Vax
Member
+42|5822|Flyover country

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The point is...  it was still a more logical situation than what we committed to with invading and nation-building Iraq.
i dont really agree with the more logical part.  imo it would have lead to a war eventually anyway.
What's logical about invading a country you can't afford to rebuild?
According to the plan it was gonna be cheap  .....
Then we let the Iraqis loot Baghdad and managed to fuel an insurgency with crappy administrative decisions, foreign jihadi shit heads compounded the problems by igniting a civil war, etc etc
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina
Nation building is NEVER cheap...  or as Reagan once put it...

"History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap."

I don't think Cheney or Bush or Rumsfeld believed it would be cheap...  quite the contrary, I think they planned on it being expensive because of their own vested interests in contractors.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

I wonder why Cheney would donate all of his future profits in Halliburton when he took office then.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

I wonder why Cheney would donate all of his future profits in Halliburton when he took office then.
That depends on where he donated them...  was it for research on heart disease?
Vax
Member
+42|5822|Flyover country
So they diabolically planned all these decisions that are widely viewed as major fuckups by many of the so-called experts, just to make the whole operation more entrenched so that Halliburton and Blackwater could make more dough ?

And by doing so embroiled us into the quagmire that so many were warning of, creating a prolonged and increasingly (and politically) unpopular war, as well as putting it into supposedly budget busting costs, many times what was projected. 

Interesting
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

Vax wrote:

So they diabolically planned all these decisions that are widely viewed as major fuckups by many of the so-called experts, just to make the whole operation more entrenched so that Halliburton and Blackwater could make more dough ?

And by doing so embroiled us into the quagmire that so many were warning of, creating a prolonged and increasingly (and politically) unpopular war, as well as putting it into supposedly budget busting costs, many times what was projected. 

Interesting
The part they screwed up on is that they expected the insurgency to be weaker and for the ethnic tensions to be less significant than they've been.  They certainly didn't want a failure or the level of a mess that it became, but I think they expected a certain amount of conflict.

I mean, hell...  if they didn't, they were complete fucking idiots.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I wonder why Cheney would donate all of his future profits in Halliburton when he took office then.
That depends on where he donated them...  was it for research on heart disease?
The center for shot gun rounds to the face.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina
LOL....  ah yes... Cheney's got a gun...  *hums Aerosmith*
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|6811|Cologne, Germany

usmarine wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

You're arguing something that you don't know would ever have happened.
or i can sit back and arm chair quarterback like most of this section.
a little bitter, are we ?

What do you expect me to do ? Pick up a gun and join a war that I think is illegal, and - more importantly - un-necessary ?

This is an internet forum. All we ever can do around here is debate.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

Legal wars..lol.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|6811|Cologne, Germany

Vax wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


No hindsight needed Kmar. I think a majority of world opinion was against taking any action beforehand because one could quite simply look at a map of the globe and clearly see the total absence of threat posed to the US by Iraq, with or without the rather unlikely WMD. Pre-emptive war to protect oneself can never be deemed entirely necessary in a nuclear superpower context anyway: unless the enemy is a comparable nuclear superpower with suicidal tendencies.
Looking at a globe I can see that Afghanistan is pretty far away also. We don't need to dumb the discuscion down to basic geography. The threat sold wasn't striking distance but rather a terrorism proxy.

Don't confuse my explanation as a means of justification neither. I'm just trying to elaborate on the circumstances at the time.
Exactly. 
I wish people could get this clear; though it didn't help that the administration wasn't clear enough.
There was an atmosphere of fear post 9/11, but Iraq was not "sold" as the threat...americans were not propagandised into quaking in our shoes over fear of Saddam's capabilities...the threat was that his (possible) weapons supplies get into the hands of some of these more spirited types that showed us what they could do with box cutter knives and some ingenuity..."imagine what they could do if they had some biological or chemical weapons"
Well, usmarine has argued that iraq would have been invaded, regardless if 9/11 had happened or not. I doubted that. What are your thoughts on this issue ?

And, I am sorry to say that, but if Colin Powell's appearance before the UN Security Council wasn't "selling" iraq as the threat, what was it ?
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6635|NT, like Mick Dundee

Schuss, Clinton made it US policy to invade Iraq... I believe so anyway. Somebody here mentioned it.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

B.Schuss wrote:

Vax wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Looking at a globe I can see that Afghanistan is pretty far away also. We don't need to dumb the discuscion down to basic geography. The threat sold wasn't striking distance but rather a terrorism proxy.

Don't confuse my explanation as a means of justification neither. I'm just trying to elaborate on the circumstances at the time.
Exactly. 
I wish people could get this clear; though it didn't help that the administration wasn't clear enough.
There was an atmosphere of fear post 9/11, but Iraq was not "sold" as the threat...americans were not propagandised into quaking in our shoes over fear of Saddam's capabilities...the threat was that his (possible) weapons supplies get into the hands of some of these more spirited types that showed us what they could do with box cutter knives and some ingenuity..."imagine what they could do if they had some biological or chemical weapons"
Well, usmarine has argued that iraq would have been invaded, regardless if 9/11 had happened or not. I doubted that. What are your thoughts on this issue ?

And, I am sorry to say that, but if Colin Powell's appearance before the UN Security Council wasn't "selling" iraq as the threat, what was it ?
Iraq was sold. That's where me and Vax differ. 40 other countries have participated. The US has 27,400 contractors in Iraq whereas the rest of the world has 45,500. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinatio … ce_in_Iraq . There was plenty of selling done worldwide.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|6811|Cologne, Germany

Kmarion wrote:

Legal wars..lol.
you may laugh it this, but I do believe there are pretty clear prerequisites for a war. And I don't think NGO terrorist activities count.
If the army of iraq had attacked US territory or installations, that'd have been something different, but that didn't happen.

The US were attacked by a terrorist organization that operates across borders. How that justifies an invasion of a random ME nation is beyond me.

To me, the iraq war is an illegal war from the point of view that the nation of iraq did not attack the US.

I am not disputing the legality of the operations according to US law, btw. After all, congress did approve it. But I still think that the american public and congress were mislead into believing that attacking iraq was somehow justified. That country was a fucking dumpster, and not worth the life of one US soldier.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

I'm not talking about Congress. If they knew how to read our Constitution it would have been clear to them that they had no authority to vote for invasion. The United States hasn't officially declared war since WWII. And that was only after your country declared war on us. I'm just arguing the absurdity of a group of people getting together "internationally" and declaring a legal war on another group of people. It's pompous to pretend one side has supreme moral authority over the other. You don't bomb a town to smithereens and pretend that it's ok because it has been declared "legal". .. -->lol

War is War and history has always dictated justification.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|6732

B.Schuss wrote:

usmarine wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

You're arguing something that you don't know would ever have happened.
or i can sit back and arm chair quarterback like most of this section.
a little bitter, are we ?

What do you expect me to do ? Pick up a gun and join a war that I think is illegal, and - more importantly - un-necessary ?

This is an internet forum. All we ever can do around here is debate.
bitter?  not bitter.  why would i be bitter?  you are telling me i cant argue things that may have happened, yet i am telling you that is not better then arm chair quarterbacking.

fine, you tell me what would have eventually been the end game in iraq?  no fly zone forever?  cat and mouse games with inspectors? 

oh wait, never mind.  you would have to wait until it happens so you can say i told you so.
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|6811|Cologne, Germany

maybe you'd care to tell me what arm chair quarterbacking actually means in this context ?

The end game in iraq ? Well, honestly, a couple of satellites, planes, and weapons inspectors don't sound so bad to me, compared to what has happened there ever since the US-lead invasion. A lot less cheaper, too. With regard to money and loss of life, that is.

Also, since those were UN-lead operations, at least there would have been some kind of legitimization, and the US image in the world would not be as tarnished as it is now. No offense intended.

In the end, we might have reached a situation resembling the one with regard to North Korea. A dictatorship, maybe, but under control of international weapons inspectors, and pressured by economic sanctions. After years of sanctions, that country now begs for food aid, in exchange for the closure of their nuclear facilities. Who says this could not have been achieved in iraq ?

Instead, the US invasion destroyed the lifes of hundreds of thousands of iraqi civilians, cost an unimaginably high amount of money ( that the US could have better used for domestic issues, some say ), and has since resulted in the deaths of more US citizens than were killed on 9/11.

The real irony behind all of this ? The very government that you put in place in iraq may very well one day kick you out, and - through "democratic" elections - may place people in power that really hate the west. Democracy doesn't equal freedom, does it?

I'll say it again: after two wars in 10 years, followed by years of economic sanctions, that country ( iraq ) was a fucking dumpster, and not worth the life of one US soldier.

True, it's easy to say that now, after all what has happened, and with everything that we know today. But does that mean I cannot say it ?
Is it any less true because it is being said in hindsight ?
Vax
Member
+42|5822|Flyover country

B.Schuss wrote:

Vax wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Looking at a globe I can see that Afghanistan is pretty far away also. We don't need to dumb the discuscion down to basic geography. The threat sold wasn't striking distance but rather a terrorism proxy.

Don't confuse my explanation as a means of justification neither. I'm just trying to elaborate on the circumstances at the time.
Exactly. 
I wish people could get this clear; though it didn't help that the administration wasn't clear enough.
There was an atmosphere of fear post 9/11, but Iraq was not "sold" as the threat...americans were not propagandised into quaking in our shoes over fear of Saddam's capabilities...the threat was that his (possible) weapons supplies get into the hands of some of these more spirited types that showed us what they could do with box cutter knives and some ingenuity..."imagine what they could do if they had some biological or chemical weapons"
Well, usmarine has argued that iraq would have been invaded, regardless if 9/11 had happened or not. I doubted that. What are your thoughts on this issue ?

And, I am sorry to say that, but if Colin Powell's appearance before the UN Security Council wasn't "selling" iraq as the threat, what was it ?
I'm saying the american people were not generally told that Saddam was the threat. Americans were not suddenly afraid the Iraqi airforce was gonna start raids on NYC...We were told that the danger was Al Qaida terrorists getting ahold of what (they believed) Saddam had.

