The GWB/ GOP indoctrination machine is still on in your mind, so sad. On May 30, 2003, The U.S. Department of Defense briefed the media that it was ready to formally begin the work of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), a fact-finding mission from the coalition of the Iraq occupation into the WMD programs developed by Iraq, taking over from the British-American 75th Exploitation Task Force. The report found that "The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but [there is] the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction Not true. The world had inspectors looking into the possible WMD affairs of Iraq, and they never found anything. They fled head over tails when the US started the war. Only the UK was foolish enough to be tricked into the lies of GWB, and a handful of nobody countries. The US started to eating "freedom fries" because the French turned their backs on the US over it. And they were not alone, far from it. Opponents of his Iraq policy charged that his statement was inconsistent with his letter to Congress of March 21, 2003 [34] and a minority (Democrat) staff report by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform claimed that "in 125 separate appearances, they [Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice] made ... 61 misleading statements about Iraq's relationship with al-Qaeda." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam–al-Qaeda_conspiracy_theory Please stop spreading fake news that has been debunked for 20 years.
No. Civilians are civilians. While the US as the invading and occupying power is responsible for the lives of the civilians. The US as a signatory to the Geneva Conventions makes it so. The US refused to protect them adequately from the anarchy they deliberately created, by dismantelling the entire law and order system of Iraq and not replacing it. The blood is on their hands as well. Do also note that millions of people fled for their lives. The US lead ISIS spil over into Syria. So millions more people fled for their lives. How many refugees did the US accept who fled due to the actions of the US? How much aid did the US give to refugees? The US gave the technology for it to Saddam to attack Iran. And there were no WMD's when GWB claimed there were.
Predominantly... Russia is not making sure no western WMD and conventional weapons are going to be placed at their border. The US got no moral high ground on this due to this kind of history.
Since WWII all of our 'adversaries' have been created in the mind of the manipulated public perception. That was part of what Ike was talking about. Korea was no threat to the US, neither was Vietnam, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and all the rest. Neither is Ukraine. The Pentagon and MSM create these illusions of bogey men, and a distracted public knows no better.
Do you believe our country can exist in isolation from the rest of the world and nothing that happens in the rest of the world has an effect here?
No, of course it cannot, but I do think we could construct and practice a policy offered by Thomas Jefferson way back when: Honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. Do you think that is possible? A good idea?
I supported retaliating against Afghanistan, not a 20+ year war, and definitely not boots on the ground... should have been a quick aerial strike war used to benefit our economy, not anymore as we outsource most of the work and import most of the goods 20+ years of war.... trillions and trillions in debt
That's fine if they want to be friends with us but I would remind you that it was Jefferson who first used our military against foreign threats in a foreign countries. How would your policy apply to China and it's aggression and efforts to expand it's sphere on influence around the world?
There are videos of his use of WMDs against the Kurds. We know for a fact certain he used WMD against Iran.. We know for certain he had WMD ready to go on SCUD missiles against Israel which is why Israel issued gas masks to the entire population, and we had special ops embedded in Iraq before the war armed to put 50 caliber holes in SCUD missiles if they began fueling. Every country's administration and intelligence service attested to Saddam having WMD. There were Iraqi defectors, including Saddam's son-in-law and high positions in the nuclear development program that attested such. But if thinking the moon is made of green cheese suits your agenda, have at it. And don't make such a feeble attempt to refute Cheney's words because some congressmen thought he said something different.
