The Iraq war was fought primarily to control Iraqi oil. Since we are no more in control of their oil now than before the war, I would say the USA lost the war in Iraq.
There never were any WMD’s, Saddam was contained before the war and would only grow weaker with time, Iraq had no involvement in the Sept11 attacks.
Overthrowing Saddam was the only clear objective the US won in the war.
The ‘winners’ of the Iraq war turns out to be AlQaeda, who’s numbers grew as our war effort & torture became public
The biggest ‘gift’ of the US - Iraq war, was ridding Iran of an enemy that it fought for decades. Iran didn’t need to defeat Iraq… they let the USA do it for them.
No? About a fifth of the worlds oil reserves are now in the hands of a government that is at least nominally friendly towards the US…as opposed to one that was patently hostile to us. I’d say that this was exactly the goal we wanted to achieve…the meme of the US seizing all that oil for our own use was always just that. A meme. It wasn’t ever going to be in the cards.
Also, we now have basing rights that we can use to stage troops and keep an eye on a region that is strategically vital to both the US and to all the other industrialized nations on earth. I’d say that, again, this is the achievement of one of our strategic goals.
Mind, I still think we ‘lost’ the war, though by the same token, Iraq pretty obviously lost more. How history views it is going to depend on how things play out…if Iraq becomes a stable and prosperous nation then I’d say that the consensus of history will be more favorable towards the US than if they go completely tits up and disintegrate into a really nasty civil war.
There were WMD, just not by the time the US invaded in 2003, Saddam was at least partially contained but there is no guarantee that the US could or would have been able to impose it’s sanctions indefinitely, and I’ve seen some speculation that they might have been lightened up on or even done away with, if not by the US than by others, sometime in the future.
As to the last, that’s mostly a strawman, as Bush et al never said they were involved in 9/11, nor was it one of the reasons we invaded. It’s one of the reasons that some folks THINK we invaded, and certainly it’s gospel around here that the American people (and Congress) were tricked into thinking it was why we invaded, but really it had nothing to do with the decision process to go into Iraq.
I don’t think AQ were the big winners…I think they were one of the losers, along with the US and Iraq. I’d say that China, if anyone, came out ahead. Iran too, though they have squandered their ‘victory’ by doing really stupid stuff and keeping the pressure on themselves internationally. Saudi and Kuwait also were winners, as it removed a major threat against them from the board. Several other regional powers are in the same boat. Also, there were several winners economically who cashed in on the uncertainty and lowered production from Iraq during the really nasty unsettled times.
Sure, though it was a gift with a two edged sword. For one thing, Iraq has become something like South Korea these days. I doubt we’ll ever be completely gone from the country, at least not as long as there is any kind of support for maintaining a good relationship with the US in the Iraqi government. That means that Iran won’t ever be able to accomplish it’s (possible) goals of annexing Iraq and adding it to their territory. It also means that the US, maintaining a presence so close to Iran, is keeping a tighter eye on them, and also is a more credible threat against Iran should they step out of line (or should the whim take us and we decide to go full out Imperialist on them ass) than Saddam et al were. So…not exactly an unalloyed ‘gift’ there, I’d say. Beware of American’s bearing gifts, and all that…
Elections in Iraq happened 7 months ago, but they still haven’t assembled a new government. That’s what happens when you impose a “democracy” on an unwilling populace.
One item that I didn’t discuss in the previous post was the cost of the war. One Trillion Dollars and counting… Where would the US Economy be today if suddenly we could add that Trillion Dollars of Taxpayer money back into our system. The cost of the Iraq war may well turn out to be the end of our entire economic system.
The larger cost… 4700+ American Patriots were killed in that war and tens of thousands wounded. Over 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed and many more wounded…
For what? For Oil? For non existent WMD’s.
Weather the USA won or lost may be a matter for debate, but those killed or wounded in this optional war are definitely the losers.
Right, the war was won in a short time. The occupation is another matter entirely. Even so, Saddam is not coming back into power, nor is his family. There is little chance Iraq will get back into the WMD business.
Admittedly, we never should have invaded in the first place, but we did “win”. of course, we lost the respect and support of much of the rest of the world when we did so. So, in a larger political sense, we lost.
Iran won. Their biggest enemy in the middle east is gone, thanks to us. The whole area is in jeopardy now. Iraq is a power vacuum. Who will fill it in? If Iraqis are going to, they would have done it by now. What good is a "free’ election if it does not result in governance. I suppose we can just keep pouring tax dollars into Iraq until the money gauge shows full.
We still have a billion dollar embassy in the green zone to protect.
Saddam *had *tens of thousands of tonnes of WMD’s. He even used nerve gas on his own people. The operative word here is “HAD”.
However, pretty much all his WMD were destroyed, neutralized or lost due to Operation Desert Storm aka the 1st Iraq war. By the time GHB’s idiot son GWB came back, the only WMD’s left were some old useless crap buried and lost, which was only dangerous as a Hazmat ecological clean up area.
Of course, Saddam had sent out several large semis packed with something to Syria, in the period after GWB gave the ultimatum, and before the invasion. What was in those truckloads is not known, but Isreali Intelligence has claimed there were plans and the beginnings of new WMD.
Dick Dastardly’s post is pretty much correct. *At the time of GWB’s invasion, Saddam did not possess anything that was a credible threat to the USA. * Whether or not he had active plans and research will never be known for sure.
Instead of invading Iraq, we could have gotten rid of Saddam with one sniper’s bullet or one cruise missile.
Iraq might have been thrown into civil war (which happened anyway), the govt of Iraq would probably have gone through many regimes (which has happened already), the resulting govt in Iraq might not be friendly to the USA, (as is the case today), Iraqi oil may not be under US control (which happened anyway), a small number of terrorists would still be active in Iraq (as they are today).
What did we gain by invading Iraq??? Not much.
What did we lose? $1Trillion Dollars and the lives of 4700+ American Patriots.
I did not say Saddam was in a position to do it. I did not say if it is a better or worse outcome. What I said is that we are guaranteed that Saddam will not develop WMDs because of our invasion. No ‘we have to maintain a blockade, no fly zones, and low level hostilities for twelve years’. No ‘maybe continuing sanctions will prevent it’. No ‘the inspectors need more time’. None of that. Everyone is absolutely crystal clear it will not happen now. On this one issue, it truly is a mission accomplished. Now if it’s a mission that SHOULD have been accomplished or not is a different debate.
It’s way to early to predict that. There are many factors that can influence relations between the US and Iraq. If Iran develops nukes, if Israel pisses off the middle east even more than normal, if Iraq’s future is stable or a civil war, etc. At the moment, it could go either way, although it does appear to slightly favor a long term Iraq/US cooperation more than a Iraq/US enemy relationship.
Plus consider the past. We turned Vietnam into a hellhole, and we flat out lost that war. Yet now relations are fairly decent. They aren’t our allies, but they aren’t our enemies either. We killed far more Japanese and Germans in a war than we have killed Iraqis, yet both are very close allies with the US. Russia was our ally in a war, yet it was our enemy for decades after. What happens after a war has far more influence on events than what happened during the war. A democratic Iraq would not automatically be a US enemy. Although it wouldn’t automatically be a US ally either.
That certainly was the Iraqi line in 1968 when the British pulled out. Unfortunately for the Persian Gulf region, the Brits had had enough by that point.
Saddam had dismantled the weapon construction. As Turkey said when we wanted their help, Saddam was a paper tiger. Just leaving him alone might have ended up in implosion. He was hanging by a thread anyway. He was also the problem of the Iraqis. It was their responsibility to remove him if they wanted to. But conditions were better for Iraqis back then.
A friendly government, eh? So it definitely wouldn’t contain people like these guys, the Badr Brigades or the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq :
28 March 2003 **Rumsfeld Warns Syria, Iranian Badr Corps Not to Interfere in Iraq **
Asked more about the Badr Corps, Rumsfeld said there are reports of
numbers in the hundreds operating in Iraq and more on the other side
of the border. He described the corps as “the military wing of the
Supreme Council on Islamic Revolution in Iraq” and said it is
“trained, equipped and directed by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary
Guard.” As yet, he said, the corps has not done anything that would be
perceived by the coalition as hostile. But “the entrance into Iraq by
military forces, intelligence personnel or proxies not under the
direct operational control of [U.S. Central Command Commander] General
[Tommy] Franks will be taken as a potential threat to coalition
forces,” he said.
Except now the Supreme Council and the Badr Brigades both form part of the Iraqi government
and the Badr guys run the Iraqi security services, like those Shiite death squads we just
discovered we were/are letting operate in Iraq. Prime Minister Maliki’s party, the Dawa group,
are an Iranian-backed group responsible for car bombs, airliner hijackings and blowing up the
US embassy in Kuwait in 1983. These guys are really friendly? Here’s the head of the Supreme
Council humiliating Dick Cheney in front of the (Arab) world when Dick flew in to sign the
withdrawl treaty :
The US liberal media didn’t cover that one for some reason.
We tried and failed to grab the oil. We appointed a bunch of Iraqi exiles who were on our payroll
to write a constitution and hold limited elections (the constitution would have privatised Iraq’s
oilfields and an appointed government being kept alive in the Green Zone by US troops and advised
by US diplomats would have decided which countries to award the oil contracts to. But our plan
was foiled by an Iranian Ayatollah who forced Bush to hold free elections and prevented him from writing
Iraq’s constitution.
2.
The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed
Iraq’s illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam
Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by
the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every
prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.
Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to
complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq’s weapons programs, said
Hussein’s ability to produce nuclear weapons had “progressively decayed”
since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of “concerted
efforts to restart the program.”
The findings were similar on biological and chemical weapons.
While Hussein had long dreamed of developing an arsenal of biological
agents, his stockpiles had been destroyed and research stopped years
before the United States led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Duelfer
said Hussein hoped someday to resume a chemical weapons effort after
U.N. sanctions ended, but had no stocks and had not researched making
the weapons for a dozen years.
Duelfer's report, delivered yesterday to two congressional
committees, represents the government’s most definitive accounting of
Hussein’s weapons programs, the assumed strength of which the Bush
administration presented as a central reason for the war. While previous
reports have drawn similar conclusions, Duelfer’s assessment went
beyond them in depth, detail and level of certainty.
"We were almost all wrong" on Iraq, Duelfer told a Senate panel yesterday.
Why wouldn’t it contain some individuals or even groups that weren’t friendly? Do you think that everyone in a government has to be in lock step agreement?? Over all, the current Iraqi government is much more friendly towards the US than the previous regime, but just about any yardstick you care to use.
You might note that I used the qualifier ‘nominally friendly’ in any case.
I apologize but much of the rest of your post is incomprehensible to me as I’m not sure what you were trying to get at and your coding was messed up.
What’s the percentage of people in the US that believe in God, in Creationism as a science, in 9/11 conspiracy theories, or in any number of other incorrect things? Hell, I seem to recall that something like 70% of the folks in Germany believed (and for all I know still believe) that the US government planned and perpetrated 9/11.
Also, do you have a cite that 70% of American’s believed that Saddam was directly involved? I’d just like to see what the questions were that were asked. A lot of times you can manipulate things such that the questions are ambiguous enough to basically give you whatever answer you are trying to get.
You’ve got the Supreme Council, the Dawa group, and Moqtada Al Sadr running the country. These guys are all backed by Iran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, who we’re constantly reminded are the central bankers of terrorism. Saddam was actually our ally until he invaded Kuwait, he was a secular Arab leader that hated radical Islam groups just like all other secular Arab leaders do, like our allies Mubarak and the King of Jordan. We’ve taken a country that was zero threat to us and turned it over, at the cost of thousands of dead Americans and tens of thousands seriously wounded along with trillions of dollars in costs, to the central bankers of terrorism and our biggest regional enemy. A country that may well hold more oil than Saudi too (and is at least the world’s second-largest oil reserve) and the only country in the world with the capacity to substantially increase oil production.
I don’t see how the post was difficult to understand. We’re still fighting and dying to keep in power people who we claimed in 2003 were enemy combatants and Iranian agents. It seems to me that it’s difficult to describe this as a friendly government, more a gigantic US fuckup. Look at the picture of Cheney, that’s the face of defeat right there.
Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 linkWASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists’ strike against this country.
Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it’s likely Saddam was involved.
The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.
President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however.
That poll was over 7 years ago. Do you have anything more recent? I don’t recall the previous administration making a lot of claims that Saddam et al were directly involved, just some implications that they might have been. And in 2003 there wasn’t enough evidence to categorically demonstrate that he wasn’t involved, though no serious evidence that he or his administration was either, so it’s not really all that surprising that a lot of folks thought it was possible at least. I don’t think it was a driving force behind our invasion, regardless, since presumably the members of Congress and the Senate didn’t base their decisions to authorize the use of force based on Saddam’s supposed involvement.
It doesn’t matter what people thought afterwards, it’s what they thought at the start of the war that counts. They had endless months of propaganda linking Saddam to AQ and 9/11 like the Youtube clip I just posted. They were bullshitted into supporting a bs war.
It doesn’t matter if they were or weren’t ‘bullshitted’ into supporting the war, since it was their representatives who made the decision. They didn’t ask me or you if we should go to war, they voted on it and our representatives, well, represented us and decided for us.
And, again, I don’t recall the Administration (or the Congress or Senate) using the excuse that Saddam was involved in 9/11 to justify the war. There were a host of reasons, and that’s not one I recall as being high on the list…hell, I don’t remember it even being ON the list.
BTW, it DOES matter what people thought afterward. In 2003 things were still sketchy, and we didn’t KNOW a lot of things then. A lot of the stuff we take for granted now, information wise, we have because it was found (or not found) after the invasion. One of those things is that we now know without much doubt that Saddam wasn’t involved in 9/11, even peripherally.
And don’t forget his fearsome Weapons of Mass Destruction. Remember the drones? The terrifying pilotless planes that would carry cargoes of chemical weapons over the Atlantic to drop on freedom-loving Americans? Look at this picture of them and tremble!
Arab technology at its finest. There are some even more terrifying pictures where the drone has its balsa wood propeller and its weed whacker engine fitted and ready for business, ready to carry a bucket of Mass Destruction over the Atlantic to America where the ingenious bucket-release mechanism would be activated and an entire city devastated.
I think it’s for individuals to decide whether it matters if Americans were bullshitted into supporting the war.
And the main reason we were given for the war was Saddam’s fearsome Weapons of Mass Destruction :
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.[RIGHT]Dick Cheney Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002[/RIGHT]
*Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. *
[RIGHT]George W. Bush Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002[/RIGHT]
If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
[RIGHT]Ari Fleischer Press Briefing
December 2, 2002[/RIGHT]
We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
[RIGHT]Ari Fleischer Press Briefing
January 9, 2003[/RIGHT]
*Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. *
[RIGHT]George W. Bush State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003[/RIGHT]
We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
[RIGHT]Colin Powell Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003[/RIGHT]
We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons – the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
[RIGHT]**George W. Bush ** Radio Address
February 8, 2003[/RIGHT]
If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct.
[RIGHT]Colin Powell Interview with Radio France International
February 28, 2003[/RIGHT]
So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.
[RIGHT]Colin Powell Remarks to UN Security Council
March 7, 2003[/RIGHT]
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
[RIGHT]George W. Bush Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003[/RIGHT]
Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
[RIGHT]Ari Fleisher Press Briefing
March 21, 2003[/RIGHT]
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
[RIGHT]Gen. Tommy Franks Press Conference
March 22, 2003[/RIGHT]
*I have no doubt we’re going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
*
[RIGHT]Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003[/RIGHT]
One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
[RIGHT]Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark Press Briefing
March 22, 2003[/RIGHT]
We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
[RIGHT]Donald Rumsfeld ABC Interview
March 30, 2003[/RIGHT]
*Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find – and there will be plenty. *
[RIGHT]Neocon scholar Robert Kagan Washington Post op-ed
April 9, 2003[/RIGHT]
But make no mistake – as I said earlier – we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
[RIGHT]Ari Fleischer Press Briefing
April 10, 2003[/RIGHT]
We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
[RIGHT]George W. Bush NBC Interview
April 24, 2003[/RIGHT]
There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
[RIGHT]Donald Rumsfeld Press Briefing
April 25, 2003[/RIGHT]
We’ll find them. It’ll be a matter of time to do so.
[RIGHT]George W. Bush Remarks to Reporters
May 3, 2003[/RIGHT]
*I’m absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We’re just getting it just now. *
[RIGHT]Colin Powell Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003[/RIGHT]
We never believed that we’d just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
[RIGHT]Donald Rumsfeld Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003[/RIGHT]
*I’m not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein – because he had a weapons program. *
[RIGHT]George W. Bush Remarks to Reporters
May 6, 2003[/RIGHT]
U.S. officials never expected that “we were going to open garages and find” weapons of mass destruction.
[RIGHT]Condoleeza Rice Reuters Interview
May 12, 2003[/RIGHT]
I just don’t know whether it was all destroyed years ago – I mean, there’s no question that there were chemical weapons years ago – whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they’re still hidden.
[RIGHT]Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne Press Briefing
May 13, 2003[/RIGHT]
Before the war, there’s no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.
[RIGHT]Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003[/RIGHT]
Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we’re interrogating, I’m confident that we’re going to find weapons of mass destruction.
[RIGHT]Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 2003[/RIGHT]
They may have had time to destroy them, and I don’t know the answer.
For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
[RIGHT]Paul Wolfowitz *Vanity Fair *interview
May 28, 2003[/RIGHT]
*It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it’s not for lack of trying. We’ve been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they’re simply not there. *
[RIGHT]Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Press Interview
May 30, 2003[/RIGHT]
*Do I think we’re going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there’s a lot of information out there."
* Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency Press Conference
May 30, 2003
…
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]“Why, of course, the people don’t want war,” Goering shrugged. “Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.”
“There is one difference,” I pointed out. “In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.”
“Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.” [/SIZE][/FONT]
