used as justification for intervention in the first place. Making the world safer was precisely the justification that Blair, Bush and Howard used.

[willyumiii]

Interesting thread.

Good to see that most have read between the lines and no longer buy the Cheney B.S. about what a good thing they did.

They only good they did was for the financial gain of themselves and their cronies.

The world is not a safer place, it is much more dangerous.

Americans in Thailand were just warned this week about possible dangers to themselves and their families as a result of the reports of torture done by the Cheney administration in their name!

I do not feel safer.

Thanks Dick...enjoy your money!

[hard124get]

Make up your minds, Dems. Was it a false claim of WMD's or was it a false claim about Al Qaeda?

Keep your stories straight.

Is there some reason it can't be both? It was a total pack of lies to accomplish a predetermined goal. I remember the first time I heard Cheney's sabre-rattling in the summer of 2002, when he said Saddam was supporting Al Qaeda. It made no sense to me. I said to myself, "Saddam's is a secular regime, surely not friendly to the religious fundamentalists of AQ." Another immediate thought was, "What happened to the no-fly zone after the first war with Iraq? That country was under intense surveillance for 11 years, not even allowed to fly over their own country. Then suddenly they have 'weapons of mass destruction?' Who dropped the ball?"

I listened for answers to my questions throughout the autumn of 2002 (I was living in the US), but all we heard was fear-mongering. Anyone who attempted to question the party line (using the term loosely, as both political parties were complicit) was branded "unpatriotic." The story (or stories if you prefer) never added up, but the American people are sheep who will be frightened into submission rather than be labeled unpatriotic.

I'm not a pacifist, I thought that going after the Taliban in Afghanistan was the proper thing to do, given their support for AQ (not to mention the slavery of their women). War is a serious decision, and needs powerful (and true) reasons. The reasons for attacking Iraq were absent, and these revelations are long overdue.

So you thought it right to go into Afghanistan? Even though, the Taliban had said they would co-operate in finding Bin Laden and had just asked for evidence against him.US could not produce any. Would Saudi Arabia not have been more appropriate to invade, if 9/11 blame and women's rights are justification for bombing civilians?

[Bakeman]

As an American I believe the best thing to do is to quit playing the police for the world and protect the American borders while letting everyone else protect themselves.. It wouldn't be long before America would be pulled into WWIII just as in WWII.

[boomerangutang]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Make up your minds, Dems. Was it a false claim of WMD's or was it a false claim about Al Qaeda?

Keep your stories straight.

both

Nothing new. French told that since the first day. Then Colin Powell admitted it.

Bush is criminal, he just has to be judged.

Sorry, I haven't read all the posts, but Powell was the 'fall guy.' Those of us outside the power base in D.C. (where I grew up in with a career State Dept dad), knew from the first utterance, that the 'Al Qaeda is buddies with Saddam' story was a crapola sandwich. Powell probably believed it somewhat, but Bush + Cheney putting Powell in front of the world at the UN to push their myopic agenda (Bush Jr. had claimed 'Saddam threatened my father') ....was a torpedo to Powell's hopes to be America's first black president. Yup, it's quite likely he would have been a candidate, and he could have possibly beaten Clinton in an election. I like Bill Clinton, but it's all moot now.

[impulse]

As an American I believe the best thing to do is to quit playing the police for the world and protect the American borders while letting everyone else protect themselves.. It wouldn't be long before America would be pulled into WWIII just as in WWII.

I agree that we need to let the world sort out their problems while we spend our resources solving our own.

But, while we were goat roped in to WW1 and pulled into WW2, we're the ones who started WW3. They're just not calling it that yet.

[slipperylobster]

Sputnik news...

for idiots.

[slipperylobster]

For all you whingers...that say Bush is a criminal, and America screwed up...

Let the next homeland attack be on your country...in your airplanes, and against your buildings.

a few thousand cry at your ignorance...in their graves.

hope you remain ignorant.

[slipperylobster]

As an American I believe the best thing to do is to quit playing the police for the world and protect the American borders while letting everyone else protect themselves.. It wouldn't be long before America would be pulled into WWIII just as in WWII.

I agree that we need to let the world sort out their problems while we spend our resources solving our own.

But, while we were goat roped in to WW1 and pulled into WW2, we're the ones who started WW3. They're just not calling it that yet.

Let us just hope, that in the next "Big One", we let the Generals in charge take decisive action, and apply permanent solutions.

Just look how badly Europe turned out.....not to mention Korea, China, Near East, Middle East, Far East....

Need permanent solutions. Some kids just cannot handle freedom

[willyumiii]

As an American I believe the best thing to do is to quit playing the police for the world and protect the American borders while letting everyone else protect themselves.. It wouldn't be long before America would be pulled into WWIII just as in WWII.

Have you ever noticed how most of the places we ( The USA ) decide to be police are places that serve our oil interests?

It takes a very long time for the police to respond to any non oil related "wrong doings", like in Bosnia, if the "police" eve respond at all.

It's all about money and the big corporations like Halliburton that control the American government.

[slipperylobster]

As an American I believe the best thing to do is to quit playing the police for the world and protect the American borders while letting everyone else protect themselves.. It wouldn't be long before America would be pulled into WWIII just as in WWII.

Have you ever noticed how most of the places we ( The USA ) decide to be police are places that serve our oil interests?

It takes a very long time for the police to respond to any non oil related "wrong doings", like in Bosnia, if the "police" eve respond at all.

It's all about money and the big corporations like Halliburton that control the American government.

Not only that.

Research some history, and find out what the real truth is.

I don't really find much of anything in the Humanitarian department. If truth be told, Economic gain and territorial influence was the only motive for war. (Perhaps with the exception of "The face that launched a thousand ships". I am not speaking of Helen of Troy. Osama himself was good at that, as was Hitler.

OK....so tell me, as I am listening. Did I miss any civilizations in any period of history, that were not after Economic Gain/Political Influence?

In fact, I see it just as important to deny the accumulation of wealth to certain "Unstable" and "Unreasonable" societies. This is real life....we are not in the "Social Reform Committee for the Inept".

Thank you.

Edited December 14, 2014 by slipperylobster

[simple1]

As an American I believe the best thing to do is to quit playing the police for the world and protect the American borders while letting everyone else protect themselves.. It wouldn't be long before America would be pulled into WWIII just as in WWII.

I assume you're referring to "Unilateralism". IMO US long term economic growth & employment is governed by trade and relations with the global marketplace, I do not believe US can just pull out of its inherent self interest in supporting the goals of peace and stability with its trade partners.

[Asiantravel]

As an American I believe the best thing to do is to quit playing the police for the world and protect the American borders while letting everyone else protect themselves.. It wouldn't be long before America would be pulled into WWIII just as in WWII.

I assume you're referring to "Unilateralism". IMO US long term economic growth & employment is governed by trade and relations with the global marketplace, I do not believe US can just pull out of its inherent self interest in supporting the goals of peace and stability with its trade partners.

" the goals of peace and stability"

[pitrevie]

Make up your minds, Dems. Was it a false claim of WMD's or was it a false claim about Al Qaeda?

Keep your stories straight.

Is there some reason it can't be both? It was a total pack of lies to accomplish a predetermined goal. I remember the first time I heard Cheney's sabre-rattling in the summer of 2002, when he said Saddam was supporting Al Qaeda. It made no sense to me. I said to myself, "Saddam's is a secular regime, surely not friendly to the religious fundamentalists of AQ." Another immediate thought was, "What happened to the no-fly zone after the first war with Iraq? That country was under intense surveillance for 11 years, not even allowed to fly over their own country. Then suddenly they have 'weapons of mass destruction?' Who dropped the ball?"

I listened for answers to my questions throughout the autumn of 2002 (I was living in the US), but all we heard was fear-mongering. Anyone who attempted to question the party line (using the term loosely, as both political parties were complicit) was branded "unpatriotic." The story (or stories if you prefer) never added up, but the American people are sheep who will be frightened into submission rather than be labeled unpatriotic.

I'm not a pacifist, I thought that going after the Taliban in Afghanistan was the proper thing to do, given their support for AQ (not to mention the slavery of their women). War is a serious decision, and needs powerful (and true) reasons. The reasons for attacking Iraq were absent, and these revelations are long overdue.

