10 Lessons the US should learn from Iraq defeat

Sadistic Savor, sometimes I believe that you actually have faith in the tripe that you post.

A pity that the utter lack of logic and your fantasy postulations prevents the rest of us (excl. The Doctor) from agreeing with you.

I mean, how can you baldly state that Saddam would not co-operate to "achieve the goal" of finding WMDs when it turns out that he didn't have any? That is utterly preposterous. Aren't you embarrassed when you read your drivel in hindsight? And even worse .... you keep on repeating it month after month!!

 

Yes, that is why we were in Iraq for years and Bush got elected twice. Because no one agrees with me. LOL

Um...because whether or not he had any has nothing to do with the level of cooperation he initially provided to inspectors? You really needed me to explain that to you?

If the cops arrest you because the suspect you of murder, and you resist arrest, you will still be found guilty of resisting arrest even if you are later cleared of murder.

The situation was similar here...we suspected Saddam had WMDs. We demanded he let us look. He agreed, but interfered with inspections. So to make sure, we removed him so that we could inspect without his interference.

Removing him was a means to an end. His interference was why we removed him.

 

So what you are trying to sell to us Doctor, is that Cheyney, his Neocons and their Dubya puppy wanted regime change in Iran, but could not / would not / did not have the cajones to present their illegal act (under international law) to the world.

So they trumped up this uranium from Niger / imminent threat of WMDs BS / containers in the desert manufacturing ... something (poor Colin Powell) in UNSC 1441 instead of expressing their REAL motives? What a bunch of hypocrites!! And YOU defend this fraud and illegality with a bland face??!!

You help us to understand more clearly than ever why the lunatic fringe is pushed into flying planes into tall twin 'Murkan buildings? Grats bro.

 

Yes, oh yes we need more of this

US Foreign policy of us telling the world what we they need too do.

 

Yes, oh yes we need more of this

US Foreign policy of us telling the world what we they need too do.

 

Saddam was a selfish bastard, no doubt, but sanctions have been crippling the Iraqi civilian population for years while he was building palaces. But even then, Iraq was trading its oil for supplies as the sanctions started to make the country collapse.

I know Americans have a self-righteous attitude, but you seem to forget, you were not invited into Iraq at all. Nobody was asking for America to remove Saddam Hussein, something that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians during your invasion.

You seem oblivious to post-Hussein Iraq.

Killing civilians wasn't your goal. I didn't say it was, I said that is what you did.

I apologize for the fact you are unable, whether intentionally or not, to see that that was sarcasm.


[quote[Hitler lacked the means of wiping them out. But that was obviously his goal.

By contrast, it is well within our means to wipe out the Iraqis. You are claiming that this is our goal. So explain why we are not doing it. [/quote]

Irrelevant because he still slaughtered them. But he lost. Like you did, in Iraq.

Again, I did not say killing civilians was your goal. Nice strawman.

Trolling...

Continuing your weak strawman.

Then how did you know they wanted you to remove him by invading Iraq? If they did, why is America hated in Iraq?

Again, more cluelessness about post-Hussein Iraq.

Censorship is still perevelant in Iraq, people are still being killed daily. But it's all good now, because it isn't done by Saddam anymore.

You killed more people in this invasion that Saddam has in his entire rule.... To remove him.

Now you are playing stupid.

You tolerated Saddam when his existance proved beneficial to your interests.

But, Saddam didn't like "Israel". He supported Palestinians. The reason you invaded Iraq - well the public and initial reason - was to remove the weapons of mass destruction Saddam was hiding and aiming at "Israel". But Iraq, along with Afghanistan, borders Iran, making it a valuable country to hold in a war with Iran. And of course, all that oil, which Iraq preferred to share with Europe and Asia than America.

Many reasons, but if you think Iraq was invaded ans civilian areas were indiscriminately bombed to liberate the Iraqis, you are delusional.

 

Well, it would of been hard for them to control their oil previously, not because of Saddam, but because of the santions.

And wasn't it an American put in charge of rebuilding Iraq's economy, with policies that benefitted foreign oil companies?

Yes, but the specific name is the United States Armed Forces, or something like that anyway.

 

...and therefore are much worse than living under a brutal dictator. LOL

Invited by who? Explain to me how you determined before Saddam's fall that the Iraqi People did not want us there.

If so, then we have at least one thing in common apparently.

Aw gee, you don't say. It looks like your position has changed since post #197. Congratulations on your progress.

Your positions are often so absurd it is difficult to tell what is sarcasm and what is not.

It is relevant because we obviously have the means to kill Iraqi civilians, yet we are not doing so. Therefore our goal must not be to kill Iraqi civilians.

If we lost then what are you complaining about?

On the one hand you are whining that Iraq has a puppet government controlled by us and that we oppress the Iraqi people and steal all their oil.

On the other hand you claim we "lost" and failed in the goals listed above.

So which is it? Please make up your mind. If we really "failed" and Iraq is free of our control, then what are you complaining about?

We assumed that they probably would rather be free than under the control of a dictator.

Although their desires were not the reason for the invasion either way. The reason for the invasion to to remove Saddam from power, and therefore as a threat to us.

You appear to be tacitly admitting that you were also ignorant of the wishes of the Iraqi People prior to the invasion.

Censorship is not remotely as bad as it was in Saddam's time IMO.

But regardless of how bad it might be, it can now change as much as they want it to change. If it annoys them enough, they can just elect anti-censorship representatives. There is no dictator telling them how much censorship they must allow...they can decide for themselves now.

The alternatives were worse.

So why did we remove him if he was beneficial to our interests?

So Saddam liked Israel before?

So if Saddam provided such obvious services for us, why did we remove him? What changed?

 

All the non-democratic ones do, yes. Non-democracies have no right to govern.

 

Do you sincerely believe that those who praise Bill O'Reilly and tune into Rush L in their cars are worth consideration? I don't count 'Murkan opinion based on Fox News. They don't even know what the capital of Australia is, let alone international law. 'Murkan hegemony is all they care about. It is a god-given right according to them. Wait .... doesn't that describe YOU rather well, Sadistic Savior?

You mean the list of WMDs that he provided which proved to be ABSOLUTELY and UTTERLY correct, but which the Fox News fanatics did not believe and therefore still claim that he obstructed Hans and his inspectors? Wait ... doesn't that describe YOU, Sadistic Savoir. Tell me, SS, did you even pay a passing moment's thought to what Hans Blix said?

What??!! Do you expect us to be gobsmacked by that irrelevant piece?

OMG this is hilarious. This is a 'Murkan view of reality? This is 'Murka's view of international justice? Imagine the shoe being on the other foot!! We suspect 'Murka of being involved in massacres in foreign countries. They wouldn't let us examine the complaint. So we initiated regime change!! Forget about whether the action would be possible ... just look at the stupidity of the postulation. Yet you present it in writing and sign your name to it!!

*Sigh* Give my condolences to those who lost friends and family in 9/11, but I now understand why it happened .... sheer unadulterated nationalistic arrogance.

 

I mentioned Hans Blix who knew more about Irans response to the UN inspectors than anyone, including Bill O'Reilly, and certainly more than Dubya did. Here is a Wiki summary which hardly does justice to the detail:

 

I gotta agree to some extent. The Mongolian raping of the middleast caused scars that the region was never able to recover from...

 

Vietnam's economy and living conditions are actually bettering at a very high rate of speed. and unlike the arab countries, it doesn't have a massive deep seated hate of the west, despite having a much better excuse to do so...

 

I've been to Vietnam three times. How many times have you been there?

What I saw is a very vibrant and colourful culture were people are proud to be Vietnamese. Some of the hardest working people I have seen.

 

Iraqi's did not control their own oil even before the sanctions; furthermore, living standards improved under the non-Baathist controlled areas of Iraq which were under nearly identical sanctions.

No Iraqi oil is dealt with in their Constitution which was created by and ratified by Iraqi's.

Just completely wrong the vast majority of civilian deaths did not come at the hands of the Coalition forces they came at the hands of the insurgency as proven on this site time and time again.

 

No I am saying that there were numerous reasons for the war in Iraq, the war was legal under UNSCR 678, the 2003 NIE stated that Saddam did have WMD, and I'm asking if you're still trying to pass off that Wilson story about Niger after it has been thoroughly debunked for almost a decade?

IIRC you're a freaking twoofer so talking to you will be like banging my head against a wall I will simply debunk one of your tired talking points and call it a night.

 

Absolutely correct!! In the case of Iraq (but as opposed to Afghanistan, Vietnam and Somalia) your military overcame all, including basic human rights (Think the Baghdad market; Fallujah; Abu Ghraib; Guantanamo; etc). And you are correct. As you correctly point out you lost politically. Your utter belief in 'Murkan hegemony (see Sadistic Savior and Borat's posts here) made you a bully pariah in the eyes of the world. When Cheney's links to 'big oil' were revealed, the world added 'greedy' and 'ugly exploiters' to the list of adjectives.

