Wash Post -- Iraq War was right decision

[Deleted member 4644]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...rticle/2007/03/17/AR2007031700950.html

I can't believe they are still claiming that Iraq was about to have WMD and that the decision was right.

30 years from now we might be "glad" that we attacked, but the fact is that attacking was "wrong" based on the reality on the ground at the time (2003) and our various options (i.e. more weapon inspections).

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Beat... to... death...

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Beat... to... death...

reruns are ok the new shows don't start till Sept.

 

[JEDIYoda]

reruns....rofl...good one

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
reruns....rofl...good one

Yeah Iraq is a laughing matter:roll:

 

[ntdz]

I personally can't believe anyone believes going into Iraq was the right decision. I can understand why Bush did it with the WMD evidence that turned out to be false and the state of mind our country was in at the time, but it obviously wasn't the right decision. However, since the decision has been made, we have to make the best of it and try to at least give the Iraqi government a chance to survive. Leaving now would ensure the country ends up in the hands of the insurgents, and personally I think that'll be a bigger mistake that the initial invasion.

 

[Borealis7]

The Iraq war being a mistake is the OPs opinion, and many other people's opinion too, that doesnt make that a historical fact.

you won't know if the war was a mistake until many years from now, these things take time.

im not siding with either political opinion here, im not even american, im just saying that you can never know.

was dropping the bomb on Hiroshima right? moral? justified? we all know the consequences of that 60 years later.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Borealis7
The Iraq war being a mistake is the OPs opinion, and many other people's opinion too, that doesnt make that a historical fact.

you won't know if the war was a mistake until many years from now, these things take time.

im not siding with either political opinion here, im not even american, im just saying that you can never know.

was dropping the bomb on Hiroshima right? moral? justified? we all know the consequences of that 60 years later.

Bad example. Viet Nam would be more apt.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Bad example. Viet Nam would be more apt.

Yep. And if we pull out it will end just as Vietnam did. Let the killing fields begin.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Bad example. Viet Nam would be more apt.

Yep. And if we pull out it will end just as Vietnam did. Let the killing fields begin.

There were no killing fields in Viet Nam after we pulled out. In fact it was the Vietnamese who helped end the mass murdering in Cambodia despite Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge being supported by the ChiComs.

 

[rickn]

The Great Iraq Adventure was only a mistake because of the wars execution. We went in pretty much by ourselves with minimal support from anyone else and pissed off everyone else who we ignored, we didn't have enough troops to secure the borders and the major cities, and we didn't listen to the neighbors in the region except for Israel. Taking out Saddam and his gov't was a good thing. Had we had a better Secretary of Defense and a better President, things may have turned out very differently.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: rickn
The Great Iraq Adventure was only a mistake because of the wars execution. We went in pretty much by ourselves with minimal support from anyone else and pissed off everyone else who we ignored, we didn't have enough troops to secure the borders and the major cities, and we didn't listen to the neighbors in the region except for Israel. Taking out Saddam and his gov't was a good thing. Had we had a better Secretary of Defense and a better President, things may have turned out very differently.

If we had a better President we wouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place.

 

[conjur]

The US repeated the mistakes the Soviets made in Afghanistan. Got mired down in a costly and long-lasting insurgency.

What do we have to show for over $400 billion spent to date and over 3,200 dead American soldiers and over 50,000 wounded?

An even more unstable Middle East with oil prices double what they were when the Frat Boy took office. "Heckuva job, George!" Be sure to keep listening to those PNAC/WINEP fvcks. The Federal Reserve will keep funding your warmongering by buying up more of our own debt.

WHEEEEEEE!!

 

[conjur]

Oh, geez...PNACer Stephen Hadley, now the NSA, is on ABC's This Week spouting that Saddam had access and means to WMDs. When will the deceit end?!

 

[Balt]

It's usually best to just ignore the Op-Ed section of newspapers.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: conjur
Oh, geez...PNACer Stephen Hadley, now the NSA, is on ABC's This Week spouting that Saddam had access and means to WMDs. When will the deceit end?!

Not until the ratings and/or $$$$ dry up

 

[Jaskalas]

I will say it right now, Iraq was a mistake, and compounded by many worse mistakes in executing it. The real threat in the end was the Iranian nuclear program, which isn?t limited to being a figment of our imagination.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
I will say it right now, Iraq was a mistake, and compounded by many worse mistakes in executing it. The real threat in the end was the Iranian nuclear program, which isn?t limited to being a figment of our imagination.

And by weakening ourselves by invading and occupying Iraq we have enable Iran to go further along with their ambitions. Way to go George:thumbsdown:

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Beat... to... death...

Yes, this is a dead horse issue. Who even cares the reasons we were told at this point. Where do we go from here is the problem. When the hell will the Iraqis being able to stand up for themselves is my question.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Beat... to... death...

Yes, this is a dead horse issue. Who even cares the reasons we were told at this point. Where do we go from here is the problem. When the hell will the Iraqis being able to stand up for themselves is my question.

:thumbsup:

 

[manowar821]

"Yeah Iraq is a laughing matter"
Iraq IS a laughing matter. This whole country is screwed up in the head, and I've had a hilarious time sitting back and watching it unfold. The show has just begun, too.
NEXT UP, We go to war with Iran (and loose that too) and terrorism goes nuclear! If ONLY the USA had learned to mind it's own business, oh the drama! Oh the SCANDAL!

What a damn joke this country has become.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: conjur
Oh, geez...PNACer Stephen Hadley, now the NSA, is on ABC's This Week spouting that Saddam had access and means to WMDs. When will the deceit end?!

Not until the ratings and/or $$$$ dry up

Well, the M$M is obviously incredibly desperate to find someone to spout the neocon "all is well, we were right" line as today on Meet The Press was none other than the Prince of Darkness himself, Richard Perle (who I still can't believe has managed to skirt being fully investigated in the Hollinger scandal). Perle started spouting quotes from Dems (including Gore) from years ago. You know the ones. The quotes the Bush-bots up here trot out every few months as if they had any bearing on the 2003 invasion. :roll:

And along with that discredited PNAC fvck (who had to resign his position from the Pentagon after Hersh revealed he was making $$$ off of defense contracts) was, wtf, Tom DeLay!! *DeLay*?!?! WTF was he doing on MTP apologizing for the worst foreign policy blunder in US history? What shred of credibility does that indicted/resigned in shame POS have?!?!

 

[Craig234]

It's not that simple. You don't know years later what would happen without the war. And by what measurement - ask the Native Americans if the United States' expansion was a good policy.

Was our overthrow of democracy in Iran in 1953 a good policy? Apart from the imposition of a police state for 25 years that allowed the fundamentalists to come to power, it's affecting the middle east situation now. We could have had a moderate democracy now had we not done that and let them charge a fair price for oil.

What we can look at is the precedent it set of aggressive, pre-emptive war for a bogus reason, and the huge casualties (when you include Iraqis) and compare it to how Saddam was, as an enemy of the US in the region and a ruler who was brutal in holding power and an interest in WMD, but did not have terrorist groups there.

 

[Harvey]

LordSegan -- I read the whole article at your link, and nowhere does it say anything about Saddam having WMD's. The closest it gets is this:

An overarching lesson is that the failure of diplomacy is not a sufficient argument for war. It seems as evident today as it was four years ago that sanctions on Saddam Hussein's regime were eroding and that the U.N. Security Council had no appetite to prolong "containment" in any meaningful form. David Kay's postwar report suggests that Saddam Hussein would have used the resulting loosening of bonds to build a dangerous arsenal. Yet we should have considered that not as an argument for war but only as a predicate for beginning to weigh war's risks and benefits.

Neither does the article say the war was a good decision. The closest it comes to that is the concluding paragraph:

It's tempting to say that if it was wrong to go in, it must be wrong to stay in. But how Iraq evolves will fundamentally shape the region and deeply affect U.S. security. Walking away is likely to make a bad situation worse. A patient, sustained U.S. commitment, with gradually diminishing military forces, could still help Iraq to move in the right direction.

They don't say it was right to start the war. All they say is, Bush already screwed the pooch on the front end, and we may be stuck there for awhile as the best bad option for dealing with the tragic results of his disastrous decision.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: Harvey
LordSegan -- I read the whole article at your link, and nowhere does it say anything about Saddam having WMD's. The closest it gets is this:

An overarching lesson is that the failure of diplomacy is not a sufficient argument for war. It seems as evident today as it was four years ago that sanctions on Saddam Hussein's regime were eroding and that the U.N. Security Council had no appetite to prolong "containment" in any meaningful form. David Kay's postwar report suggests that Saddam Hussein would have used the resulting loosening of bonds to build a dangerous arsenal. Yet we should have considered that not as an argument for war but only as a predicate for beginning to weigh war's risks and benefits.

EXHIBIT A: I think you are giving them WAY too much credit in their interpretation of David Kay's report. Matter of opinion I guess.

Neither does the article say the war was a good decision. The closest it comes to that is the concluding paragraph:

It's tempting to say that if it was wrong to go in, it must be wrong to stay in. But how Iraq evolves will fundamentally shape the region and deeply affect U.S. security. Walking away is likely to make a bad situation worse. A patient, sustained U.S. commitment, with gradually diminishing military forces, could still help Iraq to move in the right direction.

They don't say it was right to start the war. All they say is, Bush already screwed the pooch on the front end, and we may be stuck there for awhile as the best bad option for dealing with the tragic results of his disastrous decision.

EXHIBIT B: The easy way out is to blame President Bush, Vice President Cheney or former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld: The decision was right, the execution wrong.