Apologizing for Iraq

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Ken Kaniff wrote:
The Mage wrote:
And before that it was a wonderful place of genocide, and support for terrorists. (Anyone remember Zarqawi? Al-Qadea member who received assistance from Saddam?)

Youre not up to date. Declassified Pentagon reports have proven once and for all that the Saddam-AlQadea connection thing is bs.

[/quote]

Instead, the report said, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials and had said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups.

Few is not none.
Iraq had long term relationships with terrorist groups.

Iraq’s hands were not clean. They repeatedly violated the terms of the peace treaty. They had long term relationships with multiple terrorist groups.

I have said many, many times I don’t know if liberating Iraq was the best choice at the time but we had every justification to do what we did. Once we committed to the war I supported it.

The historians will decide whether it was worth it. We still do not know but it unquestionably has damaged al Qaeda and scared other countries like Libya into giving up WMD programs.

Before the invasion of Iraq AQ was popular in the Middle East. Bin Laden was a hero. Now that the people of the Middle East has seen his group kill thousands of Muslims they are seeing him for the monster he is.

22

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

We need to cut better deals with the drug lords.[/quote]

Well, he asked how to turn it around and seeing how NATO isn’t being cooperative, and we’re preoccupied I elected to throw out the draft. Mind you, I hate the draft and have said as much here. But, if it’s a serious lack of troops that’s doing in the Afghanistan effort, then that’s that…I suppose we could raise taxes and borrow from China some more to enlarge the size our military through some sweet incentives.

Drug lords, eh? Now that’s a complicated stance. You sure you want us outright providing for the defense of opium production? I don’t see many deals being made unless we call off the fight against the opium trade, and offer them protection against Taliban/Al Qaeda reprisals. Would also make for some effective anti-US propoganda in the non-Taliban muslim world.

23

[quote]The Mage wrote:
lixy wrote:

The invasion of Iraq was Al-Qaeda’s wet dream. Hear me out:

  • It shattered the American image abroad.

Yes, we should only do things that make us popular. Fer Sher.[/quote]

Reductio ad absurdum.

[quote]- It deeply divided the country.

Actually that was politics attempting to destroy a sitting president for the sole purpose of gaining power. (Disgusting.) [/quote]

Buried in your partisan mindset, you probably missed out the unprecedented scale of grassroots opposition to the war before it even started.

[quote]- It created a rift between the people and the ruling class.

The what? [/quote]

Wear glasses. The ruling class or political elite if you will.

The majority of Americans want their military to withdraw from Iraq. The approval ratings for the White House and Congress are catastrophically low. Have you been under a rock?

[quote]- It is essentially bankrupting the US economy.

Not barely. Socialism Security and fiscal irresponsibility is doing that. [/quote]

I see. The 700+ military bases the US has on over a 100 countries combined with the billions of dollars the Iraq war is engulfing (no pun intended) are irrelevant because it is more important than American kids having a decent education and/or seniors having the option to retire.

Look at it any way you will, if half of OPEC decided to trade oil in Euros tomorrow (and sooner or later, they will!), your economy would collapse overnight.

[quote]- It turned the place into a terroristarium.

And before that it was a wonderful place of genocide, and support for terrorists. (Anyone remember Zarqawi? Al-Qadea member who received assistance from Saddam?) [/quote]

You’ll have to explain to me how Osama Ben-Laden was benefiting from the genocide committed by the Saddam regime.

Read my posts closer. You must have missed the part where I say what the list is about.

[quote]- It galvanized the movement around the world.

I thought you converted before that.[/quote]

Laugh it off if you must. I understand that as a supporter of the war of aggression that was the attack on Iraq, the topic must make you feel uncomfortable.

[quote]- It is the direct cause of Abu-Ghraib, Al-Mahmoudiya massacre, etc…

People were punished. This was not allowed under our laws, military or otherwise, and to blame all of America would be no different then blaming all of Islam for the actions of Al-Qaeda. [/quote]

First of all, those crimes were committed overseas on the American taxpayer’s dime. The actions of Al-Qaeda are mostly financed by Saudi (and satellite states’) money. That much is demonstrable.

Secondly, you are comparing a country with well-defined borders (hmmm…not sure about one on second thought) and a tangible population with a religion. That’s apples to oranges in my book.

Finally, I must point out to the judicial vacuum where private contractors Blackwater-style were operating in. 5 years and a mountain of bodies later, and nobody is punished. Either the Iraqis are lying about the actions of those mercenaries, or the people working for Blackwater are the most ethical and irreproachable money can buy. The latter defies common sense.

[quote]- It was the driving force behind the modern arms’ race.

What?[/quote]

Countries around the world have stepped up their stockpiling of weapons after Bush decided to attack Iraq.

[quote]- It killed a lot more Americans than 9/11.

WWII killed more Americans then Pearl Harbor. [/quote]

You are either logically-challenged, one of those 70% of Fox viewers who still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11 or the most intellectually dishonest person around here.

[quote]- It may be the reason Ben-Laden is still on the loose.

Nope.[/quote]

You are absolutely positive that the American invasion of Iraq is in no way to be considered a possibility for Ben-Laden breathing?

You must know some things we don’t.

[quote]- It is weakening the unity of Saudi Arabia.

Again, What?[/quote]

Sheesh, do we have to spell it out like we’re dealing with 3rd graders?

Ben-Laden is after the throne of Saudi Arabia because the Al-Sauds are corrupt. The Iraqi Shi’ites (the majority) are fostering separatist sentiments in the hearts of the oppressed Eastern Saudis who share their faith. The Kurdish independence movement is influencing them as well, despite on a much lower scale. Ben-Laden would therefore profit immensely from a destabilized Saudi-Arabia.

Q.E.D.

[quote]For an alien watching us from its spaceship orbiting the Earth, it may seem as if Osama planned it himself.

Aliens? Seriously? Your propaganda is really starting to get weak.[/quote]

Since you seem to be slow today, the “alien” in this case stands for “neutral observer”.

24

[quote]lixy wrote:
The Mage wrote:
lixy wrote:

For an alien watching us from its spaceship orbiting the Earth, it may seem as if Osama planned it himself.

Aliens? Seriously? Your propaganda is really starting to get weak.

Since you seem to be slow today, the “alien” in this case stands for “neutral observer”.[/quote]

I believe you introduced spaceship into that very sentence so a reasonable person would think you meant something other than neutral observer.

25

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
This sucks. We had a legitimate reason to go into Afghanistan and make it work for those people. It’s a shame we let them all down.

I’ll say.

The worse part is that the US lost a tremendous amount of credibility on the international scene. Did you read the “up yours” missive the Germans sent to Washington in reply to the request for more troops?

The invasion of Iraq was Al-Qaeda’s wet dream. Hear me out:

  • It shattered the American image abroad.
    [/quote]
    Don’t give a shit. It’s not a popularity contest after all.
    [quote
  • It deeply divided the country.
    [/quote]
    We’re always divided over something. It’s nothing like Nam. The divisions are deep, we’re not killing each other or anything. It’s more like coffee shop talk…Besides most people actaully agree. We shouldn’t have gone, but leaving it with out it being stable would be a disaster.

The rift existed previously, the war did nothing positive or negative in that aspect.

That’s just wishful thinking on your part. Our economy is just fine, thank you. Recessions happen despite the media hype, this is normal. Market corrections have to happen when a part of the economy runs amok. In 2000 it was the computer industry. This time it’s real estate. It’s normal and we are in quite good shape.

Pardon? What the hell is that.

What movement?

No, those events were the result of bad decisions made by some morally depraved people. Nobody was happy about what happened. Even if some of those prisoners deserved it, justice and punishment is not the job of the soldiers and they are in prison for that now. There were no celebrations or parades or marches for these assholes.

Technology and money is the driving force behind any arms race.

Unfortunately true.

That is also, unfortunately true, but only part of the reason. Bureaucracy is the other part. That is to say respecting the Pakistani border to degree we haveis also paramount to us not catching Bin Laden. Unfortunately, Pakistan has been a good ally and hence we don’t want to make them mad, but sometimes you may have to piss your friends off to achieve an important goal. But shifting of goals, personnel and priorities was a huge factor as well, no doubt.

At least something good came of it…Nothing would make me happier than to become independent of the ME all together. That’d piss them off more than dropping bomb ever would. Fuck the Saudi’s.

[quote]
For an alien watching us from its spaceship orbiting the Earth, it may seem as if Osama planned it himself.[/quote]

That’s true too. Though we have managed to stop a lot of terror attacks and keep al qaeda down despite our huge mistakes. That’s a tribute to being excessively well resourced.

26

[quote]Sloth wrote:
It’s hard to admit when you’re wrong. Especially when one’s support has cost so many lives and resources. But I was especially wrong to support the Iraq war. …[/quote]

Damn dude, relax. Yes, I agree going into Iraq was a mistake. Between '91 and '03 they have done their fair share of provocative shit, don’t forget that. Iraq had to be dealt with sooner or later. I disagree with the methodology used. I personally think Saddam could have been bought. I am not of the mind that we have to spread democracy, we just need to quash threats to ourselves or our allies. Sometimes that means military action, sometimes that means buying people off, sometimes an assassinations, sometimes it’s a combination of things. Saddam needed a good hard bitch slap, he lost all right to being left alone when he invaded Kuwait. Taking out the entire infastructure of a country is seldom a good idea and it wasn’t one in Iraq. Throw in the mix a propensity of secretarian violence and the rebuilding task is far more daunting. Despite that, I think the U.S. has done a good job rebuilding the infastructure. If you really think about what it takes to run city, town, country…It’s a whole bunch of unromantic stuff like sewers, water, street sweepers, hole diggers, etc. that make life possible. The sad part is that the infastructure was already there and some genius (Bush) thought it would be more fun to gut it and start over.

Anyway, I could go on, but the truth of the matter despite all the mistakes, things appear to be on the mend. We slowed progress in Asscrackistan, by choosing to do Iraq when the job is not finished, but we are far from losing it.

27

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
This sucks. We had a legitimate reason to go into Afghanistan and make it work for those people. It’s a shame we let them all down.

I’ll say.

The worse part is that the US lost a tremendous amount of credibility on the international scene. Did you read the “up yours” missive the Germans sent to Washington in reply to the request for more troops?

The invasion of Iraq was Al-Qaeda’s wet dream. Hear me out:

  • It shattered the American image abroad.
  • It deeply divided the country.
  • It created a rift between the people and the ruling class.
  • It is essentially bankrupting the US economy.
  • It turned the place into a terroristarium.
  • It galvanized the movement around the world.
  • It is the direct cause of Abu-Ghraib, Al-Mahmoudiya massacre, etc…
  • It was the driving force behind the modern arms’ race.
  • It killed a lot more Americans than 9/11.
  • It may be the reason Ben-Laden is still on the loose.
  • It is weakening the unity of Saudi Arabia.

For an alien watching us from its spaceship orbiting the Earth, it may seem as if Osama planned it himself.[/quote]

This is the biggest load of horse dung you’ve ever written here.

Because America actually fought back, its OUR fault.

You have GOT to be in the mountains on the Afghan/Pak border.

Our trouble is that we are too damnned nice to these people. Quit fighting PC wars, America, and stamp out the cockroaches.

“You have to kill all the cockroaches, or what’s the point?”
— Charles Bronson, Death Wish III

28

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Being wrong sucks. Admitting you were wrong sucks one hell of a lot more.

You’ve gained a lot of respect in my book. Basically meaningless (the respect of a 17 year old on the internet that is), but you’ve still got it.[/quote]

Read what he wrote, the go back to the year 1945. "Yeah, we should have left the Nazis alone. Let the German people choose for themselves. Are we so arrogant that we charged in there and now look at the fucking shambles and mess we created!!!

We fight a pussified war, we treat enemy combatants like we’re a bunch of pussies, we leave their society intact and are surprised that they don’t turn into Germany circa 1950.

Jeeezzzzzz…

29

Iraq is doing better - we haven’t won, but we’re winning. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/642xndxj.asp ; http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/01/the-final-missi.php ; http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/01/libyas-son.php

Afghanistan is another matter. It’s almost as if we can’t get good things to happen in both places simultaneously, as Afghanistan started out much better and has been deteriorating (as opposed to Iraq, which started out badly and has been improving). NATO is getting in the way more than helping ( http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/afghan/articles/20080131.aspx ), and the Pakistani border situation is highly problematic ( Swat fighting as deadly as Iraqi insurgency | FDD's Long War Journal ).

30

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Being wrong sucks. Admitting you were wrong sucks one hell of a lot more.

You’ve gained a lot of respect in my book. Basically meaningless (the respect of a 17 year old on the internet that is), but you’ve still got it.

Read what he wrote, the go back to the year 1945. "Yeah, we should have left the Nazis alone. Let the German people choose for themselves. Are we so arrogant that we charged in there and now look at the fucking shambles and mess we created!!!

We fight a pussified war, we treat enemy combatants like we’re a bunch of pussies, we leave their society intact and are surprised that they don’t turn into Germany circa 1950.

Jeeezzzzzz…

[/quote]

You’re comparing the nation of Iraq to Nazi Germany again. Lovely.
Because Iraq had a huge army, a multitude of weapons, a huge genocide within it’s borders, a land hungry dictator who was demanding land from other countries, a formidable air force, weapons of mass destruction, and a nifty symbol to spread hatred.

Yeah.

31

[quote]Ken Kaniff wrote:

Youre not up to date. Declassified Pentagon reports have proven once and for all that the Saddam-AlQadea connection thing is bs.

[/quote]

Please read what I said. Do you know who Zarqawi was? Do you know anything about this guy? This guy attacked us at least twice, and then ran to Iraq where he was protected, and treated for injuries.

When the war started, the left was here saying that he was not part of Al-Qaeda, so there was no link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Then he came out publicly saying that he was in fact a loyal member of Al-Qaeda. Now are we going to argue that he was suddenly not in Iraq? Please do not try to change historical facts, or act like a spin doctor.

Besides, as Zap pointed out, the article, which you only apparently read the headline, (why do they keep doing that?) did say there were links, just not substantial ones. But why does there need to be? It also does refer to substantial links to other terrorist groups.

32

[quote]lixy wrote:

Reductio ad absurdum.[/quote]

Taco Bravo quesadilla. Can’t even understand the first thing I said can you? Went right over your head didn’t it?[quote]

Buried in your partisan mindset, you probably missed out the unprecedented scale of grassroots opposition to the war before it even started.[/quote]

I was there, saw the protests of the far left, and the protests that were actually started by Iraqis’. (True.) Then it was pushed by the real “partisans” who simply were more interested in getting their guy elected then what is actually going on.

You know, like how you have your twisted hate America agenda going on in every post you make, and how every single discussion somehow turns into a hate America post.

I have said it before, and will say it again. I do believe some people have legitimate reasons to be against this action. But I have yet to really hear one on these forums. Too many of the people are not really against the action, they are against Bush causing the action, and the same people would have cheered if Clinton had done the same.

But for you it actually does not matter who was president, you would be against anything America does. You have shown that time and time again. And when I have run into posts where you seem to be actually backing Saddam, or even Al-Qaeda, I begin to really wonder what your motivation actually is.

I am serious about that.

33

[quote]The Mage wrote:
lixy wrote:

Reductio ad absurdum.

Taco Bravo quesadilla. Can’t even understand the first thing I said can you? Went right over your head didn’t it? [/quote]

Ironic, huh?

[quote]Buried in your partisan mindset, you probably missed out the unprecedented scale of grassroots opposition to the war before it even started.

I was there, saw the protests of the far left, and the protests that were actually started by Iraqis’. (True.) Then it was pushed by the real “partisans” who simply were more interested in getting their guy elected then what is actually going on. […]

I have said it before, and will say it again. I do believe some people have legitimate reasons to be against this action. But I have yet to really hear one on these forums. Too many of the people are not really against the action, they are against Bush causing the action, and the same people would have cheered if Clinton had done the same. [/quote]

Exactly the “partisan mindset” I was referring to. You won’t go far intellectually if you keep reasoning in terms of left/right, black/white or us/them.

There are thousands and thousands of legitimate reasons to be against the war on Iraq. They had names, dreams and hopes. That you fail to see the monstrosity of the actions carried in the name and on the dime of the American people is quite scary. It’s self-evident: The US committed the ultimate crime against Humanity, and you can’t help but think about it in terms of Democrats vs. Republicans.

Who invaded a country unprovoked, killed countless innocents, maimed many more, destroyed infrastructure and turned the place into a terrorist haven? Me perhaps?

I ain’t “against anything America does”. I am against any war of aggression, unlawful use of force and non-respect of the sovereignty of other states. Be it done by America or any other country. Shit, I curse my country all the time for doing the same to the Polisario.

[quote]And when I have run into posts where you seem to be actually backing Saddam, or even Al-Qaeda, I begin to really wonder what your motivation actually is.

I am serious about that. [/quote]

It’s more convenient to dismiss the interlocutors en masse than it is to argument and undergo an introspection.

Suit yourself.

34

Is this thread about Afghanistan or Iraq?

I have a suggestion to turn Afghanistan around:

Bring up the memory of this man and how he was killed by the Taliban and their al-qaeda backers.

35

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Is this thread about Afghanistan or Iraq?

I have a suggestion to turn Afghanistan around:

Bring up the memory of this man and how he was killed by the Taliban and their al-qaeda backers.

Ahmad Shah Massoud - Wikipedia [/quote]

The poor people of Afghanistan lost a true hero.

36

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Is this thread about Afghanistan or Iraq?

I have a suggestion to turn Afghanistan around:

Bring up the memory of this man and how he was killed by the Taliban and their al-qaeda backers.

Ahmad Shah Massoud - Wikipedia [/quote]

Not that simple. Probably deserved a good deal of the glowing press he got, but he was a Tajik. Afghanistan is going to be run by the Pashtun, one way or another. The sooner we realize that the better.

37

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Iraq is doing better - we haven’t won, but we’re winning. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/642xndxj.asp ; http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/01/the-final-missi.php ; http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/01/libyas-son.php
[/quote]

I’d take inflated claims about “winning” more seriously if they weren’t coming from The Weekly Standard and cheerleaders of that ilk.

It’s great that Al Qaeda has been rejected by the Sunnis, although we had little to do with that. But as for where the country is headed…I’d read the thoughts of people like General Zinni, Colonel MacGregor, and the more sober foreign and defense policy types than listen to the Weekly Standard.

Maybe because we have 160,000 troops and the bulk of Special Forces in Iraq? Could that be why?

38

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Being wrong sucks. Admitting you were wrong sucks one hell of a lot more.

You’ve gained a lot of respect in my book. Basically meaningless (the respect of a 17 year old on the internet that is), but you’ve still got it.

Read what he wrote, the go back to the year 1945. "Yeah, we should have left the Nazis alone. Let the German people choose for themselves. Are we so arrogant that we charged in there and now look at the fucking shambles and mess we created!!!

We fight a pussified war, we treat enemy combatants like we’re a bunch of pussies, we leave their society intact and are surprised that they don’t turn into Germany circa 1950.

Jeeezzzzzz…

[/quote]

The keyboard warrior stuff gets more and more idiotic and appalling by the day. Read a book or two. Preferably by someone just a bit more substantive than Ann Coulter.

39

[quote]pat wrote:

That’s just wishful thinking on your part. Our economy is just fine, thank you. Recessions happen despite the media hype, this is normal. Market corrections have to happen when a part of the economy runs amok. In 2000 it was the computer industry. This time it’s real estate. It’s normal and we are in quite good shape.
.[/quote]

The world’s most well known capitalists (major hedge fund managers, the Financial Times, etc. etc.) are all saying that this is a serious problem and it isn’t just “another recession”.

The US economy is being propped up until the next administration takes place, China holds 1.3 trillion in US notes they are itching to dump, and OPEC is sooner rather than later going to switch to the Euro. Not to mention the financially draining wars - isn’t it estimated that oil profits from Iraq won’t be seen for at least another decade?

I’m not saying you are wrong, but this is the evidence…

40

I have heard this kind of talk before. There is always panic on the on set of a recession.

I am not saying that your evidence isn’t a problem and hell, that the stuff that may bring it down but the panic happens every time. I am not happy about it, but I just got to grin and bear it. If the the whole economy goes up in flames, there is little I can do about it. So I cannot lose sleep over it.

It almost seems that these “experts” are associating with the great depression, because that was caused by real estate. What went on now, is nothing close to what was going on in the '20’s