Some mistakes, but invasion 'was right'
The vice-president is in Baghdad to stress the mission has changed but America will remain as a partner in Iraq. Many feel the war was a huge mistake, fought on the basis of allegations that turned out not to be true, an episode from which America's reputation has taken a battering in the world.
The president will have his say tonight (at midnight UK time) but I wanted to find out what those who backed the war feel now.
So I've been talking to one of the architects of the war, Richard Armitage, who was Under Secretary of State at the time. The jovial former commando who earned a hardman reputation in Vietnam is still massively built, his arms and shoulders muscled from his hobby of powerlifting, but he seems less of a hawk these days. Indeed he surprised me, admitting the Bush administration made huge mistakes.
He said: "I'm obviously not sorry about the fact that we invaded Iraq, but I'm terribly sorry about the manner in which we invaded it, we really hammed it up a bit...
"I think we had far too few troops, we were far too unprepared, for the fractions in Iraqi society - I don't think we took enough counsel from our friends prior to going in. You name it, we did it - took us a long time to finally get it right.
"In April of 2003 when that statue of Saddam Hussein came down and young men were hitting it with their sandals and whatnot, the international community was saying George Bush was pretty damn smart, he got this thing done pretty well, but it was after the looting, and after the Iraqis saw that we weren't there to put order in the place that our problems began."
I asked why he felt those mistakes were made.
"I've thought about it a lot - the initial impression from the Department of Defense was that they wanted to go in as light as possible - we had campaigned on light, mobile, hostile agile forces and I think that [US defence secretary] Mr [Donald] Rumsfeld and his colleagues were intent on proving that - and by the way, Secretary [of State Colin] Powell as has been reported was able to double the size of the invasion force.
"I think as a general rule the biggest initial mistake we made, was that we overlooked an essential fact of combat and that is only infantry men with a bayonet can bend an enemy to our will and by going in too light we gave the enemy time to re-constitute and reassert their will."
Richard Armitage was seen as one of the leading neo-con hawks who believed in using military power to mould the world, one of the founding signatures to the Project for the New American Century, with its belief "that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle".
So where did he think the war left America's attitude to conflict?
"Well I guess I don't know, because I don't know what the future's going to bring but I guess you can see many of our enemies historically think Americans will get short of breath - this is what we heard in Beirut - but the fact that we've endured seven years in Iraq and our ninth year in Afghanistan shows quite the opposite - shows that we are willing to give it a good go, and the public is willing to support it as long as they feel we're doing the right thing but they won't do it forever."
Had the conflict not reduced America's appetite for war?
"I think in the near-term it has and I think it's depleted to some extent our coffers, but I think, as I was indicating, Americans can be awfully bloody-minded when the situation requires it."
But what justifications were there for war: simple defence, getting rid of hostile regimes or intervening to get rid of dictators?
"Well I think depending on the situation it could be all of the above. It is certainly from my point of view worth going to war for self-defence and I think most of us did feel that Iraq had WMDs [weapons of mass destruction] and after all they had used them on their own people.
"I think there's always a bit of a desire to make the world a better place, to leave the world in a better place than you've found it - when you're dealing with warfare and that amount of violence, that is a difficult thing to do admittedly."
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© 2012~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~27~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Gosh so Americans getting it fatally wrong for a few thousand Iraqis is ok because: "Americans can be awfully bloody-minded when the situation requires it."
Another classic: "I think most of us did feel that Iraq had WMDs [weapons of mass destruction]..." err no.
Many of us were listening to the experts who were saying they didn't know, but it seemed increasingly unlikely...and then the above statement is justified by this: "...and after all they had used them on their own people." Ah there's the smoking gun, they used them once therefore they must still have them and the delivery systems...great logic and evidence that...Not.
That sort of logic gets trotted out if you are seeking to justify an action for which it is not possible to reveal the real justification.
Complain about this comment
George Bush Senior's 1st iraqi war wasn't justified, I Listened a whole heap of US senators stand up in congress one by one saying America is great, let's go to war
George Bush Junior's 2nd iraqi war was more of the same bull
like father like son - 2 birds of a feather - a family scam plan
Complain about this comment
I wonder if it was possible for this conflict to have been handled any worse. So many dead for a war began on a lie. An entire country almost destroyed, now a playground for the very terrorists that the war was meant to be against.
The only winners here appear to be Iran and the Saudis. And let's not forget those whose significant holdings in no-bid Halliburton stock made multi-millions in additional profit.
And it's not only the US citizen who was conned here. Teflon Tony brought the UK in as well. Lessons will not be learned. Those who lied, cheated and stole will get away with it.
Same as it ever was.
Complain about this comment
VP Biden is saying what any responsible high government official should say: that he supports the policies and actions taken by his country, and the justifications given to go to war. His position highlights the difference between responsible governance and the garbage we hear from the Tea Party.
The world knows, and most Americans know, that the decision to invade Iraq had nothing to do with WMDs or bringing freedom and democracy to that hapless country, but after spending a trillion dollars in Persian Gulf crusades, losing over 4,000 troops, thousands maimed, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, and a developing country destroyed the only position our government can take is to declare victory and say it was all well worth it.
Complain about this comment
Three Million Posse said Bush sr's Iraq war wasn't justified.
Bush senior's war was to evict Iraq from Kuwait. Go ask the Kuwaiti's if they agree with you. BTW, he never entered Bagdad and left Hussein in power. Dick Cheney said at the time it would pose many problems to invade Iraq and topple Hussein.
Clearly Bush jr's motivation was to, as he perceived it, "finish the job his father left incomplete" Any lie as a pretext to that end would do, hence, WMD's were touted even though many experts declared they didn't exist. Those people were fired from the administration and civilian experts were shouted down and all dissent was declared unpatriotic.
100's of thousands dead and maybe a million wounded/displaced. Iran grows into the power vacuum and is a bigger threat to the region and America then ever. I hope the Iraqi's can stabilize their country and make something good out of this mess.
If Iran is contained then the Bush/Cheney decision will be a footnote in history. If growing Iran power/intransigence blows up into a giant conflagration , history will always question Bush/Cheney's decisions.
Complain about this comment
If we look back at the beginning, before the invasion when Bush was trying to gather support, it was the UK who not only rallied behind the US, but also gave us wrong information. I believe that if the UK had not given the wrong information, had not given its support the US would not have invaded because it needed approval from other countries. And it got it. Every country who sent their solders to Iraq, no matter how small, is complicit.in this war. It was a huge blunder and a bad learning experience for everyone.
Complain about this comment
"we really hammed it up a bit..."
Like calling operations "shock & awe", "iron fist", "steel hammer" etc
Could they have possibly made them sound any more fascistic?
And americans, bless 'em, scratch their heads and wonder "why are we unpopular?"
Complain about this comment
"we were far too unprepared, for the fractions in Iraqi society - I don't think we took enough counsel from our friends prior to going in. You name it, we did it - took us a long time to finally get it right.'
I find this extraordinary from an official (albeit an appointee) at State. Was there no briefing paper that explained the Iraq' history (Iraq was 'assembled' by a female British diplomat); no paper on it's social, ethnic and religious structure, nothing on it's politics, econonomy and public services; nothing on it's cultures?
Or perhaps, the neo con view was that non of this mattered to a successful transformation of the conquered country. A democratic revolution would take place at the end on a bayonet led by some crook I recall who turned out to have no support in the country.
Any chance of a successful stablisation of Iraq disappeared in the three months after occupation and in the diplomatic failure to secure the support of the religious states supporting the Muslim factions, and at the same time square the Turks (though efforts were made to do this last).
Armitage suggests it was 'done on the cheap' as we Brits say, but it is best not to destroy they key infrastructure if you have not got resources to replace it.
Complain about this comment
Mark: I'd like to make a few points:
1. I'm not sure that America has an "appetite for war" as you put it. No sane individual has an "appetite" for war. The person who has any desire for war is the person who has never seen it up close, or smelled it up close.
It's equally true that the person who automatically rejects war under all circumstances has never seen or lived under oppression. They are willing to leave fellow humans in that state of fear and pain either from cowardice, laziness, or because they have a fundamentally-warped view of human nature.
If you and I deserve to be free, then others deserve no less. To the extent that we can help them become that way, our own humanity demands that we do. That doesn't automatically mean war; it can mean a lot of different approaches. The sad fact of human existance, however, is that there is a dark and lonely corner of the Valley of the Shadow of Death where it becomes necessary to fight, to die, and even to kill. None of us can know in advance when we might find ourselves, or the nation we are part of, in that corner. One thing that seems to be common, however, is that when we are too indulgent of our own or others' bad acts, we are more prone to wind up there, and our ability to deal well with that place is more compromised.
3. As I have said before, the biggest mistake the Bush administration made was on September 13, 2001. When Bush spoke to the Congress and the country at that point, he should have read Article 1 of the US Constitution, followed by the Congressional resolution taking the nation into WWII, and then should have told the Congress to do their duty and either formally commit the entire nation (including all its people and assets ) to fight a real war, or formally decline to do so. All the following debacles flow from that basic Congressional irresponsibility (which numerous Congresses dominated by both political parties have duplicated since 1950).
War is too serious a matter for any Congress to punt to any President.
4. As a basic example of irresponsibility, flowing from lack of Congressional responsibility, here's one from your interview: "'...the initial impression from the Department of Defense was that they wanted to go in as light as possible - we had campaigned on light, mobile, hostile agile forces and I think that [US defence secretary] Mr [Donald] Rumsfeld and his colleagues were intent on proving that...'".
Using battle to try to prove anything is a horrible waste of soldiers, especially in this day and age. It was barely excusable for Churchill at Dieppe; with the availability of modeling tools, it's totally inexcusable now.
5. An even more basic example of leadership irresponsibility, from your interview: "'I think as a general rule the biggest initial mistake we made, was that we overlooked an essential fact of combat and that is only infantry men with a bayonet can bend an enemy to our will and by going in too light we gave the enemy time to re-constitute and reassert their will.'"
There's three subpoints to be made about this:
a. This is the same stupid lesson that we have had to relearn, and relearn, and relearn. We'll forget it again, too.
b. This ought to finally kill with a bayonet through its heart the entire concept of "nation-building". It was lunacy when the Clintons came up with it in Somalia, and it was lunacy when the Bushes came up with it in Afghanistan and Iraq. The only way to "build" a nation from the outside is to first destroy whatever's there in terms of government structure, and put the population there on an extremely short leash, and keep them there for a long time. We learned that the hard way in WWII, and promptly forgot it.
c. Leaders are supposed to remember this kind of thing, and are supposed to apply it as part of PROPERLY COUNTING THE COST. That's what the Congressional declaration of war is all about, and why it's in the Constitution. It gives our elected representatives time to really add up the costs in terms of blood shed (our own, our opponents', and above all the innocents who wind up being killed), treasure lost, time and productivity redirected, etc., etc., etc. It gives them time to determine what the legal issues are (do ya think maybe Congress needed to think through the legal aspects of POWs???). Above all, it forces them, as the first branch of government, to do what they are supposed to do...LEAD THE COUNTRY...rather than just fight over the Federal budget.
Something else to consider: If your leaders are going to have to make decisions about war, you had better ensure that they really have seen both its face and the face of oppression, so they don't forget fundamentals like the necessity of the grunt with the bayonet, or what the costs really are. If they don't have a real grasp of both, they cannot possibly make good decisions about sending young men and women to fight, kill, and die.
Regards to all.
Arclight
Complain about this comment
"The jovial former commando who earned a hardman reputation in Vietnam is still massively built, his arms and shoulders muscled from his hobby of powerlifting"
Insert facepalm emoticom here.
Complain about this comment
US Ambassador April Galaspie assured Saddam that the US would never get involved in an arab-arab conflict prior to the Gulf War when Saddam complained to her about Kuwaiti's stealing oil from the Ramalah Oil fields.
When Saddam started massing troops near the border in military exercises the Kuwaiti's laughed because they already had America's reassurances they would protect them.
America wanted a foothold in the middle east and always had a prescence since then.
Complain about this comment
The inversion of logic in justifying the war after 7 years is disappointingly familiar.
Blair has spent 3 years uttering the same odoius phrases.
The burden of proof in 2003 was with the coalition to demonstrate the case for war. They did not do this and aggresivley invaded Iraq hoping that something would appear that would justify their actions, or that people would stop caring after the fact.
After this was done and it became clear that there would be no miracle find to transform a flimsy pretext of WMD into genuine justification one would have thought some form of mea culpa would be in order.
Instead we get this claim that it was worth it anyway, as if it needs to be proven that the war was wrong, or that Saddam Hussein would have done something horrendous that was heroically prevented.
This is disembling of the most cynical kind. Responsibilty must remain with those who ordered the invasion to justify their decisions and until they do so they remain responsible for an avoidable war of aggression and hundreds of thousands of deaths.
If it was worth it to depose a tyrant or prevent further bloodshed in the future, why is the Sudan or Burma not next in line? If there was a provable threat to the US from Saddam, why was this not exposed at the time and what can it have been to so significantly more of a threat than Iran, or Saudi? The coalition countries own foreign policies give lie to these pathetic reasonings.
The burden of proof has not flipped just because so much time has passed. It is not down to those who opposed the war to now prove it was wrong. If it was unjustified at the time, it remains unjustified today.
Personally if they cannot find reasonable (ie something that a court could excuse) justification, I think charges before the Hague are in order. Even if the US does have a get out of jail free card, putting handcuffs on its European accomplices will mitigate against the next hawkish urge to empire build from Washington.
Complain about this comment
#6
"it was the UK who not only rallied behind the US, but also gave us wrong information. I believe that if the UK had not given the wrong information, had not given its support the US would not have invaded because it needed approval from other countries"
Good God, I've heard it all now :(
If Britain didnt support the US we'd get endlessly criticised for being "as bad as the French". We do support the US and we get accused of effectively causing the war. Jeez, being an ally of the US sure is tough.
Complain about this comment
It's sometimes difficult to go back in time and recall what you knew and what you felt was right at the time. That's what is needed when reflecting on the rights and wrongs of the Iraq conflict. We were faced with a cold blooded murderer who by most accounts could do to the western world what he had already done to all those who opposed him internally. The other point is that we had a prime minister who was going out on a limb politically to do what he believed was right. I did not vote for Blair but could not help being impressed with his commitment to 'do the right thing' and to support our allies. In retrospect Blair's actions still live up to scutiny but the lack of preparedness of the US with regard to planning gives lie to their desparation to give someone a good kicking after 9/10
Complain about this comment
@8 (cp) "Armitage suggests it was 'done on the cheap' as we Brits say,..."
You are soooo right. When the parents of our soldiers are shipping cheap two-way radios to the troops because they don't have enough, and when 11 service people are electrocuted due to faulty wiring (the kind of simple wiring I do in my home, for crying out loud), you know right up front it's being done "on the cheap".
Adults know this stuff; however, the last adults, I think, left Washington around 1992. The crop since then (including the pols of both parties, the associated Congressional staffers, the political appointees, the hangers-on, the pundits, etc., etc., etc.) know all about the perpetual campaign, and about slogans, and gotcha politics, but they don't know diddly squat about human nature, or about leadership, or about much of anything of value. Their concerns too often end somewhere around I-495 (the Capitol Beltway) around Washington, with certain other points beyond that (e.g. Los Angeles, London, Beijing, etc.) having a very dim and fuzzy focus, and the rest of the world not showing up at all.
Arclight
Complain about this comment
Another black mark in American history, so many wars & so many dead for what? The excuse & 'reason to go to war' changes but in the end it's about greed, dominance & big military business.
If the USA was so peace loving country, then why are they the number one arms seller! Food for thought.
When they were preparing to go to war with Iraq, they invited & only talked to Iraqi opposition on the bases of Sunni, Shia & Kurds. The seeds for fragmentation of Iraq was planned for & let no one be surprised.
Iraqi oil flows out to the world market, but the Iraqis are not seeing the benifts. Shortage of medical infrastructure, few hours of electricity supplies & lack of education, will insure the country's future in dire straits.
Complain about this comment
3. At 12:24pm on 31 Aug 2010, Squaids1 wrote:
"The only winners here appear to be Iran and the Saudis."
__________
Agree that Iran was a big winner, perhaps the big winner, at least in the short term.
But there were other winners.
Turkey has done quite well out of the war, though much more quietly.
China has done very well out of this war. For China the war could hardly have gone better.
Hezbollah and Hamas have reaped indirect benefits.
In the fullness of time I do not believe that Saudi Arabia will be regarded as having been one of the winners of the war. On the contrary. In any event, time will tell.
Finally, it is possible that eventually the people of Iraq will end up being the biggest winners. It may not look like that right now (far from it), and it is not what the Junior Bush regime imagined. Nonetheless, in the fullness of time and largely through the law of unintended consequences, Iraq may yet end up the big winner. It may take 20 or 30 years to know, and there will be plenty of pot-holes and blind-alleys along the way. Nonetheless it is at least possible in a way that it was not prior to the second gulf war.
Complain about this comment
6. At 1:11pm on 31 Aug 2010, lochraven wrote:
"If we look back at the beginning, before the invasion when Bush was trying to gather support, it was the UK who not only rallied behind the US, but also gave us wrong information. I believe that if the UK had not given the wrong information, had not given its support the US would not have invaded because it needed approval from other countries. And it got
it."
So it was all the fault of the British, cruelly leading the US astray ?
Before mounting an invasion of another country, I would expect the US to have gathered a mountain of evidence - by itself. Given the massive intelligence apparatus of the US, from spies to satellite surveillance, this evidence should have been forthcoming.
So where is it ?
The Bush adminstration cherry picked the scraps of evidence that propped up their ideology, whilst ignoring the advice of thier own intelligence agencies. And any scrap would do - even British scraps.
Complain about this comment
17. At 2:25pm on 31 Aug 2010, Interestedforeigner wrote:
"China has done very well out of this war. For China the war could hardly have gone better."
Sorry. Don't understand. Please explain this.
Complain about this comment
It would be nice if people like Armitage, Rice and the rest of the self-satisfied Bush II crowd would read _Assessing America's 'imperial adventure' in Iraq_ by John Simpson on today's BBC front page. But I can't imagine that happening: Mr. Simpson's analysis is way too on-target, and the neocons don't respond well to criticism (much less informed advice).
For another accurate analysis, see 13. above by commonsense_expressway. For what it's worth though, I don't doubt that Great Britain went to war with it's own interests -- as best the government understood them -- clearly in mind. You might not like Blair, but he's no fool -- and certainly provided a stunning contrast to George W. Bush in that regard.
It took forty years to hear an honest mia culpa from Robert McNamara about the Vietnam war, but I doubt that anyone in the Bush administration will ever muster up that much grace, no matter how much time passes.
Complain about this comment
The same week that the Bush Administration and important Republican members of Congress were asserting that anyone speaking against the war was a traitor, I watched a small group of protesters on a street corner in Midland, Texas - the Bush's home town. They knew that the war was a mistake; most Americans at least suspected that the war was ill-conceived, its reasons questionable, its goals simplistic, its pertinence to the fight against terrorism questionable, and the dangers to the stability of the region, the purposes of the Western nations, and the welfare of American rationalism at risk. At very least the was a certain case for caution and yet we - citizens and legislators both conservative and liberal - were dragged (or thrown) into a war in error. Yes, a "bad" dictator was removed but America and the West have many times worked with equally "bad" men when it served their goals. Yes, Iraq may survive and survive very well but not because of the war, rather in spite of the war...that and the fact that Iraqis seem to be amazingly resilient, quick witted, and industrious. America was hi-jacked by cheep politics and anti-intellectual fervor and after the death of thousands of American soldiers, tens of thousands of Iraqis, untold misery, and failure at home (the Patriot Act and its ilk, Katrina, torture, graft, terminal political partisanship, moral and ethical extremism), do we have a safer world? Was what we call Western Civilization improved or impoverished? I am exhausted by the whole misadventure.
Complain about this comment
HabitualHero wrote:
"The jovial former commando who earned a hardman reputation in Vietnam is still massively built, his arms and shoulders muscled from his hobby of powerlifting"
Insert facepalm emoticom here.
