War is hell no matter the reasoning to go to war. Don't get distracted by the body count, be it 100,000 or 200,000, because the USA invasion of Iraq CONTINUES TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE TODAY IN MOSUL!
The Right and Wrong Questions About the Iraq War
These “knowing what we know now …” questions are driving me crazy. They should make you mad too.
"George W. Bush with part of his national security team at Camp David on September 15, 2001."
"Knowing what we know now," the decision to invade Iraq can be traced back to that day. Reuters
James Fallows
May 19, 2015
"2) The questions reporters and citizens should ask instead. There are two of them.
a) Based on “what we knew then,” how did you assess the evidence, possible benefits, and possible risks of invading Iraq? What were your views as of early 2003? This is a straightforward-rather-than-tricky, for-the-record query. It’s a prelude to the much more important question:
b) Regardless of whether you feel you were right or wrong, prescient or misled, how exactly will the experience of Iraq—yours in weighing evidence, the country’s in going to war—shape your decisions on the future, unforeseeable choices about committing American force?"
"Four days after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush held a meeting of his advisors at Camp David. Soon after that meeting, rumors emerged of what is by now settled historical fact: that Paul Wolfowitz, with the apparent backing of Donald Rumsfeld, spoke strongly for invading Iraq along with, or instead of, fighting in Afghanistan. (For an academic paper involving the meeting, see this.) The principals voted against moving into Iraq immediately. But from that point on it was a matter of how and when the Iraq front would open up, not whether."
When, not why! Sickening thinking.
OK, let us balance truth and facts, and awareness with whatever we call Breitbart "stuff."
"5 Reasons the Iraq War Was Not a Mistake"
by Joel B. Pollak19 May 2015
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/05/19/5-reasons-the-iraq-war-was-not-a-mistake/
Here are the five:
"
The entire point of the debate over the Iraq War at the time was that we did not know whether or not Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction, because it would not tell us, or the United Nations. Though the execution of the war was deeply flawed, there are at least five reasons it was justified, even without WMD.SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
1. In a post-9/11 world, uncertainty about WMD is not an option. The central preoccupation of policymakers after 9/11 was preventing any further mass terror attacks against the United States. The George W. Bush administration would have been blamed–and rightly so–if Iraq had used WMD or passed WMD to terrorists. It was not a chance the U.S.–or the world–could afford to take. And given the refusal of Saddam Hussein to cooperate with the UN, there was no alternative.
2. An American force in the Middle East would increase pressure on Iran. Removing Saddam Hussain meant removing a threat to the Iranian regime. But putting hundreds of thousands of American troops on Iran’s western border–along with those already in Afghanistan to the east–meant posing a much more potent threat to the regime. That is why Iran temporarily slowed its nuclear program after 2003–and why the Iranian people found the courage to rise in 2009.
3. Freeing the people of Iraq was, and is, a worthy goal. Just a few years ago, with American and allied troops still in Iraq in significant numbers, the sectarian violence and terrorism that had plagued the country for years had begun to slow down. The Iraqi people began to enjoy some semblance of order, of democracy, and of liberty. Instead of staying in Iraq to guide and protect that process–as Obama had promised to do in 2008–Obama abandoned the Iraqi people.
4. International law means nothing unless it is backed up by the will to enforce it. Saddam Hussein defied international law repeatedly: He used WMD against his own people; he invaded his neighbors; he sponsored terrorism. And he did it because he had no fear of facing the consequences. International law, flawed though it is, is a necessary and stabilizing institution–and needs enforcement, even (especially) when global institutions are too corrupt to enforce it.
5. There is potential for freedom in the region–with American leadership. The fall of Saddam Hussein inspired the Lebanese people to rise up against Syrian occupation, and planted the seeds of what later became the Arab Spring. If American leadership had remained strong, that process might have been a positive one. (Certainly Syria would not have become a killing field.) The Middle East may never be fertile soil for democracy, but it can certainly be freer than it is today."
Each of these reasons are incredibly ignorant.
1. “In a post-9/11 world, uncertainty about WMD is not an option.” Breitbart says “there was no alternative.” There ARE AND MUST ALWAYS BE OPTIONS until we are attacked. THAT is how America operates on an ETHICAL basis. America does not attack unilaterally, without being directly attached, and without a declaration of war! America just is not that kind of people!
2. “An American force in the Middle East would increase pressure on Iran.” America has interfered in Iran’s government since about 1950, and only made things worse short of a war with Iran! Why does Breitbart think having soldiers in Iraq is better?
3. “Freeing the people of Iraq was, and is, a worthy goal.” “Obama abandoned the Iraqi people.” Pure bull! The religious animosity between Sunni and She will never be solved on Western nation’s terms. The only “freedom” our attack on Iraq gave the innocent people of Iraq, was the freedom to die in MUCH GREATER NUMBERS THAN SADDAM HUSSEIN EVER ENVISIONED! Then America glibly called the death of over 100,000 as “collateral damage.” Sickening! A few loud voices called for “freedom” from Sadam not knowing they would die by US bombs.
4. International law means nothing unless it is backed up by the will to enforce it. This is meaningless commentary where America fails to sign on to allow legal charges against our soldiers when they commit war crimes.
5. There is potential for freedom in the region–with American leadership. Why would America be responsible for establishing Western “freedom” in a part of the world where the culture and religion require a clearly different basis for “freedom?” America started f**cking the Middle East in 1947, so why not recognize we do not belong in the Middle East in 2016 in any way or form?
Of course, Breitbart could not resist concluding that the war was a mistake, but it was Obama the really f**cked it up . . . lol
Wow! It was Obama! Obama should not have let that war in Iraq get out of hand for sure!
These Breitbarts are a joke, really!
Be aware! Beware!
