Should a historical perspective on the U.S. dalliance in Iraq be called A Comedy of Errors?

Question

apologies to Shakespeare, but I mean...

So we sell massive amounts of weapons and chemical reagents to Hussein in the 80's, the we kick him out of Kuwait after he uses his weapons we sold him, then gasses the Kurds with chemicals we blostered him with, then, he says he has no WMD's, the UN agrees, then, we invade on the premise of him holding WMD's and ties to Al Qaeda, then, we find he didn't, then, get booged down and spend 1/2 trillion in the process. Sounds way too funny to be real...

ZH I stand corrected, Hussein DID gas the Kurds after the Iran Iraq war, and, prior to the next one, but, my point stands.

Answer 1

You may be too young (not meant as an insult) or ill-informed to remember what actually happened.

Both Saddam and Osama had been "allies" at one time, but proved (as most of our Islamic "allies" have) to be false. We are not a psychic nation, nor do we have crystal balls, so the expectation that we should never deal with anyone who might possibly do something wrong or turn against us is politically foolish, as it would limit us to Great Britain and few others).

The chemicals we gave him were not for WMDs nor intended for that. When he started processing the chemicals (you'd be surprised how many household things can be used offensively) we opposed him and prepared to stop him.

When he attacked Kuwait, we defended them, and repeatedly asked him to stop. He attacked us, and we forced him back repeating our request multiple times before reaching Baghdad.

The U.N. did NOT agree that he had no WMDs, and in fact complained that he was constantly playing games and lying to them, when he agreed to full cooperation. He bragged to his friends that he had WMDs. He shot at our troops over the no-fly zone. He tried to assassinate one of our Presidents. He funded terrorists in Israel (one of our allies).

He lied and played games for a decade between while the U.N. threatened and did nothing and he continued to kill all opposition in his country.

It was not President Bush that tried to narrow the invasion down to a single, rather naive idea that Iraq was tied to Al-Qaeda, but his opponents, who continue to think in single digit concepts about this issue (whether opposing or supporting, its foolish to do this).

You may not think it is important to:

defend our allies;
stop those who turn against the world;
stop those who commit mass murder;
stop those who encourage terrorism;
trade goods with those who are Islamic;
act while others make excuses;
face terrorism there rather than wait for it to come here, again.

We remember. It's not funny. It's WWIII.
Have you really already chosen sides this way?

Answer 2

When Iran implodes and there cultured, MODERATE, educated population rises up and supports a military coupe within their own country you will see the benefit of this so called comedy of errors.
Iran will go bankrupt as did the former USSR. Their population is used to living comfortably yet their proud heritage would push them into fighting ANYONE who invaded their country.

Thus by invading Afghanistan on their eastern border and Iraq on their western border we impose such pressure for them to procure nukes they go bankrupt in their pursuit.

Thus the extremist/terrorist supporting regime in Iran falls from within with the United States sustaining the least amount of American casualties.

In the end whether Democrat leadership or Republican this will be the ultimate goal and GWB will eventually get the credit for being a visionary.

BTW Einstein....even Saddams top generals were under the impression that they had WMD's at their disposal. Why shouldn't the rest of the world believe he had therm

Answer 3

Either you don't know what you are talking about, or you are a bald faced liar.
1) We 'kicked him out' of Kuwait?!
He attacked a benign neighbor for Gods sake - the same UN you are trying to use to denigrate America BEGGED us to oust Hussein in Kuwait.
You simply have no idea what you're talking about!
2)The UN NEVER agreed that he 'had no WMD' - that is a complete falshood.
This is the reason liberals are not taken seriously in these discussions.
Argue the FACTS.
Your hypothesis is fatally flawed because you are manufacturing 'evidence' to bolster your case that simply does not exist.

Answer 4

Ya but a critical error in your statement was the reversal of 2 events he gassed the Kurds before the Kuwait invasion. Of course we knew about it and well noone felt at that time he was a supremely evil monster that needed to be removed from power. I do enjoy the eloquence of your question format.

Answer 5

Desperate People are Dangerous People



The Bush regime knows that America 's days as the world's superpower are numbered. The eclectic conglomeration (i.e. the obscenely rich, mammoth corporations, lobbyist groups, Israeli interests, the Religious Right), which holds the true power in our nation behind the facade of a federal republic, is painfully aware of its impending demise under the existing paradigm. Desperation has led them to commit criminal acts of the most heinous variety. Defying international law and shredding the US Constitution, our rogue government has made the Patriot Act domestic law, has instituted torture as a policy of the US military, has launched an illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation based on lies, has increased the magnitude of our nation's egregious acts of state terrorism, is sweeping away what is left of Posse comitatus, is utilizing Jose Padilla to eliminate the right to due process and habeas corpus, has raised the nation's debt to incomprehensible levels, has increased military spending to the point of insanity, and has begun the starvation of the dreaded "welfare state". Good-bye American Dream. Hello to the American Nightmares of Social Darwinism, overt imperialism, unconcealed tyranny, and relentless state terrorism.

Answer 6

Given the shown fact that George W. Bush have been “The President of the u . s . a .” for long adequate to have had slightly one (approximately 9 months) with the help of 9/11/01 – and longer – plenty longer than that, with the help of the time we invaded Iraq, “bill” became / is an irrelevant participant interior the “activity” we pick to call “American Politics”, with the help of that factor.

Answer 7

The world changed for many -- apparently not you -- after 9/11.

-- Saddam Hussein violated numerous United Nations resolutions following the first Persian Gulf War. Saddam's military continuously shot at U.S. and British planes patrolling the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones. He offered $25,000 to families of homicide bombers. We know he possessed chemical and biological weapons because he used them during the Iraq/Iran war, and on his own people, the Kurds.

-- The October '02 National Intelligence Estimate concluded with "high confidence" -- the highest certainty allowed -- that Saddam possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. All 16 intelligence agencies contributing to the NIE unanimously agreed on the chemical and biological weapons assumptions, with disagreement only on how far along Saddam was toward acquiring nukes.

-- Weapons inspectors found no WMD stockpiles, leading many Americans to feel that the president either lied or cherry-picked intelligence to lead us into war. But the Robb-Silverman Commission concluded that the president didn't lie. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee's 511-page report concluded that the president did not lie. The British Butler Commission, which examined whether Prime Minister Tony Blair "sexed up" the intelligence to make a case for war, concluded the PM didn't lie.

-- Kenneth Pollack, an opponent of the Iraq war, served as Iraq expert and intelligence analyst in the Clinton administration. Pollack writes that during his 1999-2001 tour on the National Security Council, " . . . the intelligence community convinced me and the rest of the Clinton Administration that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs following the withdrawal of the UN inspectors, in 1998, and was only a matter of years away from having a nuclear weapon. . . . The U.S. intelligence community's belief that Saddam was aggressively pursuing weapons of mass destruction pre-dated Bush's inauguration, and therefore cannot be attributed to political pressure. . . . Other nations' intelligence services were similarly aligned with U.S. views. . . . Germany . . . Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France held positions similar to that of the United States. . . . In sum, (SET ITAL) no one (END ITAL) doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."

-- Meanwhile, neighboring Iran defiantly pursues nuclear weapons. Bush reasoned that a free, democratic and prosperous Iraq would destabilize Iran, accomplishing regime change without military force. This would encourage the rest of the Arab world to direct their grievances toward their own leaders, rather than against the "infidels."

-- We remain in Iraq because, as former Secretary of State James Baker put it, "[I]f we picked up and left right now . . . you would see the biggest civil war you've ever seen. Every neighboring country would be involved in there, doing its own thing, Turkey, Iran, Syria, you name it, and even our friends in the Gulf."

-- Former Secretary of State and informal Bush adviser Henry Kissinger -- who knows something about the consequences of cutting and running -- wrote, "Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy."

-- The political aim of our Islamofascist enemies is a worldwide Caliphate, or Islamic world. Renowned Islam expert Bernard Lewis recently reiterated his support for the war: "The response to 9/11 came as a nasty surprise [to bin Laden and his followers]. They were expecting more of the same -- bleating and apologies -- instead of which they got a vigorous reaction, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. And as they used to say in Moscow: It is no accident, comrades, that there has been no successful attack in the United States since then. . . . [T]he effort is difficult and the outcome uncertain, but I think the effort must be made. Either we bring them freedom, or they destroy us."

True, 2,800 of our best have died. Any figure above zero is a tragedy. But America -- on both sides of the Civil War -- lost more than 600,000 soldiers, or 2 percent of the country's population of 31 million. Of our country's 132 million, we lost more than 400,000 in World War II, or .3 percent of our population. In the Korean War, we lost 37,000, and the Vietnam War saw 58,000 dead.

Many people say that after failing to find stockpiles of WMD, Bush "switched" rationale for the war. Consider this excerpt from a New York Times editorial about a speech Bush gave weeks before the coalition entered Iraq:

"President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a 'free and peaceful Iraq' that would serve as a 'dramatic and inspiring example' to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict."

Still confused?

Answer 8

Why don't you BOOT UP and serve? You need the comedy kicked out of you on this one buddy.