U.S. got "kicked out" of Iraq

[LeGenD]

Iraq has become a hotbed for extremism & terrorism. Before 2003, there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Now there are bomb blasts & violence from them everyday. Iraq was a stable country where the Shias & Sunnis were living together peacefully. Now, even the holiest Shia sites in Iraq are getting targeted on a daily basis. I must say, great victory for the US troops!

This is clearly media propaganda. Yes, acts of terrorism do occur in Iraq. But then they also occur in Pakistan and in holy places too.

Iraq is clearly a success story for USA. Do not assume that USA is not capable of winning wars. It surely is and has done so in the past.

 

[somebozo]

Iraq war declared over, but war party persists

By RAMZY BAROUD
Published: Oct 25, 2011 22:18 Updated: Oct 25, 2011 22:18

In a White House statement on Oct. 21, US President Barack Obama pledged that his country would finally withdraw forces from Iraq.

“After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over,” he said.

Providing some context to Obama’s announcement, a CBSNews.com report published on the same day stated, “The war in Iraq has meant the death of more than 4,400 US troops and come at a cost of more than $700 billion.”

The US media are now failing to process any facts aside from the losses suffered by the US, who wrought war and destruction on a country in urgent need of peace and humanitarian assistance. For over a decade prior to the war, Iraq was reeling under US-led UN sanctions, which left the country’s infrastructure in a state of near collapse.

In her introduction to Ramsey Clark’s important book, The Impact of Sanctions on Iraq: The Children Are Dying, Sara Flounders wrote, “Sanctions are a weapon of mass destruction. Since sanctions were imposed on Iraq, half a million children under the age of five have died of malnutrition and preventable diseases. Sanctions impose artificial famine. A third of Iraq’s surviving children today have stunted growth and nutritional deficiencies that will deform their shortened lives.”

In 1999, I was one of those who directly witnessed the impact of the sanctions on Iraqi children. I came back from the country with heaps of photos and memories that haunt me to this day. Oddly, enough, it was not sanctions as “a weapon of mass destruction” that inspired action to end the siege, but alleged Iraqi WMDs that invited another disaster to an already devastated nation.

It might take us years to truly understand the magnitude of what has since transpired in Iraq. Death and destruction have hovered over the country, killing and wounding hundreds of thousands, sending millions into exile and millions more have been classified by UN agencies as Internally Displaced Persons (IDP). It was a horror show that cannot be captured with the language of reason, but every moment of it was experienced by millions of ordinary people, punished severely for a crime they never committed.

The last US forces will depart the country by Jan. 1 “with their heads held high, proud of their success,” according to Obama. This is the very president who, in a speech in Cairo on June 4, 2009, stated that “unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice.” What is there to be proud of in a devastating war of choice, Mr. President?

Before the US House of Representatives on Jan. 18, 2007, now Republican candidate for president, Ron Paul fittingly remarked, “Clichés about supporting the troops are designed to distract us from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war. Anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons (for) the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon.”

But it is ending, simply because it was militarily unwinnable, financially unsustainable and politically indefensible. “Supporting the troops,” however, will continue to serve as an escape route for those who still refuse to discuss the Iraq war from a moral and legal viewpoint. For them, it is essential that the cover-up persists, so as not to deny the US the opportunity to instigate other wars of choice whenever suitable.

In a press briefing shortly following Obama’s end of war announcement, Antony Blinken, National Security Adviser to Vice President Joe Biden, remarked on whether the war was worth it. He answered, “history is going to have to judge.”

But Iraqis don’t need to wait for US history books to demonstrate to them the depth of their tragedy. The Lancet survey had already determined that between March 2003 and June 2006, 601,027 Iraqis died violent deaths. Opinion Research Business survey said that 1,033,000 died as a result of the conflict from March 2003 to August 2007.

In one single revelation, WikiLeaks stated that “its release of nearly 400,000 classified US files on the Iraq war showed 15,000 more Iraqi civilians died than previously thought” (Reuters, October 24, 2010).

Equally important is the fact that the violent mentality that insists on war — as opposed to diplomacy — to further US interests is still deeply rooted among US elites. Reporting from Washington, Jim Lobe wrote, “Key neo-conservatives and other right-wing hawks who championed the 2003 United States invasion of Iraq are calling for military strikes against Iran in retaliation for its purported murder-for-hire plot against the Saudi ambassador here” (Asia Times, Oct. 19).

