8 year Iraq war worth the cost?

[Walt Liquor]

I consider the iraq war the reason why im gonna have to pay $3.49 for 8 hot dog buns right now, instead of $1.69...




















Lulz

[- v e t -]

i consider the iraq war the reason why im gonna have to pay $3.49 for 8 hot dog buns right now, instead of $1.69...




















Lulz

[Walt Liquor]

[QUOTE=squealpiggy;11571949]Why? Do you think those figures are propaganda?[QUOTE]
yea. do you really believe that the actual figures are being released and they aren't tained at all? so, what you're syaing is that 62% or eligible voters voted at their own volition and weren't "encouraged" to vote a certain way?


[QUOTE=squealpiggy;11571949] Why would you seek to diminish the courage of those Iraqis who decided to exercise their democratic rights for, in some cases the first time in their lives, in the face of violent thuggery at the hands of sectarian fascists?[QUOTE]
huh?

[QUOTE=squealpiggy;11571949] The Iraq was characterized by unforgivable bungles designed not to assist the war effort but to try to justify the actions of politicians back home. That's not an excuse to attempt to minimize the good things that have happened in Iraq as a result of the war. To attempt to vilify every aspect of the invasion is partisan and unreflective of reality.
yes, it was characterized by a number of very very costly bungles. i didn't vilify every aspect, simply that that cost of thew war was not worth it in my opinion. the initial invasion/bombing/spanking was could be justified imo.



[QUOTE=squealpiggy;115719490] There is a long term strategic reason for the war and only a simpleton would conclude that it's anything so single minded and petty as to steal oil. [QUOTE]
where did this come from? did i ever say that, please show me where this was professed by me, ever. i think there were other reasons, some as sinister, some more respectable

[QUOTE=squealpiggy;115719490]The long term plan was to fight against terror by having a majority Muslim democratic ally in the Middle East who can stand as a beacon to people under the heel of theocratic fascists like Syria or Iran. In short an example that democracy can work in a Muslim nation and is not just a Western and Jewish invention. The fallout from this has been a weakening of the power of the despots and this has resulted in revolutions in Egypt, Libya and soon Syria. [QUOTE]
there may have been weakinging of these powers, however, i challenge you to show me which of any of these are a creation of "a majority Muslim democratic ally". democracy has not proven to work unless it happens under the watchful eye of the scope of a rifle held y an occupier. don't forget that. the opposition parties are large, powerful and set to punce as soon as wel leave. imo you need to take those rost glasses off

[QUOTE=squealpiggy;115719490]The Arab spring owes much to the Iraq war. Iraq and Afghanistan were an unmistakable signal to the rest of the region that tyranny will not be tolerated. It would be naive to believe the Western war on terror and the current Middle East uprisings are unrelated.[QUOTE]
lol, will not be tolerated by the occupying force. the cost of that occupation isn't worth the benfits, or even close because of the problems i still have in my home country. they may be related, but that doesn't mean our objective was satisfied.

[QUOTE=squealpiggy;115719490]You'd prefer "so fukin what if Iraqis are under the heal of a murderous torturer"? Or "so what if I enjoy a level of free speech and democracy that Iraqis have hitherto not even dared to dream of lest they by roused from their beds and spirited away into a Ba'athist torture cell"? It's a big deal to these people who get to choose their own government.[QUOTE]that is correct. these are a proud, strong people. act like it or its not my problem, until my own is taken care of.

[QUOTE=squealpiggy;115719490]This is just patronising. "Iraqis don't get democracy, they need a strongman like Saddam to keep them in line".[QUOTE]
never said that, they should get it if they want it. not my problem



[QUOTE=squealpiggy;115719490]Frankly the locals were and are behind the cause of their own self determination, especially the Shia majority who were second class citizens under Saddam's Sunni Ba'ath leadership. There has been sectarian violence between extremists of both Shia and Sunni Iraqi background, but there has also been a massive influx of foreign Jihadi mercenaries who flooded Iraq to "fight against the occupation" by murdering the Iraqis who live there.

At the end of the day the occupation should be judged on its merits, good and bad, not whether you personally agreed with the invasion.[QUOTE]


absolutely false. merit means nothing if it is to your own detriment. this made me chuckle. if I give you a chance to vote and you do, does that mean a real change was enacted? NO. it means you have a new choice. if you cared enough, you would have created it before.

[- v e t -]

Why? Do you think those figures are propaganda?

yea. do you really believe that the actual figures are being released and they aren't tained at all? so, what you're syaing is that 62% or eligible voters voted at their own volition and weren't "encouraged" to vote a certain way?

Why would you seek to diminish the courage of those Iraqis who decided to exercise their democratic rights for, in some cases the first time in their lives, in the face of violent thuggery at the hands of sectarian fascists?

huh?

The Iraq was characterized by unforgivable bungles designed not to assist the war effort but to try to justify the actions of politicians back home. That's not an excuse to attempt to minimize the good things that have happened in Iraq as a result of the war. To attempt to vilify every aspect of the invasion is partisan and unreflective of reality.

yes, it was characterized by a number of very very costly bungles. i didn't vilify every aspect, simply that that cost of thew war was not worth it in my opinion. the initial invasion/bombing/spanking was could be justified imo.

There is a long term strategic reason for the war and only a simpleton would conclude that it's anything so single minded and petty as to steal oil.

where did this come from? did i ever say that, please show me where this was professed by me, ever. i think there were other reasons, some as sinister, some more respectable

The long term plan was to fight against terror by having a majority Muslim democratic ally in the Middle East who can stand as a beacon to people under the heel of theocratic fascists like Syria or Iran. In short an example that democracy can work in a Muslim nation and is not just a Western and Jewish invention. The fallout from this has been a weakening of the power of the despots and this has resulted in revolutions in Egypt, Libya and soon Syria.

there may have been weakinging of these powers, however, i challenge you to show me which of any of these are a creation of "a majority Muslim democratic ally". democracy has not proven to work unless it happens under the watchful eye of the scope of a rifle held y an occupier. don't forget that. the opposition parties are large, powerful and set to punce as soon as wel leave. imo you need to take those rost glasses off

The Arab spring owes much to the Iraq war. Iraq and Afghanistan were an unmistakable signal to the rest of the region that tyranny will not be tolerated. It would be naive to believe the Western war on terror and the current Middle East uprisings are unrelated.

lol, will not be tolerated by the occupying force. the cost of that occupation isn't worth the benfits, or even close because of the problems i still have in my home country. they may be related, but that doesn't mean our objective was satisfied.

You'd prefer "so fukin what if Iraqis are under the heal of a murderous torturer"? Or "so what if I enjoy a level of free speech and democracy that Iraqis have hitherto not even dared to dream of lest they by roused from their beds and spirited away into a Ba'athist torture cell"? It's a big deal to these people who get to choose their own government.

that is correct. these are a proud, strong people. act like it or its not my problem, until my own is taken care of.

This is just patronising. "Iraqis don't get democracy, they need a strongman like Saddam to keep them in line".

never said that, they should get it if they want it. not my problem

Frankly the locals were and are behind the cause of their own self determination, especially the Shia majority who were second class citizens under Saddam's Sunni Ba'ath leadership. There has been sectarian violence between extremists of both Shia and Sunni Iraqi background, but there has also been a massive influx of foreign Jihadi mercenaries who flooded Iraq to "fight against the occupation" by murdering the Iraqis who live there.

At the end of the day the occupation should be judged on its merits, good and bad, not whether you personally agreed with the invasion.

absolutely false. merit means nothing if it is to your own detriment. this made me chuckle. if I give you a chance to vote and you do, does that mean a real change was enacted? NO. it means you have a new choice. if you cared enough, you would have created it before.

sorry walt, had to address that so i could read it

[Walt Liquor]

sorry walt, had to address that so i could read it

thank you, apparently the forum is a bit advanced for me....

[cupocity303]

Apparently, Squalpiggy is a Brzezinski-esque, Liberal Hawk who makes up his own arguments (pretending another poster said it), and then argues against them.

occupation should be judged on its merits, good and bad, not whether you personally agreed with the invasion.

This is like saying that Rape should be judged on it's merits, like did the woman at least have a orgasm during the rape, how big was the dick, not whether you personally agreed or disagreed with the Rape.





Yeah, lets argue about the finer points of the invasion, never mind the collateral damage. Lets look at the big picture.

See how that works.

[squealpiggy]

Apparently, Squalpiggy is a Brzezinski-esque, Liberal Hawk who makes up his own arguments (pretending another poster said it), and then argues against them.





This is like saying that Rape should be judged on it's merits, like did the woman at least have a orgasm during the rape, how big was the dick, not whether you personally agreed or disagreed with the Rape.

No it isn't, it's nothing like that at all.

Yeah, lets argue about the finer points of the invasion, never mind the collateral damage. Lets look at the big picture.

See how that works.

The thing is that the bulk of the collateral damage was caused by terrorism long after the invasion was done.

[squealpiggy]

yea. do you really believe that the actual figures are being released and they aren't tained at all? so, what you're syaing is that 62% or eligible voters voted at their own volition and weren't "encouraged" to vote a certain way?

No, not at all. The anti-American actors in Iraq were attempting to enforce a boycott of the election, not attempting to influence the makeup of the government. The actual presence of voters is not something the US occupiers could easily fake. Let's face it, there's all sorts of news coming out of Iraq, good and bad. Why would you only be suspicious of the good news? The only reason I can think of that you will dismiss any good news and uncritically accept any bad news is that you've already made a decision to oppose the war in its entirety and you're unwilling to countenance anything approaching a boon.

huh?

Iraqis who attended polling stations faced real persecution. They faced threats of violence and death and they braved them in order to influence their country's future. You would, for reasons of ideologically pre-determined bias, deny the courage of those Iraqi voters just because you're unwilling to accept any positives from the occupation?

yes, it was characterized by a number of very very costly bungles. i didn't vilify every aspect, simply that that cost of thew war was not worth it in my opinion. the initial invasion/bombing/spanking was could be justified imo.

But you also claimed that the voter turnout in the Iraqi elections was some sort of fraud disseminated for propaganda purposes. I opposed the initial invasion. I felt it was hasty and I also felt that even if there was positive evidence of WMDs, even nuclear weapons, it didn't justify unilateral military action.

Of course there was more to it than that. France threatened to veto any new resolution on Iraq because they were doing very well out of the food-for-oil programme (French banks were the principle beneficiaries). China and Germany were making good money on selling weapons to the Ba'athist regime. This caused all sorts of problems with doing things the right way. But I still felt that the invasion was hasty and not necessary at the time. That doesn't mean I was sorry to see Saddam fall.

where did this come from? did i ever say that, please show me where this was professed by me, ever. i think there were other reasons, some as sinister, some more respectable

The "steal oil" claim is the most common "real motive" bandied about by people who oppose the war in the Middle East and I put it forward as an example of overly simplistic thinking about a complex issue. It has been claimed that the involvement in Libya was also to "steal oil" and hilariously that involvement in Afghanistan was also oil-theft chicanery. When it's pointed out that there is no oil in Afghanistan that assertion is usually met by stupid claims that the plan was to build an oil pipeline from Iraq and that conquering Afghanistan was needed to install it.

Yes, that's the sort of bizarre thinking that makes up a significant potion of the anti-war movement. Most of it is not "anti-war". It's anti-American, through and through.

there may have been weakinging of these powers, however, i challenge you to show me which of any of these are a creation of "a majority Muslim democratic ally".

The plan backfired somewhat, but Iraq is now a democracy and is an example of how democracies can work in the Middle East. Of course what happens after the withdrawal of US troops is the big question. I hope there can be peace.

What did happen as a result is that other despots suddenly realised that if their people rose up then they might have the sort of backing they need to achieve revolution. So they won't be able to use shell fire and airstrikes on their own civilians without running the risk of angering the West.

democracy has not proven to work unless it happens under the watchful eye of the scope of a rifle held y an occupier.

Democracy works all over Europe and in North America and in the Antipodes without and occupying force. I'm hopeful that having tasted democratic freedom Iraq will not tolerate a violent coup.

don't forget that. the opposition parties are large, powerful and set to punce as soon as wel leave. imo you need to take those rost glasses off

Opposition parties should be able to "pounce" as long as they do it via the means of fair and free elections. Iraqis have recourse now without having to resort to violence and they wouldn't have had that without Western intervention.

Am I being overly optimistic? Possibly. But they at least have a chance of making it now. Under Saddam their chances were zero.

[QUOTE=squealpiggy;115719490]The Arab spring owes much to the Iraq war. Iraq and Afghanistan were an unmistakable signal to the rest of the region that tyranny will not be tolerated. It would be naive to believe the Western war on terror and the current Middle East uprisings are unrelated.[QUOTE]
lol, will not be tolerated by the occupying force. the cost of that occupation isn't worth the benfits, or even close because of the problems i still have in my home country. they may be related, but that doesn't mean our objective was satisfied.

that is correct. these are a proud, strong people. act like it or its not my problem, until my own is taken care of.

You may be American or whatever but we're all citizens of the world. Things don't happen in isolation any more. If Iraq can function as a democracy then so can Egypt, and hey maybe Syria can have a go and then Iran... 9/11 proved that it is your problem. It's everybody's problem.

never said that, they should get it if they want it. not my problem

It was implied. They tried to get it before. Saddam responded by gassing tens of thousands of people. He had the machinery of state tyranny. This was taken way by the invasion.

absolutely false. merit means nothing if it is to your own detriment.

If you're discussing the merits of something, as we are in this thread, then of course it is reasonable to assert that the positives need consideration along with the positives.

this made me chuckle. if I give you a chance to vote and you do, does that mean a real change was enacted? NO. it means you have a new choice. if you cared enough, you would have created it before.

Am I to understand that you are claiming that democracy is worthless and only revolution has meaning? This is a confusing statement.

What is also confusing is the way your argument has changed from a discussion of the privations faced by the occupied Iraqis to a simple assertion that you don't care about those people and it's none of your beeswax.

[cupocity303]

The thing is that the bulk of the collateral damage was caused by terrorism long after the invasion was done.

Does that excuse or justify even 10 civilians being killed by outside forces?

Terrorism is a tactic, and some of that terrorism was due to U.S. presence, with Family members from those who got killed by U.S. bombings. Or were they just supposed to say, "Thank you for liberating us from Saddam, we'll forgive you for killing one of our own".

[Walt Liquor]

Squel, what r u talkkng about. I'm cool with democracy but i domt care for forcing iton other societies.

I uave no idea how you read my ppsts and have absolutely zerO cOmprehension of where coming from