The American Legacy in Iraq

[JWBooth]

This thread openly carries a strong Anti-USA theme to it as if we were the only ones with eyes on Iraq and the Middle East in general.

Let's set the record straight - A lot of nations have had their eyes on this region before, during, and after WWI! Colonization created nations with false boundaries based upon European standards that had no similarity to religious and cultural differences. And, most of it was done WITHOUT US input. And yes, AFTER WWI, we became involved because there appeared to be threats to our national security. Was that effort correct? That's a matter of debate that will take another century to answer.

The first step in correcting a problem is recognising that there is a problem.

 

[georgephillip]

This thread openly carries a strong Anti-USA theme to it as if we were the only ones with eyes on Iraq and the Middle East in general.

Let's set the record straight - A lot of nations have had their eyes on this region before, during, and after WWI! Colonization created nations with false boundaries based upon European standards that had no similarity to religious and cultural differences. And, most of it was done WITHOUT US input. And yes, AFTER WWI, we became involved because there appeared to be threats to our national security. Was that effort correct? That's a matter of debate that will take another century to answer.

The first step in correcting a problem is recognising that there is a problem.

Recognition begins with assessing US goals in Iraq and the means used to achieve them:

"There is no question that U.S. planners knew how awful the force of the sanctions would be.

"In fact, the health calamity was coolly predicted and then meticulously tracked by the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency.

"Its first study was entitled 'Iraq’s Water Treatment Vulnerabilities.'

"Indeed, from the beginning, the intent of U.S. officials was to create such a catastrophic situation that the people of Iraq—civilians, but particularly the military—would be forced to react.

"As Denis Halliday, the former U.N. humanitarian coordinator for Iraq, put it to me, 'the U.S. theory behind the sanctions was that if you hurt the people of Iraq and kill the children particularly, they’ll rise up with anger and overthrow Saddam.'”

It's telling how often the goals of government require killing other people's children. Possibly, that's because every government yet devised serves the interests of its richest citizens, and killing other people's children is a proven money maker?

The American Legacy in Iraq » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

 

[Kosh]

Iraq became a failure when Republicans did nothing to stop the slaughter of Christians, and waved goodbye as most of the rest left their homeland.

More proof that the far left will do what ever it takes to make Iraq a failure and all for political purposes.

Typical propaganda from a far right reince priebus drone

Says the far left Obama drone that wants Iraq to be a failure just to make an (R) look bad.

 

[Kosh]

Iraq became a failure when Republicans did nothing to stop the slaughter of Christians, and waved goodbye as most of the rest left their homeland.

More proof that the far left will do what ever it takes to make Iraq a failure and all for political purposes.

Republicans were in charge of both houses, the presidency and the Supreme Court. So how is it the Democrats "fault"?

Ah the far left is very strong in this one.

 

[Kosh]

The far left will do their best to make sure Iraq is a failure.

IMHO, it's not about "left" or "right" or "Republican" or "Democrat" as much as it's about the money to be made from endless war and the eternal debt that's required to pay for the conflicts.

I also think you should consider how those who profit from war and private debt define "failure" in Iraq.

By their standards, the US invasion of Iraq, supported by most Rs & Ds alike has succeeded in dividing Iraq into three sub-states. A Sh'ia enclave aligned with Iran with a Baghdad citi-state and Sunni Iraq alongside Syria.

The goal of elites in both major US parties is to redraw the borders of a New Middle East by deliberately creating an "arc of instability stretching from the eastern Mediterranean to the Caspian Sea.

Until US voters elect politicians who find ways to make peace more profitable than war, "failures" like Iraq will multiply, regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans launch them.

Again the far left wants failure in Iraq almost exclusively so they can make their propaganda come true. However notice how the anti-war camps packed up and left after Obama was elected, notice how the death counters disappeared, notice how after the far left took control of Congress in 2006 the Iraq far left propaganda almost came to a halt.

It is about the far left and their wanting Iraq to be a failure just so they can get their way. Just like there are claims that Hilary was against the surge in Iraq solely based on political purposes.

 

[JWBooth]

Iraq became a failure when Republicans did nothing to stop the slaughter of Christians, and waved goodbye as most of the rest left their homeland.

More proof that the far left will do what ever it takes to make Iraq a failure and all for political purposes.

Typical propaganda from a far right reince priebus drone

OldDrip and RDerp, you both want this to be about finding the spec in the eye of the GOPers while ignoring the mote in the eye of the Dims. History shows both of these groups of organised criminals have very dirty hands in spreading misery and death around the globe.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"BARRY LANDO is a former producer for 60 Minutes who now lives in Paris. He is the author of The Watchman’s File. He can be reached at: barrylando@gmail.com or through his website."

Barry's recent post at CounterPunch alleges the US legacy in Iraq involves genocide more than democracy, and a carefully choreographed cover-up/revisionist spin on the actual events of the last decade.

"The last thing the U.S. should do is become militarily embroiled in the conflict raging again in Iraq. But for Americans to shake their heads in lofty disdain and turn away, as if they have no responsibility for the continued bloodletting, is outrageous.

"Why?

"Because America bears a large part of the blame for turning Iraq into the basket case it’s become.

"The great majority of Americans don’t realize that fact.

"They never did.

"So much of what the U.S. did to Iraq has been consigned by America to a black hole of history.

"Iraqis, however, can never forget.

"In 1990, for instance, during the first Gulf War, George H.W. Bush, called on the people of Iraq to rise up and overthrow Saddam Hussein.

"But when they finally did, after Saddam’s forces were driven from Kuwait, President Bush refused any gesture of support, even permitted Saddam’s pilots to keep flying their deadly helicopter gunships.

"Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were slaughtered."

The American Legacy in Iraq » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

It's just like after we inflicted a complete defeat on the North at the Tet Offensive and our media called it for the Communists. They LOVE Uncle Saddam the same way the LOVED Uncle Joe and Chairman Mao. Find a dictator and you'll find a LMSM hero

 

[georgephillip]

"BARRY LANDO is a former producer for 60 Minutes who now lives in Paris. He is the author of The Watchman’s File. He can be reached at: barrylando@gmail.com or through his website."

Barry's recent post at CounterPunch alleges the US legacy in Iraq involves genocide more than democracy, and a carefully choreographed cover-up/revisionist spin on the actual events of the last decade.

"The last thing the U.S. should do is become militarily embroiled in the conflict raging again in Iraq. But for Americans to shake their heads in lofty disdain and turn away, as if they have no responsibility for the continued bloodletting, is outrageous.

"Why?

"Because America bears a large part of the blame for turning Iraq into the basket case it’s become.

"The great majority of Americans don’t realize that fact.

"They never did.

"So much of what the U.S. did to Iraq has been consigned by America to a black hole of history.

"Iraqis, however, can never forget.

"In 1990, for instance, during the first Gulf War, George H.W. Bush, called on the people of Iraq to rise up and overthrow Saddam Hussein.

"But when they finally did, after Saddam’s forces were driven from Kuwait, President Bush refused any gesture of support, even permitted Saddam’s pilots to keep flying their deadly helicopter gunships.

"Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were slaughtered."

The American Legacy in Iraq » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

It's just like after we inflicted a complete defeat on the North at the Tet Offensive and our media called it for the Communists. They LOVE Uncle Saddam the same way the LOVED Uncle Joe and Chairman Mao. Find a dictator and you'll find a LMSM hero

While Good Capitalists continue confusing attempts at state-building in an alien culture while sustaining domestic political support in a Long War against an irregular enemy with "spreading Democracy."

 

[U2Edge]

"By 1999 a UNICEF study concluded that half a million Iraqi children perished in the previous eight years because of the sanctions—and that was four years before they ended. Another American expert in 2003 estimated that the sanctions killed between 343,900 and 529,000 young children and infants–certainly more young people than were ever killed by Saddam Hussein."

The American Legacy in Iraq » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

Saddam had the means to prevent any deaths in Iraq from sanctions. He didn't and instead, resold humanitarian aid meant for Iraqi's on the black market to make money for himself. The entire blame for Iraqi's misery in the 1990s begins and ends with SADDAM HUSSIEN.

 

[U2Edge]

"BARRY LANDO is a former producer for 60 Minutes who now lives in Paris. He is the author of The Watchman’s File. He can be reached at: barrylando@gmail.com or through his website."

Barry's recent post at CounterPunch alleges the US legacy in Iraq involves genocide more than democracy, and a carefully choreographed cover-up/revisionist spin on the actual events of the last decade.

"The last thing the U.S. should do is become militarily embroiled in the conflict raging again in Iraq. But for Americans to shake their heads in lofty disdain and turn away, as if they have no responsibility for the continued bloodletting, is outrageous.

"Why?

"Because America bears a large part of the blame for turning Iraq into the basket case it’s become.

"The great majority of Americans don’t realize that fact.

"They never did.

"So much of what the U.S. did to Iraq has been consigned by America to a black hole of history.

"Iraqis, however, can never forget.

"In 1990, for instance, during the first Gulf War, George H.W. Bush, called on the people of Iraq to rise up and overthrow Saddam Hussein.

"But when they finally did, after Saddam’s forces were driven from Kuwait, President Bush refused any gesture of support, even permitted Saddam’s pilots to keep flying their deadly helicopter gunships.

"Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were slaughtered."

The American Legacy in Iraq » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

I'm sure Barry Lando would call the US invasion of Normandy to free France from Hilter's rule, genocide.

No wonder Saddam thought he could last forever in power, his fan club is still supporting him! LOL

 

[TheOldSchool]

More proof that the far left will do what ever it takes to make Iraq a failure and all for political purposes.

Typical propaganda from a far right reince priebus drone

Says the far left Obama drone that wants Iraq to be a failure just to make an (R) look bad.

Says the poster with the hard-on for priebus

 

[Kosh]

Typical propaganda from a far right reince priebus drone

Says the far left Obama drone that wants Iraq to be a failure just to make an (R) look bad.

Says the poster with the hard-on for priebus

More proof that the far left will do what ever it takes to make Iraq a failure and all for political purposes.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Says the far left Obama drone that wants Iraq to be a failure just to make an (R) look bad.

Says the poster with the hard-on for priebus

More proof that the far left will do what ever it takes to make Iraq a failure and all for political purposes.

He said while tucking his dick between his legs and clucking

 

[Kosh]

Says the poster with the hard-on for priebus

More proof that the far left will do what ever it takes to make Iraq a failure and all for political purposes.

He said while tucking his dick between his legs and clucking

More proof that the far left will do what ever it takes to make Iraq a failure and all for political purposes.

 

[georgephillip]

The far left will do their best to make sure Iraq is a failure.

IMHO, it's not about "left" or "right" or "Republican" or "Democrat" as much as it's about the money to be made from endless war and the eternal debt that's required to pay for the conflicts.

I also think you should consider how those who profit from war and private debt define "failure" in Iraq.

By their standards, the US invasion of Iraq, supported by most Rs & Ds alike has succeeded in dividing Iraq into three sub-states. A Sh'ia enclave aligned with Iran with a Baghdad citi-state and Sunni Iraq alongside Syria.

The goal of elites in both major US parties is to redraw the borders of a New Middle East by deliberately creating an "arc of instability stretching from the eastern Mediterranean to the Caspian Sea.

Until US voters elect politicians who find ways to make peace more profitable than war, "failures" like Iraq will multiply, regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans launch them.

Again the far left wants failure in Iraq almost exclusively so they can make their propaganda come true. However notice how the anti-war camps packed up and left after Obama was elected, notice how the death counters disappeared, notice how after the far left took control of Congress in 2006 the Iraq far left propaganda almost came to a halt.

It is about the far left and their wanting Iraq to be a failure just so they can get their way. Just like there are claims that Hilary was against the surge in Iraq solely based on political purposes.

The anti-war movement hasn't gone anywhere.
It has disappeared from MSM after Obama's election.

"Military might is not what defines a superpower. You have to have super patience. You have to have super negotiating power and diplomatic resources. And you have to have super humanitarian aid where needed. We have the possibility of doing all of that.”

Antiwar Mobilization Thwarts Syria Attack ? for now! | United For Peace and Justice

 

[georgephillip]

"By 1999 a UNICEF study concluded that half a million Iraqi children perished in the previous eight years because of the sanctions—and that was four years before they ended. Another American expert in 2003 estimated that the sanctions killed between 343,900 and 529,000 young children and infants–certainly more young people than were ever killed by Saddam Hussein."

The American Legacy in Iraq » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

Saddam had the means to prevent any deaths in Iraq from sanctions. He didn't and instead, resold humanitarian aid meant for Iraqi's on the black market to make money for himself. The entire blame for Iraqi's misery in the 1990s begins and ends with SADDAM HUSSIEN.

Only for those who believe Iraqi History began in 1991
Anyone paying attention knows how the CIA with Richard Helms as Director of Plans organized the 1963 military coup in Baghdad that first brought Saddam's Ba'ath Party to power.

Flash forward forty years and Iraq is once again a target of US "regime change", and very little being said in the corporate press bothered to mention how the CIA used political assassination, mass murder, and torture to bring Saddam to power in the first place.

 

[dblack]

That's what happens when Republicans are in charge. They don't like to read so the only history they know is the one they rewrite. In fact, if they don't care about the middle class and the poor here in this country, the ONLY reason they would be interested in Iraq is for oil and profit.

Do you have anything in your brain that isn't partisan nonsense?

 

[georgephillip]

"BARRY LANDO is a former producer for 60 Minutes who now lives in Paris. He is the author of The Watchman’s File. He can be reached at: barrylando@gmail.com or through his website."

Barry's recent post at CounterPunch alleges the US legacy in Iraq involves genocide more than democracy, and a carefully choreographed cover-up/revisionist spin on the actual events of the last decade.

"The last thing the U.S. should do is become militarily embroiled in the conflict raging again in Iraq. But for Americans to shake their heads in lofty disdain and turn away, as if they have no responsibility for the continued bloodletting, is outrageous.

"Why?

"Because America bears a large part of the blame for turning Iraq into the basket case it’s become.

"The great majority of Americans don’t realize that fact.

"They never did.

"So much of what the U.S. did to Iraq has been consigned by America to a black hole of history.

"Iraqis, however, can never forget.

"In 1990, for instance, during the first Gulf War, George H.W. Bush, called on the people of Iraq to rise up and overthrow Saddam Hussein.

"But when they finally did, after Saddam’s forces were driven from Kuwait, President Bush refused any gesture of support, even permitted Saddam’s pilots to keep flying their deadly helicopter gunships.

"Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were slaughtered."

The American Legacy in Iraq » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

I'm sure Barry Lando would call the US invasion of Normandy to free France from Hilter's rule, genocide.

No wonder Saddam thought he could last forever in power, his fan club is still supporting him! LOL

I'm pretty sure Barry knows the history of Iraq at least as well as you

"In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt on Qasim. The failed assassin was none other than a young Saddam Hussein.

"In 1963, a CIA-organized coup did successfully assassinate Qasim and Saddam's Ba'ath Party came to power for the first time.

"Saddam returned from exile in Egypt and took up the key post as head of Iraq's secret service.

"The CIA then provided the new pliant, Iraqi regime with the names of thousands of communists, and other leftist activists and organizers.

"Thousands of these supporters of Qasim and his policies were soon dead in a rampage of mass murder carried out by the CIA's close friends in Iraq."

Are you still clapping for the CIA?

Regime Change: How the CIA put Saddam's Party in Power

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

Here's the problem that I have with your 'the United States is responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.' And as you say, 'probably far more than Saddam himself.'

Let's look at the Sudan for a second. Do you know how much money is being sent to the Sudan in supplies and food? And when those supplies and food get their, what is happening to that stuff? The same thing that happens to the supplies and food that we sent and are sending to Somalia and Ethiopia. It gets to the docks, gets loaded onto trucks and is promptly placed into a warehouse where a majority of it is STOLEN by warlords or corrupt government officials. It happens time and time again. And those children you see on TV? They die in droves because the help is stolen.

And you are naïve enough to think that Saddam Hussien, who gassed thousands of his own people, was going to worry about what happens to the children of his nation? The thing that kills me is that YOU NEVER LEARN... EVER. You demonstrated when Reagan put missiles into Europe in response to the SS-20's. Nuclear Armageddon, you cried! How horrible of the US you whined, never once screaming about the SS-20's in Poland and Czechoslavakia. Your allies in Hollywood even made a scare movie about nuclear war and showed it on prime time. Sit down with the Soviets you whined. They're not that bad, you can talk to them you pleaded. Give them what they want, we don't want to die! Reagan didn't listen and the end result? START II and the collapse of the Soviet Union. You cannot sit down and deal with tyrants, despots and psychotic regimes. You have to deal with them from a position of STRENGTH. I don't expect you to actually read, but there are several good books from the old Soviet point of view about what Reagan did and why it threw them into such a fit. He didn't buckle and they knew they were in trouble. You remember JFK? Same as he did during the Cuban missile crisis.

Naturally, everything that the US does in the middle east is because we WANT THEIR OIL. Course, if it was, we should be rolling in it? You and rdean, who doesn't have a glimmer of common sense, should look at the export totals for Iraqi oil, the import break down of oil imported into the US, and tell me where all this oil we went to war for, is going. Less and less oil from the middle east is making its way to the US because of the new finds. The Saudi's are nervous about it too.

You think for a second that if the embargo was lifted that Saddam would have allowed tons of supplies to immediately go to children? Then you are as idiotic as rdean. It would have went to him and his family and then sold on the black market to finance his personal empire. I just don't understand the idiocy of people trying to say that these type of tyrants will act like normal people. They won't...

 

[georgephillip]

Here's the problem that I have with your 'the United States is responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.' And as you say, 'probably far more than Saddam himself.'

Let's look at the Sudan for a second. Do you know how much money is being sent to the Sudan in supplies and food? And when those supplies and food get their, what is happening to that stuff? The same thing that happens to the supplies and food that we sent and are sending to Somalia and Ethiopia. It gets to the docks, gets loaded onto trucks and is promptly placed into a warehouse where a majority of it is STOLEN by warlords or corrupt government officials. It happens time and time again. And those children you see on TV? They die in droves because the help is stolen.

And you are naïve enough to think that Saddam Hussien, who gassed thousands of his own people, was going to worry about what happens to the children of his nation? The thing that kills me is that YOU NEVER LEARN... EVER. You demonstrated when Reagan put missiles into Europe in response to the SS-20's. Nuclear Armageddon, you cried! How horrible of the US you whined, never once screaming about the SS-20's in Poland and Czechoslavakia. Your allies in Hollywood even made a scare movie about nuclear war and showed it on prime time. Sit down with the Soviets you whined. They're not that bad, you can talk to them you pleaded. Give them what they want, we don't want to die! Reagan didn't listen and the end result? START II and the collapse of the Soviet Union. You cannot sit down and deal with tyrants, despots and psychotic regimes. You have to deal with them from a position of STRENGTH. I don't expect you to actually read, but there are several good books from the old Soviet point of view about what Reagan did and why it threw them into such a fit. He didn't buckle and they knew they were in trouble. You remember JFK? Same as he did during the Cuban missile crisis.

Naturally, everything that the US does in the middle east is because we WANT THEIR OIL. Course, if it was, we should be rolling in it? You and rdean, who doesn't have a glimmer of common sense, should look at the export totals for Iraqi oil, the import break down of oil imported into the US, and tell me where all this oil we went to war for, is going. Less and less oil from the middle east is making its way to the US because of the new finds. The Saudi's are nervous about it too.

You think for a second that if the embargo was lifted that Saddam would have allowed tons of supplies to immediately go to children? Then you are as idiotic as rdean. It would have went to him and his family and then sold on the black market to finance his personal empire. I just don't understand the idiocy of people trying to say that these type of tyrants will act like normal people. They won't...

Iraq, Sudan, and Somalia along with Libya, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran were all slated for regime change within weeks of 911. Most of those who profit the most from starving thousands of children don't live in any of those states.

They live in the USA.

Likewise those in the USA who get rich from war could care less about acquiring ME oil for the American consumer than they do about controlling who receives the oil elsewhere on the planet, and how much they pay for it. FDR set this in motion in 1944 when the US was the world's leading oil exporter.

Your conservative crocodile tears for the "thousands of his own people" gassed by Saddam would be a lot more believable if you were to equally condemn the role the CIA played in bringing Saddam to power in the first place, along with other butchers from Indonesia to the Philippines, to Guatemala.

As far as the Gipper and the Russians are concerned, the last thing Russia needed at the end of WWII was a Cold War with a global superpower whose homeland infrastructure was untouched by the war. Had countries like Greece, Palestine, Korea, and Vietnam been allowed to decide their own fates at the ballot box at that time, those SS-20s would not have been needed in Poland and Czechoslavakia, and neither would US missiles in Turkey.

I'm guessing we both started school in the 1950s.
One of the most common discussions of political economy I remember hearing at that time was a fear of another Great Depression without wartime spending.
Cold War spending might have made our childhoods more comfortable; however, it came at huge price in places like Korea, Vietnam and the Middle East.