Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It posed no threat to the united states not then not now 13 years of war
Which is 3 more than Vietnam and for what???
Nobody does it better sing it Carley Simon
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,363,738 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by djacques
There's the rub: people don't all want freedom--at least not for people other than themselves and their own set. That sort of drippy guff is realistic only in the brain of the likes of Bush.
Like all good propaganda, that lie that "everyone wants freedom" is based on a half-truth: that everyone would like freedom for themselves and their own gang. Freedom for the other guy? Not so much.
Even if they all did want freedom, fighting for them when they won't fight for themselves (as recently demonstrated by the Iraqi Army) is a fool's errand.
Um....the article said this information was known in 2004 under GW Bush's administration. I don't see the need for any "left" apology:
From the article:
Quote:
In September 2004, months after Sergeant Burns and Private Yandell picked up the leaking sarin shell, the American government issued a detailed analysis of Iraq’s weapons programs. The widely heralded report, by the multinational Iraq Survey Group, concluded that Iraq had not had an active chemical warfare program for more than a decade.
The group, led by Charles A. Duelfer, a former United Nations official working for the Central Intelligence Agency, acknowledged that the American military had found old chemical ordnance: 12 artillery shells and 41 rocket warheads. It predicted that troops would find more.
The report also played down the dangers of the lingering weapons, stating that because their contents would have deteriorated, “any remaining chemical munitions in Iraq do not pose a militarily significant threat.”
Gotta love it when people can't just admit the party they follow ****ed up and try to spin it back on you. Regardless of what Clinton did, he wasn't involved in taking Saddam out of power. We had nothing to do with Egypt and Syria, so I don't know why you are mentioning those. As for Libya, you are correct. It was boneheaded to get involved when at the end of the day Gaddafi was effective.
Which Egypt regime change do you think "we had nothing to do with?" The ouster of Hosni Mubarak, the military coup to retake power from the Muslim Brotherhood, or both? I'm going to go ahead and point out that it is naive to think that the United States had no role in either of those. We almost certainly protected Mubarak until it was no longer expedient (and then urged him to give in). We almost certainly supported the military's retaking of power from the Muslim Brotherhood, as well.
As to Syria, I find it hard to believe that the U.S. was playing no role in the arming and training of rebel forces (as close ally Turkey had taken the lead in doing so on the ground).
Don't forget that Bush's doctrine was one that hope to democratize the Mid East. He and his admin were hoping that a free and domocratic Iraq would work as a force to create a domino effect and topple dictatorial goverments, as people wanted freedom.
And the US will force it on them until they like it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
