Simple Question: Did we (USA) win Iraq War?

[CurveLight]

It's called facts.

I was going to let it go but I can't....so.....how can it be claimed the study is from a non-biased source when the lead author is a signatory participant of the PNAC? On at least two occasions he signed letters to Congress urging they continue the neocon agenda. Isn't that like asking Rudolph to criticize Santa's sleigh skills then claiming it was an unbiased assessment?

The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, DC. Our mission is to conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations that advance three broad goals:

* Strengthen American democracy;
* Foster the economic and social welfare, security and opportunity of all Americans and
* Secure a more open, safe, prosperous and cooperative international system.

Brookings is proud to be consistently ranked as the most influential, most quoted and most trusted think tank.


What more need anyone say?


Quality. Independence. Impact. - Brookings Institution

Fallacy: Red Herring

 

[CurveLight]

No, we occupied Germany and Japan after WW2 because we could. So I guess that makes us imperialists.
The North occupied the South in the civil war. So I guess they were imperialists too.

I am convinced you have no idea what you are talking about. Simple terms in common use in political science elude you. So you substitute whatever you think might bolster your case. It is sad. A little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.

All of those references are known as a Reconstruction Period. That usually happens after a Nation Surrenders. One more time......your Germany and Napoleon analogies fail because in both cases the Allies fought against Imperialism committed by those Nations. In this situation it is us, America, that is guilty of the Imperialism. Iraq posed no threat as Cheney stated on 9/16/01. (it really doesn't help your case to spend more time trying to say how stupid others are instead making your case)

 

[The Rabbi]

No, we occupied Germany and Japan after WW2 because we could. So I guess that makes us imperialists.
The North occupied the South in the civil war. So I guess they were imperialists too.

I am convinced you have no idea what you are talking about. Simple terms in common use in political science elude you. So you substitute whatever you think might bolster your case. It is sad. A little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.

All of those references are known as a Reconstruction Period. That usually happens after a Nation Surrenders. One more time......your Germany and Napoleon analogies fail because in both cases the Allies fought against Imperialism committed by those Nations. In this situation it is us, America, that is guilty of the Imperialism. Iraq posed no threat as Cheney stated on 9/16/01. (it really doesn't help your case to spend more time trying to say how stupid others are instead making your case)

Yes, that is what we are doing in Iraq, reconstruction. Or did you miss that part of it?

 

[CurveLight]

I was going to let it go but I can't....so.....how can it be claimed the study is from a non-biased source when the lead author is a signatory participant of the PNAC? On at least two occasions he signed letters to Congress urging they continue the neocon agenda. Isn't that like asking Rudolph to criticize Santa's sleigh skills then claiming it was an unbiased assessment?

The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, DC. Our mission is to conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations that advance three broad goals:

* Strengthen American democracy;
* Foster the economic and social welfare, security and opportunity of all Americans and
* Secure a more open, safe, prosperous and cooperative international system.

Brookings is proud to be consistently ranked as the most influential, most quoted and most trusted think tank.


What more need anyone say?


Quality. Independence. Impact. - Brookings Institution

Fallacy: Red Herring

No, we occupied Germany and Japan after WW2 because we could. So I guess that makes us imperialists.
The North occupied the South in the civil war. So I guess they were imperialists too.

I am convinced you have no idea what you are talking about. Simple terms in common use in political science elude you. So you substitute whatever you think might bolster your case. It is sad. A little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.

All of those references are known as a Reconstruction Period. That usually happens after a Nation Surrenders. One more time......your Germany and Napoleon analogies fail because in both cases the Allies fought against Imperialism committed by those Nations. In this situation it is us, America, that is guilty of the Imperialism. Iraq posed no threat as Cheney stated on 9/16/01. (it really doesn't help your case to spend more time trying to say how stupid others are instead making your case)

Yes, that is what we are doing in Iraq, reconstruction. Or did you miss that part of it?

Cherry picking should only be a lifestyle for farmers. We had no legit reason to invade and occupy so what we are doing is Imperialism. Reconstruction only happens after a legit War has ended. By your logic the victim of a stab would should thank his attacker for helping clean up the blood.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

No, we occupied Germany and Japan after WW2 because we could. So I guess that makes us imperialists.
The North occupied the South in the civil war. So I guess they were imperialists too.

I am convinced you have no idea what you are talking about. Simple terms in common use in political science elude you. So you substitute whatever you think might bolster your case. It is sad. A little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.

All of those references are known as a Reconstruction Period. That usually happens after a Nation Surrenders. One more time......your Germany and Napoleon analogies fail because in both cases the Allies fought against Imperialism committed by those Nations. In this situation it is us, America, that is guilty of the Imperialism. Iraq posed no threat as Cheney stated on 9/16/01. (it really doesn't help your case to spend more time trying to say how stupid others are instead making your case)

Yes, that is what we are doing in Iraq, reconstruction. Or did you miss that part of it?

How much of that "rebuilding" has actually been succesful? There are a good number of buildings built by KBR that are not fit for use. Shoddy workmanship and substandard materials have resulted in MASSIVE number of FAILED projects.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, DC. Our mission is to conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations that advance three broad goals:

* Strengthen American democracy;
* Foster the economic and social welfare, security and opportunity of all Americans and
* Secure a more open, safe, prosperous and cooperative international system.

Brookings is proud to be consistently ranked as the most influential, most quoted and most trusted think tank.


What more need anyone say?


Quality. Independence. Impact. - Brookings Institution

Fallacy: Red Herring

All of those references are known as a Reconstruction Period. That usually happens after a Nation Surrenders. One more time......your Germany and Napoleon analogies fail because in both cases the Allies fought against Imperialism committed by those Nations. In this situation it is us, America, that is guilty of the Imperialism. Iraq posed no threat as Cheney stated on 9/16/01. (it really doesn't help your case to spend more time trying to say how stupid others are instead making your case)

Yes, that is what we are doing in Iraq, reconstruction. Or did you miss that part of it?

Cherry picking should only be a lifestyle for farmers. We had no legit reason to invade and occupy so what we are doing is Imperialism. Reconstruction only happens after a legit War has ended. By your logic the victim of a stab would should thank his attacker for helping clean up the blood.

And redefining should only be done by lexicographers.
Reconstruction is the process of reconstructing. Nothing more. Dragging in whether the invasion was justified or not is a red herring and irrelevant to the issue of reconstruction.
And the war was justified. There was ample legal and historical justification for it.
You're not happy with that? You thought somethign else should have been done? Bully for you.
But you lost.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Fallacy: Red Herring

Yes, that is what we are doing in Iraq, reconstruction. Or did you miss that part of it?

Cherry picking should only be a lifestyle for farmers. We had no legit reason to invade and occupy so what we are doing is Imperialism. Reconstruction only happens after a legit War has ended. By your logic the victim of a stab would should thank his attacker for helping clean up the blood.

And redefining should only be done by lexicographers.
Reconstruction is the process of reconstructing. Nothing more. Dragging in whether the invasion was justified or not is a red herring and irrelevant to the issue of reconstruction.
And the war was justified. There was ample legal and historical justification for it.
You're not happy with that? You thought somethign else should have been done? Bully for you.
But you lost.

First of all I thought OIL was supposed to pay for "reconstrution" but I guess you are MORE than happy to have tax $$$ go to "reconstruction".


Second there is absolutely NO legal justification for the war in Iraq, NONE!! What we did was a PREVENTITIVE war not a PREEMPTIVE war. There IS a difference you know. So go get a fucking education on the topic before you spout off. Now I'm gonna help you out a bit hey little guy. Go look up the terms PREEMPTIVE and PREVENTITIVE wars and you may begin to understand how ILLEGAL our attack on Iraq really is.

Note also an Israeli attack on Iran would ALSO be illegal.

 

[The Rabbi]

Cherry picking should only be a lifestyle for farmers. We had no legit reason to invade and occupy so what we are doing is Imperialism. Reconstruction only happens after a legit War has ended. By your logic the victim of a stab would should thank his attacker for helping clean up the blood.

And redefining should only be done by lexicographers.
Reconstruction is the process of reconstructing. Nothing more. Dragging in whether the invasion was justified or not is a red herring and irrelevant to the issue of reconstruction.
And the war was justified. There was ample legal and historical justification for it.
You're not happy with that? You thought somethign else should have been done? Bully for you.
But you lost.

First of all I thought OIL was supposed to pay for "reconstrution" but I guess you are MORE than happy to have tax $$$ go to "reconstruction".


Second there is absolutely NO legal justification for the war in Iraq, NONE!! What we did was a PREVENTITIVE war not a PREEMPTIVE war. There IS a difference you know. So go get a fucking education on the topic before you spout off. Now I'm gonna help you out a bit hey little guy. Go look up the terms PREEMPTIVE and PREVENTITIVE wars and you may begin to understand how ILLEGAL our attack on Iraq really is.

Note also an Israeli attack on Iran would ALSO be illegal.

You were either asleep while this debate was going on or more likely watching Sat morning cartoons.
There was ample legal justification.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

And redefining should only be done by lexicographers.
Reconstruction is the process of reconstructing. Nothing more. Dragging in whether the invasion was justified or not is a red herring and irrelevant to the issue of reconstruction.
And the war was justified. There was ample legal and historical justification for it.
You're not happy with that? You thought somethign else should have been done? Bully for you.
But you lost.

First of all I thought OIL was supposed to pay for "reconstrution" but I guess you are MORE than happy to have tax $$$ go to "reconstruction".


Second there is absolutely NO legal justification for the war in Iraq, NONE!! What we did was a PREVENTITIVE war not a PREEMPTIVE war. There IS a difference you know. So go get a fucking education on the topic before you spout off. Now I'm gonna help you out a bit hey little guy. Go look up the terms PREEMPTIVE and PREVENTITIVE wars and you may begin to understand how ILLEGAL our attack on Iraq really is.

Note also an Israeli attack on Iran would ALSO be illegal.

You were either asleep while this debate was going on or more likely watching Sat morning cartoons.
There was ample legal justification.

Bullshit it was TOTALLY unjustified and ILLEGAL. Go look up the terms I asked you to and tell me on WHAT basis EXACTELY we had the right to declare war on Iraq.......The terrorists came from SAUDI ARABIA. Do you get it? Do you UNDERSTAND? Obviously you don't and you clearly don't WANT to.

We based our attack on info provided by a guy code named CURVEBALL!!!!

 

[The Rabbi]

First of all I thought OIL was supposed to pay for "reconstrution" but I guess you are MORE than happy to have tax $$$ go to "reconstruction".


Second there is absolutely NO legal justification for the war in Iraq, NONE!! What we did was a PREVENTITIVE war not a PREEMPTIVE war. There IS a difference you know. So go get a fucking education on the topic before you spout off. Now I'm gonna help you out a bit hey little guy. Go look up the terms PREEMPTIVE and PREVENTITIVE wars and you may begin to understand how ILLEGAL our attack on Iraq really is.

Note also an Israeli attack on Iran would ALSO be illegal.

You were either asleep while this debate was going on or more likely watching Sat morning cartoons.
There was ample legal justification.

Bullshit it was TOTALLY unjustified and ILLEGAL. Go look up the terms I asked you to and tell me on WHAT basis EXACTELY we had the right to declare war on Iraq.......The terrorists came from SAUDI ARABIA. Do you get it? Do you UNDERSTAND? Obviously you don't and you clearly don't WANT to.

We based our attack on info provided by a guy code named CURVEBALL!!!!

I am not going to sit here and rehash the US's legal claim to use force to enforce the Gulf War treaty terms and UN sanctions. These have been covered well enough.
And I am not going to engage someone who wants to use a discredited red herring argument about 9/11 not coming from Iraq. That has already had way too much bandwidth devoted to it before dying a justified death.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

You were either asleep while this debate was going on or more likely watching Sat morning cartoons.
There was ample legal justification.

Bullshit it was TOTALLY unjustified and ILLEGAL. Go look up the terms I asked you to and tell me on WHAT basis EXACTELY we had the right to declare war on Iraq.......The terrorists came from SAUDI ARABIA. Do you get it? Do you UNDERSTAND? Obviously you don't and you clearly don't WANT to.

We based our attack on info provided by a guy code named CURVEBALL!!!!

I am not going to sit here and rehash the US's legal claim to use force to enforce the Gulf War treaty terms and UN sanctions. These have been covered well enough.
And I am not going to engage someone who wants to use a discredited red herring argument about 9/11 not coming from Iraq. That has already had way too much bandwidth devoted to it before dying a justified death.

So based on your reasoning we should attack Israel because they have broken so many UN sanctions it's not even funny.


And I am not sure you understand the term "Red Herring". There was and still is ZERO connection between Al Qaeda, in fact, Saddam DESPISED Al Qaeda.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Sorry that you can't back up your claims with facts but that's YOUR problem not mine. I have showed you that PREEMTIVE and PREVENTITIVE wars and that th US engaged in the latter which is NOT a legal justification.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Oh and quit trying to equate WWII to the Gulf war it is a demeening to those who fought in WWII who are STILL the finest generation of our time. It's sad to see them dying out.

 

[CurveLight]

Fallacy: Red Herring

Yes, that is what we are doing in Iraq, reconstruction. Or did you miss that part of it?

Cherry picking should only be a lifestyle for farmers. We had no legit reason to invade and occupy so what we are doing is Imperialism. Reconstruction only happens after a legit War has ended. By your logic the victim of a stab would should thank his attacker for helping clean up the blood.

And redefining should only be done by lexicographers.
Reconstruction is the process of reconstructing. Nothing more. Dragging in whether the invasion was justified or not is a red herring and irrelevant to the issue of reconstruction.
And the war was justified. There was ample legal and historical justification for it.
You're not happy with that? You thought somethign else should have been done? Bully for you.
But you lost.

Reconstruction has a specific geopolitical meaning regarding the end of a war between nations where one formally surrenders. By your standard here it means it is impossible for imperialism to exist because when one nation invades another and blows the shit out of it followed by an occupation, you can just call it Reconstruction and completely ignore the fact it was not a legitimate invasion. You're just pissed because your lousy analogies to Germany and Napoleon helped prove our actions in Iraq are Imperialistic. So what do you do? Make false accusations.

 

[CurveLight]

You were either asleep while this debate was going on or more likely watching Sat morning cartoons.
There was ample legal justification.

Bullshit it was TOTALLY unjustified and ILLEGAL. Go look up the terms I asked you to and tell me on WHAT basis EXACTELY we had the right to declare war on Iraq.......The terrorists came from SAUDI ARABIA. Do you get it? Do you UNDERSTAND? Obviously you don't and you clearly don't WANT to.

We based our attack on info provided by a guy code named CURVEBALL!!!!

I am not going to sit here and rehash the US's legal claim to use force to enforce the Gulf War treaty terms and UN sanctions. These have been covered well enough.
And I am not going to engage someone who wants to use a discredited red herring argument about 9/11 not coming from Iraq. That has already had way too much bandwidth devoted to it before dying a justified death.

The US had no legal authority to arbitrarily enforce a UN Sanctioned Cease Fire Agreement. I think you are smart enough to know all of that but your Nationalism is prevailing over intellectual honesty and will continue to do so until you learn to define yourself as an individual rather than rely almost entirely on the government as a crutch for self identity.

 

[CurveLight]

You were either asleep while this debate was going on or more likely watching Sat morning cartoons.
There was ample legal justification.

Bullshit it was TOTALLY unjustified and ILLEGAL. Go look up the terms I asked you to and tell me on WHAT basis EXACTELY we had the right to declare war on Iraq.......The terrorists came from SAUDI ARABIA. Do you get it? Do you UNDERSTAND? Obviously you don't and you clearly don't WANT to.

We based our attack on info provided by a guy code named CURVEBALL!!!!

I am not going to sit here and rehash the US's legal claim to use force to enforce the Gulf War treaty terms and UN sanctions. These have been covered well enough.
And I am not going to engage someone who wants to use a discredited red herring argument about 9/11 not coming from Iraq. That has already had way too much bandwidth devoted to it before dying a justified death.

The US had no legal authority to arbitrarily enforce a UN Sanctioned Cease Fire Agreement. I think you are smart enough to know all of that but your Nationalism is prevailing over intellectual honesty and will continue to do so until you learn to define yourself as an individual rather than rely almost entirely on the government as a crutch for self identity.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Hey Rabbi isn't cutting and running a bad thing? How about you come back here and answer the questions.

 

[CurveLight]

Perle is the only pro colonialism freak who had the balls to be honest and you have to respect that.



"I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."


"international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone",
War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal | UK news | The Guardian

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Wasn't it GHW Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld who saw the perils of removing Saddam not worth the risk. I am sorry but the sad FACT of Iraq is that the MINORITY rule is the only way to keep them from being slaughtered. Mark my words when we leave it will be a blood bath for the minority.

 

[The Rabbi]

Bullshit it was TOTALLY unjustified and ILLEGAL. Go look up the terms I asked you to and tell me on WHAT basis EXACTELY we had the right to declare war on Iraq.......The terrorists came from SAUDI ARABIA. Do you get it? Do you UNDERSTAND? Obviously you don't and you clearly don't WANT to.

We based our attack on info provided by a guy code named CURVEBALL!!!!

I am not going to sit here and rehash the US's legal claim to use force to enforce the Gulf War treaty terms and UN sanctions. These have been covered well enough.
And I am not going to engage someone who wants to use a discredited red herring argument about 9/11 not coming from Iraq. That has already had way too much bandwidth devoted to it before dying a justified death.

The US had no legal authority to arbitrarily enforce a UN Sanctioned Cease Fire Agreement. I think you are smart enough to know all of that but your Nationalism is prevailing over intellectual honesty and will continue to do so until you learn to define yourself as an individual rather than rely almost entirely on the government as a crutch for self identity.

As I said, I'm not arguing whether the US was justified. That has been rehashed too many times already.
Suffice it to say, your arguments have been show to be fallacious and rely on idiosyncratic redefinitions of words to suit your own desires.
Thanks for playing, boys.