----------------------------------
There's an *ulp* one that would serve better...
Complain about this comment
For the record, the US has not spent a trillion dollars on the war in Iraq. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Ofc., it has spent a little over 700 billion dollars.
It should also be said that western intelligence agencies thought Iraq had WMD's. CIA Director George Tenet, a holdover from Bill Clinton's Democratic administration, insisted to Bush that Iraq had those weapons.
Saddam Hussein had used WMD's before, had the ability to acquire them again and had already invaded Kuwait, so he was seen as a continuing threat to the region and to US and western interests.
Does this mean the US invasion and occupation were justified? As others have noted, it's too early to say although huge mistakes were obviously made.
It depends on how Iraq recovers and develops over the next few years without Saddam Hussein's incredibly brutal rule.
Complain about this comment
VP Biden is saying what any responsible high government official should say: that he supports the policies and actions taken by his country, and the justifications given to go to war. His position highlights the difference between responsible governance and the garbage we hear from the Tea Party.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looks like biden doesnt even have a hindsight.. We all know that democratic party passed the law under clinton to topple saddam Hussian..VP biden should have the courtesy of saying all this in usa, and not in iraq...His position highlights that no one in usa was against invasion..otherwise, invasion based on lies is something one should die out of shame..
Complain about this comment
Does this mean the US invasion and occupation were justified? As others have noted, it's too early to say although huge mistakes were obviously made.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mistake was americans supporting the invasion..the rest is all crime..Invading a country illegally is not a mistake, its a crime..What if ben laden comes out and say he made a mistake he should have used a sunday to destroy the twin towers....
Complain about this comment
Saddam Hussein had used WMD's before, had the ability to acquire them again and had already invaded Kuwait, so he was seen as a continuing threat to the region and to US and western interests.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Had WMD and had invaded kuwait...there are many countries who have WMD and have had invaded many countries...England has wmd and has invaded northern irland, and had invaded many countries...Should the world go after england now?
Complain about this comment
The VP is in Baghdad to stress the mission has changed but America will remain as a partner in Iraq.
What does this mean? Does Iraq want an American partner? Did Iraq ask for an American partner?
I am with those folk that feel that the Iraq invasion was a big, illegal, even criminal "mistake". It demonstrated that the American leadership was poluted with arrogant bullies whose imperialistic desires justified cheating and lying - the usual "spin".
Richard Armitage: "I'm obviously not sorry about the fact that we invaded Iraq, but I'm terribly sorry about the manner in which we invaded it, we really hammed it up a bit...
So, Armitage must feel that someone - hopefully Iraqis - are better off post invasion, right? He must feel that Iraqis are looking forward to this American partnership, right?
Well, I'm not!
2.5 million Iraqis fled.
Tens of thousands were killed.
Thousands of Americans were killed.
The average Iraqi has been surviving with instability for seven years - plagued by violence, collapsing living standards, constant interruptions in power, etc.
The Center for American Progress' Matt Duss - "an opportunity to reflect on one of the most dubious and, frankly, profane justifications for the Iraq war: 'Taking the fight to the terrorists', fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here...The evidence is overwhelming that, for the majority of foreign fighters in Iraq (who, in any case, represented a small minority of insurgents), the US occupation of Iraq itself was the DECISIVE factor in their radicalization and mobilization."
The Americans are now imposing an unwanted partnership. The Americans are still in Iraq. There are American troops (supposedly “training” Iraqis); there are American contractors, and there is that humungous embassy – bigger than the Vatican with all of its personnel.
Too many "mistakes" including the original decision to invade without the sanction of the United Nations, compounded by the American decision to stay (and call it something else, like "partnership").
Complain about this comment
wcorey wrote: "Does this mean the US invasion and occupation were justified? As others have noted, it's too early to say although huge mistakes were obviously made.
It depends on how Iraq recovers and develops over the next few years without Saddam Hussein's incredibly brutal rule."
The invasion and occupation were not justified as the justification used were lies about non-existant capacities, relationships and general fear-mongering. It was never about helping the average Iraqi.
Saddam's Iraq was armed and given chemical pre-cursors by Reagan's government (and many other countries as well). He was the US's creature when it was useful, including through halabja and the Al-anfal campaign in 1988, the high point of his mass murder of civilians.
Saddam Hussein was a monster. Uday was likely to have been even worse. But there's very little moral highground here when trying to find justification for the war.
If the country's infrastructure had not been so deliberately and comprehensively destroyed, if the peace had been prosecuted with as much enthusiasm as the war, Iraq would be far further along the road to recovery than it is now.
And who knows? Maybe the mission in Afghanistan would now be over, instead of the quagmire it became.
Complain about this comment
"I think there's always a bit of a desire to make the world a better place, to leave the world in a better place than you've found it - when you're dealing with warfare and that amount of violence, that is a difficult thing to do admittedly."
Difficult? Perhaps 'impossible' is the word we're looking for?
"as I was indicating, Americans can be awfully bloody-minded when the situation requires it."
Speak for yourself, honey. There's still plenty of us folks who'll choose peace, mediation and reconciliation when situations require it.
Complain about this comment
Instead of giving a platform to this discredited warmonger, Mr. Mardell should review all the relevant sources to give as complete a picture as possible on the true costs of this naked aggression. Both human and economic, both on Iraqis and Americans. He could also write a piece putting this aggression in the framework of existing international law. A jail house interview with Armitage is appropriate when he is sharing a cell with Bush, Rumsfeld, Bremer, Wolfowitz, Bliar, Aznar and the rest of the coalition of the killing awaiting their fair trial for war crimes. Not before.
Complain about this comment
Speak for yourself, honey. There's still plenty of us folks who'll choose peace, mediation and reconciliation when situations require it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that situation never comes..when americans peaceloving or warloving americans dont want it to happen...Welcome to israel...
Complain about this comment
The mistake that many are making here is seeing the discrete phases of the Iraqi War as separate events - you have to look at the whole thing and judge whether it was worthy as a whole.
Had the occupation been run as successfully as the invasion you would likely now have a multi-faith central government in Baghdad overseeing a state comprising Sunni, Shia and Kurd territories - pooling resources and investing in a bright and secular future for Iraq. That would have justified the cost in lives and treasure of the invasion.
Unfortunately the occupation was handled poorly with initial support being bled away in a series of blunders that showed that the coalition really cared little for the fate of the Iraqi people, so long as Western needs were taken care of.
Obviously realpolitik says that the Coalition wouldn't be in Iraq without it serving their own ends, but there could have been a solution found that was a compromise. That way, maybe, the new Iraqi government wouldn't be looking at 20 years of dissension, rebellion and destabilisation from Wahabbi and Iranian groups.
Complain about this comment
It amazes me the amount of revisionist history that goes on. The first gulf war was in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Some of the very same people who criticize the second president Bush complained that the first Bush didn’t finish the job. The second war was a mistake. Not because it was unjustified, but because it was doomed to fail. The objective was to build a stable, democratic government in Iraq. You cannot do that by blowing things up and killing people. The only people that can build a stable government in Iraq are the Iraqi people. Until they get fed-up with the tyrants and terrorist and fight back, they will have what they’ve got.
I think it’s time we let the nationalists, like Newt Gingrich, take over here in the USA. We’ll bring all of our troops home, fortify our border with Mexico and let the all-knowing Europeans look after the world for a while. Let’s see how the EU likes being the “Great Satin”.
Complain about this comment
Am not particularly interested in what Armitage has to say. To me its all part of a misinfo campaign for domestic consumption geared to convincing us that Obama has kept his promise with the November slanging matches very much in mind. I dont buy it. Doubtless some combat units have been withdrawn but, just how many in real terms. Many people will want to believe it all. The political situation in Iraq is shaky and very fragile and could well fall off the cliff into a bloody civil war and that is probably not a legacy the U.S. wants. Given that the invasion was a massive blunder of idiotic proportions, a combat troop withdrawal on the scale of the trumpeted numbers (if real) could result in an even greater bloodbath for the destitute Iraqis. I only hope the U.S. is leaving sufficient forces, in whatever guise, to cope with such an eventuality. Suggest that the reported estimate of 50,000 is nowhere near enough and hope the real number is dramatically higher. Secure stable political transition is not going to happen anytime soon.
Complain about this comment
Had the occupation been run as successfully as the invasion you would likely now have a multi-faith central government in Baghdad overseeing a state comprising Sunni, Shia and Kurd territories -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasion was not successfully run..Everyone knew that iraq had nothing to defend with, still the hotch potch invasion was allowed to happen, whereever the invaders went to and invaded, they created lawlessness...
Complain about this comment
19. At 3:15pm on 31 Aug 2010, The Toothbrush Man wrote:
"Sorry. Don't understand. Please explain this."
____________
This deserves a longer answer than I have time to make right now.
The war has worked out well for China in so many ways, it is hard to know where to begin.
I think the easiest way to begin to appreciate this is to start with a much shorter list. Try asking yourself the question: "What outcome of this war has been unfavourable to China?"
Complain about this comment
This is what I wrote on the "Have your Say" page just before the Iraq war was engaged.
:
"I think that at this moment Bin Laden is praying to God that the US invade Iraq and I am afraid that his God (I don't have any) will listen to him" and he did! If Armitage thinks that it is enough to "feel" (the terms he uses in this interview) that Iraq had WMD,s in order to invade Iraq then he is a... (I leave this to the readers to fill the blank with the appropriate epithet of their choice, the ones I have in mind right now are not decent enough to appear on this page). Bush and company have inflicted on the US a great loss, human, political, economical... It is a pity that the world's first democracy does not have a judicial system for spelling this out and chastising the culprits. More mistakes have been and are being committed in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Different, but no less grave, mistakes are being committed by by supporting regimes like the ones we have in Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan. We know how earlier empires ended; is this yet a new way of bringing down an empire?
Regards
richard Soudah
Complain about this comment
It really is useful and interesting to try to imagine the Middle East a quarter- or at most half a century from now. The region's oil will be largely depleted, if not totally gone. The youth of the region's countries will have even less to look forward to than they do now (although the population will no doubt continue to grow apace). It seems probable that much of the area surrounding the Persian Gulf will have been laid waste (most of it is ALREADY waste) by petro-wars. Water resources will have gone from being a critical issue to a life-threatening one.
Who amid all this will remember, much less care about, Saddam Hussein or his sons fate at the hands of the U.S., Iran's Ayatolahs or the odd Saudi prince?
Complain about this comment
Yeah, great. Well done, Armitage. Just keep on pumpin' that iron until what's left of your brain gets squeezed out of your ears. Unbelievable justifications for an illegal and unwarranted invasion of a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. Evidently the Bush administration, according to Armitage, just couldn't help itself because its blood was up and -- Whoa Nelly! -- watch out when Americans get "bloody-minded!" Never mind that the long war "depleted to some extent our coffers" (just a few trillion dollars), or that when the Bushies invaded Iraq "we had far too few troops, and were far too unprepared" -- none of that's really important. The Bush/Cheney gang was "willing to give it a good go" against evildoers they had to "bend to [our] will" at the point of not nearly enough bayonets, because Americans like themselves are the best people in the history of the world, so they needed to destroy Iraq in order to save it. Or something like that.
Of course the irony must have been lost on the rather dim Armitage when he said that the US "went in too light" -- because it did so in both numbers AND brainpower. Or did he really believe that the laziest and most arrogant president in US history, and his moony minions, would be able to pull this off? As an American I have been beyond embarrassed by our actions for the last decade, and sit firmly in the camp that believes that the grossly incompetent George W. Bush really did pull off the seemingly impossible: he made such hapless, idiotic former presidents as James Buchanan, Chester Arthur, and Warren G. Harding look like Ciceronian statesmen. The Iraq War is his albatross, although, weirdly enough, by his few remarks on the subject since he stepped down he doesn't seem to know that. But then again introspection was never exactly his strong point.
I can only hope that Barack Obama doesn't go all George W. Bush on TV tonight as he tries to spin this ridiculous waste of American and Iraqi lives, trillions of dollars, and American credibility into some kind of glorious, high-minded narrative about truth, justice, and the American Way. But since Obama is currently ratcheting things up in Afghanistan, against all good reason, I'm a bit worried that from his high imperial perch he might well have acquired that fatal virus we might call Bush Syndrome: the inability or unwillingness to look reality in the eye, and then show some humility by actually doing the smart, and morally correct, thing. Look instead for Obama to spout some patriotic nonsense that might get so gushy that even Newt Gingrich will blush.
Complain about this comment
What is perhaps most sick of all about American foreign military campaigns is the almost complete lack of consideration of the effects on foreign people. US foreign policy seems to consider it just from their own perspective, almost to the total exclusion of the impact it is having on others. Admission of failings so often relates just to negative effects for Americans. When will the US realise that it is this post-WWII-to-present-day attitude, of going around the world trampling on others, that makes the US so despised?
The 4,400 US military dead from the 2003 Iraq invasion/occupation pales into insignificance when compared to the 30-40,000 Iraqi soldiers and 7,000 Iraqi civilians killed by coalition forces (almost entirely US) during the invasion itself, and the 12,000 of the (coalition) Iraqi security forces and 100,000 Iraqi (non-combatant) civilians to have been killed since (almost entirely by insurgents, but a few thousand killed by coalition forces). Makes the few thousand of his own that Saddam was killing per year prior to the invasion look like small potatoes, doesn't it? The invasion and the ensuing instability in post-invasion Iraq is all ultimately the responsibility of the US. Many experts were warning about the consequences prior to invasion. And I hate to say it, but it could get much worse.
