A Fresh Look at the Iraq War

[DGS49]

Articles talking about the mountain of money wasted on the “Iraq War” are becoming more and more common, and they are written from both sides of the political divide.

Regardless of the dollar amount “wasted” (and more importantly, the number of casualties), the war constituted a gigantic miscalculation on the part of both the President (Bush 43) and the then-Congress, for which they should all (the ones who promoted it and voted for it) be tarred and feathered.

In essence, this war was fought to (1) topple Saddam’s regime, because it was perceived internationally as a source of terrorism and needless strife, and (2) capture and destroy his caches of WMD’s. There are those who say that the war was justified by the Bush43 Administration as retaliation for 9/11, but I never read anything from the Administration that made that connection overtly. Saddam was simply considered a Bad Actor who had to be deposed. Hell, there was even evidence that he was pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

Two major underlying assumptions of the Administration both proved to be disastrously false: First, that Saddam had WMD’s, and second, that the population of Iraq would welcome the American emancipators with open arms, then peacefully form a government that would be an example to the Islamic world that Islam and “democracy” were not incompatible. Both of these assumptions were based on information that was considered reliable, but proved otherwise. Perversely, Saddam later admitted after his capture that he intentionally maintained the fiction of his WMD arsenal, to keep Iran from launching another invasion. The idea that anyone would act so catastrophically against his own interests was not even imaginable to the Administration, which is why it never crossed their minds that Saddam might actually be faking his possession of chemical and biological weapons. (Of course, there are those who say that the WMD’s were moved to Syria and are still there).

And as for the optimistic assessment of the aftermath of our invasion, the Administration simply chose to listen to Iraqi expats who, to use the crude vernacular, were talking out of their asses.

But what are “we” really liable for? People both here and abroad like to lay the blame for the four thousand or so American deaths and tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths on the U.S. (and particularly Bush43), but this is bullshit.

We never intended to “conquer” Iraq, or set it up as a colony. And no cogent adult believes that we intended to “steal their oil” (Democrats are generally not “cogent adults” for this purpose). We had no interest in killing Iraqi’s whether they be Sunni, Shia, or Kurd (or Christian). In fact, we were fully prepared to rebuild the whole country after Saddam was gone – infrastructure, schools, utilities, everything – at our own expense. We WANTED to do that! Our only interest in oil was in maximizing their production, so that they could become self-sustaining and the global market prices would float downward.

The killings of Iraqi civilians were not America’s doing (except in rare cases of “collateral damage”), but rather Iraqi’s killing one another because many factions were simply unwilling to accede to civilized power sharing. And this is still the case today.

But this isn’t our fault. It’s theirs. They own it. They own essentially all of the bloodshed after the American invasion, because it is not what we intended or planned for. People who blame these deaths on "America" or "Bush" or Republicans are either stupid or ignorant. We are the Good Guys. We tried to make things better, but were foiled by a population too backward and ignorant to accept our assistance.

 

[healthmyths]

The Liberation of Iraq of lasted from 19 March 2003 to 1 May 2003 -less then 6 weeks!

The objective was achieved ..
so why did it cost 3,000 more lives and $600 billion ?
These COMMENTS are proven by Harvard studies to have contributed to the cost...
A Harvard study found here THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" asked:

"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The short answer is YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy
research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.

The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal.
On a related note, the New York Times reports that the media aren't paying as much attention to Iraq as they used to:
Media attention on Iraq began to wane after the first months of fighting, but as recently as the middle of last year, it was still the most-covered topic.
Since then, Iraq coverage by major American news sources has plummeted to about one-fifth of what it was last summer, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
If the Harvard study is right, we may be looking at a virtuous circle: Less violence means less media coverage, which in turn means less violence, says the Wall Street Journal. Perhaps one day we'll wake up to discover that America won the war in Iraq months earlier, but no one noticed because the reporters were all busy with other things.

Victory in Iraq Day, November 22, 2008

So when these comments were posted and published.. will any of you be honest enough to admit, the comments certainly did not make US troops happy
and DEFINITELY did as the Harvard study stated: "emboldenment".. do more killings of troops over 6 more years!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything " 40,800 Google results

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
39,600 Google results
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children." 92,500 Google results

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners. 127,000 Google results
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians," 94,300 Google results

So Iraq deaths and cost continued because the above remarks HELPED ONLY the terrorists and they were emboldened to prolong!

 

[Sallow]

Articles talking about the mountain of money wasted on the “Iraq War” are becoming more and more common, and they are written from both sides of the political divide.

Regardless of the dollar amount “wasted” (and more importantly, the number of casualties), the war constituted a gigantic miscalculation on the part of both the President (Bush 43) and the then-Congress, for which they should all (the ones who promoted it and voted for it) be tarred and feathered.

In essence, this war was fought to (1) topple Saddam’s regime, because it was perceived internationally as a source of terrorism and needless strife, and (2) capture and destroy his caches of WMD’s. There are those who say that the war was justified by the Bush43 Administration as retaliation for 9/11, but I never read anything from the Administration that made that connection overtly. Saddam was simply considered a Bad Actor who had to be deposed. Hell, there was even evidence that he was pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

Two major underlying assumptions of the Administration both proved to be disastrously false: First, that Saddam had WMD’s, and second, that the population of Iraq would welcome the American emancipators with open arms, then peacefully form a government that would be an example to the Islamic world that Islam and “democracy” were not incompatible. Both of these assumptions were based on information that was considered reliable, but proved otherwise. Perversely, Saddam later admitted after his capture that he intentionally maintained the fiction of his WMD arsenal, to keep Iran from launching another invasion. The idea that anyone would act so catastrophically against his own interests was not even imaginable to the Administration, which is why it never crossed their minds that Saddam might actually be faking his possession of chemical and biological weapons. (Of course, there are those who say that the WMD’s were moved to Syria and are still there).

And as for the optimistic assessment of the aftermath of our invasion, the Administration simply chose to listen to Iraqi expats who, to use the crude vernacular, were talking out of their asses.

But what are “we” really liable for? People both here and abroad like to lay the blame for the four thousand or so American deaths and tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths on the U.S. (and particularly Bush43), but this is bullshit.

We never intended to “conquer” Iraq, or set it up as a colony. And no cogent adult believes that we intended to “steal their oil” (Democrats are generally not “cogent adults” for this purpose). We had no interest in killing Iraqi’s whether they be Sunni, Shia, or Kurd (or Christian). In fact, we were fully prepared to rebuild the whole country after Saddam was gone – infrastructure, schools, utilities, everything – at our own expense. We WANTED to do that! Our only interest in oil was in maximizing their production, so that they could become self-sustaining and the global market prices would float downward.

The killings of Iraqi civilians were not America’s doing (except in rare cases of “collateral damage”), but rather Iraqi’s killing one another because many factions were simply unwilling to accede to civilized power sharing. And this is still the case today.

But this isn’t our fault. It’s theirs. They own it. They own essentially all of the bloodshed after the American invasion, because it is not what we intended or planned for. People who blame these deaths on "America" or "Bush" or Republicans are either stupid or ignorant. We are the Good Guys. We tried to make things better, but were foiled by a population too backward and ignorant to accept our assistance.

It's okay to believe that if it helps you to sleep.

 

[Mac1958]

Articles talking about the mountain of money wasted on the “Iraq War” are becoming more and more common, and they are written from both sides of the political divide.

Regardless of the dollar amount “wasted” (and more importantly, the number of casualties), the war constituted a gigantic miscalculation on the part of both the President (Bush 43) and the then-Congress, for which they should all (the ones who promoted it and voted for it) be tarred and feathered.

In essence, this war was fought to (1) topple Saddam’s regime, because it was perceived internationally as a source of terrorism and needless strife, and (2) capture and destroy his caches of WMD’s. There are those who say that the war was justified by the Bush43 Administration as retaliation for 9/11, but I never read anything from the Administration that made that connection overtly. Saddam was simply considered a Bad Actor who had to be deposed. Hell, there was even evidence that he was pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

Two major underlying assumptions of the Administration both proved to be disastrously false: First, that Saddam had WMD’s, and second, that the population of Iraq would welcome the American emancipators with open arms, then peacefully form a government that would be an example to the Islamic world that Islam and “democracy” were not incompatible. Both of these assumptions were based on information that was considered reliable, but proved otherwise. Perversely, Saddam later admitted after his capture that he intentionally maintained the fiction of his WMD arsenal, to keep Iran from launching another invasion. The idea that anyone would act so catastrophically against his own interests was not even imaginable to the Administration, which is why it never crossed their minds that Saddam might actually be faking his possession of chemical and biological weapons. (Of course, there are those who say that the WMD’s were moved to Syria and are still there).

And as for the optimistic assessment of the aftermath of our invasion, the Administration simply chose to listen to Iraqi expats who, to use the crude vernacular, were talking out of their asses.

But what are “we” really liable for? People both here and abroad like to lay the blame for the four thousand or so American deaths and tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths on the U.S. (and particularly Bush43), but this is bullshit.

We never intended to “conquer” Iraq, or set it up as a colony. And no cogent adult believes that we intended to “steal their oil” (Democrats are generally not “cogent adults” for this purpose). We had no interest in killing Iraqi’s whether they be Sunni, Shia, or Kurd (or Christian). In fact, we were fully prepared to rebuild the whole country after Saddam was gone – infrastructure, schools, utilities, everything – at our own expense. We WANTED to do that! Our only interest in oil was in maximizing their production, so that they could become self-sustaining and the global market prices would float downward.

The killings of Iraqi civilians were not America’s doing (except in rare cases of “collateral damage&#8221, but rather Iraqi’s killing one another because many factions were simply unwilling to accede to civilized power sharing. And this is still the case today.

But this isn’t our fault. It’s theirs. They own it. They own essentially all of the bloodshed after the American invasion, because it is not what we intended or planned for. People who blame these deaths on "America" or "Bush" or Republicans are either stupid or ignorant. We are the Good Guys. We tried to make things better, but were foiled by a population too backward and ignorant to accept our assistance.

It's okay to believe that if it helps you to sleep.

Incredible, huh?

Maybe some kind of delayed guilt reaction is kicking in. Well, I guess I hope it works for them, whatever. Too late now.

.

 

[Sallow]

Articles talking about the mountain of money wasted on the “Iraq War” are becoming more and more common, and they are written from both sides of the political divide.

Regardless of the dollar amount “wasted” (and more importantly, the number of casualties), the war constituted a gigantic miscalculation on the part of both the President (Bush 43) and the then-Congress, for which they should all (the ones who promoted it and voted for it) be tarred and feathered.

In essence, this war was fought to (1) topple Saddam’s regime, because it was perceived internationally as a source of terrorism and needless strife, and (2) capture and destroy his caches of WMD’s. There are those who say that the war was justified by the Bush43 Administration as retaliation for 9/11, but I never read anything from the Administration that made that connection overtly. Saddam was simply considered a Bad Actor who had to be deposed. Hell, there was even evidence that he was pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

Two major underlying assumptions of the Administration both proved to be disastrously false: First, that Saddam had WMD’s, and second, that the population of Iraq would welcome the American emancipators with open arms, then peacefully form a government that would be an example to the Islamic world that Islam and “democracy” were not incompatible. Both of these assumptions were based on information that was considered reliable, but proved otherwise. Perversely, Saddam later admitted after his capture that he intentionally maintained the fiction of his WMD arsenal, to keep Iran from launching another invasion. The idea that anyone would act so catastrophically against his own interests was not even imaginable to the Administration, which is why it never crossed their minds that Saddam might actually be faking his possession of chemical and biological weapons. (Of course, there are those who say that the WMD’s were moved to Syria and are still there).

And as for the optimistic assessment of the aftermath of our invasion, the Administration simply chose to listen to Iraqi expats who, to use the crude vernacular, were talking out of their asses.

But what are “we” really liable for? People both here and abroad like to lay the blame for the four thousand or so American deaths and tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths on the U.S. (and particularly Bush43), but this is bullshit.

We never intended to “conquer” Iraq, or set it up as a colony. And no cogent adult believes that we intended to “steal their oil” (Democrats are generally not “cogent adults” for this purpose). We had no interest in killing Iraqi’s whether they be Sunni, Shia, or Kurd (or Christian). In fact, we were fully prepared to rebuild the whole country after Saddam was gone – infrastructure, schools, utilities, everything – at our own expense. We WANTED to do that! Our only interest in oil was in maximizing their production, so that they could become self-sustaining and the global market prices would float downward.

The killings of Iraqi civilians were not America’s doing (except in rare cases of “collateral damage”), but rather Iraqi’s killing one another because many factions were simply unwilling to accede to civilized power sharing. And this is still the case today.

But this isn’t our fault. It’s theirs. They own it. They own essentially all of the bloodshed after the American invasion, because it is not what we intended or planned for. People who blame these deaths on "America" or "Bush" or Republicans are either stupid or ignorant. We are the Good Guys. We tried to make things better, but were foiled by a population too backward and ignorant to accept our assistance.

It's okay to believe that if it helps you to sleep.

Incredible, huh?

Maybe some kind of delayed guilt reaction is kicking in. Well, I guess I hope it works for them, whatever. Too late now.

.

Incredibly sad.

Until we face up to the horror we unleash when we engage in these sorts of travesties and crimes.

They will continue.

 

[waltky]

Yea, Assad as yet hasn't stood on his balcony an' fired off his shotgun...

Blair: Iraq uprising would have been 'worse than Syria'
19 March 2013 - Iraqis would have rebelled against Saddam Hussein if there had been no invasion and it would have been "a lot worse than Syria", Tony Blair has said.

Iraqis previously "rose up in large numbers and were killed in very large numbers", the former UK PM said. Mr Blair also warned the West could pay a high price if it decided not to intervene in Syria. He spoke to the BBC ahead of the 10th anniversary of the invasion, led by the US in coalition with the UK and others. The invasion, which started the Iraq War, began on 20 March 2003. The UK lost 179 servicemen and women, of which 136 were killed in action, before the last British troops were withdrawn in April 2009. Conservative estimates put the number of Iraqis killed in the invasion and ensuing sectarian violence at about 100,000.

Former UK PM Tony Blair: "Bashar al-Assad is a 20th as bad as Saddam"

'Enormous carnage'

Mr Blair told the BBC's Norman Smith that, had troops not invaded Iraq, "without any doubt at all there would have been a move to topple him". "I certainly think that if Saddam had still been in power, it's true there would have been, probably, an uprising amongst his people," he said. "But I think it would look a lot more like Syria and probably a lot worse than Syria." Thousands of Syrians have lost their lives in the battle between forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad and those opposed to his rule.

Mr Blair's former deputy prime minister, Lord Prescott, has said the invasion "cannot be justified"

Mr Blair said he regretted how difficult Iraq had been and the loss of life, but he did not regret the decision to oust Saddam. Mr Blair said Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons on his own people "and that's why, when people say to me, 'do you regret removing him', my answer is 'no - how can you regret removing somebody who was a monster, who created enormous carnage - not just amongst his own people but amongst the people of the region'". Mr Blair said he believed "very sincerely and deeply" that the former Iraqi leader was "a security threat" who had to be dealt with.

More BBC News - Blair: Iraq uprising would have been 'worse than Syria'

 

[waltky]

Here we go again...

UN SAYS IRAQ VIOLENCE KILLED 799 PEOPLE IN MAY
Jun 1,`14 -- Violence has claimed the lives of 799 Iraqis in May, the highest monthly death toll so far this year, the United Nations said on Sunday, underlining the daunting challenges the government faces as it struggles to contain a surge in sectarian violence.

The figures issued by the U.N. mission to Iraq, known as UNAMI, put last month's civilian death toll at 603, with 196 security forces killed. UNAMI added that 1,409 Iraqis, including 1,108 civilians, were wounded. The previous month's death toll stood at 750, making April the second deadliest month of the year. The worst-hit city was the capital Baghdad, with 315 people killed. The northern province of Ninevah came in second with 113, followed by nearby Salahuddin province with 94.

The figures exclude deaths in embattled Anbar province, where militants have controlled parts of the provincial capital Ramadi and nearby Fallujah since December. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), a powerful Al-Qaida spin-off group that also operates in neighboring Syria, has intensified its attacks across Iraq as political rivals work to form a new government following parliamentary elections on April 30.

An Iraqi policeman stands by burning vehicles moments after one in a series of bombs hit the Shiite stronghold of Sadr City in Baghdad, Iraq. Violence has claimed the lives of 799 Iraqis in May, the highest monthly death toll so far this year, the United Nations said on Sunday, June 1, underlining the daunting challenges the government faces as it struggles to contain a surge in sectarian violence.

Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's bloc emerged as the biggest winner, securing 92 seats in the 328-member parliament, but it failed to gain the majority needed to govern alone. "I strongly deplore the sustained level of violence and terrorist acts that continues rocking the country," The U.N. Special Representative in Iraq, Nickolay Mladenov, said in the statement. "I urge the political leaders to work swiftly for the formation of an inclusive government within the constitutionally mandated time frame and focus on a substantive solution to the situation in Anbar," he added.

Last year the death toll climbed to its highest levels since the worst of the sectarian strife in 2006 and 2007, when the country was on the brink of civil war. The U.N. says 8,868 people were killed in 2013. The 2011 withdrawal of U.S. forces, which had for eight years often acted as a buffer between Shiites and Sunnis, is thought to have contributed to the rise in violence, in addition to the use of deadly force by the Shiite-led security forces against Sunni protesters.

News from The Associated Press

 

[mudwhistle]

The Liberation of Iraq of lasted from 19 March 2003 to 1 May 2003 -less then 6 weeks!

The objective was achieved ..
so why did it cost 3,000 more lives and $600 billion ?
These COMMENTS are proven by Harvard studies to have contributed to the cost...
A Harvard study found here THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" asked:

"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The short answer is YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy
research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.

The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal.
On a related note, the New York Times reports that the media aren't paying as much attention to Iraq as they used to:
Media attention on Iraq began to wane after the first months of fighting, but as recently as the middle of last year, it was still the most-covered topic.
Since then, Iraq coverage by major American news sources has plummeted to about one-fifth of what it was last summer, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
If the Harvard study is right, we may be looking at a virtuous circle: Less violence means less media coverage, which in turn means less violence, says the Wall Street Journal. Perhaps one day we'll wake up to discover that America won the war in Iraq months earlier, but no one noticed because the reporters were all busy with other things.

Victory in Iraq Day, November 22, 2008

So when these comments were posted and published.. will any of you be honest enough to admit, the comments certainly did not make US troops happy
and DEFINITELY did as the Harvard study stated: "emboldenment".. do more killings of troops over 6 more years!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything " 40,800 Google results

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
39,600 Google results
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children." 92,500 Google results

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners. 127,000 Google results
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians," 94,300 Google results

So Iraq deaths and cost continued because the above remarks HELPED ONLY the terrorists and they were emboldened to prolong!

Our media and our Democrats snatched defeat out of the mouth of victory.

They did it intentionally.

Had they ignored the war like they have since Obama took office Iraq would be different place today.

 

[Freewill]

Articles talking about the mountain of money wasted on the “Iraq War” are becoming more and more common, and they are written from both sides of the political divide.

Regardless of the dollar amount “wasted” (and more importantly, the number of casualties), the war constituted a gigantic miscalculation on the part of both the President (Bush 43) and the then-Congress, for which they should all (the ones who promoted it and voted for it) be tarred and feathered.

In essence, this war was fought to (1) topple Saddam’s regime, because it was perceived internationally as a source of terrorism and needless strife, and (2) capture and destroy his caches of WMD’s. There are those who say that the war was justified by the Bush43 Administration as retaliation for 9/11, but I never read anything from the Administration that made that connection overtly. Saddam was simply considered a Bad Actor who had to be deposed. Hell, there was even evidence that he was pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

Two major underlying assumptions of the Administration both proved to be disastrously false: First, that Saddam had WMD’s, and second, that the population of Iraq would welcome the American emancipators with open arms, then peacefully form a government that would be an example to the Islamic world that Islam and “democracy” were not incompatible. Both of these assumptions were based on information that was considered reliable, but proved otherwise. Perversely, Saddam later admitted after his capture that he intentionally maintained the fiction of his WMD arsenal, to keep Iran from launching another invasion. The idea that anyone would act so catastrophically against his own interests was not even imaginable to the Administration, which is why it never crossed their minds that Saddam might actually be faking his possession of chemical and biological weapons. (Of course, there are those who say that the WMD’s were moved to Syria and are still there).

And as for the optimistic assessment of the aftermath of our invasion, the Administration simply chose to listen to Iraqi expats who, to use the crude vernacular, were talking out of their asses.

But what are “we” really liable for? People both here and abroad like to lay the blame for the four thousand or so American deaths and tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths on the U.S. (and particularly Bush43), but this is bullshit.

We never intended to “conquer” Iraq, or set it up as a colony. And no cogent adult believes that we intended to “steal their oil” (Democrats are generally not “cogent adults” for this purpose). We had no interest in killing Iraqi’s whether they be Sunni, Shia, or Kurd (or Christian). In fact, we were fully prepared to rebuild the whole country after Saddam was gone – infrastructure, schools, utilities, everything – at our own expense. We WANTED to do that! Our only interest in oil was in maximizing their production, so that they could become self-sustaining and the global market prices would float downward.

The killings of Iraqi civilians were not America’s doing (except in rare cases of “collateral damage”), but rather Iraqi’s killing one another because many factions were simply unwilling to accede to civilized power sharing. And this is still the case today.

But this isn’t our fault. It’s theirs. They own it. They own essentially all of the bloodshed after the American invasion, because it is not what we intended or planned for. People who blame these deaths on "America" or "Bush" or Republicans are either stupid or ignorant. We are the Good Guys. We tried to make things better, but were foiled by a population too backward and ignorant to accept our assistance.

It's okay to believe that if it helps you to sleep.

Incredible, huh?

Maybe some kind of delayed guilt reaction is kicking in. Well, I guess I hope it works for them, whatever. Too late now.

.

What part of the bolded do you disagree with?

The war was fairly surgical with civilian deaths being kept to a minimum, and our troops. Basically Saddam's army were targets more then opponents. The real civilian killing came afterwards, at least in my remembrance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Articles talking about the mountain of money wasted on the “Iraq War” are becoming more and more common, and they are written from both sides of the political divide.

Regardless of the dollar amount “wasted” (and more importantly, the number of casualties), the war constituted a gigantic miscalculation on the part of both the President (Bush 43) and the then-Congress, for which they should all (the ones who promoted it and voted for it) be tarred and feathered.

In essence, this war was fought to (1) topple Saddam’s regime, because it was perceived internationally as a source of terrorism and needless strife, and (2) capture and destroy his caches of WMD’s. There are those who say that the war was justified by the Bush43 Administration as retaliation for 9/11, but I never read anything from the Administration that made that connection overtly. Saddam was simply considered a Bad Actor who had to be deposed. Hell, there was even evidence that he was pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

Two major underlying assumptions of the Administration both proved to be disastrously false: First, that Saddam had WMD’s, and second, that the population of Iraq would welcome the American emancipators with open arms, then peacefully form a government that would be an example to the Islamic world that Islam and “democracy” were not incompatible. Both of these assumptions were based on information that was considered reliable, but proved otherwise. Perversely, Saddam later admitted after his capture that he intentionally maintained the fiction of his WMD arsenal, to keep Iran from launching another invasion. The idea that anyone would act so catastrophically against his own interests was not even imaginable to the Administration, which is why it never crossed their minds that Saddam might actually be faking his possession of chemical and biological weapons. (Of course, there are those who say that the WMD’s were moved to Syria and are still there).

And as for the optimistic assessment of the aftermath of our invasion, the Administration simply chose to listen to Iraqi expats who, to use the crude vernacular, were talking out of their asses.

But what are “we” really liable for? People both here and abroad like to lay the blame for the four thousand or so American deaths and tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths on the U.S. (and particularly Bush43), but this is bullshit.

We never intended to “conquer” Iraq, or set it up as a colony. And no cogent adult believes that we intended to “steal their oil” (Democrats are generally not “cogent adults” for this purpose). We had no interest in killing Iraqi’s whether they be Sunni, Shia, or Kurd (or Christian). In fact, we were fully prepared to rebuild the whole country after Saddam was gone – infrastructure, schools, utilities, everything – at our own expense. We WANTED to do that! Our only interest in oil was in maximizing their production, so that they could become self-sustaining and the global market prices would float downward.

The killings of Iraqi civilians were not America’s doing (except in rare cases of “collateral damage”), but rather Iraqi’s killing one another because many factions were simply unwilling to accede to civilized power sharing. And this is still the case today.

But this isn’t our fault. It’s theirs. They own it. They own essentially all of the bloodshed after the American invasion, because it is not what we intended or planned for. People who blame these deaths on "America" or "Bush" or Republicans are either stupid or ignorant. We are the Good Guys. We tried to make things better, but were foiled by a population too backward and ignorant to accept our assistance.

It's not our business to try to 'make things better' through force of arms for people in foreign countries. It is our business to defend the vital national interests of this country.

 

[USNavyVet]

I think 12 years wasted patrolling Iraq after kicking them out of Kuwait was long enough. Actually I wish Clinton had removed Saddam but he's a Democrat and was too busy screwing his intern and breaking laws.

Saddam had violated 22 UN mandates and had shot at our planes and helicopters which were patrolling the no-fly zone. I had no problem removing him. I did have a problem when we dissolved the Iraqi military and were going to rebuild it from the ground up. Did Bush even think about what these guys would do to without jobs? They joined militias and terrorist groups.

However, after several years we could have pulled our troops out and it would have been a victory but we elected a Democrat once again so our troop withdrawal is shown as a loss.

If we're going to talk about money wasted on Iraq, I believe we need to determine the dollar amount spent during those 12 years and factor that into the equation. Should we have enforced the UN mandates another 12 years? Is that really our job?

 

[Freewill]

The Iraq War Was a Good Idea, If You Ask the Kurds

The Iraq War Was a Good Idea, If You Ask the Kurds - Jenna Krajeski - The Atlantic

"Obama is a good family man," a local reporter told me. "But I love Bush more. Bush killed Saddam." He shook his fist and said, "I love America!"

Iraqis vote amid worst violence in years

More than 12 million Iraqis braved potential threats and went to the polls, for a voter turnout of 60%, Iraq's election commission said.

My comment, could you imagine the turn out in America if there was even a threat such as in in Iraq? Hell we are still whining about some thugs with Billy clubs and black SAY they are threatened by white poll watchers. The Iraqi people were given a few gifts by the US. First, and biggest, Saddam and sons are no more. Second they have been given a voice in the way of elections, even women are voting. And thirdly we didn't steal their oil, we didn't steal anything from them it was all a sacrifice for the US and we achieved all objectives.

Now it is up to the Iraqis what they do. I guess the violence they are seeing today is preferable to the despotic rule of Saddam and Sons, but that is up to the Iraqi people to decide.

 

[Freewill]

Articles talking about the mountain of money wasted on the “Iraq War” are becoming more and more common, and they are written from both sides of the political divide.

Regardless of the dollar amount “wasted” (and more importantly, the number of casualties), the war constituted a gigantic miscalculation on the part of both the President (Bush 43) and the then-Congress, for which they should all (the ones who promoted it and voted for it) be tarred and feathered.

In essence, this war was fought to (1) topple Saddam’s regime, because it was perceived internationally as a source of terrorism and needless strife, and (2) capture and destroy his caches of WMD’s. There are those who say that the war was justified by the Bush43 Administration as retaliation for 9/11, but I never read anything from the Administration that made that connection overtly. Saddam was simply considered a Bad Actor who had to be deposed. Hell, there was even evidence that he was pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

Two major underlying assumptions of the Administration both proved to be disastrously false: First, that Saddam had WMD’s, and second, that the population of Iraq would welcome the American emancipators with open arms, then peacefully form a government that would be an example to the Islamic world that Islam and “democracy” were not incompatible. Both of these assumptions were based on information that was considered reliable, but proved otherwise. Perversely, Saddam later admitted after his capture that he intentionally maintained the fiction of his WMD arsenal, to keep Iran from launching another invasion. The idea that anyone would act so catastrophically against his own interests was not even imaginable to the Administration, which is why it never crossed their minds that Saddam might actually be faking his possession of chemical and biological weapons. (Of course, there are those who say that the WMD’s were moved to Syria and are still there).

And as for the optimistic assessment of the aftermath of our invasion, the Administration simply chose to listen to Iraqi expats who, to use the crude vernacular, were talking out of their asses.

But what are “we” really liable for? People both here and abroad like to lay the blame for the four thousand or so American deaths and tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths on the U.S. (and particularly Bush43), but this is bullshit.

We never intended to “conquer” Iraq, or set it up as a colony. And no cogent adult believes that we intended to “steal their oil” (Democrats are generally not “cogent adults” for this purpose). We had no interest in killing Iraqi’s whether they be Sunni, Shia, or Kurd (or Christian). In fact, we were fully prepared to rebuild the whole country after Saddam was gone – infrastructure, schools, utilities, everything – at our own expense. We WANTED to do that! Our only interest in oil was in maximizing their production, so that they could become self-sustaining and the global market prices would float downward.

The killings of Iraqi civilians were not America’s doing (except in rare cases of “collateral damage”), but rather Iraqi’s killing one another because many factions were simply unwilling to accede to civilized power sharing. And this is still the case today.

But this isn’t our fault. It’s theirs. They own it. They own essentially all of the bloodshed after the American invasion, because it is not what we intended or planned for. People who blame these deaths on "America" or "Bush" or Republicans are either stupid or ignorant. We are the Good Guys. We tried to make things better, but were foiled by a population too backward and ignorant to accept our assistance.

It's not our business to try to 'make things better' through force of arms for people in foreign countries. It is our business to defend the vital national interests of this country.

Did you say the same thing when we terror bombed Serbia for 72 days beating them into submission, killing Chinese nationals in the process? Do you remember the scene of the ethnic Serbs in their ethnic cloths standing on the bridge daring Clinton to bomb them? He called their bluff and bombed every bridge crossing the Danube. Which we ended up paying to rebuild. Interesting that bit of news never comes up in the press. What threat to our national interest did Serbia pose? How about Libya or Syria?

Bombed Bridges Block Danube -- Serbs Will Keep River Closed Until West Rebuilds

 

[Freewill]

Iraq Has a Lower Violent Death Rate Than Washington, Baltimore or Atlanta

 

[mudwhistle]

Iraq Has a Lower Violent Death Rate Than Washington, Baltimore or Atlanta

That freeper post was from 2006.

That doesn't apply to 2012-14.

 

[Old Rocks]

Iraq. Post mortem. No WMD. No connection to 9-11. Cost, a couple of trillion and counting. The lives of over 4000 of our sons and daughters. The maiming of tens of thousands of our sons and daughters.

What was gained for the US? Nothing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Articles talking about the mountain of money wasted on the “Iraq War” are becoming more and more common, and they are written from both sides of the political divide.

Regardless of the dollar amount “wasted” (and more importantly, the number of casualties), the war constituted a gigantic miscalculation on the part of both the President (Bush 43) and the then-Congress, for which they should all (the ones who promoted it and voted for it) be tarred and feathered.

In essence, this war was fought to (1) topple Saddam’s regime, because it was perceived internationally as a source of terrorism and needless strife, and (2) capture and destroy his caches of WMD’s. There are those who say that the war was justified by the Bush43 Administration as retaliation for 9/11, but I never read anything from the Administration that made that connection overtly. Saddam was simply considered a Bad Actor who had to be deposed. Hell, there was even evidence that he was pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

Two major underlying assumptions of the Administration both proved to be disastrously false: First, that Saddam had WMD’s, and second, that the population of Iraq would welcome the American emancipators with open arms, then peacefully form a government that would be an example to the Islamic world that Islam and “democracy” were not incompatible. Both of these assumptions were based on information that was considered reliable, but proved otherwise. Perversely, Saddam later admitted after his capture that he intentionally maintained the fiction of his WMD arsenal, to keep Iran from launching another invasion. The idea that anyone would act so catastrophically against his own interests was not even imaginable to the Administration, which is why it never crossed their minds that Saddam might actually be faking his possession of chemical and biological weapons. (Of course, there are those who say that the WMD’s were moved to Syria and are still there).

And as for the optimistic assessment of the aftermath of our invasion, the Administration simply chose to listen to Iraqi expats who, to use the crude vernacular, were talking out of their asses.

But what are “we” really liable for? People both here and abroad like to lay the blame for the four thousand or so American deaths and tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths on the U.S. (and particularly Bush43), but this is bullshit.

We never intended to “conquer” Iraq, or set it up as a colony. And no cogent adult believes that we intended to “steal their oil” (Democrats are generally not “cogent adults” for this purpose). We had no interest in killing Iraqi’s whether they be Sunni, Shia, or Kurd (or Christian). In fact, we were fully prepared to rebuild the whole country after Saddam was gone – infrastructure, schools, utilities, everything – at our own expense. We WANTED to do that! Our only interest in oil was in maximizing their production, so that they could become self-sustaining and the global market prices would float downward.

The killings of Iraqi civilians were not America’s doing (except in rare cases of “collateral damage”), but rather Iraqi’s killing one another because many factions were simply unwilling to accede to civilized power sharing. And this is still the case today.

But this isn’t our fault. It’s theirs. They own it. They own essentially all of the bloodshed after the American invasion, because it is not what we intended or planned for. People who blame these deaths on "America" or "Bush" or Republicans are either stupid or ignorant. We are the Good Guys. We tried to make things better, but were foiled by a population too backward and ignorant to accept our assistance.

It's not our business to try to 'make things better' through force of arms for people in foreign countries. It is our business to defend the vital national interests of this country.

Did you say the same thing when we terror bombed Serbia for 72 days beating them into submission, killing Chinese nationals in the process? Do you remember the scene of the ethnic Serbs in their ethnic cloths standing on the bridge daring Clinton to bomb them? He called their bluff and bombed every bridge crossing the Danube. Which we ended up paying to rebuild. Interesting that bit of news never comes up in the press. What threat to our national interest did Serbia pose? How about Libya or Syria?

Bombed Bridges Block Danube -- Serbs Will Keep River Closed Until West Rebuilds

For the THOUSANDTH time I'm on record opposing military intervention in Libya and Syria. Write that down somewhere so you won't ask me the same retarded question again.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In its own way the current VA scandal is a grim reminder of what the real cost of Iraq will be, over the long term, until Iraq veterans are no more.

 

[mudwhistle]

In its own way the current VA scandal is a grim reminder of what the real cost of Iraq will be, over the long term, until Iraq veterans are no more.

So you hope they die, and die quickly?

We still have WWII and Korean veterans hanging around, as well as Vietnam, Grenada, and Somalia vets.

Wanna snuff them as well?

 

[Dayton3]

The Bush Admin. made some major mistakes regarding Iraq and none of them had anything to do with WMDs (which was a very reasonable and supported error).

1) They assumed that in terms of infrastructure Iraq in 2003 was about the same as Iraq in 1991.

In reality, after 12 years of sanctions, Hussein's horrendous mismanagement and outright theft, and occasional U.S. airstrikes, Iraq's infrastructure was teetering on the verge of collapse in 2003 and promptly collapsed in the aftermath of the invasion..

2) They assumed that Iraq socially was not that different from 1991 and would hold together fairly well even after the Sunni's were ousted.

Instead, an extra decade of Saddam's dictatorship had far sharpened internal hatreds and differences.

3) They severely misjudged the international opposition to the invasion which robbed it of a great deal of legitimacy both at home and abroad. The international opposition seemed to mainly be a reaction to the idea of "President George W. Bush leading it" rather than any real international standard.

4) They failed to build political support in the aftermath of the invasion when it became clear the U.S. was in for a long, hard occupation. This allowed President Obama to basically walk away from it and allow Iraq to plunge back into chaos.