Do you think we should have invaded Iraq?

1. 0

   The Minstrelposted 13 years ago

   I personally believe that invading Iraq was imperative. We had to take the war to Al Qaida and keep them occupied in the Middle East. Will we transform this ancient land into a Western form of democracy. I doubt it. However, we have rid the world of a cruel dictator, Saddam Hussein. What do you think?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      So you still follow the Bush idea that the Saudi Arabian Bin Laden family (who are good friends of the Bush family) whose son Ossama operated out of Afghanistan should be attacked in Iraq ?  You missed the news that Bush and Cheney fabricated the weapons of mass destruction thing ?  You missed the news that Cheney et al who operated this invasion are the same people who sold you all the weapons to do it  ?
      
      Your joking right ?

      replyreport
      1. 49

         Merlin5x5posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Yup, missed the news that bush and cheney fabricated WMD in Iraq, are you JUST that fucking stupid? WMD, poison weapons, are being uncovered in Iraq even recently, and they were definitely used against the Kurds, and the Iranians in the Iran - Iraq war.
         
         We can't help it if Bush ripped your dick off with a pair of pliers, but every once in a while, it would be great if you would NOT let your impotent bush rage work against your ability to perceive reality.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            The question is, can you find any proof of it that isn't on a right wing blog or news site?
            
            Wikileaks has revealed that American troops did, in fact, find chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, but primarily degraded ones in small stockpiles left over from previous wars. Also, many discoveries that were initially suspected of being weapons of some sort turned out to be harmless, such as a Baghdad stash of gas masks, gas filters, and....vitamins.
            
            Hardly the imminent threat trumpeted by the Bush administration.
            
            As for the weapons Saddam used against the Kurds and the Iranians, the United States sold them to him, so we're hardly in a position to complain about those!

            replyreport
         2. 80

            thisisoliposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Do you have sources on the WMD's being uncovered? Last I heard teh most they had found was some old (beyond use) chemical weapons from a decade ago. I will admit I have not been keeping up with that particular situation though.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I keep up with it and no they haven't found anything.  However there are many stories going the rounds like this, trying to blur reality and change the written history.  This is the way of diinformation in the information age, if everyone is able to know everything the answer is to make up loads of false information - it has the smae effect as censorship.

               replyreport
         3. 72

            Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            "are you JUST that %&*($ stupid?"
            Wow, rude much?
            
            "WMD, poison weapons, are being uncovered in Iraq even recently,"
            Are you just that ^&*(&*$% indoctrinated? There have been no such stockpiles found in Iraq since we invaded. None. If you can prove that there have, I'd love to see such proof, 'cos then I'll feel better about the entire country, since it'd mean that we weren't fooled into thinking the WMDs existed when they didn't.
            
            "they were definitely used against the Kurds, and the Iranians in the Iran - Iraq war."
            Dude, that was in the 80s. They used 'em up. Besides, the only reason they had them in the first place is that the US (under Reagan) supplied them.
            
            "We can't help it if Bush ripped your ^$*@ off with a pair of pliers,"
            Wow, you win the rudeness prize.
            
            I wish you were as good at rational discourse as you obviously are at trolling and making up ludicrous garbage to 'support' your argument.

            replyreport
   2. 50

      Cecifortruthposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      No, we had no real reason. That's it!

      replyreport
   3. 80

      thisisoliposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The war in Iraq was aggaisnt Saddam not the Al Qaida.
      
      And why is it America's place to change the culture of the rest of the world?

      replyreport
   4. 62

      pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      So you still follow the Bush idea that the Saudi Arabian Bin Laden family (who are good friends of the Bush family) whose son Ossama operated out of Afghanistan should be attacked in Iraq ? 

      replyreport
   5. 52

      Shinkickerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      There was no justification for invading Iraq, it was illegal and an imperial act to secure energy resources and a strategic hold. Over 1 MILLION civilians have died as a result in a horrific slaughter. There are plenty of cruel dictators in the world so no genuine motive to go for Saddam in particular.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Stump Parrishposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         As bad as Hussein was, I dont think he came close to killing the number of iraqis America has killed. Of course we killed them trying to help them so it's still makes the Rah Rah Killem' Right,  feel all warm and fuzzy.
         
