littlejoe said:Thanks, Bushie.
And Cheney.
And Rummey.
War criminals all.
Should be indicted, with capital punishment if found guilty.
Whitewing said:littlejoe said:Thanks, Bushie.
And Cheney.
And Rummey.
War criminals all.
Should be indicted, with capital punishment if found guilty.
In a thousand words or less, could you lay out the war crimes they committed?
Mike said:Whitewing said:littlejoe said:Thanks, Bushie.
And Cheney.
And Rummey.
War criminals all.
Should be indicted, with capital punishment if found guilty.
In a thousand words or less, could you lay out the war crimes they committed?
This should be fun. Mind if I make popcorn before you two start? :wink:
Hey WW, haven't you asked this of OT a couple of hundred times?
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Posted: 6:42 a.m. Thursday, June 19, 2014
In Iraq, U.S. ignorance has unleashed holy war
By Jay Bookman
We had no idea what we were doing.
Over the past few years, Americans have slowly come to grips with the notion that an invasion sold to us as a 60-day jaunt in the desert, with our troops welcomed as liberators and with Iraqis paying the cost for their country’s reconstruction, has instead cost us trillions of dollars and the lives of more than 4,000 Americans, with little to show for it.
Now we are confronted with an even greater potential tragedy: Now we watch, almost helpless, as the ambitions and emotions unleashed by our invasion morph into a broader Sunni-Shi’ite civil war that threatens to engulf not just Iraq but the entire Islamic world for years if not decades to come.
We had no idea. Arrogance and ignorance, it turns out, are a deadly combination. Even today, I’m not sure that most Americans understand the potential consequences of the tragedy playing out in the Middle East, a tragedy that we made all but inevitable with our decision to invade Iraq.
By invading Iraq, the keystone state of the Arab world, we destroyed the precarious balance in that country between Shi’ite and Sunni, and thus the balance in the larger Islamic world as well. Yes, that balance had been maintained by a cruel repression by Saddam Hussein, but with that repression removed we offered nothing to replace it.
In fact, the official position of the Bush administration was that there were no deep sectarian divides in Iraq, and thus no need to address them. We misread the situation in many, many ways, but that misreading was perhaps the most profound and consequential.
With everything in play, Shi’ites began killing Sunnis who began killing Shi’ites. Sunnis and Shi’ites outside Iraq were drawn into the battle. Weapons and money and fighters flowed from Shi’ite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia and other countries. The struggle engulfed Syria, and now Lebanon and Kuwait and Jordan are threatened.
Many of those who supported the invasion now try to claim that the war had been won with the surge of American troops in 2007, which succeeded in stopping the violence that then threatened to overwhelm Iraq. In a very narrow sense, they are right. The surge taught us that with 150,000 U.S. troops stationed in Iraq, actively engaged in combat and taking regular causalities, we could suppress the Sunni/Shi’ia civil war that elements of both sides were eager to fight.
But only fools and charlatans -- and yes, former Vice President Dick Cheney is very much in that category -- would mistake that for a permanent solution. Everyone knew that the American people would not stand for a long-term commitment that large and that deadly, and neither would the Iraqis. Even at the time, President Bush made clear that the surge had merely won Iraqi leaders another opportunity to reconcile factions within their country, and that all would be lost if they didn’t seize their chance. They didn’t seem much interested in trying.
So now what? Whatever role we played in the past, the difficult truth is that the United States lacks the credibility or resources to resolve a religious war within Islam. The best we can accomplish may be to contain it. The even more difficult truth is that if a regional war erupts, U.S. troops may be called upon again, this time to mitigate what our own ignorance has ignited.
Oldtimer said:Posted: 6:42 a.m. Thursday, June 19, 2014
In Iraq, U.S. ignorance has unleashed holy war
By Jay Bookman
We had no idea what we were doing.
Over the past few years, Americans have slowly come to grips with the notion that an invasion sold to us as a 60-day jaunt in the desert, with our troops welcomed as liberators and with Iraqis paying the cost for their country’s reconstruction, has instead cost us trillions of dollars and the lives of more than 4,000 Americans, with little to show for it.
Now we are confronted with an even greater potential tragedy: Now we watch, almost helpless, as the ambitions and emotions unleashed by our invasion morph into a broader Sunni-Shi’ite civil war that threatens to engulf not just Iraq but the entire Islamic world for years if not decades to come.
We had no idea. Arrogance and ignorance, it turns out, are a deadly combination. Even today, I’m not sure that most Americans understand the potential consequences of the tragedy playing out in the Middle East, a tragedy that we made all but inevitable with our decision to invade Iraq.
By invading Iraq, the keystone state of the Arab world, we destroyed the precarious balance in that country between Shi’ite and Sunni, and thus the balance in the larger Islamic world as well. Yes, that balance had been maintained by a cruel repression by Saddam Hussein, but with that repression removed we offered nothing to replace it.
