UK diplomat: U.S. was 'hell bent' on Iraq invasion

I'd be angry and vindictive too. Being a poodle's poodle probably wasn't much fun.Then again, British 'diplomacy' in the region has been a series of disasters from the start, and we are all still paying for it.

[President George W Bush had no real interest in attempts to agree on a U.N. resolution to provide explicit backing for the conflict.]

Seeing that the UN had already proven to be ineffective from 1991 you can't blame America for going around it. If the UN were to do the job they should have done in the first place then it wouldn't have happened that way.

People who whine about how they were fooled or they didn't know at the time must be stupid. It was pretty obvious to anyone half awake how and why the invasion of Iraq came about. It was half-assed, but there was enough of a case. Who is it who wants to keep dredging up the past? Someone gunning for present political advantage?

bushlover:Seeing that the UN had already proven to be ineffective from 1991 you can't blame America for going around it. If the UN were to do the job they should have done in the first place then it wouldn't have happened that way.

What convoluted rubbish! You don't seem to know what the U.N.'s job is!

Besides, nothing justifies not at least trying to get U.N. support. Nothing. Not laziness and not a desire for plunder.

It looks like the Bush team was just in a hurry to get Iraq started before anybody noticed how many cracks there were in the pack of lies they cooked up. They know they would not have gotten U.N. support and at the same time lost support at home for waiting.

nandakandamanda: Who is it who wants to keep dredging up the past? Someone gunning for present political advantage?

Yes. But also someone who would like to see the Bush team working on a chain gang (not likely) someone who would like to see them remembered for the evil charlatans and liars they were (very likely), someone who would like people to learn from the past so as to prevent future unnecessary wars on the near or distand horizon (Iran?), and most of all someone who wants people to be completely aware how politicians and the military/industrial complex makes them dance like trained monkeys and to refuse to perfom anymore.

Good post numbskull. :thumbsup:

I guess we keep roasting the soles of their feet a bit longer then, eh? :8)

Lies, lies and more damn lies!!!! WMD shells were found, the rest were transported to Syria before the Liberation.

This UK guy just has a chip on his shoulder for some reason.

I'd like to know who were the "elected" officials at that time that disapproved sending in the troops.... the prez alone doesn't have the power to simply start a war. I'll go with charges against Bush, as long as we get the whole bunch!

Nothing new here. We knew this years ago.

The United States was “hell bent” on a 2003 military invasion of Iraq

Duh. Anyone watching the news with their eyes open realised this as soon as the troops were in Afghanistan.

Duh. Anyone watching the news with their eyes open realised this as soon as the troops were in Afghanis" Oh, so you feel there was no justification to get AQ and the Taliban? Only asking.

I guess bitter old Poms (best Aussie slang I've ever heard) like the diplomat in this article will just have to file this one under "Blowback".

Yes, Great Britain, at the height of its long-gone power and glory, created Iraq out of what was formerly Mesopotamia. But almost a century later it was under the leadership of some cowboy from Texas that an American-led force finally gave ordinary Iraqis the political means whereby they might achieve some semblance of a civil society, a stable middle class, the first quasi-democracy in the Arab world, and a chance at integrating their economy into the global one.

victimcrat:I guess bitter old Poms (best Aussie slang I've ever heard) like the diplomat in this article will just have to file this one under "Blowback".

Since this old pom had nothing to do with those, except that his father or grandfather might have lived in those times, I sort of doubt it bothers him that much. I think he might actually have his head in the present, like most anybody else. My dad...don't really care what he did.

DickMorris: WMD shells were found, the rest were transported to Syria before the Liberation.

Saddam also had quite a stockpile of yellowcake. It all predated the Gulf War though and the U.N. had the yellowcake under lock and key and it remained that way until years after the invasion and it was sent to Canada. Not your kind did not try like heck to make it seem like Saddam was in violation. Anything to CYA I guess.

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/iraqs-yellowcake/81328/

And aving old empty shells is not the same as having WMD, but thanks for playing.

I will also inform you that having old WMD way past its useful shelf-life is also not the same as having WMD. Its not a cover-up buddy. Saddam had WMD like Noriko Sakai had methamphetamines: they did at one time and traces were left, like .004 grams. The difference is that Saddam was already punished and had not reoffended.

Skip, Cleo must be referring to the fact that once the whole shebang had moved into Afghanistan, and the Taliban had admitted utter defeat, to the general better health of all Afghanis, Bush looked around and saw that instead of sending all the armies home, Iraq looked like a good place to use them first. He knew that it would be impossible to get together another force of such size in the near future, and everyone could see his thought processes. "There's that guy Saddam jumping up and down, giving the USA the bird, and threatening to make himself leader of all the Arab world... why he is even now negotiating to buy 50 million's worth of 'WMD stuff' off North Korea. It's now or never folks!" Yup, I reckon he was hell-bent on invading Iraq.