         They needed that extra oil to fuel the Hummers and other huge SUVs the American government was pushing on the American public with tax incentives. The shut down the electric car that was a success with the full assistance of and at the request of, GM. They needed money to bribe Iraqi officials and convientently lost how many pallets of $100 bills? Too bad Cheney didn't put Halliburton or Blackwater on as guards of this much money, or did they? What I remember is that millions of dollars was simply misplaced, opps, my bad. Nothing ever came out of this except for some nice retiremnent packages for American officials, soldiers and or Haliburton/ Blackwater  execs.

         replyreport
         1. 49

            Merlin5x5posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Hate to break it to you, but Hussein is actually currently accused of killing MILLIONS of iraqis, not just the 14,000 he was convicted of. THAT case, made at the IRAQI trials of Saddam, was simply the clearest evidence of a direct command by Saddam personally, to destroy an entire Village of Kurdish individuals who had no military defense.
            
            By the way, Haliburton's government services division in IRAQ has made the same level of profit since before 9/11 2001, mostly because of government payment delays, and Haliburton spun it off and sold it two years ago. You don't follow actual business, do you?

            replyreport
   6. 59

      artladerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      > Do you think we should have invaded Iraq?
      
      No.

      replyreport
   7. 59

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Al Qaeda =/= Iraq.

      replyreport
   8. 65

      PhoenixVposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Decisions like these are probably not made by politicians or political parties or polls. Unfortunately, probably not by Congress nor the Will of the People, either anymore.
      
      More than likely decisions to invade or occupy countries is made by The Pentagon and Intelligence Agencies.
      
      I have a strong feeling that it is no "coincidence" that we have been keeping a military presence in that area, even with and despite invasions of Kuwait, human rights violations, al Quaeda, terrorism etc...but to be around as some of those other countries develop nukes and nuke delivery systems.

      replyreport
   9. 61

      Shahid Bukhariposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Did you, or did you not, Impeach Nixon ... for invading someone's Privacy in the United States ... in an invasion, involving the taping an opponents phone conversations ... and Phone tapes, being considered enough evidence,  for kicking him out of the President's office, disgracefully  ...
      
      I ask, was Monica Lewinsky's "calim" more important ... than that of any other wendy, or mary ... but made into Americas Moral Issue, by your Media ... enough, to utterly disgrace, another US President ... Bill Clinton ?
      
      So tell me, how could you justify, the physical invasion, of millions of people of any country ... not necessarily Iraq, invaded, within the alibi of Chemical Weapons and Saddam ...
      
      Afghanistan, within the alibi of harbouring the long dead Osama bin Laden ... or Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon, as direct threats to Israel and the Jews ... or Sudan, as being Anti Christian Islamic fundamentalist State ... or your eyeing of Pakistan's Defensive Nuclear Arms, against India's ambitious Militancy's threat  ...or Iran's Peaceful Energy orientated Nuclear Program ?
      
      Do you not hear, the agonized shreiks of the Muslim Kashmiris, being tortured by cowardly Indian Etremists ... I am sure, you cannot hear the wailings of orphaned children, and widowed wives ... the lamentations of mothers and fathers... who have lost their sons and daughters, to this Hindu insanity ?
      
      And do you really believe, your Politicians send in the Troops, Bomb and destroy a country, kill and maime, its people, including the innocent, one and two years old ones ... to Rescue them ... From what ... Life ... Love ... ?
      
      Do you think, your hired leaders should have your support to invade any people, any country, just because, they make you think, that you are the only Civilized bunch of people, with the most advanced military, in the world ... because, you pay your taxes, fear Banks and pay credit card and gas bills, honestly.
      