The 1990/1991 Gulf war with Iraq resulted in fewer than 400 coalition forces deaths. Estimates of Iraqi military dead are hard to come by, but start at upwards of 20,000 (it is probably much higher). Estimates of a total of between 1,500 and 10,000 Iraqi troops died (and no coalition troops died) in two separate incidents involving US forces pounded retreating columns of Iraqi forces in the final days of the conflict, in what was described by some of the US participants as a "turkey shoot".
The introspective re-evaluation of the 2003 Iraq invasion reminds me of the introspection following the Vietnam war. All I hear about the Vietnam War from from the US is the cost of 60,000 US dead, the humiliation of losing the war, the lessons in war tactics, etc, etc. Everyone knows that 60,000 US soldiers died, but how many know how many Vietnamese died? (from 1955-1975, it was in fact around 1.5 million North/South/VietCong soldiers, around 2.5 million Vietnamese civilians, not to mention Laotian/Cambodian civilians). US forces killed about 3 million of these Vietnamese.
Complain about this comment
38. At 6:37pm on 31 Aug 2010, Curt Carpenter wrote:
"Who amid all this will remember, much less care about, ... the odd Saudi prince?"
___________
"Odd", of course, is a relative term.
By the use of the definite article, are you implying that there is only one who is odd?
How do you tell which one, or ones?
Complain about this comment
Ref 19, The Toothbrush Man
"Sorry. Don't understand. Please explain this."
I'll let IF expand on his point, but here is my take on it: while we were spending a trillion dollars and focused almost exclusively on chasing ghosts in Iraq China was investing their money on building an industrial complex, educating their people, and positioning itself to become the dominant economic power within the next decade.
War, including our crusades in the Persian Gulf region, generate income for corporations directly involved in them and provide jobs to tens of thousands of Americans, but those benefits are short term and unsustainable. What allows an economy to grow and prosper is a solid industrial or service base, human capital, and investment.
Complain about this comment
Why are you even bothering to help? Was not the whole plan to go in and create havoc?
Are you not blaming "all of Iraq for 911?"
So now that country is in turmoil, get out. They messed with yours, you messed with theirs
....unless you are having second thoughts and a second analysis of what happened that day?
I know, there is enough conflicting evidence to have it throw out of your court system.
Too many things "don't add up".
You are blaming the Arabians because to blame any other group is either ludricrous or
"will bring on true WMD's"
Besides, Iraq was not supplying oil to the US - it was sold to Russia in smaller amounts.
So now it all goes to the US. Part of the plan.
Troops die. Not enough work here for them anyways.
You know Bin Laden is in Tahiti.
Complain about this comment
2. At 11:56am on 31 Aug 2010, Three Million Posse On Employed In A Dub wrote:
“George Bush Senior's 1st iraqi war wasn't justified, I Listened a whole heap of US senators stand up in congress one by one saying America is great, let's go to war”
This is not even respectable revisionist history, it is utter nonsense. If you want to rewrite history, don’t neglect the easily researchable facts:
1. Saddam invaded and annexed Kuwait against the wishes of Kuwaitis.
2. The Kuwaitis were treated to looting and other barbaric treatment when occupied.
3. Saddam’s forces were approaching the Saudi border [some reports say a bit over it] when Saudi Arabia asked for help.
4. The coalition of forces may have been led by the US but included countries like Syria and Egypt which are not noted for being US clients.
5. Last but definitely not least, if Saddam managed to grab the Gulf’s oil from Basra to Qatar and beyond, he would have had a stranglehold on most of the readily available petroleum.
Complain about this comment
1. Saddam invaded and annexed Kuwait against the wishes of Kuwaitis.
2. The Kuwaitis were treated to looting and other barbaric treatment when occupied.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, the thing is, if Iraq had been allowed to be there for as long as usa was and is going to be in Iraq, kuwaitis would have become used to it..and would have even become more secular...allowed their millions of paperless citizens, to be proper citizens....perhaps the question of palestinian refugees would have been solved as they would have been rehabilitated in kuwait..And most of all, the world would not be playing democracy with a stateless palestinians...israel would not have contracted its occupation to the PLA but its military would have been present in the occupied palestinian territories..
Complain about this comment
OOOOOO II LL
OOOOOO II LL
OO OO II LL
OO OO II LL
OOOOOO II LLLLLL
OOOOOO II LLLLLL
Need I say more?
Complain about this comment
45. At 9:53pm on 31 Aug 2010, you wrote:
1. Saddam invaded and annexed Kuwait against the wishes of Kuwaitis.
2. The Kuwaitis were treated to looting and other barbaric treatment when occupied.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, the thing is, if Iraq had been allowed to be there for as long as usa was and is going to be in Iraq, kuwaitis would have become used to it..and would have even become more secular...allowed their millions of paperless citizens, to be proper citizens....perhaps the question of palestinian refugees would have been solved as they would have been rehabilitated in kuwait..And most of all, the world would not be playing democracy with a stateless palestinians...israel would not have contracted its occupation to the PLA but its military would have been present in the occupied palestinian territories..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And to continue, if saddam was allowed to stay there, americans would not have to send its troops to saudi arabia, and ben laden would not have to create alqaida, and master mind of 9/11 would not have to come up with is master plan...On the hindsight, kuwait should have been left to iraq..world would be a lot better than it is for the americans..Now, if only americans would have the courage to associate themselves of the follies and mistakes aka crimes they have committed...
Complain about this comment
44. At 9:35pm on 31 Aug 2010, JMM wrote:
2. At 11:56am on 31 Aug 2010, Three Million Posse On Employed In A Dub wrote:
“George Bush Senior's 1st iraqi war wasn't justified, I Listened a whole heap of US senators stand up in congress one by one saying America is great, let's go to war”
This is not even respectable revisionist history, it is utter nonsense. If you want to rewrite history, don’t neglect the easily researchable facts:
1. Saddam invaded and annexed Kuwait against the wishes of Kuwaitis.
2. The Kuwaitis were treated to looting and other barbaric treatment when occupied.
3. Saddam’s forces were approaching the Saudi border [some reports say a bit over it] when Saudi Arabia asked for help.
4. The coalition of forces may have been led by the US but included countries like Syria and Egypt which are not noted for being US clients.
5. Last but definitely not least, if Saddam managed to grab the Gulf’s oil from Basra to Qatar and beyond, he would have had a stranglehold on most of the readily available petroleum.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
And of these points only the last is significant.
1. Nearly all invasions are by nature against the wishes of the invaded if not at the begining, certainly at the end.
The Iraqi's did have a case for claiming Kuwait was part of Iraq and had been detached by the western powers when they set up the country
2. The occupation was brutal, what occupation is not? The Israeli occupation of the West bank etc is pretty savage involving land stealing, outright theft and occasionally killing and demolitions.
The US doesn't bat a single eyelid
3. Saudi Arabia. The US was concerned over "Saudi Arabia". This is the same country whose citizens regularly abuse Saudi Arabia for everything from their driving regulations to their religion.
Yeh that sounds about right, going to war for the Saudis.
When has the US ever shown any concern about the native people of this area (as opposed to the Western imposed ruling elites etc). Hollywood can't even make a modern film about the region that is not soaked in crude anti-semitism.
4. Syrai and Egypt not US clients? The US flies prisoners to Syria for torture and gives the murderous Mubarak $3 billion a year.
How close do you want them to be? This is through the looking glass.
Here's a tip nearly all the regimes in this area (with some exceptions)are US clients. There's a whacking great US navy in the Gulf and that is before we get to the proxy forces of Israel.
5. Well he would still have had to sell it and mine it both of which would have required US involvment.
The US intervention in the ME (and russia before it and the UK before that) has been baleful from the off.
One might argue the toss about Kuwait, but the welfare of the Kuwaitis was very, very,down the scale
5>
Complain about this comment
Briefly for the benefit of posters: Armitage was not in actuality one of the neo-con villains many are portraying him as having been, though he began in their camp, he broke away to a large degree as the Iraq war "justifications" surfaced.
To understand the motivations behind both Iraq wars of both Bushes, it is probably best to disregard all rhetoric and look at the results of the invasions. Historically Iraq oil production has been kept low in relation to its reserves whether through the government of Great Britain,the US, the 'seven sisters', or OPEC. It would seem control and not ownership of petroleum has been at the heart of mideast policy since WWII. It is possible the discovery of vast reserves throughout the rest of the world have diminished the ability to control global distribution of petroleum via the Middle East as had been the case in the past, and it may as a result be a less critical part of war planning than it has been.
Tonight Obama will be in the unenviable position of trying to put the best gloss on a tragic decision he never made to his own people and those who have in fact suffered as a result. Personally, on this one, I think I'll cut him some slack.
Complain about this comment
44. At 9:35pm on 31 Aug 2010, JMM wrote:
2. At 11:56am on 31 Aug 2010, Three Million Posse On Employed In A Dub wrote:
“George Bush Senior's 1st iraqi war wasn't justified, I Listened a whole heap of US senators stand up in congress one by one saying America is great, let's go to war”
This is not even respectable revisionist history, it is utter nonsense. If you want to rewrite history, don’t neglect the easily researchable facts:
1. Saddam invaded and annexed Kuwait against the wishes of Kuwaitis.
2. The Kuwaitis were treated to looting and other barbaric treatment when occupied.
3. Saddam’s forces were approaching the Saudi border [some reports say a bit over it] when Saudi Arabia asked for help.
4. The coalition of forces may have been led by the US but included countries like Syria and Egypt which are not noted for being US clients.
5. Last but definitely not least, if Saddam managed to grab the Gulf’s oil from Basra to Qatar and beyond, he would have had a stranglehold on most of the readily available petroleum.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fantasy
1. Wacky doo most invasions are against the wishes of the invaded. China invaded Tibet, not a peep from the US
2.Yes the invasion and occupation were brutal. The Israeli occupation of the West bank, financed in part by US tax breaks, also involves looting, killing and land stealing.
Not a peep from the US
3. The US concerned about the Saudis? The Us concerned about the native people of the ME?
Wow when did that happen? Aren't the Saudis generally abused for everything from their traffic regs to their "treatment of women" (but never their lack of democracy or death penalty)
4. Syria and egypt are well known as US clients. The US flew prisoners to Syria and gives Mubarak £3 billion a year.
How close can you be?
5. Yes it was all about controlling (not owning) the oil supply, Kuwaiti lives did not matter.
Complain about this comment
It has been said that the invasion of Iraq was all about oil. Today, there is no Saddam Hussein, who could invade the oil fields in Iran, who could attempt to control the oil fields within Iraq by attacking ethnic Kurds, and who could invade the oil fields in Kuwait. Iraq now is militarily neutered, and is incapable of attacking any oil fields.
Complain about this comment
I remember when democrats in the late 90's and early 00's supported the evidence that Saddam had WMD's, supported terrorists, and was a threat to the region and American interests. They supported the war and voted for it. Now they all have an collective amnesia and support the idea they were lied to by Bush and the war was wrong. Their duplicitous nature could have disastrous consequences if we find ourselves paralyzed to act on new intelligence that proves to be correct.
Complain about this comment
19 Toothbrush
42 St. D.
St. D has hit one of the nails squarely on the head.
Where to start, where to start?
America did itself so many needless injuries that redounded to the advantage of others, particularly Iran, but in many ways to China.
While America was busy mired in a poorly thought-out war, China was busy buying up African minerals.
While America was busy with suicide bombers and car bombs, China was busy extending its sphere of influence in the South China Sea.
While America was busy borrowing money to pay for the war, China was busy buying American debt - becoming an ever larger creditor.
While America's standing in the world was growing smaller and feebler by the day, China's standing was waxing.
While America was turning itself inside-out in highly polarized internal division, China was getting on with its single-minded drive to become the pre-eminent nation state in the world, with hardly a ripple of dissent.
While America was undermining its own claim as providing a model for economic governance for the world on the capitalist free-market model, China's model of economic advanced, technocratic government, and military suppression of popular dissent was gaining legitimacy and adherents.
While America was abusing prisoners, China was by implication being let off the hook for its own human rights violations. So much for the moral high ground.
While America was demonstrating the limits of its power to the world, China was carefully and quietly taking opportunistic advantage in many, many unpleasant places where China is happy to do business.
And now, when challenges come up around the world where deployment of military force, or even the credible threat of deployment of force, to check Chinese ambition (or the ambition of others - every tinpot strong man from Venezuela to Zimbabwe -) America will be hesitant to deploy forces when it really should, and will spend the next 20 years in introspective angst and isolationism.
While China strides with growing self-confidence.
Oh, yes, Iraq has been a very good war for China.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
26. At 4:20pm on 31 Aug 2010, colonelartist wrote:
"Had WMD and had invaded kuwait...there are many countries who have WMD and have had invaded many countries...England has wmd and has invaded northern irland, and had invaded many countries...Should the world go after england now?"
Why? Have they been shooting down humanitarian aid helicopters? Aiming SAM's at our aircraft? Blocking humanitarian food shipments? Pretending to be building huge stockpiles of poison gas or biological weapons to distribute to terrorists around the world?
Frankly I can't see that as being worth the effort. At the rate the brits are going they'll have reduced themselves to complete irrelevancy world-wide in the next ten or fifteen years.
Complain about this comment
30. At 5:20pm on 31 Aug 2010, aero-soul wrote:
"Instead of giving a platform to this discredited warmonger, Mr. Mardell should review all the relevant sources to give as complete a picture as possible on the true costs of this naked aggression. Both human and economic, both on Iraqis and Americans. He could also write a piece putting this aggression in the framework of existing international law. A jail house interview with Armitage is appropriate when he is sharing a cell with Bush, Rumsfeld, Bremer, Wolfowitz, Bliar, Aznar and the rest of the coalition of the killing awaiting their fair trial for war crimes. Not before."
Stuff international law. You want 'em jailed, come get them.
Complain about this comment
33. At 6:02pm on 31 Aug 2010, MKDuggan wrote:
"(snipped because I don't care if the Iraqis can pull their thumbs out or not, I'm having enough trouble keeping my eye on my own government that I can't trust behind my back to worry about their problems)
....The only people that can build a stable government in Iraq are the Iraqi people. Until they get fed-up with the tyrants and terrorist and fight back, they will have what they’ve got.
I think it’s time we let the nationalists, like Newt Gingrich, take over here in the USA. We’ll bring all of our troops home, fortify our border with Mexico and let the all-knowing Europeans look after the world for a while. Let’s see how the EU likes being the “Great Satan”."
(uh, “Great Satan” not “Great Satin”...)
Hear! Hear! Say it again. LOUDER.
And here's another Idea. Kill the greenback and go back to gold and silver money and repudiate any American dollars outside the border.
And here's another Idea 2. Empty the overseas military bases and DESTROY the remaining infrastructure. Navy? Destroy the port. Air Force? Crater the runways and destroy the facilities. Army or Marines? Destroy the base.
Leave nothing usable for the America haters to benefit from - just smoking wasteland.
Complain about this comment
35. At 6:06pm on 31 Aug 2010, colonelartist wrote:
"Invasion was not successfully run..Everyone knew that iraq had nothing to defend with, still the hotch potch invasion was allowed to happen, whereever the invaders went to and invaded, they created lawlessness..."
Invaded a lot of countries who are touted as 'the fifth largest army in the world' lately Colonel? How that work out for you?
I suspect the Russians were just as irritated at Saddam as we were. He showed the value of buying Russian Military Exports...
Complain about this comment
47. At 10:15pm on 31 Aug 2010, colonelartist wrote:
"45. At 9:53pm on 31 Aug 2010, you wrote:
1. Saddam invaded and annexed Kuwait against the wishes of Kuwaitis.
2. The Kuwaitis were treated to looting and other barbaric treatment when occupied.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, the thing is, if Iraq had been allowed to be there for as long as usa was and is going to be in Iraq, kuwaitis would have become used to it..and would have even become more secular...allowed their millions of paperless citizens, to be proper citizens....perhaps the question of palestinian refugees would have been solved as they would have been rehabilitated in kuwait..And most of all, the world would not be playing democracy with a stateless palestinians...israel would not have contracted its occupation to the PLA but its military would have been present in the occupied palestinian territories..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And to continue, if saddam was allowed to stay there, americans would not have to send its troops to saudi arabia, and ben laden would not have to create alqaida, and master mind of 9/11 would not have to come up with is master plan...On the hindsight, kuwait should have been left to iraq..world would be a lot better than it is for the americans..Now, if only americans would have the courage to associate themselves of the follies and mistakes aka crimes they have committed..."
Howls of derisive laughter. Arrest me.
Complain about this comment
To theMightyAndyGray #13
"How about bringing in laws or constituional safeguards to prevent leaders from taking a country into war for fallacious reasons? There seems to be no accountability when surely there must be."
If there was valid rationale behind the war, it would be possible to list the valid general conditions necessary for war or military action prior to beginning one. The absence of these criteria or principles show that the necessary conditions are actually marketing slogans.
It should also be possible to define what the end of a war is, so determining whether the war had ended would be revealed by consulting the prior definition. No definition exists because again it is all military marketing.
Blind support is a bit like proclaiming that coca-cola is the best drink in the world, effective in making more people drink it but disregarding whether it is a accurate analysis of its goodness in producing beneficial results to recipients.
Complain about this comment
Mardell gave Armitage an opportunity to show how worthless he wasand how ridiculous he sounds.
Talking of past empires it is comforting to know that bringing them down did not require a still greater military power; all what it needed was more like erosion at the periphery and foolhardiness at the centre.
Richard
Complain about this comment
#60 oops wrong thread
Complain about this comment
Howls of derisive laughter. Arrest me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laughter is the sheepish attempt to dissociate one self from the reality..They lied about kuwait,and attacked it and everything that is unfolding today is because of that..whether you laugh or stay inside the prison.
Complain about this comment
Why? Have they been shooting down humanitarian aid helicopters? Aiming SAM's at our aircraft? Blocking humanitarian food shipments? Pretending to be building huge stockpiles of poison gas or biological weapons to distribute to terrorists around the world?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And was Iraq doing all that when it was attacked and invaded? uk had voted for sanctions against iraq for 11 yrs prior to the war..its planes were attacking iraq through those infamous no fly zones..It was one of the laughing hynea in the pack of hyneas closing down on its prey.
Complain about this comment
" 63. At 7:07pm on 01 Sep 2010, colonelartist wrote:
Howls of derisive laughter. Arrest me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laughter is the sheepish attempt to dissociate one self from the reality."
Suggest dictionary definition of derisive.
"They lied about kuwait,and attacked it and everything that is unfolding today is because of that."
Certainly is. If saddam had stayed out of Kuwait then much of this probably would have never happened.
"whether you laugh or stay inside the prison."
Huh?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Why isn't 9-11, and both Iraqi's wars put under a proper investigation by authorities?
because the lies and coverups would unravel like a piece of string being pulled from a string vest
just like lockerbie, guns for drugs, ollie north, S&L scandal
Complain about this comment
I was working for Pan Am in Rockleigh, New Jersey in 1988 when Lockerbie happened and the first Iraqi War happened later in 1989
Truth is Americans have dumbed down intellectually and simply want to regurgitate the official government propaganda line instead of challenging their own authorities.
Pam Am 103 had two CIA operatives on board who called their mum's to say they were coming home (which is most unusal in itself) and were going to spill the beans on a heroin smuggling ring set up by the CIA with a group of arabs. When the plane exploded over Lockerbie the police cordoned off the area and let the CIA retrieve their indestructable brief cases (evidence). This information was published in a Canadian Newspaper which I passed onto Thomas Plaskett the Chief Executive. You can read all about this in the Trial of the Octopuss book.
Complain about this comment
I think you should check out the book I am currently reading. It shows the previous British and American regimes in equally bad light. Perhaps the US was a bit worse as the Neocons were the driving force behind the lunacy. Also, the UK government seems to have had a few more and higher placed persons of conscience who were willing to resign rather than lie.
"Dissent: Voices of Conscience"
Ann Wright and Susan Dixon
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS