Bush, the Iraq War and future wars

My Recent Posts

From Donald Trump to Kathy Griffin, if there is one thing most of America agrees on is that George Bush started the war with Iraq.  This commonly held belief is false.


Following September 11th, Republicans and Democrats voted for action.  This action included support for both the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, waterboarding, the Patriot Act, NSA snooping and the holding of prisoners at Guantanamo.  So any suggestion that the war was Bush’s fault or that Republicans are blood thirsty is simply revisionist history…see the voting record of the Democrats while in office at the time. 


Even Hillary voted to attack Iraq, a fact that liberals are quick to forget and blame entirely on Bush.  At least Bush sought Congressional approval before bombing other nations, something Obama did not do before bombing Libya.  Should something terrible happen again you can be sure Americas will do what’s necessary to punish those that deserve it and like clockwork, the liberals, despite voting for whatever means necessary, are sure to blame Republicans and label them “war mongers.”


For those that think the Iraq war was an example of American Imperialism or our appetite for oil, I say hogwash.  If that were true we’d still be there and the oil would be ours to do with as we please, but we voluntarily left. 


Despite the total collapse of the region, I’m happy Americans sent the world a message.  If we had stayed to keep the peace the refugee crisis, mass ISIS beheadings and the Syrian civil war probably would never have happened and people would feel a lot better about what we accomplished.  I tip my hat to every politician who put our soldiers into harm’s way, as that was the most difficult vote they’ll ever cast, but a highly necessary vote.  It was necessary because it showed every terrorist and would be terrorist of the awesome power of our military might and our potential to use it.  


As it relates to future wars, I would be highly supportive of a preemptive strike on both Iran and North Korea.  It is only a matter of time before both of these countries develop the capability to hit America with a nuclear warhead.  Based on how crazy both regimes have proven to be, I have no doubt they will eventually use this technology.  So we might as well not wait until it’s too late. 


Leroy Added Jun 18, 2017 - 8:20am
Bush led the charge, so he owns it. 
Where I fault Bush is trying to win the peace.  That albatross was hung around his neck.  We should have left when the mission was accomplished and let the warring tribes battle it out and then come back and pick up the pieces when they tired of the fighting.
Even my wife accuses the US of being after the oil.  I have to remind her that China has likely benefitted more than the US.
Wars should never as the last resort.  They should be fought when necessary. 
Dino Manalis Added Jun 18, 2017 - 8:34am
The war in Afghanistan was in response to 9/11, but the second Iraq War was political action to complete the job and remove Saddam Hussein, something Bush Senior didn't do and was criticized by Republicans for almost a decade.  Some blamed Colin Powell, but George h. W. Bush is a foreign policy expert, he knew ousting Saddam would ignite sectarian violence and chaos.  His son found the opportunity to topple Saddam after 9/11, but he actually started preparing for a war ever since he entered office.  
Bill Caciene Added Jun 18, 2017 - 8:39am
You’re obviously free to believe whatever you like, but if someone in Congress felt that going to war was a bad idea, they should have voted against it.  You simply can’t recreate the sentiment of society immediately after 9/11, so I see your position as scapegoating with 20/20 hindsight.  I’m quite certain if something similar happened now, America would go to war again and people like you and your wife would support it. 
The mission was accomplished after we stabilized the region, even Obama admitted that publicly.  Sadly Obama threw it all away to score political points.
One more point, the war was a last resort. 
George N Romey Added Jun 18, 2017 - 8:44am
9/11 began the neocon wet dream.  It became the basis to plunge our country into never ending and certainly never able to win wars, conflicts and skirmishes.  These actions are bleeding our treasury and killing young people that have few choices in life but the military.  Like dying empires we never stop fighting the boogeyman rather than attend to our own problems.
Bill Kamps Added Jun 18, 2017 - 8:53am
Granted many  US politicians approved of the war in Iraq, largely based on the "information" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.  This "information" was pushed and presented by the Bush administration, so they largely own the war.
As with any decision like this, the reasons are complex, and the politicians all had their own reasons for their vote.  However we do have to remember Wolfowitz's comment that the Iraqi oil would pay for the war. Like many things related to the war, that didnt work out so well.
The war was handled badly, everything from the Mission Accomplished nonsense, to what we did in country after eliminating the Iraqi army.  The US was naive that a democracy could be put in place of a dictator.  We continued this folly in Afghanistan, Egypt and Lybia. 
Democrats and GOP alike believed the nonsense that if we just get rid of the dictator, democracy would flourish. Unfortunately they forgot the other possibility, that civil war would erupt.  Unfortunately they didnt realize that there are reasons for the autocratic governments in the region, it is the only way to keep the lid on the boiling pot of tribes that owe allegiance to their tribe before their country.
Between Iraq and Afghanistan, we spent some three trillions dollars, lost thousands of our own, killed tens of thousands of innocents, and accomplished very little.  Neither country is much better off than we found it.  We can blame subsequent administrations after Bush for the ultimate mess, but the Bush admin never fathomed the wars would go on for 15 years, they had no sound plan once they defeated the local armies.  The Bush admin plus other politicians and advisors created messes that were not easy to get out of. 
We can say mistakes were made, but the biggest mistake was starting the wars in the first place.  We had no idea what we wanted as an outcome, which is the first rule according to Sun Tsu.  We didnt want to negotiate with terrorists, but negotiation is the only way to end a war.  Wars dont generally end because one side kills all of the other side.  Wars end in negotiation.
Attacking North Korea and Iran, because we think they might commit country suicide once they acquire the technology to hit the US strikes me as foolish.  Doing a preemtive strike on either is complex.  In Iran because finding and destroying their facilities is not easy, and in NK because of their ability to quickly strike the South.  If it were easy it would be more supportable, and probably it would have already  been done.  In both cases it is unclear what the subsequent events would be, and whether things would be better or worse afterward.  It is unclear we could do a conventional strike that would solve the problem, and doing a nuclear strike is incredibly risky.
I suppose it never occurs to folks that maybe these countries want nukes for defensive reasons, which is the reason that every other country has nukes.  NK cant compete with our air craft carriers, but if they have a nuke, they can feel secure that no one will attack them.
Bill Caciene Added Jun 18, 2017 - 9:30am
There are no neocons.  It’s just slanderous term used to falsely label conservatives as being pro war.  If every conservative could snap their fingers and make the 9/11 tragedy go away, they most certainly would. 
Hussein used weapons of mass destruction on the Kurds and kicked out weapons inspectors.  Setting those facts aside, the same false intelligence reports indicating they still had weapons of mass destruction are what drove Bush to attack and Congress to vote to attack (among other reasons). Or are you suggesting Bush lied to the American people and doctored the intelligence in order to attack Iraq?  In other words, he knew Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction and attacked anyways.
I know how liberals would answer that question, but you sound like a rational and intelligent person.   So I simply want to know the type of person I’m speaking with before I respond to the other elements of your response.
George N Romey Added Jun 18, 2017 - 9:44am
Bill Kamps excellent summation!  There are neocons.  They believe in US military and economic hegemony, as in we are the chosen ones to rule most of the world alike how GB saw their empire in the 19th and early 20th century.  Setting aside what was ignored leading up to 9/11 the neocons used the never let a crisis go to waste excuse.  We are paying for it 15 years later with no end in sight.
Actually the wars have cost us $6 trillion.  Just think of what could have been done on the home front with that kind of money.
Bill Kamps Added Jun 18, 2017 - 10:07am
BC, Im not willing to go so far as to say the Bush Admin knew Iraq didnt have WMD.  I think they believed what they wanted to believe, and connected the dots incorrectly.  They had weak intelligence, that coupled with an inclination to recommend an attack, caused them to make wrong assumptions.  They saw what  they wanted to see in the intelligence.
I dont think the assumption on WMD was their worst mistake.  Their worst mistake was not allowing for the possibility of a protracted civil war once the Iraqi military was gone. 
So they underestimated the chances the intelligence was wrong, and they thought the  intervention would be easier than it was.  Iraq was no threat to the US, certainly less of a threat to our interests than NK is today.  When Bush 41 didnt go to Baghdad I questioned that decision, but in hindsight it looks like he made the right decision.
Whenever we consider intervention, we have to ask "What could go wrong?"  because even with our overwhelming military, we cant control the situation once the shooting begins and we destabilize the situation.  We cant just fall back on "we will nuke them", if the situation gets messy.  It is easy to get into these wars, it is not easy to control the outcome, or necessarily to get out.
Bill Caciene Added Jun 18, 2017 - 10:19am
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the world is full of some terrible and crazy people.  Some of these people lead countries that have WMDs or wish to obtain WMDs.  This puts the rest of the free and rational world in terrible danger.  You can put your head in the sand and hope for the best.  I think we need to be proactive and Iraq was a perfect example.  Oh and by the way, the refugee problem came to be when Obama vacated the region.  
Paul Austin Murphy Added Jun 18, 2017 - 10:36am