But not only did you lose on that front. You paid a far higher price:

# You lost financially. Hugely. You debt exploded to keep that military behemoth rolling and lining the pockets of the Neocons and their buddies
# You lost strategically and defensively since, because of that debt, the Chinese hold over your welfare became greater. They can (wise or not; but war is never wise) now sink 'Murka without firing a shot just be whispering "We have enough dollars".
# You lost in terms of credibility. Guantanamo; the shenanigans of "The War Council" and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; waterboarding; Falujah; Abu Ghraib showed over and over how shallow and one-sided your democracy is. No one will ever again be able to trust 'Murka's word implicitly.
# You lost ethically --- big big time.
# You lost your friends

I put that last one in as perhaps your greatest loss. No matter what spin Sadistic Savior and Borat try to put on it, we all know that your touted reason for the invasion of Iraq was WMDs. We all saw how you tried to use the UN process, and when France and Germany saw through your ploy, how you turned on your friends like a selfish alley cat. And we all know that there was a hidden (LOL) reason for the invasion of an oil-rich country rather than Burma or Zimbabwe.

But it made us, especially Europe, stop to think. What other BS had we been fed? What other lies had we been told? I was one of them who stopped. And I went far beyond that.

And now, as a result of stopping, reading, investigating analysing, I am able to see the truth about the "holy land" and why loonies might be driven to fly planes into tall twin buildings.

 

Any thing else to learn

 

that was ONLY Iraq

Americans have a million other things to learn but you need willing students

 

If NATO hadn't invaded then the 'insurgency' wouldn't have occurred. Come on Doc, wake up FFS.

 

I think all American Citizens are worth consideration. Not just the ones who agree with me.

Because, like most liberals, you only pay lip service to the idea of democracy. If you had your way the nation would be ruled by an oligarchy of people who agree with you.

So it is natural that you would exclude the opinions of people who do not agree with you.

Source?

Can you quote a post of mine where I supported American hegemony at the expense of democracy? Even by implication?

LOL...not all of us had the same faith in Saddam that you had. His word alone was insufficient. That was the point of inspections.

I did give a passing moment's thought.

Correct. Saddam was guilty by default. It was his job to prove to us he was not a threat. Dictators have no rights.

Justice is irrelevant. This was about Defense, not justice.

Justice would have been to simply kill him. We did not do that. We gave him options to cooperate.

It isnt supposed to be fair, LOL! Dictators have no rights.

If it is any consolation, I am sure Saddam's heart would be warmed by your impassioned defense of his right to rule.

I'm a neocon. We embrace our ideology enthusiastically. Unlike liberals, we do not try to hide it.

I understood why it happened immediately. In the same way I understand why pedophiles molest children, and why the Nazi's wanted to exterminate Jews. Their motives were clear.

I gotta be me.

 

The alternative was worse. Therefore it was worth the cost.

The alternative was worse. And China needs us as well...we are their largest customer.

And obviously they are not as confident as you are about the hold it gives them over us. Witness the fact that Taiwan remains free.

Oh no, the world doesn't trust us. What ever will we do without their support.

Oh wait, I forgot...we don't need their support. Its actually the other way around.

Because the ethical thing to do would have been to let a brutal despot remain in power. Uh huh.

You forgot to put "friends" in quotes.

Part of the reason you know that is because that is what we already told you, lol

That is all the UN is to us...a tool. There is nothing democratic about it, and many of it's members are not even democracies. If most of us had the choice we would just withdraw from it altogether.

And with our withdrawal would also go whatever teeth the UN has left...because we are basically the military arm of the UN anyway.

In other words...you sympathized with despots and oppressive authoritarian cultures. Wow, what a shock.

 

May I ask, what do you understand under a democracy? In a later statement you mention elections, but also Saddam had elections (which were of course ridiculous). Even if I accept that the votes in the post war Iraq are correctly counted, I do not see a state as a working democracy in which certain people based on the ethnicity, religion or personal beliefs can be killed, beaten up or tortured if they go to the elections to vote.

What kind of democracy is it, in which the Interior ministry calls the citizen to lynch juvenils who take a Western look (so calles EMO)?

If once the Shiites were able to organize a majority for the idea to anhiliate Sunni Arabs (or simply keep moderates from the vote by murder and terror), would that be a working democracy?

 

And if Saddam hadn't invaded Kuwait, slaughtered his own people, played games with the inspectors, was not in material breach of the UNSC weapons sanctions, was not a state supporter of international terrorism for decades, etc etc et al, the NATO liberation of Iraq would not have occurred.

 

Great game. Can I play? How far back in history do we have to go?