Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
In an attempt to amalgamate this issue, I will list off some key similarities and differences between the proposed use of military force against Syria, and President George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003. Feel free to debate them as you see fit.
First, a timeline leading up to the second invasion of Iraq:
February 28, 1991: A ceasefire between The UN Coalition (including the United States) and Iraq was negotiated, thus ending the first Gulf War.
October 1998: It became clear to the Clinton Administration that Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power. It thus passed the Iraq Liberation Act as a response to the expulsion of UN Weapons Inspectors in August of the preceding year.
December 16, 1998: The United States and Great Britain launch a joint bombardment campaign against Iraq, known as Operation Desert Fox; in hopes of weakening Saddam Hussein's grip on power or removing him altogether.
November 7, 2000: President George W. Bush was elected as the 43rd President of The United States. During the campaign, Republicans pushed for a more aggressive stance on Iraq, citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 as a starting point to removing Hussein completely from power.
September 11, 2001: Terrorists hijack four airliners, flying two of them into the two World Trade Center Towers causing them to collapse, resulting in the deaths of over 3,000 people. Another was flown into the Pentagon, and another intended for the White House was brought down in Shanksville, Pennsylvania by a brave contingent of passengers.
September 20, 2001: After months of inaction regarding Saddam Hussein and Iraq, President Bush addresses a joint session of Congress in a world simulcast, unveiling a new strategy to combat terrorism, known as the "War on Terror." Accompanying it, was a military action of pre-emptive doctrine known as the "Bush Doctrine."
September 12, 2002: President Bush calls for a UN Security Resolution on Iraq.
October 16, 2002: Congress passes the Iraq Resolution.
November 8, 2002: The UN Security Council adopts Resolution 1441 which authorized the resumption of weapons inspections in Iraq and promised "serious consequences" for non-compliance.
January 28, 2003: President Bush remarks in his State of The Union address that "we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs"
February 5, 2003: US Secretary of State Colin Powell addresses the United Nations General Assembly, continuing U.S. efforts to gain UN authorization for an invasion, citing what later turned out to be allegedly faulty intelligence by an Iraqi immigrant describing a "mobile biological weapons laboratory."
March 17, 2003: President Bush issues a 48-hour deadline for Saddam Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay Hussein to leave the country immediately.
March 18, 2003: A day before the deadline was due to expire, the bombing of Iraq by the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Poland, Australia, and Denmark began. (Note here that the US was backed by a coalition of countries in order to accomplish a clear goal)
March 19-20, 2003: The US led coalition of approximately 148,000 soldiers from the United States, 45,000 British soldiers, 2,000 Australian soldiers and 194 Polish soldiers from the special forces unit GROM, initiated the invasion of Iraq. The invasion force was also supported by Iraqi Kurdish militia troops, estimated to number upwards of 70,000. This was known as Operation Iraqi Freedom.
May 1, 2003: After 21 days, the invasion officially ends, with Saddam Hussein and his Baathist government being deposed from power.
December 13, 2003: Saddam is captured in ad-Dawr, Iraq, near his hometown of Tikrit, after spending the majority of the year on the run after being ousted from power. He is later hung for crimes against the people of Iraq, three years later on December 30, 2006.
And now, a timeline leading up to the attempts by President Obama to launch military action against Syria for supposedly using chemical weapons on its people:
March 16, 2011: An uprising is born in the city of Daraa, Syria.
April 25, 2011: Syrian troops and tanks are deployed to Daraa, Homs and other cities in Syria in an effort to quell the uprising which by then had consumed the entire country. This newborn uprising was met with all deliberate force from the Assad regime for the years succeeding the beginning of this uprising. A total of an estimated 110,875 people have been killed in an attempt to crush the rebellion (as of 2013). What was a protest turned into an armed rebellion, with troops defecting from the Syrian Army to fight for rebel forces.
August 20, 2012: President Obama in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd draws a "red line" for the Assad regime and threatens military action if it were to be discovered that it has used chemical weapons against it's own people. "We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized," the president said. "That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."
March 19, 2013: Rebels in the Syrian Civil War accuse President Bashar al-Assad of launching a chemical attack against them in the city of Aleppo, the attack killed 24 people.
