If we'd known the truth about Islam would we & should we have invaded Iraq?

radcen · Jun 8, 2015

Kreton said:
Saddam was murdering countless people who had no way to defend themselves against him. Saddam needed to be removed from power, and sentenced for his crimes. The US should have found a better way to remove him from power, but I absolutely believe it was the right thing to do.

I am under no false belief that his murdering was the primary reason our government invaded Iraq, but it is the reason I believe removing him was the right thing to do.

I don't necessarily disagree with that, but we made things worse. As bad a Saddam was, I believe IS is even worse for the people there.

Our biggest mistake/shortcoming was in being naive... in believing that nation building was possible to our concept of what a nation should be when the culture there is entirely different from ours. They simply don't value the same things we do. That's neither good or bad, it's just different.

Kreton · Jun 8, 2015

radcen said:
I don't necessarily disagree with that, but we made things worse. As bad a Saddam was, I believe IS is even worse for the people there.

Our biggest mistake/shortcoming was in being naive... in believing that nation building was possible to our concept of what a nation should be when the culture there is entirely different from ours. They simply don't value the same things we do. That's neither good or bad, it's just different.

Agreed. We did not go about doing almost anything properly. No argument from me there. The ONLY part of the Iraq war that I agree with was removing Saddam from power.

Glen Contrarian · Jun 8, 2015

Peter King said:
I would not know about Dubai. I have never been towards there. Most I have been is the UK, Germany, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland and Italy. And where I live in the Netherlands (the deepest South) it is pretty safe from most crimes. Especially violent crimes. Last year we had 137 murders over the entire year, in the entire country. Being killed here is not that big of a risk. In fact I am more likely to die in a traffic accident than from murder (570 deaths last year).

Most Americans are so comfortable living in America, and they're spoon-fed lines that America's the greatest ever forever after, so most of them really have no clue what life is like outside America. It's really sad.

Dittohead not! · Jun 8, 2015

Kreton said:
Agreed. We did not go about doing almost anything properly. No argument from me there. The ONLY part of the Iraq war that I agree with was removing Saddam from power.

Removing a brutal dictator from power is an attractive proposition until you see what happens in the power vacuum left behind.

What would happen if we, or China, or some other powerful nation, were to remove Kim Jung Un? Would NK then be a peaceful and democratic nation?

Don't count on it.

Kreton · Jun 8, 2015

Dittohead not! said:
Removing a brutal dictator from power is an attractive proposition until you see what happens in the power vacuum left behind.

What would happen if we, or China, or some other powerful nation, were to remove Kim Jung Un? Would NK then be a peaceful and democratic nation?

Don't count on it.

I would support a well planned strategy to remove Kim Jong un.

prison/con.net · Jun 8, 2015

No. we should not have invaded them. Instead, we should have Neutron nuked them, along with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, probably a few others that i can't think of.

Dittohead not! · Jun 8, 2015

Kreton said:
I would support a well planned strategy to remove Kim Jong un.

and replace him with who?

Kreton · Jun 9, 2015

Dittohead not! said:
and replace him with who?

I have no idea. I am not trying to pretend to know how to do it. I don't have any idea who he could be replaced with or that it should be up to anyone other than the N Koreans to decide. My entire stance on this is that if there was a well planned strategy to remove Un, and improve the lives of the people who live there I would be in support of it.

Dittohead not! · Jun 10, 2015

Kreton said:
I have no idea. I am not trying to pretend to know how to do it. I don't have any idea who he could be replaced with or that it should be up to anyone other than the N Koreans to decide. My entire stance on this is that if there was a well planned strategy to remove Un, and improve the lives of the people who live there I would be in support of it.

If it was a well planned strategy, and if it worked as planned, and if whoever replaced Lil Kim wasn't even worse, then it would be a good idea.

The best laid plans of mice and men don't always work out, however. Witness: ISIS having replaced Saddam Hussain.

Kreton · Jun 10, 2015

Dittohead not! said:
If it was a well planned strategy, and if it worked as planned, and if whoever replaced Lil Kim wasn't even worse, then it would be a good idea.

The best laid plans of mice and men don't always work out, however. Witness: ISIS having replaced Saddam Hussain.

We never had anything resembling a good plan going into Iraq that I have ever heard.

Manc Skipper · Jun 10, 2015

Precisely. So taking out KJU without a backup plan would just be another Iraq in the making.

Gringo allstar · Jun 10, 2015

Glen Contrarian said:
I know - I was just being facetious. The conservatives' Islamophobia just makes me want to get into their faces and scream about their ignorance and rank hypocrisy. Personally, I felt a heck of a lot safer walking down the street in Dubai than I do in downtown Seattle...and Seattle's a fairly safe city, as far as America goes....

We're you carrying a bible, or wearing a star of David?

Dayton3 · Jun 10, 2015

Baralis said:
I believe Saddam Hussein needed to be dealt with, he was being very uncooperative with UN weapon inspectors. However we decided to bring far more force and destruction into play than I believe was necessary. I personally believe we should have given him an ultimatum to either cooperate fully and immediately or be taken out. If he continued to be uncooperative we should have gathered intelligence (even if it took months) and made a strategic strike by bomb or a small team of commandos directly on him leaving the rest of the country alone. We should never have moved forces into the country.

Once he was killed and his successor was in place we give the same ultimatum and consequences to them, eventually whomever was in power would comply to UN weapon inspections the way they should.

You are suggesting the U.S. engage in deliberate, targeted assassinations of foreign leaders. For very good reasons going back to Roman times the U.S. and most first world nations do not do that.

Gringo allstar · Jun 10, 2015

No we shouldn't have "invaded" Iraq. Iran was/is the root of Islamic global terrorism and should be pounded into submission.

Gardener · Jun 10, 2015

Dittohead not! said:
and replace him with who?

Isn't it obvious?

DA60 · Jun 10, 2015

America has no business whatsoever invading countries for any reason other then a) they are going to attack America; b) they are committing huge acts of genocide; c) on a UN Security Council mandate.

None of those applied to Iraqi Freedom.

The Middle East should be left to the Middle East to fix.

Dittohead not! · Jun 10, 2015

Kreton said:
We never had anything resembling a good plan going into Iraq that I have ever heard.

Oh, sure, the plan was that we'd be greeted as liberators, the war would be paid for by Iraqi oil, and the whole thing would be over in six weeks (or less).

That was the plan, according to Rumsfeld.

Boo Radley · Jun 10, 2015

Manc Skipper said:
There was no reason to invade.

Absolute bottom line.

Boo Radley · Jun 10, 2015

Dittohead not! said:
Oh, sure, the plan was that we'd be greeted as liberators, the war would be paid for by Iraqi oil, and the whole thing would be over in six weeks (or less).

That was the plan, according to Rumsfeld.

he said "GOOD" plan. While fiction is fun, it's not always good for a real life plan. :2wave:

Baralis · Jun 10, 2015

Dayton3 said:
You are suggesting the U.S. engage in deliberate, targeted assassinations of foreign leaders. For very good reasons going back to Roman times the U.S. and most first world nations do not do that.

What do you think we were doing during Shock and Awe? We intentionally hit Saddams palaces in an attempt to kill him.

Kreton · Jun 10, 2015

Dittohead not! said:
Oh, sure, the plan was that we'd be greeted as liberators, the war would be paid for by Iraqi oil, and the whole thing would be over in six weeks (or less).

That was the plan, according to Rumsfeld.

I stand by my previous statement. Emphasis on the "GOOD PLAN" part.

We never had anything resembling a good plan going into Iraq that I have ever heard.

Hard Truth · Jun 10, 2015

Cheney knew what would happen, but chose to invade anyways.

"Q: Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

A: Because if we'd gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.

Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.

It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.

The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families -- it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?

Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right."
Cheney Warns of Iraq Quagmire ... in 1994 | Mother Jones

also

"I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire. Once we got to Baghdad, what would we do? Who would we put in power? What kind of government would we have? Would it be a Sunni government, a Shi’a government, a Kurdish government? Would it be secular, along the lines of the Ba’ath Party? Would it be fundamentalist Islamic? I do not think the United States wants to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept the responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. I think it makes no sense at all."
April 7, 1991 Cheney on ABC news’s This Week
When Dick Cheney told the truth about Iraq - Salon.com

TheDemSocialist · Jun 10, 2015

Tazmanian Devil said:
If we'd known the truth about Islam would we & should we have invaded Iraq?

Would we have invaded? Yes

Would we have invaded? No

Would we have invaded? Maybe

Would we have invaded? Other

SHOULD we have invaded? Yes

SHOULD we have invaded? No

SHOULD we have invaded? Maybe

SHOULD we have invaded? Other

If we knew the actual nature of Islam I wonder if we woulda or shoulda invaded.

One unknown aspect of the true nature of Islam is that Muslims are more Muslim than Americans are American, IMHO.

Another is that Muslims are commanded to make every other religion and form of government ion Earth disappear.

If we knew that we would not be overwhelmingly greeted as liberators would we have had that humanitarian motive to add to the reasons why we believed we SHOULD have invaded?

What are you even asking? What does this statement even mean: "One unknown aspect of the true nature of Islam is that Muslims are more Muslim than Americans are American" ?

Dittohead not! · Jun 10, 2015

Hard Truth said:
Cheney knew what would happen, but chose to invade anyways.

"Q: Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

A: Because if we'd gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.

Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.

It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.

The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families -- it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?

Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right."
Cheney Warns of Iraq Quagmire ... in 1994 | Mother Jones

also

"I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire. Once we got to Baghdad, what would we do? Who would we put in power? What kind of government would we have? Would it be a Sunni government, a Shi’a government, a Kurdish government? Would it be secular, along the lines of the Ba’ath Party? Would it be fundamentalist Islamic? I do not think the United States wants to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept the responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. I think it makes no sense at all."
April 7, 1991 Cheney on ABC news’s This Week
When Dick Cheney told the truth about Iraq - Salon.com

He had it right back in '94. So, what happened? Did senility set in or something?

Dayton3 · Jun 10, 2015

Baralis said:
What do you think we were doing during Shock and Awe? We intentionally hit Saddams palaces in an attempt to kill him.

Yes. But that is widely considered different. Destroying command and control centers.

Notice that we never came close to killing Saddam Hussein either.

If we'd known the truth about Islam would we & should we have invaded Iraq?

If we'd known the truth about Islam would we & should we have invaded Iraq?

Would we have invaded? Yes

Would we have invaded? No

Would we have invaded? Maybe

Would we have invaded? Other

SHOULD we have invaded? Yes

SHOULD we have invaded? No

SHOULD we have invaded? Maybe

SHOULD we have invaded? Other

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

Doesn't know

master political analyst

Doesn't know

Member

master political analyst

Doesn't know

master political analyst

Doesn't know

Wrinkly member

free market communist

master political analyst

Doesn't know

Gradualist

master political analyst

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency