The War in Iraq: 6 Years Later

[Zephyrus]

Originally Posted by kstar

I said that to make a point. I'm glad you at least got the reference, so why do you seem so uneducated about what is going on now?

I give Bush credit, credit for killing innocent Iraqi civilians. Credit for becoming the aggressor and making military moves based on false accusations. Credit for making America the laughing stock of the world. Credit for taking a balanced budget with a surplus, and turning it into a financial crisis. Is that the type of credit you think he deserves, because that is all the credit I will give him.

I don't give a shit why you said it, your fcking point still didn't change my opinion. You don't have a fking clue. Really you don't. Uneducated? That's laughable. You come on here posting bullshit about how it's a life or death situation if someone in your family has a different political perspective than yours. Well, FCK YOU!! After I read that shit you posted I don't even know why I read this post or responded to it. You don't like Bush's policies. So fking what. I do. If Bush never got rid of Saddam, I know the whole mideast conflict would be a lot more fcked up than it is now. I'll give it 15-20 years and ficktards like you will learn to appreciate Bush's decision making.

[moe.ron]

Originally Posted by Zephyrus

He probably wouldn't be successful at it, but all it would take is an attempt on his part to cause a war.

There is no evidence whatsoever that he had the ability or even the intention to attack Israel. There was more evidence that WMD was in Iraq and he could've sent the WMD to europe in 45 minutes, which was all false and close to lies.

[Zephyrus]

Originally Posted by moe.ron

There is no evidence whatsoever that he had the ability or even the intention to attack Israel. There was more evidence that WMD was in Iraq and he could've sent the WMD to europe in 45 minutes, which was all false and close to lies.

Yeah, it was then. Who's to say what would happen in the future. kstar doesn't have a fcking clue. We've got bases set up in Iraq now, and we're not leaving. So far this has been the most expensive war in U.S. history, and right now, people don't agree. I can't say I'm all for every decision Bush has made, just like any other president. What I am saying is, this all seems fcked up now, but I think people will appreciate what he did in the future. You also have to take in account that the govt. isn't going to tell us everything. They know a whole shit load of stuff we'll never know. Bush wanted to go in and root out terrorism, and he started with Iraq. I think he should have started with Saudi Arabia. Those assholes are no allies of ours. Most of the countries in the mideast hate the U.S. anyway. Who was responsible for 911? Those guys were all fking Saudis, dude. What did you expect Bush to do? Sit on his hands and do nothing? Those fkers in the mideast have been fighting over the same bullshit since the beginning of time. I would like to take out that whole region. They're fcking evil.

[moe.ron]

I'm amazed . . . truly amazed.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by Zephyrus

If Bush never got rid of Saddam, I know the whole mideast conflict would be a lot more fcked up than it is now. I'll give it 15-20 years and ficktards like you will learn to appreciate Bush's decision making.

Actually no. The situation in the Middle East was tense, but had not escalated into outright war, and most likely would not have for a great period of time. There was an even power distribution. Because of Bush's LIES (that Saddam had WMDs) there is now a power vacuole which will be filled. Likely involving another war.

The US will not stay in Iraq like they stayed in Germany, they will pull out like they did in Vietman and Korea. The key difference is that the German people were not oppressed and most welcomed the occupiers because of that. Like in Vietnam, we have made the Iraqis second class citizens in their own nation. We have interrupted their democratic elections, we have detained their citizens and transported them out of their country, sometimes without proof of any wrongdoing. The Iraqis do not want us there, and I think that when we will be withdrawing from Iraq, it will be under gun fire.

Also, when you say that Saddam would have attacked Israel, most Israelis don't think that he would have. In fact, they were against starting a war with Iraq without further proof of WMDs. Yes, they did support the US once the war started, but they were against starting the war with the current proof. (P.S. I'm a dual US/Israeli passport holder. Right of return, ftw.)

It is a sign of the uneducated to resort to ad hominem attacks when someone provides a case against their side. That and the fact that you had to resort to swearing makes my point for me that you are uneducated.

[Zephyrus]

Originally Posted by kstar

Actually no. The situation in the Middle East was tense, but had not escalated into outright war, and most likely would not have for a great period of time. There was an even power distribution. Because of Bush's LIES (that Saddam had WMDs) there is now a power vacuole which will be filled. Likely involving another war.

