Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You know.....speaking as someone who was actually over there in 1991 for Desert Storm, it was Bush Sr. that fucked up by stopping at the gates of Bagdad.
Oh yeah........Jr. saw an opportunity to attack Iraq after the WTC went down. And, because his father had fucked up previously, he saw a way to make up for it.
That is why OBL is still running around. Shit.......after he left Tora Bora he was living fat and happy in the Swat valley. If we'd actually paid attention, we'd have known that several years ago.
Question Uncensored, exactly how many years have YOU served in the military?
I understand the opinion, but disagree. I served from 1989 to 1997 in the U.S. Army including operations in Kuwait, Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as out loading, but not deploying to Panama. I was not happy with the decision to stop at liberation at the time, but the cost didn't justify the potential advantage in 1991. Bush Jr. had two additional advantages in going in when he did that made it much more critical and reasonable.
1st, the Iraqi military was non-existent and the completion could be extremely fast and allow for change of leadership almost immediately. The risk was less therefore making the action more attractive and making the costs less. In 1991 there were still significant military resources to overcome which would have been much slower and more costly in treasure and life. The change of power would also have been even more difficult.
Consider estimates of an invasion of forces in 1991 would have surpassed the casualty counts for Iraq and Afghanistan to date, in total. Just on the initial conquest of the capital. That would have then touched off a power vacuum at a point when all groups were better armed and prepared.
2nd, When W went in, we needed a battlefield, in 1991 we didn't. After Afghanistan drew almost no visible external support and proved to be inadequate, the idea of a battlefield in Iraq became extremely attractive and valuable. Iraq is a nation that has geographic significance, wealthy resources and an unpopular secular king that was unlikely to justify a mainstream reaction, while almost guaranteeing extremist attention. We chose to fight them there and not here; and Iraq was ideal for that end.
Despite the numerous accused motives, this was the most important motive for the Iraq war. We obviously couldnt state this as a motive, but it is counter-intuitive not to see that this was a highly desirable option given the likelihood of additional foreign attacks.
Of course we would rebuild and establish democratic process and that would have a long term potential benefit for both the U.S. and the theatre, but forcing the bloodshed out of our streets and into another venue was paramount and agree or disagree that was a prime directive for going to war in Iraq that wasn't of consequence in 1991.
You know I do not know why I allowed this conversation with you to go this far
as far as OBL getting away I still miss your point
If your trying to blame some one that there is murderer loose in a ass backwards country in the desert, you might want to look at the murderer to start with
without him none of this exist, I know as a liberal accountability is a concept you do not understand
This will make it 4 and for the last time
take that bird and shove it up your ass
as soon I get thru with this post you will be on ignore the next time I see that
you are not too be taken seriously. anyone who goes thru life thinking that is the correct way to be a man either has had everything give to him or is making someones life a living hell
I mean this
Good Luck
being different is one thing, being a dick head is stupid
I understand the opinion, but disagree. I served from 1989 to 1997 in the U.S. Army including operations in Kuwait, Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as out loading, but not deploying to Panama.
I understand the opinion, but disagree. I served from 1989 to 1997 in the U.S. Army including operations in Kuwait, Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as out loading, but not deploying to Panama.
Meaning you were on the ground in Afghanistan at that time?
In what capacity?
I understand the opinion, but disagree. I served from 1989 to 1997 in the U.S. Army including operations in Kuwait, Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as out loading, but not deploying to Panama.
Meaning you were on the ground in Afghanistan at that time?
In what capacity?
Joint Operations with Pakistani SSG and allied groups. General humanitarian and peacekeeping operations and some other stuff.
Untrue, you invade a nation under any context, destroy its military, use depleted uranium shells (which lead to high rates of cancer and genetic deformities), and set up sanctions that lead to the deaths of 1 million children and you aren't responsible for that? By bombing and severely damaging a country, and killing thousands of people in the process and then leaving it, you have made it your responsibility to help those people, yet Bush Sr left the people to rot in the hell he created for the people of Iraq, some for that reason could call him a monster.why didn't George Bush Sr end the war when he had won, rather than letting Saddam remain in power to terrorize his citizens and genocide Kurds with biological and chemical weapons, it could have been over well in 1991, we never got an answer from the US government, just silence, just like over Pinochet's dictatorship.
In his own words:
Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):
While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
13 years since it's been published!
Reasons Not to Invade Iraq,
Untrue, you invade a nation under any context, destroy its military, use depleted uranium shells (which lead to high rates of cancer and genetic deformities), and set up sanctions that lead to the deaths of 1 million children and you aren't responsible for that? By bombing and severely damaging a country, and killing thousands of people in the process and then leaving it, you have made it your responsibility to help those people, yet Bush Sr left the people to rot in the hell he created for the people of Iraq, some for that reason could call him a monster.
I am claiming that if you invade a nation, and cause damage to it you are responsible to clean it up (or in the very least pay to clean it up), the US never cleaned up the radiation in Iraq, and the US had no reason to be in Iraq in the first place.Untrue, you invade a nation under any context, destroy its military, use depleted uranium shells (which lead to high rates of cancer and genetic deformities), and set up sanctions that lead to the deaths of 1 million children and you aren't responsible for that? By bombing and severely damaging a country, and killing thousands of people in the process and then leaving it, you have made it your responsibility to help those people, yet Bush Sr left the people to rot in the hell he created for the people of Iraq, some for that reason could call him a monster.
Oh my God. Are you actually claiming that the use of DU ammunition means we are obligated to nation build?
"Libertarian" my ass. I do agree that you sound like an anarchocapitalist. You are all for sticking money in the pockets of the war profiteers in order to keep the war machine running. I'll bet you never even had the balls to go to combat yourself either, did you?
You are a fucking shill.
Or do you have me on ignore now, you giant vagina?
If not, I'll eagerly await your castigation. I spent a year in Afghanistan as an infantryman. I find people like you to be beyond contempt. It goes way beyond political ideology. Instead, I find you to be beyond contempt, because you are a cheerleader. You would send men and women off to do what you were not willing to do yourself. And why? Simply to pad the wallet of people who could give two shits about you.
Welcome to the machine. If it weren't for dipshits like you, it would never run.
If there is one big reason to apply the label of failure to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I nominate legitimizing violence.
"Once you get past all the fanciful lies, rhetoric and rationalizations, the invasion of Iraq was just like any other war: it was about killing and teaching young men and women to believe that it's morally acceptable to take the life of another human being, that the supposed ends justify the homicidal means.
"And a 2007 Army investigation spurred by the massacre of two dozen Iraqi civilians in Haditha said as much.
"'Statements made by the chain of command during interviews for this investigation, taken as a whole, suggest that Iraqi civilian lives are not as important as U.S. lives, their deaths are just the cost of doing business, and that the Marines need to get 'the job done' no matter what it takes,' wrote Maj. Gen. Eldon Bargewell in the report."
Most human beings require extensive conditioning in order to kill innocent civilians as a "cost of doing business." When the killers return home, "(t)he lesson that violence is an acceptable means to achieve one's ends is not soon forgotten."
Ten Reasons...
I am claiming that if you invade a nation, and cause damage to it you are responsible to clean it up (or in the very least pay to clean it up), the US never cleaned up the radiation in Iraq, and the US had no reason to be in Iraq in the first place.Untrue, you invade a nation under any context, destroy its military, use depleted uranium shells (which lead to high rates of cancer and genetic deformities), and set up sanctions that lead to the deaths of 1 million children and you aren't responsible for that? By bombing and severely damaging a country, and killing thousands of people in the process and then leaving it, you have made it your responsibility to help those people, yet Bush Sr left the people to rot in the hell he created for the people of Iraq, some for that reason could call him a monster.
Oh my God. Are you actually claiming that the use of DU ammunition means we are obligated to nation build?
"Libertarian" my ass. I do agree that you sound like an anarchocapitalist. You are all for sticking money in the pockets of the war profiteers in order to keep the war machine running. I'll bet you never even had the balls to go to combat yourself either, did you?
You are a fucking shill.
Or do you have me on ignore now, you giant vagina?
If not, I'll eagerly await your castigation. I spent a year in Afghanistan as an infantryman. I find people like you to be beyond contempt. It goes way beyond political ideology. Instead, I find you to be beyond contempt, because you are a cheerleader. You would send men and women off to do what you were not willing to do yourself. And why? Simply to pad the wallet of people who could give two shits about you.
Welcome to the machine. If it weren't for dipshits like you, it would never run.
You think my views are just mine? Billions of people agree that most US interventions across the world are immoral, millions even where you live disagree with those interventions. You call me a cheerleader, but really am I, I have never served in a war and thus never killed anyone, never financially contributed to torture or the overthrow of democratically elected governments, nor have I paid for the bombs, can you say the same? Nope.
Why do you think Iraqis hate the US so much, it is the fact that for years the US government paid for Saddam's regime to murder and genocide its own people with WMD's, because the US government backed sanctions that resulted in the deaths of millions of their children and made them live in economic hardship, and kept them poor. The US govt hated Saddam when he invaded Kuwait, and not content with repelling him from that country, bombed and invaded his country in retaliation causing horrific destruction to homes, hospitals and the like, then ignored him and the plight of his people, and when you called on them to rebel through propaganda, they were massacred. As for the invasion of Iraq itself (during the Bush Jr years) many innoscent civillans were bombed across Iraqi in shelters, which the US government called 'military bunkers', millions more today live in areas which US shells have turned radioactive as the areas hit by radiation after Chernobyl, no compensation was given for that either.
I have never voted for the Republicans or the Democrats, you have, and as a result put Bush, Clinton and the like in power, many libertarians don't vote so they are not part of the system (probably if I was in the US I wouldn't vote, even if I could) and thus don't support wars such as the one in Iraq and the wealthy elite, but just to piss you off I can tell you I voted for a left wing Green Party here that opposed the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. So I voted against the war, did you? I doubt it, in this world I thought it was actions, not words that counted, in my actions I voted against the war and didn't participate in it, I am sorry but that's what counts.
Finally I am sorry for being born and bred in a pacifist country (obviously NZ it has made me soft and compassionate, how horrible), that has never invaded another nation for natural resources, tortured civilians, assassinated democratic leaders, set up dictatorships, or wasted billions on wars that make the world hate it more, and if you hate me. It's no wonder when people like you exist with that kind of attitude that the US is so unpopular and hated right now. Hell, if you think I am 'anti-american' (then again according to Bush I am not American as I am an atheist), most NZ'ers are heavily against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, including most of the NZ'ers who have served, I guess you would call them 'dipshits' too.
PS: If being against war (where reasonable) and the use of resources for it isn't 'libertarian' then what is? Certainly not what you believe it is. Plus simply because I support some wars for moral or ethical reasons, doesn't mean I support the methods used to win them.
I am claiming that if you invade a nation, and cause damage to it you are responsible to clean it up (or in the very least pay to clean it up), the US never cleaned up the radiation in Iraq, and the US had no reason to be in Iraq in the first place.Untrue, you invade a nation under any context, destroy its military, use depleted uranium shells (which lead to high rates of cancer and genetic deformities), and set up sanctions that lead to the deaths of 1 million children and you aren't responsible for that? By bombing and severely damaging a country, and killing thousands of people in the process and then leaving it, you have made it your responsibility to help those people, yet Bush Sr left the people to rot in the hell he created for the people of Iraq, some for that reason could call him a monster.
Oh my God. Are you actually claiming that the use of DU ammunition means we are obligated to nation build?
"Libertarian" my ass. I do agree that you sound like an anarchocapitalist. You are all for sticking money in the pockets of the war profiteers in order to keep the war machine running. I'll bet you never even had the balls to go to combat yourself either, did you?
You are a fucking shill.
Or do you have me on ignore now, you giant vagina?
If not, I'll eagerly await your castigation. I spent a year in Afghanistan as an infantryman. I find people like you to be beyond contempt. It goes way beyond political ideology. Instead, I find you to be beyond contempt, because you are a cheerleader. You would send men and women off to do what you were not willing to do yourself. And why? Simply to pad the wallet of people who could give two shits about you.
Welcome to the machine. If it weren't for dipshits like you, it would never run.
You think my views are just mine? Billions of people agree that most US interventions across the world are immoral, millions even where you live disagree with those interventions. You call me a cheerleader, but really am I, I have never served in a war and thus never killed anyone, never financially contributed to torture or the overthrow of democratically elected governments, nor have I paid for the bombs, can you say the same? Nope.
Why do you think Iraqis hate the US so much, it is the fact that for years the US government paid for Saddam's regime to murder and genocide its own people with WMD's, because the US government backed sanctions that resulted in the deaths of millions of their children and made them live in economic hardship, and kept them poor. The US govt hated Saddam when he invaded Kuwait, and not content with repelling him from that country, bombed and invaded his country in retaliation causing horrific destruction to homes, hospitals and the like, then ignored him and the plight of his people, and when you called on them to rebel through propaganda, they were massacred. As for the invasion of Iraq itself (during the Bush Jr years) many innoscent civillans were bombed across Iraqi in shelters, which the US government called 'military bunkers', millions more today live in areas which US shells have turned radioactive as the areas hit by radiation after Chernobyl, no compensation was given for that either.
I have never voted for the Republicans or the Democrats, you have, and as a result put Bush, Clinton and the like in power, many libertarians don't vote so they are not part of the system (probably if I was in the US I wouldn't vote, even if I could) and thus don't support wars such as the one in Iraq and the wealthy elite, but just to piss you off I can tell you I voted for a left wing Green Party here that opposed the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. So I voted against the war, did you? I doubt it, in this world I thought it was actions, not words that counted, in my actions I voted against the war and didn't participate in it, I am sorry but that's what counts.
Finally I am sorry for being born and bred in a pacifist country (obviously NZ it has made me soft and compassionate, how horrible), that has never invaded another nation for natural resources, tortured civilians, assassinated democratic leaders, set up dictatorships, or wasted billions on wars that make the world hate it more, and if you hate me. It's no wonder when people like you exist with that kind of attitude that the US is so unpopular and hated right now. Hell, if you think I am 'anti-american' (then again according to Bush I am not American as I am an atheist), most NZ'ers are heavily against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, including most of the NZ'ers who have served, I guess you would call them 'dipshits' too.
PS: If being against war (where reasonable) and the use of resources for it isn't 'libertarian' then what is? Certainly not what you believe it is. Plus simply because I support some wars for moral or ethical reasons, doesn't mean I support the methods used to win them.
You're right about only one thing.If there is one big reason to apply the label of failure to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I nominate legitimizing violence.
"Once you get past all the fanciful lies, rhetoric and rationalizations, the invasion of Iraq was just like any other war: it was about killing and teaching young men and women to believe that it's morally acceptable to take the life of another human being, that the supposed ends justify the homicidal means.
"And a 2007 Army investigation spurred by the massacre of two dozen Iraqi civilians in Haditha said as much.
"'Statements made by the chain of command during interviews for this investigation, taken as a whole, suggest that Iraqi civilian lives are not as important as U.S. lives, their deaths are just the cost of doing business, and that the Marines need to get 'the job done' no matter what it takes,' wrote Maj. Gen. Eldon Bargewell in the report."
Most human beings require extensive conditioning in order to kill innocent civilians as a "cost of doing business." When the killers return home, "(t)he lesson that violence is an acceptable means to achieve one's ends is not soon forgotten."
Ten Reasons...
This proves that what you know about soldier mentaility and battlefield psychology wouldn't fill a napkin. As for U.S. military in Iraq this gross generalization and absolute hyperbole is just a plain slander.
The great irony is the incredible level of wartime discretion shown in Iraq, especially as it was only one side attempting to protect human life. Our forces saved thousands of lives at the cost of their own lives in many cases and this is the analasys of their conduct and character? What a load. It was the enemy that targeted civilians and hid amung them and used them as shields, not the coalition. By their tactics they rendered civilians unable to avoid fighting and if you think you would be capable of doing better with the circumstances they created than the young heroes that served there, you are almost certainly wrong.
If you had any personal experience with real violence or combat or even simply the outcome of combat, you would know better than to ever spew this type of garbage. There was real evil being done over there by people who didn't care who died, themselves included. They decapitated people on camera and blew up hospitals, schools, buses and police stations, while we built them. The only thing you learn about violence is how dearly you hope you can get away from it alive and never see it again.
1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE
Am missing something here?
1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE
Am missing something here?
These were all the mission points made AFTER the fact. Aka the ones that were made up on the spot. Aka moving the goal post.
The INITIAL reason was that Saddam had WMDs and needed to be stopped because he was dangers. The rest were made up in a feeble attempt to save face.
End of story.
1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE
Am missing something here?
1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE
Am missing something here?
Yeah.
It wasn't a "failure" it was a crime.
