PDA

View Full Version : War in Iraq Officially Over



2tall
12-15-2011, 09:43 AM
And what have we accomplished? I would love to hear from anyone that can state what our goals were and how they were achieved.

luvmylabs23139
12-15-2011, 10:02 AM
Who really knows. At the time our military intell said they had weapons of mass destruction. What did Libyia have that could harm the US, as far as I know the answer is squat. Iran is on schedule to have a nuke, yet we don't care. Pakistan has nukes, but we do nothing but give them money. Syria is according to the UN killing many of its people and we do nothing. The whole thing is a mess. Meanwhile at home we sit back and allow those Occupy clowns to block ports and won't even step in and bust them for breaking the laws.

M&K's Retrievers
12-15-2011, 10:18 AM
Don't forget allowing Iran to keep our drone.

Franco
12-15-2011, 10:42 AM
The fact that we are hated by the Iraqis, except for the few who directly benefitted from the waste of life and dollar is the answer!

An unneeded war that cost us 4,500 U S Military lives, over 30,000 injured and many disabled for life is tragic.

A War that upset the balance of power in the middleeast helping to make IRAN the regions only real superpower is frightening.

A war that gave us Obama as President, what more can one write!

Yet, some on the far right want to bomb Iran's nuke facilities and start another war!

Our Interventionist Foreign Policy has got to stop if we are to survive as a free people!

Ken Bora
12-15-2011, 11:14 AM
click - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMa10pGpANc


.

Hew
12-15-2011, 01:44 PM
The fact that we are hated by the Iraqis, except for the few who directly benefitted from the waste of life and dollar is the answer!

An unneeded war that cost us 4,500 U S Military lives, over 30,000 injured and many disabled for life is tragic.

A War that upset the balance of power in the middleeast helping to make IRAN the regions only real superpower is frightening.

A war that gave us Obama as President, what more can one write!

Yet, some on the far right want to bomb Iran's nuke facilities and start another war!

Our Interventionist Foreign Policy has got to stop if we are to survive as a free people!
You were once for the invasion of Iraq. You were once for hitting the Iranianian nuke facilities. Since you were apparently so wrong back then, do you ever consider that you're just as wrong now?

Hew
12-15-2011, 01:48 PM
click - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMa10pGpANc


.
Exactly. War. What is it good for? Aside from defeating British tyranny, ending slavery, stopping the genocide of Jews, ending european facism, stopping Japanese imperialism and halting expansionist communism...absolutely nothing. Say it again.

Franco
12-15-2011, 02:20 PM
You were once for the invasion of Iraq. You were once for hitting the Iranianian nuke facilities. Since you were apparently so wrong back then, do you ever consider that you're just as wrong now?

I have admitted on here that I supported securing the WMD's. However, I was against nation building from day one!

I was against Iran having nukes before I found out that Israel has over 300 nuclear warheads. I don't think it is a good idea for Iran to have them. But, who are we to say who can and can't have nukes? I am more concerned with Pakistan having nukes than Iran. So, are you advocating war with Iran?

Cody Covey
12-15-2011, 02:36 PM
So if one of our allies has nukes it's okay for someone who wants to kill off the western hemisphere to have nukes?

Hew
12-15-2011, 02:38 PM
[quote=Franco;893599) But, who are we to say who can and can't have nukes?[/quote]
Exactly. Who are we to say who can and can't exterminate Jews? Who are we to say who can and can't invade South Korea? Who are we to say who can and can't block the Straits of Hormuz and deprive the world of needed oil?

Franco
12-15-2011, 03:04 PM
Exactly. Who are we to say who can and can't exterminate Jews? Who are we to say who can and can't invade South Korea? Who are we to say who can and can't block the Straits of Hormuz and deprive the world of needed oil?

Very weak arguement. I can name more times when we interviened in world affairs that were to our detriment.

And, since you bring up the middleeast, we should have never interviened in 1967 on behalf of the Arabs. Had we left Israel alone, they would have pacified the region and we wouldn't have nearly the mess we have today!

Hew
12-15-2011, 03:18 PM
Very weak arguement. I can name more times when we interviened in world affairs that were to our detriment.
So can I. What's your point? Because we've wrongly gotten involved in some instances does that somehow preclude us from being able to rightfully intervene when necessary? If preventing a world pariah like Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons is beyond the purview of our national interests then I'll contend that you and Ron Paul's world-view is dangerously naive.

Franco
12-15-2011, 03:35 PM
So can I. What's your point? Because we've wrongly gotten involved in some instances does that somehow preclude us from being able to rightfully intervene when necessary? If preventing a world pariah like Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons is beyond the purview of our national interests then I'll contend that you and Ron Paul's world-view is dangerously naive.

I would say that you are the naive one especially when countries like Pakistan and China already have them. Two countries more likely to use them on us than Iran. Where is your outrage of China's Naval build up and their in-your-face tactics in the Pacific?

So, you propose going to war with Iran? You dodge this question once so, here is your chance to respond.

BonMallari
12-15-2011, 03:36 PM
Very weak arguement. I can name more times when we interviened in world affairs that were to our detriment.

And, since you bring up the middleeast, we should have never interviened in 1967 on behalf of the Arabs. Had we left Israel alone, they would have pacified the region and we wouldn't have nearly the mess we have today!

but that goes with the territory when you are the world wide leader..We are the big dog, whether we like it or not

as for not intervening in Israel in '67, not too sure that it would have prevented the current situation, that conflict has been going on since basically the beginning of time

2tall
12-15-2011, 03:53 PM
Hew, you list "good" outcomes of war as "defeating British tyranny", (a rebellion against a sitting government that we happened to win) "ending slavery" (economics ended slavery, not the civil war) "ending Japanese Imperialism" (almost ended Japan as well because they had a different world view) but of course I think I can agree that one good result was preventing the complete extermination of the Jews. The original question here, what have we gotten for our money and the lives of so many in THIS war? WMD's long ago ceased to be an excuse. Yet we still kept pouring the blood and money into it.

Franco
12-15-2011, 03:57 PM
but that goes with the territory when you are the world wide leader..We are the big dog, whether we like it or not

as for not intervening in Israel in '67, not too sure that it would have prevented the current situation, that conflict has been going on since basically the beginning of time

And look where it has gotten us! Most of the world hates us and the few that don't is because of the cash tribute we pay them to like us. We have very few real allies in this world.

It is time we think of America and Americans first. Sticking our noses in other countries' buisness is not in our best interest in today's world!

Hew
12-15-2011, 04:01 PM
Hew, you list "good" outcomes of war as "defeating British tyranny", (a rebellion against a sitting government that we happened to win) "ending slavery" (economics ended slavery, not the civil war) "ending Japanese Imperialism" (almost ended Japan as well because they had a different world view) but of course I think I can agree that one good result was preventing the complete extermination of the Jews. The original question here, what have we gotten for our money and the lives of so many in THIS war? WMD's long ago ceased to be an excuse. Yet we still kept pouring the blood and money into it.
LOL...if you want to pretend that the Revolutionary War was, "a rebellion we happened to win" instead of a war where people fought and died for a principle than there's really no use to discuss your other misrepresentations of history.

As for whether the war in Iraq made sense....you have said you're an anarchist so how/why would I possibly want to try to discuss any of that with you when we likely can't even come up with a starting point. If you want to discuss Warren Zevon, I'm game.

edit...the last part sounded kinda harsh. What I meant was that nothing I spend time writing will make sense in the context of your anarchist beliefs....therefore it's a waste of time for me to write it and a waste of your time to read it.

Franco
12-15-2011, 04:50 PM
HEW, I'll ask you for a third time; Do you want the USA to go to war with Iran?

Hew
12-15-2011, 05:07 PM
Have you stopped beating your wife? Ask me a somewhat reasoned question and I'll offer a somewhat reasoned answer. Until then...

Franco
12-15-2011, 05:33 PM
So can I. What's your point? Because we've wrongly gotten involved in some instances does that somehow preclude us from being able to rightfully intervene when necessary? If preventing a world pariah like Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons is beyond the purview of our national interests then I'll contend that you and Ron Paul's world-view is dangerously naive.

Typical view from the extreme right! Lets start another war, this time with Iran.

2tall
12-15-2011, 06:05 PM
Hew: "if you want to pretend that the Revolutionary War was, "a rebellion we happened to win" instead of a war where people fought and died for a principle". Every combatant on either side of every war ever fought, were fighting for and dieing for a "principal". Whether the principal was noble and just or not, sort of depends on which side you are talking to. But answer the question, What have we gained or defended for "our side" in the conduct of this war?

BonMallari
12-15-2011, 06:06 PM
Typical view from the extreme right! Lets start another war, this time with Iran.

do you really think we (US) are War Mongers...seriously...they tried to put that label on Goldwater, and look what happened...LB Johnson and Robert McNamara...

Hew
12-15-2011, 06:50 PM
Typical view from the extreme right! Lets start another war, this time with Iran.
Can't form a non-facile question? Think what you want.

Hew
12-15-2011, 06:57 PM
Every combatant on either side of every war ever fought, were fighting for and dieing for a "principal". Whether the principal was noble and just or not, sort of depends on which side you are talking to.
Reason #72 why I don't care to answer your question because your point of view is so foreign...so f'ed up, that it's pointless to discuss. Per your above quote, morally an SS Storm Trooper = a plantation overseer = a Stalin gulag commandant = a US soldier storming the beach at Normandy. It all just sort of depends on which side you're talking to, right?

Franco
12-15-2011, 07:03 PM
do you really think we (US) are War Mongers...seriously...they tried to put that label on Goldwater, and look what happened...LB Johnson and Robert McNamara...

There is a faction that are war mongers. It wasn't that long ago that we had Cheney and Rumsfeld in government and there are others.


In fact, it wasn't that long ago that you wrote that Conservatives tend to be hawkish and I was the one that said that real Conservatives detest war!

HEW,you can't have it both ways! If you are advocting a hit on Iran's nuke facilites, that is an act of war. One which cold set off WW3.

Franco
12-15-2011, 07:24 PM
Pat Buchanan does a nice piece in today's AmericanConservative.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2011/12/15/and-was-the-mission-accomplished/

Hew
12-15-2011, 09:55 PM
HEW,you can't have it both ways! If you are advocting a hit on Iran's nuke facilites, that is an act of war. One which cold set off WW3.
I don't recall ever saying we should "hit Iran's nuke facilities." That is certainly one option, but there are tens, if not hundreds, of options available to us short of outright attack on their nuke installations with bombs, missles, etc. At the opposite end of the spectrum from "hit Iran's nuke facilities" is your position: "it doesn't affect us directly so it's none of our business; let Israel handle it." Which position is MORE destabilizing to the region and is MORE encouraging to the Iranians? Pssst...it ain't mine. ;-)

Hew
12-15-2011, 09:57 PM
In fact, it wasn't that long ago that you wrote that Conservatives tend to be hawkish and I was the one that said that real Conservatives detest war!
Is Goldwater a conservative or not? You do realize why he was thoroughly trounced in '64, right? It wasn't because he "detested war." ;-)

2tall
12-15-2011, 10:27 PM
Reason #72 why I don't care to answer your question because your point of view is so foreign...so f'ed up, that it's pointless to discuss. Per your above quote, morally an SS Storm Trooper = a plantation overseer = a Stalin gulag commandant = a US soldier storming the beach at Normandy. It all just sort of depends on which side you're talking to, right?

I must admit you are a creative man. You make a lot of assumptions out of a simple observation.

JDogger
12-15-2011, 11:18 PM
Reason #72 why I don't care to answer your question because your point of view is so foreign...so f'ed up, that it's pointless to discuss. Per your above quote, morally an SS Storm Trooper = a plantation overseer = a Stalin gulag commandant = a US soldier storming the beach at Normandy. It all just sort of depends on which side you're talking to, right?

Yeah...One man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter...

Moral imperative regards from the sweat lodge....JD

2tall
12-15-2011, 11:32 PM
Hey, JD, am I foreign????

JDogger
12-15-2011, 11:46 PM
Hey, JD, am I foreign????

Well...ya gotta be here a while before you're gabacho. :)

BonMallari
12-16-2011, 12:10 AM
Hey, JD, am I foreign????

do ya talk funny like someone from North Carolina or has he accent disappeared after spending a summer in Wisconsin, eh...:p:p :rolleyes:

Hew
12-16-2011, 07:00 AM
Yeah...One man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter...

Moral imperative regards from the sweat lodge....JD
Like, totally, dude. I can for sure see how one could morally equate an Aushwitz prison guard and an American GI in WWII. Because, you know, the lines were totally blurry as to who was on the side of evil and who was on the side of good in that dumb war. Speaking of good and evil...like what a totally antiquated concept, you know. People are neither good nor evil...they just are, you know. Only corporations can be evil. Duh! Dude, I think you spilled some bong water...your dashiki is smellin' a little ripe.

Franco
12-16-2011, 07:40 AM
on their nuke installaopposite end of the spectrum from "hit Iran's nuke facilitiI don't recall ever saying we should "hit Iran's nuke facilities." That is certainly one option, but there are tens, if not hundreds, of options available to us short of outright attack tions with bombs, missles, etc. At the es" is your position: "it doesn't affect us directly so it's none of our business; let Israel handle it." Which position is MORE destabilizing to the region and is MORE encouraging to the Iranians? Pssst...it ain't mine. ;-)

Vague answer. Why not let us in on just one of your secret solutions. I'm sure the State Department would be all ears.

Hew
12-16-2011, 07:51 AM
Vague answer. Why not let us in on just one of your secret solutions. I'm sure the State Department would be all ears.
Yeah, you're right. Sorry my answer is not as simplistic as Dear Leader Ron Paul's: "If'n they didn't attack us we got no bidness with 'em." Brilliant.

I know it pains you, but you're just going to have to use your imagination as to what the hundred possible actions are that we could take that fall between attacking them with bombs and sticking our heads in the sand and doing nothing.

Franco
12-16-2011, 07:57 AM
As I suspected, you don't have an answer. You are so much smarter than our State Department, why not help them out?

Hew
12-16-2011, 08:12 AM
As I suspected, you don't have an answer. You are so much smarter than our State Department, why not help them out?
That's not exactly high praise. I suspect even you are smarter than our State Department as well. ;-)

JDogger
12-16-2011, 09:36 AM
Like, totally, dude. I can for sure see how one could morally equate an Aushwitz prison guard and an American GI in WWII. Because, you know, the lines were totally blurry as to who was on the side of evil and who was on the side of good in that dumb war. Speaking of good and evil...like what a totally antiquated concept, you know. People are neither good nor evil...they just are, you know. Only corporations can be evil. Duh! Dude, I think you spilled some bong water...your dashiki is smellin' a little ripe.


http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll176/JDoggger/smilies/poke.gif You're to easy. :p

Hew
12-16-2011, 09:51 AM
http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll176/JDoggger/smilies/poke.gif You're to easy. :p

You call the tune, I'll dance for you, oh puppet master. ;-):rolleyes:;-)

road kill
12-16-2011, 10:04 AM
You call the tune, I'll dance for you, oh puppet master. ;-):rolleyes:;-)

http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww42/sbx1/charlydontsurf.jpg


RK