The US will not stay in Iraq like they stayed in Germany, they will pull out like they did in Vietman and Korea. The key difference is that the German people were not oppressed and most welcomed the occupiers because of that. Like in Vietnam, we have made the Iraqis second class citizens in their own nation. We have interrupted their democratic elections, we have detained their citizens and transported them out of their country, sometimes without proof of any wrongdoing. The Iraqis do not want us there, and I think that when we will be withdrawing from Iraq, it will be under gun fire.

Also, when you say that Saddam would have attacked Israel, most Israelis don't think that he would have. In fact, they were against starting a war with Iraq without further proof of WMDs. Yes, they did support the US once the war started, but they were against starting the war with the current proof. (P.S. I'm a dual US/Israeli passport holder. Right of return, ftw.)

It is a sign of the uneducated to resort to ad hominem attacks when someone provides a case against their side. That and the fact that you had to resort to swearing makes my point for me that you are uneducated.

Hominem attacks? WTF??? WTF was your bullshit fucking sarcasm about?

Do you even know what would happen if we left Iraq? Do you?

[moe.ron]

Originally Posted by Zephyrus

Hominem attacks? WTF??? WTF was your bullshit fucking sarcasm about?

Do you even know what would happen if we left Iraq? Do you?

What? Send their WMD within 45 minutes into Europe? You do realized that most of the WMD inteligence was given by Challabi, who was a paid agent of the Iranian government. In another word, Bush was dupped into invading Iraq by the Iranian. Well, that is one of the theory out there.

Is it necessary for you to curse? What would your mother say young man?

[Zephyrus]

Originally Posted by moe.ron

What? Send their WMD within 45 minutes into Europe? You do realized that most of the WMD inteligence was given by Challabi, who was a paid agent of the Iranian government. In another word, Bush was dupped into invading Iraq by the Iranian. Well, that is one of the theory out there.

Is it necessary for you to curse? What would your mother say young man?

Who said anything about sending WMDs into Europe? I'm talking about the consequences of leaving Iraq. This chick seems to think we will eventually leave Iraq. We won't.

People swear all the time on here. Don't just single me out, dude.

[moe.ron]

I think you're mistaken, the debate was about why Bush went in. I have argued that the Iraqi war was a mistake from the beginning. I have also argued that the rationale behind it was piss poor and the defense department didn't know what they got themselves into. Wolfowitz was using his experience in Indonesia to try to show they democracy can spread in a nation with Muslim majority. What he didn't realized is that the Arabic street and the Indonesian street are two totally different world.

Rumsfeld also came into Iraq trying out a new theory of a leaner attack force which can take over a nation and in the mean time conduct state building with minimal cost. Yes, a lot of people died because neo-cons were conducting an experiment on a theory. Well, the neo-cons were kicked out Bush's 2nd term.

Also, Bremmer did such a piss poor job, he made AIG executives look like a bunch of efficient managers. The whole mess can be blamed on Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearl and Bremmer.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

While I'm sad when almost anyone dies under any circumstances (and even the rare exceptions don't make me happy or anything), from a numerical standpoint it's hard to argue that it's a particularly deadly war or even a particularly dangerous (in terms of the percentage wounded) war as wars go.

Even if you aren't crazy about why we went to war, unless you were just exceptionally pissed about Arch Duke Ferdinand, we're still doing much better in Iraq than we did in WWI. It's hard to think of much more senseless slaughter than WWI. We lost more than 100,000 guys in less than a year and a half.

I hate that I'm probably coming off as all, "well whatever, it's no Pacific theater in WWII, who cares?" But when people want to discuss numbers in Iraq, I feel like they should have to mention that we lose 700-1000 people in the military in a year when aren't actually engaged in wars.

It's a dangerous job in the best of circumstances.

Yes, there are fewer deaths in the War on Terror than in previous wars, but that's due in part to the fact that there have been major advances in medical treatment. Injuries that may have proven fatal in WWII or even Vietnam are survivable now. Also, the nature of the combat has changed, where the weapons--on both sides--are far more precise in their target than ever before.

Also, for the generations born just after the Vietnam War or who don't live with the shadows of Vietnam, this is our "first war," so it may seem like a lot of people regardless of how you feel about the war.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

Yes, there are fewer deaths in the War on Terror than in previous wars, but that's due in part to the fact that there have been major advances in medical treatment. Injuries that may have proven fatal in WWII or even Vietnam are survivable now. Also, the nature of the combat has changed, where the weapons--on both sides--are far more precise in their target than ever before.

Also, for the generations born just after the Vietnam War or who don't live with the shadows of Vietnam, this is our "first war," so it may seem like a lot of people regardless of how you feel about the war.

You are very correct about injuries and deaths. The two things that changed survival rates the most are helicopters and antibiotics (firstly penicillin). Vietnam was the first US involvement with regular use of helicopters and that changed the survival rate of soldiers immensely, also there are many other advances in technology (medical, transportation, and communications) that increase survival rates of injured soldiers.

[AGDee]

Should we mention the number of Iraqi civillians who have been killed? This web site has been trying to keep a count and have it at somewhere between 92,000 and 99,000.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

[Forgotten Zeta]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Should we mention the number of Iraqi civillians who have been killed? This web site has been trying to keep a count and have it at somewhere between 92,000 and 99,000.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

the website defines a civilian as a non-combatant but during this war most of the attacks on coalition forces were from people who wore no uniforms so how accurate can it really be? also, it just give a number of deaths since the beginning of the war, how many were from violent acts committed by other iraqis? between ied's and suicide bombers many civilians were killed and last i checked the army wasn't using either of those methods. not to mention that this website is propaganda for an anti-war movement so i'm not putting too much stake in it.

[Zephyrus]

Originally Posted by moe.ron

I think you're mistaken, the debate was about why Bush went in. I have argued that the Iraqi war was a mistake from the beginning. I have also argued that the rationale behind it was piss poor and the defense department didn't know what they got themselves into. Wolfowitz was using his experience in Indonesia to try to show they democracy can spread in a nation with Muslim majority. What he didn't realized is that the Arabic street and the Indonesian street are two totally different world.

Rumsfeld also came into Iraq trying out a new theory of a leaner attack force which can take over a nation and in the mean time conduct state building with minimal cost. Yes, a lot of people died because neo-cons were conducting an experiment on a theory. Well, the neo-cons were kicked out Bush's 2nd term.

Also, Bremmer did such a piss poor job, he made AIG executives look like a bunch of efficient managers. The whole mess can be blamed on Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearl and Bremmer.

I don't disagree with all of this. However, I still feel we should have gone in and invaded Iraq. Yeah, true enough, Bush lied, but I think if he would have given the American people a different reason of going in, he would have gotten more support. The reason why we just can't pack up and leave, is because technically there really isn't any Iraqi armed forces left. We're not fighting an Iraqi army anymore. We are now fighting terrorist groups. If we leave, they come in, which is why I think we're there to stay. Saddam was a real asshole, a fucking madman. Dude, he had to be taken out. He was killing his own people. What kind of shit is that? A madman like that can't be trusted. Just give it time.

[moe.ron]

I don't disagree that leaving Iraq would be a disaster. Bush finally got it later on his administration, which is why you saw a lot of the neo-cons being swept out of power, with Wolfowitz being moved into the World Bank and Rumsfeld being replazed by Gates.

Listen, Hussein was a thug and he played chicken with Bush. He didn't factor in the psyched of the American mind after 9/11. If he played a long with Bush and open up, he would still be in power, right now or his son would've replaced him. Instead, he played chicken and lost.

Before 9/11, neo-con always had the plan to invade Iraq and try out this domino theory of spreading democracy in the middle east. The whole thing was written, look for it. However, back then they didn't have a reason to invade Iraq. Sanction was working and Saddam's army wasn't moving. Did you know that there was a deal between the regular armed forces and the Bush admin that when Saddam fell, the regular army would stay still and become the guard.

Remmember, Saddam himself didn't trust the regular armed forces, that is why he created the Republican Guard. However, when Bremmer came into power as the viceroy of Iraq, he didn't keep his word and instead broke a part the Iraqi military. Guess what happen, you have thousands of jobless, highly trained individuals with guns. They're all pissed that the promises wasn't kept. They became the insurgent. Not the same insurgents from Al-Qaeda though. Just pissed off, highly trained military folks.