Iraq War 10 Years On

[kdolo]

4,000-6,000 people died every month of easily preventable maladies and lack of basic medical attention due to the sanctions regime. A regime that could have been lifted immediately if Saddam abides by the cease fire agreement.

Remember, there are very real consequences to inaction as well.
[/quote]

Do you even listen to yourself while spouting illogical nonsense ??

1. People die from preventable disease due to sanctions.

Who imposed the sanction ??? (USA Gov't)

2. Sanctions based on the notion that Saddam was not complying with WMD inspections and is hiding stuff - so say USA Gov't.

3. Turns out there were no WMDs and he was in fact not hiding anything because you cant hide what you dont have - the US intelligence and the politicians knew this but wanted to invade for other reasons so they lied.

SO..... who was responsible for the deaths due to sanctions based on lies ........????? come on - the logic is not that hard to follow ....

ah yes .... USA Gov't.

and you make a conclusion that is based on no facts....:
"here are very real consequences to inaction as well."

...alrighty then...

 

[tenderman100]

Ha.

you can make a valid argument about something that you don't necessarily have to have experience doing.

Exactly. I don't listen to people that have no idea what they are talking about.

Being a chicken hawk is...what's the word I am looking for...oh yeah, that's right.

A COWARD.

Or a p*ssy. Or a b*tch. Or a Male Cheerleader.

But I know you love male cheeleaders too.

Me?

I like female cheerleaders.

And that is were we differ.

And that is ok.

So by your logic, the following guys are chickenhawks.

Abraham Lincoln.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Dwight D. Eisenhower

All those guys supported wars, and none of them ever fired a shot or went in harms way.

Like I said, it's THOUGHT.

As opposed to THOUGHTLESSNESS.

And I hate to break it to you, but it has nothing to do with cheerleading.

Meanwhile, I think the cheerleader's megaphone is on the top of your head.

It rather constricting in that corner, isn't it? Hope you're not claustrophobic.

 

[hazara]

Abraham Lincoln.
While Pres Lincoln did not participate in combat, he did volunteer as a company commander of militia forces that conducted operations. While they did not make contact, he put his money where his mouth was and served in direct combat forces.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Non-Vet FDR allowed the Communists to rule Poland, and allowed the repatriation of tens of thousands of anti-Communist soldiers to the USSR.

Dwight D. Eisenhower
Remained stateside during WW1. I haven't read up on Eisenhower's performance but I suspect this REMF's battlefield performance is lacking.

Like I said, those who haven't been in the trenches typically don't know what they are talking about in war, or what they're doing before or after they've sent men out to the battle.

 

[thegmanifesto]

Ha.

you can make a valid argument about something that you don't necessarily have to have experience doing.

Exactly. I don't listen to people that have no idea what they are talking about.

Being a chicken hawk is...what's the word I am looking for...oh yeah, that's right.

A COWARD.

Or a p*ssy. Or a b*tch. Or a Male Cheerleader.

But I know you love male cheeleaders too.

Me?

I like female cheerleaders.

And that is were we differ.

And that is ok.

So by your logic, the following guys are chickenhawks.

Abraham Lincoln.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Dwight D. Eisenhower

All those guys supported wars, and none of them ever fired a shot or went in harms way.

Like I said, it's THOUGHT.

As opposed to THOUGHTLESSNESS.

And I hate to break it to you, but it has nothing to do with cheerleading.

Meanwhile, I think the cheerleader's megaphone is on the top of your head.

It rather constricting in that corner, isn't it? Hope you're not claustrophobic.

Tenderman, you talk a pretty good "game", but then all chicken hawks do, right?

Do you also "talk" about swooping girls, but when it comes down to the moment, you are too cowardly to have sex with a female?

Abraham Lincoln.
While Pres Lincoln did not participate in combat, he did volunteer as a company commander of militia forces that conducted operations. While they did not make contact, he put his money where his mouth was and served in direct combat forces.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Non-Vet FDR allowed the Communists to rule Poland, and allowed the repatriation of tens of thousands of anti-Communist soldiers to the USSR.

Dwight D. Eisenhower
Remained stateside during WW1. I haven't read up on Eisenhower's performance but I suspect this REMF's battlefield performance is lacking.

Like I said, those who haven't been in the trenches typically don't know what they are talking about in war, or what they're doing before or after they've sent men out to the battle.

And, Tenderman gets b*tch slapped.

But then again, Tenderman has probably gotten b*tchslapped on a daily basis since kindergarden.

That is what happens to chicken hawks that talk big but can't back it up.

Right Tenderman?

(Side note: Tenderman, I like your "older guy Game" posts. I just don't like you infatuation and lust for weak men and male cheerleaders. Nothing personal. Fair enough?)