Had not possessed ready to go, ready to use nerve gas and biological weapons. So what? The ones he had when the sanctions and inspections instituted and he had hidden away had mostly degraded since being stored buried in back yards and out in the desert is not the best way to maintain their quality. Thus we found LOTS of sites where those WMD had been stored but even though still highly toxic an deadly were no longer listed as nerve gas. We found the hidden strains of biologics he could have used to continue that research and production. What you did not cite was ISG stating that he had hidden away the proscribed materials from inspectors so that within a matter of months once the sanctions lifted and inspections ended he could have rearmed his WMD arsenals and he WOULD HAVE. Saddam Hussein was there too ....The fact that no stockpiles of WMD were ever found would be cited ad nauseam by the anti-war faction as proof that a false pretext had been used to justify the invasion. But the covert weapons programs were latent, and anyway, the absence of stockpiles was not the same as an absence of intent. Shortly before the end of the regime, for instance, Iraqi envoys were meeting in Damascus with North Korean officials to procure Rodong missiles, which have a range much greater than what had been prohibited to Iraq by the U.N. resolutions, from Pyongyang. And shortly after the fall of the regime, to cite one particularly lurid finding, parts of a nuclear centrifuge were unearthed in a scientist’s garden in Iraq, buried on the orders of Saddam’s son Qusay. On the sensitive matter of Saddam’s arsenal, Leffler pointed out that not even the Bush administration’s most pugnacious policymakers conceived of it as an immediate threat to the U.S. or its interests. Rather than being the imminent danger that overzealous advocates of regime change alleged, Iraq’s pursuit of weapons with deterrent power presented a looming peril that was inextricably connected to the character of its regime and would therefore remain in place until it was removed. In this light, perhaps the best answer to the question “Why invade Iraq?” seemed to be: What if we don’t? A sober analysis of this lingering confrontation reminds us that indecisiveness in international affairs can be the most enfeebling of sins. The principal architects of the war in Iraq, acutely aware of past calamities and convulsed by anxious foresight, recognized that diplomacy has a limit, as much as does force. The leading lights of the Democratic Party were no exception. As Leffler’s research reminds us, Sen. Joe Biden, then the Democratic chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, declared his fears about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as long as Saddam stayed on the throne. Long before the war, Biden argued in congressional hearings that “Saddam has got to go.” For those who might imagine him confessing a theoretical desire rather than propounding a concrete policy, something akin to his recent claim in Warsaw that Russian President Vladimir Putin “cannot remain in power,” the future president clarified that this objective would require “U.S. force.”.." https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/saddam-hussein-was-there-too
it would have caused Afghanistan to try harder to police their own, as well as showing we would not tolerate such attacks
I grew up not far from the Rockefeller homestead. The old man woke up one morning and saw the garbage truck picking up. He spent millions building a long tunnel so he didn't have to see that truck anymore. Today I think its all about pleasure for them... not global government so much as any pleasure they could ever conceive of without any rules.
I haven't really kept tabs on what the various families have been up to. Since David Rockefeller died, good riddance to that POS, I'm not sure who has taken the helm there. Still, David hadn't been involved in the day-to-day operations of anything for years. He was 102 when he he died. The Rothschilds were most recently led by Benjamin, but he unexpectedly died of a heart attack a couple of years ago at the age of 57. Jacob is in his 80's, and David is in his 70's. I read somewhere that James is being groomed to take on more responsibility after Benjamin's death. But he is only 35, so I really don't know who is steering the ship now.
That was in 1953, along with the British by the way who convinced us that the person would become best pals with the Soviet Union shortly thereafter. At that time, our oil production companies, the UK, and France were heavily invested in Iran's oil. Second, it was done by the CIA using clandestine operations, and installed the Shah, who was the area's previous ruler before the Ottoman empire took over. That being said, the two most powerful groups in Iran at that time were the Ayatollahs, the religious leaders, and the business leaders who wanted to expand their business interests from Iran, outward. The Shah was in lead with business interests, mostly Iranian business interests and Western Business interests. What got the Shah in trouble with the Ayatollahs, the religious leaders, as he tried to make Iran too westernized too quickly, and that is why they revolted. They would have done the same thing if Mohammad Mosaddegh went Soviet-era tactics and decided to get rid of religion altogether. Iran would have become Afghanistan, instead, it would have happened in the 1950s. Politics make strange bedfellows.
The Dems at that time were "war hawks" at that time, especially Hilary Clinton and John Kerry. That being said, it had more to do with "national security interests" that convinced a significant number of Dems to support the invasion, even with reservations on the intel.
How would my and Jefferson's policy apply to a government with a 50 year record of military aggression against other countries? Why is our own lengthy record of military aggression, torture and the like, ignored while a big deal is made about Russia's invasion of Ukraine after 15 years of attempts at diplomatic solutions to the military aggression of NATO?
I asked How would your policy, of isolationism, apply to China and it's aggression and efforts to expand it's sphere of influence around the world?
I'm asking for the alternative and you said fire some cruise missiles into Afghanistan Who would you have attacked with those cruise missiles? The Afghan government capital?
Yes, US made false pretext of WMD to invade Iraq and Russia made false pretext of fighting Ukrainians 'Nazis'. The fact is in Ukraine we don't have 'special military operation', but full scale war against Ukraine and against Ukrainian civilians. In the US people were free to oppose Iraqi was, in Russia calling a war - a war - is a crime. Here is the best example: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65015289
I answered, but you pretend otherwise, that I am not in favor of isolation, I am in favor of a policy of honest friendship with all nations and entangling alliances with none. Is English your primary language, or are you just trying to avoid being reasonable?
Ahhh can you point me to your answer to: How would your policy, of isolationism, apply to China and it's aggression and efforts to expand it's sphere of influence around the world? In here:
