Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?

[JRK]

You know.....speaking as someone who was actually over there in 1991 for Desert Storm, it was Bush Sr. that fucked up by stopping at the gates of Bagdad.

Oh yeah........Jr. saw an opportunity to attack Iraq after the WTC went down. And, because his father had fucked up previously, he saw a way to make up for it.

That is why OBL is still running around. Shit.......after he left Tora Bora he was living fat and happy in the Swat valley. If we'd actually paid attention, we'd have known that several years ago.

Question Uncensored, exactly how many years have YOU served in the military?

I understand the opinion, but disagree. I served from 1989 to 1997 in the U.S. Army including operations in Kuwait, Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as out loading, but not deploying to Panama. I was not happy with the decision to stop at liberation at the time, but the cost didn't justify the potential advantage in 1991. Bush Jr. had two additional advantages in going in when he did that made it much more critical and reasonable.

1st, the Iraqi military was non-existent and the completion could be extremely fast and allow for change of leadership almost immediately. The risk was less therefore making the action more attractive and making the costs less. In 1991 there were still significant military resources to overcome which would have been much slower and more costly in treasure and life. The change of power would also have been even more difficult.

Consider estimates of an invasion of forces in 1991 would have surpassed the casualty counts for Iraq and Afghanistan to date, in total. Just on the initial conquest of the capital. That would have then touched off a power vacuum at a point when all groups were better armed and prepared.

2nd, When W went in, we needed a battlefield, in 1991 we didn't. After Afghanistan drew almost no visible external support and proved to be inadequate, the idea of a battlefield in Iraq became extremely attractive and valuable. Iraq is a nation that has geographic significance, wealthy resources and an unpopular secular king that was unlikely to justify a mainstream reaction, while almost guaranteeing extremist attention. We chose to fight them there and not here; and Iraq was ideal for that end.

Despite the numerous accused motives, this was the most important motive for the Iraq war. We obviously couldn’t state this as a motive, but it is counter-intuitive not to see that this was a highly desirable option given the likelihood of additional foreign attacks.

Of course we would rebuild and establish democratic process and that would have a long term potential benefit for both the U.S. and the theatre, but forcing the bloodshed out of our streets and into another venue was paramount and agree or disagree that was a prime directive for going to war in Iraq that wasn't of consequence in 1991.

When you refer to a battlefield I assume you mean a place to have it out with the bad guys
I have all ways felt that along with having Iran on both sides, Syria, and The Saudis right next door as part of the reason also
It has great strategic reasons to be there
Good thread

 

[JRK]

U.S. to move operations from Saudi base
SAUDI ARABIA

April 29, 2003|Barbara Starr CNN

The large U.S. military presence at Saudi Arabia's Prince Sultan Air Base is expected to end in the coming months, depending on the security situation in Iraq, U.S. officials told CNN on Tuesday.

The decision to move significant U.S. military resources and personnel to neighboring Qatar marks a major shift in U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf region after a longtime presence in Saudi Arabia, currently at about 5,000 troops. http://articles.cnn.com/2003-04-29/...a-prince-sultan-al-udeid-air-base?_s=PM:WORLD Added Link

More than 100 aircraft and the U.S. Combined Air Operations Center at the base are expected to make the move, and some of those aircraft could be permanently reassigned to the United States, officials said.

here was another item that never gets discussed
this base closing and that cost was never put towards a the Iraq war (the savings)
Troops dying has no cost
Saddam and OBL behave, no troops die

 

[geauxtohell]

You know I do not know why I allowed this conversation with you to go this far

You act as if you have any control over what I post.

as far as OBL getting away I still miss your point

My point is that he got away at Tora Bora. You seemed ignorant of that fact, so I provided you with educational materials.

If your trying to blame some one that there is murderer loose in a ass backwards country in the desert, you might want to look at the murderer to start with

Our plan at Tora Bora was flawed. I don't blame Bush for the actions of Bin Laden. I blame Bush and Rumsfield for being naive enough to trust the Pashtuns and not having a better plan.

