Once
1960: U.S. works to covertly undermine the new government of Iraq by supporting anti- government Kurdish rebels and by attempting, unsuccessfully, to assassinate Iraq's leader, Abdul Karim Qassim, an army general who had restored relations with the Soviet Union and lifted the ban on Iraq's Communist Party
Twice
1963: U.S. supports a coup by the Ba'ath party to overthrow the Qassim regime, including by giving the Ba'ath names of communists to murder. Soon after the U.S.-backed coup, Saddam Hussein becomes the head of the Ba'ath party. According to one account, "Armed with the names and whereabouts of individual communists, the national guards carried out summary executions. Communists held in detention...were dragged out of prison and shot without a hearing... [B]y the end of the rule of the Ba'ath, its terror campaign had claimed the lives of an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 communists."
Three times
1973-1975: U.S. supports Kurdish rebels in Iraq in order to strengthen Iran and weaken the then pro-Soviet Iraqi regime. When Iran and Iraq cut a deal, the U.S. withdraws support from the Kurdish rebels, denies the Kurds refuge in Iran, and stands by while the Iraqi government kills many Kurdish people.
Four times
September 1980: Iraq invades Iran with tacit U.S. support, starting a bloody eight-year war. The U.S. supports both sides in the war--"tilting" to one side or another at various times-- in order to prolong the war and weaken both sides, while trying to draw both countries into the U.S. orbit. The U.S. opposes UN action against the invasion, removes Iraq from its list of "terrorist" nations, allows U.S. arms to be transferred to Iraq, provides Iraq with intelligence on Iran, economic aid, and political support, and encourages its Gulf allies to lend Iraq over $30 billion for its war effort. Meanwhile, the U.S. also provides Iran with arms.
Five times
And I guess the sixth one's the charm, eh? No matter how much neocons cheer on a 'Constitutional Republic' in Iraq, especially considering this nation doesn't even have one anymore (and hasn't for many years), it just won't work. No, it will amount to this government helping to establish some sort of democracy in Iraq, that will eventually be used to establish another dictatorship that, as history shows, this nation of states will have to 'fix' within a generation or two.
Sorry Congressman that I disagree with you. I truly wish the people of Iraq luck but it is no longer any of our business. We should wash our hands of it and come home. Especially considering we'll be back there in 30 years no matter how much work is done now. Cynical outlook maybe, but at least it's the truth. The theocracy that will come is going to be three times the nightmare to Israel that Hussein ever could have been. We may just be helping create Israel's worst enemy yet. And all the while, Saudi Arabia, who produced 15 of the 19 hijackers, is still called our ally
The obvious "bears" repeating. Blackbird.
"Once the US withdraws from Iraq, it will prove, once again, that it is not an imperial power interested in empire."
- Congressman BillyBob"And that's the goal, the commitment of the United States and our coalition partners -- Iraq must be democratic."
- President Bush
I guess it's not technically an empire if you only conquer a nation, force it to adopt the government of your choice and then pull out -- except for a few permanent military bases, of course -- with the implied threat that you will return and do the same thing again if the people get out of line. It would only be an empire if you conquer a nation, force it to adopt the government of your choice and then remain as an occupying force -- that is, expanding the number of troops in the region beyond just a few permanent military bases -- with the implicit threat that you will do the same thing again if the people get out of line.
As you can clearly see, the differences are staggering. AMERICA IS NOT INTERESTED IN EMPIRE.