So you thought it right to go into Afghanistan? Even though, the Taliban had said they would co-operate in finding Bin Laden and had just asked for evidence against him.US could not produce any. Would Saudi Arabia not have been more appropriate to invade, if 9/11 blame and women's rights are justification for bombing civilians?

I recall the offer from the Taliban, did you really think that it was a serious offer?

[Asiantravel]

Four pages of US bashing over Iraq.

What about Tony Blair and the British Parliament? Don't the Brits have their own intelligence?

The Brits provided 1/3 of the troops for the invasion of Iraq.

Some conspiracy nutters keep saying it was about oil. The US didn't take any of Iraq's oil. Neither did anyone else. It did stop Hussein from taking Kuwait's oil.

22 countries participated in the war in Iraq. Now they like to hide their heads in their butts and act like it was only the US. Hypocrites.

Someone said it was because Saddam had said he would take only Euros for oil. The US can get Euros. The US never needed oil from Iraq. It's main suppliers were Mexico, Canada and Saudi and itself.

Some hate so much they will ignore facts and go on and on for pages when in fact their own countries were in that war all the way.

It's dumbfounding and those poster make themselves look like idiots.

" 22 countries participated in the war in Iraq. Now they like to hide their heads in their butts and act like it was only the US. Hypocrites."

Hey Neversure it's America that is the hypocrite if it won't shoulder most of the blame. At least the activities of other participating countries will now be scrutinised by an international criminal court, whereas your country won't? more Brit s will face the British judicial system and suffer the consequences of their actions than any one in America

Iraq torture claims: New allegations against British soldiers to go to International Criminal Court

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraq-torture-claims-new-allegations-against-british-soldiers-to-go-to-international-criminal-court-9923409.html

Edited December 14, 2014 by Asiantravel

[spidermike007]

Everything about the invasion of Iraq was based on falsehoods. The US needed a patsy, and they wanted control of the oil fields. Why else did they decide to protect the oil ministry building, and leave every other institution alone, including the top museum in the Middle East? It was poorly planned, poorly executed, poorly thought out, and on top of all that, the American people were lied to, and the information used was false. Joe Wilson tried to reveal that info, and look at what happened to his wife, Valerie Plame. Cheney was one of the biggest pigs to ever hold the office of VP. He used every falsehood, and pretense he could, to carry out a war in his name. He should be in prison, for his crimes. So should Tiny George II, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and others.

[F430murci]

"It hasn't made our world anymore safer."

There is really no way to know that.

I suppose in the sense that there's no way to ultimately know the definitive outcome of anything. But we do know that it massively destabilized the region and that where terrorists once could not operate, now they do so freely.

Our world is safer since 911. Our government's job is to act in the best interests of the US. We have done that and I am satisfied that we are safer and things are better.

As far as ME, that place was a disaster long before 2001. Sadam slaughtered anywhere between a 1/4 to a 1/2 mullion. Shitty place before, shitty place now. Time for these people to step up and right their own ship.

Look at all of the other countries that were gutted or had restructured leadership after wars and conflicts. They restructured, rebuilt and bettered their countries. Not the ME though.

The problem in the ME is the people in the ME countries, not the US, not the Israel's, not the Russians, not the Europeans, not the Australians or anyone else potentially within their cross hairs for terrorist acts.

What a crock of shit 'the world is a safer place' .... you obviously just listen to what you're told; try doing some research. The government acts in the best interest of the corporations, the population is necessary only to consume things (people are herded just like any other animal).

The Americans have slaughtered far more than Saddam Hussein. [America was a beautiful place, but its getting shittier by the minute; what you going to do about that?]

Name one country that is 'better off' than before America came along.

Long before criminals were sent to Australia, they were sent to America; the white collar criminals (due to class structures, wasn't the done thing to put upper crust in the stocks, flog them or hang them)

Just think how much better off everybody would be, how much cheaper, if America just paid for the oil (and other resources) instead of stealing it. When Clinton was in, the USA was out of debt and now, <deleted>; and why ? because corporations own the government and all the slippery politicians and use American citizens tax paid funds to fight their wars to steal ...

America would still be 'the brave', thousands of lives not squandered protecting corporations with sleaze bags like Cheney and his neo-con mates. These arse-wipes used America's good name to dupe people, interfere in regions where they could put puppet leaders in control and strip regions of their resources ...

"Our world" "Our Givernment" = US

Lol, Valium and Beer! You gonna stroke out.

Edited December 14, 2014 by F430murci

[EyesWideOpen]

I always wondered why America attacked Iraq after 9/11. 19 of the 21 hijackers were from

Saudi Arabia, so logically America should have attacked them in retaliation. Oh wait guess

that would have slowed down oil to America....

[willyumiii]

Four pages of US bashing over Iraq.

What about Tony Blair and the British Parliament? Don't the Brits have their own intelligence?

The Brits provided 1/3 of the troops for the invasion of Iraq.

Some conspiracy nutters keep saying it was about oil. The US didn't take any of Iraq's oil. Neither did anyone else. It did stop Hussein from taking Kuwait's oil.

22 countries participated in the war in Iraq. Now they like to hide their heads in their butts and act like it was only the US. Hypocrites.

Someone said it was because Saddam had said he would take only Euros for oil. The US can get Euros. The US never needed oil from Iraq. It's main suppliers were Mexico, Canada and Saudi and itself.

Some hate so much they will ignore facts and go on and on for pages when in fact their own countries were in that war all the way.

It's dumbfounding and those poster make themselves look like idiots.

" 22 countries participated in the war in Iraq. Now they like to hide their heads in their butts and act like it was only the US. Hypocrites."

Hey Neversure it's America that is the hypocrite if it won't shoulder most of the blame. At least the activities of other participating countries will now be scrutinised by an international criminal court, whereas your country won't? more Brit s will face the British judicial system and suffer the consequences of their actions than any one in America

Iraq torture claims: New allegations against British soldiers to go to International Criminal Court

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraq-torture-claims-new-allegations-against-british-soldiers-to-go-to-international-criminal-court-9923409.html

Not all Americans are hypocrites.

In fact, at this late date, it has become rather obvious to most Americans just how wrong the invasion of Iraq was.

Yes, there are still some hard headed holdouts who can not believe the Connecticut born cowboy was wrong and evil.

You named one of them.

Luckily, the Republican party has been committing slow suicide since little GW first stole office.

The final nail in the coffin should be driven home by the end of this decade.

The same evil, greedy, sleazy creeps will still be around, they will just repackage themselves in a different party with a new name .

The American people will take their government back from the corporations and the 2% who own it now.

[Morch]

As an American I believe the best thing to do is to quit playing the police for the world and protect the American borders while letting everyone else protect themselves.. It wouldn't be long before America would be pulled into WWIII just as in WWII.

I agree that we need to let the world sort out their problems while we spend our resources solving our own.

But, while we were goat roped in to WW1 and pulled into WW2, we're the ones who started WW3. They're just not calling it that yet.

Let us just hope, that in the next "Big One", we let the Generals in charge take decisive action, and apply permanent solutions.

Just look how badly Europe turned out.....not to mention Korea, China, Near East, Middle East, Far East....

Need permanent solutions. Some kids just cannot handle freedom

There are permanent solutions?

[Morch]

As an American I believe the best thing to do is to quit playing the police for the world and protect the American borders while letting everyone else protect themselves.. It wouldn't be long before America would be pulled into WWIII just as in WWII.

I assume you're referring to "Unilateralism". IMO US long term economic growth & employment is governed by trade and relations with the global marketplace, I do not believe US can just pull out of its inherent self interest in supporting the goals of peace and stability with its trade partners.

" the goals of peace and stability"

Cutting the original sentence short there - "...with its trade partners". Peace and stability insofar as it serves the USA interests is a plausible proposition. There is usually not much vacuum in international relationships (and not too sure that the periods when there is one are that great), so if not the USA's interests, than some other superpower, regional bully, or the next door country will fill in. Given that, the USA's interests may not be identical to the World's in general - but considering the alternatives, might not be the worse.

Granted, if I was Iraqi (or any other country getting a feel of that big stick) I'd probably have a different view on things.