BF2S Forums Iraq is a work of art....

Just to contextualize your link, the US did put him in power and make him what he became. That is indisputable.
And who gives a shit about hypothetical possibilities anyway?

Gore would not have attacked Iraq.  He was always a proponent of UN support.

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Gore would not have attacked Iraq.  He was always a proponent of UN support.

He is also a proponent of self gain.

Who isn't?

we have put ourselves into an incredibly unpleasant situation.  I'm affraid that nothing can overcome the secular violence and inevitable civil war.  If we stay, we prolong the violence at the cost of American lives.  If we leave, all hell breaks loose.

The answer to your question is no, Gore would not have invaded Iraq because he knew what Clinton knew, what the UN knew, that as bad as Hussein was, It was not worth the hastle to remove him.  Becuase the hastle is what we're dealing with now; insurgency, secular war, Iranian and Syrian influence.    Of course removing Hussein would be easy, he had nothing militarily compared to the US or anything the UN could muster.

As far as war in Afghanistan, that was justified,  despite our backing of the Taliban government up until September of 2001.  They were aiding and harboring the terrorists we wanted.  They didn't cooperate so we took justifiable action.  The sad part is that since then we have left Afghanistan is as bad a shape as Iraq.  Insurgency, tribal violence, suicide attacks, war lords, and we're continually losing what little grasp we had.  It's all very frustrating to me.

Last edited by Reciprocity (2006-11-02 22:43:14)

Masques wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Gore would not have attacked Iraq.  He was always a proponent of UN support.

He is also a proponent of self gain.

Who isn't?

Damn, you stole my line...

Last edited by Turquoise (2006-11-02 22:56:13)

Reciprocity wrote:

we have put ourselves into an incredibly unpleasant situation.  I'm affraid that nothing can overcome the secular violence and inevitable civil war.  If we stay, we prolong the violence at the cost of American lives.  If we leave, all hell breaks loose.

The answer to your question is no, Gore would not have invaded Iraq because he knew what Clinton knew, what the UN knew, that as bad as Hussein was, It was not worth the hastle to remove him.  Becuase the hastle is what we're dealing with now; insurgency, secular war, Iranian and Syrian influence.    Of course removing Hussein would be easy, he had nothing militarily compared to the US or anything the UN could muster.

I agree, although Clinton was urging the world to eventually take out Saddam.  He just didn't want to do it without UN support.

Reciprocity wrote:

As far as war in Afghanistan, that was justified,  despite our backing of the Taliban government up until September of 2001.  They were aiding and harboring the terrorists we wanted.  They didn't cooperate so we took justifiable action.  The sad part is that since then we have left Afghanistan is as bad a shape as Iraq.  Insurgency, tribal violence, suicide attacks, war lords, and we're continually losing what little grasp we had.  It's all very frustrating to me.

Afghanistan is failing because we didn't kill all of the Taliban.  Many of them escaped to Pakistan.  Since the Pakistani government can barely find its own ass, much less eliminate terrorists, the Taliban regrouped and has begun attacking us again.

Masques wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

It seems redundant to argue if we should or should not have gone in now. We are there. This argument should be brought up perhaps the next time we feel the need to invade. I think the moment you have your brothers and sisters doing a job everyday that requires them to fend for their lives you stop debating the reasons why and start debating the solutions.

If someone was told to walk out on a ledge of a 20 story building to grab a donut and started to fall you don't sit there and ask them if it was worth it before you pull them to safety. You grab a hold of them and pull them to safety first. Then when they are safe at home you call the person up who made the decision to send them out on the ledge and say "dumb ass." Logical?

That just allows those responsible to evade blame and accountability. Having this debate is especially relevent given the push against Iran (and in some quarters Syria) so shutting it off "because there's a war on" virtually ensures such issues are never discussed. Since the US military has projected being in Iraq until at least 2010-12 that leaves virtually no room for criticism of leadership.

Not at all. To forget would to be not holding someone accountable. There is a time for everything which I thought I clearly stated. The anaolgy I said was when everyone is safe then you call them up and call them dumbass (or through them in jail..whatever). Accountability for a politician is done at the polls.

I guess my question is to you what in the hell do you think you can accomplish by criticizing now? But that's a real problem now isn't it? People get so hell bent on making a point that they forget the real problem. They focus more on "criticizing" rather than a solution to the problem at hand. Why? .. I can only assume ego. I imagine that SOME people involved in these forums, the anti-American ones, get excited everytime something detrimental happens to the United States. Why on earth would I think that? Within minutes of hearing any negative media being released against the US it is posted here. It is a desperate need for people to come here and say see.. I told you so. Why is this ?(Think long and hard about that one.)

I am glad that my ability to make a case for an debate does not rely on the need for news on death and destruction. I am glad that I can face challenges and not be imprisoned in the gutter of despair. The world is in serious turmoil now, I realize that. Is this generation going to focus on blame or do they show what they can be. I understand the need to be a realist but attitude is everything. It's like a couple kids in the back seat of the car saying "he started it". The mom turns around to find out which kid to punish and drives off a cliff.

Edit:Sorry about veering off topic..

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-11-02 23:21:55)

what do we do with Iraq is the most avoidable question in the universe because there is no good answer.  Someone provide an answer that does not end with sectarian war. We pulled out the crazy little lynch pin(Hussein) that was holding the whole mess together, more or less.  What can we put in its place?  Conservative or liberal, someone give us a reasonable solution.  How many more "Octobers" can we and Iraq tolerate?

It's inevitable that frustration over this question leads back to "what if's" and "I told you so's".  I'm guilty and so are a lot of people,  but at the same time, this is the bed that this government has made, they get to lay in it, Republicans and Democrats.  This is the history that they chose to make.  My greatest concern is how are they going to conclude this chapter. 

Right now, at this moment, my criticism of this goverment is that they are doing nothing.  No matter who they or I think got us all here, it's their elected job to fix it, and they are not.  No one is.

The US government is trying to help sustain the government of Iraq. Only Iraqi's have the answer and only Iraqi's can fix their country. The US is just trying to provide support to a country on the verge of civil war. The elected president of Iraq is asking us to stay from what I understand. When the police and military are strong enough to sustain itself we will be asked to leave. Iraq would be an ally and I do not think Iran would want to blatantly tango with one of our allies. If this is possible.. well that's another debate..lol. It appears to me thats the goal though.

Kmarion wrote:

If this is possible..

that is the trillion dollar question.  How do you unite such a sectarian nation under one democratic flag?

Reciprocity wrote:

we have put ourselves into an incredibly unpleasant situation.  I'm affraid that nothing can overcome the secular violence and inevitable civil war.  If we stay, we prolong the violence at the cost of American lives.  If we leave, all hell breaks loose.

The answer to your question is no, Gore would not have invaded Iraq because he knew what Clinton knew, what the UN knew, that as bad as Hussein was, It was not worth the hastle to remove him.  Becuase the hastle is what we're dealing with now; insurgency, secular war, Iranian and Syrian influence.    Of course removing Hussein would be easy, he had nothing militarily compared to the US or anything the UN could muster.

As far as war in Afghanistan, that was justified,  despite our backing of the Taliban government up until September of 2001.  They were aiding and harboring the terrorists we wanted.  They didn't cooperate so we took justifiable action.  The sad part is that since then we have left Afghanistan is as bad a shape as Iraq.  Insurgency, tribal violence, suicide attacks, war lords, and we're continually losing what little grasp we had.  It's all very frustrating to me.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/ … inton.html

It would appear Clinton, and the UN, felt Saddam was a threat lonnnnnnnnnnggggggggg before Bush.

What really is pathetic is, if he war in Iraq was a decisive victory, Gore, Kerry, and every other liberal anti-war politician would be right in there trying to lap up all the glory they could for it's success. Since it isn't going as well as we hoped, they are all side stepping the fact that the majority ofthose idiots voted to go back to Iraq and are standing out of the spot light pointing fingers at Bush denouncing it. God I hate liberals.

Last edited by lowing (2006-11-03 02:39:44)

CameronPoe wrote:

d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:

The war is on, the only thing (Smart) we can do is finish what we started.  Thats my opinion, we pull now, we look bad to the world.

Yeah because you look great to the world at the moment! I thought Bush said the war had been won, about three years ago, too? LOL

No, I beleive the sign read, "Mission Accomplished", the mission at that time was removing Saddam from power. That MISSION was ACCOMPLISHED.