In fact, the official position of the Bush administration was that there were no deep sectarian divides in Iraq, and thus no need to address them. We misread the situation in many, many ways, but that misreading was perhaps the most profound and consequential.
With everything in play, Shi’ites began killing Sunnis who began killing Shi’ites. Sunnis and Shi’ites outside Iraq were drawn into the battle. Weapons and money and fighters flowed from Shi’ite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia and other countries. The struggle engulfed Syria, and now Lebanon and Kuwait and Jordan are threatened.
Many of those who supported the invasion now try to claim that the war had been won with the surge of American troops in 2007, which succeeded in stopping the violence that then threatened to overwhelm Iraq. In a very narrow sense, they are right. The surge taught us that with 150,000 U.S. troops stationed in Iraq, actively engaged in combat and taking regular causalities, we could suppress the Sunni/Shi’ia civil war that elements of both sides were eager to fight.
But only fools and charlatans -- and yes, former Vice President Dick Cheney is very much in that category -- would mistake that for a permanent solution. Everyone knew that the American people would not stand for a long-term commitment that large and that deadly, and neither would the Iraqis. Even at the time, President Bush made clear that the surge had merely won Iraqi leaders another opportunity to reconcile factions within their country, and that all would be lost if they didn’t seize their chance. They didn’t seem much interested in trying.
So now what? Whatever role we played in the past, the difficult truth is that the United States lacks the credibility or resources to resolve a religious war within Islam. The best we can accomplish may be to contain it. The even more difficult truth is that if a regional war erupts, U.S. troops may be called upon again, this time to mitigate what our own ignorance has ignited.
Whitewing said:Oldtimer said:Posted: 6:42 a.m. Thursday, June 19, 2014
In Iraq, U.S. ignorance has unleashed holy war
By Jay Bookman
We had no idea what we were doing.
Over the past few years, Americans have slowly come to grips with the notion that an invasion sold to us as a 60-day jaunt in the desert, with our troops welcomed as liberators and with Iraqis paying the cost for their country’s reconstruction, has instead cost us trillions of dollars and the lives of more than 4,000 Americans, with little to show for it.
Now we are confronted with an even greater potential tragedy: Now we watch, almost helpless, as the ambitions and emotions unleashed by our invasion morph into a broader Sunni-Shi’ite civil war that threatens to engulf not just Iraq but the entire Islamic world for years if not decades to come.
We had no idea. Arrogance and ignorance, it turns out, are a deadly combination. Even today, I’m not sure that most Americans understand the potential consequences of the tragedy playing out in the Middle East, a tragedy that we made all but inevitable with our decision to invade Iraq.
By invading Iraq, the keystone state of the Arab world, we destroyed the precarious balance in that country between Shi’ite and Sunni, and thus the balance in the larger Islamic world as well. Yes, that balance had been maintained by a cruel repression by Saddam Hussein, but with that repression removed we offered nothing to replace it.
In fact, the official position of the Bush administration was that there were no deep sectarian divides in Iraq, and thus no need to address them. We misread the situation in many, many ways, but that misreading was perhaps the most profound and consequential.
With everything in play, Shi’ites began killing Sunnis who began killing Shi’ites. Sunnis and Shi’ites outside Iraq were drawn into the battle. Weapons and money and fighters flowed from Shi’ite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia and other countries. The struggle engulfed Syria, and now Lebanon and Kuwait and Jordan are threatened.
Many of those who supported the invasion now try to claim that the war had been won with the surge of American troops in 2007, which succeeded in stopping the violence that then threatened to overwhelm Iraq. In a very narrow sense, they are right. The surge taught us that with 150,000 U.S. troops stationed in Iraq, actively engaged in combat and taking regular causalities, we could suppress the Sunni/Shi’ia civil war that elements of both sides were eager to fight.
But only fools and charlatans -- and yes, former Vice President Dick Cheney is very much in that category -- would mistake that for a permanent solution. Everyone knew that the American people would not stand for a long-term commitment that large and that deadly, and neither would the Iraqis. Even at the time, President Bush made clear that the surge had merely won Iraqi leaders another opportunity to reconcile factions within their country, and that all would be lost if they didn’t seize their chance. They didn’t seem much interested in trying.
So now what? Whatever role we played in the past, the difficult truth is that the United States lacks the credibility or resources to resolve a religious war within Islam. The best we can accomplish may be to contain it. The even more difficult truth is that if a regional war erupts, U.S. troops may be called upon again, this time to mitigate what our own ignorance has ignited.
It's interesting that you spend so much time searching all over the internet for articles about how Bush & Cheney screwed up Iraq and yet you say nary a word about Obama's very successful policy of destroying the United States as we know it via the abandonment of our southern border.
You must hate America.
Oldtimer said:The southern border was abandoned long before Obama came into office-
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Absolutely Nothing? My Response to a Fellow Veteran’s Indictment of the Iraq War
Retired US Navy Chief Warrant Officer Jim Wright has an opinion, and by damn he wants to share it. If you have not seen it yet, please take a moment (or five) and read Wight's recent rant.
Absolutely Nothing: A Veteran’s Savage Indictment of the Iraq War
"War?
--good god, ya'll!--
What is it good for?"
Mission Accomplished?
Welcome back!
As rants go, I think we'd all have to agree, that one is mighty good: relentlessly fiery, brutally direct, and straight to the heart. Bam, bam, bam, BOOM! But I implore you, dear reader, with tears in my eyes, read the rant for entertainment, not for enlightenment.
Two points for my fellow Veteran, Mr. Wright, (and all of us) to consider:
(1) War is a necessary evil,
(2) We get the leaders we deserve (especially in a democracy), and
(3) Sometimes I say, "Two points" and then think of a third and try to add it real quick. That does not make me a liar or a bad person. The truth changes. Let's not look at a gray world through black or white lenses.
Allow me to further illustrate and expand upon my points, 1 through n.
(1) To say that war is "good for absolutely nothing" is incredibly naive. No one hates war more than those who must do the fighting, but as Pliny said, "Only the dead have seen the end of war." The warrior class understands the way to end war is to build and maintain a strong defense. No amount of ranting about the evils of war will ever fix human nature. Human beings have banded together to do violence upon enemies, real or perceived, since time immemorial. The quickest way to the dustbin of history is to be a weak, feckless, easy mark for aggressors. I am not advocating war. I am just saying that Vikings, pirates, and Imperialists are real, and you can either (a) join them, (b) defend yourself and your spoils, (c) live in fear, hoping your luck holds out, or (d) be a victim (and even if you smile while getting kicked, you are still getting kicked). This is not a defense of war or a glorification of combat or a call to arms. I do not advocate starting fights for the hell of it. That said, not all wars pass the Just War Theory or even the smell test. History is replete with bad wars.
(2) To blame a bad or unjust war on leaders is to forget who empowered those leaders in the first place. This point is especially valid for the inhabitants of a democratic Republic such as the US of A. Mr. Wright's rant spares few people in Coalition leadership positions. He rips into Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Romney, McCain, Blair, the Koch brothers, and Rush Limbaugh with equal glee. Even poor Colin Powell gets eviscerated for not knowing better. Yet none of these people took their positions of authority by force. They have influence because We the Sheeple listen to them and either do what they say or do nothing to stop them. And for those of you sad souls living under a harsh dictatorship, may I remind you of point #1 above? You have options, too. A righteous revolt is Just War Theory approved, and further evidence of war's necessity.
(3) To follow, like, or share Mr. Wright's rant is hopefully nothing more serious than to enjoy a little entertainment, not unlike forwarding this famous clip from Newsroom. Mr. Wright's savage tongue-lashing is a hoot to read! But once again I beg you, with tears in my eyes, do not take the rantings of this disgruntled man as enlightenment. His emotion-drenched pleadings and after-the-fact exaggerations completely miss the point of the war in Iraq, and yes, there was a point. Look at the neighborhood around Israel and imagine Turkey, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia holding the line. Syria is geographically isolated from Russia and Iran. Now look closer. What happens to global security when a democratic and westward leaning Iraq collapses into a radical warlord-led, Caliphate-seeking, Israel-hating tribe? What if the borders created after WWI collapse, and Iraq simply disappears into a single theocracy running from the western border of Afghanistan to the eastern border of Lebanon and the northern border of Jordan? Coalition forces left Iraq too soon, and now ISIS has filled the void. See what I mean? What's next? Iraq falls at great peril to peace and stability in the Middle East and thus to our way of life.
Here is the bottom line. Too many people bemoan the price of war without consideration for cost of freedom. All I want is to delay Armageddon long enough for my children to grow up and enjoy a good life. Mr. Wright believes that someone has been sniffing too many flying magic bunny rainbow farts. I believe that his diagnosis may be correct, though I am not sure he has identified the correct patient. Don't let it be you!
"Peace love and understanding tell me
Is there no place for them today?
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord, there’s got to be a better way
"War what is it good for?
Absolutely nothing…"
- Edwin Starr, “War” 1969
Posted: 6:42 a.m. Thursday, June 19, 2014
In Iraq, Obama's ignorance has unleashed holy war
Andy Borowitz
When the U.S. tells Iraq to form a unity government, I'm like, hey, we could use one of those.
Oldtimer said:Andy Borowitz
When the U.S. tells Iraq to form a unity government, I'm like, hey, we could use one of those.