And yes I think Saddam's Iraq would have to have been 'dealt with' sooner or later.  He was a thorn in the side of the middle east all through the 90's, which we had been "administering" from afar with sanctions no-fly-zones and bombings, and during that time Saddam was killing back any opposition (some of whom we had encouraged, then left to be crushed, see the  shia uprising post gulfwar one) and people in his country were starving and dying from lack of infrastructure and medicines, while he built palaces with oil money. 9/11 just hastened the process.

Last edited by Vax (2008-08-06 11:51:28)

Vax
Member
+42|5822|Flyover country

Flecco wrote:

Schuss, Clinton made it US policy to invade Iraq... I believe so anyway. Somebody here mentioned it.
Technically Clinton made offcial US policy toward Iraq "regime change" I don't think the method was specified.
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|6732

Vax wrote:

Flecco wrote:

Schuss, Clinton made it US policy to invade Iraq... I believe so anyway. Somebody here mentioned it.
Technically Clinton made offcial US policy toward Iraq "regime change" I don't think the method was specified.
welll...we did ask him nicely
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6621|USA
Ok I haven't kept up with my own thread since I have been working long hours lately. Anyway, I just finished the book "Flyboys". What a book it was. It pulled no punches as to American actions, behavior, and morality during the time period from the 1850's until the end of WW2 ( Japan's behavior was also covered at length but it is already known by most of us).  It was an eye opener and America has a lot more cruelty and hypocrisy to be ashamed of than I really ever was aware of. It is a fair book with factual info and does not at all try and take sides. It simply tells it like it really was. Anyway, I thought it was a great read.

The reason for the title of this thread is my acknowledgement that America does not have a history of taking the high road as much as I have comforted myself in believing. I always knew that we broke treaties and shit with the native Americans but I really never grasped the extent of our blatant cruelty and misery that we brought on them and as it turns out, the islands of the Pacific during our expansionism era.

If you want even more ammo to use with your America bashing threads, "Flyboys" should provide more of it for you.
SEREVENT
MASSIVE G STAR
+605|6077|Birmingham, UK

lowing wrote:

The reason for the title of this thread is my acknowledgement that America does not have a history of taking the high road as much as I have comforted myself in believing. I always knew that we broke treaties and shit with the native Americans but I really never grasped the extent of our blatant cruelty and misery that we brought on them and as it turns out, the islands of the Pacific during our expansionism era.
When has any country ever taken the high road?

Never. Stop looking at why America is so bad. If you only look at the bad parts of America then of course you're going to turn out with a bad country. America, like any country, does its best to bring peace to war torn areas (Bosnia). Fair enough, i think America and NATO and pretty much every western country should get out of the Middle East untill we need to be in there. Unlike Iraq, and, to an extent, Afghanistan.
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6660|Tampa Bay Florida

SEREVENT wrote:

lowing wrote:

The reason for the title of this thread is my acknowledgement that America does not have a history of taking the high road as much as I have comforted myself in believing. I always knew that we broke treaties and shit with the native Americans but I really never grasped the extent of our blatant cruelty and misery that we brought on them and as it turns out, the islands of the Pacific during our expansionism era.
When has any country ever taken the high road?

Never. Stop looking at why America is so bad. If you only look at the bad parts of America then of course you're going to turn out with a bad country. America, like any country, does its best to bring peace to war torn areas (Bosnia). Fair enough, i think America and NATO and pretty much every western country should get out of the Middle East untill we need to be in there. Unlike Iraq, and, to an extent, Afghanistan.
Thats a shitty reason.  So because all the other countries do fucked up shit ignore it when your country does it?

How about criticize everyone, all the time, everywhere, including your own country?  But no, you think its a competition over which country is better.
SEREVENT
MASSIVE G STAR
+605|6077|Birmingham, UK

Spearhead wrote:

SEREVENT wrote:

lowing wrote:

The reason for the title of this thread is my acknowledgement that America does not have a history of taking the high road as much as I have comforted myself in believing. I always knew that we broke treaties and shit with the native Americans but I really never grasped the extent of our blatant cruelty and misery that we brought on them and as it turns out, the islands of the Pacific during our expansionism era.
When has any country ever taken the high road?

Never. Stop looking at why America is so bad. If you only look at the bad parts of America then of course you're going to turn out with a bad country. America, like any country, does its best to bring peace to war torn areas (Bosnia). Fair enough, i think America and NATO and pretty much every western country should get out of the Middle East untill we need to be in there. Unlike Iraq, and, to an extent, Afghanistan.
Thats a shitty reason.  So because all the other countries do fucked up shit ignore it when your country does it?

How about criticize everyone, all the time, everywhere, including your own country?  But no, you think its a competition over which country is better.
I didn't say ignore what your country does wrong.

If you have more than one brain cell you would realise that i was saying every country has its faults, but you've got to look at your county positively.
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6660|Tampa Bay Florida
Okay, well said

But it should not be an excuse.  People either see the bad or they ignore it.

Last edited by Spearhead (2008-08-07 11:27:25)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard