who is to blame for iraq?

Question

Perhaps the fixed price achieved by the USA in Iraq passes all the precedents, - in all the cases it innovates diabolicy, even if one finds the germs of the method in “walk of Georgia” of the Sherman general, in 1864-65, or in the destruction of the Indian nation by the USA with the length of the XIXème century. It is necessary to recognize the speed, the effectiveness, the systematic aspect of the thing, and especially the extraordinary capacity of the machinery americanist to make the fixed price in most complete and perfect innocence, and even while complaining about the bad fate which is made with the good intentions americanists. The process of “irresponsabilisation” of the system, with exaggerated charges against the terrorists, the Syrians, the Iranians, Sunnites, the Shiites, Improvised Explosive Devices, the French from time to time, the good weather and the bad weather,

constitutes a remarkable bureaucratic mechanism and a mark of psychological perversion returning so that we name US blamelessness. The Saddam disaster, as our good hearts and our good consciences say, must start to resemble an angel of humanism in its tomb.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/may2007/iraq-m19.shtml

Answer 1

You know it beggars belief if you think it was good of Iraq. Any body who thinks it was other than greed is living in cloud cuckoo land. You only have to watch some of these cow boys and Indians films and see how the Americans treated those people. Even calling them savages in their own country, while these Europeans were the invaders to whom Indians had done no wrong to any of them. So the result of Iraq war is pure greed. Nothing but greed. As it was then and is now>

Answer 2

You are not able to positioned the blame on get together politics. I suppose their are unknown factors that are guilty for those wars. The French had been getting worn out of Viet Nam and the USA with ease got here alongside to seize the baton. That does not sound like get together politics. As for the democrats having a mandate, it isn't from the general public however in their possess making. A mandate is an vast majority helping an hassle. Bush is having the identical main issue. His polls are approach down however nonetheless treats the Iraq struggle like a mandate. However mostly there are risks the general public isn't mindful of. But we ought to no longer factor arms and blame folks to even the ranking.

Answer 3

The blind man that thought he could see. He told us it was so and we believed. No one said much and a few ran protesting but the majority just followed like apathetic sheep. We are to blame and are accountable for the society that we fell on. We have some splain'in to do.
We listened to all the wrong people. The Kurds started telling us the fight would be welcomed and the people would support freedom. The shite majority said what ever it took to get out from under the rule of Saddam. The British had inteligence reports to support violations to agreements and sanctions. Saddam was defiant in opposition to inspections. The US administration was ready to act on all the reports and made the plan for war. Every one was just wrong.

Answer 4

Britain.

When Britain led the charge followed by all the white nations of Europe to "colonize" the "inferior mud races" of the earth because of their belief in the superiority of the "white race", they ended up fighting WW1 to settle all their squabbling.

Then, without respect to ethnic makeup, lines were drawn on a map and the word "Iraq" was written in one of the many new blank areas.

When things got dicey, everybody looked for adults to resolve the conflicts.

Know of any?
.

Answer 5

There were no good intentions. Bush wanted to avenge daddy's failure.

Question: how many Bush's does it take to screw up an Iraq?

I don't really buy the British theme. What's done is done. We can't go back and undo that. We gotta live in the world that is handed to us...and try to make it better, not worse.

Answer 6

In the simplest terms I guess you could say the Brits, you lost me with all that other stuff, Sherman fought the war the way it should be fought all the time - to win. I say Saddam is to blame for this mess. he had only to comply with the UN resolutions and allow the inspectors in.

Answer 7

The British

After World War 1 they formed Iraq out of three ethnic regions and put a czar in so they could get cheep oil. The factions were bown to fight and thats when Sudam started his genecides.

Answer 8

LOL, sorry but both the U.S. and Saddam are to blame for the Iraq War. I'd especially point fingers at the neo-cons since they started the whole "you either support us or you're un-American" theme that defies logic.

But don't blame Ron Paul, he didn't vote for the Iraq "Resolution" (which resolved nothing BTW).

Answer 9

Saddam is to blame. Iraqis are to blame.

Answer 10

Just today Bush said its your destiny.

I am surprised how this MF talks like this.