Reply With Quote
and why weren't the Repugs calling their useful idiot dubya feckless and less when Russia and Georgia were going at it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Ge...3Russia_crisis
and why weren't the Repugs calling their useful idiot dubya feckless and less when Russia and Georgia were going at it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Ge...3Russia_crisis
We were actually the ones using sanctions against Iraq. And trying get them to agree to weapon inspections. Neither worked and we were very frightened they had WMD's. We relied heavily on faulty British intelligence.( The fact that Saddam would not let weapons inspectors in was a huge turning point) Remember that this was not that far removed from 9/11. Practically the entire world allowed us to go in and crush the Taliban in Afghanistan as they refused to help with Bin Laden. Iraq got linked as a grave threat.
People totally forget the context of the times.
Well of course we now see how faulty the reasoning and facts were now. So we used the democracy card with both countries as it was clear Iraq was not loaded with Nukes or much else, and Afghanistan was of course a training ground for more 9/11's so let's set up a democracy there also.
We have not yet invaded Cuba and taken over because Guantanamo is under threat. We have not invaded Puerto Rico because we know many people there are being threatened because they voted FOR becoming a US state.
Last edited by pgardn; 03-05-2014 at 10:18 PM.
I remember I thought it was BS back then too, not sure how the context was much different... the UN resolutions we attributed to the unilateral invasion were those issued in the Desert Storm invasion from Dubya Sr.
As a matter of fact, we went to the UN seeking a military resolution with Powell running that dog & pony show and we did not get it. Not that anybody was going to stop dubya.
Why does the UN not worry about what Iraq was doing, but decided to blow the holy out of Libya?
Do you live in New York?
It was not at all clear to me why Iraq would not let weapon inspectors in at the time. And we find out later that Powell got lied to.
The Democrats as a whole were also scared to death. They did not want to be blamed for a security lapse. 9/11 was still firmly imbedded.
I'm in NJ, 40 mins away from NY. Iraq eventually did let weapons inspectors in before the invasion, and they cleared them. Which made the unilateral invasion even more BS. IMO, it was clear to me the whole UN thing was a show to see if they could convince other countries to join in, and the reality is that it didn't work (the original invasion coalition was just 5 countries: US, UK, Australia, Denmark and Poland).
They did not let them into close to all the sites. And we went in with a huge amount of equipment to find WMDs. That's a major reason we know we were lied to.
Count yourself one of the few that saw it all so clearly.
Noticed you edited the post after I answered. Dems at the time didn't want to be labeled "soft on terror", so they signed off anything. That doesn't mean the invasion wasn't BS though. The fact that allies like Italy, Spain, France and Germany would remain on the sidelines during the invasion really tells you they didn't buy into the smoke and mirrors. A good portion of America at the time didn't buy it either, IMO.
Like I said in my post above, it wasn't few. Our most important allies didn't buy it either. The whole "mobile chemical weapons" photoshops were poorly done.
That's because some like France were already displeased with Afghanistan. Germany... Uhhh they have very good reasons.
Yet, some of those countries joined later on to stabilize the country post-invasion...
No it's not that they did not buy it, they did not buy Force. Europe has always been reluctant. They have been through too much.
Which is why they were so reluctant about Iraq along with their huge economic interests in Iraq.
You mean like France and Syria? No, the invasion was poorly sold. Afghanistan made sense up to a point because you could point to the Taliban. Iraq made no sense. Plus it's not like all these other countries don't have intelligence services too, they know what's up.
Their intelligence is not even comparable to the US and Britain.
No they joined because after the war you have a huge humanitarian cluster , and these countries provide troops for UN humanitarian missions. As a matter of fact, Spain was so disgusted with the ethnic cleansing going on post-invasion, that they eventually withdrew their troops again. The whole thing was a major power trip, and left a lasting poor image of America overseas. Not unlike the lasting image dubya left on the country after going away.
No troops in Syria. You should have said like France and Africa. Where France has economic interests.
UN troops are a totally different beast. Most of the time they have to call in to defend themselves. And they are not going to carry out any offensive missions.
I would agree with that, but they're also not amateurs. Some of these countries did have interests in Iraq, and would know if chemical trucks were roaming in the country.
Also, so much for being reluctant to use the military. France wake up one day looking for allies to invade Syria. Imagine that.
France was putting together a coalition to invade Syria. Including troops. France actually provided troops post-invasion in Iraq.
Europe isn't reluctant to use their troops, seeing they do provide troops all the time. Except when we alleged some bull to start an invasion. That time they decided against it.
It may have been a power trip.
But these kind of trips are more likely to happen if buildings in Paris, Munich, or London get blown up by planned attacks.
I firmly believe 9/11 had us scared and of course very full of revenge.
That's the whole point. A country that's reluctant to provide troops just don't sends any kind of troops. All those troops, UN or otherwise, still put their heads on the line.
They send in tiny troop amounts in the guise of the UN? Germany has very strict rules about the use of troops and is the biggest player in Europe. Europe is much more judicious with the use of violence imo.
Spain had trains bombed in Madrid too. Did they went in a range of anger and invaded Morocco? No. It's an excuse, IMO.
I'm only speaking for myself, BTW. Just my impression.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
