Obama finally apologizes for murder by drone strike... since it was an American

[Mudhammam]

....and the civilian casualties are just "collateral damage" (That has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?).

No, they are people's lives. But I suppose we can do nothing and just let IS and the other groups strike whoever they want, because our hands are so pure we're forbidden to act in defense of the civilized world if someone gets hurt. I don't see IS sharing this nice value; they kill their own fellow Muslims for not being zealous enough, and have no compunctions about women or kids.

You believe the United States is involved in the Middle East to protect the lives of some Muslim people? 



C'mon. No one can really believe that. If you think we're over there to prevent terrorist attacks against ourselves or our allies, you can't honestly say our perpetual bombing has proven or will prove conducive to that goal.  There will be more of an Orwellian oligarchy in place than there already is before that happens... wait until they can read your thoughts, and not simply the posts and documents you type on a computer, in real time, as they already can... that's not what you're hoping for, I hope? As abaris correctly pointed out, all wars and slaughters involve a primary motive of wealth and power. Enough is enough should have been the public's conscience years ago. 

---

I really don't think that apologizing for a death four months after the fact merits a 'finally'.  For heads of state who apologize at all, that's pretty damned quick.

It took the British government 150 fucking years to apologize for and acknowledge their responsibility for the deaths of a million Irish. 

Boru

I was more or less speaking about the numerous victims the Obama administration pretends don't even exist. 

---

Um...we did that and the whole region went to shit.  Saddam's Iraq is looking pretty good right now.  That shithead Bush, notwithstanding.

I think ATT is onto something, though. The real reason Iraq flew apart wasn't that Saddam was overthrown, captured and killed, I don't think. The real reason is that with both the army and the police disbanded, the only forces for maintaining stability were American, who were obviously hated and distrusted by all parties except perhaps the Kurds ... and the American forces had zero experience policing a foreign population riven by schism.

I think assassination might have turned the better trick if it was really important to us. A better solution would have been to let the Iraqi resistance handle its own business.

Parker, Parker... that's practically what we did, or oversaw, in Libya. How is that working out? Assassinations have been quite common in the CIA playbook. There always is blowback. 

[Hatshepsut]

Back in 2003, by starting an unnecessary and unprovoked invasion.

Well, suppose we'd stayed out. Then we'd hear screaming about all the children being starved to death over there because of the economic embargo which would have continued. The far Left will condemn U.S. administrations no matter what happens because frankly they don't like the United States or its government. I've listened to 40 years of this stuff nonstop.

There's no question that the largest, most powerful states in the world will be imperialistic in nature to one degree or another. Rome, China, Russia, and now the U.S. Out of these four I do think the U.S. has the least abusive government. I value the Left's services as a watchdog but doubt if they'll ever be politically relevant again. They can't win a race for Mayor of San Francisco, the nation's most liberal town. I would have more respect for them if they got real for a change. They were a force for change in the 1930s to early 60s. But not since then.

You believe the United States is involved in the Middle East to protect the lives of some Muslim people? 

We're going to look out for own like everyone else does. But yes, al-Qaeda and IS will be killing fewer Muslims if they are on the run.

[abaris]

Well, suppose we'd stayed out. Then we'd hear screaming about all the children being starved to death over there because of the economic embargo which would have continued.

Well, that would be because of an unnecessary embargo on food and drugs back then. Seriously, did you follow the build up to the invasion in 2003? Did you digest all the lies about WMDs and Saddam supporting Al Quaeda terrorism being put forth back then?

It was so obviously based on a big fat lie that major European countries straight out refused to support that lunacy. Invading the only secular power in the region, apart from Syria, which holds the most holy sites of the Shia to put the cherry on top of the idiocy.

[Hatshepsut]

Seriously, did you follow the build up to the invasion in 2003? Did you digest all the lies about WMDs and Saddam supporting Al Quaeda terrorism being put forth back then?

I did. The decision to go in was probably made during the summer of 2002. In addition to WMD's and a terror nexus, I've also heard the theory that G.W. Bush wanted Saddam's ass because Saddam tried to assassinate his father G.H.W. Bush in Kuwait in 1993. Of course no WMD nor sponsorship of al-Qaeda were found. This means Bush was wrong, though not necessarily that he was lying. Saddam used nerve gas on the Kurds in 1988. It's even possible he got rid of his WMD stuff once he knew Hans Blix was coming to town. Saddam had a long and continuous record of dissembling and obstruction on WMD, although it doesn't seem he supported international terrorism. Too concerned with his own staying in power to do that, I suppose.

*see CNN Iraq WMD Inspection timeline: http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/meas...ast-facts/

The Bush Administration's motives and plans are a complex story. Other players like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and so on played major roles. Powell was against the idea, I think.

It's clear Bush didn't do his homework. The aftermath was a complete fiasco with a trenchant Bush refusing to remove his blinders until 2007, when Petraeus took over command. (Petraeus has recently been sentenced for leaking classified info to his publisher following a stint as Obama's CIA director.) I don't like a lot of the stuff we've done in the Middle East. Our policy there indeed runs toward selfishness and lack of understanding: It was that way for France and Britain as well. But I'd like to see an American leftist go in there and do much better. The place is a hornet's nest.

[abaris]

But I'd like to see an American leftist go in there and do much better. The place is a hornet's nest.

That's why you don't go in when you know shit about the situation at hand and the forces involved. I remember posting my predictions about the outcome of the war back in 2002 at fearbush.com. They came true to the point. And I'm not claiming to be a Middle East expert, just someone keeping his eyes open for all sorts of information available. Everyone having two brain cells to rub together could have predicted it. It was obvious considering the Shia/Sunni conflict and the fact that Iraq is a constructed state, drawn up by some colonial official in his cozy office in London, without giving ethnicity, tribal loyalties and religious affiliations any thought. Add to this a Western force marching into a region where the most holy sites of the Shia are and you have a perfect recipe for a major explosion.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Parker, Parker... that's practically what we did, or oversaw, in Libya. How is that working out? Assassinations have been quite common in the CIA playbook. There always is blowback. 

No, that's not what happened in Libya. There was a prolonged civil war prior to Qaddafi's capture and death predicated on NATO support for the rebels. The two situations are very different.

[Hatshepsut]

That's why you don't go in when you know shit about the situation at hand and the forces involved...

Certainly a defensible position on the issue.