Blogging for Foreign Policy website on Oct. 21, Dalia Dassa Kaye wrote, “The martial rhetoric from inveterate hawks was predictable. But even President Obama suggested that the United States would not take any ‘options off the table,’ a phrase that is understood to leave open military options.”

The rhetoric buildup for another conflict received a big boost during US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s first visit to Iraq since taking office on July 1. He said then that his country “will act ‘unilaterally’ to confront what he said were Iranian threats to US interests in Iraq.” The US was “very concerned about Iran and the weapons they are providing to extremists here in Iraq,” he said, as reported by Al Jazeera (July 11).

It will not be easy to reconcile Panetta’s comments with Obama’s end of war announcement which states that “Iraqis have taken full responsibility for their country’s security” and that the relationship between the US and Iraq will be that “between sovereign nations, an equal partnership based on mutual interest and mutual respect.”

There are no signs of the neoconservatives altering their views. The appetite for conflict also seems well and alive among Washington’s influential elites, who still brazenly propagate that the US war brought good to Iraqi society, despite all evidence to the contrary.

The official website for the US Forces in Iraq, USF-Iraq.com, is adorned by the following statement under the banner, The New Face of Iraq: “The nation of Iraq has undergone sweeping political, economical and social changes since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Elected officials are now in power, overseeing the continued development of security, infrastructure, education, security and finance.”

With that apparent ‘success’ in mind, the neocons can always advocate another military intervention or full scale invasion, whenever possible and affordable.

“The tide of war is receding,” said Obama. One has serious doubts.



— Ramzy Baroud (Ramzy Baroud: Books, Articles, News, Images and More) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com.

© 2010 Arab News

---------- Post added at 09:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:08 PM ----------

This is clearly media propaganda. Yes, acts of terrorism do occur in Iraq. But then they also occur in Pakistan and in holy places too.

Iraq is clearly a success story for USA. Do not assume that USA is not capable of winning wars. It surely is and has done so in the past.

I dont see what is the sucess you are talking about. Iraq had been destroyed from a stable society, which Saddam was able to maintain despite economic sanctions to one which is hotbed of extremism in the region. And lets not forget that the west is directly responsible for most Saddam crimes against his own people as they launched a multi prong interference into internal Iraqi issues.

 

[Abii]

We sold such a tiny minority of weapons that were most likely dual purpose that to place the blame on the US for arming Saddam is patently absurd.

As for allies, we havn't been an ally of Saddam's for decades.

I laughed at your childish insults.

In March 1981, the Iraqi Communist Party, repressed by Saddam Hussein, beamed broadcasts from the Soviet Union calling for an end to the war and the withdrawal of Iraqi troops.<31> That same month U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he saw the possibility of improved ties with Baghdad and approvingly noted that Iraq was concerned by "the behavior of Soviet imperialism in the Middle Eastern area." The U.S. then approved the sale to Iraq of five Boeing jetliners, and sent a deputy assistant secretary of state to Baghdad for talks.<32> The U.S. removed Iraq from its notoriously selective list of nations supporting international terrorism<33> (despite the fact that terrorist Abu Nidal was based in the country)<34> and Washington extended a $400 million credit guarantee for U.S. exports to Iraq.<35> In November 1984, the U.S. and Iraq restored diplomatic relations, which had been ruptured in 1967.<36>

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html

Another very good example of a CIA-organized regime change was a coup in 1963 that employed political assassination, mass imprisonment, torture and murder. This was the military coup that first brought Saddam Hussein's beloved Ba'ath Party to power in Iraq. At the time, Richard Helms was Director for Plans at the CIA. That is the top CIA position responsible for covert actions, like organizing coups. Helms served in that capacity until 1966, when he was made Director.

In the quotations collected below, the name of the leader who was assassinated is spelled variously as Qasim, Qassim and Kassem. But, however you spell his name, when he took power in a popularly-backed coup in 1958, he certainly got recognized in Washington. He carried out such anti-American and anti-corporatist policies as starting the process of nationalizing foreign oil companies in Iraq, withdrawing Iraq from the US-initiated right-wing Baghdad Pact (which included another military-run, US-puppet state, i.e., Pakistan) and decriminalizing the Iraqi Communist Party. Despite these actions, and more likely because of them, he was Iraq's most popular leader. He had to go!

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.

Regime Change: How the CIA put Saddam&#39;s Party in Power

in 1963, the CIA supported the anti communist Ba'ath Party's efforts to bring Kassem's republic to an end. Ba'ath activists, including a youthful Saddam Hussein, gunned down Kassem and many others on a list the CIA supplied. The plotters were able, however, only to create a coalition government. In 1968, the CIA again fomented a palace revolt in which the Ba'athists eliminated their coalition partners and assumed direct control. According to Roger Morris, a staff member of the national Security Council during the Johnson and Nixon administrations, "It was a regime that was really primary". In July 1979, the same year as the anti American revolution in Iran, Saddam Hussein replaced his mentor, Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr, as president, a position he held until 2003. He was like many other famous beneficiaries of American political intrigue before and since, a CIA "asset".




The support you gave him during the 8 year Iran-iraq war is well known as well.

way to free the Iraqis mate. First you take out their representitive leader (just like you did in iran in 54) because he was nationalizing their oil industry and then you help the new comer, your "asset" as the CIA liked to think. When he became a liability you took him out, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and then claimed to have liberated Iraq.

Logic, you guys don't have any.

 

[gambit]

Logic, you guys don't have any.

And supporting facts for your arguments: You have none.

CIA supported anti-communists? What else is new? But where is the evidence, let alone proof, that we personally knew Saddam Hussein? The Iraq-Iran War? Was the US the only one to support Iraq?

Failed.

 

[LeGenD]

I dont see what is the sucess you are talking about. Iraq had been destroyed from a stable society, which Saddam was able to maintain despite economic sanctions to one which is hotbed of extremism in the region. And lets not forget that the west is directly responsible for most Saddam crimes against his own people as they launched a multi prong interference into internal Iraqi issues.

I would be more concerned about extremism in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Iraqi people should take care of their problems.

Also, Iraq is a success story from military perspective for USA. Iraq is no longer a threat to US or Israeli interests in the region.

Even from the political perspectice, USA has not done bad in Iraq;

1. Contained the major resistance movements which were challenging the stability of the country.
2. Established a democratic leadership setup in which all the 3 major factions have representatives.
3. Adopted measures to rebuild Iraq.

Of-course, wars bring destruction and death. However, USA exceeded all expectations in Iraq contrary to labels of failure from media sources in Islamic nations.

If this is not an example of success, I do not know what it is then. Maybe we have lost the sense of success.

Now let us hope that Iran does not attempts any mischief by exploiting the weak situation of Iraq. This time, consequences would be bad for Iran too.

 

[Oldman1]

tell that to the relatives of those that have died as a result of american actions. They call it collateral damage

No tell that to the defenders of Islam who killed tens of thousands of their Muslims brothers and sisters.

---------- Post added at 03:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:01 AM ----------

and then they say why people hate america..... poor american .....

Let me ask you this, why do Muslims hate other Muslims?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

There are two choices for US, either to stay to Iraq till its bankruptcy or leave Iraq in order to heal its wound.

---------- Post added at 06:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:25 PM ----------

No tell that to the defenders of Islam who killed tens of thousands of their Muslims brothers and sisters.

---------- Post added at 03:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:01 AM ----------



Let me ask you this, why do Muslims hate other Muslims?

If Saddam is still in charge, at least the situation has to get better than it is now.

Remember dictator > non-governmental chaos

There were only two choices for the Iraqi people, but your neo-con government has made the baddest choice for them.

 

[anon45]

In March 1981, the Iraqi Communist Party, repressed by Saddam Hussein, beamed broadcasts from the Soviet Union calling for an end to the war and the withdrawal of Iraqi troops.<31> That same month U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he saw the possibility of improved ties with Baghdad and approvingly noted that Iraq was concerned by "the behavior of Soviet imperialism in the Middle Eastern area." The U.S. then approved the sale to Iraq of five Boeing jetliners, and sent a deputy assistant secretary of state to Baghdad for talks.<32> The U.S. removed Iraq from its notoriously selective list of nations supporting international terrorism<33> (despite the fact that terrorist Abu Nidal was based in the country)<34> and Washington extended a $400 million credit guarantee for U.S. exports to Iraq.<35> In November 1984, the U.S. and Iraq restored diplomatic relations, which had been ruptured in 1967.<36>

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html

Another very good example of a CIA-organized regime change was a coup in 1963 that employed political assassination, mass imprisonment, torture and murder. This was the military coup that first brought Saddam Hussein's beloved Ba'ath Party to power in Iraq. At the time, Richard Helms was Director for Plans at the CIA. That is the top CIA position responsible for covert actions, like organizing coups. Helms served in that capacity until 1966, when he was made Director.

In the quotations collected below, the name of the leader who was assassinated is spelled variously as Qasim, Qassim and Kassem. But, however you spell his name, when he took power in a popularly-backed coup in 1958, he certainly got recognized in Washington. He carried out such anti-American and anti-corporatist policies as starting the process of nationalizing foreign oil companies in Iraq, withdrawing Iraq from the US-initiated right-wing Baghdad Pact (which included another military-run, US-puppet state, i.e., Pakistan) and decriminalizing the Iraqi Communist Party. Despite these actions, and more likely because of them, he was Iraq's most popular leader. He had to go!

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.

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

in 1963, the CIA supported the anti communist Ba'ath Party's efforts to bring Kassem's republic to an end. Ba'ath activists, including a youthful Saddam Hussein, gunned down Kassem and many others on a list the CIA supplied. The plotters were able, however, only to create a coalition government. In 1968, the CIA again fomented a palace revolt in which the Ba'athists eliminated their coalition partners and assumed direct control. According to Roger Morris, a staff member of the national Security Council during the Johnson and Nixon administrations, "It was a regime that was really primary". In July 1979, the same year as the anti American revolution in Iran, Saddam Hussein replaced his mentor, Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr, as president, a position he held until 2003. He was like many other famous beneficiaries of American political intrigue before and since, a CIA "asset".




The support you gave him during the 8 year Iran-iraq war is well known as well.

way to free the Iraqis mate. First you take out their representitive leader (just like you did in iran in 54) because he was nationalizing their oil industry and then you help the new comer, your "asset" as the CIA liked to think. When he became a liability you took him out, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and then claimed to have liberated Iraq.

Logic, you guys don't have any.

Who didn't give Iraq support?

5 Jetliners... thats it? Also none of that contends with the fact that we havn't been Saddam's ally for decades.

Whose arguing that the US did controversial things during the cold war? Arming Saddam to the extent implied is laughably false, Providing information during the Iran Iraq war is altogether different from arming him.

Haha Kassim wasn't a representative leader, he was a Communist autocrat who rose much the same way that Saddam did. He lived by the sword and died by the sword.

Please provide proof that US soldiers killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, we cant conclusively stop suicide bombers from blowing themselves up and terrorists hiding in the population from killing their own countrymen, and it is disingenious to imply that we could. Even then Saddam killed more than that, so if you're trying to play a numbers game you lose. Iran very much supported those terrorist bombings in crowded supermarkets, if it could gain them influence in a post Saddam Iraq.

Have a nice day.

 

[mr42O]

No tell that to the defenders of Islam who killed tens of thousands of their Muslims brothers and sisters.

---------- Post added at 03:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:01 AM ----------



Let me ask you this, why do Muslims hate other Muslims?

as u nick says oldman1 get ready for die alone at some old home... thats what u should worry about. America has always been coward using only planes to bomb if have balls fight 1 vs 1...

And what war USA have won lately ? ?? got there *** kicked every were even Somalia too haha. Go back and make heroic hollywood movie....

 

[Asian.Century]

Well US is back again...so much for ex-President Bush's MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

 

[Desertfalcon]

Iraq has become stronger and has kicked US out.

Wait for the american F-16s to arrive and US will never dare attack them.

Hope the Americans deliver it fast so that Iraqis can kick the US further.

I am assuming that you have no idea how contradictory your post is, yes?

Well US is back again...so much for ex-President Bush's MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

Yeah, we have pretty much messed this up from the beginning, IMHO.