So let me get this straight.....

[Madeline]

I think VaYank asks terrific questions.

How's about someone answer? Was it worth what it cost in American lives?

 

[California Girl]

I think VaYank asks terrific questions.

How's about someone answer? Was it worth what it cost in American lives?

The whinings on each side will give you the bullshit responses.

Intelligent posters will say 'Give it 20 years and then we'll know'.... because that is the honest answer.

 

[Madeline]

It won't take 20 more years to know there were no WMD, CG. If we cannot even define why we were there, how can we decide whether it was worth it?

 

[California Girl]

It won't take 20 more years to know there were no WMD, CG. If we cannot even define why we were there, how can we decide whether it was worth it?

Actually, it's kind of more complicated than 'there was no WMD". As for 'was it worth it'? Well, give it 20 years and see what Iraq looks like then.

And, for the record, IF we had done it right back in 91, we wouldn't have had to do it again. We should learn that lesson.... and stop running a war like it's a made for tv movie... with a happy ending in 90 minutes.

 

[Madeline]

Well, there I agree with you. We should have removed Saddam in 1991. But it would also have been nice if we had not been his supporter and supplier in the 1970's and 1980's.

 

[DiamondDave]

yea we put on hannity right after. was hilarious with him and john mccain

SO, besides killing more Iraqis, and getting more of our own troops killed, did you understand what the "great success" of the surge was, exactly?

This has been pointed out to you in one of the many other threads where you spew this bullshit... when you look at the goals of the conflict, it WAS a victory/success... could it have had things done better? Yep... don't mean it was not a success

 

[Barb]

I wouldn't know if he was nation building because a.) I cannot read his mind, and b) I have no idea what you mean by that term.

Did you purposely not answer my second and most important question?

Your second question is conditional on the first. Since I do not know if he was nation building, I do not have to explain if it was wroth it, or what we got out of it. One of the advantages of being able to understand English is not getting caught in traps like that one.

Did you understand when Bush, in his campaign speeches, said in no uncertain terms that the US should not be engaged in "Nation Building?"

 

[California Girl]

Well, there I agree with you. We should have removed Saddam in 1991. But it would also have been nice if we had not been his supporter and supplier in the 1970's and 1980's.

Hindsight is always 20:20.

Fact is, we did what we did and nothing will change it. At the time, the political landscape was different and, given the same circumstances, we would probably have to do the something similar.... and 20 years later, we would view that decision differently. I'm not a great believer in applying today's standards to history. It tends to blur the issues.

 

[editec]

After spending just a little time watching Faux News after President Obama's speech, I think I heard nearly 2 dozen times that Obama should have thanked Bush for his "vision" for the surge and that he should have declared "victory" in Iraq. WTF? We won? Do these history and military geniuses also consider Vietnam and Korea "victories" simply because our troops did their jobs??

Obama admitted that the surge worked, and he also acknowledged that he'd been opposed to it.

AS to us having WON the war?

Nah! don't think so.

As long as we've got troops there, we (the people of the USA) are still losing the war.

 

[G.T.]

I don't get the won or lost thing.

We clearly won the war, like right at the beginning. We defeated Iraq's standing army.

The post-secondary war, the "war on terror" is like the war on drugs, it's symbolic. There's no "winning," just like Pest Control will never be out of the job because bugs out-number us by (a-sex-stallion)or, aka my nickname.

So carrying on over whether or not we won anything is a bit too uh, political, and when shit gets political it gets abstract.

Victory was had in Iraq when we soundly defeated their standing Army. A new war began afterwards, where Iraqi army was replaced by guys going "lalalalalalalala" and then blowing up market places.

 

[rightwinger]

I think VaYank asks terrific questions.

How's about someone answer? Was it worth what it cost in American lives?

And the larger question..

Was it worth 100,000 Iraqi lives? Its their country

 

[Barb]

Well, there I agree with you. We should have removed Saddam in 1991. But it would also have been nice if we had not been his supporter and supplier in the 1970's and 1980's.

Hindsight is always 20:20.

Fact is, we did what we did and nothing will change it. At the time, the political landscape was different and, given the same circumstances, we would probably have to do the something similar.... and 20 years later, we would view that decision differently. I'm not a great believer in applying today's standards to history. It tends to blur the issues.

Hindsight may be twenty twenty, but its application is usually preceded by lack of rational foresight.

 

[VaYank5150]

I wouldn't know if he was nation building because a.) I cannot read his mind, and b) I have no idea what you mean by that term.

Did you purposely not answer my second and most important question?

Your second question is conditional on the first. Since I do not know if he was nation building, I do not have to explain if it was wroth it, or what we got out of it. One of the advantages of being able to understand English is not getting caught in traps like that one.

Trap? Do you always run and hide from straight forward, direct questions?

 

[Si modo]

We did win. Nearly 2 years ago. That's why Bush arranged the withdrawal.

17 days after the Marines crossed the berm, to be exact.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

The "surge" was a bullshit smokescreen. The violence started going down when we started PAYING the effing insurgents not to shoot at us. Seriously, why even bring up the bogus "surge" anymore? This war was created by the bush admin. to make money for defense contractors they were in bed with. Nothing more and nothing less.

"We need to understand that buying off your enemy is a good short-term solution to gain a respite from violence," he says, "but it's not a long-term solution to creating a legitimate political order inside a country that, quite frankly, is recovering from the worst sort of civil war."

Military Officials Disagree on Impact of Surge : NPR

 

[VaYank5150]

The "surge" was a bullshit smokescreen. The violence started going down when we started PAYING the effing insurgents not to shoot at us. Seriously, why even bring up the bogus "surge" anymore? This war was created by the bush admin. to make money for defense contractors they were in bed with. Nothing more and nothing less.

"We need to understand that buying off your enemy is a good short-term solution to gain a respite from violence," he says, "but it's not a long-term solution to creating a legitimate political order inside a country that, quite frankly, is recovering from the worst sort of civil war."

Military Officials Disagree on Impact of Surge : NPR

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....you were supposed to forget about the "paying off the terrorists" part. That looks bad on Bush and also takes the "vcitory" away from our troops....

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....you were supposed to forget about the "paying off the terrorists" part. That looks bad on Bush and also takes the "vcitory" away from our troops....

I know. I'm just tired of the lies. God, how have the American people become so blind and STUPID??? It makes me angry. We really are turning into dumb, gullible and shallow consumers, just like the corporate marketers want us to be.

 

[MarcATL]

The "surge" was a bullshit smokescreen. The violence started going down when we started PAYING the effing insurgents not to shoot at us. Seriously, why even bring up the bogus "surge" anymore? This war was created by the bush admin. to make money for defense contractors they were in bed with. Nothing more and nothing less.

"We need to understand that buying off your enemy is a good short-term solution to gain a respite from violence," he says, "but it's not a long-term solution to creating a legitimate political order inside a country that, quite frankly, is recovering from the worst sort of civil war."

Military Officials Disagree on Impact of Surge : NPR

Don't expect the dishonest hacks on the Right like LoneSTarLogic et al. to ever discuss anything with a level of truth and honesty.

It just won't happen.

 

[Si modo]

The "surge" was a bullshit smokescreen. ....

And, Obama's taking credit for it.

Brilliant post, Peepers.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

And, Obama's taking credit for it.

You guys keep saying that, but I never heard him say that... did I miss that part of the speech?