NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
But we don't because we know it isn't necessary. Nor was Iraq.
Iraq was an unnecessary war where 4000+ Americans died unnecessarily and trillions of dollars were unnecessarily wasted.
Does anyone care we won the war in IRAQ?
- Thread starter JRK
- Start date
But we don't because we know it isn't necessary. Nor was Iraq.
Iraq was an unnecessary war where 4000+ Americans died unnecessarily and trillions of dollars were unnecessarily wasted.
freedombecki
Let's go swimmin'!
Somehow, the victory we won, paying a high price in American lives and considerable money, may have been snatched away by leaving too soon and letting the enemies there know we are getting completely out by the end of this year. Below is the Iraq Traveler's Warning that just went into effect 10 days ago:
What a waste this selfish administration has made of America's accomplishment. I don't know if America can afford this expensive defeat, wrested from the victory our men and women in uniform earned us the hard way. Now, American citizens are not safe in this country the Obama administration has surrendered to be a future hellhole for America.
What a waste this selfish administration has made of America's accomplishment. I don't know if America can afford this expensive defeat, wrested from the victory our men and women in uniform earned us the hard way. Now, American citizens are not safe in this country the Obama administration has surrendered to be a future hellhole for America.
idb
Gold Member
- Dec 26, 2010
- 14,986
- 2,590
- 265
Somehow, the victory we won, paying a high price in American lives and considerable money, may have been snatched away by leaving too soon and letting the enemies there know we are getting completely out by the end of this year. Below is the Iraq Traveler's Warning that just went into effect 10 days ago:
What a waste this selfish administration has made of America's accomplishment. I don't know if America can afford this expensive defeat, wrested from the victory our men and women in uniform earned us the hard way. Now, American citizens are not safe in this country the Obama administration has surrendered to be a future hellhole for America.
What what what what what what!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????What a waste this selfish administration has made of America's accomplishment. I don't know if America can afford this expensive defeat, wrested from the victory our men and women in uniform earned us the hard way. Now, American citizens are not safe in this country the Obama administration has surrendered to be a future hellhole for America.
R
rdean
Guest
Which all magically disappeared? Do the right thing? Why do Republicans think the US can just go around the world and tell other countries what to do?
And let me tell you something. If Saddam had all those weapons, he would have used them when he was chased out of Kuwait. So then Republicans say he got them after Bush Sr.
Bush Sr. had been a military officer during World War II. He had been head of the CIA. He had been Vice President and finally he was president.
Republicans insult him terribly by even suggesting that he chased Saddam back to Iraq and then turned his back on him. Didn't keep an eye on him. Ignored him. Of course he didn't. It's ludicrous to think he did. He was not incompetent. The problem is that he would have to be a total moron to make what his son did plausible.
Bush Jr. being the arrogant little twerp he was didn't ask his father anything. If he had, we never would have invaded Iraq. You know Bush Sr. had satellites permanently parked over Iraq. We would never be told, but do we really have to be?
George Bush, Sr. from his own book, "A World Transformed", written in 1998 (chapter 19, page 489). Why he didn't remove Saddam Hussein from power at the end of the Gulf War:
"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have ... incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different and perhaps barren outcome."
Too bad Bush Jr. didn't read his dad's ******* book. It would have saved this country about 4,000 lives, 50,000 fewer injured and at least a trillion dollars.
Last edited by a moderator:
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
The is the largest stupid ass partisian pissing match of my lifetime. NEITHER side is willing to face up the historical facts and the decision that this country faced in 2001.
For 12 years -- we locked down the Iraqis in a hell hole with a mad man. Our embargo by MODERATE sources contributed to the deaths of over 150,000 Iraqis. We bombed them DAILY, We took away the keys to their economy, We locked down their borders and their skies. They watched their children die for lack of medical care. To do that, we had to keep a couple extra carriers groups in the Gulf and bases in Saudi. And towards the end --- only Britain was still sharing the burden of containment.
Germany and France were holding industry expos and job fairs in Baghdad in the last years. The UN had bastardardized the Oil for Food program into a crony corruption circus beyond belief.
The CONTAINMENT WAS CRUMBLING. The choices were clear. Let the embargo end and ease Iraq back into trade -- which is what the UN inspections were clearly indicating. OR -- Remove Saddam and allow Iraq to reboot their govt.
NO AMERICAN politician had the GUTS to suggest the former solution favored by the EU and the rest of the world. (except arguably Kucinich and Paul and maybe a couple others). So the problem was largely ignored and we had to endure the spectacle of Clinton making the same air-headed pronouncements about WMDs and dangers of Saddam on the eve of the Impeachment and he PUMMELED that country just because he could. And a Sec State that called the containment deaths in Iraq all "justifiable".
THose WERE the choices. History will write it that way. At LEAST a decision was made that ENDED the nightmare of 12 years of embarrassing sucky US policy.
Now I'm gonna destroy all that credible history and logic with this...
I console myself about the WMD lies and BUshes decision to do it the "hard way" by entertaining the one conspiracy theory that I personally hold. And that is that the DEMS went along with the decision largely because the nation's leaders KNEW of things that the public didn't. I personally believe that there was no real opposition to Bush's decision in D.C. because the leadership on both side knew that Saddam had been implicated in some actual hostile action against the US. That would be one of the following.
1) The downing of Flt 800 which occurred on Iraqi Freedom Day and had dozens of credible witnesses testifying to a missile strike off the NY coast.
2) The Anthrax incidents.
3) The 1st bombing in 93 of the WTCenter. Many of the prime suspects had known ties to Iraq.
4) Any other incident that COULD have been an actual act of aggression against the US.
Why else would DEM leadership essentially mimic the same lies and ignore the UN inspection reports and the beliefs of European allies?
Anyway -- carry on.. BUt remember that a choice NEEDED to be made. The containment was no longer an option. Someone grew a pair and made a choice.
For 12 years -- we locked down the Iraqis in a hell hole with a mad man. Our embargo by MODERATE sources contributed to the deaths of over 150,000 Iraqis. We bombed them DAILY, We took away the keys to their economy, We locked down their borders and their skies. They watched their children die for lack of medical care. To do that, we had to keep a couple extra carriers groups in the Gulf and bases in Saudi. And towards the end --- only Britain was still sharing the burden of containment.
Germany and France were holding industry expos and job fairs in Baghdad in the last years. The UN had bastardardized the Oil for Food program into a crony corruption circus beyond belief.
The CONTAINMENT WAS CRUMBLING. The choices were clear. Let the embargo end and ease Iraq back into trade -- which is what the UN inspections were clearly indicating. OR -- Remove Saddam and allow Iraq to reboot their govt.
NO AMERICAN politician had the GUTS to suggest the former solution favored by the EU and the rest of the world. (except arguably Kucinich and Paul and maybe a couple others). So the problem was largely ignored and we had to endure the spectacle of Clinton making the same air-headed pronouncements about WMDs and dangers of Saddam on the eve of the Impeachment and he PUMMELED that country just because he could. And a Sec State that called the containment deaths in Iraq all "justifiable".
THose WERE the choices. History will write it that way. At LEAST a decision was made that ENDED the nightmare of 12 years of embarrassing sucky US policy.
Now I'm gonna destroy all that credible history and logic with this...
I console myself about the WMD lies and BUshes decision to do it the "hard way" by entertaining the one conspiracy theory that I personally hold. And that is that the DEMS went along with the decision largely because the nation's leaders KNEW of things that the public didn't. I personally believe that there was no real opposition to Bush's decision in D.C. because the leadership on both side knew that Saddam had been implicated in some actual hostile action against the US. That would be one of the following.
1) The downing of Flt 800 which occurred on Iraqi Freedom Day and had dozens of credible witnesses testifying to a missile strike off the NY coast.
2) The Anthrax incidents.
3) The 1st bombing in 93 of the WTCenter. Many of the prime suspects had known ties to Iraq.
4) Any other incident that COULD have been an actual act of aggression against the US.
Why else would DEM leadership essentially mimic the same lies and ignore the UN inspection reports and the beliefs of European allies?
Anyway -- carry on.. BUt remember that a choice NEEDED to be made. The containment was no longer an option. Someone grew a pair and made a choice.
Last edited:
bobcollum
Rookie
On a side note, what about the angle used to justify the ongoing and seemingly endless influx of regional insurgents that if I recall was "we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here"?
Are all the terrorists gone?
Someone has already said and I think it's appropriate to say victory based on the initial objectives wasn't surprising, it was like big-leaguers against kids. It was unnecessary and we're not safer than we were before the invasion....sure it's opinion because safety on that scale is hard to quantify, but I'll believe my own eyes and ears instead of what you're trying to sell me.
Are all the terrorists gone?
Someone has already said and I think it's appropriate to say victory based on the initial objectives wasn't surprising, it was like big-leaguers against kids. It was unnecessary and we're not safer than we were before the invasion....sure it's opinion because safety on that scale is hard to quantify, but I'll believe my own eyes and ears instead of what you're trying to sell me.
Last edited:
MikeK
Gold Member
What weapons? Are you one of those who still believe there were WMDs in Iraq that we still haven't found?
So what? How did that help us? It cost us nearly five thousand American lives and has punched a giant hole in our economy.
So what? There are still dozens of far worse dictatorships in the world, some which represent a real danger to us. Hussein posed absolutely no danger to us -- in fact he was our friend and ally during our period of hostility with Iran. And if we had left him alone in Kuwait, then backed his inevitable invasion of Saudi Arabia, we would be sitting in the catbird seat by now and paying .50 a gallon for gas. But why didn't we do that:
That's why.
Saddam Hussein was secular, therefore an enemy to Al Qaeda. He would not have tolerated an Al Qaeda presence in Iraq. So you really need to purge your mind of all the propaganda the right-wing propagandists have pumped in there.
Iraq was to George W. Bush what Poland was to Hitler in 1939 -- a military aggression. A criminal invasion of a virtually defenseless sovereign nation for no legitimate or justifiable purpose. The Weapons of Mass Destruction motive was an insidiously contrived deception.
Finally, the last time the U.S. was at war was in 1945. Vietnam was not a war. It was an aggression. Iraq was not a war. It was an unlawful invasion and occupation.
Because we send troops to die in armed combat does not mean we are at war. We are at war when there is a chance we can lose and be occupied or destroyed. The Iraqi military was at war for a very brief time. Some of them still are at war. We were never at war in Iraq.
What we are doing in Iraq is emulating the Roman Empire -- which History has shown is not a good idea.
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 145,577
- 32,657
- 2,180
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 145,577
- 32,657
- 2,180
What weapons? Are you one of those who still believe there were WMDs in Iraq that we still haven't found?
So what? How did that help us? It cost us nearly five thousand American lives and has punched a giant hole in our economy.
So what? There are still dozens of far worse dictatorships in the world, some which represent a real danger to us. Hussein posed absolutely no danger to us -- in fact he was our friend and ally during our period of hostility with Iran. And if we had left him alone in Kuwait, then backed his inevitable invasion of Saudi Arabia, we would be sitting in the catbird seat by now and paying .50 a gallon for gas. But why didn't we do that:
That's why.
Saddam Hussein was secular, therefore an enemy to Al Qaeda. He would not have tolerated an Al Qaeda presence in Iraq. So you really need to purge your mind of all the propaganda the right-wing propagandists have pumped in there.
Iraq was to George W. Bush what Poland was to Hitler in 1939 -- a military aggression. A criminal invasion of a virtually defenseless sovereign nation for no legitimate or justifiable purpose. The Weapons of Mass Destruction motive was an insidiously contrived deception.
Finally, the last time the U.S. was at war was in 1945. Vietnam was not a war. It was an aggression. Iraq was not a war. It was an unlawful invasion and occupation.
Because we send troops to die in armed combat does not mean we are at war. We are at war when there is a chance we can lose and be occupied or destroyed. The Iraqi military was at war for a very brief time. Some of them still are at war. We were never at war in Iraq.
What we are doing in Iraq is emulating the Roman Empire -- which History has shown is not a good idea.
You're an ignorant fool, and you should be grateful that your betters make the decisions that keep you safe enough to spew such nonsense. saddam was an opportunist looking to set himself up as the 'big man' in the region and he was willing to use the trend of radical Islamitization throughout the Arab world to further his own ends. That's why in the years leading up to his demise he used all the money the corrupt Europeans made sure he got to build dozens of Mosques in Iraq, to 'reward' the families of suicide bombers in Palestine, and to threaten his other neighbors while trying to build a coalition with Iran and Syria (of which he of course saw himself as head). He envisioned this coalition sweeping westward and destroying Israel and leaving himself in the catbird seat.
There is evidence of al-qaeda presence in Iraq prior to the war, and no reason to believe he wouldn't do anything he thought would aid in harming US interests.
We knew, as the entire world knew, that he had WMDs, and although what we expected was not found in Iraq after we quickly crushed his armed forces, a significant amount of such weapons were in fact found that violated the terms of the ceasefire of the first Gulf War. Yes, weapons of mass destruction that were hidden from inspectors and that violated the terms ending that war.
The 'definition' of war that you just pulled out of your ass is entirely meaningless.
Last edited:
R
rdean
Guest
I quote Bush Sr. from 1998. He explained exactly what would happen and it did. And still the right wing fantasizes. I just don't get it.
MikeK
Gold Member
The term, Weapon of Mass Destruction, has been adulterated by redundant usage. It was coined in reference to nuclear and sub-nuclear devices. The chemical devices referred to in the topic report were sold and delivered to Saddam by the United States during Iraq's war with Iran and were for the most part rendered useless by decay.
The question you and all those who wish with all their might that Hussein really did possess WMDs should ask yourselves is if he really did have those weapons why did he not use them against us when we invaded and virtually destroyed his country -- instead of hiding in a hole? Do you think it's because he didn't want to offend us?
You were lied to! So rather than using your mental energies to perpetuate and affirm that lie you should part the veil and try to see what's been on the other side all along.
MikeK
Gold Member
That's what we were told was a reason. But it was a lie. And we had plenty of cause to know it was a lie.
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 145,577
- 32,657
- 2,180
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 145,577
- 32,657
- 2,180
It was not a lie and you obviously cannot prove your stupid assersion no matter how many times you repeat it.
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 145,577
- 32,657
- 2,180
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 145,577
- 32,657
- 2,180
Hey shitforbrains, does '1998' come before or after '2001'? Take your time, it's not a trick question.
You cannot understand Saddam Hussein without at least going back to the removal of the popular, democratically elected Mossadegh (in Iran) in the 50s. The US & Britain wanted to replace Mossadegh with someone more willing to play ball with western energy needs (i.e., someone willing to open national resources to foreign capital. Mossadegh wanted independence from Western tinkering. This is somewhat understandable, not least because British Imperialism was not the best of times for the region). In any case, to solve the problem presented by Mossadegh and his desire for independence, the US and Britain inserted the Shaw, who was a brutal dictator & correctly perceived as a western puppet - hated by his own people (but very friendly to Western energy needs). The US insertion of the Shaw lead to a backlash in the form of Ayatollah Kohemeni, which backlash reached an apex with the hostage crisis (a clear signal to Washington that they were sick of Superpower intervention).
So what happened when the US lost the Shaw, a crucial asset in the world's most vital energy region?
Reagan, who came to power during this mess, turned to Iraq (because it was imperative that we not lose control of the region to the Soviets. [Funny, but I suspect the rightwing simply doesn't know the long history of Cold War maneuvering in the region. This is scary because it makes them less able to hold their government accountable when important questions of war arise]). Regardless, Reagan - some say out of necessity - strengthened Hussein's bid to consolidate power. Again, Saddam seemed like our only viable option in the region. This is why Reagan - against the wishes of the world community - removed Iraq and Hussein from the list of terrorist nations. Needless to say, Bush 41 continued our support of Hussein with major weapons and financial support. In fact, Hussein was a US ally during the infamous gassing of the kurds. I'm guessing this is one of the things that made Hussein too much of a risk. It's pretty clear that the US never fully trusted him, but again: they were desperate when they lost the Shaw. Of course, when Hussein moved into Kuwait, the US had to discipline him. I suspect that they were always biding their time with Saddam, waiting for the right context to replace him and create a more stable balance of powers, aligned in favor of western energy needs.
But here is the confusing part.
The rightwing keeps referring to Saddam without knowing the full history of our relationship with him. It seems at least probable that this animal would never have been able to consolidate power without Reagan's Support in the 80s - especially given Iran's desire and capacity to destroy him.
Here is why I mention this stuff. I want to ask the right-wingers a favor? Stop getting your information from the Republican Party, which controls talk radio. I don't want you to accept my narrative either; I just want you to spend more time studying the history of the region. This will help you hold our presidents accountable when they ask the nation to go to war - which is bankrupting the taxpayer. If you are so worried about evil dictators, than stop voting for politicians who put these dictators in power. At least study the region so that you can contribute to the dialogue.
Below is a link to a pretty good overview of American intervention in the region written by the right-leaning CATO institute. I'm only asking you to read one small history of the region, written by an organization which does not like liberal democrats. You don't want to end up like JRK, who means well but doesn't talk about history with any degree of complexity. He seems to be getting 100% of his information from government t - Republican government. Don't trust Washington for your history. Do some work.
Start studying here: Scribd
We're begging you to become more educated on this stuff. We're begging you to ask your leaders better questions. We can't afford your stupidity any longer. We've run out of money.
So what happened when the US lost the Shaw, a crucial asset in the world's most vital energy region?