From Donald Trump to Kathy Griffin, if there is one thing most of America agrees on is that George Bush started the war with Iraq. This commonly held belief is false.” - Bill Caciene
Absolutely! No single person can ever start a war entirely on his own. Not even an American president. Countless factors were responsible for that war in 2003.
People who blame Bush, or Tony Blair in the U.K., must be morons. They must like black-and-white worlds. All the easier to blame and agitate.
Paul Austin Murphy Added Jun 18, 2017 - 10:43am

.... and the holding of prisoners at Guantanamo.”
Guantanamo Bay is and was a holiday camp compared to the behaviour of many other countries – including socialist countries. Eight people died in over ten years. Some by suicide. Compare this to the 30,000 dissident killed by Castro. Compare this to the tens of thousands killed by the Iranian state.... The Soviet Union? Why bother arguing about this!?
Even Hillary voted to attack Iraq, a fact that liberals are quick to forget and blame entirely on Bush.”
Bill Clinton bombed that Sundanese hospital.
In any case, that second UN Resolution wasn't required - force had already been justified by the UN. It was a resolution demanded by those who would never have go to war with Saddam. It was a con and a gimmick. It was also a resolution to tell us that the previous resolution was okay. I mean – really?
Paul Austin Murphy Added Jun 18, 2017 - 10:49am

The thing is that Leftists and Democrats aren't pacifists or against violence. No way! They pick and choose which examples of war and violence are acceptable. If the war is carried by socialist states, Muslim states, African states, etc., it's okay. If it's carried out by America or Western "capitalist states", it's automatically wrong.... Leftists are also in favour of violent revolution, the Gulag, “class liquidations”, the “no platform” policy, "class war", the assassination of Trump, violence against Trump's supports, ad infinitum!
Paul Austin Murphy Added Jun 18, 2017 - 10:56am

9/11 began the neocon wet dream.” - George N Romey
Despite defending this article, I'm basically a non-interventionist. Though not a fundamentalist non-interventionist. It often depends on the situation. My position is simply against blaming Bush for the war; as well as against Leftist and Democrat hypocrisy. It's not a case of either/or.
It became the basis to plunge our country into never ending and certainly never able to win wars, conflicts and skirmishes.”
You can win wars. If the will and support is there: you can win wars. WW2 is one obvious example.
Paul Austin Murphy Added Jun 18, 2017 - 10:58am
In other words, I'm no fan of neoconservatives. Though I'm not fan of pseudo-pacifists either. As well as those who say that no foreign intervention is ever necessary. As I said, it depends entirely on the specifics of the case under discussion.
George N Romey Added Jun 18, 2017 - 11:27am
Yes we could carpet bomb those 7 Middle Eastern countries until most are dead and the place is in total ruins-like what we did to Germany and Japan with the atomic bomb in WW2. But this isn't WW2 & the world is not with us. The few left won't greet us like the surviving Germans and Japanese. On practical terms these wars are not winnable.
Bill Kamps Added Jun 18, 2017 - 11:54am
Paul, you can win wars, and you can win the peace afterward. WW2 was an example of both.  In Iraq we won the war and lost the peace afterward.   Germany and Japan did not descend into civil war after the end of the war, partly because of the society they were, and partly because of how the Allies handled the peace. 
Too many people in the Mideast have allegiances to their religious sect or tribe, over their country.  In many cases the country  itself is an artificial contrivance with borders implemented by former colonial empires, rather than by the people of the region.  This makes for a great deal of instability.  Destroying the government leads to civil war, rather than to democracy like Japan and Germany.
It took mistakes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt and Libya before the leaders of the US figured out that there are risks to removing dictators in the MidEast.  That is why we have been cautious in Syria.
In Egypt and Libya we helped to remove the dictators, and walked away from the peace.   In neither case is the country or its people better off afterward. 
Every case is different, every case is fraught with the unknown going in.  Our recent wars have been wars largely of our choosing.  We should be cautious about starting wars, because you have to win not only the war, but the subsequent peace, if the war is to be judged a success.
NK and Iran are both dangerous places where if we attack we cant be sure how effective the attack will be, or what the response of those countries, and other countries will be.  Neither is an immediate threat to the US, in neither case are we sure they will use their nukes once they can.  No other country once acquiring nukes has used them, so just because their leaders are "crazy" in our minds, does not mean they will commit suicide for their country.
Bill Caciene Added Jun 18, 2017 - 12:12pm
What you’re really talking about is a grand conspiracy.  You see there is not a single prominent conservative you can quote that advocates for the things you say.  So for you to be right all of them must be publicly lying for their reason to attack Iraq, let alone any of our other engagements.  Not only that, they must all have some secret agreement with each other.  Sorry...I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but that's some imagination you have.  
Leroy Added Jun 18, 2017 - 12:25pm
"You simply can’t recreate the sentiment of society immediately after 9/11, so I see your position as scapegoating with 20/20 hindsight.  I’m quite certain if something similar happened now, America would go to war again and people like you and your wife would support it."
I gave it mild support based on the presumption there were weapons of mass destruction.  Saddam gave the world the impression he had them.  I took him at his word.  I applauded Bush when he declared victory.  He should have got us the hell outta there after that.  His downfall was succumbing to the pressure from Democrats to win the peace as the moral and right thing to do.  The objective was to eliminate the threat, which he did.  He snatched defeat from the jaws of victory trying to win the peace.
Bill Kamps Added Jun 18, 2017 - 12:35pm
Leroy, in effect that is what we did in Libya, remove the dictator and walk away. Obviously way better than more than a decade of war. 
However, Libya still was not a great outcome, either for the people in country, Europe which has to deal with the refugees, or the rest of the world that has to deal with another failed state.
The US was very naive to think that the "Arab Spring" would  lead to anything more than civil war, and persecution of minorities in the countries affected.
Bill Caciene Added Jun 18, 2017 - 12:51pm
Between the hard evidence of Iraq gassing the Kurds with WMDs and the intelligence apparatus saying "it was a slam dunk" that Iraq had WMDs, I think you're the one not connecting the dots. Again l, all I read from you is a combination of 20/20 hindsight and scapegoating.
As to the post-war mistakes and setbacks, I read more if the same. Perhaps a different president would have handled the whole thing better, perhaps not.  One thing we know for sure, Bush wouldn't have squandered all that blood and treasure.
Micahel Dolan Added Jun 18, 2017 - 1:04pm
No mention of why Iraq failed after Iraq won and the kids were out playing ball with are soldiers .It failed in the end because we had an enemy of America named Barack Hussein Obama- pulled our troops and hell broke loose. Obama allowed Iranian leaders to take control.
Hussein Obama had a job as president transform the greatest nation ever born. Obama will never stop hurting America his Imam will punish him-Valerie Jarret is his terrorist Queen-
Wake Up-and smell the haters.Americans need to take notice of whay is occurring under a man of questionable character, disdain for Constitutional  limits on his power, a quest for transformation of America Obama is the enemy wake up.
Bill Caciene Added Jun 18, 2017 - 1:05pm
Would you mind copying and pasting a quote from a neoconservative you disagree with. 
Leroy Added Jun 18, 2017 - 1:31pm
Agreed, Bill K.  We went in with no regard to what would happen if we removed the dictator.  Kaddafi seemed to have quieted down after Reagan sent an express mail to him.  He kept the lid on things.  The same for Assad.  I say leave him alone.  Let sleeping dogs lie.
Jeff Jackson Added Jun 18, 2017 - 2:14pm
Bill Caciene, you are exactly correct, and it is refreshing to see someone who understands how the government of the United States works. Yes, the president is the commander in chief, but the U.S. Congress controls the purse strings, and they actually declare war. Wars get pinned on  presidents, but nothing much happens if the U.S. Congress decides to cut off the money.
Bill Caciene Added Jun 18, 2017 - 4:58pm
If a president wants to go to war without the approval of congress, he can pretty much do so. As it relates to Iraq, Bush sought and received congressional support. As for Obama, he did the weenie and didn't seek congressional support for any of his military engagements. Most of what he did was done under Bush's Iraq vote.
When the country started to crumble we were invited back. So we did leave and we were asked to come back. we continue to leave Iraqi oil for the Iraqis.
Jeff Jackson Added Jun 18, 2017 - 5:38pm
The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress.
Bill Caciene Added Jun 18, 2017 - 7:12pm
If the Act worked the way you think, tell me how Obama dropped bombs in Syria and Libya without Congressional approval?  Once again, Bush did the stand-up thing and got Congressional approval, Obama didn't.   
Patrick Writes Added Jun 18, 2017 - 9:25pm
Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. He didn't have weapons of mass destruction. He wasn't trying to get yellow cake uranium to build a nuclear bomb. He didn't have mobile (chemical) weapons labs as presented by Colin Powell at the U.N.--the intel for which came from known liar "Curveball" who admitted after the fact that he made it all up.
The Germans warned the U.S. government about Curveball because he was an Iraqi defector living in Germany. To my knowledge, they warned them nothing he said added up or made sense. 
The forged British document about yellow cake uranium from Africa was made up as well. My understanding is the British authenticated this document about a purchase in Niger from Saddam. But upon closer examination, anyone could tell is wasn't true. The French said it was nonsense at the time because they controlled the ports in Niger. If you're shipping out tons of uranium, you'll need special transportation devices, none of which came through their ports based on the paperwork and other controls they had. 
You had U.N. inspectors. 
But the Bush Admin went to the American people on more than one occasion effectively saying "We have intel that shows an imminent biological or nuclear attack will come from Iraq unless we attack". They used the words "mushroom cloud over an American city" on more than one occasion (Condi said that phrase as did Cheney on various talkshows). 
So they scaremongered the country and the Congress into a war vote. If you're a Congressman, do you trust the president if he says the intel says an attack is imminent, or are you supposed to claw and jump up and down and stonewall until a military person presents you with the hard evidence and interprets it for you? That was the choice the Congress had at the time. A few decented in the vote, most did not.
I hardly think it's fair to say, "Congress voted for it, they own it" when the president basically asked the country to trust him and his administration when they were completely lying. 
Patrick Writes Added Jun 18, 2017 - 9:28pm
Not to condone Obama, but Reagan invaded two small countries (Panama and Grenada) without a Congressional war vote. 

Clinton bombed a lot of countries with no war vote. 
Trump did a missile strike into Syria without a war vote. 
Ric Wells Added Jun 18, 2017 - 10:49pm
Oh blah blah blah. The D's started this the R's started that. It makes no difference. The war machine has been and will be in effect unless the basic structure of this nation. This has been a war mongering expansionistic govt and policy since the first Europeans "discovered" this continent and they couldn't even get that correct. So stop playing the blame game. This govt sucks on both sides. 
Paul Austin Murphy Added Jun 19, 2017 - 12:26am

Yes we could carpet bomb those 7 Middle Eastern countries until most are dead and the place is in total ruins-like what we did to Germany and Japan with the atomic bomb in WW2.” - George Romey
I've already said that I'm not a default interventionist. Unless you're responding to someone else.
So the U.S. and U.K. shouldn't have gone to war with either Germany or Japan? You seem to be saying that.
I'm not sure about carpet bombing entire countries. The Arab world isn't deeply forested like Vietnam and Cambodia. You could carpet bomb specific areas. Most military acts are severely circumscribed by Leftists in the law, international institutions, etc. That's why many wars carry on and on. Overkill sometimes saves lives, rather than the opposite. Fake pacifism (i.e., anti-capitalism) and anti-war activism can often prolong wars.
Having said all that, I certainly don't believe that democracy can be imposed. But, as for retaliation against terrorism, kill them.
On practical terms these wars are not winnable.”
An argument which has been use about every war.
Paul Austin Murphy Added Jun 19, 2017 - 12:33am

