Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why We Invaded Iraq

1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2013 11:15:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Take that you conspiracy theorists and liberals!

http://youtube.com...
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2013 11:25:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You must be sh!tting me.

Removing Saddam was key to peace in the middle east?

Saddam was the buffer stopping Iran from linking up with other Shia countries thus provoking Saudi Arabia into buffering proxy jihadist groups and ending up with precisely the kind of sh!t you see in Syria (Iran vs Saudi Arabia vs. West).

You don't need a historian when it happened A DECADE AGO. I was there. You were there.

Bush made his case to the nation. It wasn't "democracy in Iraq would make the middle east more stable."

It wasn't "terrorism would retreat" because Saddam wasn't even connected to 9/11. Terrorists are why we invaded Afghanistan.

And furthermore, the suggestion that it was Saddam's brutality that lead us to invade is intolerably revisionist. This is the guy WE SUPPORTED as long as he aimed his guns at Iran. Wanna know what happened when everyone discovered Saddam's brutalities? They SANCTIONED him. They didn't invade.

I mean, for chrissakes we supported the man WHILE HE WAS USING CHEMICAL WEAPONS.

I can't get beyond 1:30. It's reaching the point of holocaust revisionists.

Try some actual journalism.

http://www.gregpalast.com...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2013 11:26:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/8/2013 11:15:45 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Take that you conspiracy theorists and liberals!

http://youtube.com...

Approved.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
leojm
Posts: 1,825
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 12:13:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/8/2013 11:25:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
You must be sh!tting me.

Removing Saddam was key to peace in the middle east?

Saddam was the buffer stopping Iran from linking up with other Shia countries thus provoking Saudi Arabia into buffering proxy jihadist groups and ending up with precisely the kind of sh!t you see in Syria (Iran vs Saudi Arabia vs. West).

You don't need a historian when it happened A DECADE AGO. I was there. You were there.

Bush made his case to the nation. It wasn't "democracy in Iraq would make the middle east more stable."

It wasn't "terrorism would retreat" because Saddam wasn't even connected to 9/11. Terrorists are why we invaded Afghanistan.

And furthermore, the suggestion that it was Saddam's brutality that lead us to invade is intolerably revisionist. This is the guy WE SUPPORTED as long as he aimed his guns at Iran. Wanna know what happened when everyone discovered Saddam's brutalities? They SANCTIONED him. They didn't invade.

I mean, for chrissakes we supported the man WHILE HE WAS USING CHEMICAL WEAPONS.

I can't get beyond 1:30. It's reaching the point of holocaust revisionists.

Try some actual journalism.

http://www.gregpalast.com...
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 12:24:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/8/2013 11:15:45 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Take that you conspiracy theorists and liberals!

http://youtube.com...

Its sh*t like this that makes people think youre retarded.....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 1:52:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Seriously, you know you're in trouble when you want the opinion of a historian about why a country did something that you were part of less than a decade ago.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 1:59:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/8/2013 11:25:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
You must be sh!tting me.

Removing Saddam was key to peace in the middle east?

Saddam was the buffer stopping Iran from linking up with other Shia countries thus provoking Saudi Arabia into buffering proxy jihadist groups and ending up with precisely the kind of sh!t you see in Syria (Iran vs Saudi Arabia vs. West).

You don't need a historian when it happened A DECADE AGO. I was there. You were there.

Bush made his case to the nation. It wasn't "democracy in Iraq would make the middle east more stable."

Yes, that was the excuse, but obviously it wasn't the intention. I don't understand that when a government lies about military/political aims they necessarily have to be acting out of greed or corruption (making oil companies rich, hatred of Islam, etc).

It wasn't "terrorism would retreat" because Saddam wasn't even connected to 9/11. Terrorists are why we invaded Afghanistan.

I agree that the idea of making "a model of democracy" to encourage other Arab countries to follow suit is absurd, but there was no better way to genuinely pressure Al-Qaeda/jihadist financing countries than taking out Baathist Iraq.

And furthermore, the suggestion that it was Saddam's brutality that lead us to invade is intolerably revisionist. This is the guy WE SUPPORTED as long as he aimed his guns at Iran. Wanna know what happened when everyone discovered Saddam's brutalities? They SANCTIONED him. They didn't invade.

No, the US kept the pot boiling to keep both sides from getting the advantage. It's always been about balance of power, and you seem to know this, judging by your previous comment.

I mean, for chrissakes we supported the man WHILE HE WAS USING CHEMICAL WEAPONS.

I can't get beyond 1:30. It's reaching the point of holocaust revisionists.

You've obviously yet to see their video about "the moral case for the British empire."

Try some actual journalism.

http://www.gregpalast.com...

...I genuinely don't see that as any better.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 2:11:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 1:59:09 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/8/2013 11:25:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
You must be sh!tting me.

Removing Saddam was key to peace in the middle east?

Saddam was the buffer stopping Iran from linking up with other Shia countries thus provoking Saudi Arabia into buffering proxy jihadist groups and ending up with precisely the kind of sh!t you see in Syria (Iran vs Saudi Arabia vs. West).

You don't need a historian when it happened A DECADE AGO. I was there. You were there.

Bush made his case to the nation. It wasn't "democracy in Iraq would make the middle east more stable."

Yes, that was the excuse, but obviously it wasn't the intention. I don't understand that when a government lies about military/political aims they necessarily have to be acting out of greed or corruption (making oil companies rich, hatred of Islam, etc).

It wasn't "terrorism would retreat" because Saddam wasn't even connected to 9/11. Terrorists are why we invaded Afghanistan.

I agree that the idea of making "a model of democracy" to encourage other Arab countries to follow suit is absurd, but there was no better way to genuinely pressure Al-Qaeda/jihadist financing countries than taking out Baathist Iraq.

And furthermore, the suggestion that it was Saddam's brutality that lead us to invade is intolerably revisionist. This is the guy WE SUPPORTED as long as he aimed his guns at Iran. Wanna know what happened when everyone discovered Saddam's brutalities? They SANCTIONED him. They didn't invade.

No, the US kept the pot boiling to keep both sides from getting the advantage. It's always been about balance of power, and you seem to know this, judging by your previous comment.

I mean, for chrissakes we supported the man WHILE HE WAS USING CHEMICAL WEAPONS.

I can't get beyond 1:30. It's reaching the point of holocaust revisionists.

You've obviously yet to see their video about "the moral case for the British empire."

Try some actual journalism.

http://www.gregpalast.com...

...I genuinely don't see that as any better.

But it wasn't even the excuse. America didn't go to war to help the middle east. We went to war because we were told Saddam posed a physical threat to our safety because he had something called a "WMD."

Colin Powell didn't go in front of the UN to talk about democracy. He talked about evidence that Saddam was a threat to national security and international security.

You seem to gravely misunderstand the geopolitics. Baathists are secular. Sunni jihadists HATE Baathists more than they hate Shia.

Want to know how to pressure Al Qaeda? Invade Afghanistan, strike the Pakistani border, assassinate Osama Bin Laden, and start hitting them in the Magreb. We did that. We nearly decimated Al Qaeda, but then we went to Iraq and let them regroup over the border.

If this was all about jihadists and Al Qaeda, we'd be targeting Saudi Arabia, Osama's homeland and the main financer of most proxy jihadist groups with state sponsorship. But we can't because we're too tied up with their oil. Pakistan is one of the main reasons why the Taliban still exists, but we can't put too much pressure on them because it gives us an ally against Iran. That's why we end up with situations like the CIA and ISI literally chasing each other in the streets of Pakistan trying to kill each other (see Raymond Davis), while at the same time we're cooperating on drone strikes.

Want to know how Iraq after Saddam was different from before Saddam? "Al Qaeda in Iraq" didn't exist until Saddam was gone. That's because he would have killed/imprisoned every member since they posed a threat.

Greg Palast gives the most accurate assessment I've seen on why we invaded Iraq instead of staying just in Afghanistan.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 2:39:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 2:11:13 AM, Wnope wrote:
But it wasn't even the excuse. America didn't go to war to help the middle east. We went to war because we were told Saddam posed a physical threat to our safety because he had something called a "WMD."

Colin Powell didn't go in front of the UN to talk about democracy. He talked about evidence that Saddam was a threat to national security and international security.

He lied. They all lied. Isn't that extremely obvious?

You seem to gravely misunderstand the geopolitics. Baathists are secular. Sunni jihadists HATE Baathists more than they hate Shia.

You're strawmanning me now. Merely because Saddam was against Al-Qaeda and other jihadist groups doesn't mean that he should have been left alone.

Want to know how to pressure Al Qaeda? Invade Afghanistan, strike the Pakistani border, assassinate Osama Bin Laden, and start hitting them in the Magreb. We did that. We nearly decimated Al Qaeda, but then we went to Iraq and let them regroup over the border.

If this was all about jihadists and Al Qaeda, we'd be targeting Saudi Arabia, Osama's homeland and the main financer of most proxy jihadist groups with state sponsorship.

We did, with the invasion of Iraq. Oil was indeed a motivator, but not because we wanted it for our oil companies. The worldwide price of oil was about $20 a barrel. If it had been released onto the market the Saudis would have been out of business. The whole thing really was about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

But we can't because we're too tied up with their oil. Pakistan is one of the main reasons why the Taliban still exists, but we can't put too much pressure on them because it gives us an ally against Iran. That's why we end up with situations like the CIA and ISI literally chasing each other in the streets of Pakistan trying to kill each other (see Raymond Davis), while at the same time we're cooperating on drone strikes.

Want to know how Iraq after Saddam was different from before Saddam? "Al Qaeda in Iraq" didn't exist until Saddam was gone. That's because he would have killed/imprisoned every member since they posed a threat.

I agree that the invasion was badly done and had a host of negative consequences, and that we would have been better off if it had not taken place. But it's easy to say that in hindsight.

Greg Palast gives the most accurate assessment I've seen on why we invaded Iraq instead of staying just in Afghanistan.

"Big oil" plus "neocons" equals "no reading."
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 9:45:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/8/2013 11:25:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
You must be sh!tting me.

Removing Saddam was key to peace in the middle east?

Saddam was the buffer stopping Iran from linking up with other Shia countries thus provoking Saudi Arabia into buffering proxy jihadist groups and ending up with precisely the kind of sh!t you see in Syria (Iran vs Saudi Arabia vs. West).

You don't need a historian when it happened A DECADE AGO. I was there. You were there.

Bush made his case to the nation. It wasn't "democracy in Iraq would make the middle east more stable."

It wasn't "terrorism would retreat" because Saddam wasn't even connected to 9/11. Terrorists are why we invaded Afghanistan.

And furthermore, the suggestion that it was Saddam's brutality that lead us to invade is intolerably revisionist. This is the guy WE SUPPORTED as long as he aimed his guns at Iran. Wanna know what happened when everyone discovered Saddam's brutalities? They SANCTIONED him. They didn't invade.

I mean, for chrissakes we supported the man WHILE HE WAS USING CHEMICAL WEAPONS.

I can't get beyond 1:30. It's reaching the point of holocaust revisionists.

Try some actual journalism.

http://www.gregpalast.com...

That "source", the Prager "University", is something I don't take seriously. I wonder if it's someone's joke to see exactly how hard they can bend the truth without breaking it.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 9:47:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 2:39:16 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/9/2013 2:11:13 AM, Wnope wrote:

"Big oil" plus "neocons" equals "no reading."

Ignorance must be bliss to you.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 9:50:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 9:47:41 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/9/2013 2:39:16 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/9/2013 2:11:13 AM, Wnope wrote:

"Big oil" plus "neocons" equals "no reading."

Ignorance must be bliss to you.

Isn't it always, kiddo? (Just some self-defense there!)
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 9:51:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 9:50:33 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/9/2013 9:47:41 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/9/2013 2:39:16 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/9/2013 2:11:13 AM, Wnope wrote:

"Big oil" plus "neocons" equals "no reading."

Ignorance must be bliss to you.

Isn't it always, kiddo? (Just some self-defense there!)

Where did that come from? Is someone a child because they interact with you? Or is it just (again) a case of projection?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 9:53:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 9:51:33 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/9/2013 9:50:33 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/9/2013 9:47:41 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/9/2013 2:39:16 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 9/9/2013 2:11:13 AM, Wnope wrote:

"Big oil" plus "neocons" equals "no reading."

Ignorance must be bliss to you.

Isn't it always, kiddo? (Just some self-defense there!)

Where did that come from? Is someone a child because they interact with you? Or is it just (again) a case of projection?

Keep it coming! Arg! Fvck!