      Because some among you think, that the rest of human kind ... Particularly, the Muslims, are inferior, to the Christians, Jews or the Hindus ... who can now be Invaded, within the alibi of Terrorism  ?
      
      Hitler was a Racist ... he talked of a Superior Aryan Race ... he was Co-Responsible, for killing of 69 million Humans, of whom 6 million are claimed as being Jews ... in the Second World War ...  his alibi was  "Living Space, for the Superior, Aryans ..."
      
      And so it will be, this time round ... Watch out, if you can ... your "Hired" politicians ... Rein in the Press and Medis Barons, Clip the wings of Multinationals and Corporations ...if you can ... These have the same criminal capacities, as of the now dead tyrants ... and if not stopped, they will push the Real Holocaust unleashing button, while aiming at the wrong places, the innocent people, at the wrong time.   
      
      Though now they have managed an alibi, to do all this, under the National Security Act, allowing them to Invade within the law... and so think their after-crime apology and a few few dollars as compensation for human life ... will exonerate them of their committed crimes.

      replyreport
      1. 49

         Merlin5x5posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I hope you realize that the Palestinians, PLO, Hamas, and AL QAEDA still revere the HITLER regime, and Mein Kampf is still sold on the Arab street corner. The entire region follows this crap because The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammed Amin Al Husayni, was a LEADER of the Arab Legion, that allied itself with Hitler, inspired and supported the Holocaust, and began this Nonsense that Judea doesn't belong to the Jews.
         They still have Husayni on posters in Palestine, and the PLO website.

         replyreport
   10. 75

       Wesman Todd Shawposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I'm sorry, I think you are completely zombiefied via mass media.  Put a hammer through your television screen, stop reading corporate newspapers; and join the real world.
       
       Love,
       ~WTS~

       replyreport
   11. 49

       Merlin5x5posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Yeah, I believe invading Iraq was imperative also.
       For one thing, it's in the center of the Arab world.
       The democracy, even beginning, in IRAQ is what
       set both IRAN and TUNISIA on fire with RIOTS for
       the democracy the left wing here in the US hates.
       Now there are people in every near east country,
       from Egypt to Syria, burning themselves alive
       to try and establish exactly what IRAQ now has.

       replyreport
   12. 72

       Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Invading Iraq was irresponsible, a diversion of attention and resources from the immediate goal, and a commitment of resources (blood, time, and treasure) to a vague goal with very poorly defined parameters. It also squandered the worldwide goodwill that the US enjoyed in the aftrmath of 9/11.
       
       Further, there was no proven connection between Saddam's regime and alQaida, there were no weapons of mass destruction, and even if there had been extant WMDs in Iraq, the mere possession of weapons is not enough to make a legitimate casus belli.
       
       Even in a realpolitik analysis it comes up short. We didn't get our cheap oil; we still haven't got a stable, democratic Iraq allied to the US.
       
       The Iraq invasion was a colossal mistake by every measure.
       
       Of course, the question is moot: the US did invade Iraq, and now we've got to deal with the fallout.

       replyreport
2. 64

   lilyflyposted 13 years ago

   It's pretty much an established fact that Osama was trained by CIA. Osama was a rich Arab, who went off the rails. Saudi Arabia, an ally of the U.S. funds Terrorists all the time. For centuries the different sects of Muslims have torn Iraq apart, and Sadam , altho brutal, kept the peace. When we removed Sadam, we removed all restraint in the population.
   So, now were fighting an open ended war, because Economic hit men went in and decided we needed their oil. Heck, do you think for one minute we cared about Sadam? We cared about the oil.
   Getting back to Osama... Bush and the Royal Saudi Family are intertwined so deeply, that when Bush was reading to those children, and 911 hit, all he could think of was how badly he had screwed the pooch this time, because all he wanted was the money from the royals. Well, there's lots more. Maybe read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

   replyreport
3. 62

   Lisa HWposted 13 years ago

   I've never really quite known what to believe about that, because I've never really quite known who to believe or not believe about so many things associated with it.
   
   I think it's good someone did something about Hussein, his sons, and his buddies.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I think that it would have been more ethically correct to do away with Bush and Cheney and the other arms salesmen that are the Bush family.
      
      And the whole idea of doing something about Hussein violated every international law and ideas of sovereignty, when that issue comes back to bite the US one day in the future you won't be able to complain I guess.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Randy Godwinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         To hear some from the right on these forums, they should be glad for some other country to invade us and release them from the tyranny of Obama's reign. 

         replyreport
      2. 59

         Stump Parrishposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Surely you jest China, you don't think it's actually possible to stop americans from complaining do you? Talk to any of them around here and they will tell you how many countries out there are just waiting to have America save them from themselves ,or their culture and beliefs. We still have a majority that thinks America is the best at everything. They think so highly of themselves they can't imagine the whole world NOT wanting to be just like them.
         
         I am pushing to have "Stupid is as Stupid does" declared America's new national motto.

         replyreport
4. 92

   habeeposted 13 years ago

   I'm sure many Iraquis are glad Hussein is gone, but was it our job to get rid of him? I'm tired of the US playing world police.
   
   I was for the war at first, when I believed that Iraq had WMDs. Most Americans supported it. Of course, hindsight is 20-20.
   
   A related question: When we provide help to struggling nations, do we always have an ulterior motive? Do we do more harm than good? Should we help fellow Americans first?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The myth that the US is a world police and 'helps struggling nations' would be nicer to believe than the reality that it is only ulterior motive. Especially for armed servies who have to come to terms with the fact that they have been used as mercenaries to line someone's pocket, and to the rest of the world they are not the hero they thought they were, just another hitman wandering around foreign countries.
      
      The same goes for the UK where I was used in the armed forces - in case you think I am attacking the US.

      replyreport
      1. 92

         habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I partially agree with you, but what about places like Haiti? What was "our" motive there?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Just harder to see - and NOT being there would have been a media disaster given that most other countries WERE there, including a big contingent from China - I guess that didn't make it onto Fox news there though ?

            replyreport
            1. 92

               habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I dunno - I mostly watch CNN when I watch TV news, and it was on CNN. I assume you're talking about help from the US Government - not from private groups and individuals.

               replyreport
         2. 83

            kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Guilt, I would hope, but knowing the history of US foreign policy in Haiti, it's more likely to be something sinister.
            
            The US and Haiti have a long an ugly history (though not, at least, as ugly as that of Haiti ad France) but the most recent way we've screwed them over is by getting the IMF to force Haiti to open up its ports to cheap rice from the US. Our heavily subsidized rice out-competed native Haitian farmers, and drove them into cities such as Port-au-Prince looking for work, where most ended up jammed on top of each other in slums, many built out of little more than rubble.
            
            The rest, as they say, is history.
            
            More on "Miami rice" : http://globalhealthnexus.typepad.com/gl … od-cr.html
            
            For more on the history of the US and Haiti, check out this post, which - true to the URL - is an angry rant, but one that includes links to a lot of helpful background material: http://theangryblackwoman.com/2010/01/1 … -to-drink/

            replyreport
   2. 62

      Lisa HWposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      ...  which is why I've never been quite sure about how I feel about what happened.  Still, there have been times when horrible things were going on, and "everyone" wondered why the US didn't get involved, or why it didn't get involved sooner.
      
      If what we were all told/led to believe about what was going on with so many of the people in Iraq was true, that situation was a pretty extreme and bizarre one, and not one of those situations where there are - like - two warring sides but not necessarily one tyrant responsible for stuff that wasn't even really about "different sides".
      
      Personally, I can't say I approved of "other mothers' sons and daughters" being sent to a hell hole for the particular purposes they were; but the one thing I've always thought about is what it must be like to be in some of the situations some of those Iraqi citizens were, and to keep hoping someone might come and do something about what's going on.
      
      Anyone who has even sampled living under oppression has (if only a little) some taste of what it's like to keep waiting and waiting for someone to come stop what's happening.  People would sometimes say, "Where is their Thomas Jefferson?  Why haven't they been able to get themselves together?"  When oppression is truly  entrenched and "effective", it can be pretty resistant to Jefferson-like efforts to escape it.
      
      If my family and I were living under the kind of
      "government" those people were, I have to say I'd be hoping someone from another country would come in and do something to stop it.  Yes, I'd probably hope they'd leave once we were freed from that kind of horror; but I wouldn't care what country came in if it meant they would stop what was going on.  There's a difference between helping a struggling nation and trying to put a stop to the kind of stuff that was going on under that regime.
      
      I don't think that particular aspect of the Iraq war was a matter of "just being police" at the time.  I'm not sure how any human being with a conscience could be OK with saying, "It isn't our business.  Sorry that our 'brothers and sisters' over there are suffering the way they are, but it isn't our responsibility."  Then again, as I said, from the time it began I was sickened and horrified to think that those young American (and other) soldiers were being sent into that awful place, when - really - what they signed up for to defend their own country.  I can't help it:  There's still a part of me that thinks, "what makes the lives and limbs of those young Americans any less important than the lives and limbs (and hands and fingers) of a bunch of people who may or may not want to be "rescued"?
      
      I'll tell you...  morality, conscience, and "brotherhood-of-man" aside; I'm the first to struggle with my own hypocrisy because my children and I live in freedom, peace, and relative safety because of someone else's sacrifices in war; I so deeply believe people shouldn't stand by and just let others suffer so much at the whims of psycho dictator; and yet as I raised my children I emphasized over and over again, "Whatever you do, stay away from the military.  You don't know what you might be signing up for, and they can tell you it's for four years and then decide it will turn into 25 years."
      
      I'm the daughter of a WWII veteran, and a mother whose first young husband was killed in that war as well.  I'm both not at all peace, and completely at peace, with having successfully managed to convince my own kids that the military is something to stay away from.   Then again, do I think it would be great if every American mother raised their kids as I have?  No.  But, do I want some other mother's son or daughter to be sent to some of these places they get sense?  No again.   
      
      So, I can't settle into one spot when it comes to knowing how I feel about that war.  Personally, and in my heart, I really don't think the life and limbs of even one of those young Americans should have been risked for the people, country, and purposes they were.  So, it goes on and on, and I never come around to making peace with any of it, with that exception of knowing in my heart that if someone is suffering in horrible, cruel, oppression; it's a pretty conscience-less thing to turn your head and walk away.
      
      That's why I can't settle into one or another "stand" on the war.  I was not in favor of sending those other mothers' sons and daughters into such a place at the beginning, and I never changed how I felt about that.  Still, I can't make peace with the idea of human beings living the way they were and other human beings just standing back and saying, "It's not our business."  Basically, when it comes to that aspect of things, I think the US was faced with two rotten and objectionable choices.
      
      I can see why x percent of the Iraq population would hate (for a number of reasons) the US for getting involved, and I wouldn't blame them for that either.
      
      As far as the sovereignty laws, the way I see it is this:  We have laws that say "Fred on Main Street" may not break into his neighbor's house.  We take those laws seriously.  If Fred is out in his yard one day, and he hears his neighbors screaming for help; or even if he she and her kids aren't able to scream for help, he has someone figured out that she and her kids are being brutally attacked and/or being held captive in their own basement.  Suppose Fred calls the police, but there's some reason they can't/won't follow up (or follow up immediately). So suppose Fred breaks into that house, kills the attacked who is in the process of harming his victims, and gets the neighbor and her children out.  Is Fred a "big, horrible, evil, criminal"?  Yes.  We have laws against breaking into people's houses.
      
      Whenever there's discussion about the Iraq war, there's always so many people who have reduced it all down, in their own mind, to the old, "Bush, oil, money, blah-blah"  or else have reduced it down, in their "ever-so-enlightened" minds to the simple fact that America is just a big, pushy, country that "feels free to take over whatever country it feels like taking over".
      
      It must be nice to see things this complicated, sickening, heartbreaking, multi-faceted, and conflicting with such simplicity; and to be able to come to such "concrete-solid" sureness and conclusions; because - I don't know.. - I started hearing about the whole Iraq horror and mess back in the eighties when my kids were babies (today they're all over 25), I still haven't been able to settle into that kind of certainty about how I feel about any of it.
      
      I know whenever it's difficult to settle into taking one stand or another on some big issue, sometimes we just have to find some way to go with the least objectionable of the two rotten options.  What I've never been able to figure out in all these years, is how anyone who has considered all that there is to be considered (and considered that there is always yet more that goes into this stuff than the average citizen will ever be told) can ever get to so 100%-certain the side he's settled on is, without a doubt, the only justifiable and right (as in correct - not as in  "Conservative-versus-Liberal") one.
      
      All I know is that the day before the first Iraq war was to get under way, my grammar-school aged son sat at the kitchen table, worried, and said, "Do you think we're going to go to war?" I told him I didn't know, but that one way or another, we'd be OK.  An awful lot of other mothers in this world haven't been able to assure their children (with a certain degree of confidence) that all will be OK (for one reason or another).  There's been a high, high, price (of one kind or another) that has been paid for this particular war we're talking about here; so - you know what? - within that whole, big, picture and context of history, if somebody ended up with some financial gain somewhere along the way; to me, there's almost a kind of "so-what?" aspect to that.    So, call me "a materialistic and evil American"....   
      
      It's not easy being someone who can't seem to see things in black-and-white, and who isn't willing to form certain and solid conclusions based on insufficient information and the ability to give in to the resistance to having to see "gray" and not getting to feel either superior or else not being able to settle comfortably into certainty (whether it's completely correct, partially correct, or absolutely dead wrong).  There's no hasty picking a side and then moving on to be equally certain in a discussion about football or the economy.    Maybe I'm the only person in the world who has had quite so many struggles with conscience over the war; but just in case I'm not, I figured it was time someone speak for those of us who just haven't really come up with "all the answers" quite so easily.
      
      If you've gotten this far down into this long post, you've just witnessed, I guess, a rant/venting that has been years and years in the making.     I would have turned it into a Hub, but I don't want to be dealing with political comments on my Hubs long after my rant/vent is over.   

      replyreport
      1. 49

         Merlin5x5posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Ok, so you are a materialistic and evil american.
         IF you have sons, you are old enough to remember when there were 36 Communist countries in the world, NOW, there are 6, and two of them are loaning us money to finance our public debt. From South American converting to democracies (and getting rich), to East Asia and China itself, every nation that USED to think like you do, converted to a free market, and a democracy in YOUR lifetime.
         IRAN and AFGHANISTAN together, have never equaled the monthly death toll in CHICAGO, even DURING the invasion. That city is the harbinger of what happens when people think like you, not Baghdad.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            sabrebIadeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            US death toll in Iraq since 2003: 4436
            http://icasualties.org/iraq/index.aspx
            Death Toll in Chicago since 2003: 3807
            Pretty darn close.
            You might have topped it with Detroit.
            Of course that's just US dead

            replyreport
5. 83

   kerrygposted 13 years ago

   I have been opposed to the Iraq War from the start. I didn't believe Saddam had WMDs, and didn't regard it as America's right to sweep in and remove him just because he was a horrible person, especially since we've known he was a horrible person for decades but turned a blind eye to it when he was our ally against the Iranians. We actually sold him the chemical weapons he used to kill his own people.
   
   The idea of "taking the war to al Qaida" by invading Iraq is also ludicrous to me. Al Qaida wasn't in Iraq until we let them in. Hussein was a secularist and had no tolerance for religious extremists, especially violent ones. Osama hated him almost as much as he hates us.
   
   I think invading Iraq will go down in history as one of America's greatest foreign policy blunders ever.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      EmpressFelicityposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      +1.  And by extension, Britain's.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Buffoonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         +2

         replyreport
         1. 76

            Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Best example on how to create a Frankenstein

            replyreport
6. 0

   ahorsebackposted 13 years ago

   So many of you have got to catch up with reality! No longer , and it will happen again!, can the rest of the world stand by when the rumors of , or the weapons themselves , of mass destruction are played with by the Idiot's of the world, face it ! The idealistic mentality of the 60's peace faries , has got to sprinkle some reality powder in your hair. Pray for peace !

   replyreport
   1. 0

      china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I quite agree - the sooner America is disarmed the better.  The idea of lunatics like Bush driven by kill for profit evil people like Cheney in control of such destructive power is beyond belief.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         EmpressFelicityposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I'm not a fan of Bush, Cheney etc. either but your comment is a bit simplistic to say the least.  America isn't the only offender when it comes to warmongering - it just happens to have enjoyed the top spot for the last few decades because it's been in the top spot economically.  We Brits were top warmonger before that, and other countries before that. 
         
         The situation could well change as China and Russia catch up economically.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Lets all hope then that when China takes over the top spot, as it is predicted to do within twenty years or less, that their civilized, non aggressive, non colonizing attitude holds good.  And just maybe their publicly stated and intrinsic humanity will go easy on the warmongers of the past and lead to an era of increased peace around the owrld ?

            replyreport
            1. 83

               kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               China has done its fair share of conquering neighboring countries.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Really?  got a list ?

                  replyreport
                  1. 83

                     kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     East Asian history is a weak point for me, so no, I don't, but my understanding is that the unification of China involved a fair bit of conquest and bloodshed perpetrated on neighboring kingdoms, and that China's influence in Southeast Asia has not always been benign (from the perspective of the locals, at any rate). The Trung rebellion in Vietnam comes to mind, for example, as does the current situation in Tibet. Both situations are obviously more complicated than China=bad, Vietnam/Tibet=good, but painting China as morally superior to the US or Europe seems pretty questionable to me. Any culture is capable of warmongering and imperialism given half the chance.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        The point is that western 'civilisation' is built on colonial expansion - Chinese 'civilisation' is built on internal unification.  At the time the west was taking lands from indigenous peoples China burnt its fleet and secured its borders.  Maybe not such a good idea as the west and Japan invaded constantly throughout the last five hundred years until the 40's.
                        
                        China's history has included invasion from and some kind of unification with Mongolia, of which they now control half. Tibet historically controlled a large part of south western China but gradually diminished to what we now call Tibet, which they annexed in the 50's - they say they brought it back into China where it had been for most of its history, which is at least half-true.  The new provinces came under China with the collapse of the Alexandrian era - as they hardly 'belonged' to any particular state or flag.
                        
                        The Vitnamese, and Lao peoples were origianlly Chinese who 'colonised' those coutries and are related closely to the people I live with here in Guilin, the Huang people - who became a comfortable part of China eventually only when they became part of the Communist Revolution which finally drove out the occupying powers of the west and in particular Japan.
                        
                        I don't think they ever tried to subjugate any of the other surrounding countries - but I could be wrong.  They seemed more intent on keeping their land borders behind a buffer of smaller countries which they generally support quite well if memory serves me correctly, the victory of the Vietnamese was only possible with the total support of the Chinese.  Interestingly enoough the feisty Vietnamese are constantly challenging Chinese territorial rights over islands between their coastlines, and it far easier for me to get a visa for Vietnam than it is for my Chinese partner.

                        replyreport
7. 60

   logic,commonsenseposted 13 years ago

   That's like asking if we should have invaded Germany or Japan.  What does it matter?   We did it.  Lets move on.  Continued beating of a dead horse will only bring the ASPCA.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Not really - it will just lead to you doing it over and over again until you dissapear in a puff of self induced smoke.
      
      History is how you determine the future - and your history of being wrong in foreign adventures is a matter of history.  You were wrong to create the devastating escalation of the Vietnamese conflict, wrong to aggravate the death and destruction in central america and wrong in Iraq.
      
      History says that you should reduce your armed forces and stay at home before you cause real trouble.

      replyreport
8. 60

   Christopher Priceposted 13 years ago

   Although Bush (W) wanted to finish the invasion his father had declined to be sucked into, and the Military/Industrial Complex   pushed for a war that ballooned their profits and the national deficit at taxpayer expense, and oil reserves are always a good excuse for a war the real reason for the Iraq war can be traced to the long term plan of the hard-core Conservatives who want to put an end to Social Security and the entitlement programs started by FDR. Bush professed he would dismantle Social Security when he was in college, and he and his master puppeteers still intend to do exactly that.
   By putting the nation in debt deeply enough that programs must be cut, Social Security will be weakened and eventually cut while defense budgets will never fall.

   replyreport
9. 0

   ahorsebackposted 13 years ago

   Ok , scenario ; We close our borders, pull our military, into our own borders , reduce our economy to only domestic policies , no more foreign aid , no patroling the seas in defence of anyone , us or them , Stop buying and selling in foriegn countries. Kick the UN. out ! Increase our social programs to allow our own people to prosper, Essentially become Swiss.
      How long do you think you would have a FREE country, 30 % of the world economy = US. Half of the worlds defence =US. Most of the world peace and prosperity=  US. To what end is all the "Bush Blame" if Obama is wallowing in the same and worse pattern of governing? Increasing the deficit by half ? I don't see that hope and change happening very quickly. We don't like 10% unemployment , try 30 %, !
      Discourse and dialog is a good thing ! But aren't we all just beating dead horses.  We all are enslaved to America  Inc., All of us!  Our economy is turning into a welfare state for wall street , for energy companies , and any corporations chosen tax write off. Our schools are in major failure mode ,
   And about one percent attend on town meeting day ! Media [free speech] by 99 % is owned and operated by the Murdocks and the Hearsts ,  Maybe  half of Americans even vote ! But the other half? where are they , here , blaming Bush! Ask yourself this ;who are your local state reps.? Senators? Congressmen ? Do you even know? No ?  That must be Bushes fault too!

   replyreport
   1. 83

      kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, Switzerland ranks higher on the democracy AND quality of life indexes than the United States does:
      
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index (2010 rankings - Switzerland is 8th, the US 17th)
      
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index (2005 rankings - Switzerland is 2nd, the US 13th)

      replyreport
      1. 0

         china manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         But then Switzerland would - as it maintains its economy by banking a large segment of the world - including large chunks of otherwise illegal funds.  It pays to be excessively neutral of course - as they demonstrated during the second world war.

         replyreport
      2. 72

         Kangaroo_Jaseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Australia is 6th & 6th....interesting. I didn't think Auslandia would rate that high and I live here.

         replyreport
10. 0

    Aleister888posted 13 years ago

    No, but i will spare you all my political views.

    replyreport
11. 72

    Kangaroo_Jaseposted 13 years ago

    The long answer is ...... no

    replyreport
12. 0

    china manposted 13 years ago

    wow

    replyreport
13. 61

    sir slaveposted 13 years ago

    I thought this was settled
    its a mistake to to invade any country on false pretext.
    especially when your goals (oil) shine through to the smart crowd...or 'focus group" as we were called back then.

    replyreport
14. 60

    sagar hubpagesposted 13 years ago

    Hoooooooo. too good

    replyreport