The Madness of King George: The Worst Mistake in U.S. History

[California Girl]

Bush is the most spectacular failure in the history of the US presidency.

The slimy Tejan puto got nothing right. The halfwith little cocksucker let the US be attacked by Saudi Arabians, then invaded one country with no connection to the attacks and another that is the graveyard of empire, neither of which will take longer than six months to revert to something worse than was there before that slimy little cocksucker and his band of scum invaded.

Vietnam... Jesus. It almost seems rational compared to what that halfwit inheritor put at risk trying to impress his mother on the US taxpayer's dime and blood in Asia minor.

Before obama.

Now we doubled-down on stupid and elected the most incompetant person we could find. Twice. We deserve what happens.

Twice? I'd have said four times... Bush x 2, Obama x 2. As a people, Americans don't seem capable of learning from their mistakes. Pity.

 

[ekrem]

Vietnam cost far more lives and was ultimately a complete failure. Iraq is not. Saddam & psychopathic sons are dead, the Ba'athist party is kaput, Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbors, the oil taps are open and on the market and Iraq is developing democratic institutions virtually unrivaled in Middle East.

I suppose to the OP, the idiot who wrote the article and others, these are not good things. However, by the standards of the many who did not think Saddam was a good guy, Iraq was clearly a success. Vietnam was not by any standard.

These are just "feel-good" phrases to placate the reality, tat Iraq was a major failure, even before the first bombs were dropped.
All the US soldiers died for nothing, and given the Iraqi civil casualities it is nothing to mourn about.

 

[ekrem]

The premise of this thread is that Iraq was the biggest mistake in US foreign policy. Iraq has ultimately succeeded despite the dire predictions of a Shia theocracy, a divided state and the hoards of Iraqis who would invariably become terrorists.

The facts are in direct contradiction to the premise and the results of a relatively stable country which is developing democratic institutions cannot be refuted. Contrast, if you will the cost of human life and the results with the war in Vietnam.

Btw, people who are pretentious enough to believe they can dictate what is moral are no different than sanctimonious brimstone and hellfire preachers. They both disgust me.

The premise is not based on whatever one might think of the present country of Iraq. The subject is how much of a disaster the whole thing continues to be for this nation, America.

Present Iraq is a total fuck-up.
You don't have to dive deep into this issue when Vice-President (Hashimi) lives in exile and Baghdad court (Maliki) has given him multiple death-sentences in absence.

 

[Meathead]

Vietnam cost far more lives and was ultimately a complete failure. Iraq is not. Saddam & psychopathic sons are dead, the Ba'athist party is kaput, Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbors, the oil taps are open and on the market and Iraq is developing democratic institutions virtually unrivaled in Middle East.

I suppose to the OP, the idiot who wrote the article and others, these are not good things. However, by the standards of the many who did not think Saddam was a good guy, Iraq was clearly a success. Vietnam was not by any standard.

These are just "feel-good" phrases to placate the reality, tat Iraq was a major failure, even before the first bombs were dropped.
All the US soldiers died for nothing, and given the Iraqi civil casualities it is nothing to mourn about.

A bizarre claim even for a Turk. The strategic goals of toppling the Ba'athist party and Saddam, installing a moderate regime which posses no threat to its neighbors and turning on the oil taps have been met. Contrast to Vietnam where about 60,000 US servicemen died and where absolutely no strategic goals were achieved.

I suspect you're just sore because you lost an ally in your ethnic cleansing of your Kurdish minority.

 

[ekrem]

A bizarre claim even for a Turk.

And you are a Greek, and my claims are not as bizarre as yours.

 

[t_polkow]

Vietnam cost far more lives and was ultimately a complete failure. Iraq is not. Saddam & psychopathic sons are dead, the Ba'athist party is kaput, Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbors, the oil taps are open and on the market and Iraq is developing democratic institutions virtually unrivaled in Middle East.

I suppose to the OP, the idiot who wrote the article and others, these are not good things. However, by the standards of the many who did not think Saddam was a good guy, Iraq was clearly a success. Vietnam was not by any standard.

I agree.

Although I think history will regard the Iraqi war as ill-conceived and unnecessary, we can not overlook the fact that Saddam was an evil bastard and that the world is a better place without him.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaP7ZrmkcuU[/ame]

 

[Meathead]

Turkish claims that there was no Armenian massacre are about as bizarre as it gets. There is little wonder why Turkey is almost universally derided. Turkey's only allies are the Central Asian Turkic states like Azerbaijan whom you could not protect against a much smaller and weaker Armenia when they beat the crap out of them.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Vietnam cost far more lives and was ultimately a complete failure. Iraq is not. Saddam & psychopathic sons are dead, the Ba'athist party is kaput, Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbors, the oil taps are open and on the market and Iraq is developing democratic institutions virtually unrivaled in Middle East.

I suppose to the OP, the idiot who wrote the article and others, these are not good things. However, by the standards of the many who did not think Saddam was a good guy, Iraq was clearly a success. Vietnam was not by any standard.

These are just "feel-good" phrases to placate the reality, tat Iraq was a major failure, even before the first bombs were dropped.
All the US soldiers died for nothing, and given the Iraqi civil casualities it is nothing to mourn about.

Iraq is a failure by all measures. Hussein kept Iran at bay. Hussein didn't kill as many Iraqis as the United States has. Invading Iraq is the most degenerate act in the history of the United States. It proved the lessons of Vietnam mean nothing. And its costs were a major factor in crashing the US economy.

 

[Meathead]

Vietnam cost far more lives and was ultimately a complete failure. Iraq is not. Saddam & psychopathic sons are dead, the Ba'athist party is kaput, Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbors, the oil taps are open and on the market and Iraq is developing democratic institutions virtually unrivaled in Middle East.

I suppose to the OP, the idiot who wrote the article and others, these are not good things. However, by the standards of the many who did not think Saddam was a good guy, Iraq was clearly a success. Vietnam was not by any standard.

These are just "feel-good" phrases to placate the reality, tat Iraq was a major failure, even before the first bombs were dropped.
All the US soldiers died for nothing, and given the Iraqi civil casualities it is nothing to mourn about.

Iraq is a failure by all measures. Hussein kept Iran at bay. Hussein didn't kill as many Iraqis as the United States has. Invading Iraq is the most degenerate act in the history of the United States. It proved the lessons of Vietnam mean nothing. And its costs were a major factor in crashing the US economy.

Would you include the Iraqis killed in the Iran-Iraq War? Or how about the invasion of Kuwait? Do you count the multitudes who died in both invasions?

Finally, have you ever considered that someone as woefully misinformed such as yourself might not consider that Iraq today cannot and will not invade their neighbors at the whim of a despot who, while not directing the killing of untold thousands of foreigners, was also ordering the executions of untold thousands of his own compatriots because they opposed him.

Seriously, have some people dumbed down that much?!

 

[hortysir]

Ten years ago, George Bush made a decision that this country will regret for a very long time.

The Worst Mistake in U.S. History -- America Will Never Recover from Bush's Great Foreign Policy Disaster

Great link!


Immediately after clicking it I was confronted with a pop-up ad encouraging me to stand with Barack Obama in supporting gun control legislation.


Alternet isn't biased in the least!!

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

These are just "feel-good" phrases to placate the reality, tat Iraq was a major failure, even before the first bombs were dropped.
All the US soldiers died for nothing, and given the Iraqi civil casualities it is nothing to mourn about.

Iraq is a failure by all measures. Hussein kept Iran at bay. Hussein didn't kill as many Iraqis as the United States has. Invading Iraq is the most degenerate act in the history of the United States. It proved the lessons of Vietnam mean nothing. And its costs were a major factor in crashing the US economy.

Would you include the Iraqis killed in the Iran-Iraq War? Or how about the invasion of Kuwait? Do you count the multitudes who died in both invasions?

Finally, have you ever considered that someone as woefully misinformed such as yourself might not consider that Iraq today cannot and will not invade their neighbors at the whim of a despot who, while not directing the killing of untold thousands of foreigners, was also ordering the executions of untold thousands of his own compatriots because they opposed him.

Seriously, have some people dumbed down that much?!

Here is the fastest path to an answer to your question: look into a mirror and raise your nose up and down. The person you see a dumbed downer answering your question.

 

[Katzndogz]

The worst mistake in world history will be obama by erasing the word victory from the lexicon.

 

[Billo_Really]

Never fails to entertain me when someone who rants about FNC holds alternet up as a bastion of truth and logic. Fucking funny.

Ad hominem's are not valid rebuttals.

 

[Billo_Really]

Would you include the Iraqis killed in the Iran-Iraq War? Or how about the invasion of Kuwait? Do you count the multitudes who died in both invasions?

Finally, have you ever considered that someone as woefully misinformed such as yourself might not consider that Iraq today cannot and will not invade their neighbors at the whim of a despot who, while not directing the killing of untold thousands of foreigners, was also ordering the executions of untold thousands of his own compatriots because they opposed him.

Seriously, have some people dumbed down that much?!

At the time of our illegal and immoral invasion, Iraq was not invading any neighbor, nor were they threatening anyone. There was absolutely no reason to rush to war.

We spent a trillion US tax dollars on that bullshit and got nothing in return.

 

[Meathead]

Would you include the Iraqis killed in the Iran-Iraq War? Or how about the invasion of Kuwait? Do you count the multitudes who died in both invasions?

Finally, have you ever considered that someone as woefully misinformed such as yourself might not consider that Iraq today cannot and will not invade their neighbors at the whim of a despot who, while not directing the killing of untold thousands of foreigners, was also ordering the executions of untold thousands of his own compatriots because they opposed him.

Seriously, have some people dumbed down that much?!

At the time of our illegal and immoral invasion, Iraq was not invading any neighbor, nor were they threatening anyone. There was absolutely no reason to rush to war.

We spent a trillion US tax dollars on that bullshit and got nothing in return.

You would have a hell of a time arguing that eliminating a threat in the in an extremely strategic region is "nothing in return". You would further have great difficulty in asserting that that ridding the world of Saddam Hussien is immoral.

Btw, those self-righteous pricks that think they somehow have the right to dictate what is moral and immoral disgust me. Present company included.

 

[Saigon]

Meathead -

As a general rule, going into another sovereign state to forcefully remove the ruler is immoral. I dare say most experts in international law would agree.

This doesn't mean it is not sometimes justified, and I'd have no problem with anyone removing mugabe or the Jung Il clan from power, but it is a difficult issue to back on the basis of either law or ethics.

 

[hortysir]

Meathead -

As a general rule, going into another sovereign state to forcefully remove the ruler is immoral. I dare say most experts in international law would agree.

This doesn't mean it is not sometimes justified, and I'd have no problem with anyone removing mugabe or the Jung Il clan from power, but it is a difficult issue to back on the basis of either law or ethics.

How about flying a drone into a sovereign state's airspace to blow up Americans?

 

[Saigon]

Horty -

I wasn't opposed to the execution of Osama Bin Laden or any of his terrorist friends, and don't see a passport makes a lot of difference.

 

[hortysir]

Horty -

I wasn't opposed to the execution of Osama Bin Laden or any of his terrorist friends, and don't see a passport makes a lot of difference.

So you think the POTUS can be judge, jury and executioner against American citizens regardless of their location?

 

[there4eyeM]

"As a general rule, going into another sovereign state to forcefully remove the ruler... is a difficult issue to back on the basis of either law or ethics."

No, not really difficult...

...impossible.

But only power controls power in this corrupt world and the 'big guys' do what they want and call others names for doing the same.