Oh, for get about the "transported to Syra" bit. Did you know all the truck drivers of that delivery wore the same kind of tin foil hat you do?

Cleo is correct Skip. After the troops were in Afghanistan for a while we heard about Iraq more and more, all bullcrap and lies an obvious to anyone unless they wanted to believe. Next thing you know Congress stupidly authorized force, Bush wasted little time in abusing the authorization, and the only obstacle was Iran in the way of moving troops from A to B.

War is a debt instrument of the Fiat Money bankers. You also need a strong opponent for any war. After the cold war was over opponents were hard to find -"terrorists" were the best they could do.

These same "bankers" are having a very hard time going after Iran and Venezuela right now.

The populace must be kept under Fiat Debt at all times.

Badsey: You also need a strong opponent for any war.

That opponent is "civil unrest". The key was using terrorism and other random bits to get the invasion started. Afghanistan and color alerts kept the people over-tuned to hints of terrorism. Bush tying Iraq to terror through intentional but obscure language did the rest.

numbskull: I will also inform you that having old WMD way past its useful shelf-life is also not the same as having WMD. Its not a cover-up buddy. Saddam had WMD like Noriko Sakai had methamphetamines: they did at one time and traces were left, like .004 grams. The difference is that Saddam was already punished and had not reoffended.

I like the analogy with drugs. But Saddam had duty to verify as a drug offender would be required to take drug tests after they've been punished. It would be like the drug offender refusing to to take a drug test while at the same time not using drugs. In the eyes of the court, the tests are what's important, not just the person's word.

It was all one big lie as we liberals pointed out before the invasion. Bush wanted oil for his Exxon masters and he used the deaths of the 9-11 victims of his incompetence to justify lies about Iraq. Like Saddam flying the planes that day. It was all so tranparently stupid that only a dimwit would not see it for what it was. Plenty of posts on this board at that time were in the dimwit crowd for sure. Most have left in shame but same have changed their aliases and continue to fight the losers fight.

Bush and Blair should be in jail for the murder and mayhem in Iraq over the last six years plus. They are clearly war criminals.

It would be like the drug offender refusing to to take a drug test while at the same time not using drugs. In the eyes of the court, the tests are what's important, not just the person's word.

Saddam was no model parolee for sure, but with all that surveillance and airspace control, I don't think having the SWAT team invade his house bust out all the windows and doors, cut all the phone and power lines, and shoot at his family was worth it just to find what was under his bed.

Compliance was never perfect and usually late, but we are talking sovereign nations here. You don't get to be a strongman dictator by bend over when beckoned. We knew Saddam was not a threat. We knew his MO. The situation was well understood and under control and stable. We were sure enough that if Saddam did have something under his bed, it wasn't much. And even with parolees you need a warrant or probable cause. Neither were there.

zurcronium:"It was all one big lie as we liberals pointed out before the invasion. Bush wanted oil for his Exxon masters and he used the deaths of the 9-11 victims of his incompetence to justify lies about Iraq."

Bingo! Another absolutely bang on post, mon frere. Have I ever told you that you could be the next Seymour Hersch? In a way you are lucky you are in Japan.Exxon's minions probably can't get to you there and SILENCE you, like they did so many writers and bloggerists during the darkest days of the bush years.

Anyways, tis a a shame the dimwit crowd could not see the lies that the media, including the New York Times, spewed on behalf of their corporate masters. Clearly, they don't have the freedom of speech WE enjoy in Canada, eh mate.

Well, anyways, extreme kudos to you for once again showing the wingers and the few remaining supporters of bush,who was the biggest LOSER of all time, ever, the error of their ways.

numbskull: We knew Saddam was not a threat.

Rubbish. Saddam intentionally kept his capabilities ambiguous because he was paranoid about Iran. Showing that he disarmed to the UN would have been showing his weakness to Iran, and he wasn't about to do that. So he walked the line....he gave just enough info to weaken the UN's resolve, but kept enough hidden to make Iran think he could still be a threat.

Efforts to agree on a sterner resolution authorizing military action foundered because the international community believed the U.S. was “hell bent on the use of force” regardless of world opinion, Greenstock said.

So they would only issue a sterner resolution authorizing force if they believed force wouldn't be used?

"Rubbish. Saddam intentionally kept his capabilities ambiguous because he was paranoid about Iran."

Pfff.....the intelligence agencies had to know he had nothing. The simple fact of the topic of Bush Co being "hellbent" and the US and the UK leaning on the intelligence services to find evidence.....any kind of evidence shows there was no real cause for alarm.

Let's face facts here - not only did the US know he had nothing dangerous....they were counting on it for an easy invasion.

That's why rogue countries that are actually known to have WMD ike NK and Iran get diplomacy. At least be honest mate and stick to the more noble "I supported it for a better life for Iraqi's" argument. Anybody wcapable of abstact thought can see this was about fossil fuels.

Madverts, he was required to verify. You'll never be able to get around that. Neither will the UN.

Arabs have a saying, quite apropos when discussing diplomat poodles who serve prime minister poodles, which came to mind as I read this:

"Dogs bark but the caravan moves on."

"Madverts, he was required to verify. You'll never be able to get around that. Neither will the UN"

The threat of invasion was enough to make him comply. He did, they found nothing but that isn't the point because the US was "hellbent" on removing Saddam. And it had nothing to with "mushroom clouds over NYC".

old friend,

Several "poodl"e trolls but nobody took the bait. Methiks it's time for another new handle. Something a bit punchier, something that'll really kick democrats in the teeth.

SuperLib: Rubbish. Saddam intentionally kept his capabilities ambiguous because he was paranoid about Iran.

With his mouth yes. That is why we have other investigative tools.

Would you be happier if I said we had no reason to believe Iraq was an imminent threat? Or that we had no reason to believe Saddam had reacquired WMD? Because something tells me that you won't like such ambiguous statements any more than you like the absolute statement that he wasn't a thread period. We bicker about both options all day.

There was nothing to justify the invasion. I know you might cite the fact that Hitler rearmed in secret, but this is not 1939 and Saddam was no Hitler.

And "sick of Saddam's bullcrap" does not justify invading a country without U.N. support. I am not about to say the U.N. is great. But its the best we got at this time. I certainly prefer it to the maverick approach that turned out to be wrong. (Or right if your goal was military contracts and a short-lived bout of flag waving.)

"Dogs bark but the caravan moves on."

I have a saying: When you see the bandits on the hill you suddenly realize why the dogs were barking...oops!

A direct quote from the article - - which few seem to have noticed

"He [Jeremy Greenstock, British ambassador to the United Nations from 1998 to 2003] said, in his opinion, the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was legal—a view rejected by critics who say it violated international law—but was of “questionable legitimacy.”

Clever rhetorical sleight of hand there. The differences between these two concepts escapes so many ignorant young leftists and pacifists, as it also does the older ones among them, with three or even four decades of postmodernist kool-aid having addled their poor brains.

As far as I understand it he had long before given up on trying to build them himself. He was selling more and more oil under various pretexts and building up a war chest, and aiming to eventually buy the complete nuclear weapon system from NK. Simple. He saw Iran and Pakistan doing it. US$50m had already changed hands.

Intelligence people in the West were joining up the dotted lines. They knew the depth of his resolve, and didn't like the look of the seemingly inevitable future. In return he made a big booboo... he underestimated Western resolve and got preempted. I am sure Israel breathed a sigh of relief.

Whether or not he had WMD in the country at the time was never the slightest issue for me as an onlooker. Today it still has no meaning. Who was fooled, and by whom? Dunno.

Its true victimcrat that many say it is illegal mostly because it should be and because the U.S. violated its terms of U.N. membership, but its not that simple is it?

Not of it changes the fact that "questionable legitimacy" is being generous and putting it mildy.

Why can't you just say you supported the invasion and was wrong rather than keep playing this crazy game of raise a random flag and see if someone salutes? Just man up and say it was an error.

aiming to eventually buy the complete nuclear weapon system from NK.

Only, NK does not have any such usable weapons at this time. There is wide speculation that their nuke test was just an underground cave with a heck of a lot of TNT. Even it were the low yield POS it would otherwise be, their like are not going anywhere.

he underestimated Western resolve and got preempted.

Shooting someone who said "One of these days I am going to buy a gun and kill you!" is not preemption. Its just arrogance, especially when you know the only guy who would even sell him a gun can't buy or even fabricate one himself.

To you to: just man up and admit you were wrong for supporting the invasion. Acting otherwise looks childish.

"Just man up and say it was an error."

True radicals remain loyal to the cause to the death.

"Just man up and admit you were wrong for supporting the invasion"

Just man up and admit that Iraq and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.

Just man up and admit that Iraq and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.

This statement is quite questionable. Sarge, you cannot be so simple-minded?

Iraq and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.

The thousands (tens, hundreds of thousands? who knows?) killed in the war, the many thousands more injured and maimed and the countless orphans and childless parents, widows and widowers, children since born with deformities caused by DU, would probably have trouble agreeing with that statement.

How can anything be better if you're dead?

"How can anything be better if you're dead?"

Someone might say:

We had to destroy the village to save it.

Somehow, we keep hearing this after every war, and after we shake our heads in dismay for a decade or so, somebody gets us to do it again. Cleo, just to give you an idea of the insanity running rampant in the US, a headline in the New York Times recently read something like "Iraq: Lessons for the Next War." Yeah. That's right, as the US is still finishing up two wars, it is already planning for "the next one."

The WHO will play at the Superbowl in Jan/Feb. I hope that they play WONT GET FOOLED AGAIN and do an IRAQ slideshow. They should dedicate it to Pat Tillman. He would like that.

The simple-minded are always fooled again.

Should of, would of, could of. That's history. Maybe dictatorships are best for multi-religious, multi-ethnic groups as in Iraq and the Balkins, to keep the peace. A lesson for the US in the future? I really think all men want freedom but only if those men are responsible to each other. I hope it all works out in the end and the Iraq nation lives in freedom and peace. Seems to be moving in that direction. Probably safer than most large US cities.

Just man up and admit that Iraq and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.

Hmmm - that'll be why we've all been enjoying such peace and prosperity since 2003, eh?

What are the Baathists prospects in the coming free elections in Iraq?

Do any of Saddam's apologists here have a scenario for us?

Me: "Just man up and admit that Iraq and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power"

LoveUSA: "This statement is quite questionable."

Love, are you saying that Iraq and the world might have been better off with Saddam Hussein still running Iraq into the ground and thumbing his nose at the U.N. from his many luxurious palaces?

Cleo: "How can anything be better if you're dead?"

LOL, following that logic, we should never have stood up to Adolf Hitler or the Japanese Imperial Army, because people died in that war too.

IvanCoughalot( take care )"Hmmm - that's why we've all been enjoying such peace and prosperity since 2003, eh?"

Flippant comment. As if we'd have had nothing but peace and prosperity if we'd let Saddam Husssein continue to run Iraq into the ground, thumb his nose at the U.N. and seek to resurrect his WMD from his many luxurious palaces.

Man up? Huh? Despite some of the shaky reasoning which genuinely alarmed me at the time, and some terrible examples of greed among those taking advantage of the political vacuum, I think the invasion of Iraq will ultimately prove to have been beneficial to the Middle East as a whole. I hope and pray that both Iraq and Afghanistan will become strong, rich, proud and viable Islamic democracies and the temporary Western armies can withdraw with equal pride as soon as possible.

Would somebody please tell me who won the Iraq war? There are thousands of amputees in veterans' hospitals and who knows how many unemployed Americans standing in bread lines because their government pi**ed away their national wealth so Bush could declare mission accomplished.

Beel - Are you saying that that Iraq and the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in charge?

Are you saying that that Iraq and the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in charge?

He wascontained, and he was the Iraqi's problem, not Amerika's. Mind your own goddamn business!

Iraq might be worse with Saddam Hussein still in charge( but can't prove); Nevertheless, It's no doubt the world would be better off if Bush didn't take charge in 2000 ( proved for world economic collapse... etc.)

numbskull: And "sick of Saddam's bullcrap" does not justify invading a country without U.N. support.

I can understand what you're saying, and I'd like to support it, but I think ultimately the fiasco with Saddam exposed how dysfunctional the UN really is. China blocks action against North Korea, Russia blocks action against Iran, the US blocks action against Israel.....I can't sit here and think that they're going to decide the definition of justice in an objective way. Saying that you need or don't need UN support doesn't mean a war is just or not anymore, it just means you were able to sell it to the permanent members of the UNSC.

Personally, I think the world didn't really know what Saddam had, and for some members of the UN, they weren't interested in using force or the threat of force to find out because the cost was too high for them. It had little, if anything, to do with justice. It had everything to do with, "What do I get out of it?" The main argument against the war was, "Saddam's no threat to me" and I think that's a sad reality. He killed his own with impunity, and the world didn't care as long as long as he didn't cross the lines on a map. I think North Korea and Iran are showing us the end result of the "contain and hope" strategy.

Bush could declare mission accomplished.

Bush didn't declare mission accomplished, the navy did. I seriously don't understand why people still don't get it that it was the NAVY that put that mission accomplished banner up, bush had nothing to do with that banner and it was a mission accomplished as the mission was to overthrow saddam which they did.

numbskull: And "sick of Saddam's bullcrap" does not justify invading a country without U.N. support.

To be honest, in my opinion I feel that the right to declare war is a nations right and doesn't require the approval of any other world body, all a nation has to do is just follow its own laws in declaring war and it is a legal war. Now of course I'm aware of the treaties/agreements that have been signed stating the need for UN approval to declare war, but I disagree with those agreements.

He wascontained, and he was the Iraqi's problem, not Amerika's. Mind your own goddamn business!

So because he is contained means you should just let the Iraqi's suffer so that when he dies he just hands it off to his son's who were just as brutal? What exactly did you plan on doing to help the iraqi's overcome saddam and his family. How exactly did you plan on putting them out of power?

