Comments:US Senate votes to repeal authorizations of use of force against Iraq

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Comments on this page were originally made using the LiquidThreads extension, which is no longer supported. It has since been exported to wikitext, but the export process was not perfect so comments may appear slightly oddly.

Start a new discussion

The Repeal of Use of Force Authorizations - A Victory for Iraq's Sovereignty

The U.S. Senate's decision to repeal the authorizations of use of force against Iraq is a monumental step in recognizing and respecting Iraq's sovereignty. For too long, these authorizations have been used to justify military actions that have caused immense suffering and instability within Iraq. This repeal marks a significant shift towards acknowledging the need for Iraq to rebuild and govern itself without the looming threat of external military intervention.

This decision reflects a growing understanding that Iraq's future should be shaped by its own people, free from the shadow of past conflicts initiated under these authorizations. The prolonged presence of foreign military forces has hindered Iraq's ability to achieve true autonomy and peace. By repealing these authorizations, the U.S. is taking responsibility for its role in the prolonged instability and is opening the door for a more balanced and respectful bilateral relationship.

Furthermore, this move is a call for other nations to reconsider their foreign policies towards Iraq and support its efforts towards reconstruction and self-governance. International cooperation should now focus on providing humanitarian aid, economic support, and diplomatic assistance to help Iraq heal from the years of conflict and rebuild its society.

In conclusion, the repeal of the use of force authorizations against Iraq is a victory for the Iraqi people and a crucial step towards respecting their right to self-determination. It signals a move towards more responsible and respectful international relations and paves the way for Iraq to achieve lasting peace and prosperity. 004bvan (talk) 05:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I have to disagree. This was a huge disgrace to the reputation of our country. Iraq has no soviergnity, it is not a real nation. It's something that British randomly made up in 1922. It is no more a nation than transnistra or any of those puppets. An authorization to fight terrorism does, indeed, cause sufferring for terrorists, yes. That's a good thing. Iraq's future should indeed be shaped by it's own people, not only by the people got ahold of a gun. An authorization to use force does not a start a conflict, a conflict starts and therefore authorization is given. The presence of military forces has hindered Iraq's ability to have true autonomy. True autonomy would be disasterous, as the Iraqi military is too weak. The country would (and slowly is) being taken over be terrorists. The responsibility for the instability lies on Saddam Hussein lap mostly. As well, I would probably blame Iran and Russia for giving weapons to terrorists, and maybe Obama for withdrawing from Iraq. You can not have respect and balance with terrorists. Self-goverence is (unfortunately) winding up in a "might makes right" disaster in Iraq. We need to revert it, not expand it. International cooperation should focus first on having the country not in terrorism/anarchy and then worry about the rest later. It only only a victory for the (small) part of the Iraqi people who are terrorists. It is irreponsible to allow this to go on.

Side Note:Did you use an LLM to write this? @004bvan: Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Who made the USA the responsible party or the big brother for the world or for Iraq? I don't recall the Iraqi people asking them to come and "free" us, as they claim. Let's be clear: over a million Iraqis have died, not for freedom or to eliminate terrorists, but because of their interest in oil. They misled their own soldiers, claiming there were WMDs in Iraq, which was false.

You seem to be defending your government's actions, but I live here, and I know the reality. You don't. Furthermore, during the ISIS crisis, their help was minimal at best. In fact, their actions often made things worse. You mentioned they can't shake hands with terrorists, but they've done exactly that.

And no, I did not use an LLM to write this. I am well-educated and capable of expressing my own thoughts. 004bvan (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

"I don't recall the Iraqi people asking them to come and "free" us"" - because they would have been killed by Hussein if they did.

"Who made the USA the responsible party or the big brother for the world or for Iraq" - Neccessity.

"over a million Iraqis have died" - Source?

"but because of their interest in oil." - Yes, that true. Because of Iraqs interest in Kuwaits oil, the US had to invade the first time to push them out of Kuwait.

"They misled their own soldiers, claiming there were WMDs in Iraq, which was false" - There is a pretty high chance there were, and even if not, the thought so with the best information available at the time. Would it have been better if the US were nuclearly annihilated?

"You seem to be defending your government's actions, but I live here, and I know the reality" - You live where? You also have no way of knowing where I live or under whose government.

"during the ISIS crisis, their help was minimal at best" - Yeah because of Obama. Obama is well...not our best president for counter-terrorism.

"their actions often made things worse" - Example (outside of withdrawing from Iraq).

