Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: chucky2
Well, if Iran doesn't keep trying to get nukes, then that's one less dictator that will eventually get some type of WMD - eventually.
If that eventually is put off 20 or 30 years, then I consider that a plus.
That if Iraq is able to foster some type of progress in that region of the world, either directly or indirectly, that's another intangible benefit.
All in all, it was worth it at a National/World level. To the Western families that lost loved ones, it'll likely never be worth it to them. My hope is the decades long brainwashed F'ers over there don't waste all that sacrifice by going backwards....I guess we'll see....
Chuck
I'm not sure what you are saying. Iraq can probably acquire nukes easier than when Saddam was in power because there aren't sanctions, and if I were to lead a ME country I'd want to get them ASAP. No one can tell when some nutjob US administration or other country might decide to attack. The US proved it can be unstable, and the region was never safe.
There's a fair chance Iraq will now align with Iran since Saddam kept the extremists out. As big an SOB was, he kept the Ayatollahs out. Now it's up in the air.
I expect an Iranian type government to be in power in 5 years. It was pretty obvious before the war that there was a high probability of this, but Bush wanted Saddams head on a pole, and damn the consequences.
It was an idiot war started by an idiot. There wasn't a nuke program on the agenda, and despite the games of Saddam, he proved to be a paper tiger once we pulled his fangs after the Gulf War. He couldn't pass gas without us knowing about it. That's all changed.
Idiot remarks ignored...
...I actually think Iraq will pull itself together. My bet is that once the country stabilizes, and Iraqi's travel abroad/people visit Iraq, there will be a resurgence of social development.
The Iraqi's have lived in sh1t for so long, I think they're eager to absorb life again.
No one knows though...not even the Iraqi's themselves. I guess we'll all see what it's like in 10-20 years (and by extension, just how right "Bush&Co" were).
Chuck
Which of your remarks are you ignoring?
Idiot remarks where just that, the "idiot" remarks.
As for me, I pretty much called how things would go before the war was launched. I have a far better record of prediction that any of the past Administration, and no doubt you.
I really didn't "call" anything before the war started, other than to predict we'd roll over the Iraqi's in rediculously short order (that was a no brainer), and that they'd be overjoyed once we had done it (again, a no brainer). The aftermath was up to anyone to predict, and could have gone any number of ways depending on what happened, and how it was handled. If you guessed right, Congrats! But don't think you're anymore special than anyone else...you just guessed right...there is no way to know on stuff like that.
I have proven performance on my side. You have Hope and Change on yours.
You have guessing right on this (so you say, I don't care to take the time to go dig up years old posts from you on various subjects, and then finding out if you indeed are All Knowing...my guess is, you are vastly overblowing your record).
Chuck
P.S. Hope and Change is
another party...not mine.
My "guess" was a bit better than that. Having worked for Uncle Sam in various capacities, it wasn't hard to see that the administration hadn't even bothered to learn what the dynamics on the ground were. Why should they? They weren't concerned in the accuracy of their assumptions (like you), they just wanted a war. Once they rolled over Saddam (which you as you say was nothing, but you can thank Tommy Franks for that because Rumsfeld wanted to do supply his way, and Franks told him it was fucked and he wouldn't do it).
You took on faith that the premise for the war was correct, or you didn't care if it was and just wanted Saddam too.
It was an idiots war from the start. Even once the US had won, the flowers didn't come. There was this silly idea that insurgents were Al Qaeda, but as we found out they were but a small part of the problem. It was secular differences that a child could have understood were likely to break out in violence during a power vacuum, but nope. It was Al Qaeda.
They didn't listen to the generals, they didn't listen to Sandia when they told them that the jr. CIA analyst was all wet regarding the aluminum tubes. They didn't bother to mention that the intelligence that MI5 was using wasn't theirs, but echos from what we told them.
They did listen to Chalibi, the convicted bank fraud because he said just what they wanted him to say. They paid him handsomely for it. He had just about everything wrong, but he served his purpose.
So people attack us who are based in Afghanistan, and we launch a token war. We then take a sharp turn into another country based on anything they could come up, and it needn't be factual. Those who really harmed us were secondary. That's why others think we're nuts.
When a member of the Army War college wrote an accurate paper on why there were troubles in Iraq after major combat was done, the Rumsfeld led Pentagon sent out a representative to refute it. How? By saying that if it didn't line up with the Presidents "vision" it "wasn't on anyone's short list to read." Another dismal situation.
Wonderful.
And so with no understanding as to the situation on the ground, no desire to get the facts straight first, they hoped that the situation would change.
There are Obamabots and Bushbots. You are trying to be the flip side of the people in charge today who accept whatever the government says because it follows what they want to believe.
If I could make one addition to the Constitution, it would be the dissolution of political parties. The hacks have ruined us.
Facebook
Twitter