April 22, 2013: The terrorist group Hezbollah enters the war in support of the Assad regime.
June 13, 2013:President Obama approves arming the Syrian Rebels against the Assad regime.
Thursday, August 21, 2013: A Sarin gas attack is unleashed in the region known as the Gouta, near the Syrian capital of Damascus. The attack was responsible for the deaths of at least 1,400 people. Once again, rebels accuse Bashar al-Assad of launching the attack. This leads to the Obama Administration calling for strikes against the Assad regime, calling on Britain and France to join them in the effort.
Thursday, August 29, 2013: British Parliament rejects military action against Syria, leaving the US and possibly France to organize a limited strike. (Note here, that British rejected Obama's proposal, and unlike the Iraq invasion, there is no coalition of nations coming to the aid of the United States)
Saturday, August 31, 2013: President Barack Obama continues moving for strikes against Syria, after citing "undeniable" evidence that the Assad regime was responsible for the chemical attacks in Aleppo and the Gouta.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013: House Speaker John Boehner throws his support behind Obama's proposed strikes against Syria.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013: Reports surface saying that Arab countries are offering to pay America to launch a full scale invasion of Syria. Secretary of Defense John Kerry did not deny or reject the offer: 'With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assist, the answer is profoundly yes,' Kerry said. 'They have. That offer is on the table.' Also, later that night, the Senate Relations Committee votes 10-7 authorizing Obama to use limited strikes on Syria.
Monday, September 9, 2013: The Senate returns to Capitol Hill to consider giving Obama the power to strike Syria.
Note that in one instance, a president skilfully pulls together a coalition to accomplish one goal. In the other, a president incompetently tries to organize a coalition to accomplish an unknown goal. He is rejected immediately by the international community, leaving him to possibly take on this task alone. He risks alienating our allies and angering our enemies even further.
This is filled with inaccuracies and omissions.
Good work.
The GOP Ministry of Propaganda thanks you.
Your Iraq War timeline left out the post invasion debacle, lack of Iraqis cheering our troops, IEDs slaughtering our troops, Abu Graib torture, rape and murder of Iraqis by US troops, and eventual shift of Iraq to a vassal state of Iran.
Liberals were 100% vindicated by the Iraq War's failure. The GOP was justified in getting voted out of Congress in 2006 once their ham-handed lack of proper war planning was clear to most Americans.
Conservatives need to stop making fools of themselves by trying to rewrite history to where the Iraq War was a success. You already have no credibility on the issue, so don't compound the lack of credibility. Most Americans know that the Iraq War was a failure, didn't achieve any goals worth the cost in blood and treasure, and made life for Iraqis worse.
you are correct that the Iraq war was a stupid fiasco that wasted american lives and money.
But you are wrong when you insert your partisan bullshit to imply that only repubs supported it. Both parties authorized and funded it, the UN supported it, as did the EU, UK, France, Germany, Spain, China, et. al.
Yes, it was a failure in many ways. But they are all responsible. Just as both parties are responsible for viet nam and korea.
this is not a partisan problem, it is a DC problem
Spare me. So a minority of Democrats made the mistake of voting to authorize was on Iraq? It makes no difference. Had Gore been in the White House, the Iraq War never would have happened. The Iraq War was owned and operated by the GOP. It was the GOP's stupid idea, and the GOP rightly suffered the electoral backlash from it.
In an attempt to amalgamate this issue, I will list off some key similarities and differences between the proposed use of military force against Syria, and President George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003. Feel free to debate them as you see fit.
First, a timeline leading up to the second invasion of Iraq:
February 28, 1991: A ceasefire between The UN Coalition (including the United States) and Iraq was negotiated, thus ending the first Gulf War.
October 1998: It became clear to the Clinton Administration that Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power. It thus passed the Iraq Liberation Act as a response to the expulsion of UN Weapons Inspectors in August of the preceding year.
December 16, 1998: The United States and Great Britain launch a joint bombardment campaign against Iraq, known as Operation Desert Fox; in hopes of weakening Saddam Hussein's grip on power or removing him altogether.
November 7, 2000: President George W. Bush was elected as the 43rd President of The United States. During the campaign, Republicans pushed for a more aggressive stance on Iraq, citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 as a starting point to removing Hussein completely from power.
September 11, 2001: Terrorists hijack four airliners, flying two of them into the two World Trade Center Towers causing them to collapse, resulting in the deaths of over 3,000 people. Another was flown into the Pentagon, and another intended for the White House was brought down in Shanksville, Pennsylvania by a brave contingent of passengers.
September 20, 2001: After months of inaction regarding Saddam Hussein and Iraq, President Bush addresses a joint session of Congress in a world simulcast, unveiling a new strategy to combat terrorism, known as the "War on Terror." Accompanying it, was a military action of pre-emptive doctrine known as the "Bush Doctrine."
September 12, 2002: President Bush calls for a UN Security Resolution on Iraq.
October 16, 2002: Congress passes the Iraq Resolution.
November 8, 2002: The UN Security Council adopts Resolution 1441 which authorized the resumption of weapons inspections in Iraq and promised "serious consequences" for non-compliance.
January 28, 2003: President Bush remarks in his State of The Union address that "we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs"
February 5, 2003: US Secretary of State Colin Powell addresses the United Nations General Assembly, continuing U.S. efforts to gain UN authorization for an invasion, citing what later turned out to be allegedly faulty intelligence by an Iraqi immigrant describing a "mobile biological weapons laboratory."
March 17, 2003: President Bush issues a 48-hour deadline for Saddam Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay Hussein to leave the country immediately.
March 18, 2003: A day before the deadline was due to expire, the bombing of Iraq by the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Poland, Australia, and Denmark began. (Note here that the US was backed by a coalition of countries in order to accomplish a clear goal)
March 19-20, 2003: The US led coalition of approximately 148,000 soldiers from the United States, 45,000 British soldiers, 2,000 Australian soldiers and 194 Polish soldiers from the special forces unit GROM, initiated the invasion of Iraq. The invasion force was also supported by Iraqi Kurdish militia troops, estimated to number upwards of 70,000. This was known as Operation Iraqi Freedom.
May 1, 2003: After 21 days, the invasion officially ends, with Saddam Hussein and his Baathist government being deposed from power.
December 13, 2003: Saddam is captured in ad-Dawr, Iraq, near his hometown of Tikrit, after spending the majority of the year on the run after being ousted from power. He is later hung for crimes against the people of Iraq, three years later on December 30, 2006.
And now, a timeline leading up to the attempts by President Obama to launch military action against Syria for supposedly using chemical weapons on its people:
March 16, 2011: An uprising is born in the city of Daraa, Syria.
April 25, 2011: Syrian troops and tanks are deployed to Daraa, Homs and other cities in Syria in an effort to quell the uprising which by then had consumed the entire country. This newborn uprising was met with all deliberate force from the Assad regime for the years succeeding the beginning of this uprising. A total of an estimated 110,875 people have been killed in an attempt to crush the rebellion (as of 2013). What was a protest turned into an armed rebellion, with troops defecting from the Syrian Army to fight for rebel forces.
August 20, 2012: President Obama in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd draws a "red line" for the Assad regime and threatens military action if it were to be discovered that it has used chemical weapons against it's own people. "We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized," the president said. "That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."
March 19, 2013: Rebels in the Syrian Civil War accuse President Bashar al-Assad of launching a chemical attack against them in the city of Aleppo, the attack killed 24 people.
April 22, 2013: The terrorist group Hezbollah enters the war in support of the Assad regime.
June 13, 2013:President Obama approves arming the Syrian Rebels against the Assad regime.
Thursday, August 21, 2013: A Sarin gas attack is unleashed in the region known as the Gouta, near the Syrian capital of Damascus. The attack was responsible for the deaths of at least 1,400 people. Once again, rebels accuse Bashar al-Assad of launching the attack. This leads to the Obama Administration calling for strikes against the Assad regime, calling on Britain and France to join them in the effort.
Thursday, August 29, 2013: British Parliament rejects military action against Syria, leaving the US and possibly France to organize a limited strike. (Note here, that British rejected Obama's proposal, and unlike the Iraq invasion, there is no coalition of nations coming to the aid of the United States)
Saturday, August 31, 2013: President Barack Obama continues moving for strikes against Syria, after citing "undeniable" evidence that the Assad regime was responsible for the chemical attacks in Aleppo and the Gouta.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013: House Speaker John Boehner throws his support behind Obama's proposed strikes against Syria.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013: Reports surface saying that Arab countries are offering to pay America to launch a full scale invasion of Syria. Secretary of Defense John Kerry did not deny or reject the offer: 'With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assist, the answer is profoundly yes,' Kerry said. 'They have. That offer is on the table.' Also, later that night, the Senate Relations Committee votes 10-7 authorizing Obama to use limited strikes on Syria.
Monday, September 9, 2013: The Senate returns to Capitol Hill to consider giving Obama the power to strike Syria.
Note that in one instance, a president skilfully pulls together a coalition to accomplish one goal. In the other, a president incompetently tries to organize a coalition to accomplish an unknown goal. He is rejected immediately by the international community, leaving him to possibly take on this task alone. He risks alienating our allies and angering our enemies even further.
This is filled with inaccuracies and omissions.
Good work.
The GOP Ministry of Propaganda thanks you.
The most glaring omission would be the rest of the Iraq War from 2003 onwards. It was a GOP-led fiasco, wasting billions of dollars, taking innocent Iraqi lives, causing misery for US troops and their families, and eventually putting in a pro-Iran regime in Iraq.
Way to go, GOP. No wonder the sigh of relief from the rest of the world when McCain & Mittypoo lost could be heard from sea to shining sea.
The point is this: the war was a fiasco and it was wrong and today the newspaper reports that if Syria is hit the Shiites in Iraq will attack the government. We are right back where we started.
Report: Iran message orders Iraqi militias to retaliate if U.S. strikes Syria - CBS News
you are correct that the Iraq war was a stupid fiasco that wasted american lives and money.
But you are wrong when you insert your partisan bullshit to imply that only repubs supported it. Both parties authorized and funded it, the UN supported it, as did the EU, UK, France, Germany, Spain, China, et. al.
Yes, it was a failure in many ways. But they are all responsible. Just as both parties are responsible for viet nam and korea.
this is not a partisan problem, it is a DC problem
Spare me. So a minority of Democrats made the mistake of voting to authorize was on Iraq? It makes no difference. Had Gore been in the White House, the Iraq War never would have happened. The Iraq War was owned and operated by the GOP. It was the GOP's stupid idea, and the GOP rightly suffered the electoral backlash from it.
you better go back and do some checking, it was not a minority of dems.
if the idiot gore had been president on 9/11, there would probably be a mosque where the washington monument now stands.
This is filled with inaccuracies and omissions.
Good work.
The GOP Ministry of Propaganda thanks you.
The most glaring omission would be the rest of the Iraq War from 2003 onwards. It was a GOP-led fiasco, wasting billions of dollars, taking innocent Iraqi lives, causing misery for US troops and their families, and eventually putting in a pro-Iran regime in Iraq.
Way to go, GOP. No wonder the sigh of relief from the rest of the world when McCain & Mittypoo lost could be heard from sea to shining sea.
when did Clinton and Ted Kennedy join the GOP? I must have missed that.
Spare me. So a minority of Democrats made the mistake of voting to authorize was on Iraq? It makes no difference. Had Gore been in the White House, the Iraq War never would have happened. The Iraq War was owned and operated by the GOP. It was the GOP's stupid idea, and the GOP rightly suffered the electoral backlash from it.
you better go back and do some checking, it was not a minority of dems.
if the idiot gore had been president on 9/11, there would probably be a mosque where the washington monument now stands.
If the USSC hadn't elected Bush to the White House illegally, then the Gore Administration would have uncovered the 9/11 plot before it happened.
yeah, right and he would have offered them some carbon credits to call off the attack-----------you libs make me
The most glaring omission would be the rest of the Iraq War from 2003 onwards. It was a GOP-led fiasco, wasting billions of dollars, taking innocent Iraqi lives, causing misery for US troops and their families, and eventually putting in a pro-Iran regime in Iraq.
Way to go, GOP. No wonder the sigh of relief from the rest of the world when McCain & Mittypoo lost could be heard from sea to shining sea.
when did Clinton and Ted Kennedy join the GOP? I must have missed that.
Nobody would have voted for that war if they knew the plan was to keep us their for years as we attempted to "nation build".
This is filled with inaccuracies and omissions.
Good work.
The GOP Ministry of Propaganda thanks you.
The most glaring omission would be the rest of the Iraq War from 2003 onwards. It was a GOP-led fiasco, wasting billions of dollars, taking innocent Iraqi lives, causing misery for US troops and their families, and eventually putting in a pro-Iran regime in Iraq.
Way to go, GOP. No wonder the sigh of relief from the rest of the world when McCain & Mittypoo lost could be heard from sea to shining sea.
when did Clinton and Ted Kennedy join the GOP? I must have missed that.
The major failure of the Iraq War, militarily and thereafter, was not following General Shinseki's advice to put 400,000 pairs of boots in Iraq to win the peace after we won the war.
Shinseki was retired, and in 2007 Bush had to put 400,000 pairs of boots on the ground in Iraq.
By that time the US had lost a chance to create a major ally in the ME.
The major failure of the Iraq War, militarily and thereafter, was not following General Shinseki's advice to put 400,000 pairs of boots in Iraq to win the peace after we won the war.
Shinseki was retired, and in 2007 Bush had to put 400,000 pairs of boots on the ground in Iraq.
By that time the US had lost a chance to create a major ally in the ME.
and 50,000 americans could still be alive if Johnson and McNamarra had tried to actually win in viet nam-----------hind sight is always 20/20
The most glaring omission would be the rest of the Iraq War from 2003 onwards. It was a GOP-led fiasco, wasting billions of dollars, taking innocent Iraqi lives, causing misery for US troops and their families, and eventually putting in a pro-Iran regime in Iraq.
Way to go, GOP. No wonder the sigh of relief from the rest of the world when McCain & Mittypoo lost could be heard from sea to shining sea.
when did Clinton and Ted Kennedy join the GOP? I must have missed that.
The Dems who made the mistake of supporting the Iraq War realized their mistake, and changed course. They and the Dems were off the hook by 2006, when they thankfully took power from the GOP in Congress, and brought the out-of-control bible schooled buffoons of the Bush White House to heel. Too bad the country had to suffer a further two years of Bush as President. The country barely survived.
The major failure of the Iraq War, militarily and thereafter, was not following General Shinseki's advice to put 400,000 pairs of boots in Iraq to win the peace after we won the war.
Shinseki was retired, and in 2007 Bush had to put 400,000 pairs of boots on the ground in Iraq.
By that time the US had lost a chance to create a major ally in the ME.
and 50,000 americans could still be alive if Johnson and McNamarra had tried to actually win in viet nam-----------hind sight is always 20/20
I agree with your feeling, but in no way could we have won in Vietnam unless we were willing to use nukes, and that was just too risky.
I am curious: are you a neo-con, Redfish?
when did Clinton and Ted Kennedy join the GOP? I must have missed that.
Nobody would have voted for that war if they knew the plan was to keep us their for years as we attempted to "nation build".
of course not, nobody would have voted for it if they knew it would drag out for years---NEITHER PARTY WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED IT AND BUSH PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAVE EITHER.
Your partisan rhetoric has blocked your ability to think rationally.
and 50,000 americans could still be alive if Johnson and McNamarra had tried to actually win in viet nam-----------hind sight is always 20/20
I agree with your feeling, but in no way could we have won in Vietnam unless we were willing to use nukes, and that was just too risky.
I am curious: are you a neo-con, Redfish?
we will never know what could have been done in viet nam because the military was not allowed to fight to win, I don't think nukes would have been needed.
define neo-con and then I will answer.
I agree with your feeling, but in no way could we have won in Vietnam unless we were willing to use nukes, and that was just too risky.
I am curious: are you a neo-con, Redfish?
we will never know what could have been done in viet nam because the military was not allowed to fight to win, I don't think nukes would have been needed.
define neo-con and then I will answer.
I disagree we could have "won" in Vietnam without nukes: that is a discussion for another day.
The following is from merriam-webster
neo·con·ser·va·tive noun \ˌnē-ō-kən-ˈsər-və-tiv\
Definition of NEOCONSERVATIVE
1: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2: a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means
neo·con·ser·va·tism noun
neoconservative adjective