So good.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 9:54:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I mean, let's make this clear, Eitan. You've to my knowledge never forwarded a case as to why there is no convincing evidence linking Big Oil to neoconservatives, or to the war in Iraq. All you tend to do is to say how you've argued it to death, without ever bothering to argue it. It's the epitome of hypocrisy and self-serving delusion, IMHO.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 10:39:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Eitan's "position" on this topic (or rather lack of one):

Comments #85, 87, and 88.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 10:39:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.debate.org...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 4:37:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 9:45:51 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/8/2013 11:25:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
You must be sh!tting me.

Removing Saddam was key to peace in the middle east?

Saddam was the buffer stopping Iran from linking up with other Shia countries thus provoking Saudi Arabia into buffering proxy jihadist groups and ending up with precisely the kind of sh!t you see in Syria (Iran vs Saudi Arabia vs. West).

You don't need a historian when it happened A DECADE AGO. I was there. You were there.

Bush made his case to the nation. It wasn't "democracy in Iraq would make the middle east more stable."

It wasn't "terrorism would retreat" because Saddam wasn't even connected to 9/11. Terrorists are why we invaded Afghanistan.

And furthermore, the suggestion that it was Saddam's brutality that lead us to invade is intolerably revisionist. This is the guy WE SUPPORTED as long as he aimed his guns at Iran. Wanna know what happened when everyone discovered Saddam's brutalities? They SANCTIONED him. They didn't invade.

I mean, for chrissakes we supported the man WHILE HE WAS USING CHEMICAL WEAPONS.

I can't get beyond 1:30. It's reaching the point of holocaust revisionists.

Try some actual journalism.

http://www.gregpalast.com...

That "source", the Prager "University", is something I don't take seriously. I wonder if it's someone's joke to see exactly how hard they can bend the truth without breaking it.

What do you disagree with?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 6:03:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'll file this right behind how "The US won the Vietnam war"
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 6:10:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Leaves out some key points

Saddam the brutal dictator (a CIA puppet and ally of the United states for decades)
Gassed Iran and the Kurds (gas made possible by the duel use technologies supplied by the US)
failed to mention the half million Iraqi kids killed by US sanctions

Also it seems to be the resounding and overwhelming opinion of majority of Americans that Iraq was a mistake. Trillions of dollars later and all we have to show for it is a country in worse shape than when we invaded a decade ago.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 8:40:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 6:03:00 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I'll file this right behind how "The US won the Vietnam war"

Militarily we did. Ill take the 50,000 we lost to their million some plus that they lost in any war. Only reason we "technically" lost, was cause of are pu$$y arsed hippie civilian sector. Can't win a war if you can't win the home front.
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 8:56:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 6:10:36 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Leaves out some key points

Saddam the brutal dictator (a CIA puppet and ally of the United states for decades)
Gassed Iran and the Kurds (gas made possible by the duel use technologies supplied by the US)

So your saying that if at some point in time your an ally with someone you'll always be an ally with them??? That's funny cause I can think of a hundred different instances of this NOT being true off the top of my head. Alliances change all the time like the chance of a hat. We used to be enemies with the British. How bout them Germans? Used to be allies with the Russians. Japan was an ally then an enemy and now an ally again. So what if we supported him when he fought against someone we didn't like? You make it soundalike this is so evil. Also the whole chemical weapons thing is such BS. Did we give him some weapons? Probably. But far less then what the Italians or the damned French gave him.
failed to mention the half million Iraqi kids killed by US sanctions

Really??? No really??????? Cause I'm pretty damned sure those were UN sanctions created by the UN, proposed by the UN, and enforced by the UN and in fact the US was opposed to to begin with. During the gulf war do you know what the US wanted to do? Push our way all the way to Baghdad and kill his arse. But oh no said the UN. You can't do that. Sanctions will work. Yeah fing right. And if you actually look at the sanctions themselves you'd see that most them should have worked. However Saddam didn't play by the rules. For instance one of the biggest killers of the Iraqi people was starvation. Well that's why we had the Food For Oil sh!t. The UN would allow Saddam to continue to market his counties oil so long as the profits went to feeding his people. Sounds nice right? To bad Saddam said F that and instead used the funds to rebuild his military and buy himself a sold gold fing toilet! The breaking of that sanction should have been a cause for the UN to go to war with him back in the 90s. To bad the UN is nothing but a bunch of fake pu$$ys. So it was the UN that can be blamed for the hundreds of thousands that died via the sanctions and in fact they can be blamed for the last Iraqi war as well since Saddam would have removed decades ago. So clap, clap, clap kid. People that use this bit to attack the US are usually really ignorant boobs that watched a 10 minute YouTube documentary by some anti American hippie and immediately accepted it as truth.

Also it seems to be the resounding and overwhelming opinion of majority of Americans that Iraq was a mistake. Trillions of dollars later and all we have to show for it is a country in worse shape than when we invaded a decade ago.

The majority if Americans are ignorant retards so why should their opinions matter??? Who are they to say what was or wasn't the right thing to do or not do? Or what benefits might have been? Are they all subject matter experts?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 5:39:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 4:37:59 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/9/2013 9:45:51 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

That "source", the Prager "University", is something I don't take seriously. I wonder if it's someone's joke to see exactly how hard they can bend the truth without breaking it.

What do you disagree with?

lol, I have seen other videos by Prager, so the moment I saw that the link was by this same source, I didn't watch it.

But, to entertain your question, I went ahead and watched it. It was actually a bit better than I thought it would be. Regardless, some disagreements:

1) Saddam Hussein was no longer a threat to the Middle East by the time the US invaded it. All the war involved was cleaning up after sanctions had crippled the country.

2) Too much responsibility for the Iran-Iraq war was placed on Saddam by the video.

3) The video makes the lunatic claim that Saddam thought he could best the US in a 2nd try after the Gulf War.

4) "Spreading Democracy Over The Middle East" is doublespeak for spreading American imperialism/hegemony..."democracy" is not a necessary component of this hegemonic impulse (Korea, Taiwan). It's nothing but a selling point.

Regardless of the inaccuracy of this claim in a realpolitik calculus, it is rather realistic in assessing the American public's tolerance of that war. It precluded the use of martial law in holding the country together, which worked in other nation-building exercises in which the US engaged, namely Japan, Taiwan, and Korea.

---

On your own comment, I wholly agree, except for the part about "Bush made his case to the nation...It wasn't "terrorism would retreat" because Saddam wasn't even connected to 9/11."

While I agree with your assessment that Saddam wasn't connected to 9/11 (which the video makes as well), I firmly remember Bush making this connection repeatedly. I mean, there is some truth to the matter in that jihadist terrorists are Muslim, most Muslims are Arabs, and Saddam was Arab, so obviously by killing Arabs like Saddam we quell terrorism.

Again, there is SOME truth to the matter, but that doesn't make it any more justifiable or any less of a ridiculously obtuse generalization than the statement I just made.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 5:53:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 8:40:20 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 9/9/2013 6:03:00 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I'll file this right behind how "The US won the Vietnam war"

Militarily we did. Ill take the 50,000 we lost to their million some plus that they lost in any war. Only reason we "technically" lost, was cause of are pu$$y arsed hippie civilian sector. Can't win a war if you can't win the home front.

I have a theory about this.

I agree with you, that in a military calculus, in nearly every aspect imaginable the US won the Vietnam War. However, the "pu$$y arsed hippie civilian sector" ran amok and became completely and utterly out of control, and then succeeded in selling a revisionist history on the war to the American people by somehow equating the truism that "war is terrible" with "the US is terrible" and that "terrible people deserve to lose wars" and so "the US lost the Vietnam War". IMHO the only quoted statement that is actually true is that "war is terrible".

This theory is relevant to an ongoing discussion I have with wnope about whether or not Noam Chomsky is a undercover CIA operative. I firmly believe that Chomsky is an active attempt by the government to co-opt the leftist agenda (i.e. the pu$$y arsed hippie civilian sector) and to make it more benign to American interests.

IMHO, leaving Chomsky personally out of this discussion, you can still easily see how the American zeitgeist has wholly changed since the Vietnam War...instead of anti-war/anti-establishment movies like Apocalypse Now, Dog Day Afternoon (a goddam terrible movie), and Platoon, we have Zero Dark Thirty, Hurt Locker, and the last Batman movie (which was also a terrible movie, but was very much pro-establishment).

Regardless of how this change came about, we now have a wholly different mentality than what we had in the 70s. Now, imagine if someone like Pat Tillman became a staunch anti-war activist spreading an extreme leftist message that we all know Chomsky promotes, and it makes more sense why "someone in the government" more than likely assassinated him shortly after he proposed speaking to Chomsky following his discharge.
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 10:09:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 1:52:35 AM, Wnope wrote:
Seriously, you know you're in trouble when you want the opinion of a historian about why a country did something that you were part of less than a decade ago.

Well, I was there too, and WMD was only one of the reasons Bush gave.

Like Obama's Syria, the need for war wasn't all that clear, but this idea that Bush lied about WMD or whatever - that's the revisionist history. Bush just said he was a threat we couldn't afford to overlook in the post 9/11 reality. Saddam was the threat, not WMD per se. heh, it just occurs to me - libs put all the emphasis on the WMDs and not the person, same as they do with guns in this country.

Whatever you may think of Bush, he was an honest guy. If you wanted to know what he really thought you just had to ask him. So disagree with his decision all you want, but he was a totally different sort of human and totally different sort of president from the enigma in the white house now.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 10:16:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 6:10:36 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Leaves out some key points
...

Also it seems to be the resounding and overwhelming opinion of majority of Americans that Iraq was a mistake. Trillions of dollars later and all we have to show for it is a country in worse shape than when we invaded a decade ago.

Well, sure, it is worse now that the moron in chief decided to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and stage a full retreat. Although, I dunno, is it really worse? It's still not the death toll that was going on when Saddam was using 14 year olds for cannon fodder against Iran.

Bush and company profoundly underestimated Iraq, that's beyond dispute. But that could be said of a lot of projects, and one of the maxims every good CEO knows is "sunk costs are a poor factor in deciding for the future".
This space for rent.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 10:59:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/10/2013 10:09:01 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/9/2013 1:52:35 AM, Wnope wrote:
Seriously, you know you're in trouble when you want the opinion of a historian about why a country did something that you were part of less than a decade ago.

Well, I was there too, and WMD was only one of the reasons Bush gave.

Like Obama's Syria, the need for war wasn't all that clear, but this idea that Bush lied about WMD or whatever - that's the revisionist history. Bush just said he was a threat we couldn't afford to overlook in the post 9/11 reality. Saddam was the threat, not WMD per se. heh, it just occurs to me - libs put all the emphasis on the WMDs and not the person, same as they do with guns in this country.

Whatever you may think of Bush, he was an honest guy. If you wanted to know what he really thought you just had to ask him. So disagree with his decision all you want, but he was a totally different sort of human and totally different sort of president from the enigma in the white house now.

You confuse simplicity with honesty, and complexity with distrust.

Bush and company profoundly underestimated Iraq, that's beyond dispute. But that could be said of a lot of projects, and one of the maxims every good CEO knows is "sunk costs are a poor factor in deciding for the future".

True, but if a CEO wrecks a company to the point that its entire operation resembles a "sunk cost", shareholders tend to demand for accountability. More than likely, the next CEO will be the picture perfect opposite of the one that displayed incompetence. I think most people can agree that Obama is about as different from Bush as can be imaginable in nearly every conceivable manner.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 11:28:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/10/2013 10:59:42 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/10/2013 10:09:01 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/9/2013 1:52:35 AM, Wnope wrote:
Seriously, you know you're in trouble when you want the opinion of a historian about why a country did something that you were part of less than a decade ago.

Well, I was there too, and WMD was only one of the reasons Bush gave.

Like Obama's Syria, the need for war wasn't all that clear, but this idea that Bush lied about WMD or whatever - that's the revisionist history. Bush just said he was a threat we couldn't afford to overlook in the post 9/11 reality. Saddam was the threat, not WMD per se. heh, it just occurs to me - libs put all the emphasis on the WMDs and not the person, same as they do with guns in this country.

Whatever you may think of Bush, he was an honest guy. If you wanted to know what he really thought you just had to ask him. So disagree with his decision all you want, but he was a totally different sort of human and totally different sort of president from the enigma in the white house now.

You confuse simplicity with honesty, and complexity with distrust.

Please, you're not buying into the "Bush is dumb" silliness?


Bush and company profoundly underestimated Iraq, that's beyond dispute. But that could be said of a lot of projects, and one of the maxims every good CEO knows is "sunk costs are a poor factor in deciding for the future".

True, but if a CEO wrecks a company to the point that its entire operation resembles a "sunk cost", shareholders tend to demand for accountability.

But Bush didn't do this. This is a fabrication by his political opposition, carried by the Democrat media and largely accepted by a gullible populace. The wars were winding down and the economy was doing better by the numbers under Bush than it is under Obama. Quite a bit better if you look at having a job, especially a full time one with benefits, as a good thing.
This space for rent.