"they can't shake hands with terrorists, but they've done exactly that" - Yeah, that's what they did here and it is a disgrace to the United States and the entire Western World of democracy and freedom.

"I did not use an LLM to write this" - You posted a lot of these stuff very quickly sounding like an LLM.

@004bvan: Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• You argue that Iraqi people couldn't ask for help because Saddam Hussein would kill them. Fair enough. But let's consider other regimes like Iran and North Korea, where the populations are also oppressed. The U.S. hasn't intervened in those cases, which raises questions about the consistency of its policies.
• You mentioned necessity, but this is subjective. If necessity truly dictated U.S. actions, then why hasn't the U.S. intervened in Iran or North Korea, where the threat of WMDs is real and the populations are oppressed? The U.S. often acts unilaterally, which doesn't always align with international consensus or respect for national sovereignty.
• "Over a million Iraqis have died": The Iraq Body Count project estimates civilian deaths between 200,000 and 1,000,000 due to violence post-2003 invasion. These figures highlight the severe human cost of the conflict.
• "Because of Iraq's interest in Kuwait's oil, the U.S. had to invade the first time to push them out of Kuwait": The Iraq-Kuwait war was indeed about borders. The U.S. initially supported Saddam Hussein during this conflict, only to later intervene when he invaded Kuwait. This inconsistency highlights the problematic nature of U.S. foreign policy motives.
• "They misled their own soldiers, claiming there were WMDs in Iraq, which was false": They thought Iraq had WMDs and invaded us based on that assumption. Now, they know for sure that Iran and North Korea have WMDs. Why don't they invade them? I'll tell you why: because they knew Iraq didn't have WMDs, and that's why they invaded Iraq—because they knew there wouldn't be a nuclear war. Invading Iran or North Korea would risk starting a nuclear war.
• "Their actions often made things worse": For example, the disbanding of the Iraqi army and de-Baathification policies led to massive unemployment and unrest, contributing to the insurgency and later the rise of ISIS.
• "They can't shake hands with terrorists, but they've done exactly that": The U.S. has a history of complex interactions with various groups. Acknowledging past mistakes is crucial to avoid repeating them.
• "I did not use an LLM to write this": These topics have been in my scope of interest for years. I've only recently known about platforms like Wikinews. My knowledge comes from personal experience and extensive study, not an LLM. 004bvan (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

"The U.S. hasn't intervened in those cases, which raises questions about the consistency of its policies" - And...honestly they should intervene in Iran and they should've intervened in North Korea when they had the chance (before they got nukes)

"why hasn't the U.S. intervened in Iran or North Korea, where the threat of WMDs is real and the populations are oppressed" - Because Biden won't do anything, honestly. And because Americans are too irrationally afraid of war.

"The U.S. often acts unilaterally" - No country should be demanded to get everyone in other countries to agree that they can defend themselves if they think there going to be attacked with nuclear weapons.

"The Iraq Body Count project estimates civilian deaths between 200,000 and 1,000,000" - That's not over a million, and would you be interested to know that only 12% of the deaths are estimated to have come from coalition forces killing people. And many of those were militants anyways.

"The U.S. initially supported Saddam Hussein during this conflict, only to later intervene when he invaded Kuwait" - There was no conflict until he invaded Kuwait.

" they know for sure that Iran and North Korea have WMDs" - They don't know Iran had WMDs (they honestly might not) and North Korea is so closed up that they could be bluffing.

"they knew Iraq didn't have WMDs, and that's why they invaded Iraq—because they knew there wouldn't be a nuclear war. Invading Iran or North Korea would risk starting a nuclear war." - No. They knew that Saddam hated Israel and Saudi more and they would have gotten nuked first, giving the US time to renuke them back. So...indifference about the lives of Israelis and Saudis.

"Invading Iran or North Korea would risk starting a nuclear war" - Which is why they haven't done it.

"disbanding of the Iraqi army and de-Baathification policies led to massive unemployment and unrest, contributing to the insurgency and later the rise of ISIS" - So by fighting the oppossing army and winning they caused the people in that army to be unemployed? I guess so...but this is a ludicrious arguement. What should they have done? Let the army thats attacking them keep existing? And ISIS rose because of Iranian funding, that more or less it.

"he U.S. has a history of complex interactions with various groups" - Such as...

"These topics have been in my scope of interest for years. I've only recently known about platforms like Wikinews. My knowledge comes from personal experience and extensive study, not an LLM" - Okay. Whatever. @004bvan: Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)