Iraq Invasion 10 Years Ago

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
The analogy between Operation Iraqi Freedom and the Korean War is a pretty flimsy one. You won’t find any direct 2003 analog to the June 1950 North Korean invasion.

Whatever you claim to have been the causes of the war, justification of the deaths of thousands of Americans, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, and a price tag in the multiple trillions…that’s a tall order.[/quote]

Not my words, four professor. I just linked the article. [/quote]

Word, not an attack on you personally at all.

42

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
and I doubt he even read it. [/quote]

Not a shot in hell he read it. No way.

Put it this way he either:

a) didn’t read the damn thing, not even the cliff’s
b) lied like a rug for months and months as far back as the 2008 primaries, only to change his tune once in office.

Neither option is better than the other.

43

[quote]SRT08 wrote:
We put troops on the ground in Africa and it led us to Iraq and Afghanistan. The famous “Black Hawk Down” incident occurred during our attempt, under Clinton, to liberate an oppressed people from warlords. This led us to our current state of affairs, because those without the conscience to stay around and help left a power vacuum that bin Laden interpreted as weakness on the government’s part. Similarly, under H.W. Bush, our abandonment of the Kurds in particular, have made this time in Iraq particularly difficult because the locals now have a built-in distrust of U.S. and to an extent, coalition forces.
What we’re doing now is the delicate work of rebuilding a nation on many different fronts. It’s not easy to use military might and then build an independent country, and it never will be. You’re forced to put a gun in someone’s face one day and then convince them to try and be an honest and upstanding citizen and change their way of life the next. You can’t just start from scratch, because many of the ousted regime are actually critical parts of the country’s infrastructure. It’s not as simple as you make it out to be, just a direct action and then walk away from a smoldering aftermath. The real question that needs to be asked about the “worth” of this endeavor doesn’t need to be directed to everyone with an opinion to spout, it needs to be asked of those returning, especially those who have paid with themselves in some fashion. If they feel it’s worth it, who are you to degrade the sacrifice those people have made in pursuit of something bigger than themselves?
[/quote]

Good post

[quote]Legionary wrote:
American primacy is the most beneficial balance of power in the history of international relations. If some of the more idealistic posters in this thread had their wishes fulfilled, America would indeed commit preemptive superpower suicide. The world would see the return of war among rising powers as they jostle for power; the retreat of democracy around the world as authoritarian Russia and China acquire more clout; and the weakening of the global free market economy, which the United States created and supported for more than sixty years. This is the same free market that isolationist libertarians would have us abandon by allowing American influence to wane. We’ve seen this before in the breakdown of the Roman Empire and the collapse of the European order in World War I. The American world order is worth preserving at great cost, both in blood and treasure.[/quote]

This as well.

44

[quote]SRT08 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Oh God here we go, cry me a river over defense spending. [/quote]

Although I don’t share the extreme views of some here, it is important to consider the long term consequences…and there are many.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/iraq-war-anniversary-idUSL1N0C5FBN20130314

[/quote]

For me the spending is a huge issue, but I didn’t get to sit in those budget meetings. The thing is, imo, the removal of Saddam gives a chance to those that never ever would have had one. To me that is priceless. Will it amount to anything, maybe, maybe not. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have tried.

Everyone has their thoughts, mine are, we give billions away to fat slobs with a dozen kids, but we can’t spend money helping the oppresed? I don’t agree with that that is all. [/quote]

Why are you not jumping up and down supporting us invading Egypt, Syria, Iran, Russia, China, most of Africa, etc? Is there something special about people in Iraq or is oppression oppression? I can only assume you think our work has just started and we need to get busy with the rest of the world correct? I mean we should at least try right?

That’s just being consistent. [/quote]

We put troops on the ground in Africa and it led us to Iraq and Afghanistan. The famous “Black Hawk Down” incident occurred during our attempt, under Clinton, to liberate an oppressed people from warlords. This led us to our current state of affairs, because those without the conscience to stay around and help left a power vacuum that bin Laden interpreted as weakness on the government’s part. Similarly, under H.W. Bush, our abandonment of the Kurds in particular, have made this time in Iraq particularly difficult because the locals now have a built-in distrust of U.S. and to an extent, coalition forces.
What we’re doing now is the delicate work of rebuilding a nation on many different fronts. It’s not easy to use military might and then build an independent country, and it never will be. You’re forced to put a gun in someone’s face one day and then convince them to try and be an honest and upstanding citizen and change their way of life the next. You can’t just start from scratch, because many of the ousted regime are actually critical parts of the country’s infrastructure. It’s not as simple as you make it out to be, just a direct action and then walk away from a smoldering aftermath. The real question that needs to be asked about the “worth” of this endeavor doesn’t need to be directed to everyone with an opinion to spout, it needs to be asked of those returning, especially those who have paid with themselves in some fashion. If they feel it’s worth it, who are you to degrade the sacrifice those people have made in pursuit of something bigger than themselves?
[/quote]

And what if they don’t all agree?

I didn’t even look for that. It was off my facebook from someone who I don’t know well who is also a veteran.

Let’s be honest though you have people who are somewhat supportive in this thread who don’t even know if it was worth it. When you spend 2 trillion dollars and lots of lives lost don’t you want to be sure it was worth it? I’d say the fact that no one is remotely “celebrating” anything 10 years later is pretty telling that it hardly went well.

45

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I guess we can invade anyone because no one is going to “out bomb” us. [/quote]

Not we. You and people like you as well as the chickenhawks who command you.[/quote]

You’re American correct? Pretty sure that includes you. [/quote]

I think that if one does not vote one is excluded.

But I am also curious on what grounds he means he is not included.

46

Was it worth it? Hard to say. I think it is still too early. Whatever dividends that will be paid are really yet to be paid.

But, with that caveat, I lean toward no. Not because the idea wasn’t a good one or it wasn’t justified (it was both), but because the execution was miserable, sloppy, built on ideology instead of realism, and took up too much “space” in the foreign policy area, draining important resources.

There’s no point in debating the merits of invading - it was done in good faith, and there were plenty of good reasons to do so, notwithstanding the predictable revisionism. (There were also many good faith reasons not to, as well). The trouble began with the Rumsfeld doctrine of attempting to “experiment” with a new way of war. We should have jettisoned the experiment - once the decision was made that we were going to war, we should have stuck with the old rule: go in with overwhelming force, win unconditionally and quickly, and implement an updated Marshall Plan. In other words, we should have “surged” in the first instance, not in the last.
.
Instead, in attempting a new “light touch” way of war, we operated on all kinds of bad assumptions about what would happen after we neutralized Saddam’s military capaciity. Huge mistake, and frankly, a foreseeable one. And now we are stuck with the costs.

In that sense, I don’t think it was worth it.

Not to dehumanize the human costs with insensitive analogies, but the Iraq war was a bit like a business proposition and the American people were the investors. The business plan was a little shaky, but the prospects seemed good, so we invested. As time went by, the people running the business kept coming back for more money to pay for all kinds of contingencies they hadn’t planned for, but should have. We kept ponying up the money, but over time, we realized that the people running the business simply hadn’t done their due diligence and had carried out the business plan on bad assumptions. Of course, in the business world, we can yank our money out quickly - in war, it was never going to be that easy.

To borrow from Sherman, our troops are too important to be sending them into battle. Every war plan we have should be conceived and conducted to win strategically as quickly and unconditionally as possible. We didn’t do that in Iraq, and we are paying for it.

Also, it took our eye off China.

47

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I guess we can invade anyone because no one is going to “out bomb” us. [/quote]

Not we. You and people like you as well as the chickenhawks who command you.[/quote]

Curious to know what country you reside in. Hard to believe an American could be this disrespectful towards troops.

48

[quote]Karado wrote:
“Ya actually, if some dick head is spraying “his” people with mustad gas, I’d say we should step in. Oh, but it’s expensive, says the RICHEST nation in the world that consumes THE MOST resources.”

And if some dickhead sez there were chem weapons where none were ultimately found…we go in anyway,
says the richest nation in the world that consumes the most resources. [/quote]

Maybe you should check up on that some more. Try reading some firsthand accounts of people like Chris Kyle, who helped recover chemicals that were designed for weapons. Were the chemicals actually placed in weapons, maybe not. Then again, could be because of the massive amounts of SCUD missiles intercepted on un-flagged ships that were supposed to be carrying things like concrete. Could also be the political foot dragging that went on before the invasion itself. I’m not sure it’s too common a piece of knowledge, but are you aware Saddam buried a percentage of his air force in the desert as a means of not having it bombed and hoping we’d just go away like the first time so he could dig it up and go back to business as usual?

49

[quote]SRT08 wrote:

Curious to know what country you reside in. Hard to believe an American could be this disrespectful towards troops.[/quote]

He is in the US. If you aren’t familiar with Lifty, he is an anarchist that doesn’t believe in government that also dutifully pays his taxes every April 15th.

Also, he likes to say adolescent, anti-authoritarian things for shock value. We all yawn through it.

50

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]SRT08 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Oh God here we go, cry me a river over defense spending. [/quote]

Although I don’t share the extreme views of some here, it is important to consider the long term consequences…and there are many.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/iraq-war-anniversary-idUSL1N0C5FBN20130314

[/quote]

For me the spending is a huge issue, but I didn’t get to sit in those budget meetings. The thing is, imo, the removal of Saddam gives a chance to those that never ever would have had one. To me that is priceless. Will it amount to anything, maybe, maybe not. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have tried.

Everyone has their thoughts, mine are, we give billions away to fat slobs with a dozen kids, but we can’t spend money helping the oppresed? I don’t agree with that that is all. [/quote]

Why are you not jumping up and down supporting us invading Egypt, Syria, Iran, Russia, China, most of Africa, etc? Is there something special about people in Iraq or is oppression oppression? I can only assume you think our work has just started and we need to get busy with the rest of the world correct? I mean we should at least try right?

That’s just being consistent. [/quote]

We put troops on the ground in Africa and it led us to Iraq and Afghanistan. The famous “Black Hawk Down” incident occurred during our attempt, under Clinton, to liberate an oppressed people from warlords. This led us to our current state of affairs, because those without the conscience to stay around and help left a power vacuum that bin Laden interpreted as weakness on the government’s part. Similarly, under H.W. Bush, our abandonment of the Kurds in particular, have made this time in Iraq particularly difficult because the locals now have a built-in distrust of U.S. and to an extent, coalition forces.
What we’re doing now is the delicate work of rebuilding a nation on many different fronts. It’s not easy to use military might and then build an independent country, and it never will be. You’re forced to put a gun in someone’s face one day and then convince them to try and be an honest and upstanding citizen and change their way of life the next. You can’t just start from scratch, because many of the ousted regime are actually critical parts of the country’s infrastructure. It’s not as simple as you make it out to be, just a direct action and then walk away from a smoldering aftermath. The real question that needs to be asked about the “worth” of this endeavor doesn’t need to be directed to everyone with an opinion to spout, it needs to be asked of those returning, especially those who have paid with themselves in some fashion. If they feel it’s worth it, who are you to degrade the sacrifice those people have made in pursuit of something bigger than themselves?
[/quote]

And what if they don’t all agree?

I didn’t even look for that. It was off my facebook from someone who I don’t know well who is also a veteran.

Let’s be honest though you have people who are somewhat supportive in this thread who don’t even know if it was worth it. When you spend 2 trillion dollars and lots of lives lost don’t you want to be sure it was worth it? I’d say the fact that no one is remotely “celebrating” anything 10 years later is pretty telling that it hardly went well. [/quote]

What’s there to celebrate? It’s not over… I will give you that the biggest PR mistake in this current war was Bush on the deck of an aircraft carrier with a banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished.”

Do I expect all veterans to agree? No, very rarely do that many people agree on anything. I bet to an individual, they all were prepared to fight for their country when they thought the cause was worth it. What changed their minds is another thing entirely. Was is command and support errors? Are they bitter about being injured or traumatized? This war has had a number of instances of command staff overstepping their bounds either to press action or being hesitant, and costing good people their lives or their livelihoods. To have a bitter taste in one’s mouth over the politics of war is another thing entirely than feeling that helping people wasn’t worth it. You’ll notice this individual joined up with the express intent of killing and getting revenge. Now, he’s angry because his experience ended with himself on the side of the weapon he was so willing to put someone else on. I don’t mean to discount or devalue this individual’s service or sacrifice, but he didn’t join as a chaplain to serve without combat, he joined to seek vengance. I hope he finds peace for himself if he is that close to passing, but to turn now and say he never wanted to go to war seems like he’s just looking for an outlet for his anger at the situation he finds himself in.

Check out: www.nralifeofduty.tv if you want to see some different perspectives on war, sacrifice and patriotism, particularly in the case of ODA 574.

51

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I guess we can invade anyone because no one is going to “out bomb” us. [/quote]

Not we. You and people like you as well as the chickenhawks who command you.[/quote]

You’re American correct? Pretty sure that includes you. [/quote]

I think that if one does not vote one is excluded.

But I am also curious on what grounds he means he is not included.
[/quote]
If one chooses not to exercise their voice beforehand, do they have the right to complain about the decisions made while they sat silent?

52

[quote]SRT08 wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I guess we can invade anyone because no one is going to “out bomb” us. [/quote]

Not we. You and people like you as well as the chickenhawks who command you.[/quote]

You’re American correct? Pretty sure that includes you. [/quote]

I think that if one does not vote one is excluded.

But I am also curious on what grounds he means he is not included.
[/quote]
If one chooses not to exercise their voice beforehand, do they have the right to complain about the decisions made while they sat silent?[/quote]

I don’t know.

From a different perspective “silence” means they are saying “NO. I do not support these government.”

I understand Lifti is libertarian?

I don’t know how libertarians vote if they are basically throwing their vote away or if some vote and others don’t.

I know the voting system in America means it is a two party system, is it not?
What do you do when your voice is silenced by a two party system?

Where is Orion…

53

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]SRT08 wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I guess we can invade anyone because no one is going to “out bomb” us. [/quote]

Not we. You and people like you as well as the chickenhawks who command you.[/quote]

You’re American correct? Pretty sure that includes you. [/quote]

I think that if one does not vote one is excluded.

But I am also curious on what grounds he means he is not included.
[/quote]
If one chooses not to exercise their voice beforehand, do they have the right to complain about the decisions made while they sat silent?[/quote]

I don’t know.

From a different perspective “silence” means they are saying “NO. I do not support these government.”

I understand Lifti is libertarian?

I don’t know how libertarians vote if they are basically throwing their vote away or if some vote and others don’t.

I know the voting system in America means it is a two party system, is it not?
What do you do when your voice is silenced by a two party system?

Where is Orion…
[/quote]
I assumed the person I was addressing is currently in the military or training to be. I meant people who actively participate in maintaining empire or ordering others to do it for them.

Having a gun put to one’s head and being forced to pay taxes to support its effort upon threat of either being murdered or thrown in a cage is hardly what I call supporting empire.

54

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]SRT08 wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I guess we can invade anyone because no one is going to “out bomb” us. [/quote]

Not we. You and people like you as well as the chickenhawks who command you.[/quote]

You’re American correct? Pretty sure that includes you. [/quote]

I think that if one does not vote one is excluded.

But I am also curious on what grounds he means he is not included.
[/quote]
If one chooses not to exercise their voice beforehand, do they have the right to complain about the decisions made while they sat silent?[/quote]

I don’t know.

From a different perspective “silence” means they are saying “NO. I do not support these government.”

I understand Lifti is libertarian?

I don’t know how libertarians vote if they are basically throwing their vote away or if some vote and others don’t.

I know the voting system in America means it is a two party system, is it not?
What do you do when your voice is silenced by a two party system?

Where is Orion…
[/quote]

After the fact you say silence means “no.” Without actually letting the word come out of your mouth at the time, who’s to know what you thought? Seems to me, if you were so against this action, it wouldn’t have been such an inconvenience to utter one syllable.

55

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]SRT08 wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I guess we can invade anyone because no one is going to “out bomb” us. [/quote]

Not we. You and people like you as well as the chickenhawks who command you.[/quote]

You’re American correct? Pretty sure that includes you. [/quote]

I think that if one does not vote one is excluded.

But I am also curious on what grounds he means he is not included.
[/quote]
If one chooses not to exercise their voice beforehand, do they have the right to complain about the decisions made while they sat silent?[/quote]

I don’t know.

From a different perspective “silence” means they are saying “NO. I do not support these government.”

I understand Lifti is libertarian?

I don’t know how libertarians vote if they are basically throwing their vote away or if some vote and others don’t.

I know the voting system in America means it is a two party system, is it not?
What do you do when your voice is silenced by a two party system?

Where is Orion…
[/quote]
I assumed the person I was addressing is currently in the military or training to be. I meant people who actively participate in maintaining empire or ordering others to do it for them.

Having a gun put to one’s head and being forced to pay taxes to support its effort upon threat of either being murdered or thrown in a cage is hardly what I call supporting empire.[/quote]

Your assumption is incorrect. I’m no longer in the “service of the Empire”

You could always leave LIFTICVSMAXIMVS, no one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to stay. I’m sure you can find a nice tax free piece of land in some 3rd world country.

56

NY Times piece on the intelligence failures of the war.

57

[quote]SRT08 wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]SRT08 wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I guess we can invade anyone because no one is going to “out bomb” us. [/quote]

Not we. You and people like you as well as the chickenhawks who command you.[/quote]

You’re American correct? Pretty sure that includes you. [/quote]

I think that if one does not vote one is excluded.

But I am also curious on what grounds he means he is not included.
[/quote]
If one chooses not to exercise their voice beforehand, do they have the right to complain about the decisions made while they sat silent?[/quote]

I don’t know.

From a different perspective “silence” means they are saying “NO. I do not support these government.”

I understand Lifti is libertarian?

I don’t know how libertarians vote if they are basically throwing their vote away or if some vote and others don’t.

I know the voting system in America means it is a two party system, is it not?
What do you do when your voice is silenced by a two party system?

Where is Orion…
[/quote]

After the fact you say silence means “no.” Without actually letting the word come out of your mouth at the time, who’s to know what you thought? Seems to me, if you were so against this action, it wouldn’t have been such an inconvenience to utter one syllable.
[/quote]

I agree with you SRT08. If you are against something you have to speak up or else you are inabiling that something to occur, imo.

58

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

You could always leave LIFTICVSMAXIMVS, no one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to stay. I’m sure you can find a nice tax free piece of land in some 3rd world country. [/quote]

How does one run away from empire?

59

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

You could always leave LIFTICVSMAXIMVS, no one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to stay. I’m sure you can find a nice tax free piece of land in some 3rd world country. [/quote]

How does one run away from empire?
[/quote]

Well, you could pack up and move to some remote part of the world. Maybe along the Nile or Amazon rivers. You’d probably die of Malaria in a few months if you aren’t eaten first, but you’d be empire free.

60

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

You could always leave LIFTICVSMAXIMVS, no one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to stay. I’m sure you can find a nice tax free piece of land in some 3rd world country. [/quote]

How does one run away from empire?
[/quote]

Well, you could pack up and move to some remote part of the world. Maybe along the Nile or Amazon rivers. You’d probably die of Malaria in a few months if you aren’t eaten first, but you’d be empire free. [/quote]

I know it is in vogue for libertarian minded people to go live “off the grid” but the point of leaving for me would be to be better off.

How does one legitimately flee this empire with all of his accumulated wealth while still being able to travel freely? Are you aware of the measures this government is putting in place to keep people from leaving?