I find it funny

There are no UN troops. Even America's allies who support the war in Afghanistan aren't contributing - aside from the UK and Canada. If America's closest allies can't commit to providing a much smaller force for a much more popular cause, where are they going to get "UN" troops to help stabilise Iraq? Keep in mind the UN was already targetted by insurgents in Iraq way back in 2003, killing the the UN envoy. Theywouldn't be any more welcomed by the insurgents than the US army is.

I disagree with both parts of this statement - the first because it is completely false, a myth.

The second reads like some kind of Baathist press release - oh we didn't like the borders, colonialism is very unjust, so we just invaded the country and annexed it. Are you kidding? The whole world would be at war if this was all the excuse you needed. How do you think most borders were drawn in this world? That is a recipe for disaster.

 

Fair enough, but what I meant was bring in UN peacekeeping troops from around the area. Obviously it wouldn't be perfect, but we're talking small numbers here, more or less to just prevent civil war if it ever gets likely again.

 

I don't think we're talking small numbers! And around the area - where? Iran?

The kind of army that can effectively pacify a large, violent country like Iraq cannot be found in small, poor countries.

 

A small number of UN troops cannot accomplish what a large number of US troops cannot, unless the population of Iraq cooperates with them better than with us. Peace in Iraq depends totally on the Iraqi population.

We had a Civil War. If they want to have one, we have no business telling them "no". We especially have no business shooting them, blowing their kid's limbs off, kicking in their doors, rummaging through their stuff and harassing them in an attempt to prevent it.

(Yes, kid's limbs get blown off by terrorists too. Who fired the ordinance doesn't matter. "War is not healthy for children and other living things" no matter who is right or wrong.)

Bring our troops home. We can do our part to stop the killing not shooting at Iraqis and not being targets for Iraqis with munitions.

 

No, you're just ignorant. Saddam met with the US ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, in 1990 to discuss the Iraq/Kuwait border dispute. According to the transcript of these meetings (published in the New York Times on September 23, 1990), Glaspie stated:

From Wikipedia:

 

You might want to give these things a little more thought before you start calling people ignorant.

First of All, the ambassador's statement is "we have no opinion on the border dispute", which doesn't translate to "please invade and annex Kuwait", I can't believe you would seriously try to interpret it that way. Also, I don't see how "work it out with the Arab league" means "invade Kuwait and annex it" either.

For the second quote, it correctly states that "critics say". That's true, critics do try to claim that. However, they are wrong.

Two interviews with Tariz Aziz show that this is just excuse making.

What's truly amazing is that you and other critics are using excuses to justify Iraq's invasion and annexation of Kuwait which even the Iraqi regime itself isn't using. That's truly the definition of an apologist.

 

First of All, the ambassador's statement is "we have no opinion on the border dispute", which doesn't translate to "please invade and annex Kuwait", I can't believe you would seriously try to interpret it that way.

Republicans didn't object to (and for the most part enthusiastically supported) Saddam's invasion of Iran, which left about a million people dead. It's easy to see how Saddam might have taken those comments as yet another wink and nod in favor of mass murder.

 

Information was falsified and the American people were misled. Just ask Colin Powell about the porta potty pictures. No one to my knowledge has ever defined what a "terrorist" is. Why aren't we rounding up the IRA? It is too broad a term.

Executive Orders such as 13303.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/report.aspx?aid=69

Why are EOs like this necessary if we are only there to do right by the Iraqi people?

 

It's high time to get out of Kore--I mean Viet n---oops.Now where is the latest place our leaders have sent our young??Hmmm.Hard to keep track when you you get old.

 

But we don't have to wonder how they took these comments. We know. Tariq Aziz was Foreign Minister of Iraq at the time and he has explicitly said he didn't take them that way, that he did expect the US to attack them.

That's what I don't get - why are people making up excuses which even the Baathist regime itself has denied?

 

Because if the US did not give Saddam a "nod", then how can you blame the US for Iraqs invasion of Kuwait? Duh? Guess you haven't been around long enough

 

I'm not sure who that was directed to...

I said "might have" because I don't know, I wasn't there. And I certainly didn't blame "the US" for Saddam's decision to invade that country. If you trust the Baath people's word on it, I'm happy for you!