» GC Stats |
Members: 331,372
Threads: 115,705
Posts: 2,207,512
|
Welcome to our newest member, taylormarley566 |
|
 |

03-28-2009, 07:59 AM
|
Super Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Southeast Asia
Posts: 9,027
|
|
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.
__________________
Spambot Killer  
|

03-29-2009, 01:44 AM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 197
|
|
Quote:
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.
Last edited by Zephyrus; 03-29-2009 at 01:46 AM.
|

03-29-2009, 07:40 AM
|
Super Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Southeast Asia
Posts: 9,027
|
|
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.
__________________
Spambot Killer  
|

03-29-2009, 02:32 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 16,203
|
|
I agree with kstar. I just want to also add that I think what Bush was trying to do was create a puppet government in Iraq. I don't agree with it, but that's basically what he's created. You just can't set up a government in another country and then leave. It just doesn't work that way. I still think it was a bad decision going into Iraq.
__________________
Phi Sigma Biological Sciences Honor Society “Daisies that bring you joy are better than roses that bring you sorrow. If I had my life to live over, I'd pick more Daisies!”
|

03-30-2009, 04:37 AM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 197
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek
I agree with kstar. I just want to also add that I think what Bush was trying to do was create a puppet government in Iraq. I don't agree with it, but that's basically what he's created. You just can't set up a government in another country and then leave. It just doesn't work that way. I still think it was a bad decision going into Iraq.
|
I disagree. I wouldn't call it a puppet government.
|
 |
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|