So because he is contained means you should just let the Iraqi's suffer

Yes. This is precisely my take on it. Here's why:

The Iraqis needed to grow up on their own and take down Saddam on their own terms. "Freedom" and "liberation" only mean something to those who are willing to fight and give their lives for it; bush wrongfully denied the Iraqis that choice and threw away American lives for Iraqi lives.

The Iraqis still hate Americans. They still see us as invaders and occupiers. Some "gratitude".

The Iraqis still seem to want to kill each other; not much difference between that attitude and Saddam killing them - dead is dead either way.

So yes, we should have let the Iraqis "suffer" under Saddam until they grew big enough balls to take him down and join the ranks of those countries, including the USA, who fought for freedom.

"So yes, we should have let the Iraqis "suffer" under Saddam until they grew big enough balls to take him down"

Following that logic, heck, we should have let the Europeans "suffer" under Adolf Hitler until they grew big enough balls to take him down.

It's truly pathetic how the Fox New faithful in here continue to chant the Bush mantra, even after Bush himself disavowed himself from most of the pretexts for attacking Iraq. In the eyes of the true believers, Amerika can do no wrong, never, and that it is at its red, white and blue best not when it attends to its own affairs, but when it goes leaping out from the telephone booth in a single bound, cape flying behind it in the wind, as it flies off to squash third-world dictators and make the world safe for Democracy. Goofy has escaped from Disneyland.

As usual, Sarge tries, but fails, to confuse the issue.

Also, the headline is misleading; it should read george w. bush was 'hell bent' on Iraq invasion. Good Americans knew better.

As usual, USAFdude refuses to admit when he's wrong.

Also, the headline is misleading, it should read:

Democrats hellbent on defeat in Iraq

Noliving at 04:09 AM JST - 29th November Bush didn't declare mission accomplished, the navy did. I seriously don't understand why people still don't get it that it was the NAVY that put that mission accomplished banner up, bush had nothing to do with that banner and it was a mission accomplished as the mission was to overthrow saddam which they did.

I hate when the revisionist try to blame someone else for what someone had done.....

David Kuhn: "'Mission Accomplished' Revisited": April 20, 2004 "I wish the banner was not up there," said White House top political adviser Karl Rove in April, while speaking with the editorial board of The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch. "I'll acknowledge the fact that it has become one of those convenient symbols." [...] "We put it up. We made the sign," Fleischer said. "But I think it accurately summed up where we were at the time, mission accomplished...the mission was to topple Saddam Hussein."

Bush speech at "Camp As Sayliyah" "America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished," he said. Despite growing doubts at home and abroad, he reiterated that troops would find weapons of mass destruction, which were his rationale for striking first at Iraq.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-06-05-bush-qatar_x.htm

But that wasn’t entirely true. Later, Bush’s press secretary admitted that the sign was actually supplied by the White House. He said somebody in the carrier crew had asked for it, but who that might be remains a mystery.

http://www.factcheck.org/2003/12/is-this-a-great-job-or-what/

You are correct with one point, the sailors put up the sign, but it was the Bush White House that supplied it.....LOL

Facts are in such low demand from the far right.LOL

What I find funny is the ones who cry about all those in Iraq that died in war but didn't really care about them being killed by their own leader. But they believe America must obey it's own laws or be put in it's place by others if it doesn't. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. This diplomat can say all he wants. He'd be right but so what?

I don't think George Bush came up with the idea himself. His inner circle kind of pushed him into it as it made sense to them. It was a geopolitical decision which changed the course of history, for better or for worse. Opinions will long be divided on this.

If you consider the number of Iraqis who died -- for whatever reason -- as a result of the 2003 invasion, that total exponentially exceeds the number Saddam murdered. But just keep chanting your "USA, good; Saddam, bad. USA, good; Saddam, bad." mantra, Sarge -- it's obvious you never read "Animal Farm."

If you consider the number of Iraqis who died -- for whatever reason -- as a result of the 2003 invasion, that total exponentially exceeds the number Saddam murdered.

No, it doesn't. Got facts for what you say? No, you don't.

You can cite The Lancet but they lied about Iraq and most recently about global warming.

Bushlover is right. People like you, beelzebub, don't care about ordinary Iraqis or Afghanis, and it can be proven by pointing out that 'pacifists' and those who count themselves among the the anti-war crowd never cite, for example, UN stats that show demonstrable decline in things like infant mortality - since the Taliban was removed from power in Kabul, and since Hussein was ousted in Iraq.

Those are lives saved. But like bushlover said it's damned if you do, damned if you don't with you guys...

"USA, good; Saddam, bad. USA, good; Saddam, bad." Keep chanting your mantra, victimcrat. Since 2001 life has been hell for Afghans and Iraqis, and it's not about to get better soon. Nobody knows the body count and I don't claim to, but it certainly goes up by 50 or 100 every time another bomb goes off at a marketplace, mosque or police station. What good is improving infant mortality when babies are destined to grow up to be canon fodder for sectarian violence?

Cue the violins. It's the song the left never tires of singing - - everyone's a victim:

What good is improving infant mortality when babies are destined to grow up to be canon fodder for sectarian violence?

It's the song the left never tires of singing - - everyone's a victim:

No, it's called "having a conscience." And it would appear that the professed logic of those on the right is cloaked in a pathological lack of empathy for the misery they help to create.

victimcrat: People like you, beelzebub, don't care about ordinary Iraqis or Afghanis, and it can be proven by pointing out that 'pacifists' and those who count themselves among the the anti-war crowd never cite, for example, UN stats that show demonstrable decline in things like infant mortality - since the Taliban was removed from power in Kabul, and since Hussein was ousted in Iraq.

If one random claim does stick, feel free to go right off to the next. Round and round we go. You may eventually hit the broad side of a barn. Good luck with that.

I freely admit that I never did care very much about the Iraqis or the Afghanis, ESPECIALLY the Afghanis. I did however complain that imports of milk were being blocked into Iraq before the invasion. What was that about?

But if you think caring means blocking milk and bombing out the the infrastructure of a country to save it, I think you might suffer from caring too much while not having the guts to take the personal risks involved in such a venture. If you seek to liberate a people, you have to do it from the ground, not the air.

I argued with a friend about both invasions. The only thing we agree on was that even if I though we should not invade, at least when America would do the job right. Nope. We failed even there. The civil unrest was largely our own doing, and it seems to be because of cowardice and munitions companies wanting to sell bombs.

You lower rung war supporters do care I believe. Unfortunately, you don't have the foresight or guts to match your care and you are therefore dangerous. You guys are a powerful tool when you have smart people leading you. But when you have one who panders to your foolish care but lacks foresight and only wants money and power, like Bush, you do more harm than good. Wishful thinking won't change that. We are losing in Afghanistan and Iraq is far from a bosom buddy. They are not Kuwaitis.

It was all a mistake. Failure to admit it just makes us want to silence you further. The forgiveness of my heart has long since dried up, and it will never be full again until you guys MAN UP!

Everyone believes his country, no matter it's JP; India; CN; US; NK or Iraq... ,is morally perfect when he is young or too naive. Actually, not any one country, in history/ on earth, who never did anything wrong. This is a principle before we can really discuss any issue.

Beelzebub: If you consider the number of Iraqis who died -- for whatever reason -- as a result of the 2003 invasion, that total exponentially exceeds the number Saddam murdered.

You've got to be kidding me....

From numbskull - - "It was all a mistake. Failure to admit it just makes us want to silence you further. The forgiveness of my heart has long since dried up, and it will never be full again until you guys MAN UP!"

So are you going to 'man up' about being suckered into voting for a guy who has not pulled troops out of a supposedly failed Iraq, is sending more to Afghanistan, hasn't closed Gitmo and has kept all of Bush's expanded surveillance laws on the books?

Much easier to vent your immense frustration by imagining you slight the manhood of a stranger online with silly demands such as 'man up!' isn't it.

Beelzebub: No, it's called "having a conscience."

Again, please tell me you're joking. Allowing a genocidal dictator to stay to show that you have a conscience is a world that is completely upside down. If you're worried about the sectarian violence, just imagine Iraq when Saddam would have eventually fallen. With no international troops to keep them apart it would have literally been an exponential increase in bloodshed.

The situation is about the lesser of two evils. It's not about, "Oh, I read about a car bomb today so that means the invasion was bad." There are consequences for doing nothing, and at this point it looks like you're unwilling to include those consequences when you make you decision.

sarge,

"Following that logic, heck, we should have let the Europeans "suffer" under Adolf Hitler until they grew big enough balls to take him down."

Heh, even the junior atlas must show that the Germans are European, and that the Europeans fought Hitler longer than the Americans did.

It's bad enough reading silly comments about "the world being better off with saddam". How do you figure that, is there a Saddamometre to judge it by?

Iraq so far hasn't been much better off without Saddam. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead, and just stepping out doors is a lottery about getting blown up. Isn't Denial just brilliant?

Following that logic, heck, we should have let the Europeans "suffer" under Adolf Hitler until they grew big enough balls to take him down.

Insinuating that Europeans were too cowardly to stand up to Hitler and just sat around waiting to be saved is a huge insult to all those who fought in the war before America finally finished payrolling the Germans and got dragged kicking and screaming into the fight when Japan kicked sand in America's face. I suggest Sarge go and read a history book, then come back and apologise.

Shows what happens when you get your view of history from John Wayne films. Or movies.

"Since 2001 life has been hell for Afghans and Iraqis"

As if life before 2001 wasn't hell for Afghans and Iraqis.

"It was all a mistake" ( the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq )

Yes, it definitely would have been better to allow Saddam Hussein and the Taliban to continue their awful rule.

