I Knew It, IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!!!!

[CriticalThought]

I don't know about other people, but for me personally, the Iraq war does make me hesitant about Syria. So yes, in a sense, it is Bush's fault that I am a little wiser about running to war in the middle east. Whether or not that is good or bad will be left for history to judge.

 

[code1211]

I don't know about other people, but for me personally, the Iraq war does make me hesitant about Syria. So yes, in a sense, it is Bush's fault that I am a little wiser about running to war in the middle east. Whether or not that is good or bad will be left for history to judge.

I think I was on a different board at the time of the iraq war and the argument left me leaning toward supporting the war.

Killing Arabs is never a bad idea. It should be a do it yourself project, though. Putting boots on the ground thinking that we can create a democracy in a stone age, superstition riddled tribal culture is something different.

At the time, I thought it was a worthy gamble, but time has proven me wrong. At the time, I thought it would take 50 years to see if it worked out. I was wrong. Doing this was a mistake then and it would be a mistake now.

The difference is that then, the outcome was unknowable. Now the outcome is not only knowable, it is assured.

If you only need to see dead Arabs to be happy, then stand back and let them do their holy work. There is no reason to go over there and help out either or both sides accomplish their holy work. Allah Akbar!

 

[CriticalThought]

I think I was on a different board at the time of the iraq war and the argument left me leaning toward supporting the war.

Killing Arabs is never a bad idea. It should be a do it yourself project, though. Putting boots on the ground thinking that we can create a democracy in a stone age, superstition riddled tribal culture is something different.

At the time, I thought it was a worthy gamble, but time has proven me wrong. At the time, I thought it would take 50 years to see if it worked out. I was wrong. Doing this was a mistake then and it would be a mistake now.

The difference is that then, the outcome was unknowable. Now the outcome is not only knowable, it is assured.

If you only need to see dead Arabs to be happy, then stand back and let them do their holy work. There is no reason to go over there and help out either or both sides accomplish their holy work. Allah Akbar!

First off, I have friends who are Arab and who I think, based on your commentary, are probably considerably more civilized than you.

The word "Arab" is a term for panethnicity in much the same way that when Europeans talk about "Americans" they may be referring from everyone in Canada to Argentina or when people refer to "Asians" they could be talking about anyone from Japan, China, Vietnam, etc.

As such, "Arabs" have vastly different ethnicity, cultures, religious beliefs, etc. There are Arab Christians. There are Arab Americans. There are Arab Conservatives.

The sectarian violence in that part of the world is as typical as the feuds that existed between European countries for centuries and which it took a World War to finally settle albeit you still see signs of it economically.

So I don't agree with your blatant, ignorant prejudice. My reasons for wanting to stay out of the Syria conflict is the same as why isolationists wanted to stay out of the first World War. It does no good to get sucked into conflicts that have been going on for centuries.

 

[Deuce]

So, according to conservatives, the war in Iraq has had no influence on how Americans view military action in other countries. :lamo

 

[rocket88]

We know Saddam had them.

We know they were not there when the invasion occurred.

We know that Syria has them now.

Dot>>>>>>Dot>>>>>>Dot.

To be fair, I think Syria had them before that anyway. The challenge stands: For anyone who said we had to get rid of Saddam for having them, why not Assad? I opposed Iraq, and I oppose going into Syria for the record.

 

[calamity]

Thank God for Bush. Otherwise, we just might have been stupid enough to attack Syria.

 

[code1211]

First off, I have friends who are Arab and who I think, based on your commentary, are probably considerably more civilized than you.

The word "Arab" is a term for panethnicity in much the same way that when Europeans talk about "Americans" they may be referring from everyone in Canada to Argentina or when people refer to "Asians" they could be talking about anyone from Japan, China, Vietnam, etc.

As such, "Arabs" have vastly different ethnicity, cultures, religious beliefs, etc. There are Arab Christians. There are Arab Americans. There are Arab Conservatives.

The sectarian violence in that part of the world is as typical as the feuds that existed between European countries for centuries and which it took a World War to finally settle albeit you still see signs of it economically.

So I don't agree with your blatant, ignorant prejudice. My reasons for wanting to stay out of the Syria conflict is the same as why isolationists wanted to stay out of the first World War. It does no good to get sucked into conflicts that have been going on for centuries.

My apologies for offending your sensibilities.

You are right, of course. My statement was over the top.

You are also right that the region has been embroiled in warfare since the start of recorded history and odds are, before that also.

I will amend my thinking to conform with your sensibilities and, like you, merely endorse the right of all Middle Easterners to engage in the holy work of killing each other.

Whether it is the result of living in a stone age culture riddled by superstition and hate or just something that they are genetically programmed to do is a question for a different group, I suppose.

The result is the same. The concern from me is pretty much the same concern I have for a rotting fish. I can't stop the rot from proceeding, so I will just try to not have to be exposed to the stink.

 

[code1211]

So, according to conservatives, the war in Iraq has had no influence on how Americans view military action in other countries. :lamo

I am a Conservative and that is not my opinion at all. From what did you glean this?

 

[American]

I think the actual point was that people are worried about making the same mistake with Syria that we did with Iraq. There's good reason for that.

There is zero to be gained by taking action in Syria, and the evidence is still unclear.

 

[code1211]

To be fair, I think Syria had them before that anyway. The challenge stands: For anyone who said we had to get rid of Saddam for having them, why not Assad? I opposed Iraq, and I oppose going into Syria for the record.

We were lied to then and we are being lied to now.

The difference is that we know this time that we are being lied to.

The first go-round, every intelligence organization on the planet said Saddam had them and that he wanted to use them. The Syrians as well as Saddam are Bath Party folks and one of the notions at the time that the delay was allowing the WMD to be moved to Syria.

Saddam did use them so we know that he had them. When the invasion was completed and the inspections revealed they were not there, we may be assured that they were gone.

Whether Saddam moved his to Syria or borrowed some from Syria to use on the Kurds when he did so is up in the air.

Either way, this is not the start of WW1. The A-Bomb changes all of that. If it starts to get too out of hand, we pave that part of the world with glass and start over with a new set of puppets to manage the oil shipping business.

Or we could start fracking.

 

[thinkforyoursel]

I think I was on a different board at the time of the iraq war and the argument left me leaning toward supporting the war.

Killing Arabs is never a bad idea. It should be a do it yourself project, though. Putting boots on the ground thinking that we can create a democracy in a stone age, superstition riddled tribal culture is something different.

At the time, I thought it was a worthy gamble, but time has proven me wrong. At the time, I thought it would take 50 years to see if it worked out. I was wrong. Doing this was a mistake then and it would be a mistake now.

The difference is that then, the outcome was unknowable. Now the outcome is not only knowable, it is assured.

If you only need to see dead Arabs to be happy, then stand back and let them do their holy work. There is no reason to go over there and help out either or both sides accomplish their holy work. Allah Akbar!

You and many like you ...were on an emotional-high during the build up to the Iraq war. A blind man could see Bush was forming and shaping the argument to create a need to invade that country. And you guys ...so full of emotion never second guess his made up assertions.

Obama ....voted against that war ...he was right ...and you were wrong!!

This is another reason why I think Obama should go ahead with the strike ...despite the polls of the American electorate.
They got it wrong in Iraq...they favored that war ....why the hell should they be listened to now??

 

[thinkforyoursel]

Americans attitude towards war is much like a guy who keeps losing his money in the stock market....mainly because of his emotions.
When the market is puffed up and over-hyped he runs out and BUY HIGH...then the bottom fall out. And what does he do ....SELL LOW!!

And when the market is LOW you ask him ...why not buy LOW now?? If he's honest he'll tell you ...because I just lost my money!!!

Well this is similar to the war situation. When Bushed puffed up all the disparate arguments to invade Iraq ...the right wing especially thought this was a good idea.
Not only did they think it was a good idea ...but let's send in thousands of troops as well.
Now that they realize Iraq was a blunder .....all of a sudden we must never use rationale to choose when it's necessary to act?

10 years from now ....if people look back at the 2 situations:
1) invade Iraq with 100,000 troops, and spend Trillions
2) Strike Syria with no invasion

Look at that situation ...and just think ....you selected item (1) above!!

 

[code1211]

You and many like you ...were on an emotional-high during the build up to the Iraq war. A blind man could see Bush was forming and shaping the argument to create a need to invade that country. And you guys ...so full of emotion never second guess his made up assertions.

Obama ....voted against that war ...he was right ...and you were wrong!!

This is another reason why I think Obama should go ahead with the strike ...despite the polls of the American electorate.
They got it wrong in Iraq...they favored that war ....why the hell should they be listened to now??

ALL of the reasons against it then are valid today.

All of the reasons supporting it then have been shown to be invalid. It really doesn't matter who is in charge where in the Middle East. They will kill each other because they are a stone age tribal culture riddled and dominated by superstition.

Of course, every intelligence agency in the world and the UN said that there were WMD present and that was one of the reasons and the Memory of a terror attack was still pretty fresh.

The justification for this invasion is that Obama just ran his big mouth and painted himself into a corner and now fells like he has to kill people because he's stupid.