Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had this to say in February 2003 about the upcoming war on Iraq: “It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” It has now been six years that the U.S. military has been occupying the country of Iraq.
And Iraq has been destroyed. Millions of people have fled the country, most of them never to return. Millions of children are orphans, and millions of people are displaced. Unemployment is extremely high, and only one out of three children are attending school. Electricity, clean water and sewage treatment are not at the level seen in February 2003, when Rumsfeld made his ridiculous comments.
A recent survey by Oxfam International in December 2008 showed that 40 percent of Iraqi mothers are not sending their children to school. This certainly was not true before the U.S. invasion, when nearly all children went to school. One third of the women surveyed had lost a family member to violence in the last six years. And about 20 percent of the population of Iraq is now displaced—either refugees in a foreign country or internal refugees inside Iraq. Most of them are destitute. And our “smart bombs” do such a handy job of killing that we cannot count the number of the dead, but it is surely in the hundreds of thousands. All of this—in a country that never attacked us or threatened us! And so far, the criminal minds behind this war of aggression have suffered no consequences.
In light of the fact that the country of Iraq did not attack the U.S. or even threaten this country, this invasion and occupation is simply a huge war crime. It is also a moral failing of unbelievable proportion. While Americans have not seen the hundreds of thousands of dead civilians on their TV screens, this is not true of the rest of the world. They have seen, and their opinion of the U.S. has decreased dramatically.
Congratulations, America! Hope you feel you got your money’s worth.
— Susan Oehler
Asheville
So, why hasn’t the invasion ended?
…yeah, W declared MISSION ACCOMPLISHED along time ago.
And Obama ran as the anti-war candidate.
What happened?
Much has happened Timmy, and many more things that you will not like…the smart kids are running things now!
Eli writes: “Much has happened Timmy”
Why are you trying to insult me?
Sorry Tim, no insult intended. I was just pointing out the obvious, the big ‘O’ knows what he’s doing. You can’t just jerk those troops out of Iraq willy nilly (coitus interruptus if you will) The situation demands an orderly retreat (not like Vietnam)
“And Obama ran as the anti-war candidate.
What happened?”
Wrong. Obama never ran as the “anti-war candidate.” He was, from the beginning, opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. He has also been consistent in identifying Pakistan and the border regions with Afghanistan as the area we should be concerned about, and his is right. If you will recall, during the initial debates among the several Democratic contenders, he took a lot of heat for advocating a potential air attack on Al Queda members in Afghanistan, which the Bush administration actually carried out (three times). As for Iraq, he is doing essentially what he stated he would do as a candidate.
Dionysis: Don’t make me post the youtube clips of Obama promising immediate withdrawl from Iraq. Uh oh. too late:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNnhL78ASWM
“Dionysis: Don’t make me post the youtube clips of Obama promising immediate withdrawl from Iraq. Uh oh. too late:”
Wow. I thought you were providing a link to something Obama said during the campaign that would refute my post. Far from it, you gave me a 6:43 second long self-promotion from paranoid conspiracy meister Alex Jones. I watched the whole thing, and there was NOTHING in it addressing my points. It was sold as The Obama Deception, then went on about the New World Order, bankers control over world currency, Obama was picked by ‘the elite’ to quell rising global outrage over the totalitarian, globalist movement. And on and on. Please.
The was a self-promoting video that failed to deliver anything to back up its title, but repeatedly asked people to “buy the video, get the word out.”
I’ surprised you really responded to my post with this stuff. I admit there are probably powerful global interests that effectively control events (I’m reading Jim Marrs’ latest on that very subject….lots of Nazi influence). However, what you provided did not address, much less refute, my points.
Yeah, he’s been in office for eight weeks, why are we still in Iraq? Also, why is the ecconomy still in shambles, and why are we still polluting the planet? I thought we would all be calling eachother comrade and eating milk and honey!
It’s amazing that Obama can be so criticized for both doing too much, and still not doing enough. GOPers need to make up their minds. Maybe we can evaluate his accomplishments after the first year or two, and not the first two months.
“he’s been in office for eight weeks”
I don’t know what GOPers you’re talking about.
The point is that Obama already reversed himself on withdrawing troops from Iraq. Furthermore, he is escalating the illegal war in Afghanistan. That’s a far cry from the campaign smoke he blew at us.
It doesn’t take eight weeks to be honest. For this guy, I don’t think eight years would be enough.
“It doesn’t take eight weeks to be honest.”
You’re certainly one to complain about being “honest.” You frequently make up your own definitions (i.e. ‘socialism’), attribute things to others that are fictitious (“Obama ran as the anti-war candidate”) or urge people to “update your passports” and intimate you’re leaving the incipient ‘Marxist’ country (complete BS), vilify academics as promoting ‘Marxism’ and on and on.
“illegal war in Afghanistan”?? Wasn’t the Taliban responsible for 9/11?? Since when is it illegal to strike back on a regime that targets the U.S.?
The GOPers I’m talking about are the conservative media who simultaneously proclaim that Obama is doing too many things (i.e. addressing the economy, health care, education), while also doing too little (i.e. ending the war in Iraq, ending our dependence on foreign oil, fixing the economy). For a good example, listen to Hannity, Rush, or read your own ridiculous post above “why hasn’t the war in iraq ended?”. Obama is keeping the exact same policy he’s always had– a gradual, phased withdrawl in Iraq. The same on the campaign trail, the same now.
“illegal war in Afghanistan”?? Wasn’t the Taliban responsible for 9/11?? Since when is it illegal to strike back on a regime that targets the U.S.?
The GOPers I’m talking about are the conservative media who simultaneously proclaim that Obama is doing too many things (i.e. addressing the economy, health care, education), while also doing too little (i.e. ending the war in Iraq, ending our dependence on foreign oil, fixing the economy). For a good example, listen to Hannity, Rush, or read your own ridiculous post above “why hasn’t the war in Iraq ended?”. Obama is keeping the exact same policy he’s always had– a gradual, phased withdrawl in Iraq. The same on the campaign trail, the same now.
“Since when is it illegal to strike back on a regime that targets the U.S.?”
Is was illegal to enter into an undeclared war when the U.S. Constitution was signed.
And far from being a “ridiculous post,” I ask again, why hasn’t the war in Iraq ended?
Answer: Obama has no intention of ending it. He has flip-flopped on his Iraq position.
“The point is that Obama already reversed himself on withdrawing troops from Iraq. Furthermore, he is escalating the illegal war in Afghanistan. That’s a far cry from the campaign smoke he blew at us. ”
Really? That’s funny that you heard that, because the rest of us heard him talk about gradual troop withdrawal from Iraq, while increasing troop presence in Afganistan. I guess maybe you were asleep for the 18-month long election cycle. Maybe you were dreaming of Ayn Rand whilst you slumbered?
An immediate withdrawal from Iraq would obviously not be a very good idea for any parties involved, other than petty warlords.
“”And far from being a “ridiculous post,” I ask again, why hasn’t the war in Iraq ended?
Answer: Obama has no intention of ending it. He has flip-flopped on his Iraq position. “”
Well, to say “flip flopped” is obviously just an expression, since Obama has been pretty clear about his intentions for a while. I dont think anyone could claim that if all US troops were to leave Iraq tomorrow that the ocuntry would be in very good shape.
The reactionary, idiotic thing to do would be pull all troops out immediately. You cant fix a mistake by making another one.
And besides, where the fark were you for the past 8 years, timpeck? I dont really recall hearing much from you about the “illegal war” prior to Obama’s election. How conveneint of you to now become “anti-war” now that the ball is in the Dems court. Despite your posturing, you are a diehard Republican. Stop lying to yourself.
“And besides, where the fark were you for the past 8 years”
For the past 8 years I have been an anti-war libertarian. And I’m still trying to make sense out of the flip-flop from these reports:
Obama Bill Sets Date For Troop Withdrawal
Candidate Goes Further Than Rivals
Shailagh Murray | Washington Post | Jan 31, 2007
http://snipr.com/eqefw
Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, one of the most prominent Democrats in the 2008 presidential field, proposed for the first time setting a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq, as part of a broader plan aimed at bolstering the freshman senator’s foreign policy credentials. Obama’s legislation, offered on the Senate floor last night, would remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008.
###
The Iraq War – Six years is too long!
Askia Muhammad | Final Call | Mar 27, 2009
http://snipr.com/eqegr
This was your commitment, this is what you promised as recently as March of 2009. So when he starts to back away from that, when the generals get the upper hand, if they do, he will have to counter that with the fact that all around the country people believe his commitment was to end the war.
###
When a withdrawal is not a withdrawal
Gareth Porter | Asia Times | Mar 27, 2009
http://snipr.com/eqerw
Obama’s decision to go along with the military proposal for a “transition force” of 35,000 to 50,000 troops thus represents a complete abandonment of his own original policy of combat troop withdrawal and an acceptance of what the military wanted all along – the continued presence of several combat brigades in Iraq well beyond mid-2010.
timpeck,
Do you really think removing all combat troops from iraq by next tuesday (march 31st) would make the situation better there?
Do you think that Obama is “flip-flopping”, or is there a chance he is doing his best to work with a volatile situation that warrants a changing attitude as opposed to a mind-made-up-in-advance?
“Do you really think removing all combat troops from iraq by next tuesday (march 31st) would make the situation better there?”
I have not said that troops should be removed by Tues, Barack Obama said that.
Is there a chance that he’s doing his best? No, there’s a better chance that he has no idea what he’s doing and is flying by the seat of his hypocritical pants.
I’d say throwing spit balls from the peanut stand is far more an indicator of *your* hypocrisy and and lack of knowing what your actually doing. But that’s just my opinion.
“But that’s just my opinion.”
Indeed.
I love a good pit ball in the morning:
http://snipr.com/etyr0
I love a good spit ball in the morning:
http://snipr.com/etyr0
tim, Can you provide me with some evidence of your protest at any of Bushs many violations of the constitution? Or is your outrage only partisan?
“tim, Can you provide me with some evidence of your protest at any of Bushs many violations of the constitution?”
Probably not anything that would meet whatever your definition of evidence would be. Although, much exists. I’ll just leave it at my word. That should suffice.
“I’ll just leave it at my word. That should suffice.”
Really? Based upon what?
Dionysis, I am really very thankful for your consistently insightful and informed opinions here. When engaging with right-wing extremist conspiracy theories I feel like Andy Kaufman in the wrestling ring, but you do a great job of staying on target, and I appreciate it.
I find the thinly veiled bigotry and paranoia of the paleoconservatives such as Alex Jones to be every bit as insanely twisted and disturbed as the neoconservatives. Like you, I don’t doubt that the heads of global megacorporations conspire to skew the economy for their own interests, but the xenophobic, anti-environmentalist motivations of the paleoconservative movement lead to delusional paranoia and dangerously toxic beliefs.
For example, Alex Jones’ ridiculous contention that global warming and environmentalism are fabrications created by the UN and Global power mongers behind closed doors at the Bilderberg meetings in order to syphon money out of the US and create a new world order is not just insane, it is wildly irresponsible.
The way I see it, the only real conservatives are conservationists. I have a lot of respect for the crunchy-cons effort to put their money where their mouths are in that regard. I dearly hope that the crunchy-con movement of conservatives who focus on simplicity and conservation pushes the right-wing extremist insanity of the paleoconservatives and neoconservatives out of fashion.
Thanks again for fighting the good fight, and doing it so eloquently.
“crunchy-cons”?
Any examples?
There is a book on crunchy cons called “Crunchy Cons: How Birkenstocked Burkeans, gun-loving organic gardeners, evangelical free-range farmers, hip homeschooling mamas, right-wing nature lovers, and their diverse tribe of countercultural conservatives plan to save America (or at least the Republican Party).”
http://www.amazon.com/Crunchy-Cons-Birkenstocked-evangelical-homeschooling/dp/1400050642