Reagan, who came to power during this mess, turned to Iraq (because it was imperative that we not lose control of the region to the Soviets. [Funny, but I suspect the rightwing simply doesn't know the long history of Cold War maneuvering in the region. This is scary because it makes them less able to hold their government accountable when important questions of war arise]). Regardless, Reagan - some say out of necessity - strengthened Hussein's bid to consolidate power. Again, Saddam seemed like our only viable option in the region. This is why Reagan - against the wishes of the world community - removed Iraq and Hussein from the list of terrorist nations. Needless to say, Bush 41 continued our support of Hussein with major weapons and financial support. In fact, Hussein was a US ally during the infamous gassing of the kurds. I'm guessing this is one of the things that made Hussein too much of a risk. It's pretty clear that the US never fully trusted him, but again: they were desperate when they lost the Shaw. Of course, when Hussein moved into Kuwait, the US had to discipline him. I suspect that they were always biding their time with Saddam, waiting for the right context to replace him and create a more stable balance of powers, aligned in favor of western energy needs.
But here is the confusing part.
The rightwing keeps referring to Saddam without knowing the full history of our relationship with him. It seems at least probable that this animal would never have been able to consolidate power without Reagan's Support in the 80s - especially given Iran's desire and capacity to destroy him.
Here is why I mention this stuff. I want to ask the right-wingers a favor? Stop getting your information from the Republican Party, which controls talk radio. I don't want you to accept my narrative either; I just want you to spend more time studying the history of the region. This will help you hold our presidents accountable when they ask the nation to go to war - which is bankrupting the taxpayer. If you are so worried about evil dictators, than stop voting for politicians who put these dictators in power. At least study the region so that you can contribute to the dialogue.
Below is a link to a pretty good overview of American intervention in the region written by the right-leaning CATO institute. I'm only asking you to read one small history of the region, written by an organization which does not like liberal democrats. You don't want to end up like JRK, who means well but doesn't talk about history with any degree of complexity. He seems to be getting 100% of his information from government t - Republican government. Don't trust Washington for your history. Do some work.
Start studying here: Scribd
We're begging you to become more educated on this stuff. We're begging you to ask your leaders better questions. We can't afford your stupidity any longer. We've run out of money.
Last edited:
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
Londoner:
I don't see anything NEW here that I haven't heard on "right wing talk radio". So what if the US has a bad track record of picking convienient volatile fools?
As I said in a post above http://www.usmessageboard.com/4182604-post165.html. The choice in 2001 was what to do when the God awful 12 year containment of Saddam crumbled. Which it was in the process of doing.. The Germans and French were doing business in Baghdad, the UN was shoveling cash from Oil for Food and we either had to start leveraging down the sanctions and normalizing like most of the EU favored -- Or remove the bastard.
Those WERE the choices. THAT'S the important point. At least Bush MADE a choice. And he had very little resistance from our Brit buds or his political opposition at the time.
It's the Idiotic American Leftists that PRETEND there was another choice. That somehow we'd keep the Iraqis in lockdown til Hell froze over. That would be morally insane...
So which choice should us DUPES have chosen?
I don't see anything NEW here that I haven't heard on "right wing talk radio". So what if the US has a bad track record of picking convienient volatile fools?
As I said in a post above http://www.usmessageboard.com/4182604-post165.html. The choice in 2001 was what to do when the God awful 12 year containment of Saddam crumbled. Which it was in the process of doing.. The Germans and French were doing business in Baghdad, the UN was shoveling cash from Oil for Food and we either had to start leveraging down the sanctions and normalizing like most of the EU favored -- Or remove the bastard.
Those WERE the choices. THAT'S the important point. At least Bush MADE a choice. And he had very little resistance from our Brit buds or his political opposition at the time.
It's the Idiotic American Leftists that PRETEND there was another choice. That somehow we'd keep the Iraqis in lockdown til Hell froze over. That would be morally insane...
So which choice should us DUPES have chosen?
Last edited:
MikeK
Gold Member
Really? Then why didn't he use them against us when we invaded his country and drove him to flee and hide in a hole? Do you think it's because he didn't wish to hurt our feelings?
"It often takes a great deal of intelligence to see that which is right before our eyes." [ Edmond Duranty ]
MikeK
Gold Member
Just because you find something on the Internet does not mean it is credible.
The cite you've referenced; Knol, and the writer of the piece, Luis T. Puig, have no credentialed authority. They are unknown. So the content of that website amounts to a propaganda effort by someone friendly to the Bush Administration.
Go here for the facts: snopes.com: Yellowcake Uranium Removed from Iraq
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Saint Sava Nationalism and Serbian Orthodox Svetosavska Akademija- Started by Mortimer
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Do blue state transplants ruin red states/cities?- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 11
