Does anyone care we won the war in IRAQ?

[JWBooth]

Watching Condy Rice come up with new justifications for the invasion of Iraq was like watching Janet Reno do the same for the siege at Waco. They were both pissing on our collective legs and calling it rain.

 

[flacaltenn]

JRK:

I understand your frustration with this discussion. But I can't understand why Conservatives continue to let themselves be Rope-a-Doped into defending the "liberation" of Iraq on the basis of WMDs and PAST threats of Saddam.

All that is required is to show how morally depraved and unsuccessful the 12 year containment policy was. HISTORY won't ignore those 12 years. They won't ignore the Oil for Food fiasco. They won't ignore the 250,000 deaths from taking the keys to the Iraqi economy away. The only choice was whether to follow the EU and lower the containment -- or to take out Saddam.

Saddam was NOT a threat based on facts about Iraqi capabilities existing in 2001. Just accept that part. But 9/11 changed the choice matrix. We could not go to war with Al Queda while the Arab watched the lockdown of the Iraqis and daily bombings. Couldn't make the claim that we were not at war with the Arab world. And the NEW threat from Saddam would be letting him out of containment.

Because after 12 years in solitary with a madman -- the Iraqis were PRIMED to support anti-US interests going forward. My God -- sometimes Conservatives are as dense as leftists.. Stop trying soo hard to defend the lying part. Just use the facts.. Clinton is on record with the same dam lies and claims that "Saddam must go before the containment ends". It's POINTLESS to argue a difference there.

What becomes clear is that a brave decision was made to FIX 14 years of really really bad Iraq policy. And at least Bush chose to fix it..

You're right, the containment policy was appalling - mainly to the people of Iraq.

The justifications for the invasion are muddied in my mind however, because of the stated intention of PNAC to remove Saddam well before 9/11 and the election of the Bush government.
PNAC of course was strongly represented in the Bush administration.

I believe that the invasion was pre-ordained, 9/11 provided the perfect opportunity, justifications were manufactured before the invasion and new justifications were provided after the original reasons were found to be wanting.

Further, the mishandling of the post-invasion situation shows that the only goal in the minds of Bush administration was the removal of Saddam, no consideration was taken of wider objectives or consequences.

Well of course the invasion was pre-ordained. AND NOT by just the neocons at PNAC. I can quote you CLINTON policy that the containment would not be lifted until Saddam resigned power (good luck with getting that WITHOUT military force). In fact ironically Clinton commissioned the "3 Jew roadshow" to go to the public and drum up support for taking out Saddam..

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/iraq172.htm

Clinton team jeered during town hall

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Facing tough questions from America's heartland, the Clinton administration's foreign policy team tried to make the case Wednesday for U.S. military action against Iraq. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called Iraq's disputed weapons arsenal the "greatest security threat we face."

Speaking over persistent jeers at Ohio State University, Albright said President Clinton prefers a diplomatic way out of the crisis but stressed, "It must be a true, not a phony, solution."

Clinton went on national TV Tuesday to explain the rationale for possible military action. With opposition mounting in Congress and doubts in the minds of many Americans, he decided to dispatch his top foreign policy aides to address those concerns.

To illustrate Saddam's history of using weapons of mass destruction, Cohen showed the audience a picture of an Iraqi woman holding a dead child in her arms. He said they had been gassed by Saddam's forces.

The petty party partisians have had a decade now to butcher the actual history and timeline of this decision. The truth is that if lies were embellished to justify going into Iraq again -- those SAME LIES were the unholy basis of the 12 yr. containment policy. No WMDs means that BOTH the awful containment and the "solution" were based on the same phoney posturing. WHY?

Because no mainstream US political regime was gonna admit that containment was failing and just toss the keys to Saddam for his economy. We have the same sucky foreign policy decisions regardless of which cartel party is in charge.

 

[Unkotare]

You would have preferred an invasion of the Soviet Union at some point in the past compared to how the Cold War eventually played out?

If we could have prevented between 25 and 60 million from dying under Soviet rule, and countless others suffering under the yoke of communism? Of course I would have preferred that.

Why? What is the vital national interest of the United States of what goes on inside a country like Russia, or China, or North Korea, or the Congo, or the Sudan, or Angola, or Zimbabwe, or Cuba???

60 million human lives are always of vital interest to the US. One might also consider the incredible cost of the Cold War and the generations of Americans who lived under the specter of imminent destruction.

 

[flacaltenn]

Watching Condy Rice come up with new justifications for the invasion of Iraq was like watching Janet Reno do the same for the siege at Waco. They were both pissing on our collective legs and calling it rain.

Agreed -- but refer to the Clinton War road show quote in my previous quote. Same lies were used then to justify taking militiary action. And the same lies used to perpetuate the 12 yr brutal containment of Iraq. If there was no WMD -- why did we lock them and bomb them for 12 years?

And how could we go to war with Al Queda after 9.11 and claim that we "were not at war with Arabs" while we sat on Iraq and watched 100s of thousand die?

A decision NEEDED to be made..

 

[Unkotare]

[

Face it, we threw away thousands of American lives for NOTHING. .

If that is your OPINION, then you are a short-sighted fool.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If we could have prevented between 25 and 60 million from dying under Soviet rule, and countless others suffering under the yoke of communism? Of course I would have preferred that.

Why? What is the vital national interest of the United States of what goes on inside a country like Russia, or China, or North Korea, or the Congo, or the Sudan, or Angola, or Zimbabwe, or Cuba???

60 million human lives are always of vital interest to the US. One might also consider the incredible cost of the Cold War and the generations of Americans who lived under the specter of imminent destruction.

Then why haven't we been militarily involved throughout Africa for the past 10, 20, 30 you-name-it number of years?

Do you want some death tolls cited from the neverending conflicts that have gone on there?

Was it in the vital national interests of the United States to try to stop the conflict in the Congo for the last couple decades? How many millions have died there?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If we could have prevented between 25 and 60 million from dying under Soviet rule, and countless others suffering under the yoke of communism? Of course I would have preferred that.

Why? What is the vital national interest of the United States of what goes on inside a country like Russia, or China, or North Korea, or the Congo, or the Sudan, or Angola, or Zimbabwe, or Cuba???

60 million human lives are always of vital interest to the US. One might also consider the incredible cost of the Cold War and the generations of Americans who lived under the specter of imminent destruction.

So World War III with the Soviets would have been better than what has actually happened over the last 50 years?

Does anyone here NOT find that idea a contestant for craziest thing ever said on USMB??

ANYONE????

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Face it, we threw away thousands of American lives for NOTHING. .

If that is your OPINION, then you are a short-sighted fool.

You're now the guy who would have preferred World War III to the Cold War;

I think it's safe to say you've disqualified yourself from being a credible judge of anyone else's opinions.

 

[JoeB131]

I have realized that the liberals are going to do what ever it takes to taint the great victory in Iraq
Does anyone realize that war is over and it looks like we will be 100% gone in 6 months?
That there is a republic in place?
and that women vote and hold office?
I had no idea that the liberal media and there cock suckers would go to the level they have to make the troops look bad and make the success they fought hard for look like, well ask Drock and that crew
I dont even know how to explain it
DOES ANYBODY CARE WE WON?

Not really.

What does that get us in the long term? Was "women can hold office" really worth 5000 American lives? Because women were holding office when Saddam was in power.

We need to get the hell out of the middle east and wash our hands of the whole mess.

The end result is that the Shi'ite majority is now in charge of the country, and they have close ties to Iran. Some of the very people who were murdering Americans are now the power brokers, like Al-Sadr.

I'm happy enough that we got rid of Saddam, because he was scum, but we need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that we can have all that much influence over there.

 

[Unkotare]

Why? What is the vital national interest of the United States of what goes on inside a country like Russia, or China, or North Korea, or the Congo, or the Sudan, or Angola, or Zimbabwe, or Cuba???

60 million human lives are always of vital interest to the US. One might also consider the incredible cost of the Cold War and the generations of Americans who lived under the specter of imminent destruction.

Then why haven't we been militarily involved throughout Africa for the past 10, 20, 30 you-name-it number of years?

Do you want some death tolls cited from the neverending conflicts that have gone on there?

Was it in the vital national interests of the United States to try to stop the conflict in the Congo for the last couple decades? How many millions have died there?

Are you under the impression that every situation is the same, and that every situation suggests the same response? Are you really that thick-headed?

 

[JRK]

I have realized that the liberals are going to do what ever it takes to taint the great victory in Iraq
Does anyone realize that war is over and it looks like we will be 100% gone in 6 months?
That there is a republic in place?
and that women vote and hold office?
I had no idea that the liberal media and there cock suckers would go to the level they have to make the troops look bad and make the success they fought hard for look like, well ask Drock and that crew
I dont even know how to explain it
DOES ANYBODY CARE WE WON?

Not really.

What does that get us in the long term? Was "women can hold office" really worth 5000 American lives? Because women were holding office when Saddam was in power.

We need to get the hell out of the middle east and wash our hands of the whole mess.

The end result is that the Shi'ite majority is now in charge of the country, and they have close ties to Iran. Some of the very people who were murdering Americans are now the power brokers, like Al-Sadr.

I'm happy enough that we got rid of Saddam, because he was scum, but we need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that we can have all that much influence over there.

That's a liberal myth that we tried to change those people's culture
We went there to rid the world of Saddam
take control of the weapons he had including the yellow cake that was there
fight the Al Queida that was there, and bringing them to room temp
forming a republic

 

[JoeB131]

[

That's a liberal myth that we tried to change those people's culture
We went there to rid the world of Saddam
take control of the weapons he had including the yellow cake that was there
fight the Al Queida that was there, and bringing them to room temp
forming a republic

BUt that wasn't our legal justificiation. Our justification was to get rid of WMD's that weren't actually there. He didn't have weapons of mass destruction.

The end result was that we've tried to impose modern forms of government on people who have no use for them.

What we should be doing is establishing energy independence.

 

[JRK]

[

That's a liberal myth that we tried to change those people's culture
We went there to rid the world of Saddam
take control of the weapons he had including the yellow cake that was there
fight the Al Queida that was there, and bringing them to room temp
forming a republic

BUt that wasn't our legal justificiation. Our justification was to get rid of WMD's that weren't actually there. He didn't have weapons of mass destruction.

The end result was that we've tried to impose modern forms of government on people who have no use for them.

What we should be doing is establishing energy independence.

Another liberal myth
all though the stock piles the UN stated Saddam had were never found
There was over 500 illegal munitions found that meet the criteria of a WMD
there fore the war was a legal war
It can also be said the 550 metric tons of yellow cake sold to Canada in 2008 was sufficient to make the war legal
it is sort of a double whammy
There is no grey area here
The war as congress mandated it was legal, this was decided in the courts before we invaded

 

[Vanquish]

Is this sarcasm or are you getting the words liberal and conservative mixed up. It's hard to tell.

 

[JRK]

Is this sarcasm or are you getting the words liberal and conservative mixed up. It's hard to tell.

I cannot respond until I understand the question.
There is no doubt what my thread sates
this is why the question confuses me

 

[Wry Catcher]

Is this sarcasm or are you getting the words liberal and conservative mixed up. It's hard to tell.

I cannot respond until I understand the question.
There is no doubt what my thread sates
this is why the question confuses me

4,500 American servicemen and women killed, ten times that number wounded, many permanently and over a $ trillion dollars and counting spent on a war of choice. What the hell would it look like if we had lost?

 

[JRK]

Is this sarcasm or are you getting the words liberal and conservative mixed up. It's hard to tell.

I cannot respond until I understand the question.
There is no doubt what my thread sates
this is why the question confuses me

4,500 American servicemen and women killed, ten times that number wounded, many permanently and over a $ trillion dollars and counting spent on a war of choice. What the hell would it look like if we had lost?

well we would still be paying for bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as well as funding the UN to do what ever it is they were doing to start with

As far as the troops being hurt and killed as well as most of the cost, most of that came from fight Al Quidea in Iraq and Afghanistan, We were not fighting Iraqi troops loyal to Saddam within weeks of invading other than those who also fought with Al Quidea
Now if you can get them to stop flying passenger jets into buildings and killing innocent civilians then we can stop with the war to defend this country

And dont tell me that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, that has nothing to do with where Al Quidea was hiding after we began to get after them and it has nothing to do with Saddam lying and not cooperating

 

[Vanquish]

Is this sarcasm or are you getting the words liberal and conservative mixed up. It's hard to tell.

I cannot respond until I understand the question.
There is no doubt what my thread sates
this is why the question confuses me

There's TONS of doubt with what your thread states.
You've gotten things twisted to the point where "liberal myths" are the things republicans say...not liberals.

you're not making sense.

 

[JRK]

Is this sarcasm or are you getting the words liberal and conservative mixed up. It's hard to tell.

I cannot respond until I understand the question.
There is no doubt what my thread sates
this is why the question confuses me

There's TONS of doubt with what your thread states.
You've gotten things twisted to the point where "liberal myths" are the things republicans say...not liberals.

you're not making sense.

there is nothing twisted about what I have said
you are wasting your time trying to get me to debate that with you
Libs have gotten to the point all you have left is to accuse and then debate the accusation that never happened

not making sense?
there is no doubt with any of my threads
go away or man up and tell me what is wrong with any of them specifically and stop being a whining liberal

 

[Unkotare]

[

The end result was that we've tried to impose modern forms of government on people who have no use for them. .

Who the fuck are you to determine that the Iraqi people "have no use" for democracy, asshole?