4,000 dead Americans

[Dobbs 3K 0]

No, but his people weren't in a civil war, and terrorists weren't coming into Iraq, since you know, Saddam actually hated Al-Qaeda and didn't trust Osama bin Laden. The Kurds were oppressed and had been terrorized, but it's not like Turkey is letting the Turks in their country separate, and they're one of our biggest allies in the region.

[EricMM 0]

Back then it wasn't our problem and our people weren't dying.

 

Despite claims to the contrary, he wasn't a threat, at least not as much as many other peoples.

[Jingus 0]

his people weren't in a civil war, and terrorists weren't coming into Iraq

Because Saddam killed everyone who disagreed with him. He ran a tyrannical dictatorship where either you did exactly what he wanted, or you were shot. Hell, if you were LUCKY you were shot, don't forget him using real live WMDs on his own population. And a SHITLOAD more Iraqis died in the war he led against Iran (unfortunately, with US backing) in the 80's than in every other conflict since then combined.

 

Yes, Turkey and pretty much every other country in the region oppresses the Kurds. No, I don't think that's right.

 

No, Saddam wasn't much of a threat to us. He sure as hell was a threat to his own people and all his immediate neighbors, as the tens of millions of people who'd died in those wars could tell you.

 

It comes down to: do you think it's worth it to try to help other people in shitty countries? I do. Sadly, we've not done a very good job of it, but I don't think that taking Hussein out of power was ever a bad idea.

[NoCalMike 0]

his people weren't in a civil war, and terrorists weren't coming into Iraq

Because Saddam killed everyone who disagreed with him. He ran a tyrannical dictatorship where either you did exactly what he wanted, or you were shot. Hell, if you were LUCKY you were shot, don't forget him using real live WMDs on his own population. And a SHITLOAD more Iraqis died in the war he led against Iran (unfortunately, with US backing) in the 80's than in every other conflict since then combined.

 

Yes, Turkey and pretty much every other country in the region oppresses the Kurds. No, I don't think that's right.

 

No, Saddam wasn't much of a threat to us. He sure as hell was a threat to his own people and all his immediate neighbors, as the tens of millions of people who'd died in those wars could tell you.

 

It comes down to: do you think it's worth it to try to help other people in shitty countries? I do. Sadly, we've not done a very good job of it, but I don't think that taking Hussein out of power was ever a bad idea.

 

 

Taking Saddam out of power wasn't a bad idea, however, it should have been led by the Iraqi people with our backing. The way George Bush 41 wanted to do it, but he didn't keep his promise which resulted in the gassing of the Kurds.

 

When the Iraqi people themselves got sick enough of Saddam, and put the Sunni vs. Shia vs. Kurd bullshit aside enough to want to get rid of Saddam, then fine, U.S. forces could have backed them, but the Bush Admin. decided to do it in a totally backwards way.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

You think Saddam was doing just fine as a humanitarian leader?

 

Yes, Jingus, the fact that I think we shouldn't have undertaken the biggest foreign policy blunder in at least a generation clearly demonstrates that I supported the torture and rape rooms of Saddam. In fact, a big chunk of Americans now (retroactively) support the policies of The Butcher of Baghdad.

 

Remember kids, the only possible approach to dealing with dictators and rogue states is to make up a bunch of shit about them that isn't really true, tell people that you're going to get blown up by nuclear bombs if you don't invade them, and call anyone who disagrees a dictator-coddling dirty fucking hippie. That's a humanitarian foreign policy.

 

Just ask Jingus.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Because Saddam killed everyone who disagreed with him. He ran a tyrannical dictatorship where either you did exactly what he wanted, or you were shot. Hell, if you were LUCKY you were shot, don't forget him using real live WMDs on his own population. And a SHITLOAD more Iraqis died in the war he led against Iran (unfortunately, with US backing) in the 80's than in every other conflict since then combined.

 

Yes, Turkey and pretty much every other country in the region oppresses the Kurds. No, I don't think that's right.

 

No, Saddam wasn't much of a threat to us. He sure as hell was a threat to his own people and all his immediate neighbors, as the tens of millions of people who'd died in those wars could tell you.

 

It comes down to: do you think it's worth it to try to help other people in shitty countries? I do. Sadly, we've not done a very good job of it, but I don't think that taking Hussein out of power was ever a bad idea.

 

Were you actually serious when you typed this? Give me a break.

 

Yes, Saddam was a crappy, evil dictator. However, he kept Iran and Al-Qaeda in check, as much as the Bush administration would like us to believe otherwise. Funny how Iran is (openly) building a nuclear arsenal and getting cocky only now that Saddam is gone, isn't it?

 

I mainly think that, no, it isn't worth it to try and help people in shitty countries. Maybe if they're in our own backyard and it's practical, but mainly, it just doesn't work. I'm sick of seeing us try to help countries, and then they turn around and end up hating us. I think people mainly need to decide as a nation if they want to pull themselves up. Very few countries that have been created by a foreign power end up lasting as a free democracy. Look at the US...we're free because our forefathers wanted to be free, not because France or Spain said "Oh no, these people are oppressed by King George, we need to liberate them!"

 

Oh, it's also funny how back when we were in the Gulf the first time, the same people in charge now thought removing Saddam back then was a bad idea...you know, back when we had international support and it might have been somewhat achievable to stabilize Iraq.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

It wasn't actually all the same people in charge.

 

Bush the Elder's foreign policy people were primarily these and Bush the Younger's were primarily these.

 

How Cheney and Rumsfeld ended up being both is odd, as demonstrated by the cognitive dissonance produced by watching that Cheney video from '94 that YPOV and I both posted.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I mainly think that, no, it isn't worth it to try and help people in shitty countries.

 

See, I disagree with Invader here, as I do on many issues (such as teh mexcans). But it seems the Iraq War has brought us together.

 

(I think it's worth it to try to help people in other countries, just not on false pretenses and in a bumblingly incompetent manner)

[Jingus 0]

Hey Smitty, you're quoting me there, not him.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

My bad.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

It wasn't actually all the same people in charge.

 

Bush the Elder's foreign policy people were primarily these and Bush the Younger's were primarily these.

 

How Cheney and Rumsfeld ended up being both is odd, as demonstrated by the cognitive dissonance produced by watching that Cheney video from '94 that YPOV and I both posted.

 

I mainly meant Cheney and Rumsfeld. You could kind of lump Colin Powell in there as well (since he went before the UN and provided evidence that Saddam was building WMDs).

[Dobbs 3K 0]

BTW, even though I think it's a total liberal rag, the latest Rolling Stone has a very compelling article about all the corruption that's gone on with companies getting contracts to "rebuild" Iraq and service the US troops. It's written by Matt Taibbi, whose writing I absolutely hate, but it's still a good article.

 

It really leaves the question of how much more of this garbage we're going to take, and how and if the administration should ultimately be punished for allowing and even encouraging all of the corruption to go on.

[Jingus 0]

What, you missed the Haliburton scandal? War profiteering happens in pretty much every war, unfortunately. This is just the latest crummy example.

[NoCalMike 0]

What, you missed the Haliburton scandal? War profiteering happens in pretty much every war, unfortunately. This is just the latest crummy example.

 

Well I thought there was some type of War Profiterring act signed during WW2 that prohibited that kind of stuff.....along with the warning of the Military Industrial Complex that was forming.

 

Also, for more on this subject, check out the movie "Iraq for Sale"

[Dobbs 3K 0]

What, you missed the Haliburton scandal? War profiteering happens in pretty much every war, unfortunately. This is just the latest crummy example.

 

Yeah, but a lot of it is more than just Haliburton. It's basically a whole industry of war profiteering. Actually, it's not really profiteering, it's outright theft.

[snuffbox 0]

If our Iraq War leadership had as many soldiers on the ground there as LBJ etc did in Vietnam (which would still not be enough to stifle civil war & nation build simultaneously) the death toll would be subsequently higher.

 

 

The comparison is apt in that it shows us what happens when we invade foreign countries with underwhelming forces without bothering to consider who/where we are attacking or the consequences thereof.

So, which one is it? We should deploy more troops, or we could never deploy enough troops?

 

There could never be enough troops. If you're going to fight a war, fight it to win it. That should be rule #1 but draft dodgers have proven themselves incapable of fighting wars from the sidelines. They make pretty damn good cheerleaders, though.

 

It should have been known that the groups in Iraq would fracture and then fight civil war over the power left behind by the toppled Saddam Hussein. How many soldiers would it then take to stifle a foreign civil war and nation build? That's a question that should have been asked but our leaders didn't go beyond 'slick agile force' and 'greeted as liberators'. A war game was conducted in the late 90s to see exactly how nation building/civil war-handling could go in Iraq...the findings were that 500,000 would be needed & would still probably not be enough.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

A war game was conducted in the late 90s to see exactly how nation building/civil war-handling could go in Iraq...the findings were that 500,000 would be needed & would still probably not be enough.

 

"Yes, but that's because Bill Clinton would have been too busy with Monica Lewinsky to properly conduct a war."/GOP commentator mode off/

[Jingus 0]

So, you seem to be saying that there's no possible way to win and we should've never invaded in the first place, correct?

[theintensifier 0]

It is true that the administration is basically playing toy soldiers with our troops. They're staying for multiple tours way too long and often. No thought is being given to the psychological trauma being inflicted.

That's because we're deemed expendable.

 

I've never agreed with the statement "The men and women serving in Iraq are the next Vietnam generation". That is bullshit on many, basic, understandable reasons.

 

1. Our troops have excellent training before being shipped over to Iraq. Vietnam era soldiers were shipped straight to war after boot camp. Everyone had a brief course with the radio, but you didn't know what you're MOS was exactly going to be back then.

 

2. Obviously technological advancements. Medical personel, medical technology, and let's not forget the weapons were using.

 

3. The soldiers believe in what they're doing, and they're not being drafted into the service. This is a huge one. Nearly every single Vietnam vet I've ever come across has complained about being drafted and it ruining their lives and how they wanted to run away. Every Marine, Sailor, Soldier, Fly Boy I've talked to serving in Iraq want to be there.

 

At first, I was completely for the War against Iraq/Afghanistan. I was in the 10th grade when we first invaded Iraq, and I was still wet behind the ears regarding our lovely government. I believed them when they said that Sadam and his government had Weapons of Mass Destruction. But that was a lie. I'm sure they had some weapons that would cause some serious damage, but nothing like what we have in our personal aresenal (like the heart beat bomb).

 

We accomplished about as much as possible over there. We eliminated many, many serious terrorist cells and threats to the United States and the rest of the free world. However, we're fighting a unwinable war. No matter how much good we actually do, the bad will outweigh that good ten-fold. We need to pull out of the middle east, and especially stay out of Korea.

[theintensifier 0]

So, you seem to be saying that there's no possible way to win and we should've never invaded in the first place, correct?

There is no possible way to win, unless we turned the entire middle east to glass. What would that accomplish though?

 

I do think we should have invaded though, but for different reasons. I just wish our government could actually level with the people, we all know that they're lying to us, and they know that we know that they're lying.

[Jingus 0]

Okay. I don't agree with the "pull out now" sentiment in general, but you stated your argument very well and I can respect that.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Hey Jingus, I would be interested in your response to this post.

 

(Seriously, not being snarky)

[EricMM 0]

Jingus there is no way to "win" on certain terms.

 

If we were so gung-ho about getting rid of Saddam, we should've gone in, kicked him out, and left. There was no way, there IS no way, seemingly, to avoid the bloodshed that is coming right now. That is ongoing right now.

 

In retrospect, it was a mistake to get rid of Saddam. It hasn't helped the Iraqis realistically. It may have changed the source of their misery, but it hasn't eliminated it.

[theintensifier 0]

At least a son finished what his father started.

[Jingus 0]

Remember kids, the only possible approach to dealing with dictators and rogue states is to make up a bunch of shit about them that isn't really true, tell people that you're going to get blown up by nuclear bombs if you don't invade them, and call anyone who disagrees a dictator-coddling dirty fucking hippie. That's a humanitarian foreign policy.

I've said since day one that the bullshit "They have WMDS RIGHT NOW" and "Saddam Al Quaeda" justifications were indeed that, bullshit. I think this war needed to be fought. I think the manner in which it has been fought is clumsy and inefficient to say the least.

 

it was a mistake to get rid of Saddam

Speaking of bullshit. I can't believe you'd say that seriously, Eric. Yeah, the civil war sucks, but that's not our fault. All we did was remove the tyrannical murderous genocidal iron-fisted government. And yeah, a tyrannical murderous genocidal iron-fisted type of government tends to be pretty good at squashing opposition, so the war couldn't have happened during Saddam's reign. But you're seriously saying that Saddam was better for the Iraqi people than not?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Well, maybe what we should have simply done was remove Saddam, and then leave, or leave a remote force to oversee things, but not get involved in the whole "nation building" non-sense.

[EricMM 0]

Jingus how can you take one look over there and not see a mistake?

 

We are not safer. The Iraqis are not safer.

 

As principled as this may have seemed at the onset, its fully expected eventualities have been shown to be as fithy as Saddam. In other words, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are STILL dying. But now they haven't got any power, and Al-Qaeda has a hiring tool of stellar proportions. We fucked up the Afghanistan war by moving all of our energies into this one.

 

M-I-S-T-A-K-E.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

What is really hilarious is that the government, or the companies they've hired, are actually paying protection money to insurgent groups...and since these groups are supposedly linked to Al-Qaeda, we're now basically paying Al-Qaeda (at least if we follow the president's view). Doesn't anyone see how messed up this is? Why aren't the Democrats calling Bush to task for more stuff like this? When is enough, enough, and when are people actually supposed to be held accountable, either way?

[EricMM 0]

We are propping one sect against another. At one point we were arming Shiites and then we started arming the Sunnis when it turned out that the Shiite militia groups were getting out of hand...

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Exactly. Bush and his administration need to be punished for this debacle, but Congress is too spineless to do anything.