So, which part of the Iraq war was bad again?

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by blue1

The problem with this whole subject is that it is a lot more complicated than some people seem to believe.

The war was about securing oil, eliminating possible WMD's, freeing Iraq, eliminating Saddam, reducing potential terrorist bases, drawing a line in the sand for other countries to note and unfinished business from 1991. It was also about reinforcing GWB's sense of destiny and enhancing his career and that of a few others as well.  

Interesting! Here is what I wrote a few months ago regarding what the war was about and why we were fighting it and why it was important:

"Its funny how the anti-war crowd has all of a sudden decided a war is only justified if and only if it has a single objective and that it never changes or other elements become more important or see more public light.

It is about WMD.
It is about removing a destablizing and dangerous mideast tryant.
It is about liberating the Iraqi people.
It is about terrorism.
It is about creating a new more US friendly Iraq.
It is, in the big picture about oil, otherwise nobody would ever pay any attention to the arabs - and there is nothing wrong with that.
It is about fostering democracy in Iraq.
It is about political reform in the region.
It is about holding Saddam accountable to the 1991 cease fire terms."


Looks like we have almost the same thoughts on this.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Arfann
. . .it was all good. I especially enjoyed the news folks getting wasted in their hotel and the car full of women and children that got machine gunned. Wheeeeeee.

This coming from a guy who opposed the war and wanted Saddam Hussein to remain in power indefinetly..... But of course you dont see the irony in that attitude do you?

[Syzygyone]

Originally posted by Arfann
. . .it was all good. I especially enjoyed the news folks getting wasted in their hotel . . . Wheeeeeee.

Come on now, it's always a good idea to clean out the media gene pool every now and again!

[blue1]

Gruny, don't say we have the same thoughts.  We merely passed close by in the dark on diverging tracks LOL

Your version is a bit more cuddly than mine.

I do believe there are three good reasons to go to war, oil, water and protecting your land. Everything else is an ego trip by someone.

crowMAW made a good point about the monetary costs. In the end that may cost GWB dearly and the taxpayer and this comment:

"1) The economy stupid. My biggest argument against the war was that we should not waist our resources to liberate a bunch of folks who did not have enough intestinal fortitude to take Saddam out for themselves."

A good point

Normally when the US Government wants someone gone. They don't attack them with the Marines. They usually organize a coup or an assassination attempt.  Saddam's problem was that he had tied up the country too tight. No coup could succeed and no assassin could get close. War was the only option. Saddam's biggest problem was his hostility to America

[GRUNHERZ]

"The war was about securing oil, eliminating possible WMD's, freeing Iraq, eliminating Saddam, reducing potential terrorist bases, drawing a line in the sand for other countries to note and unfinished business from 1991."

I'd say were pretty identical on these counts, dont let that frighten you though... Shocking isn't it?

[OIO]

I think that since now they are beggining to lose some real money, they decide the "moral" thing to do is to support the resolution.

Of course, we all know how much UN resolutions/mandates are worth nowadays no?

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Arfann
. . .it was all good. I especially enjoyed the news folks getting wasted in their hotel and the car full of women and children that got machine gunned. Wheeeeeee.

Oh, you would be speaking of the reporters told to leave Iraq before the war and refused, instead choosing to remain in a war zone.......and the van full of women and children forced by Iraqis to run a checkpoint?

Yur smart.

Of course death is horrible, I was speaking of the outcome and even though 10 years havent gone by yet ( as someone mentioned) to prove it out over time, so far everything looks to be better for Iraq and Iraqis.

Would you go on record as saying you would rather have left Saddam in power than have had the war? You probably wont answer that directly.

Maybe you would prefer continued UN sanctions, continued tyranny, opression and fear being applied to the Iraqi people.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by GScholz
Assassinating Saddam would also have been a great risk, but preferable to this war.

... IMHO.

BTW Gscholz dont get too mad at me here even if you want to - I dont wanna offend you even though I'm a bit upset. Read on!

I think this is dumbest thing you ever said. Really no offense Gscholz but it seems to me you are so opposed to this war that  you prefer even almost any fantastical impractical alternative to what the USA actually could do. Tell me, do you think the chances of Iraq being stabilized would be any better with Qusay or Uday leading, or worse fighting each other for power, or even worse a general civil war nightmare breaking out that would make the post GW1 actions seem like a comfy dream in our warm beds. Simply nuts Gscholz.

You are here complaining that Iraq will now turn out bad or become some islamic nutcase country yet every course of action you suggest would gurantee that result 100% while you vehemently argue against strategies we can and are implementing aimed at at least reducing the probability of that outcome.

Listen up buddy, you either want this to happend or you are some sort of powerless fatalist who only knows to complain and warn the action takers of their imminent doom. Frankly I dont care which it is but you attitude is very negative and counterproductive and is clearly tinged of a bias towards failirue and catastrophe - and that does nothing for anyone.  If we try and it fails then so be it, but if we, give up ala eurostyle, tuck tail and run and do nothing then it will be shameful and we would have let the decent iraqis down and taken away their chance at a better life.   But I see how this is of no concern to you, your soldiers arent there, your soldiers did not fight to free those iraqi cities, your soldiers did not make this cause their own with their own blood, your soldiers are not there now. Frankly it is our responsibility to finish this right. Remember responsibility? It was the thing that a twice destroyed  europe gave up to the USA after two  world wars they started. So again I say I have no doubts that its easy for you to say "aw hell pull out now all is lost" - but were there to stay until the job is finished to our satistaction.

[bozon]

Iraq is now free of UN santions, Saddam is gone, Iraqis are free and the UN security counsel unanimously endorsed US and UK rule in Iraq, as well as the end of sanctions.

The outcome will probably be positive to the general world interests.

BUT, did the US had the RIGHT to attack Iraq?
Doing the right thing and having the right to do the right thing is not exacly the same.
The answer to that is completly subjective.

Bozon

[Lizard3]

Originally posted by blue1

crowMAW made a good point about the monetary costs.

Actually, that money isn't going up in smoke. Isn't 90% of it going to US companies or to soldiers pay? I'm not saying it will cause a economic boom, but is it really hurting the economy much? Purely analitical thinking, non-emotional.

[GRUNHERZ]

First of all I didnt call you a eurostudmuffin...

Ok so now you wish that we started a civil war and then invaded... You see Gszholz, see what kind of bizzare carp you put forth just because you disagree with the war...

And tell me something if we wanted a stable Iraq why not just agree to remove sanction allow saddam to sell oil and be rich like before the GW and all would be well and tht way we caould also increase the supply of oil in the world thus dropping prices.  You see that would have been great no? everyone happy?

And all Saddam had to do to have that happend was to prove to the UN and the USA that he was no longer gonna be athreat in the region and he had 12 years to do this and he did not even if it mean losing billion and billions in oil revenues.  

Why disnt he if he wasnt intent on being a threat? Ceratinly billions of dollars is a great incentive for such a man...

Let me remind you... You just said that starting a civil war by assasinating saddam
and then inavding would have been a better choice... Are you nuts?

[GRUNHERZ]

All best achieved by still having the Baath party in control of Iraq ... under new leadership of course.

WOW!!! You are really making a run for the record today!

Uday and Qusay sure are sweethearts and they love America and would pose no threat to US intersests in the region...  Have you lost your mind?

[Arfann]

Originally posted by NUKE
Oh, you would be speaking of the reporters told to leave Iraq before the war and refused, instead choosing to remain in a war zone.......and the van full of women and children forced by Iraqis to run a checkpoint?

Yur smart.

Of course death is horrible, I was speaking of the outcome and even though 10 years havent gone by yet ( as someone mentioned) to prove it out over time, so far everything looks to be better for Iraq and Iraqis.

Would you go on record as saying you would rather have left Saddam in power than have had the war? You probably wont answer that directly.

Maybe you would prefer continued UN sanctions, continued tyranny, opression and fear being applied to the Iraqi people.

What I would prefer for the Iraqis is as meaningless as what you or other non-Iraqis would prefer for them. To invade and force "what we want" on them is an abomination and a little stupid on the side. My guess is that in 10 years we will have accomplished as much in Iraq as my generation did in ten years in Vietnam.

[X2Lee]

Originally posted by Manedew


The problem is it's dough and your eating it ..

Funny you have the brown stained lips and the stench.

[10Bears]

Originally posted by blue1

I do believe there are three good reasons to go to war, oil, water and protecting your land. Everything else is an ego trip by someone.
 

Just to clarify Blue1, your fine with invasion and plundering of another countries natural resources?

WOW!