Does anyone still think the Iraq War was not a colossal mistake?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
For how swiftly you denounce the idea that Saddaam's removal had anything to do with these other uprisings, you make a pretty broad leap to assume it WOULD have happened in Iraq no matter what.

I'm not defending or attacking the justification for the war, either - just that your post is based on lots of conjecture and opinion, very little fact, and yet you're trumpeting it like its The Word.
This. Certainly Iraq's democracy has been inspiring to the Arab world, as previously only Arabs in Israel enjoyed democracy and personal freedom in all of the Middle East.

That's a different question from whether it was all worth it or it was a mistake, which we probably won't know for decades. Removing Saddam showed other dictatorial leaders that attacking/defying the US had personal ramifications, not just consequences for their soldiers and civilians, but removing the Taliban would have done the same just as well. A democratic Middle East is not necessarily friendly or even less dangerous to the USA and the UK, the coalition nations that have borne by far the brunt of the casualties and expense. (I discount the Iraqi casualties not because I don't consider them human, but because they are almost exclusively the intentional work of terrorists, Islamists and Saddamists. Just as I don't blame the battered woman because her husband says she made him do it, neither do I blame America because these animals were "forced" to murder civilians on a wholesale level to make Americans and Brits look bad.)
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Its somewhat amusing to me to see TLC say, "Well I, for one, never believed it would fall into chaos and now there's a functioning Democracy in the heart of the ME. So I'll say it - See, I told you so."

When the fact that Iraq has a semi-functioning government and a prime Minister Malike is solely due to Al-Sadr, who TLC predicted was total toast three years ago.

But that is simply the problem with an Iraq the USA has not totally withdrawn from, Iraqi political stability is far broader than it is deep. So, to that extent, the final history of the GWB&co occupation of Iraq is far from being over, and in any long term, any final glorious chapters lauding GWB cannot be written for a decade or two. On the other hand, if Iraq flies apart in the near future, the GWB decision to occupy Iraq in 2003 will catch the initial blame.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
This mentality will ensure it happens again...and again...and again.

Everything that's ever happened is "in the past". So there's really no use to bitching about anything then is there?

The fact that you seem to miss is that past actions have present and future consequences.

Of course it'll happen again and again. It's good business.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
This mentality will ensure it happens again...and again...and again.

Everything that's ever happened is "in the past". So there's really no use to bitching about anything then is there?

The fact that you seem to miss is that past actions have present and future consequences.

Not really. After Vietnam took 40 years before we stuck our dick in the ugly again.

Presidents and the people will be real reluctant to go into nebulous conflict.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Its somewhat amusing to me to see TLC say, "Well I, for one, never believed it would fall into chaos and now there's a functioning Democracy in the heart of the ME. So I'll say it - See, I told you so."

When the fact that Iraq has a semi-functioning government and a prime Minister Malike is solely due to Al-Sadr, who TLC predicted was total toast three years ago.

But that is simply the problem with an Iraq the USA has not totally withdrawn from, Iraqi political stability is far broader than it is deep. So, to that extent, the final history of the GWB&co occupation of Iraq is far from being over, and in any long term, any final glorious chapters lauding GWB cannot be written for a decade or two. On the other hand, if Iraq flies apart in the near future, the GWB decision to occupy Iraq in 2003 will catch the initial blame.
lol. Sadr? iirc, you, LL, predicted that he would be a major political figure and that a large number of Iraqis would get behind him. Instead he had to run and hide in Iran and still can't manage to come back to Iraq for more than 2 weeks because he might be killed by former members of his own group? You can be sure that many Iraqis view al-Sadr as little more than a tool and puppet of their Iranian neighbors.

Sadr's position of determining how the current government would be shaped was due more to pure serendipity and luck than anything he's actually done. If/when the various factions realign in the future, and they will, his influence will be eroded down to the relatively insignificant bloc that it is.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
This mentality will ensure it happens again...and again...and again.

Everything that's ever happened is "in the past". So there's really no use to bitching about anything then is there?

The fact that you seem to miss is that past actions have present and future consequences.
There's a vast difference between learning from what we've done in the past and bellyaching about how things might have been different had we taken a different course of action. The OP is bellyaching about things that cannot be changed. Just because they cannot be changed does not mean we can't learn from them.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
Um, yeah, right.... :rolleyes:

Yes, I know I'm right, that's why I posted that. I'm glad we could agree.

Gee I don't know, maybe because he did a typical "hand wave" to ignore the fact that 100k+ people were killed, and he either doesn't believe it, or doesn't care. Either way, it's very pathetic.

It's not a hand wave so much as a given. It's a given that the Iraqi's killed themselves in high numbers. But, it was Iraqi on Iraqi, or even more generally, Muslim on Muslim, violence. Western forces are considered outsiders there. Well, the Insiders decided to slaughter themselves, and surprise surprise, despite the best efforts of the Outsiders, the Insiders got what they wanted. No Insider, or any proponent for the Insiders on this matter, should have one b1tch about the Outsiders. The Insiders got what they wanted. Period. Don't b1tch about it. See below.

And yes, we are mainly responsible for those deaths. When you take take away the government, military, and police force because you invade a country, you are responsible for taking care of it.. Are the people that said "we broke it, we bought it" or "we broke it, so we have to fix it" are expressing that exact sentiment.

No, we're not responsible for those deaths - except the ones we truly accidentally killed and the ones where we had POS soldiers intentionally killing civilians; that total count is a small - single digit - % of Iraqi's killed.

The Iraqi's, and Muslims who went there to cause issues, are adults. They profess to be smart people who The West just doesn't understand. The profess to enlightened while it's The West who is brainwashed by their media. As such, they can be held responsible for their actions. And, their actions, to each other - their neighbor and "brother" no less, were to go and Rage and Kill.

Those deaths are on them, not US. They wanted to get it out of their system, and, they got exactly what they wanted. Now they can stop blaming The West for getting exactly what they wanted. People in The West going on West hating agendas, who are lending ammo to the Muslim delusion that a Muslim killing a Muslim because he's from one neighborhood and not another, is somehow The West's fault, need to be slapped down. Hard. The Muslim's over there already have a problem with accepting responsibility for their collective actions, they don't need do have their argument butressed by bleeding hearts/West haters over here.

Chuck
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
/
That's a lot of conjecture from the OP and it's pretty spurious conjecture at that. Nor does it matter. What's done is done now and whether it was right or wrong is neither here nor there, except maybe to certain partisans that can't seem to let the past go.

People in the ME can now look at Iraq and see that Democracy can work there so trying to blow it off as having no influence is ridiculous as well. While I don't see Iraq as any primary influence on the current changes in the ME there's little doubt that it IS having some influence.

Sure it matters - when the next warmongering dumbass gets into the white house, you and all the other fools will once again line up and start braying whatever talking points are put out - WMDs, mushroom clouds, Al Qaeda meetings - there's little you idiots won't lap up.

A great example is how you idiots just keep repeating the line that Iraq is an inspiration, even as violent protests break out in Iraq as well: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/world/middleeast/26iraq.html

Meanwhile, what's happening in Turkey - the country that Arabs actually look to for inspiration? Their PM convinced the public to side with him on a referendum to modernize the constitution, he's in line to secure third term and their economy grew 7.3% last year. That's what Turkey's neighbours want, not the chaos and misery of Iraq.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
So fuckin' what? Some country is going to project power around this world and I'd much rather it be the US than China, Russia, Iran, or any other wannabe superpower. Let's stop with this pretense that we can all be one happy family living in harmony and sharing equally while singing Kumbaya in 3-part harmony because the world just doesn't work that way. Someone is going to be the big dog. It may as well be the USA.

This is the straw man offered up by the neoconservatives. Anyone who disagrees with the absurd foreign policies of the USA must think we can have some sort of Utopian peace without it.

"I call on the young men of America who must make a choice today to take a stand on this issue. Tomorrow may be too late. The book may close. And don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, "You're too arrogant! And if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I'll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God.""

No one could have said that better than MLK Jr, in his opposition to the Vietnam war.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
/

Sure it matters - when the next warmongering dumbass gets into the white house, you and all the other fools will once again line up and start braying whatever talking points are put out - WMDs, mushroom clouds, Al Qaeda meetings - there's little you idiots won't lap up.

A great example is how you idiots just keep repeating the line that Iraq is an inspiration, even as violent protests break out in Iraq as well: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/world/middleeast/26iraq.html

Meanwhile, what's happening in Turkey - the country that Arabs actually look to for inspiration? Their PM convinced the public to side with him on a referendum to modernize the constitution, he's in line to secure third term and their economy grew 7.3% last year. That's what Turkey's neighbours want, not the chaos and misery of Iraq.

Weird. I see Iraqi's protesting, and actually being able to protest, while not being slaughtered for doing so. It's a good thing. Yes, some F'ing idiot solderiers killed 6 Iraqi's, which is unreal by Western standards, however, the Iraqi's are freely doing what they feel they need to do.

I.e. Iraq is working. What was bad about that again?

Chuck
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
/

Sure it matters - when the next warmongering dumbass gets into the white house, you and all the other fools will once again line up and start braying whatever talking points are put out - WMDs, mushroom clouds, Al Qaeda meetings - there's little you idiots won't lap up.
Way to make a moronic, sweeping generalization - That people who supported the war in Iraq are simply warmongers and support any and all wars. Please stow that sort of stupid for left-wing circle jerks.

A great example is how you idiots just keep repeating the line that Iraq is an inspiration, even as violent protests break out in Iraq as well: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/world/middleeast/26iraq.html

Meanwhile, what's happening in Turkey - the country that Arabs actually look to for inspiration? Their PM convinced the public to side with him on a referendum to modernize the constitution, he's in line to secure third term and their economy grew 7.3% last year. That's what Turkey's neighbours want, not the chaos and misery of Iraq.
Turkey has its own issues as well. Additionally, Turkey's government is rather mature while Iraq's is still in its relative infancy, and they are recovering from a rather nasty war recently. Comparing the two side-by-side and claiming they should be the same is ridiculous. You're comparing oranges and apples.

As far as the current protests, at least Iraqis CAN protest now and freely speak their minds in public without having half their family suddenly disappear, as it was under Saddam.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
This is the straw man offered up by the neoconservatives. Anyone who disagrees with the absurd foreign policies of the USA must think we can have some sort of Utopian peace without it.
I don't see any actual rebuttal to my statement, only some wave of the hand and a tossing around of the Neoconservative label. Do you actually believe that if the US pulled back from its role as superpower that another country, like China, would not immediately assume that role?

"I call on the young men of America who must make a choice today to take a stand on this issue. Tomorrow may be too late. The book may close. And don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, "You're too arrogant! And if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I'll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God.""

No one could have said that better than MLK Jr, in his opposition to the Vietnam war.
Good for MLK Jr. I was opposed to the Vietnam war too.
 
Feb 16, 2005
14,060
5,405
136
It was a stupid fucking idea from the start, trumped up reasons, blatant lies to congress, to the american people, countless needless deaths, just to get saddam back for what he did to daddy.
Lies, obstruction of the truth, being pointed out as unpatriotic if you didn't support the war. It was a propaganda machine set on high run by haliburton.

saddam was a fucktard that needed to be taken out, but it could have been much more surgically precise.
Anyone who doesn't think this was a mistake probably thinks we won in Vietnam too.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Not really. After Vietnam took 40 years before we stuck our dick in the ugly again.

Presidents and the people will be real reluctant to go into nebulous conflict.

No, the lessons of Vietnam were largely never learned by the public and officials, and the lessons they did learn that were good are largely forgotten. Others were wrong.

There is still some slight 'don't get into a quagmire' left, but with today's push-button war technology, we're not looking at another 58,000 US killed like Vietnam anywhere.

The US was on the wrong side of freedom, and killed millions wrongly. It proceeded ignorantly, with a war largely for 'prestige', and has not really reversed that approach.

America should learn lessons about supporting freedom, about justice, about not dehumanizing people and killing them for selfish reasons.

All nations should - none really show a great history on this I can think of.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
It got Libya to give up its nuclear weapons program...

Looking like a pretty good idea these days.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
No, the lessons of Vietnam were largely never learned by the public and officials, and the lessons they did learn that were good are largely forgotten. Others were wrong.

There is still some slight 'don't get into a quagmire' left, but with today's push-button war technology, we're not looking at another 58,000 US killed like Vietnam anywhere.

The US was on the wrong side of freedom, and killed millions wrongly. It proceeded ignorantly, with a war largely for 'prestige', and has not really reversed that approach.

America should learn lessons about supporting freedom, about justice, about not dehumanizing people and killing them for selfish reasons.

All nations should - none really show a great history on this I can think of.
You have very warped ideas of freedom and communism if you think the USA was on the wrong side of freedom in that conflict. I suppose by that standard, Kuwait was enjoying freedom when invaded and occupied by Iraq, so we were on the wrong side of freedom in '91 as well.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
I don't see any actual rebuttal to my statement,

That tends to happen when you put forth a straw man argument.

Do you actually believe that if the US pulled back from its role as superpower that another country, like China, would not immediately assume that role?

And if straw man isn't enough, here comes the false choice, that being we must decide whether we want to be the world's policeman or not be a "superpower." Or, perhaps, you're not implying that we can't defend ourselves and our borders without being a policeman of the world? You're here defending the insane idea that was invading Iraq. Let's take a look at your first post in this thread...

People in the ME can now look at Iraq and see that Democracy can work there so trying to blow it off as having no influence is ridiculous as well. While I don't see Iraq as any primary influence on the current changes in the ME there's little doubt that it IS having some influence.

It is ridiculous to think the people of the ME need to look to Iraq, to look at a nation even in their own neighborhood, and see the successes of a free nation. As if their eyes in this day of age, one of great technology, cannot see past a few hundred miles. It is even more ridiculous to think we can implement such ideas on a people by invading and occupying their land. You are suggesting, in a sense, we can point a gun to an ape's head and successfully demand he turn himself into a human being.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Yes, I know I'm right, that's why I posted that. I'm glad we could agree.



It's not a hand wave so much as a given. It's a given that the Iraqi's killed themselves in high numbers. But, it was Iraqi on Iraqi, or even more generally, Muslim on Muslim, violence. Western forces are considered outsiders there. Well, the Insiders decided to slaughter themselves, and surprise surprise, despite the best efforts of the Outsiders, the Insiders got what they wanted. No Insider, or any proponent for the Insiders on this matter, should have one b1tch about the Outsiders. The Insiders got what they wanted. Period. Don't b1tch about it. See below.



No, we're not responsible for those deaths - except the ones we truly accidentally killed and the ones where we had POS soldiers intentionally killing civilians; that total count is a small - single digit - % of Iraqi's killed.

The Iraqi's, and Muslims who went there to cause issues, are adults. They profess to be smart people who The West just doesn't understand. The profess to enlightened while it's The West who is brainwashed by their media. As such, they can be held responsible for their actions. And, their actions, to each other - their neighbor and "brother" no less, were to go and Rage and Kill.

Those deaths are on them, not US. They wanted to get it out of their system, and, they got exactly what they wanted. Now they can stop blaming The West for getting exactly what they wanted. People in The West going on West hating agendas, who are lending ammo to the Muslim delusion that a Muslim killing a Muslim because he's from one neighborhood and not another, is somehow The West's fault, need to be slapped down. Hard. The Muslim's over there already have a problem with accepting responsibility for their collective actions, they don't need do have their argument butressed by bleeding hearts/West haters over here.

Chuck

Good point Chuck. The whole idea of Iraqis are children and thus we have a custodial responsibility for everything they do is a bit racist or more likely playing politics. However if it weren't for disabling the central govt and law and order the old rivalries/scores would have not happened. It's easy to see both sides.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
That tends to happen when you put forth a straw man argument.

And if straw man isn't enough, here comes the false choice, that being we must decide whether we want to be the world's policeman or not be a "superpower." Or, perhaps, you're not implying that we can't defend ourselves and our borders without being a policeman of the world? You're here defending the insane idea that was invading Iraq. Let's take a look at your first post in this thread...

It is ridiculous to think the people of the ME need to look to Iraq, to look at a nation even in their own neighborhood, and see the successes of a free nation. As if their eyes in this day of age, one of great technology, cannot see past a few hundred miles. It is even more ridiculous to think we can implement such ideas on a people by invading and occupying their land. You are suggesting, in a sense, we can point a gun to an ape's head and successfully demand he turn himself into a human being.
Keep dancing around and avoiding answering the question. By doing that it makes it pretty clear what your answer actually is and that you simply refuse to admit it.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
No, the lessons of Vietnam were largely never learned by the public and officials, and the lessons they did learn that were good are largely forgotten. Others were wrong.

There is still some slight 'don't get into a quagmire' left, but with today's push-button war technology, we're not looking at another 58,000 US killed like Vietnam anywhere.

The US was on the wrong side of freedom, and killed millions wrongly. It proceeded ignorantly, with a war largely for 'prestige', and has not really reversed that approach.

America should learn lessons about supporting freedom, about justice, about not dehumanizing people and killing them for selfish reasons.

All nations should - none really show a great history on this I can think of.
Reagan wanted no part of a quagmire and GTFO of Lebanon. Sure we fraught little proxies the whole time as it's hard to keep the war mongers down but we never did the whole occupation thing. Even in Gulf war 1.0 we GTFO after Saddam was vacated from Kuwait. Basically the Powell doctrine was followed for 40 years until Bush. I think it will be followed another 40 after we got stung this time.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
You have very warped ideas of freedom and communism if you think the USA was on the wrong side of freedom in that conflict.

No, you do.

Decades before the US taking over the war, Ho Chi Minh wrote President WILSON a letter asking for the US, as a leader for freedom and democracy, to help them be free of foreign occupation - occupation that had a history, the Chinese, then the French. The US before JFK had a policy of supporting our 'allies' like France in their colonization policies, and we did not answer his letter, supporting France as an occupier.

In WWII, Japan replace France; at the end of the war, Japan had to leave. Ho Chi Minh took the occassion to ask the US again for help to not let France return, and let them be free of occupation. He created a 'Declaration of Independence' copied from the US as the basis for a new government. The US not only supported our ally France returning as an occupier - when the war got rough, we paid up to 90% of the war costs for the French.

The US in this period had a quite paranoid approach to global politics created after WWII, inventing a lot of threat that was not there, in part for justifying our own aggression.

The US ignorantly made assumptions - Ho Chi Minh was just a puppet of the Chinese, who would use a victory in Vietnam to conquer all Southeast Asia - and soon San Francisco.

This movement for freedom from occupation was falsely turned into a global communist threat - just as the US had a policy of installing far-right brutal dictators in many countries.

The US was actively opposing democracy in many countries during this period.

Funny thing is - the US lost, the communists won - and whaddya know, after they fought a brief war with China - funny way for a puppet to act - and they put down the Khmer Rouge monsters the US destabilzation had allowed to come to power - they became they very non-occupied country they'd always said they wanted, not the spearhead of global communism. Leaders who had played key roles like Robert McNamara came to admit the errors - go watch 'The Fog of War' for his admission how little the US understood.

No, my ideas about freedom are right - people don't like foreign occupiers. It's YOUR ideas about freedom - right-wing dictators, using torture and murder and tyranny, as 'freedom', that are the wrong ones. Millions of Vietnamese killed in an unjut war, to protect the US 'image', as 'freedom'.

I suppose by that standard, Kuwait was enjoying freedom when invaded and occupied by Iraq, so we were on the wrong side of freedom in '91 as well.

The fact you have to make up a lie that's a straw man shows how you got the other argument wrong, too.

In fact, Kuwait was not all the great a mdoel of freedom before the invasion, with its typical middle east 'royal' plutocracy, limited rights for women, etc. But Saddam's invasion - whatever the justification of Kuwait 'side drilling' into Iraqi oil, historical patchwork nations built by the British to screw things up, and so on - made Kuwait less 'free'.

While the Bush administration screwed up - implying they were fine with Saddam invading Kuwait, something they'd reportedly promised him as a 'prize' for his starting a war with Iran, with our encouragement and eventual military intervention on his behalf (to punish those evil Iranians who we had screwed by removing THEIR democracy to install a brutal dictator for 25 years) - I'm consistent here - Kuwait was LESS free under Iraqi occupation and there was reason to oppose Saddam's invasion and occupation.

So, you will need to do better than a lie as a straw man. I won't hold my breath.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
Good point Chuck. The whole idea of Iraqis are children and thus we have a custodial responsibility for everything they do is a bit racist or more likely playing politics. However if it weren't for disabling the central govt and law and order the old rivalries/scores would have not happened. It's easy to see both sides.

I can understand both sides. I can absolutely see the Iraqi who never caused trouble, who wished for calm, who was Sunni and had no problem with a Shite living next to him, be intensely mad at the US for having some responsibility for the madness that happened. We do. We should have had 2-3x the number of troops in-country, while simultaneously not taking any pressure of Afghanistan/Pakistan, when we went in. That's our failure. That's Rumsfeld's failure, and, ultimately, Bush's failure. And I know why they did it. Because, America has a disease where if you cannot do something with zero loss of life, for a profit, in "15 minutes", it's immediately deemed a failure and you've got John Stewart and The Media stirring up all the small minded 'Elitists' who live to say "I told you so", and will do just about anything so they can say it. And so our Politicians, not wanting to go through that at home, cheap out. The send our troops to do the impossible, both F'ing them, and, F'ing the people we're there to help. However....

...what I see too frequently is these same people not stating the, by far and above, reason for Iraq turning into a quagmire it turned into: Iraqi's, and, Muslim's, themselves. And to not state that everytime they whine about The West, takes the onus of responsibility for the Iraqi's/Muslim's actions against their own people and puts US as the completely responsible party. Which is just not, in any way, correct.

Muslim's in that region have a very hard time accepting responsibility for their actions. If it's not The West, it's Jews seeding the oceans with killer fish. Seriously: Just how bad does delusion need to get over there before it's checked?

Bush chose 9/11 as his breaking point...maybe had his dad chosen Kuwait, enough Progress would have happened so a 9/11 would have been avoided...

Chuck