Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
You should get out more.
So says the person stuck in 2003. :sneaky:
You should get out more.
Another lol. You guys are really delivering tonight. I'm not the one bellyaching about the past; you and the rest of your groupthink crew are.So says the person stuck in 2003. :sneaky:
I suppose there is some technical truth to that given that 99.9999% of the world outside P&N have never heard of you or your imaginative spin on why attacking Iraq was a good thing. I can tell you that based on quick check, the vast majority of Americans feel the Iraq fiasco was not worth the lives lost (72% as of August, 2010). While I'm skeptical this 72% is "predominately left wing,' I have no doubt they appear that way from your fringe position.lol. Apparently in your world a small cabal of predominantly left-wing (some VERY left) antiwar posters in a minor subforum on the internet = everybody.
You should get out more.
You seem confused. I'm not explaining why attacking Iraq was a good thing or "worth it." War is never a good thing. It's ugly and it sucks. What I've been explaining in this thread is some of the reasons why the US went in and the results that have been achieved. But the idiots in here have to turn it into 'OMG, you're a fucking warmongering chickenhawk, Bush-loving, wingnut.'I suppose there is some technical truth to that given that 99.9999% of the world outside P&N have never heard of you or your imaginative spin on why attacking Iraq was a good thing. I can tell you that based on quick check, the vast majority of Americans feel the Iraq fiasco was not worth the lives lost (72% as of August, 2010). While I'm skeptical this 72% is "predominately left wing,' I have no doubt they appear that way from your fringe position.
I'm also sure if we could find a global poll, that percentage would climb well into the 90s given that so few outside the U.S. ever felt the invasion was justified. (Though ironically, I'll bet a lot of al Qaeda sympathizers think it was worth it, given its great cost to the U.S.) Sadly, I don't know how to find such data so you can self-righteously pretend my estimate is way off.
You seem confused. I'm not explaining why attacking Iraq was a good thing or "worth it." War is never a good thing. It's ugly and it sucks. What I've been explaining in this thread is some of the reasons why the US went in and the results that have been achieved. But the idiots in here have to turn it into 'OMG, you're a fucking warmongering chickenhawk, Bush-loving, wingnut.'
That's because certain people absolutely CANNOT stand having an opinion that differs from their own, particularly when it comes to the Iraq war and any potential positive repercussions. They'd rather snort their own shit than admit that positives may arise from the Iraq invasion and that's nothing but blindered, partisan assholishness.
Not to the insane or pathological Marxists*, dude. To the insane and pathological Marxists, Iraq invading Iran was a "border dispute." Only when Republicans are present to be blamed can bad things truly be said to have begun, and every bad thing that then takes place (or is currently taking place), from atomic proliferation all the way through to war (and wyverns if they ever turn out to be real and attack), is directly due to Americans in general and Republicans in particular.There was no "Republicans state dept" at the time of Iran/Iraq war to give any "green light". The Carter admin was in power then, it would have been a Democratic State Dept.
Google is useful.
Fern
Probably 72% because most of the benefits (outside of Iraq) to removing Saddam - such as showing that Muslim leaders will pay a price personally for attacking America - could be just as well demonstrated by our invasion of Afghanistan itself. Conversely the benefits to people inside Iraq, such as freedom from oppression and democracy, have very little direct benefit to us and indeed may well even eventually rebound against us. Iraq may well become radicalized, and it's almost certain that Iraqis will remember the bombing and the occupation long after they've forgotten who gave them freedom from oppression and democracy.I suppose there is some technical truth to that given that 99.9999% of the world outside P&N have never heard of you or your imaginative spin on why attacking Iraq was a good thing. I can tell you that based on quick check, the vast majority of Americans feel the Iraq fiasco was not worth the lives lost (72% as of August, 2010). While I'm skeptical this 72% is "predominately left wing,' I have no doubt they appear that way from your fringe position.
I'm also sure if we could find a global poll, that percentage would climb well into the 90s given that so few outside the U.S. ever felt the invasion was justified. (Though ironically, I'll bet a lot of al Qaeda sympathizers think it was worth it, given its great cost to the U.S.) Sadly, I don't know how to find such data so you can self-righteously pretend my estimate is way off.
Clearly at this point the Iraq invasion was not worth it to the USA. Whether it will ever be seen as worth it will be a question for history.
Bush made speeches about plenty more than 9/11 and WMD. The antiwar crowd tries to ignore them because they don't fit into their talking points and their rewriting of history.Again, you mean when Bush and Cheney made all of those speeches about 9/11 and WMD, that wasn't the reason? LOL. Guess those speeches never happened.
Straw man.Powell giving his speech to the UN to scare everyone about WMD didn't happen? News to us.
WMDs were not the sole justification given for Iraq. It's only that way in your partisan-addled, puny little mind that refuses to accept the actual facts of the matter. You prattle on as if your still navifgating the partisan fever swamps of the left.The many-times stated justification for Iraq was WMD. Period. You have yet to post anything (other then your personal delusions) to show otherwise. But that didn't stop you from showing your ignorance yet again claiming that we invaded to attack Muslim fundamentalism, in a secular country no less, LOL.
You haven't providede a lick of evidence for your claim either. My claim is that Iraq has had some impact on the revolts in the ME. Your claim is that it has had none at all. Any rational person can look at our disparate claims and figure out who is more likely to be correct. Hint: It's not you.And you have again failed to provide any evidence for this delusion of your. No news articles, no quotes from anyone that would have any knowledge. So it's your word against the rest of the world. I know who I believe, and it isn't you.
Oh the irony.But it's a free country, so you are free to be delusional. But don't expect everyone else to accept your delusions as correct, and not call you out on them.
You haven't providede a lick of evidence for your claim either. My claim is that Iraq has had some impact on the revolts in the ME. Your claim is that it has had none at all. Any rational person can look at our disparate claims and figure out who is more likely to be correct. Hint: It's not you.
Oh the irony.
Let me highlight this for you so you can interpret my statement properly:In other words..."I've provide no evidence...you've provided no evicence...but I'm right (per the people that are rational - even though I have not even provided evidence that the rational people (i.e. those that agree with my side) would indeed pick my position. Oh the irony indeed. :biggrin:
Oh, and FWIW, without the ole WMD bushshit, the war in Iraq would not have happened...so whether other information was presented or not (short of showing Sadaam was directly responsible for 911), it would not have happened.
Again, 404 - justification not found.
Let me highlight this for you so you can interpret my statement properly:
"Any rational person can look at our disparate claims and figure out who is more likely to be correct."
It is simply numbers. The kitty claims there is absolutely no influence. None. Zero. I claim there is at least a little influence. In percentages his claim is stuck at 0% influence. otoh, my claim can range from 1% to 100% influence. His claim has 1 chance of being correct. My claim has 100 chances at being correct. Like I said though, it requires a rational person to figure that out. Those mired in denial and partisan ideologies can't seem to be rational and/or reasonable about this issue though.
Yeah I can imagine he'd prefer to be in Iraq.My son was in Iraq doing the fighting. Was yours? It's not as if I didn't have anything personal to lose so I could just support it nilly-willy, so your accusastion falls flat on its face.
You were in Iraq? I thought you fought in Afghanistan. I was all for kicking ass in Afghanistan but Bush and his Neocon handlers got blood lust and dropped the ball there by invading Iraq.Because of that blunder Afghanistan is now almost a hopeless cause if it isn't already.Im pro war, and did the fighting.
Actually he was very close to returning to Iraq as a civilian. Like many former soldiers, he was having problems finding a job. He got an offer to work in Iraq, told me he liked being in Iraq and wouldn't mind going back. Just as he was about to accept he was offered a job working for a subcontractor for Lockheed-Martin on the F35 program, so that's what he's doing now.Yeah I can imagine he'd prefer to be in Iraq.
Actually he was very close to returning to Iraq as a civilian. Like many former soldiers, he was having problems finding a job. He got an offer to work in Iraq, told me he liked being in Iraq and wouldn't mind going back. Just as he was about to accept he was offered a job working for a subcontractor for Lockheed-Martin on the F35 program, so that's what he's doing now.
Vietnam was certainly worth doing. Imagine had we done it right, fighting the war as did David Hackworth's 4th battalion/39th infantry regiment. (Or even as did the Marines, until McNamara & Westmorland decided the Marines should instead hunker down on bases in plain view and within range of North Vietnamese artillery.) By winning the war, South Vietnam could be experiencing the same prosperity as is South Korea. Assuming that North Vietnam kept the same non-hereditary party-based leadership that reunified Vietnam kept, that nation might well be unified today as a free and prosperous nation rather than as the repressed, enslaved nation ranking 167th poorest of 229 recognized countries. Look at South Korea, with per capita income ten times as high. Then look at Vietnamese people outside of Vietnam, who with good intelligence and work ethic generally succeed quite well, and look at the progress made with the Communist government's limited free-market reforms within the last decade or so.Was Vietnam worth it?
Your statement is a cop out. "We will see in the future if gdub was correct in doing this". We dont need to look in the future. All we need to do is look at all the people 6 feet under for profit to know this was a horrible mistake and a horrible presidency.
Knowing some of the girls he hangs out with he's sucking on some very fine teets, to be sure.So your son suckles on the government teet.
Vietnam was certainly worth doing. Imagine had we done it right, fighting the war as did David Hackworth's 4th battalion/39th infantry regiment. (Or even as did the Marines, until McNamara & Westmorland decided the Marines should instead hunker down on bases in plain view and within range of North Vietnamese artillery.) By winning the war, South Vietnam could be experiencing the same prosperity as is South Korea. Assuming that North Vietnam kept the same non-hereditary party-based leadership that reunified Vietnam kept, that nation might well be unified today as a free and prosperous nation rather than as the repressed, enslaved nation ranking 167th poorest of 229 recognized countries. Look at South Korea, with per capita income ten times as high. Then look at Vietnamese people outside of Vietnam, who with good intelligence and work ethic generally succeed quite well, and look at the progress made with the Communist government's limited free-market reforms within the last decade or so.
Since Ho Chi Min united several groups whose common element was nationalism rather than Communism, it's entirely possible that had the United States built basic democratic structures in Vietnamese society, built a legitimate government from the ground up, demonstrated the benefits of democracy and freedom, and then got out of the way, Vietnam might well have peaceably reunited under a democratic, representative government. Instead, we totally blew the politics, allowed elections basically between bloodthirsty goons without first instilling any knowledge of representative democracy in the population, and then blew the war as well.
As to whether or not Vietnam (specifically American involvement) was worth it considering the price we paid and the results we obtained, I suspect that depends on your value of freedom versus communism. It was worth it to me to have tried to preserve freedom, or such limited freedom as South Vietnam enjoyed at the time, and bear in mind that with several friends who have subsequently committed suicide I place the true cost of the Vietnamese war higher than would a text book. Casualties don't end when combat ends. For the Vietnamese people, it almost certainly wasn't worth it. For Thailand, spared the scourge of communism and with roughly three times the per capita income of Vietnam (and four times that of Cambodia or Laos), our participation in Vietnam was certainly worth it. In the end, your opinion on whether or not Vietnam was "worth it" is going to depend almost totally on whether or not you think Communism is an evil form of servitude or, like some here, you think Communism is the berries and Capitalism is the evil form of servitude.
Knowing some of the girls he hangs out with he's sucking on some very fine teets, to be sure.
Ask your own kids and you can find out the answer to that question.How does he feel about having a father that is a moron?
Ask your own kids and you can find out the answer to that question.
Of course, I'm assuming you've actually managed to find a woman who would tolerate having sex with you and allow you to procreate with her. I'd imagine that's not very easy for such an angry little boy such as yourself.
Bush made speeches about plenty more than 9/11 and WMD. The antiwar crowd tries to ignore them because they don't fit into their talking points and their rewriting of history.
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/reform/bush2003.htm
WMDs were not the sole justification given for Iraq. It's only that way in your partisan-addled, puny little mind that refuses to accept the actual facts of the matter. You prattle on as if your still navifgating the partisan fever swamps of the left.
You haven't providede a lick of evidence for your claim either. My claim is that Iraq has had some impact on the revolts in the ME. Your claim is that it has had none at all. Any rational person can look at our disparate claims and figure out who is more likely to be correct. Hint: It's not you.
The Iraq invasion, at its core, was an attempt to strike back at militant Islamic fundamentalism.
The two big losers are Saudi Arabia and the United States. For the Saudis, the results of the U.S.-led intervention in Iraq are little short of a disaster. True, Saudi leaders were hardly fond of Saddam Hussein. Even before his attempted forcible annexation of Kuwait in 1990, Riyadh worried about the extent of his territorial ambitions. Even so, the Saudi elite seem even less happy about the “new Iraq,” where Iranian-influenced Shiites are now the dominant political players in Baghdad. Among other concerns, Saudi leaders fret about the possible impact on their country’s own restless Shiite minority.
Despite Saddam's reported brutality, the dictator had a vision of a modern, largely secular Iraq.
To the consternation of Islamic conservatives, Saddam's government gave women added freedoms and offered them high-level government and industry jobs. Saddam also created a Western-style legal system, making Iraq the only country in the Persian Gulf region not ruled according to traditional Islamic law (Sharia). Saddam abolished the Sharia courts, except for personal injury claims.
In 1979 Iran's Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was overthrown by the Islamic Revolution, thus giving way to an Islamic republic led by the Ayatollah Khomeini. The influence of revolutionary Shi'ite Islam grew apace in the region, particularly in countries with large Shi'ite populations, especially Iraq. Saddam feared that radical Islamic ideas—hostile to his secular rule—were rapidly spreading inside his country among the majority Shi'ite population.
Oh the irony.
You were in Iraq? I thought you fought in Afghanistan. I was all for kicking ass in Afghanistan but Bush and his Neocon handlers got blood lust and dropped the ball there by invading Iraq.Because of that blunder Afghanistan is now almost a hopeless cause if it isn't already.