 

[j r]

And I never understood the idea that the United States invaded to "steal" the oil. Let's do that pesky little math thing again. Iraq only exports 30 billion dollars a year in oil and that is at 100% capacity. The United States, by even conservative estimates, has spent well over a trillion dollars trying to stabilize Iraq after nearly 40 years of atrocious dictatorship. It would take us another 40 years simply to recoup our investment, and that's if we shipped all the oil to ourselves. But we don't, because we didn't steal their oil, several Asian and European petroleum companies won contracts to the oil fields and some of them were American, but nothing is being stolen from Iraq.

Its not about stealing the oil, but controlling it.

The idea is too not allow a nation to sell too much so that oil and gas prices get too low. - Low prices means that the companies make less.

Furthermore, low prices means that developing nations have cheao energy with which to develop. - keep prices high means that developing nations have a harder time doing so - and competing less against the big boys.

Its about CONTROL - plus maintenance of the petrodollar system

This is absolutely false. Oil is an international commodity, priced on a global market. There is no way to "control" the oil market. And the last thing that any US administration wants is high energy prices. People will absolutely vote someone out of office if the gas bill gets too high.

A lot of oil politics is just saber rattling for show. Truth is, oil exporters need oil importers and vice versa. Look at Venezuela. Chavez was the biggest critic of the United States and yet, that is where almost all of Venezuela's oil went. Why? Because the US has the refinery capacity to deal with the heavy sour crude that Venezuela pumps. If you don't have a market in which to sell it, oil is just black sludge.

 

[LostGringo]

Comparing Lincoln, FDR and Ike to people like Cheney and Romney, does not warrant a thoughtful response.

You are intellectually dishonest, a particularly distasteful trait in an educated individual.

If your knowledge of American military history is remiss, perhaps you might consider joining your local community college for a couple of courses in American history.

My god, Lincoln, who famously struggled with the moral questions of sending young men into battle to die. FDR, who resisted entry into the second world war until the homeland was invaded, and then IKE, a distinguished career officer who actually learned something from his tenure and passed along perhaps the most ominous warning in US history; the unchecked growth of military industrial complex.

Two republicans and a democrat. Three examples of real leadership in difficult times. Chicken-hawks? Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the term.

Well done Tenderman.

By the way, I support mandatory military service for all citizens. We all serve, or nobody serves. You being the hawk you are, perhaps its not too late to stop by your local recruiting office for a tour of duty with your local National Guard unit. I would be happy to write a letter in support of an age waiver in your case. I'm sure they could use an educated man such as yourself in a support role such as public affairs. Trade in your px-whatever for a Marine PFT?

 

[Mentavious]

Did anyone see the CNN segment about some world leaders wanting to bring former President Bush to justice for warm crimes? I know at least the South African Prime Minister wants to see this happen.

 

[Aliblahba]

I would be happy to write a letter in support of an age waiver in your case. I'm sure they could use an educated man such as yourself in a support role such as public affairs. Trade in your px-whatever for a Marine PFT?

Please don't. He'd be shot in the back by his own troops before they ever got boots on ground.

 

[Greek kamaki]

This war was a bad choice.Actually it precipitated the crisis of 2008 or to be more accurate it brought it faster.Totally wrong decision from all aspects.The neocons proved completely failed in every level.However at the time it was difficult to oppose them.They acted in full arrogance manipulating evidence etc they did what they want in a display of power.
However US had some aces in sleeve and managed to counterbalance relatively for the heavy losses the Iraq war caused.After the defeat however the Germans saw the whole situation in a different light as a chance.

 

[Pacesetter20]

I was there twice, not worth one Soldier's life.

Though I'm down with military adventurism. With the caveot that all those who beg and plead for it are the first on the beaches.

 

[Lemmo]

Note that Hitchens, like most chicken-hawks never served in any army in any war. What about you Farmageddon did you deploy to OIF? Were you in the Infantry? Do you have sons, nephews,? Did you persuade them to enlist in combat arms MOS, it would have been the right thing to do.

So you can only argue for or against a war if you have served in one? That's absurd. The case for or against a certain proposition stands or falls on the merits of the arguments presented by either side regardless of the history of the people presenting the case.

Using your reasoning, none of us understand what works in regards to bedding women because we're not actual women. Are you a woman? Have you ever been a woman? Are you a mother, wife, or sister? Then there is no way that you can understand what it takes to bed one of us.

Your reasoning is faulty.

Yeah, I think the war was a bad idea but the argument that you can't be in favor of a war unless you are or were previously in the military is just silly. In addition to women's issues, you see this type of argument used when racial or other minority issues come up. It is the usual "Let's just come up with reasons why I don't have to listen to you rather than have a substantive discussion like an adult."

 

[thegmanifesto]

Comparing Lincoln, FDR and Ike to people like Cheney and Romney, does not warrant a thoughtful response.

You are intellectually dishonest, a particularly distasteful trait in an educated individual.

If your knowledge of American military history is remiss, perhaps you might consider joining your local community college for a couple of courses in American history.

My god, Lincoln, who famously struggled with the moral questions of sending young men into battle to die. FDR, who resisted entry into the second world war until the homeland was invaded, and then IKE, a distinguished career officer who actually learned something from his tenure and passed along perhaps the most ominous warning in US history; the unchecked growth of military industrial complex.

Two republicans and a democrat. Three examples of real leadership in difficult times. Chicken-hawks? Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the term.

Well done Tenderman.

By the way, I support mandatory military service for all citizens. We all serve, or nobody serves. You being the hawk you are, perhaps its not too late to stop by your local recruiting office for a tour of duty with your local National Guard unit. I would be happy to write a letter in support of an age waiver in your case. I'm sure they could use an educated man such as yourself in a support role such as public affairs. Trade in your px-whatever for a Marine PFT?

And Tenderman gets b*tchslapped again.

I would be happy to write a letter in support of an age waiver in your case. I'm sure they could use an educated man such as yourself in a support role such as public affairs. Trade in your px-whatever for a Marine PFT?

Please don't. He'd be shot in the back by his own troops before they ever got boots on ground.

And Tenderman gets b*tchslapped again.

 

[RandalGraves]

G, don't be so inflammatory. I'd expect that from a hotheaded newb, not a longstanding forum member. Don't make politics into a personal flame war.

 

[A CLOCKWORK TRADER]

I was an advocate of removing Saddam Hussein from power, by force if necessary, since the late 1990s. Hearing the debates stemming from Clinton's passing of the "Iraq Liberation Act" prompted me to read "The Republic of Fear" by Kanan Makiya and I was fucking horrified at what life was like for the average Iraqi citizen. People being executed for spilling their drinks on a newspaper with Saddam's portrait, families being forced to attend the execution of their children and then forced to applaud, videos left on the doorsteps of houses with daughters being raped and then killed, straight up genocide in the Kurdish North and Shia South, draining of the wetlands, etc.

This whole save the world mentality is beyond annoying. So you supported the invasion of Iraq because you read a book on how horrifying it is in Iraq. Am I getting this right? Have you ever heard of North Korea? Somalia? The DRC? Burma? Take your pick. Should we 'save' these countries too? You're awfully generous with American life and treasure. We should not be the world's police.

 

[Aliblahba]

A long overdue +1 to LostGringo.

 

[thegmanifesto]

G, don't be so inflammatory. I'd expect that from a hotheaded newb, not a longstanding forum member. Don't make politics into a personal flame war.

What do you mean "inflammatory"?

This is just a good old-fashioned b*tch slapping.

A guy in his prime stomping on an older guy.

Happens everyday. It's a daily operation.

 

[durangotang]

I think we should only be allowed to go to war through popular referendum.

If you vote yes on the referendum, and you are over the age of military service, you are then eligible to be levied taxes upon to pay for the war. If you vote yes and are of military age, you must serve. No exceptions.

If you vote no, then you are exempt from taxes (or other financial obligations) for the war and exempt from military service. No exceptions.

Think about it.

 

[Alpharius]

I think we should only be allowed to go to war through popular referendum.

If you vote yes on the referendum, and you are over the age of military service, you are then eligible to be levied taxes upon to pay for the war. If you vote yes and are of military age, you must serve. No exceptions.

If you vote no, then you are exempt from taxes for the war and exempt from military service. No exceptions.

Think about it.

So if the quadriplegics come out in force for going to war, we'll have the world's most hilarious military in history?

 

[Cincinnatus]

I think we should only be allowed to go to war through popular referendum.

If you vote yes on the referendum, and you are over the age of military service, you are then eligible to be levied taxes upon to pay for the war. If you vote yes and are of military age, you must serve. No exceptions.

If you vote no, then you are exempt from taxes for the war and exempt from military service. No exceptions.

Think about it.

I subscribe to a philosophy of war described in All Quiet on the Western Front

Kropp on the other hand is a thinker. He proposes that a declaration of war should be a kind of popular festival with entrance-tickets and bands, like a bull fight. Then in the arena the ministers and generals of the two countries, dressed in bathing-drawers and armed with clubs, can have it out among themselves. Whoever survives, his country wins. That would be much simpler and more just than this arrangement, where the wrong people do the fighting.

 

[porscheguy]

Let's not forget a few key facts about Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
1. The US supported his dictatorial regime long before they opposed it. In fact, the US was largely responsible for his rise to power.
2. Hussein and Rumsfeld: BFFs.
3. Kurdish genocide? Done with US chemical weapons AND the blessing of the US.
4. Iraq's war with Iran? Done at the behest of the US. The only reason Iraq withdrew from that war was because the endless promises we made to Iraq never panned out, and Iraq was largely left bankrupt after 8 years of waging that war.

Hussein was a bad guy? There are a lot of bad people in the world, many who are far worse than Hussein.