"Dead wrong" on Iraq and other comforting thoughts.

Status
Not open for further replies.
But it doesn't matter, because that's not why we went in to Iraq in the first place. It was to liberate the Iraqi people from the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein. Mission Accomplished!
 
SteveMeister said:
But it doesn't matter, because that's not why we went in to Iraq in the first place. It was to liberate the Iraqi people from the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein. Mission Accomplished!
Click to expand...

No, it was because he had ties to Al-Qaeda and a hand in 9/11. Mission accomplished!
 
SteveMeister said:
Oops. I wasn't sure if you were being as facetious if I was. My apologies :)
Click to expand...
It was brooklyngooner's post, actually, but I'll accept the apologies for him. :D

(And don't worry, he was definitely being facetious.)
 
human5892 said:
It was brooklyngooner's post, actually, but I'll accept the apologies for him. :D

(And don't worry, he was definitely being facetious.)
Click to expand...

I was not! Cheney told me so, and I trust a guy named Dick. You just hate out freedoms.
 
Ugh, you guys are all dead wrong about our motives for war. It's simple: Iraqi women are HAWT. That's the real reason we liberated their country. Saddam couldn't be allowed to keep all that sweet 'tang to himself.
 
Mmmmm....sweeet tanng.....
homer_drool.gif
 
I'm not a very big fan of Bush as a president and I still don't agree with the actual timing behind our invasion of Iraq, but I stood behind our initial involvement then and continue to stand by our involvement there now. My biggest issue in regards to Iraq is simply one of timing; we became involved too soon following our invasion of Afghanistan, which put all if any concerns relating to the rebuilding of that country on hold. Our responsibility should have been to Afghanistan first and foremost before expanding military affairs anywhere else in the world. This is just another reason why I stand behind our continued involvement in Iraq now, because we can't just invade countries, overthrow their regimes, say KTHX4TEHOILBAI and leave the people there to fend for themselves when another cleric or ethnic/religious group seizes power. That fails to solve the problem that we initially became involved with these countries on the grounds of.

Our responsibility is to provide these countries with stability after we've turned them upside down. I only see us as being the villain and at fault when we fail to shoulder our obligations in providing for/rebuilding them. As long as we can rebuild these countries and give their people a chance at economic as much as political freedom, I could really care less about talks relating to how wrong we were to have gone there originally. That may be flawed logic, but how more flawed is that to the original policy of randomly bombing the hell out of the place (Clinton)?

I don't know why I open myself up to becoming flame bait like this. LOL...
 
Waychel said:
I'm not a very big fan of Bush as a president and I still don't agree with the actual timing behind our invasion of Iraq, but I stood behind our initial involvement then and continue to stand by our involvement there now. My biggest issue in regards to Iraq is simply one of timing; we became involved too soon following our invasion of Afghanistan, which put all if any concerns relating to the rebuilding of that country on hold. Our responsibility should have been to Afghanistan first and foremost before expanding military affairs anywhere else in the world. This is just another reason why I stand behind our continued involvement in Iraq now, because we can't just invade countries, overthrow their regimes, say KTHX4TEHOILBAI and leave the people there to fend for themselves when another cleric or ethnic/religious group seizes power. That fails to solve the problem that we initially became involved with these countries on the grounds of.

Our responsibility is to provide these countries with stability after we've turned them upside down. I only see us as being the villain and at fault when we fail to shoulder our obligations in providing for/rebuilding them. As long as we can rebuild these countries and give their people a chance at economic as much as political freedom, I could really care less about talks relating to how wrong we were to have gone there originally. That may be flawed logic, but how more flawed is that to the original policy of randomly bombing the hell out of the place (Clinton)?

I don't know why I open myself up to becoming flame bait like this. LOL...
Click to expand...


It's one thing to say "OK, we're there, we need to stay there until we're sure the mess we made is cleaned up". I agree with that. But we can't ignore the fact that the reasons we went to Iraq in the first place have all proven to have been completely wrong. It boggles my mind that people are willing to give Bush a "Whoops, my bad" over this. But that's the world we live in.
 
SteveMeister said:
It's one thing to say "OK, we're there, we need to stay there until we're sure the mess we made is cleaned up". I agree with that. But we can't ignore the fact that the reasons we went to Iraq in the first place have all proven to have been completely wrong. It boggles my mind that people are willing to give Bush a "Whoops, my bad" over this. But that's the world we live in.
Click to expand...

Yup, a lot of people are calling Bush the "accidental visionary". It's almost like that old debate: if you knew Hitler as a 5 year old boy, would you kill him?
 
Stop spending money on stupid shit government! Instead of going to war with Iraq, you could have used that money for good ... like buying everyone in America some ice cream or getting Britney Spears to pose for Playboy.
 
Of course, we all knew this LONG ago. PRIOR to invasion.

But the media, the watchdogs, and the opposition (Democrats) just sat and watched.

Years later, these same people who are supposed to bring truth, clarity and justice to the USA, are still sleeping.

Iraq is old news...there are other issues at hand when it comes to American foreign policy, such as the current Administration's stance against Iran. Issues such as the obvious systematic use of torture within the American military should be the hottest at the moment.

But just like 2 years ago...the media, the watchdogs, the politicians will just accept the Bush Adminisration's current heinous acts and appalling policies.
 
Waychel said:
I stood behind our initial involvement then and continue to stand by our involvement there now.

...

As long as we can rebuild these countries and give their people a chance at economic as much as political freedom, I could really care less about talks relating to how wrong we were to have gone there originally. That may be flawed logic
Click to expand...
Why do you stand behind our involvement in Iraq? And why doesn't it matter to you that the stated reasons for our invasion and subsequent occupation of a sovereign country were either completely mistaken or intentionally misrepresented?
 
Ninja Scooter said:
i thought we went into Iraq to save Terri Schiavo?
Click to expand...

:lol






Fight for Freeform said:
Of course, we all knew this LONG ago. PRIOR to invasion.

But the media, the watchdogs, and the opposition (Democrats) just sat and watched.

Years later, these same people who are supposed to bring truth, clarity and justice to the USA, are still sleeping.

Iraq is old news...there are other issues at hand when it comes to American foreign policy, such as the current Administration's stance against Iran. Issues such as the obvious systematic use of torture within the American military should be the hottest at the moment.

But just like 2 years ago...the media, the watchdogs, the politicians will just accept the Bush Adminisration's current heinous acts and appalling policies.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the nonsense in Guantanamo Bay...
 
Waychel said:
I only see us as being the villain and at fault when we fail to shoulder our obligations in providing for/rebuilding them.
Click to expand...

So, if I rob your house and leave an IOU for the value of the stuff I took dated for 10 years from now at 50% interest, I'm A-OK in your books?

That may be flawed logic, but how more flawed is that to the original policy of randomly bombing the hell out of the place (Clinton)?
Click to expand...

Hey, while we're at listing past stupid foreign policies of the United States, how many asians were killed in the defense against the domino theory (still waiting for the next country after Vietnam to fall)? What good has the embargo of Cuba done (China gets most preferred trading partner, Cuba gets an embargo)?

Stupid american foreign policies don't play partisan politics, sorry.

I don't know why I open myself up to becoming flame bait like this. LOL...
Click to expand...

Because you like it.
 
Waychel said:
I'm not a very big fan of Bush as a president and I still don't agree with the actual timing behind our invasion of Iraq, but I stood behind our initial involvement then and continue to stand by our involvement there now. My biggest issue in regards to Iraq is simply one of timing; we became involved too soon following our invasion of Afghanistan, which put all if any concerns relating to the rebuilding of that country on hold. Our responsibility should have been to Afghanistan first and foremost before expanding military affairs anywhere else in the world. This is just another reason why I stand behind our continued involvement in Iraq now, because we can't just invade countries, overthrow their regimes, say KTHX4TEHOILBAI and leave the people there to fend for themselves when another cleric or ethnic/religious group seizes power. That fails to solve the problem that we initially became involved with these countries on the grounds of.

Our responsibility is to provide these countries with stability after we've turned them upside down. I only see us as being the villain and at fault when we fail to shoulder our obligations in providing for/rebuilding them. As long as we can rebuild these countries and give their people a chance at economic as much as political freedom, I could really care less about talks relating to how wrong we were to have gone there originally. That may be flawed logic, but how more flawed is that to the original policy of randomly bombing the hell out of the place (Clinton)?

I don't know why I open myself up to becoming flame bait like this. LOL...
Click to expand...

1) An argument for maintaining military forces in Iraq in 2005 is not an argument for invading Iraq in 2003 or any other year.

2) To say withdrawing is the only way the US government could bear any fault for problems in Iraq is staggeringly ignorant. Death, injury, ruined infrastructure, prisoner abuse, and a rollback of women's rights are all predictable results of the policy that the US chose to pursue.

3) The Clinton policy of sanctions, a no-fly zone, and bombing suspected weapons sites when Saddam stopped giving access to UN inspectors was vastly superior. It kept Iraq from trying to develop WMD's or invading its neighbors. It allowed the Kurds de facto autonomy. It cost 1,500 fewer American lives, and maybe over 100,000 fewer Iraqi lives.

4) You can't be happy if you're worred about "a cleric or ethnic/religious group" taking power. The Shiite party organized by Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani is now negotiating with the Kurdish party. One party identifies itself by religion, the other by ethnicity.

5) It is very important to analyze whether this was the right thing to do, who was accurate in their predictions, and who was inaccurate. If you don't, then people who massively fucked up will get promotions and you will make the same mistakes all over again.

6) You make yourself a target for flamebait by being ignorant of facts and sloppy in your reasoning. Most of us would prefer you didn't.
 
Spike Spiegel said:
Ugh, you guys are all dead wrong about our motives for war. It's simple: Iraqi women are HAWT. That's the real reason we liberated their country. Saddam couldn't be allowed to keep all that sweet 'tang to himself.
Click to expand...


Shit, I mean I've seen a few but, for the most part the reason they are in the desert is becasue they wanted to keep those Tuskan women from the rest of society.
 
The war would not have been possible if the ba'athists hadn't been assholes. UNSCR1441 was used as the reasoning, even when the UN didn't agree, the coalition went to their own lawmakers to deem it a 'just' war. You can put blame elsewhere as well as the British / American administrations... the UN is impotent, and check out the Annan relation in the oil for food fiasco. Sanctions starve Iraqi people, so we offer them money (intended for food) for their oil, Saddam syphens off funds, Saddam defies everyone even after 11 years of very strong warnings, wordings and bombings.. I mean, I don't know everything about it. I know some people here explained that some of his posturing could have been related to Iran / Israel / the region etc but with the whole world focussed there and the threat of being removed, he just didn't care. He never did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

What are your thoughts on humility?
32
1K
CGNoire replied
Bill Burr and Billy Corgan Family Reunion Gone Wrong
33
3K
simpatico replied
Gaf, tell me about times you got it wrong.
13
331
Blade2.0 replied
Gene Hackman and wife found dead, in their home
2 3 4 5
214
16K
Rentahamster replied
Where did it Go Wrong with KFC?
Opinion  2 3
115
6K
Woggleman replied
Top Bottom