You are still there, you never left voluntarily and the USMIC controls the Iraqi oil contract business.” - John G
Let's take it as true – for now! - that the USMIC does control all Iraq's oil (though it's probably false). What does that mean? That the Iraqis don't use that oil? That they don't decide what to do with that oil? That they have no financial interests whatsoever in that oil? Are Iraqis dumb, in your view?
Do you really believe that Iraq - run by a Shia government that ordinarily hates America and Americans - has zero control over its own oil? Really? Besides which, I bet that the moment I look into this I will find that USMIC does not control all Iraq's oil.
Paul Austin Murphy Added Jun 19, 2017 - 4:24am

So the USG overthrew the elected executive and unleashed ISIS.” - John G
Are you referring to Saddam's dictatorship here or a Iraqi government post-2003? Or doesn't that matter? Is this just your half-digested history in soundbite form?
You are not the saviours of the middle east. You are not fighting terrorism. You are not promoting democracy or defending lives.”
And neither are you and others of your political persuasion.
You are an empire destroying nations and civilisations for the profit of your ruling class.”
Marxism for loud, angry and sexually-frustrated juveniles.
BP effectively controls and receives a cut from every oil extraction contract let in Iraq.”
What happened to USMIC controlling all the oil which you stated only a few comments ago? That changed quickly. Now a British outfit is under John G's teenage gaze for controlling all Iraq's oil. Are you changing your story in order to make your soundbites more palatable?
You've never, ever read a truthful analysis of the legal situation in Iraq in your media.”
How do you know what the contributors to WriterBeat read? Do you simply assume you know what they read? What if you're as brainwashed by Marxist juvenilia as we are by the platonic Mainstream Media?
Paul Austin Murphy Added Jun 19, 2017 - 4:35am

We should have left when the mission was accomplished and let the warring tribes battle it out and then come back and pick up the pieces when they tired of the fighting.” - Leroy
I agree with all that; except for the last clause. Why should we "pick up" their "pieces"? It depends, though, on what you mean by that.
The Sunni-Shia war has been going on for 1,400 years. The idea that the intervention of 2003 brought it about is ridiculous. What did happen in that Saddam's dictatorship kept Islamic sectarianism under raps. That dictatorship kept everything under raps! It also killed over a million. Used torture on a scale which made Guantánamo Bay seem like a holiday camp. Gassed people the way that communists "liquidated" people.
Unless “anti-war” protests favoured Saddam. After all, he was a Baathist socialist; as is Bashar Assad. Google it: socialism requires dictatorship.... The Trotskyist Stop the War Coalition (once led by Jeremy Corbyn) had much sympathy with Saddam, as it does today with Assad. Google the socialist George Galloway and his friendships with both Saddam and Bashar Assad. 
Bill Kamps Added Jun 19, 2017 - 7:13am
Again l, all I read from you is a combination of 20/20 hindsight and scapegoating.
Hindsight is all we have, because we are talking about the past.  We never learn all the government knew, and we only learn what little we are allowed to learn after the fact.  No reason we shouldn't second guess our foreign policy so we try top stop repeating the same mistakes.
I guess when someone in government says something is a slam dunk, there still is some possibility they are wrong.  We should consider that the next time someone says something is a slam dunk.  Im sure this is not the first time someone said what the boss wanted to hear.
I dont see anywhere that I was scapegoating Bush.  I agreed that Congress and many other politicians were involved.  To be fair, both the left and right have been following largely the same big picture foreign policy for quite some time, which is that we should be the world's policeman and should be intervening in these kinds of places. 
When we went into Afghanistan our government said, we arent there for nation building, and we wont negotiate with the Taliban. If we aren't going to do either of those things, why were we there? and how do we know when the mission is accomplished?
Both the Bush and Obama admins showed how naive the US in general is about the Mideast.  If that is scapegoating then so be it. 
I agree with Paul, what does it mean that the US "controls" the Iraqi oil? does that mean we get it for free? we decide who they sell to? they aren't shipping it to the US, that is pretty easy to figure out.  So what does it mean to control their oil?  Its nonsense.
Leroy Added Jun 19, 2017 - 7:42am
"I agree with all that; except for the last clause. Why should we "pick up" their "pieces"? It depends, though, on what you mean by that."
We don't have an obligation to do anything.  War is to accomplish an objective, not to be nice.  My knowledge of history is not profound, but it is my understanding that this is what Julius Ceasar did with the Gauls.  Once they were battle weary, he came in, mopped up, and established order.  He didn't have to do the heavy fighting.  The people were more accepting of Roman rule.  There was no strong opposition.
Bill Caciene Added Jun 19, 2017 - 8:38am
Iraq was attacked because after 9/11 it became clear that America needed to be proactive in its fight against rogue regimes and terrorism.  That is the connection between Hussein and 9/11. 
As to the accusation the administration scared us into action, guilty as charged.  Based on the evidence and behavior of Hussein, the administration was of the belief he possessed chemical weapons and had the will to use them.  If members of the administration made it sound like Iraq had nuclear weapons and the ability to hit the United States with them, I’d like to see a link to the quote.  Either way, we should have been scared then and we should be scared today of WMDs.  A large scale chemical attack on Israel would most certainly start World War III, and from there, the strong likelihood nuclear weapons are deployed.
Spare me the crap about Bush “lying” and Congress being a victim.  Bush was simply relaying what our intelligence apparatus was saying.  Put yourself in Bush's shoes, if Hussein didn’t have them, why on earth did he kick out weapons inspectors?  
Bill Caciene Added Jun 19, 2017 - 8:43am
If America has a “war mongering expansionistic govt and policy,” do tell, where have we expanded?  Look pal, I get the fact you’re free to say what you like but I find you repulsive. We’re not war mongers and we’re not expanding anywhere.  You’re just an anti-American dickhead. 
Bill Caciene Added Jun 19, 2017 - 9:10am
Bush operated in Iraq under a status of forces agreement.  So did Obama until he couldn’t negotiate another one.  However, in light of the fact he gave countless speeches announcing his desire to leave Iraq, most rational people know he used the SOF agreement as cover.  Believing we unleashed ISIS is simply more anti-Americanism nonsense. 
Bill Kamps Added Jun 19, 2017 - 9:24am
Bill C, admittedly SH said he had nuclear weapons, it is one of those weird situations in history where the guy brought on his own demise because of simple bragging, or bullying, whatever his reason.
As I said earlier, the big issue was not whether he had WMD, it was that we weren't prepared for the civil war that got created when we eliminated the Iraqi army.  We won the war, but the peace was a mess.
I dont know, and probably few people know the details of what the intelligence people knew.  So I cant say if we should  have known he didnt have these weapons.  We know he had chemical weapons, but none of what he had could reach the US, or even very far from Iraq.  So we werent forced to act, we acted at our choosing.
It is impossible to know if we did something different whether ISIS would have still been formed.  They are yet another part of the instability which we were involved in, but which would have existed anyway. If we kept a large presence in Iraq ISIS may not have formed there, but could have formed elsewhere.
Bill Caciene Added Jun 19, 2017 - 9:27am
It wasn’t like we attacked Iraq because someone at the CIA said it was a “slam dunk” Hussein had WMDs.  There was all sorts of evidence.  The most compelling for me were the dead Kurds, killed because of a chemical weapons attack from Hussein.  Second on the list was the fact Hussein kicked out weapons inspectors.  The slam dunk remark was 8th on my list. 
As it relates to being the world’s policemen, that’s just a misleading talking point.  America is a superpower and we keep the peace because no other country has the capability to do so.  To be sure, we should involve our military only when absolutely necessary and I believe we do.  Of course, we’re going to make mistakes, nobody knows exactly the right level of involvement for a situation.  For example, Iraq required a surge to stabilize the region. 
We went to Afghanistan because the country harbors terrorists and those terrorists attacked us on 9/11.  I believe I can articulate why we should still be there, but let’s not have that debate in this thread. 
As for the scapegoating, maybe I was too hard on you.  I’ve just had it with liberal hypocrisy / blaming Bush regarding Iraq.
Bill Caciene Added Jun 19, 2017 - 9:39am
The comment above is a reply to your previous comment. 
Regarding your latest comment, I agree that we weren’t prepared for the difficulty involved in keeping the peace.  However, I’m not sure another presidential administration would have done any better. 
If Hussein launched a chemical weapon at Israel, Israel would have annihilated Iraq.  This would probably entice every Arab nation to attack Israel and I see us getting involved if that should happen.  So even though Iraq couldn’t hit America with a weapon, I think we needed to act, so did just about everyone in Congress at the time. All I ask is that people stop blaming Bush, it was a bipartisan decision.  Unlike Obama, he went to Congress and got approval to attack. 
George N Romey Added Jun 19, 2017 - 10:19am
There was zero, zilch, nada evidence that Hussein intended to attack Israel.  Hussein was a cruel dictator that ruled his country with an iron hand with little interest in regional religious and cultural differences.  He kept his country's own religious sect in hand by terrorizing the country.  Was he an evil man?  Yes. So by that account the US should declare war on any country it deems the ruler cruel and unjust.
Both Bush and Congress were to blame for one of our country's biggest failures.
Leroy Added Jun 19, 2017 - 10:47am
Looks like will be going to war with Russia in Syria after the US shot down a Syrian jet.  Russia is now threatening to shot down anything that flies.  I don't see the US military backing down.  For better or worse, Trump is letting the military make military decisions.
Paul Austin Murphy Added Jun 19, 2017 - 11:26am
"There was zero, zilch, nada evidence that Hussein intended to attack Israel." - George Romey
He did attack Israel, with a scud missile, about ten years earlier! It failed. I'll find a link for you. He also funded Hamas. Most Arab leaders have promised to "destroy Israel". Whether that was bluster or not depends. If they had the means, they would have destroyed Israel. They never had the means.
"Yes. So by that account the US should declare war on any country it deems the ruler cruel and unjust."
I agree; that can't be done.

"Both Bush and Congress were to blame for one of our country's biggest failures."
Bush didn't have your hindsight. He wasn't an expert on Islamic sectarianism. And neither was the anti-war movement and those on the Right who spoke out, retrospectively, against the war.
Paul Austin Murphy Added Jun 19, 2017 - 11:28am
I was wrong George. That scud attack did hit Israel.
Bill Caciene Added Jun 19, 2017 - 1:10pm
Hussein attacked and took control of Kuwait.  He also launched 38 Scud missiles into Israel and 57 Scud missiles into Saudi Arabia.  If it wasn’t for the fact America took out Iraq’s air force, you can be sure more lethal missiles would have been used.  So as you can plainly see he didn’t just terrorize his own country and he did intend to harm Israel. 
Bill Kamps Added Jun 19, 2017 - 3:44pm
I agree that we weren’t prepared for the difficulty involved in keeping the peace.  However, I’m not sure another presidential administration would have done any better. 
Bill C, this is not a left/right debate for me. I would agree it is unlikely any other administration would have done much better in Iraq or Afghanistan.  They are difficult places.  My question is whether it was wise to go in, and whether we were clear about our goals.
What I object to is the reasoning about why we are going there and how long we need to stay to accomplish the goals.  If as you say, we should be in Afghanistan to keep out terrorists and stabilize the country, this is not a 2-3 year mission, or even 5-10.  We should just say we are going in indefinitely, because that is what it will take.  We say we aren't nation building, but that is what it looks  like, and that probably is the only thing that will work.
Worse than not going in, is going in and then leaving the people who have worked with us, and helped us, high and dry to be killed by the people who take over after we leave.
I think the debate over WMD is kind of a red herring.  There was information to believe they had nukes, and we know they had chemical weapons.  However, even given that, was it wise to go in.  That was a decision of choice because their WMD were no threat to the US at that time.   We dont intervene everywhere in the world there are problems, we pick and choose.
It is important because something similar may happen in NK or Iran.  A you say, you support an intervention there, whatever that means.  Im not sure what kind of intervention would be  needed to be successful, and so I cant say I support one.  Its not like we can send over some  cruise missiles and stop their nuke programs.  So it wont be easy.
I suspect it would be difficult to intervene without setting off a set of events that would be worse than doing nothing, because I dont think it is a given that as soon as these countries get the capability they will use a nuke on us.  There are countries physically much closer than us who should be concerned, and they should be involved in any solution.  I would think the Israelis would have more concern about Iran than us.  If they nuke Israel, then we can nuke  them back.  However, Im not convinced that both of these countries are on a suicide mission. 
Bill Caciene Added Jun 19, 2017 - 5:08pm
We had no choice.  It was known that 9/11 was perpetrated by a terrorist organization within the nation and the government was sympathetic to the terrorists.  As to when to leave, that is a really difficult question and you highlight many of the reasons why.   
With the security of 20/20 hindsight, I agree it was unwise to have fought the war.  After all, between not finding WMDs and spoiling our victory, it sure seems like a mistake. But let’s not overlook the good that came of it, we removed a hostile dictator.  In addition, we informed the world that hostile dictators with a propensity to use WMDs will not be tolerated. 
Iran & North Korea
Both situations are likely what presidents go gray rather quickly.  I don’t know what the answer is but burying our head in the sand like we did with the Iran nuclear agreement, is not an acceptable response to the threat.  As both countries advance technologically the ability to hit us with a nuclear warhead will increase.  Or they could just load one on a boat and have a terrorist detonate it on our soil.  Or they could hit a geographically close ally of ours. And make no mistake if Israel is hit with a nuclear weapon, World War III will begin.  In other words, we should be very concerned.
Bill Kamps Added Jun 19, 2017 - 5:43pm
We had no choice.  It was known that 9/11 was perpetrated by a terrorist organization within the nation and the government was sympathetic to the terrorists.
We had to do something, whether that was a full-out invasion of the country was the choice.  We had a choice for how we went in and what we did.  We could have bailed when Bin Laden went to Pakistan.  The interesting question is why we are still there, which is that once in on a large scale,  it is tough to get out without making matters worse.
Iran and NK are difficult problems, and being worked to some degree.  Of  course many, (maybe you? ) presume that as soon as they are able they will commit suicide by using their nukes, something no other country has done.  Are their leaders less stable than Stalin? Im not sure, he was pretty crazy and didnt use his nukes. 
So yes they are a threat, but we shouldnt over estimate the threat and thereby cause WWIII ourselves, to avoid them causing it. 
In general it is not a good thing that they get or have nukes.  However, I would also say it isnt a good thing that Pakistan has nukes either, I dont trust them a lot more than I trust Iran, for different reasons.  After all this "ally" housed Bin Laden for a number of years.  Iran may be run by crazies but it is not a crazy society with nothing to lose like NK. 
There aren't any risk free options presenting themselves at this  time. We do have some time.  No I dont believe the agreement with Iran stops them in the least.  To me NK is more dangerous, and it is hopeful the Chinese can exert some influence there, if they dont they are making a big mistake because then war is very possible on their doorstep, at least in a limited way.  Certainly the Chinese dont even like the idea of two carrier groups on their door step, so there is motivation for them to act, and they have leverage.
The bigger question is how to even control nukes.  This is not secret technology, it is 80 years old and any country with the  will can develop it.  Other than WWII, they have presumably been built for defensive reasons, or someone probably would have used one.  We are suggesting  that Iran and NK are the exception and are building  them for suicide missions.  Maybe we cant know. 
We have tried using unenforceable negotiations with these countries, and it hasn't work, because we are reluctant to offer them much of a carrot, and they are reluctant to allow real verification.  So there we are a quandry.
George N Romey Added Jun 19, 2017 - 7:56pm
I agree NK is the more problematic one.   I think Iran wants sanctions lifted and to be left alone by Israel.  However, Israel has convinced the US that Iran wants to take aggressive action against their country.
Patrick Writes Added Jun 19, 2017 - 8:29pm
@Bill - here are the quotes I referred to.
Condi Rice discusses Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's nuclear capabilities with Wolf Blitzer on Jan, 10th, 2003 and she infamously said: "there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
In a speech to the American people in October 2002, Bush said the following: 
"And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.
Some citizens wonder: After 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now?
There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of September 11. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing -- in fact they would be eager -- to use a biological, or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
Also summarized here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/08/iraq.usa
Interesting post which says Bush indicated to some Senators privately a year before the invasion, "F--- Saddam, we're taking him out.".
"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." –Vice President Dick Cheney, "Meet The Press" March 16, 2003 
One month later....
"I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons." –Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, June 24, 2003 
Patrick Writes Added Jun 19, 2017 - 8:42pm
@Bill - What you've written parrots exactly what right wing U.S. media states as fact. So I get it, you're posting what you believe to be true. 
Have a look at the timeline. Did Saddam "kick out" weapons inspectors even when it was proven that the weapons inspectors had installed equipment in 1999 to spy on him? From what I read, no. 
For me it boils down to....if your job is intelligence, surely you can tell the difference between real intelligence and fake. If you pinned most of the support for your entire invasion on mobile chemical weapons labs that was made up by an informant named Curveball that German and British intelligence warned wasn't reliable, then you screwed up big time. 
If the only other support was a forged document about yellow cake uranium from Niger that the French said at the time was nonsense (because apparently France controlled the major ports out of Niger and you need sophisticated equipment to ship tons of uranium out of a port). The British had an inquiry into this document after the fact and, from memory, said anyone with half a brain could see this was nonsense. 
It's so dumb that one can easily suspect that something else was at play. We have the best and brightest in the country working in intelligence at the CIA and they are this stupid???
Bill Caciene Added Jun 19, 2017 - 11:16pm
The conversation we’re having is the kind of conversation I wish everyone could have on the topic of Iraq and nuclear war.  Sadly, all I ever read on the matter is Blame Bush hogwash.  So while in welcome this conversation, that’s not what my article is about.
Pakistan is an excellent example of why we can’t allow Iraq to have nuclear weapons.  If Iraq I ever did obtain them, we would have no ability to change anything, as the risk of nuclear war wouldn’t be worth it.  So Pakistan joins the nuclear club and we can now only hope they don’t use them. 
You mentioned that no country would commit suicide (by using their nuclear weapons), but isn’t that what suicide bombers do all the time?  Those suicide bombers are usually Islamic Fundamentalists and Iran is a country run by them.  So while we can hope they don’t commit suicide, there is ample evidence they would in the name of Allah.
North Korea is even scarier as the regime is clearly crazy and crazy people commit suicide all the time. 
To be sure, it’s a quandary, but sticking our head in the sand as we did with the Iran nuclear deal is now way to make things better.     
Bill Caciene Added Jun 19, 2017 - 11:18pm
Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism.  So spare me the blame Israel crap.  And spare me the crap that the United States is controlled by Israel. If that were true, there would have been no Iran nuclear deal.  
Bill Caciene Added Jun 19, 2017 - 11:23pm
I read your first quote and it doesn’t support your assertion that Bush Administration tricked the country into thinking Iran had nuclear weapons.  Here’s the quote again: "there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
If you read the quote you’d realize, Rice declares the fact Iraq doesn’t currently have nuclear weapons.  I’m going to assume the rest of your quotes are more of the same.  So please go back to the drawing board and show me some quotes which state the fact Iran has nuclear weapons.    
Patrick Writes Added Jun 20, 2017 - 2:46am
In my opinion, you can dance around it, but the president and his cabinet using the phrase "mushroom cloud over an American city" to garner support for a war that public wasn't sold on, and that in hindsight the president was completely wrong about. That's a fact. 
Here's an example of what you're claiming is no big deal: 
"I don't want to alarm you but the CIA could be monitoring WriterBeat for new suspects to waterboard. If you don't want that to happen, if you don't want to be waterboarded, the only other option is for the CIA to shut down WriterBeat."
I just wrote a sentence that doesn't make sense that's meant to alarm you and strike fear into you to get my intended result. But since I said "could" not "is" so I wasn't really saying the CIA definitely is, just that they could be, but regardless the CIA should shut down WriterBeat.
Paul Austin Murphy Added Jun 20, 2017 - 3:36am

No idea holds greater sway in the mind of educated Americans than the belief that it is possible to democratize governments, anytime and anywhere, under any circumstances.” [Not according to the quote below.] - Jean Kirkpatrick
[Authoritarian regimes] do not disturb the habitual rhythms of work and leisure, habitual places of residence, habitual patterns of family and personal relations.” - Jean Kirkpatrick
"77 percent in favor of full withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of 2016; only 15 percent and 17 percent interested in more involvement in Syria and Ukraine, respectively; and 67 percent agreeing with the statement that, 'U.S. military actions should be limited to direct threats to our national security.'"
To fall back into the lassitude of the past twelve years; to talk, to discuss, to debate but never to act; to declare our will but never to enforce it; and to continue with strong language but with weak intentions – that is the worst course imaginable.” - Tony Blair
It [Blair's position on foreign policy] also utterly confused left and right until we ended up in the bizarre position where being in favour of the enforcement of liberal democracy was 'neoconservative' view, and non-interference in another nation's affairs was 'progressive'.” - Tony Blair
what [neoconservatism] actually was, on analysis, was a view that evolution was impossible, that the region [the Middle East and elsewhere] needed a fundamental reordering.” - Tony Blair
Paul Austin Murphy Added Jun 20, 2017 - 3:43am
"Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. Prove it." - John G
John G's juvenile logic:
        Iran = good
        (Syria = good?)
        Saudi Arabia = bad
       Iran good = because anti-Western and supported by very      many Western Leftists
      Saudi Arabia bad = because supported by the US government and hated by Western Leftists.
There is a ton of evidence on Iran supporting terrorism since 1979. Iran also stones adulterers to death, persecutes Sunni Muslims and, in the late 1980s alone, killed 30,000 political dissidents.
How perverse and opportunistic it is that so many Leftists materialists and atheists support a theocracy! Anything goes in the war against Western capitalism, eh?
Stone-Eater Added Jun 20, 2017 - 9:17am
I would be highly supportive of a preemptive strike on both Iran and North Korea
When this happens WWIII will be reality. And that's what the MIC wants. Russia would have to be forced to respond. At least when it comes to Iran.
Stone-Eater Added Jun 20, 2017 - 9:19am
Bullshit. An opinion on this has nothing to do with political orientation but with common sense and realization of reality. I guess when an opinion is juvenile, it's yours. Why ? Because you're simply repeating mass media slogans.
Stone-Eater Added Jun 20, 2017 - 9:20am
Leftists materialists and atheists
BTW: What's a "leftist materialist" ???
Stone-Eater Added Jun 20, 2017 - 9:22am
BTW2: Saudi Arabia IS beheading people AND its state religion is Wahhabism - unlike Iran. You might as well check out what "religion" IS follows. Only ONE hint to show that your "opinion" falls pretty short.
Bill Caciene Added Jun 20, 2017 - 9:49am
You made it sound like Bush perpetuated the belief Hussein had nuclear weapons and that simply never happened.  So I’m not the one dancing, you are.  
Was any of that directed towards me?
My gut tells me that between providing Iran a path to nuclear capability and blocking that path, blocking the path is the prudent thing to do.   As for North Korea, I think it’s too late and we need to essentially cross our fingers and hope for the best.   
Paul Austin Murphy Added Jun 20, 2017 - 12:25pm
"Bullshit. An opinion on this has nothing to do with political orientation but with common sense and realization of reality." - Stone Eater
Common sense on the issue of the Iraq War? Are you being serious!? That's like saying that there's a common sense position on general relativity or Hitler's Nazism. 
You may take your own position on the Iraq War as "common sense"; though not many others would. Don't conflate common sense with your own particular political position.
"Because you're simply repeating mass media slogans."
Which slogans exactly? And how could you possibly know which media I read? Do you repeat slogans? Then why assume that others do? Just as you confused common sense with your own position, so your'e confusing sloganeering with what you don't believe.
Paul Austin Murphy Added Jun 20, 2017 - 12:29pm
"What's a "leftist materialist" ???" - Stone Eater
Leftists, since Marx or before, have been materialists - they offer a "material analysis" of everything. Meaning, religion, the mind, society, etc. All Leftists are also atheists - which flows from the materialism. Marx and Lenin were "dialectical materialists"..
The point, which you've missed, is that atheists and materialists support the Iranian state - which is not atheist or materialist. In fact it's a theocracy. Don't you not see the contradiction, hypocrisy and opportunism? Obviously not.
Paul Austin Murphy Added Jun 20, 2017 - 12:31pm
"Was any of that directed towards me?" - Bill Caciene
The quotes were directed at you. You asked for quotes from neoconservatives; though you probably don't see them as being neocons. That's already been discussed.
As for the other replies, I provide a name and a quote at the beginning of each reply.
Paul Austin Murphy Added Jun 20, 2017 - 12:38pm
BTW2: Saudi Arabia IS beheading people AND its state religion is Wahhabism - unlike Iran. You might as well check out what "religion" IS follows." - Stone Eater
Neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia!
Why support Iran and dismiss Saudi Arabia? I don't get it.
Iran stones people to death. It also uses torture on a large scale and has killed tens of thousands of political dissidents since 1979. It has also supported, trained and funded Hamas and Hezbollah; as well as terrorist attacks as far away as Argentina. It persecutes Sunni Muslims within Iran and is at war with Sunnis on its eastern border. It has also denied the Holocaust, spread anti-Jewish (not "anti-Zionist") propaganda and repeatedly called for the "annihilation of Israel" and indeed the West.
Shia Islam is the state religion of Iran. The fact that you ignore or deny this is amazing.
Paul Austin Murphy Added Jun 20, 2017 - 12:43pm
"The USA has killed over 12 million muslims since 1990." - Little John G
No it hasn't! Nowhere near. Of course this all depends on what John G means by that claim. He could mean anything. It could even be a figure which he made up after finishing his lolly pop.
Some estimates put the death-by-socialism toll - in the 20th century - at 1OO million or more (China, the Soviet Union, Cambodia, etc.). The lowest figures are advanced by, well, socialists. 
Bill Caciene Added Jun 20, 2017 - 12:44pm
I’ll respond in your article momentarily.  In the meantime, get a load of this guy.  He could use some knowledge from someone like you: http://writerbeat.com/articles/16853-TUBE-rsquo-S-SESSIONS-IN-SESSIONS
Stone-Eater Added Jun 20, 2017 - 1:26pm
is that atheists and materialists support the Iranian state - which is not atheist or materialist.
I don't care which religion a country has. I only see the geostrategic moves countries do. And since the ousting of Mosssadegh 1953 by the CIA the US has always meddled into Iran's affairs not seeing that Iran has suffered by the US interferences mentally and psychologically. It was and is considered an emeny because they are not US/NATO puppets until now.
The hypocrits are the US which support a far more extremist state like Saudi Arabia with weapons while neglecting that they have the same extremist religious views as IS has. SA has started war in Yemen, and it will attack Iran on order of the US and for its interest to be the hegemon in the Middle East.
Why that ? Because SA is a US ally and Iran one of Russia. That's the simple reason. Is that objective reasoning ? I don't think so. It's biased and lacks the bigger picture. It's all about Russia - US/NATO in the end. How many times do I have to repeat that ?
Stone-Eater Added Jun 20, 2017 - 1:28pm
BTW: Look at Teheran and then look at Ryadh, and check out women's standing and liberties. Who is the extremist here ?
Stone-Eater Added Jun 20, 2017 - 1:39pm
they offer a "material analysis" of everything. Meaning, religion, the mind, society, etc. All Leftists are also atheists
You like to generalize and put everything into the same pot. I'm atheist, yes. That does not mean I put a materialistic value on everything. Quite contrary. We European leftists (I was one when I was young, now I'm more middle. Why ? Because LGBT, PC and refugee do-goodism have removed leftists from reality) have always valued mind, empathy and tolerance very high (without a god, actually) until about the Eighties when all became watered down and ultracapitalism (VERY materialistic and then in the hands of the conservatives here) started big.
Meaning, mind, society (no materialism in there?) are matters here on earth. Religion is purely belief or wishful thinking and has nothing to do with reality. It's being used as a control and brainwashing tool, to make people more leveled-out, or get them to go to war as well......
Stone-Eater Added Jun 20, 2017 - 1:45pm
The fact that you ignore or deny this is amazing.
The fact that you see SA a peacful and tolerant country and Iran is not, is amazing as well. I don't say Iran is angel country. But I understand their actions being attacked endlessly by the West while SA can stone people to death as well and we don't say fuck all !
Leroy Added Jun 20, 2017 - 2:04pm
Stoney, we all know you are against all things American.  You have been perfectly clear on that.
Stone-Eater Added Jun 20, 2017 - 5:02pm
Not against the regular Joe. You should know that by now ;-)
Janie Smith Added Jun 20, 2017 - 5:12pm
Leroy, you can tell your wife she was right, only it wasn't oil it was poppies.
Leroy Added Jun 20, 2017 - 10:17pm
Janie, she would have no idea what you were talking about.
Christian Peschken Added Jun 21, 2017 - 7:39am
It's not too late for North Korea.  The regime could fail and a
benevolent ruler could replace the crazies that currently run the country.  We should do what we can to facilitate that.
Paul Austin Murphy Added Jun 21, 2017 - 8:22am
Stone-Eater Friedli, you've the the wrong materialism in mind. It has nothing at all to do with consumerism, "material goods", money, etc. It's a philosophical position than can also be called physicalism. It dates back to Aristotle. Marxist "dialectical materialism" is a variant, I suppose, on materialism; though its primary purpose is political and to bring about revolution.
The fact that you didn't realise that is bizarre.
Paul Austin Murphy Added Jun 21, 2017 - 8:26am
Stone-Eater Friedli, you didn't read my reply. I said "neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia". I don't support the US and UK's support and arming of Saudi Arabia. Therefore all your words are wasted. If you want to talk to someone who does, then find that someone. 
Paul Austin Murphy Added Jun 21, 2017 - 8:32am
".... while SA can stone people to death as well and we don't say fuck all !" - Stone-Eater
Iran has killed more political opponents and dissidents than Saudi Arabia. (30,000 in 1988 alone.) Far more! It has also probably stoned to death and killed more for "religious crimes" since 1979. Again, unless people on here explicitly state their support for Saudi Arabia, you're arguing against straw men. That's a waste of everyone's time.
Saudi Arabia and Iran are both shitholes. I don't think you'd like to live in either of them. 
Paul Austin Murphy Added Jun 21, 2017 - 8:36am
Stone Eater, it would also help if you respond to what I and others say, instead of what you want us to say. And what you want us to say turns us into straw targets; which is very convenient for you.
Bill Caciene Added Jun 21, 2017 - 8:41am
We may not agree with their culture, but Saudi Arabia is an ally for many reasons.  To put the country in the same realm as Iran, suggests you don’t know how bad things are in Iran. 
Much like what happened in Cuba, when Kim Jong-un is no longer, a new equally crazy dictator will fill the void.  It actually already happened in North Korea with the passing of his father. 
Billy Roper Added Jun 21, 2017 - 9:45am
They're now saying that our quagmire involvement in Afghanistan may be multi-generational.
Stone-Eater Added Jun 21, 2017 - 6:11pm
The fact that you didn't realise that is bizarre
It's a philosophical position than can also be called physicalism. It dates back to Aristotle
It's not bizarre. Some subjects require almost perfect English, and I'm not anglophone. So I either would need more time to grasp these finesses or I better shut up. Maybe the latter would be better. AC/DC.
Stone-Eater Added Jun 21, 2017 - 6:14pm
Iran is a fabulous place full of friendly people. They don't wish to be oppressed (again) by the empire and they want economic development.
Thanks. I was in Tehran and Qum in the Eighties and can only confirm that. And the women....holy shit, are they ever beautiful :-)
....but do you really expect that the average Westerner understands that ?
Stone-Eater Added Jun 21, 2017 - 6:18pm
BTW: I work with Iranians here in Switzerland. They are refugees and left not because they were unhappy in their country, but because they were simply afraid that the US will attack them.
Not one single guy or woman told me they were suppressed. Comparing Iran with your favorite ally SA is like comparing a fillet to a hamburger.
Bill Caciene Added Jun 22, 2017 - 12:08am
You add nothing to the conversation, you’re just full of insults and nastiness. If there was one thing I’d do to improve this site is add a feature to allow authors the right to block or delete comments from the likes of people like you. 
Kindly share with us a single example of someone stating their purpose for fleeing Iran was because of fear of imminent attack from the United States.
Bill Caciene Added Jun 22, 2017 - 12:01pm
You’re the only commenter here that I go out of my way to ignore.  I’m simply not interested in trading insults.  However, should someone else should need a position substantiated I’ll be happy to do so. 
Paul Austin Murphy Added Jun 23, 2017 - 9:37am
"Yes, I've been to Iran a couple of times. After Syrians, they are the most friendly, helpful and hospitable people I've ever met." - John G
A classic example of positive - or inverted - racism from a very-young radical... Were all Syrians and Iranians the "most friendly, helpful and hospitable people" you've "ever met"? That sounds like a gross political generalisation. Did you wipe Edward Said's arse with your sycophantic tongue, John G? 
One question to Leftists like Son of Dave Spart (John G): Why is positive/inverted racism not racism? 
"Iran has more culture in every square kilometer of its land than the USA has in its total."
More positive racism from John G, and negative racism about the USA. Either way, John G is a (Leftist) racist; as even the mind-dead can see.
Bill Caciene Added Jun 23, 2017 - 11:35am
Interesting that you think we’ll soon be a war with Russia when most of the country is of the belief Russia aided Trump in getting elected and half the country believes Russia colluded with Trump.
Let’s make one thing perfectly clear about Syria, the international community tried to do something to make things better and Russia messed up our plans by sending in their military without the blessing of the international community.  So the one meddling in the Syria is Russia. 

Recent Articles by Writers Bill Caciene follows.