Not much though. Hindsight is 20/20 and at that time, we only had a small contingent of forces in Afghanistan.

without him none of this exist, I know as a liberal accountability is a concept you do not understand

Yeah whatever. Before you start lecturing me on accountability, try and stay on topic in your own thread.

This will make it 4 and for the last time
take that bird and shove it up your ass
as soon I get thru with this post you will be on ignore the next time I see that

As if I care that you are too chickenshit to defend your own points. If you want to hide behind a construed sense of outrage over Lenny Bruce shooting the bird that is in my avatar and appears in everyone of my posts, then go for it. Just don't think anyone is buying your crap. You and Hipeter will always have each other, I suppose.

you are not too be taken seriously. anyone who goes thru life thinking that is the correct way to be a man either has had everything give to him or is making someones life a living hell

Oh, look at you with your goofy attempts at psychoanalysis. I could give a damn about what your estimations of me and my life are. If you want to tap out of the debate because you can't hang, don't blame anyone but yourself.

I mean this
Good Luck
being different is one thing, being a dick head is stupid

And I mean this: Buy some.....

 

[geauxtohell]

I understand the opinion, but disagree. I served from 1989 to 1997 in the U.S. Army including operations in Kuwait, Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as out loading, but not deploying to Panama.

Meaning you were on the ground in Afghanistan at that time?

In what capacity?

 

[Uncle Kenny]

I understand the opinion, but disagree. I served from 1989 to 1997 in the U.S. Army including operations in Kuwait, Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as out loading, but not deploying to Panama.

Meaning you were on the ground in Afghanistan at that time?

In what capacity?

Joint Operations with Pakistani SSG and allied groups. General humanitarian and peacekeeping operations and some other stuff.

 

[geauxtohell]

I understand the opinion, but disagree. I served from 1989 to 1997 in the U.S. Army including operations in Kuwait, Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as out loading, but not deploying to Panama.

Meaning you were on the ground in Afghanistan at that time?

In what capacity?

Joint Operations with Pakistani SSG and allied groups. General humanitarian and peacekeeping operations and some other stuff.

I didn't realize we had boots on the ground in Afghanistan at that time.

 

[hipeter924]

why didn't George Bush Sr end the war when he had won, rather than letting Saddam remain in power to terrorize his citizens and genocide Kurds with biological and chemical weapons, it could have been over well in 1991, we never got an answer from the US government, just silence, just like over Pinochet's dictatorship.

In his own words:

Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):


While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and 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, 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 U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

13 years since it's been published!

Reasons Not to Invade Iraq,

Untrue, you invade a nation under any context, destroy its military, use depleted uranium shells (which lead to high rates of cancer and genetic deformities), and set up sanctions that lead to the deaths of 1 million children and you aren't responsible for that? By bombing and severely damaging a country, and killing thousands of people in the process and then leaving it, you have made it your responsibility to help those people, yet Bush Sr left the people to rot in the hell he created for the people of Iraq, some for that reason could call him a monster.

 

[geauxtohell]

Untrue, you invade a nation under any context, destroy its military, use depleted uranium shells (which lead to high rates of cancer and genetic deformities), and set up sanctions that lead to the deaths of 1 million children and you aren't responsible for that? By bombing and severely damaging a country, and killing thousands of people in the process and then leaving it, you have made it your responsibility to help those people, yet Bush Sr left the people to rot in the hell he created for the people of Iraq, some for that reason could call him a monster.

Oh my God. Are you actually claiming that the use of DU ammunition means we are obligated to nation build?

"Libertarian" my ass. I do agree that you sound like an anarchocapitalist. You are all for sticking money in the pockets of the war profiteers in order to keep the war machine running. I'll bet you never even had the balls to go to combat yourself either, did you?

You are a ******* shill.

Or do you have me on ignore now, you giant vagina?

If not, I'll eagerly await your castigation. I spent a year in Afghanistan as an infantryman. I find people like you to be beyond contempt. It goes way beyond political ideology. Instead, I find you to be beyond contempt, because you are a cheerleader. You would send men and women off to do what you were not willing to do yourself. And why? Simply to pad the wallet of people who could give two shits about you.

Welcome to the machine. If it weren't for dipshits like you, it would never run.

 

[georgephillip]

If there is one big reason to apply the label of failure to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I nominate legitimizing violence.

"Once you get past all the fanciful lies, rhetoric and rationalizations, the invasion of Iraq was just like any other war: it was about killing – and teaching young men and women to believe that it's morally acceptable to take the life of another human being, that the supposed ends justify the homicidal means.

"And a 2007 Army investigation spurred by the massacre of two dozen Iraqi civilians in Haditha said as much.

"'Statements made by the chain of command during interviews for this investigation, taken as a whole, suggest that Iraqi civilian lives are not as important as U.S. lives, their deaths are just the cost of doing business, and that the Marines need to get 'the job done' no matter what it takes,' wrote Maj. Gen. Eldon Bargewell in the report."

Most human beings require extensive conditioning in order to kill innocent civilians as a "cost of doing business." When the killers return home, "(t)he lesson that violence is an acceptable means to achieve one's ends is not soon forgotten."

Ten Reasons...

 

[hipeter924]

Untrue, you invade a nation under any context, destroy its military, use depleted uranium shells (which lead to high rates of cancer and genetic deformities), and set up sanctions that lead to the deaths of 1 million children and you aren't responsible for that? By bombing and severely damaging a country, and killing thousands of people in the process and then leaving it, you have made it your responsibility to help those people, yet Bush Sr left the people to rot in the hell he created for the people of Iraq, some for that reason could call him a monster.

Oh my God. Are you actually claiming that the use of DU ammunition means we are obligated to nation build?

"Libertarian" my ass. I do agree that you sound like an anarchocapitalist. You are all for sticking money in the pockets of the war profiteers in order to keep the war machine running. I'll bet you never even had the balls to go to combat yourself either, did you?

You are a ******* shill.

Or do you have me on ignore now, you giant vagina?

If not, I'll eagerly await your castigation. I spent a year in Afghanistan as an infantryman. I find people like you to be beyond contempt. It goes way beyond political ideology. Instead, I find you to be beyond contempt, because you are a cheerleader. You would send men and women off to do what you were not willing to do yourself. And why? Simply to pad the wallet of people who could give two shits about you.

Welcome to the machine. If it weren't for dipshits like you, it would never run.

I am claiming that if you invade a nation, and cause damage to it you are responsible to clean it up (or in the very least pay to clean it up), the US never cleaned up the radiation in Iraq, and the US had no reason to be in Iraq in the first place.

You think my views are just mine? Billions of people agree that most US interventions across the world are immoral, millions even where you live disagree with those interventions. You call me a cheerleader, but really am I, I have never served in a war and thus never killed anyone, never financially contributed to torture or the overthrow of democratically elected governments, nor have I paid for the bombs, can you say the same? Nope.

Why do you think Iraqis hate the US so much, it is the fact that for years the US government paid for Saddam's regime to murder and genocide its own people with WMD's, because the US government backed sanctions that resulted in the deaths of millions of their children and made them live in economic hardship, and kept them poor. The US govt hated Saddam when he invaded Kuwait, and not content with repelling him from that country, bombed and invaded his country in retaliation causing horrific destruction to homes, hospitals and the like, then ignored him and the plight of his people, and when you called on them to rebel through propaganda, they were massacred. As for the invasion of Iraq itself (during the Bush Jr years) many innoscent civillans were bombed across Iraqi in shelters, which the US government called 'military bunkers', millions more today live in areas which US shells have turned radioactive as the areas hit by radiation after Chernobyl, no compensation was given for that either.

I have never voted for the Republicans or the Democrats, you have, and as a result put Bush, Clinton and the like in power, many libertarians don't vote so they are not part of the system (probably if I was in the US I wouldn't vote, even if I could) and thus don't support wars such as the one in Iraq and the wealthy elite, but just to piss you off I can tell you I voted for a left wing Green Party here that opposed the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. So I voted against the war, did you? I doubt it, in this world I thought it was actions, not words that counted, in my actions I voted against the war and didn't participate in it, I am sorry but that's what counts.

Finally I am sorry for being born and bred in a pacifist country (obviously NZ it has made me soft and compassionate, how horrible), that has never invaded another nation for natural resources, tortured civilians, assassinated democratic leaders, set up dictatorships, or wasted billions on wars that make the world hate it more, and if you hate me. It's no wonder when people like you exist with that kind of attitude that the US is so unpopular and hated right now. Hell, if you think I am 'anti-american' (then again according to Bush I am not American as I am an atheist), most NZ'ers are heavily against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, including most of the NZ'ers who have served, I guess you would call them 'dipshits' too.

PS: If being against war (where reasonable) and the use of resources for it isn't 'libertarian' then what is? Certainly not what you believe it is. Plus simply because I support some wars for moral or ethical reasons, doesn't mean I support the methods used to win them.

 

[Uncle Kenny]

If there is one big reason to apply the label of failure to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I nominate legitimizing violence.

"Once you get past all the fanciful lies, rhetoric and rationalizations, the invasion of Iraq was just like any other war: it was about killing – and teaching young men and women to believe that it's morally acceptable to take the life of another human being, that the supposed ends justify the homicidal means.

"And a 2007 Army investigation spurred by the massacre of two dozen Iraqi civilians in Haditha said as much.

"'Statements made by the chain of command during interviews for this investigation, taken as a whole, suggest that Iraqi civilian lives are not as important as U.S. lives, their deaths are just the cost of doing business, and that the Marines need to get 'the job done' no matter what it takes,' wrote Maj. Gen. Eldon Bargewell in the report."

Most human beings require extensive conditioning in order to kill innocent civilians as a "cost of doing business." When the killers return home, "(t)he lesson that violence is an acceptable means to achieve one's ends is not soon forgotten."

Ten Reasons...

This proves that what you know about soldier mentaility and battlefield psychology wouldn't fill a napkin. As for U.S. military in Iraq this gross generalization and absolute hyperbole is just a plain slander.

The great irony is the incredible level of wartime discretion shown in Iraq, especially as it was only one side attempting to protect human life. Our forces saved thousands of lives at the cost of their own lives in many cases and this is the analasys of their conduct and character? What a load. It was the enemy that targeted civilians and hid amung them and used them as shields, not the coalition. By their tactics they rendered civilians unable to avoid fighting and if you think you would be capable of doing better with the circumstances they created than the young heroes that served there, you are almost certainly wrong.

If you had any personal experience with real violence or combat or even simply the outcome of combat, you would know better than to ever spew this type of garbage. There was real evil being done over there by people who didn't care who died, themselves included. They decapitated people on camera and blew up hospitals, schools, buses and police stations, while we built them. The only thing you learn about violence is how dearly you hope you can get away from it alive and never see it again.

 

[JRK]

Untrue, you invade a nation under any context, destroy its military, use depleted uranium shells (which lead to high rates of cancer and genetic deformities), and set up sanctions that lead to the deaths of 1 million children and you aren't responsible for that? By bombing and severely damaging a country, and killing thousands of people in the process and then leaving it, you have made it your responsibility to help those people, yet Bush Sr left the people to rot in the hell he created for the people of Iraq, some for that reason could call him a monster.

Oh my God. Are you actually claiming that the use of DU ammunition means we are obligated to nation build?

"Libertarian" my ass. I do agree that you sound like an anarchocapitalist. You are all for sticking money in the pockets of the war profiteers in order to keep the war machine running. I'll bet you never even had the balls to go to combat yourself either, did you?

You are a ******* shill.

Or do you have me on ignore now, you giant vagina?

If not, I'll eagerly await your castigation. I spent a year in Afghanistan as an infantryman. I find people like you to be beyond contempt. It goes way beyond political ideology. Instead, I find you to be beyond contempt, because you are a cheerleader. You would send men and women off to do what you were not willing to do yourself. And why? Simply to pad the wallet of people who could give two shits about you.

Welcome to the machine. If it weren't for dipshits like you, it would never run.

I am claiming that if you invade a nation, and cause damage to it you are responsible to clean it up (or in the very least pay to clean it up), the US never cleaned up the radiation in Iraq, and the US had no reason to be in Iraq in the first place.

You think my views are just mine? Billions of people agree that most US interventions across the world are immoral, millions even where you live disagree with those interventions. You call me a cheerleader, but really am I, I have never served in a war and thus never killed anyone, never financially contributed to torture or the overthrow of democratically elected governments, nor have I paid for the bombs, can you say the same? Nope.

Why do you think Iraqis hate the US so much, it is the fact that for years the US government paid for Saddam's regime to murder and genocide its own people with WMD's, because the US government backed sanctions that resulted in the deaths of millions of their children and made them live in economic hardship, and kept them poor. The US govt hated Saddam when he invaded Kuwait, and not content with repelling him from that country, bombed and invaded his country in retaliation causing horrific destruction to homes, hospitals and the like, then ignored him and the plight of his people, and when you called on them to rebel through propaganda, they were massacred. As for the invasion of Iraq itself (during the Bush Jr years) many innoscent civillans were bombed across Iraqi in shelters, which the US government called 'military bunkers', millions more today live in areas which US shells have turned radioactive as the areas hit by radiation after Chernobyl, no compensation was given for that either.

I have never voted for the Republicans or the Democrats, you have, and as a result put Bush, Clinton and the like in power, many libertarians don't vote so they are not part of the system (probably if I was in the US I wouldn't vote, even if I could) and thus don't support wars such as the one in Iraq and the wealthy elite, but just to piss you off I can tell you I voted for a left wing Green Party here that opposed the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. So I voted against the war, did you? I doubt it, in this world I thought it was actions, not words that counted, in my actions I voted against the war and didn't participate in it, I am sorry but that's what counts.

Finally I am sorry for being born and bred in a pacifist country (obviously NZ it has made me soft and compassionate, how horrible), that has never invaded another nation for natural resources, tortured civilians, assassinated democratic leaders, set up dictatorships, or wasted billions on wars that make the world hate it more, and if you hate me. It's no wonder when people like you exist with that kind of attitude that the US is so unpopular and hated right now. Hell, if you think I am 'anti-american' (then again according to Bush I am not American as I am an atheist), most NZ'ers are heavily against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, including most of the NZ'ers who have served, I guess you would call them 'dipshits' too.

PS: If being against war (where reasonable) and the use of resources for it isn't 'libertarian' then what is? Certainly not what you believe it is. Plus simply because I support some wars for moral or ethical reasons, doesn't mean I support the methods used to win them.

As a "libertarian" I do not expect anything different, with respect
In a world I live in that looks for root causes we find
Without a Saddam we have no issue in Iraq and
Without 9-11 we probably still have Saddam and those thousands you claim we killed would still be alive
By the way
When is the last time we dropped any bombs in Iraq?
and if we did when is the last time we did that for over 2 days in a row?
I challenge your assertion that we killed all of these civilians with bombs

No terrorist
No Saddam
No OBL
No one dies

Its root cause

 

[JRK]

Untrue, you invade a nation under any context, destroy its military, use depleted uranium shells (which lead to high rates of cancer and genetic deformities), and set up sanctions that lead to the deaths of 1 million children and you aren't responsible for that? By bombing and severely damaging a country, and killing thousands of people in the process and then leaving it, you have made it your responsibility to help those people, yet Bush Sr left the people to rot in the hell he created for the people of Iraq, some for that reason could call him a monster.

Oh my God. Are you actually claiming that the use of DU ammunition means we are obligated to nation build?

"Libertarian" my ass. I do agree that you sound like an anarchocapitalist. You are all for sticking money in the pockets of the war profiteers in order to keep the war machine running. I'll bet you never even had the balls to go to combat yourself either, did you?

You are a ******* shill.

Or do you have me on ignore now, you giant vagina?

If not, I'll eagerly await your castigation. I spent a year in Afghanistan as an infantryman. I find people like you to be beyond contempt. It goes way beyond political ideology. Instead, I find you to be beyond contempt, because you are a cheerleader. You would send men and women off to do what you were not willing to do yourself. And why? Simply to pad the wallet of people who could give two shits about you.

Welcome to the machine. If it weren't for dipshits like you, it would never run.

I am claiming that if you invade a nation, and cause damage to it you are responsible to clean it up (or in the very least pay to clean it up), the US never cleaned up the radiation in Iraq, and the US had no reason to be in Iraq in the first place.

You think my views are just mine? Billions of people agree that most US interventions across the world are immoral, millions even where you live disagree with those interventions. You call me a cheerleader, but really am I, I have never served in a war and thus never killed anyone, never financially contributed to torture or the overthrow of democratically elected governments, nor have I paid for the bombs, can you say the same? Nope.

Why do you think Iraqis hate the US so much, it is the fact that for years the US government paid for Saddam's regime to murder and genocide its own people with WMD's, because the US government backed sanctions that resulted in the deaths of millions of their children and made them live in economic hardship, and kept them poor. The US govt hated Saddam when he invaded Kuwait, and not content with repelling him from that country, bombed and invaded his country in retaliation causing horrific destruction to homes, hospitals and the like, then ignored him and the plight of his people, and when you called on them to rebel through propaganda, they were massacred. As for the invasion of Iraq itself (during the Bush Jr years) many innoscent civillans were bombed across Iraqi in shelters, which the US government called 'military bunkers', millions more today live in areas which US shells have turned radioactive as the areas hit by radiation after Chernobyl, no compensation was given for that either.

I have never voted for the Republicans or the Democrats, you have, and as a result put Bush, Clinton and the like in power, many libertarians don't vote so they are not part of the system (probably if I was in the US I wouldn't vote, even if I could) and thus don't support wars such as the one in Iraq and the wealthy elite, but just to piss you off I can tell you I voted for a left wing Green Party here that opposed the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. So I voted against the war, did you? I doubt it, in this world I thought it was actions, not words that counted, in my actions I voted against the war and didn't participate in it, I am sorry but that's what counts.

Finally I am sorry for being born and bred in a pacifist country (obviously NZ it has made me soft and compassionate, how horrible), that has never invaded another nation for natural resources, tortured civilians, assassinated democratic leaders, set up dictatorships, or wasted billions on wars that make the world hate it more, and if you hate me. It's no wonder when people like you exist with that kind of attitude that the US is so unpopular and hated right now. Hell, if you think I am 'anti-american' (then again according to Bush I am not American as I am an atheist), most NZ'ers are heavily against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, including most of the NZ'ers who have served, I guess you would call them 'dipshits' too.

PS: If being against war (where reasonable) and the use of resources for it isn't 'libertarian' then what is? Certainly not what you believe it is. Plus simply because I support some wars for moral or ethical reasons, doesn't mean I support the methods used to win them.

Your making all of this way to complicated
If your an atheist, thats for you to die with. If W claimed your an atheist, I never remember him mentioning that, do you have a link?
What is a NZ'ers? I would have issue with a all volunteer military or "serving' as you state it being against a war they volunteered to go fight in, just a thought
Being against the "wars" is your right, hating those that are not is your right, it just makes you look stupid

 

[georgephillip]

If there is one big reason to apply the label of failure to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I nominate legitimizing violence.

"Once you get past all the fanciful lies, rhetoric and rationalizations, the invasion of Iraq was just like any other war: it was about killing – and teaching young men and women to believe that it's morally acceptable to take the life of another human being, that the supposed ends justify the homicidal means.

"And a 2007 Army investigation spurred by the massacre of two dozen Iraqi civilians in Haditha said as much.

"'Statements made by the chain of command during interviews for this investigation, taken as a whole, suggest that Iraqi civilian lives are not as important as U.S. lives, their deaths are just the cost of doing business, and that the Marines need to get 'the job done' no matter what it takes,' wrote Maj. Gen. Eldon Bargewell in the report."

Most human beings require extensive conditioning in order to kill innocent civilians as a "cost of doing business." When the killers return home, "(t)he lesson that violence is an acceptable means to achieve one's ends is not soon forgotten."

Ten Reasons...

This proves that what you know about soldier mentaility and battlefield psychology wouldn't fill a napkin. As for U.S. military in Iraq this gross generalization and absolute hyperbole is just a plain slander.

The great irony is the incredible level of wartime discretion shown in Iraq, especially as it was only one side attempting to protect human life. Our forces saved thousands of lives at the cost of their own lives in many cases and this is the analasys of their conduct and character? What a load. It was the enemy that targeted civilians and hid amung them and used them as shields, not the coalition. By their tactics they rendered civilians unable to avoid fighting and if you think you would be capable of doing better with the circumstances they created than the young heroes that served there, you are almost certainly wrong.

If you had any personal experience with real violence or combat or even simply the outcome of combat, you would know better than to ever spew this type of garbage. There was real evil being done over there by people who didn't care who died, themselves included. They decapitated people on camera and blew up hospitals, schools, buses and police stations, while we built them. The only thing you learn about violence is how dearly you hope you can get away from it alive and never see it again.

You're right about only one thing.

There was real evil being done "over there" and most of it was done by those who were paid to travel thousands of miles from their home town and kill people who posed no threat to the USA.

Ever wonder why Dick Cheney was so sure Saddam had those weapons of mass destruction? Possibly because when Dick the Draft Dodger was Secretary of Defense he sold Saddam many of those weapons and/or their precursors.

Maybe you are morally bankrupt or ignorant enough to kill for shit like Dick Cheney or support those who do, but you shouldn't conflate your slave-like devotion to power with protecting human life...or courage.

 

[MarcATL]

1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

These were all the mission points made AFTER the fact. Aka the ones that were made up on the spot. Aka moving the goal post.

The INITIAL reason was that Saddam had WMDs and needed to be stopped because he was dangers. The rest were made up in a feeble attempt to save face.

End of story.

 

[JRK]

1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

These were all the mission points made AFTER the fact. Aka the ones that were made up on the spot. Aka moving the goal post.

The INITIAL reason was that Saddam had WMDs and needed to be stopped because he was dangers. The rest were made up in a feeble attempt to save face.

End of story.

Really? do you realize those goals where set by the US congress and the president of the US long before GWB was even president?
My god you guys on the left make this stuff up as you go
Bill Clinton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.

 

[georgephillip]

You guys on the right are still confused about when the Iraq War began.

"Although Americans often regard March 19 as the day marking the war's beginning, Iraqis, in general, don't think much of that date.

"From their perspective, the war did not start in March of 2003.

"As far as Iraqis are concerned, the war began 20 years ago, in January 1991, when the bombs started falling on Iraq and continued through the 13 years of sanctions and air strikes, which where followed by eight years of military occupation beginning on April 9, 2003."

If the US reneges on its 2008 agreement to remove all troops (combat and non-combat) from Iraq before December 31, 2011, will you continue to claim the 20 year war was successful?

Playing With Fire in Iraq | Truthout

 

[auditor0007]

1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

Unfortunately, it isn't quite that simple. There were and still are a great many problems with our involvement in Iraq. Should we have gone into Iraq to begin with? With all the information we now have, that answer is an obvious "no". That being said, we still do not know what the long term impact will be.

One thing I find interesting is the fact that we have begun to see a number of changes in power in the Middle East. And looking down the road, it is very likely that we will see even more. And while we have been in fear that the radical right would be the leading movement toward a negative change in the Middle East and Muslim countries, we are beginning to see something a bit different. Looking at Egypt, Libya, and a few other countries that are showing signs of political unrest in the Muslim world, we are seeing a younger more secular movement coming about. Now whether or not this holds true long term is hard to say. But there is a good possibility that a more moderate Muslim voice is beginning to take hold. If this continues, we could eventually see the same type of change take place in Iran and some of the other more theocratic Muslim states.

It will be interesting to look back in twenty or thirty years to see how this all unfolds. It could turn really bad, or it could actually work out that we see a much more secular Muslim world down the road. Bush could end up receiving credit for putting the wheels in motion. But at this time, it is just too early to try to predict the outcome.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

BOOOOOOOOOSH!!!! Oh and that CHAYNEEE too.!! Nuff said.

 

[Rozman]

1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

Yeah.

It wasn't a "failure" it was a crime.

A crime that the Dems in congress voted for as well...