"Insinuating that the Europeans were too cowardly to stand up to Hitler"

I did not. I simply said they needed our help. I suggest Cleo go and read a history book. Sheesh.

"Iraq so far hasn't been much better off without Saddam. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead, and just stepping out doors is a lottery about getting blown up. Isn't Denial just brilliant?"

Again, you really have to question the motives and credibility of anyone who would so casually inflate the number of fatalities in Iraq. IraqBodyCount - an organization staffed by native Iraqis - currently puts the number of dead at between 94 and 103 thousand since the invasion and liberation of 2003, though if you look at the latest deaths (Nov 8) you see that even fatalities incurred during jewelry store robberies somehow qualify as valid entries...

sarge,

"I did not. I simply said they needed our help"

you did:

"Following that logic, heck, we should have let the Europeans "suffer" under Adolf Hitler until they grew big enough balls to take him down."

My European ancestors were never "under" Hitler. A few even died getting fighting alonside many other countries to get rid of him, so yeah - you're comments are more offensive than usual.

"f anyone who would so casually inflate the number of fatalities in Iraq. IraqBodyCount - an organization staffed by native Iraqis"

You mean an organization that clearly state their numbers are inferior due to the difficulty in recording thel in a war torn country?

Heh, an organization that you personally, along the other war supporters here on JT scoffed at......?

Until their number looked les shocking than other figures put out there that is...

"ou see that even fatalities incurred during jewelry store robberies somehow qualify as valid entries..."

Well, if they were members of police like certain bank robberies that have happened, I guess it's fair to say the rampant lawlessness and secratarian violence caused by Saddam's removal might have had the old cause and effect value.

"Iraq so far hasn't been much better off without Saddam"

According to who? You? Iraqis know they're better off.

According to who? You? Iraqis know they're better off.

The guy who threw the shoes. The people who cheered for him. They are Iraqi. You are not.

Yeah, if the guy who threw his shoes at Bush had decided for whatever reason ( and he would have had good reason ) to throw them at Saddam, he'd have been tortured and killed.

victimcrat:So are you going to 'man up' about being suckered into voting for a guy who has not pulled troops out of a supposedly failed Iraq, is sending more to Afghanistan, hasn't closed Gitmo and has kept all of Bush's expanded surveillance laws on the books?

I didn't vote, nor did I expect all promises to be kept (that would just be stupid). I considered Obama to the better choice. I did not expect him to be perfect.

Moving along: The timetable on Iraq was set before he came into office. Gitmo is not closed yet but it is making more progress in months than under Bush in years. Erasing laws is the job of Congress. And I don't remember any campaign promise about pulling out of Afghan and certainly not within a year. Quite the opposite in fact and I have disagreed with that from the get go. Oh well. What would McCain have done? More against my opinion, that is what!

So no, I did not get suckered into voting for the best of two far from perfect choices. At least he is not bombing Iran and even if he is mostly fluff its been better for our image than the guy who was mostly broken glass. That is the straight poop. So are you going to man up now?

I didn't vote, nor did I expect all promises to be kept (that would just be stupid).

not old enough yet?

Yeah, if the guy who threw his shoes at Bush had decided for whatever reason ( and he would have had good reason ) to throw them at Saddam, he'd have been tortured and killed.

Instead he's a national hero for protesting neo-colonialism. And btw, if America is so bent on removing bloodthirsty dictators, why doesn't it take down Kim Jong Il? Could it be because there's no petroleum in N. Korea?

same as england going hell bent on invading lands across the world for centuries.

"Insinuating that Europeans were too cowardly to stand up to Hitler and just sat around waiting to be saved is a huge insult to all those who fought in the war before America finally finished payrolling the Germans and got dragged kicking and screaming into the fight when Japan kicked sand in America's face."

And this comment is not an insult to North Americans?

Beelzebub: And btw, if America is so bent on removing bloodthirsty dictators, why doesn't it take down Kim Jong Il? Could it be because there's no petroleum in N. Korea?

Well, because we're humanitarians, right?

Either that or it could be that the world sat on their collective asses and watched NK become a nuclear power. You might recognize the "collective ass sitting" as the same policy you advocated for Saddam. But look at the bright side....no car bombs in Pyongyang today.

This shows what was behind this "humanitarian" war: money that bushists got during the war. I dont doubt in a near future Chenney, Rumsfeld and associates will be sentenced as war criminals.

[And btw, if America is so bent on removing bloodthirsty dictators, why doesn't it take down Kim Jong Il?]

I guess you don't know the consequences for a couple other countries if it did this. I'm sure it's on the books hypothetically but in reality it would affect South Korea and even Japan so I guess there is the reason they don't do it. They have commitments to other countries. Stop trying to deflect attention.

victimcrat: not old enough yet?

I asked you to man up. Instead you give me playground retorts?

Absentee ballots get chucked in the garbage, all of them.

Sarge, you really are displaying 'wrapped in the flag' syndrome something chronic.

Flippant comment. As if we'd have had nothing but peace and prosperity if we'd let Saddam Husssein continue to run Iraq into the ground, thumb his nose at the U.N. and seek to resurrect his WMD from his many luxurious palaces.

Yes, that "Mission Accomplised" sign on the aircraft carrier worked SO WELL didn't it? Iraq WAS already run into the ground; it was merely a matter of time before the people overthrew him.

A bit of history education (as you seem to severely lack it) would inform you that 'corrupt and tyrannical regimes' fall from the inside, led by the people. NOT by having supposed 'democracy' forced down their throat through the barrel of a gun.

The Gulf War of the early 90s was justified, because Iraq had invaded another sovreign state. The war of 2003 was NOT, because Iraq had not invaded anyone. Understand this; America will never 'win' in Iraq. Never. It is best to get out and let the Iraqis fix this mess. It will be an upheaval, but eventually it would happen.

If you're so concerned about dicators, why didn't Bush invade Syria or N. Korea? 'cos they could and would fight back. Typical American imperialist BS, which was repsonsible for Bin Laden in Afghanistan, and Saddam in Iraq. But less gloss over yet. At least you got those WMD's out of Iraq! HELL YEAH! USA!!

If you're so concerned about dicators, why didn't Bush invade Syria or N. Korea?

I agree with the rest of your post, but this is barking up the wrong tree. If your goal is to topple dictators you best not bite off more than you can chew. We have enough trouble with Iraq and Afghan at the mo.

And while soldier and citizen plebes like sarge might be along for the ride because they honsestly want to see dictators toppled, the aristocrats of the military/industrial complex only care enough to use that desire to fool them into fighting and supporting the profiteering. The bottom tier of the right is all heart and no brains.

"Empires never think the end is near, until the end is here. Empires think that more evil will force the heathens to toe the line -- and yet it never works. The heathens usually tear them to shreds." -- Michael Moore

Sorry Beelz, but quoting Michael Moore doesn't make you look too shmart.

The war was an illegal act and now we have a top UK government offial confirming that. End of story. Shame on you Blair. You sold out to the Labour party. You sold out the people of Great Britain by getting into bed with that maniac Bush and his neo-crims and you have the blood of all those innocent working-class soldiers you stuck on the front-line in the pursuit of at worst, a lie, and at best, a folly.

"Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?" Johnny Rotten

I used to have some element of doubts over just how far the big wigs in the US are ready to go, to get there way and fill there pockets. Believing that people can't surely be that twisted, arrogant and heartless. But after I saw a documentary, in which various figure heads were interviewed. One still rings in my head, where the former head of the CIA, when directly questioned (specifically about the hug list of names of various people who have gone missing and the families asking for there accounting) by the interviewer, responded along the lines of. That the world needs the US (as a police) even though it doesn't know or accept it. And he refused to acknowledge the people going missing even though the evidence being presented was so flaming clear. Eventually the twit actually said the US will continue to do whatever it takes to maintain its position and do what it believes is right. And casualties such as this, and in the future, are perfectly acceptable. Its then that it really became clear, that its just a sad fact that people in power are all just mad with well power and do whatever they can get away with to maintain it, no matter how messed up there actions are. And cheating, lying, twisting things comes hand in hand with that.

Preparation for the invasion began during the war in Kuwait not 2002. Try 1992. UK diplomat dumbazz.

It boggles my mind that this is even still being debated. As someone mentioned before, Isn't denial a wonderful thing?

Here's hoping the trickle of revelations becomes a full fledged flood. I for one still have my fingers crossed for a Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld war crimes tribunal.

we all knew, all us liberals that is, that bush was creating a huge lie so he could prove to Daddy he was a real man. Well, he failed like he has his entire life. This time totally.

What is really sad is that the right wing nutters still believe the lies told years and years ago. In fact some of them are still looking for WMD in Iraq even today. Or Syria or wherever. Such a a sad lot the deluded are. And now they love Palin, another liar. Its like the battered wife syndrome except they vote for their abuse.

Just the facts:

Anybody that is going to stand up for George Dubya and his lying-ass sad sacks of shit, cronies that were hell bent on invading Iraq, for oil and Dubya's "War President"legacy is/are not better than those Racist Japanese that deny Nanking or that Japan did anything wrong in WW2...

You're as bad them, even worse...

Afghanistan = The Right War: Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Taliban

Iraq = The Wrong War: George Dubya's War President Legacy, Cheney's stock prices (Former-CEO Haliburton) All Cheney's Friends get rich, no-bid contracts...ect, ect, ect...

North Korea has no oil, those Texas folks who got us into Iraq, don't give a damn about N.Korea!