• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Iraq war successful

You are totally clueless. Most US forces in Iraq were killed by Iraqis not by Al Qaeda. You can call them terrorists or whatever you want, but they were Iraqis. It doesn't matter that their leader was thrown out and the organized military were destroyed. Iraqis kept fighting. They still are.
Is the war in Afghanistan over, too?

SO we werent at war with Iraq. We were fighting terrorists and insurgents? Remnants after the war because our leadership did a lousy job after the end of the war? That IS what you are saying...right?
 
RE Afghanistan...yep...you bet. The WAR agaisnt the Taliban ended in 2002. The mission changed from war against the established government and military ti sustainment of the Afghani government that WE support and fight alongside. We turned over the peacekeeping efforts to the NATO in 2006. We are back now because they did a lousy job of maintaining the peace, training up the afghan military, and thats why we have had to surge up. But 'the war' ? The war inded in 2002.
 
The WAR was over. Where we failed miserably was in the follow up action.

BECAUSE they did such a lousy job following the war we ended up in prolonged fighting against terrorists.

We were fighting terrorists and insurgents? Remnants after the war because our leadership did a lousy job after the end of the war? That IS what you are saying...right?

I agree with USA-1 that we are fighting the same war. What changed was the mission as the enemy changed. We started with a conventional war against the convention Iraqi military and Saddam's government. That was a breeze.

Then the insurgency started. It is mainly an Iraqi insurgency. Our mission changed from conventional warfare to counter-terrorism and a training mission. We tried to train the Army and Police and exit the theater as fast as we could. We got some bad guys, but the insurgency morphed into a civil war.

I completely disagree that we failed miserably or that our leadership did a lousy job. We just had the wrong mission. In 2007, when President Bush and his advisors reevaluated, they did a very smart thing and changed the mission to counterinsurgency. With Petraeus and Odierno in the lead on the ground, we started protecting the population and turned the Sunni insurgency into allies. We won that round as well.

Now we are out of the counterinsurgency mode - we no longer protect the Iraqis, that is the Iraqis job. We still have a training and advisory mission. We still run counter-terrorism - against a revitalized enemy: did you read about the simultaneous bombings this past week?

We wait for the Iraqis to form a government. They won't because Iranian proxies (Sadr) are preventing a coalition from forming.

Just because the peace is not maintained, this does not mean our forces or our leadership has failed, VanceMack. It only means our enemy has commenced more visible operations. An insurgency has to remain visible.
 
I agree with USA-1 that we are fighting the same war. What changed was the mission as the enemy changed. We started with a conventional war against the convention Iraqi military and Saddam's government. That was a breeze.

Then the insurgency started. It is mainly an Iraqi insurgency. Our mission changed from conventional warfare to counter-terrorism and a training mission. We tried to train the Army and Police and exit the theater as fast as we could. We got some bad guys, but the insurgency morphed into a civil war.

I completely disagree that we failed miserably or that our leadership did a lousy job. We just had the wrong mission. In 2007, when President Bush and his advisors reevaluated, they did a very smart thing and changed the mission to counterinsurgency. With Petraeus and Odierno in the lead on the ground, we started protecting the population and turned the Sunni insurgency into allies. We won that round as well.

Now we are out of the counterinsurgency mode - we no longer protect the Iraqis, that is the Iraqis job. We still have a training and advisory mission. We still run counter-terrorism - against a revitalized enemy: did you read about the simultaneous bombings this past week?

We wait for the Iraqis to form a government. They won't because Iranian proxies (Sadr) are preventing a coalition from forming.

Just because the peace is not maintained, this does not mean our forces or our leadership has failed, VanceMack. It only means our enemy has commenced more visible operations. An insurgency has to remain visible.

Ive stated this before...where we failed is that we didnt have greater expectations of the Iraqi people. The war ended in 2003. There are many differing opinions on completely disbanding the military and government but what is undeniable is we didnt secure armories and most importantly we didnt set a drop dead date for the country. SOme people dont agree with setting a withdrawal date. I completely disagree. There should have been a firm date (say Jan of 2007) and the Iraqi people should have been INUNDATED with the message. You have 4 years...less if possible..and we are gone. Thats 4 years to stand up and take control of youre police, your military, your infrastructure. If YOU want to allow those 'insurgents' (who were killing all the Iraqi citizens) to turn your country into a big ol smoking hole...have at it...be my guest. Step up, stand up or burn up. Same in Afghanistan.

When we fight 'wars' we have to have a mission and an enemy. The scope of combat operations went from war to peacekeeping...just like it did following WW2. Even though it took many years to have a fully stable west German government and military and even though we still had regular skirmishes with Nazi sympathizers, we dont still consiuder ourselves 'at war'. Because the war ended the day the enemy was defeated.
 
War is NOT a damn football game. It isn't about whatever bull**** definitions you use for which side(s) won or lost. What matters is the benefits you gain and the costs you pay. Success in Afghanistan or Iraq is tallying up the costs in money and lives and comparing it the gains we obtained through such sacrifices.
 
War has an opponent. Our opponent was the Iraqi military and their government. They were defeated in 2003. BECAUSE they did such a lousy job following the war we ended up in prolonged fighting against terrorists. Just like we did following WW2 (you would probably be SHOCKED to know Hitler loyalists were still killing people 15 years later...did that mean we were still 'at war' with Germany? Are we still "at war" With Afghanistan? Of COURSE not. The Taliban were ousted and we were in a period of relative peace for several years...right up until we turned the process over to the UN. Then the terror attacks started again in earnest. So we are there again...in full force...fighting the Taliban. But are we 'at war' with AFghanistan? With their givernment? Their people? Of course not.

You do know we lost no more US soldiers from hostile fire afer Germany surrendered, don't you? The war just began after Bush declared it was over. The methods and tactics changed.
 
You do know we lost no more US soldiers from hostile fire afer Germany surrendered, don't you? The war just began after Bush declared it was over. The methods and tactics changed.

And YOU know that I have said from the beginning that the WAR...the war AGAINST Iraq for the 3 primary declared reasons-Genocide, Support of global terrorism, and refusal to comply with UN resolutions with regard to accountability of the WMD program...ended in 2003 but the follow on actions...maintaining peace, fighting insurection, involving the Iraqi poeple and government in providing for their own safety....was poorly planned and executed...right?

When you go to war you should have an enemy and a reason. Agree with it or not (and I know you dont) we had both. WHen thew enemy was defeated we could either completely walk away or stay and try toi ensure we didnt have to go back again. We chose the latter...not the former. Our military did a great job, considering the political handcuffs. We failed miserably in other arenas. Whether or not it will be a long term success is still in question but that does not depend on our soldiers or anything we do. It depends on the Iraqi people.
 
The Iraq war is a success
How do you measure "success?"

1. We were told they were aiding terrorists who wanted to attack the US. Not true.

2. We were told they had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Not true.

3. We were told they were part of an alliance of evil with Iran and North Korea. Not true.

If the "goal" was eliminating these three threats above, I would say the mission was a bitter failure. A consequence of our invasion was that a dictator was taken out of power and a fragile democracy was set in place. That's a positive thing, of course, but that was not the mission.
I know this isnt gonna go down well with those who where in favour of keeping saddam hussein in charge but im pretty sure you will live long enough to doubt yourselves.

Which for me sums up alot of the left they are the first people to stand up bravely and demand Don Imus is fired but when it comes to a middle east Hitler a proven ethnic cleanser you would rather he stay in charge.
But we are not in the business of removing dictators, we are in the business of supporting them.

1. Pakistan: we send billions in aid to Pakistan, yet their dictatorship knowingly aids Al Qaeda. [1]

2. Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir (dictator) received a billion dollars in aid from the US. (ever hear of Darfur?)

3. Kim Jong-Il has received aid money from the US, at least half a billion.

4. Robert Mugabe (dictator) of Zimbabwe has received about a billion from the US.

The US supports dictators around the world. If we, as a Nation, wanted to eradicate dictatorships, we would be sending troops to Africa, not aid. But we don't. We send money to dictators and we sell them guns. The US is the number one weapons exporter in the world.

The "success" in Iraq was building a strategic point where we could keep and deploy troops to any Middle-eastern country. It's also nice to get first-bid at oil contracts. Even with the oil deals, it was the most expensive "success" I could imagine. At least US oil companies will provide jobs here at home.
 
Last edited:
How do you measure "success?"

1. We were told they were aiding terrorists who wanted to attack the US. Not true.

2. We were told they had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Not true.

3. We were told they were part of an alliance of evil with Iran and North Korea. Not true.

If the "goal" was eliminating these three threats above, I would say the mission was a bitter failure. A consequence of our invasion was that a dictator was taken out of power and a fragile democracy was set in place. That's a positive thing, of course, but that was not the mission.

But we are not in the business of removing dictators, we are in the business of supporting them.

1. Pakistan: we send billions in aid to Pakistan, yet their dictatorship knowingly aids Al Qaeda. [1]

2. Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir (dictator) received a billion dollars in aid from the US. (ever hear of Darfur?)

3. Kim Jong-Il has received aid money from the US, at least half a billion.

4. Robert Mugabe (dictator) of Zimbabwe has received about a billion from the US.

The US supports dictators around the world. If we, as a Nation, wanted to eradicate dictatorships, we would be sending troops to Africa, not aid. But we don't. We send money to dictators and we sell them guns. The US is the number one weapons exporter in the world.

The "success" in Iraq was building a strategic point where we could keep and deploy troops to any Middle-eastern country. It's also nice to get first-bid at oil contracts. Even with the oil deals, it was the most expensive "success" I could imagine. At least US oil companies will provide jobs here at home.

All three of your listed reasons are incorrect.
1-We were told he had ties to global terrorism. Absolutely true
2-We were told he conducted acts of genocide (the same justification for war against the Serbians) Absolutely true
3-We were told that Iraq and Hussein refused to give an accounting for the chemical weapons inspected and documented following the first Gulf War. Absolutely true.

Those are the reasons...not the measure of whether or not the war was successful.
 
All three of your listed reasons are incorrect.
1-We were told he had ties to global terrorism. Absolutely true
Prove it.
2-We were told he conducted acts of genocide (the same justification for war against the Serbians) Absolutely true
No #2 was "2. We were told they had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Not true."

Of course he committed genocide; so do all the other dictators we support.
3-We were told that Iraq and Hussein refused to give an accounting for the chemical weapons inspected and documented following the first Gulf War. Absolutely true.
No, #3 was "3. We were told they were part of an alliance of evil with Iran and North Korea. Not true."

Iran and Iraq were bitter enemies and we gave North Korea a free pass.
Those are the reasons...not the measure of whether or not the war was successful.
The only way to measure success is to weight the goal by the outcome.

By the way, you basically ignored the fact that the US supports dictatorships around the world. That alone speaks volumes about the credibility of your argument. If you want to debate my points, in the future, please debate the correct ones.
 
Last edited:
Prove it.

No #2 was "2. We were told they had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Not true."

Of course he committed genocide; so do all the other dictators we support.

No, #3 was "3. We were told they were part of an alliance of evil with Iran and North Korea. Not true."

Iran and Iraq were bitter enemies and we gave North Korea a free pass.

The only way to measure success is to weight the goal by the outcome.

By the way, you basically ignored the fact that the US supports dictatorships around the world. That alone speaks volumes about the credibility of your argument. If you want to debate my points, in the future, please debate the correct ones.

Wow...really?

1-It is undeniable that Hussein housed terrorists, that terrorists trained in his country, and that he paid for Palestinian suicide bombers. Ask Clinton and the democrats...THEY seemed to think Saddam was tied in with terrorosts
2-It is simplyt an undeniable fact that Bush cited Iraqs refusal to disclose as his reasoning. Were we TOLD he had WMDs? Hell yes...by EVERYONE...including every democrat in congress, for 8 years of the Clinton administration, by the first UN inspection teams who catalogued TONS of biological weapons and spores, and by the Iraqis themselves. What we werent told is what HAPPENED to them. We simply dont know. We dont know if he dumped them in the desert, burned them at a barbeque...we simply dont know. And the UN was SO bent on finding them they passed 17 resolutions condemning Saddam for not disclosing their whereabouts or disposition. Those are the facts.
3-The subject of genocide isnt attached to the Iran Iraq war (it wouldnt be genocide then would it). It involved the murder of his own people be it the entire village of Halabja using chemical weapons or other Kurds or simply families who didnt agree with him.

I didnt adress the dictator comment because it has no relative bearing to the cause of the war or the success. Im not MAKING an argument, simply stating the facts. DO we support dictators? Sure. Point? Certainly not relevant to why we attacked Iraq, not this time or the last time.

These people all agree Saddam HADD them and was a threat. WHat we dont know is what happened to them. We MIGHT have more knowledge about their disposition had the world not ignored the problem throughout the 90s.

Agree with it or not...and I dont care either way...but the fact is we went to war against Iraq and Saddam Hussien and he was ousted, his military was defeated, and we are now allied with the government of Iraq.
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
 
1-It is undeniable that Hussein housed terrorists, that terrorists trained in his country, and that he paid for Palestinian suicide bombers. Ask Clinton and the democrats...THEY seemed to think Saddam was tied in with terrorosts
I asked you to prove it. I'm not personal friends with former President Clinton, I'm talking to you.

We were told that Iraq aided the "people who attacked us on Sept 11th." I want proof of that. The Senate and Pentagon both reported that there was no operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. [1]
2-It is simplyt an undeniable fact that Bush cited Iraqs refusal to disclose as his reasoning
There were no nukes. All that mushroom-cloud, end of the world, talk was a lie. Opposition to the invasion was suppressed and the intelligence was falsified. [1]
3-The subject of genocide isnt attached to the Iran Iraq war
I assume you have a hard time understanding English.

Again, point "3" was about an Iraq, Iran North Korea question. Read it again.

"3. We were told they were part of an alliance of evil with Iran and North Korea. Not true."
I didnt adress the dictator comment because it has no relative bearing to the cause of the war or the success. Im not MAKING an argument, simply stating the facts. DO we support dictators? Sure. Point? Certainly not relevant to why we attacked Iraq, not this time or the last time.
The OP listed disposing of a dictator and replacing it with democracy as evidence of "success."

You admit the US supports dictators, so I guess the OP was just full of hot-air.
Agree with it or not...and I dont care either way...but the fact is we went to war against Iraq and Saddam Hussien and he was ousted, his military was defeated, and we are now allied with the government of Iraq.
It's not the first time we have been allied with Iraq, officially or not. Remember Rumsfeld and Saddam photoshoot? pic

Yes, Iraq was a dictatorship and yes we successfully invaded them. But we put Saddam in power in the first place, so let's not forget how it started.
Blah, blah, blah.
Why not just quote George W Bush himself?
Bush said:
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002
Bush said:
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003
Where were the nukes? Where were the "fleets of manned and unmanned drones?" Nowhere.

Do you not remember how we didn't find any WMD's? Did you forget that somehow?
 
Do you not remember how we didn't find any WMD's? Did you forget that somehow?

First off...if you have gone from 2003 to 2010 and STILL havent 'heard' Bush's three reasons why we went to war, then nothing I say will 'prove' anything to you.

Second...I STATED we dont KNOW what happened to Iraqs WMDs. We still dont. We know he had them. We know he refused to account for them. We DONT know where they went. Thats part of that whole 'refussal to give an accounting of their WMD program. Or did the UN just pass 17 resolutions for ****s grins and giggles? The fact that the UN inspection teams following the first Gulf War means nothing to you. The fact that DEMOCRATS cited Iraqs WMDs means nothing to you. So the simple FACT is that NOTHING will matter to you, influence you, nor change your mind and please believe me when I tell you this...I dont CARE enough about you to TRYT to change your mind about why we went to war in Iraq. We went. EVERY democrat for TEN YEARS gave justification for military action and war against Iraq. Argue this issue with them. Or rather...dont bother. I truly dont care.
 
You seem to have the mistaken concept that I am a Democrat or care what they think.

I was asking you questions. I was asking you for validation of your argument. I was debating you, but you don't seem to know how that works.
I truly dont care.
You do care, which is why you keep replying. You are just unable to make a compelling argument with your own words.

Never say you don't care, when you clearly do. It makes your argument seem nonsensical.
 
You seem to have the mistaken concept that I am a Democrat or care what they think.

I was asking you questions. I was asking you for validation of your argument. I was debating you, but you don't seem to know how that works.

You do care, which is why you keep replying. You are just unable to make a compelling argument with your own words.

Never say you don't care, when you clearly do. It makes your argument seem nonsensical.

No...I truly dont. I have seen this ball been batted around for 7 years now. Im tired of it. The decision was made in 2003. At the time Bush made the decision to attack Iraq he gave an address and cited 3 primary reasons and 17 secondary reasons. When he made his comments about Iraqs refusal to comply with the UN resolutions regarding disposition of their WMD program, Iraq had defied 17 resolutions. Every elected democrat from 1992 to 2003 supported Bush's statements about Iraqs ties to global terrorism and their WMD programs. Me? Im done with caring about it. Unless you are an absolute ****ing moron you CANNOT acknowledge a 30+year history of Iraq seeking and developing chemical weapons...including a period where we sold him biological spores...and then suddenly pretend he NEVER had them. Thats either absolute disconnection with reality or a blatant disregard for the facts. You choose which one applies to you...I dont know you that well. But no...J6P...I DONT care...I am not so naiive as to think ANYTHING I say will convince someone who can look at a 30 year history and 10 years of evidence and just pretend it never happened.
 
Most Libertarians I've met and spoke with are intelligent and open minded. Unfortunately there are exceptions to every rule.
No...I truly dont.
Yet you keep replying about how much you "don't care."

It's about as insightful as this wounderful post.
Aaaaaaaaaand...thats three...
Brilliant.
I DONT care...
Then why should anyone care about the posts that you don't care about when you write them?
I am not so naiive as to think ANYTHING I say will convince someone who can look at a 30 year history and 10 years of evidence and just pretend it never happened.
I'm surprised by your comments. I haven't ignored history. The US supports dictators and the US helped Saddam gain power.

All I am saying is the reason we went after Iraq was because of its strategic location in the Middle-East, not because he was a dictator or because his coutury was dangerous. North Korea has nukes and we have sent them aid. Pakistan is a dangerous country not only has nukes, but supports Al Qaeda directly, and the US sends them about a billion dollars a year. That's the hypocracy I am pointing out. If you had bothered reading my posts, instead of talking *at* me, you would know that.

Epic failure.
 
Last edited:
Most Libertarians I've met and spoke with are intelligent and open minded. Unfortunately there are exceptions to every rule.

Yet you keep replying about how much you "don't care."

It's about as insightful as this wounderful post.

Brilliant.

Then why should anyone care about the posts that you don't care about when you write them?

I'm surprised by your comments. I haven't ignored history. The US supports dictators and the US helped Saddam gain power.

All I am saying is the reason we went after Iraq was because of its strategic location in the Middle-East, not because he was a dictator or because his coutury was dangerous. North Korea has nukes and we have sent them aid. Pakistan is a dangerous country not only has nukes, but supports Al Qaeda directly, and the US sends them about a billion dollars a year. That's the hypocracy I am pointing out. If you had bothered reading my posts, instead of talking *at* me, you would know that.

Epic failure.

Sweeeeet! You actually bothered to post from a different thread! Thats AWESOME!

J6P...keep your4 apples in your apple basket and your oranges in your orange basket. Have we supported dictators? Sure. Does it apply to the war against Iraq or whether or not it was a success...not even a little bit. If you want a discussion on our support of dictators maybe you should START one.

Have we supported dictators? We have done a LOT of things that were in our countries (and even the worlds) best interest that are unsavory. You bet. Global politics is a mean and ugly bitch. Sometimes you do things you dont like.
 
Only someone completely out of touch with reality or totally brainwashed believes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are over.

FOXNews.com - Iraq on Highest Alert for Terror Attacks
BAGHDAD -- The Iraqi prime minister put his nation on its highest alert for terror attacks, as insurgents hammer Iraqi security forces preparing to take over for a U.S. combat mission that formally ends on Tuesday.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Iraqi intelligence indicated that an Al Qaeda front group and members of Saddam Hussein's outlawed Baath party are collaborating to launch attacks "to create fear and chaos and kill more innocents."

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/29/troops-killed-afghanistan-fighting/?test=latestnews
7 U.S. Troops Killed in Latest Afghan Fighting
Fighting is intensifying with the addition of 30,000 U.S. troops to bring the total number of international forces in Afghanistan to 120,000 -- 100,000 of them American. Most of those new troops have been assigned to the southern insurgent strongholds of Helmand and Kandahar provinces where major battles are fought almost daily as part of a gathering drive to push out the Taliban.
 
Last edited:
Having just spent a year in Iraq, I have seen up close and personal what a crap hole the place is. I fully expect that within 6 months of the withdrawal of US support, the whole place will collapse in upon itself. After thousands of years of despotic and dictatorial leadership those people have no concept of self-government. Most of the average Iraqis are so poorly educated that they don't have a clue what is going on. Most of them don't even have access to clean water. They could care less about politics.

I do realize now why it is so easy to recruit suicide bombers from that region. If I knew I would have to spend the rest of my life living there...I would want the rest of my life to be as short as possible.
 
Having just spent a year in Iraq, I have seen up close and personal what a crap hole the place is. I fully expect that within 6 months of the withdrawal of US support, the whole place will collapse in upon itself. After thousands of years of despotic and dictatorial leadership those people have no concept of self-government. Most of the average Iraqis are so poorly educated that they don't have a clue what is going on. Most of them don't even have access to clean water. They could care less about politics.

I do realize now why it is so easy to recruit suicide bombers from that region. If I knew I would have to spend the rest of my life living there...I would want the rest of my life to be as short as possible.

your insight is appreciated......is it true that prior to the war, iraqis WERE educated?
 
your insight is appreciated......is it true that prior to the war, iraqis WERE educated?

Probably somewhat better than now, but not by that much. Saddam's Iraq was still a poor dictatorship, and while more stable, there wasn't the same humanitarian drive to build schools.
 
The Iraq war was HUGELY successful. It was an unmittigated military victory. it ended in 2003. The aftermath...the peace effort...not handled very well at all. But we have given the Iraqi people a break from a murderous brutal dictator...if they choose peace and democracy...good for them. If not...well...thats truly on their shoulders.

Not true. Under international law an occupying force has an obligation to provide 'security' to the population. The coalition failed miserably on this part, of the 'overall' obligation.
So trying to 'cherry pick' parts that you deem a success does not paint the true picture.

Paul
 
Having just spent a year in Iraq, I have seen up close and personal what a crap hole the place is. I fully expect that within 6 months of the withdrawal of US support, the whole place will collapse in upon itself. After thousands of years of despotic and dictatorial leadership those people have no concept of self-government. Most of the average Iraqis are so poorly educated that they don't have a clue what is going on. Most of them don't even have access to clean water. They could care less about politics.

I do realize now why it is so easy to recruit suicide bombers from that region. If I knew I would have to spend the rest of my life living there...I would want the rest of my life to be as short as possible.

A pretty 'broad brush' summing up of modern day Iraq. Like all country's, regions- Iraq has enjoyed a period of prominence. During the 'Islamic golden age' scholarly engineers, poets etc made a contribution that influenced many regions.

History of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paul
 
A pretty 'broad brush' summing up of modern day Iraq. Like all country's, regions- Iraq has enjoyed a period of prominence. During the 'Islamic golden age' scholarly engineers, poets etc made a contribution that influenced many regions.

History of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paul

true, but they were never self governed. They have always had a big boss in charge to tell the people what to do.

All I can comment on is what I saw in and around southern Iraq and it was miserable
 
The Iraq war was a MAJOR mistake. Good, brave citizens that fought for our country needlessly died. Plus now the whole damn area is destabilized. No part of that war was neccesary.
 
Back
Top Bottom