The single biggest thing that Bush's wars accomplished

[DiamondDave]

For the umpteen BILLIONTH time...

Goals in Iraq

Disarming Saddam Hussein

A day late and a dollar short. Should have happened under Bush I. What actually happened was they probably made the place more unstable by removing Saddam.

How? Which influential terror sect was damaged?

Really? So Iraq is a Democratic nation at this time? I didn't realize that.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Silly rabbit. Has the terror attacks stopped? Has the attempts stopped? WHO'S intimidated? Tricks are for kids.

Preserve and expand U.S. influence in the region, enhance Israel's security and facilitate resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict

"Preserve and expand U.S. influence in the region" huh? I dunno...sounds a bit...MADE UP to me.

All of which we have had success in, except for the end part of the last one about resolving Israeli Arab relations, which is probably never going to happen anyway.... could some things have been done better? Yep... does not take away from the fact that we have victory and had success

Face it bub...it was one big debacle. AKA....FAILURE!!!

OK Racist...

Yes.. It SHOULD have been done under Bush I and the beginning of Clinton... but we pussied out to the UN...

Terrorist organizations spent much time, money, and resources battling us in Iraq... things that could have otherwise been used in other arenas

Iraq has a constitutional republic with democratic elections.. this is fact

Winning ground in the war on terror does not inherently mean that you have ended all terrorism... but nice try

Expanding influence by having another freedom based government in the region, an ally, and an intel system that is working with ours....

Idiot extremists like you want to make sound like it was a failure, just because it was not as easy as a game of Risk.... it is and was a difficult situation, but we have been victorious militarily and have had success in the mentioned goals... unlike you or others who wish to bash our military efforts, I do not count it a failure if it is less than a perfect outcome and had imperfect steps along the way

 

[DiamondDave]

Bill O'Reilly: Stratfor.com Intel Briefing - Stratfor.com: The U.S. Withdrawal and Limited Options in Iraq

here is a good start from stratfor, I will just ignore you if you discredit them, unfortunately, I can't repost the stratfor articles I get b/c its a paid service with copyright, but apparently bill o riely gets access to some of them and that is one of the good ones.

this is a good paragraph from it:



but you need to read the whole thing. I will try to find other instances of their iraq/iran articles online in legal places like Bill's website b/c I have tens of them archived in my daily emails from stratfor.

Has the capability... not quite the same as your assertion that it DOES....

And again, an opinion piece does not make it so.... Please show something that directly supports your assertion

if the last round of elections in iraq ever mean anything, the directly iran backed group will have about 50% of the seats.

Link

General Lanza has mentioned his fear of Iranian influence in Iraqi elections... and contribution law in Iraq is vague for elections.... but I have seen NOTHING that asserts your claim of Iranian control of Iraqi politics

now iran controls a majority of the elected iraq government

This is YOUR assertion... and you have not provided any proof of such a claim

 

[Jarhead]

um the goal would have never worked. anyone who thought that destabilizing iraq would help israel is an idiot

Ummm... perhaps you should continue reading what I wrote.... I stated " which is probably never going to happen anyway"... reading comprehension is not your cup of tea, now is it???

And you think a tyrant government, willing to kill it's own people, and who did launch SCUDS at Israel during the conflict to try and get them involved, etc, is better than the chance at a freedom based government in terms of the position of Israel???

I think you are showing yourself to be the idiot

And this has WHAT to do with us? Where in the Constitution does it state that our military is to be used for this prupose?

So I am curious...Lets say the intel was correct and there were weapons of mass destruction. And lets say we did what you wanted and simply said "be a good boy Saddam and do not use those WMD's on anyone but your own people".....and then he attached them to scuds and 100,000 people die in israel...including 30,000 children.
What would you say?

 

[VaYank5150]

Ummm... perhaps you should continue reading what I wrote.... I stated " which is probably never going to happen anyway"... reading comprehension is not your cup of tea, now is it???

And you think a tyrant government, willing to kill it's own people, and who did launch SCUDS at Israel during the conflict to try and get them involved, etc, is better than the chance at a freedom based government in terms of the position of Israel???

I think you are showing yourself to be the idiot

And this has WHAT to do with us? Where in the Constitution does it state that our military is to be used for this prupose?

So I am curious...Lets say the intel was correct and there were weapons of mass destruction. And lets say we did what you wanted and simply said "be a good boy Saddam and do not use those WMD's on anyone but your own people".....and then he attached them to scuds and 100,000 people die in israel...including 30,000 children.
What would you say?

Could you possibly include any more "ifs" in your scenario?

 

[Misty]

Millions of long-suffering Iraqis no longer live in perpetual terror.

 

[VaYank5150]

Millions of long-suffering Iraqis no longer live in perpetual terror.

True. Over 100,000 of them are now dead thanks to our invasion and occupation.

 

[blu]

Millions of long-suffering Iraqis no longer live in perpetual terror.

yea now they are refugees in other nations and the ones that stayed have security checks multiple times on a small trip

 

[Jarhead]

And this has WHAT to do with us? Where in the Constitution does it state that our military is to be used for this prupose?

So I am curious...Lets say the intel was correct and there were weapons of mass destruction. And lets say we did what you wanted and simply said "be a good boy Saddam and do not use those WMD's on anyone but your own people".....and then he attached them to scuds and 100,000 people die in israel...including 30,000 children.
What would you say?

Could you possibly include any more "ifs" in your scenario?

Sad diversion.

Hussein was certainly involved in chemical development. That was fact.
Hussein certainly shot scuds to israel. That was fact.
Intel said he had both.

So there was as much a chance of it happening as it not happening.

So I again ask Mr. Monday Morning quarterback......and if it did happen?

 

[Jarhead]

Millions of long-suffering Iraqis no longer live in perpetual terror.

True. Over 100,000 of them are now dead thanks to our invasion and occupation.

Got the data that shows 100,000 civilians died at the hands of Caolition actions?

 

[MikeK]

You're still buying the spin then? Since you believe that, you'll excuse those of us who don't take your 'guess' very seriously.

CAGirl,

If you have specific arguments to what WiHosa said I'll be interested in reading them.

 

[MikeK]

Now that our combat forces are finally out of Iraq, the RepubliCONs want to claim victory. But what have we won? A democracy? Hardly, there was an election in the spring and it has not yet been resolved. It may never be resolved. The rest of our force is scheduled to leave by this time next year.

After we leave we will then find out what kind of country Iraq will be. My guess is that another strongman, another Saddam Hussein will take over. Perhaps another civil war first.

So then what have we accomplished? I mean beyond the trillion dollars spent, the over 4400 dead and tens of thousands of wounded American service people, the over 100,000 killed Iraqis, the millions of displaced Iraqis, the streangthening of Iran into the regional power, the shreading of the American image as "the good duys", what have we accomplished?

What we have demonstrated to the world is the strategic limit of the power of the United States. Dictators the world over now have a model to gauge their actions against. The blow back from this folly will be with us far into the future.

You really don't understand what Iraq was all about, do you? I don't think you do.

Please educate us with some specifics.

 

[MikeK]

No, 4,400 of America's best were not wasted. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Stop using our war dead for your fucking partisan politics.

Is that your best answer?

Please tell us specifically what you believe those 4,400+ died for. But first I suggest you look up the meaning of the word jingoism.

 

[VaYank5150]

So I am curious...Lets say the intel was correct and there were weapons of mass destruction. And lets say we did what you wanted and simply said "be a good boy Saddam and do not use those WMD's on anyone but your own people".....and then he attached them to scuds and 100,000 people die in israel...including 30,000 children.
What would you say?

Could you possibly include any more "ifs" in your scenario?

Sad diversion.

Hussein was certainly involved in chemical development. That was fact.
Hussein certainly shot scuds to israel. That was fact.
Intel said he had both.

So there was as much a chance of it happening as it not happening.

So I again ask Mr. Monday Morning quarterback......and if it did happen?

IF it did, we would respond based on the agreements we have set forth in our "ally" relationship with Israel. Much as under Bush Sr, many times we did NOTHING, as Israel was more than strong enough to support themselves.

 

[Jarhead]

No, 4,400 of America's best were not wasted. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Stop using our war dead for your fucking partisan politics.

Is that your best answer?

Please tell us specifically what you believe those 4,400+ died for. But first I suggest you look up the meaning of the word jingoism.

Those 4,400 died as a result of a dilemma our government was faced with.

We had intel from not only our domestic agencies but from our ally agencies as well that seemed to imply that there were WMD's in the hands of a tyrant that has been known to invade neighbors (Kuwait) and send scuds to our allys (Israel).

Whereas invading Iraq and not finding such WMD's was a concern, the risk of not doing so was of greater concern.

That is why our 4400 brave ones died.

 

[VaYank5150]

Millions of long-suffering Iraqis no longer live in perpetual terror.

True. Over 100,000 of them are now dead thanks to our invasion and occupation.

Got the data that shows 100,000 civilians died at the hands of Caolition actions?

Sad diversion. Are you disputing that over 100,00 innocent Iraqi's died?

 

[Jarhead]

Could you possibly include any more "ifs" in your scenario?

Sad diversion.

Hussein was certainly involved in chemical development. That was fact.
Hussein certainly shot scuds to israel. That was fact.
Intel said he had both.

So there was as much a chance of it happening as it not happening.

So I again ask Mr. Monday Morning quarterback......and if it did happen?

IF it did, we would respond based on the agreements we have set forth in our "ally" relationship with Israel. Much as under Bush Sr, many times we did NOTHING, as Israel was more than strong enough to support themselves.

Fair enough answer although one you and I do not see eye to eye on.

And by the way...as for the "if" thing....

Are you saying that it would have been wrong for Bush to say "what IF there are NO wmd's?"

 

[DiamondDave]

Millions of long-suffering Iraqis no longer live in perpetual terror.

True. Over 100,000 of them are now dead thanks to our invasion and occupation.

Got the data that shows 100,000 civilians died at the hands of Caolition actions?

The statistics usually cited include deaths above what can be directly attributed to the direct military action of the coalition forces... but that does not stop the wingers from trying to use that number in their opposition to the military action

 

[Jarhead]

True. Over 100,000 of them are now dead thanks to our invasion and occupation.

Got the data that shows 100,000 civilians died at the hands of Caolition actions?

Sad diversion. Are you disputing that over 100,00 innocent Iraqi's died?

Actually, I really dont know how many.
But I know one thing for sure....the Coalition troops did the best they can to minimize any collateral damage...so I find it highly unlikely that 100,000 civilians died at the hands of coalition activities.

 

[VaYank5150]

Sad diversion.

Hussein was certainly involved in chemical development. That was fact.
Hussein certainly shot scuds to israel. That was fact.
Intel said he had both.

So there was as much a chance of it happening as it not happening.

So I again ask Mr. Monday Morning quarterback......and if it did happen?

IF it did, we would respond based on the agreements we have set forth in our "ally" relationship with Israel. Much as under Bush Sr, many times we did NOTHING, as Israel was more than strong enough to support themselves.

Fair enough answer although one you and I do not see eye to eye on.

And by the way...as for the "if" thing....

Are you saying that it would have been wrong for Bush to say "what IF there are NO wmd's?"

So, what IF there were? Look at the delivery technology Saddam had. SCUDs? Really? Kinda like why no one except right wing fearmongers get their panties in a wad when North Korea test fires a missile. Based on their delivery systems, they are lucky to get the damn things past their own shoreline.

 

[VaYank5150]

Got the data that shows 100,000 civilians died at the hands of Caolition actions?

Sad diversion. Are you disputing that over 100,00 innocent Iraqi's died?

Actually, I really dont know how many.
But I know one thing for sure....the Coalition troops did the best they can to minimize any collateral damage...so I find it highly unlikely that 100,000 civilians died at the hands of coalition activities.

We invaded. Brought our caolition buddies with us. Violence erupted. Over 100,000 Iraqi civilians died. You aren't REALLY trying to say we have no responsibility, are you?