Iraq stabilizing, leading Arab world: Bush was right, liberals ashamed?

Clinton passed the Iraqi regime change resolution and was the father of "nation building". Take that up with him.

Clinton...Bush...Obama....all one in the same.

Wasn't it Bush who swore on the campaign trail that he would NOT nation build?

Wasn't it Obama who swore on the campaign trail that he would NOT be like Bush?

See....they are all the same.

You are deflecting now and we are SO far away from the original intent of this thread that further discourse is meaningless. However, I agree that Obama has not been the "transparent changer of Washington politics" that I hoped and voted for. Does that make him a failed President? Not in my humble opinion.
 
Time always tells the final story on these things. There is a long long way to go in Iraq. It will be many years from now when we see what the final outcome is in Iraq. It took many years for Japan & Germany to bounce back after WWII. They both eventually became Economic World Powers when it was all said and done though. Iraq could see a similar fate down the line...Or not. We'll just have to wait and see on that.
 
Japan & Germany did have less hurdles to jump though. They were basically united countries. There was a forced split between East & West Germany but it wasn't the same as the divisions in Iraq. West Germany did do very well economically under Democratic rule though while East Germany went on to suffer in squalor under Soviet rule. There is much more ethnic and religious division in Iraq than there was in Japan and Germany so it will take them much longer to prosper. Time really will tell in the end.
 
Japan & Germany did have less hurdles to jump though. They were basically united countries. There was a forced split between East & West Germany but it wasn't the same as the divisions in Iraq. West Germany did do very well economically under Democratic rule though while East Germany went on to suffer in squalor under Soviet rule. There is much more ethnic and religious division in Iraq than there was in Japan and Germany so it will take them much longer to prosper. Time really will tell in the end.

Regardless of what the outcome is and regardless of how long it takes, we as Americans must decide whether it was worth the lives of more than 4,000 of our US soldiers. What have we gained from this expense of life and treasure?
 
Japan & Germany did have less hurdles to jump though. They were basically united countries. There was a forced split between East & West Germany but it wasn't the same as the divisions in Iraq. West Germany did do very well economically under Democratic rule though while East Germany went on to suffer in squalor under Soviet rule. There is much more ethnic and religious division in Iraq than there was in Japan and Germany so it will take them much longer to prosper. Time really will tell in the end.

Regardless of what the outcome is and regardless of how long it takes, we as Americans must decide whether it was worth the lives of more than 4,000 of our US soldiers. What have we gained from this expense of life and treasure?

Surely that depends on the outcome, at least in part.
 
Iraq is Bush greatest achievement:confused:!

I though Iraq was Obama's greatest foreign policy achievement, at least according to Joe Hair Plugs! :lol:
 
Japan & Germany did have less hurdles to jump though. They were basically united countries. There was a forced split between East & West Germany but it wasn't the same as the divisions in Iraq. West Germany did do very well economically under Democratic rule though while East Germany went on to suffer in squalor under Soviet rule. There is much more ethnic and religious division in Iraq than there was in Japan and Germany so it will take them much longer to prosper. Time really will tell in the end.

Regardless of what the outcome is and regardless of how long it takes, we as Americans must decide whether it was worth the lives of more than 4,000 of our US soldiers. What have we gained from this expense of life and treasure?

Yes that is a very important and difficult question. I guess people will have to decide that for themselves.
 
Japan & Germany did have less hurdles to jump though. They were basically united countries. There was a forced split between East & West Germany but it wasn't the same as the divisions in Iraq. West Germany did do very well economically under Democratic rule though while East Germany went on to suffer in squalor under Soviet rule. There is much more ethnic and religious division in Iraq than there was in Japan and Germany so it will take them much longer to prosper. Time really will tell in the end.

Regardless of what the outcome is and regardless of how long it takes, we as Americans must decide whether it was worth the lives of more than 4,000 of our US soldiers. What have we gained from this expense of life and treasure?

Surely that depends on the outcome, at least in part.

But again, I have to ask. What have we gained?
 
Regardless of what the outcome is and regardless of how long it takes, we as Americans must decide whether it was worth the lives of more than 4,000 of our US soldiers. What have we gained from this expense of life and treasure?

Surely that depends on the outcome, at least in part.

But again, I have to ask. What have we gained?

Each individual will have to come up with their own answer on that. Like all difficult questions,the answers usually aren't Black or White answers. Those answers are usually Grey-area answers. It really does all come down to each individual's feelings on this issue. There will never be complete agreement. I'm a Ron Paul guy so my answer is pretty simple. If you know Dr. Paul then you know where i stand on this one. However,what's done is done and now you have to look to the future. I hope it all works out for us and the Iraqis. I really do.
 
Surely that depends on the outcome, at least in part.

But again, I have to ask. What have we gained?

Each individual will have to come up with their own answer on that.

What are you saying, that the truth is unknowable ?

Green Zone Puts the Hurt on The Hurt Locker



In Green Zone, Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller (Matt Damon) suspects foul play after being ordered to empty site after empty site to secure WMDs on supposedly rock-solid intelligence. After being given the run-around by Army higher-ups, Miller is approached by CIA operative Martin Brown (Brendan Gleeson), who knows that there is no WMD and knows what must be done to restore order in post-invasion Iraq. Miller joins Brown in gathering further intelligence using local sources and carrying out the CIA plan, which is at cross-purposes with the Army’s plan. As the viewer comes to find out, neither plan is a good one.

While The Hurt Locker’s political message might be summed up as “terrorism is real and it is fought by special men at great personal sacrifice,” Green Zone’s political message is a much more reasonable one: “politicians lie us into war, bureaucracies operate at cross-purposes, and real good comes from the ethics and action of individuals, not governments and armies.”

.
 
Funny how the reasons Iraq was good keeps changing

9/11! No, WMDs! No, Ties to Al Queda! No, We suddenly cared about the kurds!

:rolleyes:
 
Regardless of what the outcome is and regardless of how long it takes, we as Americans must decide whether it was worth the lives of more than 4,000 of our US soldiers. What have we gained from this expense of life and treasure?

Surely that depends on the outcome, at least in part.

But again, I have to ask. What have we gained?

If Iraq emerges as a more stable country, with free elections, and is seen to be (by the rest of the Arab world) free from inappropriate western influence (and yes, I realize that's a tall order), then I think that, to a degree, the countries that were involved in such a seismic change can look back with an element of satisfaction.

Yes, mistakes have been made, yes it could have been done better, and yes many lives were lost. But Saddam was a monster, his regime was an abomination and the international community caused more harm to the average iraqi citizen with the years of sanctions than they ever did to Saddam.

I know mine is neither a popular nor a politically correct view, but I supported the war on the basis of regime change. And if the regime is ever deemed to have been changed for the better then I for one will be absolutely delighted.

I know that views like mine open numerous other questions, such as did we have the right to do this is the first place, and what about other similar regimes. I could attempt to provide answers to them but could probably never do so to the satisfaction of many. I do think the UN should have a much firmer hand with governments who routinely oppress their people, but of course they never will.

And so I return to your original question - what have we gained. Well, I've attempted to set out what I see as the benefits above. If however you mean what have we gained politically or financially, I would have to say I suspect very little, but also that I don't really care.

The day that we allow what is morally right to take a back seat to political or financial benefits will be a black day, IMO. I'm sure many people will take issue with my view of what is morally right. That's OK. Fortunately we live in a free country where you don't get your head cut off for holding a different view.
 
If it were left up to Bush & the conservatives of the country the U.S. would still be persuing the 'Stay the Course' strategy. There would have been no progress in Iraq and it would still be in the same state that it was in in 2005.

The 2006 elections forced the Bush administration to take some action (the surge) to rectify the situation in Iraq - actions that they could and should have taken in 2003 - but they didn't want to.

They only implemented the surge because they thought that the political situation in the U.S. was still recoverable for the Republicans.

We DID NOT have valid reason to invade Iraq. They did not have WMDS and we did not have any real evidence that they did.

The number of lives lost and of lives disrupted both American an Iraqi are way more than the benefits of the invasion.

Unless you count the financial benefit enjoyed by Bush's closest friends both American and Iraqi.

War may be deadly for most, but for the financial elite it is very lucrative.

$$$$$$
 
Surely that depends on the outcome, at least in part.

But again, I have to ask. What have we gained?

If Iraq emerges as a more stable country, with free elections, and is seen to be (by the rest of the Arab world) free from inappropriate western influence (and yes, I realize that's a tall order), then I think that, to a degree, the countries that were involved in such a seismic change can look back with an element of satisfaction.

Yes, mistakes have been made, yes it could have been done better, and yes many lives were lost. But Saddam was a monster, his regime was an abomination and the international community caused more harm to the average iraqi citizen with the years of sanctions than they ever did to Saddam.

I know mine is neither a popular nor a politically correct view, but I supported the war on the basis of regime change. And if the regime is ever deemed to have been changed for the better then I for one will be absolutely delighted.

I know that views like mine open numerous other questions, such as did we have the right to do this is the first place, and what about other similar regimes. I could attempt to provide answers to them but could probably never do so to the satisfaction of many. I do think the UN should have a much firmer hand with governments who routinely oppress their people, but of course they never will.

And so I return to your original question - what have we gained. Well, I've attempted to set out what I see as the benefits above. If however you mean what have we gained politically or financially, I would have to say I suspect very little, but also that I don't really care.

The day that we allow what is morally right to take a back seat to political or financial benefits will be a black day, IMO. I'm sure many people will take issue with my view of what is morally right. That's OK. Fortunately we live in a free country where you don't get your head cut off for holding a different view.

It's not going to happen. The truth is Muslims have been over there LONGER than the existence of the United States. All the oil. All the money. Being between the east and the west. And still, the middle east is under the shackles of a severe and dangerous Abrahamic religion. The claws are in even deeper than Christianity was in Europe.

Iraq has made "Islam" the national religion and IN IT'S CONSTITUTION SAYS ALL LEGISLATION IS BASED ON ISLAM. For some odd reason, conservatives in this country say, "So what? Ho hum? They're Muslims so it's expected. No big deal".

Well it is a big deal. It means that Iraq will NOT be a democracy in our lifetime. Republicans had a chance to influence the writing of their constitution and failed again. Republicans say, "How can we go in and tell these people what kind of government they should have". Which, oddly enough, is what we did when we invaded.

And Republicans said, "We will not leave until they have the kind of army we thought they had when we invaded".
 

Forum List

Back
Top