DW: HE DID NOT DEFEND IT!
JA: Where is the proof he did?
XB: @ DW and JA: I’m assuming you two didn’t read the article. In the speech, which is also available on video, he said the following:
“… in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system. We did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory. We did not grab its resources for our own gain. Instead, we ended our war and left Iraq to its people in a fully sovereign Iraqi state that can make decisions about its own future.”
I can’t think of a more vigorous defense of the Iraq war. Applying any standard of international law this is plainly false. Yanar Mohammad the leader of the Organization for Women’s Freedom in Iraq also responded to Obama’s statement.
She said that when Obama talked about sovereignty for the Iraqi people he was talking about the “275-300 parliamentarians in the international zone.” Here’s a link to the Right To Heal meeting on Iraq. It aired yesterday:
NP: He never defended it. I watched and heard the speech!
XB: @ NP: Saying the Bush administration “sought to work within the international system” in their invasion of Iraq is not a defense of the Iraq war? Yanar Mohammad was wrong to reject his characterization of the Iraq war as leaving Iraqis “in a fully sovereign Iraqi state that can make decisions about its own future”?
CAR: Just know that if you share or like this, you are helping to spread the Kremlin’s anti-US propaganda. Has the US made mistakes and done wrong things? Yes. Does that justify any and all Russian military actions? No. Is invading Iraq to remove a brutal dictator the same as invading a neighbor in order to take the territory as your own? No! Does Russia have any ground to criticize US foreign policy, given their Soviet and Stalinist history? Hell no. We are not remotely the same. Hate our military adventures all you want– they are the sole reason you have such variety of food and toys and idiotic opinions to play with. But in order to understand that, you have to understand something more sophisticated than your own childish ideals. In the adult world, we often have to choose between unpleasant things. In the real world, if you want civilization, if you want an economy that feeds people and you want more and more people to be fed, then you need a military that stabilizes areas in order to allow for trade. When there is no stability or security, trade falls apart. But people who have been completely owned by propaganda can’t think in uncertain terms, they can’t think away from their ideals in order to see what actually gets things done. They are like rich kids who hate their rich parents, but not so much that they are willing to forego the privilege those rich parents provided them.
XB: @ CAR: You characterize the invasion of Iraq as a “mistake”. The invasion of Iraq was not a mistake. It was a carefully calculated and premeditated war crime (military aggression) based on forged documents and fraudulent intelligence. Carlo Bonini’s and Giuseppe D’Avonzo’s Collusion is a good source if you want to gain more information on how US intelligence agencies collaborated with Italian intelligence (SISMI) to deceive the international community in the run up to the Iraq war.
I agree that Russia’s invasion of Crimea is not justified (they did not seek UNSC authorization) but I think it’s incorrect to say anyone who shares this is helping to “spread the Kremlin’s anti-US propaganda.” This accusation is about as credible as a Russian saying anyone who spreads information about Russian crimes in Chechnya is helping to spread the American Empire’s anti-Russian propaganda.
Serious people look at reports and assess them based on facts, not on speculation as to whether or not it’s “anti-US” propaganda. And your argument that the “military adventures” the US engages in graces us with “food and toys” deserves closer examination. Are you saying that we should support the brutalization and occupation of other countries–in Iraq the civilian death toll has surpassed 500,00–in order to secure “such a variety of food toys and idiotic opinions to play with”?
Using your logic a French imperialist could justify the colonization of Haiti because it provided Paris with a steady supply of sugar or a British imperialist could justify the colonization of India because it provided them with tea. Belgian imperialists could hail the mutilation of Congolese men, women and children because it secured access to ivory. Quite apart from the fact that the Iraq war was illegal, this is a deeply immoral worldview that ignores the human costs of war.
Rights are won by popular movements–the civil rights movement, the labor movement, the women’s rights movement, the environmentalist movement, the anti-war movement, etc.–not military conquest. What you are talking about is consumerism, which is qualitatively different from the fight for civil liberties and human rights.
Here’s Bonini’s book: