Why does America always have an "enemy?"

[exnihilo]

The Brits destroyed what the Iraqi government thought was the last of the WMD last summer (look it up). But they recently found some more and everybody hopes ISIS doesn’t get its hands on any of it. Likely more will be found for decades and years to come.

Can you provide the source for this? Of course I’m sure Saddam Hussein did have WMDs. It all depends on how you define the term. For instance many in the US Army carry WMDs with them routinely. They carry short barrel shotguns. In NC, home of Fort Bragg and many WMDs, the government charged a non-military man with the crime of having a WMD. Maybe the US Army should invade the rest of NC, again, and search under every bed to root out the surely plentiful WMDs in the state.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I left a link previously about the horror of depleted uranium not only on large swaths of Iraq but has been covered up as Gulf War Syndrome for soldiers suffering from it. If you didn’t read it then, you won’t now if repeated here but all one needs to do is google up images on the subject preferably with a vomit bucket beside the computer table.
The US had NO business in Iraq period. It has opened up a Pandora’s Box of devils much worse than Saddam. In fact, it will probably lead to WWIII.

You’re right in thinking I am not going to look up yet another site on “depleted uranium”. Did that a few years ago ad nauseum when it was all the rage as a topic. The near unanimous opinion among real researchers is that it is not. But even as a debated topic it’s a debated topic, not an absolute.

The U.S. became involved in the Iraq War when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia in the process. Even Arab countries joined in the coalition against Saddam. Even Syria did. The war didn’t end. There was only a truce. Saddam broke the truce in several ways, one of them being that he shot at American and British planes, an act of war in anybody’s book. And yes, he did have atomic precursor material (Canada processed it after the war) and chemical WMD, as mentioned before.

What opened the Pandora’s box was our leaving Iraq when absolutely everybody, including Iraqis of all persuasions, asked us to stay longer. Even Al Quaeda admitted its defeat there. But Obama made his campaign promise, so we left it to what’s going on now, and what Bush, Iraqis, the military and the intelligence community all said would happen.

Obama’s abandonment of Iraqis to a war between ISIS and Iran might, indeed, lead to WWIII, particularly if either (or both) ultimately obtain atomic weapons. Obama is determined that Iran will have them. ISIS won’t let that go unchallenged. Nor will Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Turkey or perhaps Egypt.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Can you provide the source for this? Of course I’m sure Saddam Hussein did have WMDs. It all depends on how you define the term. For instance many in the US Army carry WMDs with them routinely. They carry short barrel shotguns. In NC, home of Fort Bragg and many WMDs, the government charged a non-military man with the crime of having a WMD. Maybe the US Army should invade the rest of NC, again, and search under every bed to root out the surely plentiful WMDs in the state.

This for instance, but there more sources concerning chemical weapons the Brits helped destroy. Unfortunately, more were discovered after the Brits destroyed what were thought to be the “last”. As far as I know they have not yet been destroyed by anyone. There has been concern that ISIS will get their hands on them. And, of course, Saddam was well known to bury things out in the desert that he didn’t want seen, then kill the people who buried them. They might still find things (perhaps tragically) 100 years from now.

rightwingnews.com/column-2/the-uk-is-helping-to-destroy-the-wmds-in-iraq-the-left-says-doesnt-exist/

 

[exnihilo]

This for instance, but there more sources concerning chemical weapons the Brits helped destroy…

rightwingnews.com/column-2/the-uk-is-helping-to-destroy-the-wmds-in-iraq-the-left-says-doesnt-exist/

The very name of the website is ‘Right Wing News’. The reason I asked for a source is when I did Google it the first website I saw was a partisan news source. The article doesn’t provide much details. Like I said WMDs could be sawed off shotguns. They could also be chemicals that could be used to kill people. The US is full of containers of such chemicals. I would never say Sadam had no WMDs. Because WMDs is a vague term and by themselves not wrong for a state to have. The issue is more was he an imminent threat to people. Were such claims credible.

They might still find things (perhaps tragically) 100 years from now.

Indeed. Just like the US government dropped nukes near Savannah, GA and Goldsboro, NC. In both cases a nuclear bomb remains in the ground. People are still getting killed by unexploded bombs dropped on Germany during WWII. People are still getting killed by munitions from WWI. Unfortunate farmers still run into them. War is a terrible thing. Invading Iraq is no different.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The very name of the website is ‘Right Wing News’. The reason I asked for a source is when I did Google it the first website I saw was a partisan news source. The article doesn’t provide much details. Like I said WMDs could be sawed off shotguns. They could also be chemicals that could be used to kill people. The US is full of containers of such chemicals. I would never say Sadam had no WMDs. Because WMDs is a vague term and by themselves not wrong for a state to have. The issue is more was he an imminent threat to people. Were such claims credible.

Indeed. Just like the US government dropped nukes near Savannah, GA and Goldsboro, NC. In both cases a nuclear bomb remains in the ground. People are still getting killed by unexploded bombs dropped on Germany during WWII. People are still getting killed by munitions from WWI. Unfortunate farmers still run into them. War is a terrible thing. Invading Iraq is no different.

Grabbed the first site I saw, but there are others. There were chemical weapons found in Iraq long after the Iraq War, Phase II. Some were found very recently. There is some question whether ISIS got its hands on any of them or not.

War is indeed a terrible thing. So is a ruler who kills a million people wantonly, like Saddam Hussein did.

But again. If you could put him back in power, would you? Nobody who hates Bush and condemns the second phase of the war ever says they would. Possibly you’ll be the first to say it.

But it doesn’t matter now because Iraq is the possibly perpetual battlefield between Sunni terrorists and Iranian terrorists. Hard to know which, if either, will prevail. Presently, however, ISIS is nowhere near as powerful as Saddam was. Iran is trying to run the war largely through its proxies, and that isn’t working out too well either. But one of these times Iran will probably commit its regular armed forces and THEN we’ll see a world war, or at least a regional conflagration.

Bush had Iraq at peace. Obama consigned it to war. That’s as plain as plain gets and even Obama’s own CIA director admitted that.

The U.S. did not “drop” nuclear bombs as you assert. Both were accidental. One was destroyed by its TNT trigger, and it looks like the other was just found. Neither, of course, was armed for nuclear detonation. But that has nothing to do with whether Saddam Hussein had WMD. Of course he did. That’s just a known fact.

Let’s see, here’s an entirely different cache from the one the Brits destroyed. Don’t like “right wing news”, here’s the New York Times.

nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have-bought-and-destroyed-iraqi-chemical-weapons.html

 

[Ridgerunner]

New York Times reporting destruction of some 5,000 chemical warheads prior to 2009, found after the war. This time by the U.S. nytimes.com/2014/11/23/world/middleeast/thousands-of-iraq-chemical-weapons-destroyed-in-open-air-watchdog-says-.html

Brits again, this time from Yahoo. news.yahoo.com/uk-experts-help-iraq-destroy-chemical-residues-144204378.html

 

[exnihilo]

Grabbed the first site I saw, but there are others. There were chemical weapons found in Iraq long after the Iraq War, Phase II. Some were found very recently. There is some question whether ISIS got its hands on any of them or not.

But not the Winnebagos of death Colin Powel showed the UN. As I said I’m sure Iraq has what could be classified as chemical weapons. I’m sure the U.S. does as well.

But again. If you could put him back in power, would you? Nobody who hates Bush and condemns the second phase of the war ever says they would. Possibly you’ll be the first to say it.

It isn’t really my concern who is the leader of various countries around the world. I can’t even choose who is in charge of my country. Saddam was evil like most politicians. Of course that didn’t stop the U.S. from supporting him when he was useful.

The U.S. did not “drop” nuclear bombs as you assert. Both were accidental. One was destroyed by its TNT trigger, and it looks like the other was just found. Neither, of course, was armed for nuclear detonation.

Drop does not require it to be intentional. Obviously it wasn’t because if they intended to nuke parts of the U.S. They would have succeeded. The one in Goldsboro was partially armed.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

But not the Winnebagos of death Colin Powel showed the UN. As I said I’m sure Iraq has what could be classified as chemical weapons. I’m sure the U.S. does as well.
It isn’t really my concern who is the leader of various countries around the world. I can’t even choose who is in charge of my country. Saddam was evil like most politicians. Of course that didn’t stop the U.S. from supporting him when he was useful.

The crowning irony is that Saddam was the only effective foil to Iran. Taking his regime down left a gaping void that the US is now being asked to stop up.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Yes, the advent of nukes and condensed radiation, and multiplex chemical and biological agents, and ever increasing knowledge and assess to such, is making things ever more dramatic and fragile.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It isn’t really my concern who is the leader of various countries around the world. I can’t even choose who is in charge of my country. Saddam was evil like most politicians. Of course that didn’t stop the U.S. from supporting him when he was useful.

Dodged it, just as I thought. If one wants to be critical of the removal of Saddam, then one has to own one’s favoring his rule and take moral responsibility for wanting what that would have been like had it gone on indefinitely.

At present, then, at least on CAF, not a single person who claims moral superiority over those who had the courage to make the hard decisions in the Gulf has a true moral vision himself concerning the matter. Not one.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The crowning irony is that Saddam was the only effective foil to Iran. Taking his regime down left a gaping void that the US is now being asked to stop up.

Actually he wasn’t.

When the Gulf War, phase I began, Iran basically retreated from all provocative activity. During Phase II, Iran did it again, especially when it found itself bracketed with U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously. When Iran saw that it was not on the list, it began sending its agents into Iraq. However, after the surge, the Iranian agent forces basically folded. Al Sadr ran to hide in Iran and Ayatollah Sistani was the dominant influence among the Arab Shia in Iraq. Sistani supported U.S. troops remaining in Iraq, but as we know, Obama insisted on betraying him, the Kurds and the Sunni tribal leaders by abandoning Iraq to Iran and Al Quaeda and/or its affiliates and offshoots.

In addition, Saddam’s attack on Iran had failed. He sued for peace, giving up everything he had gained. Iran agreed because it couldn’t keep itself re-armed. Iran has a population nearly three times that of Iraq and had Iran been armed in a manner similar to Saddam, the Iranian flag would now be on the Mediterranean coast. Iran’s conquest of the M.E. is now a slower process than it could have been. But not because of Saddam Hussein.

But don’t worry. The U.S. will not go back to Iraq no matter what happens there, while Obama is in the White House. ISIS and Iran could kill half the population and we still won’t.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Dodged it, just as I thought. If one wants to be critical of the removal of Saddam, then one has to own one’s favoring his rule and take moral responsibility for wanting what that would have been like had it gone on indefinitely.

At present, then, at least on CAF, not a single person who claims moral superiority over those who had the courage to make the hard decisions in the Gulf has a true moral vision himself concerning the matter. Not one.

You still didn’t answer the question, why go into Iraq in the first place, except to finish the job that daddy Bush started. I’m interested, what is the compelling reason for such an expensive venture in money and lives? With a cool mind, now, not the hotheadedness after 9/11 that some even think was an inside job to foment a new war.

No one was favoring Saddam’s rule except maybe himself and his sons. However, the dictator of North Korea is nasty, so why shouldn’t the US take him down if they are the world’s moral policemen? And should we shoulder moral responsibility for the outrages in NK (as you imply) for not doing anything about it?

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Just noticed a typo., for assess read access.

 

[exnihilo]

Dodged it, just as I thought. If one wants to be critical of the removal of Saddam, then one has to own one’s favoring his rule and take moral responsibility for wanting what that would have been like had it gone on indefinitely.

At present, then, at least on CAF, not a single person who claims moral superiority over those who had the courage to make the hard decisions in the Gulf has a true moral vision himself concerning the matter. Not one.

You are asking a gotcha kind of question. And the question was would I put him back in power. What I would have done is not invaded and removed him. I’m not responsible for his rule any more than I’m responsible for the rulers of Saudi Arabi, Burma, Nigeria or any of the many other places that have been ruled by cruel governments. I try to focus on what I really know and what I can control. That is a rather small portion of the world.

The original topic is why do we always have an enemy. The answer is because we consider every country of the world to be under our dominion. We consider it our duty to decide who should be the ruler of other countries. That is a form of imperialism. Imperialists always have enemies.

 

[Robert_Sock]

You are asking a gotcha kind of question. And the question was would I put him back in power. What I would have done is not invaded and removed him. I’m not responsible for his rule any more than I’m responsible for the rulers of Saudi Arabi, Burma, Nigeria or any of the many other places that have been ruled by cruel governments. I try to focus on what I really know and what I can control. That is a rather small portion of the world.

The original topic is why do we always have an enemy. The answer is because we consider every country of the world to be under our dominion. We consider it our duty to decide who should be the ruler of other countries. That is a form of imperialism. Imperialists always have enemies.

Do you believe that we are still “One nation under God?” I do, but I do have to question why we always have to have an enemy.

 

[Tom_Baum]

The question: “Why does America always have an “enemy?””

If not, than it would seriously have to ponder Pogo.

 

[exnihilo]

Do you believe that we are still “One nation under God?” I do, but I do have to question why we always have to have an enemy.

We are of course under God, wether we believe so or not. We aren’t really a nation. We may have been close at one time but immigration and Jacobin equality have erased any sense of that. I view that concept of the pledge, ‘one nation, indivisible’, as a pledge against the idea of secession which was not long before suppressed by force. The ‘under God’ part was added later. The original concept of the United States was more of a confederation of nations. A confederation of nations it seems to me is more peaceful. Switzerland would be an example.

 

[GratefulFred]

I am late to the discussion and have not read but a few responses. It would take a large book to treat all elements.

IMO, disagreements leading to tension and war are a result of Original Sin. And a result of important people failing to obey the 2 greatest Commandments: Love God and love others for the love of God.

IMO, history has been a constant struggle between following God’s Laws and following Man’s Law. Many leaders have tried to use God as a way to impose their own law in lieu of God’s Law.

As for America, our forefathers knew of the 200 years of religious wars that came with the Reformation and so they tried to set up a government that would not kill any in one faith causing them to kill back in self defense.

Moving forward to the past 100 years. We stayed out of WW I for quite some time. We stayed out of WW II for quite some time. At the same time Communism was rising. Many in America thought Communism was better for the masses. Communism was seen as better than NAZISM and the big C survived WW II and tried to thrive. It brought us the Cold War for 50 years depending on how you count.

Now we see the rising of radical Islam. We were not taught their history so we know little of how they have used war to spread Islam and are using it again in our time. Does Islam require war when there is a chance of success? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But it is clear, to me anyway, that radical Islam is yet again another effort of man to use God to affect what man wants.

So, does America HAVE TO HAVE an enemy? I do not think that America chooses to create enemies. But they exist and do mean to exert their will on those they can.

The only thing Evil needs to succeed is for Good Man to do nothing. Care to imagine the world today if America did not fight in the past 100 years? Care to imagine the world in the next 50 years if the Good Guys refuse to nothing or too little in the face of Evil?

 

[Ridgerunner]

You still didn’t answer the question, why go into Iraq in the first place, except to finish the job that daddy Bush started.

Answering a question with a question is a dodge. Please answer. Would you re-install Saddam if you could, thus undoing Bush’s action and that of the U.S. Congress?

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Answering a question with a question is a dodge. Please answer. Would you re-install Saddam if you could, thus undoing Bush’s action and that of the U.S. Congress?

Not if the question is absurd. How could anyone imagine re-installing Saddam or re-writing history? Would I be responsible for the atrocities that Saddam may have committed had he stayed in power? He may have died meanwhile for all you know.

However, asking the question if there were any logical or practical reason for Gulf War II is not absurd. If such expenditure of lives and capital has been made, where are the benefits? Also, preemptive war is forbidden under the Geneva Convention so the reason better be really good. The truth is that the beating of war drums soon after 9/11 blinded everyone as to any rational course of action, except for the war machine that turned a huge profit.

The result has been unstabilizing the Middle East like a row of dominoes and opening a Pandora’s Box of devils that were chained in place by the resident dictators. If anything Iraq and Iran could have continued to slug it out between one and nother and not a drop of American blood needed to be wasted.