well, did we win?
 

in iraq that is....surprised it hadn't been threaded yet, that the war is 'officially' over.
just read an article on slate that asked was it worth it? and did we win?


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._u_s_win_.html


i don't think it was worth it, and i don't think you can call it a win.

No, I don't think we "won" anything, even though a dictator is gone, and no, I most certainly don't think it was worth over 4,000 dead and 35,000 wounded Americans. Let alone being completely unfunded, and contributing to putting this country into massive debt.

George Bush, I will never forgive you for this, for killing and hurting so many Americans. And it's why you cannot fly to Europe, or you'll be arrested for war crime trials.

Not just a dictator, the most evil of all dictators in modern world history. Those soldiers did not sacrifice for nothing and countless innocent lives are spared as a result.
But you go ahead and stick with the negative and continue to blame one man as if he can act alone.

You bet. Bush didn't have to ask the House and Senate to pass a War Act against Iraq.

But he did.

Yes, he had plenty of accomplices. Many making the decision based upon the lies Bush told.

If you think the war was a good thing, and worth it, stand up and make your own argument

you really think Bush just made up lies and told them to Congress?

it was either one of two things or both:

1) he was given wrong information

2) Saddam and Iraq got their WMD's out of the country while the UN and US were threatening them but before they were attacked.

I'd say the answer is most likely 1

Its great that Saddam is dead. Its horrible we went to war in Iraq and found no WMD's. this war should have never happened and it has cost our country way too much (lives, dollars, etc)

But nobody will ever be able to convince me that Bush knowingly lied to Congress for the sake of lying. Bush is not an evil man. Saddam was an evil man.

Geeshus focking cripes, that's not what the hell I said.

I said that what Bush told Congress were lies. False information. Untruths.

Or other things that you neglect to mention. But the information was false. The decision to go to war was made based upon lies.

Instead of addressing my post, why don't you answer 'Zig's question, and post your own opinion?

and this one from London Daily Mirror after 2004 election...

you really think Bush just made up lies and told them to Congress?

it was either one of two things or both:

1) he was given wrong information...Bullcrap, he (Cheney & Co,) didn't like the first info and told George Tenet to 'fix' it..

2) Saddam and Iraq got their WMD's out of the country while the UN and US were threatening them but before they were attacked.,,..More bullcrap, the Israeli's took out his nuclear plants years before...so he had some mustard gas, big deal...

I'd say the answer is most likely 1

Its great that Saddam is dead. Its horrible we went to war in Iraq... nuff said... this war should have never happened and it has cost our country way too much (lives, dollars,)

But nobody will ever be able to convince me that Bush knowingly lied to Congress for the sake of lying....It wasn't for sake of lying, he wanted to be a wartime pres and avenge the hit Saddam had on daddy.. Bush is not an evil man.,he's a stupid man... Saddam was an evil man....yes but so what, was absolutely no threat to us..did you shed a tear when he gassed his own people?

yeah, I have huge problems with dictators gassing their own people. I'm all for the US taking those people out. Though with an assassination, special op thing.. not a full out war.

you really really think we went to war so Bush get revenge for the hit on his dad? absolutely no way.

at least the "war for Oil" arguement has credibility. the "war for daddy" arguement is not credible.

You do realize that it is illegal via international law - and an act of war - for one country to enter another's borders and assassinate another country's leader just because they don't like him?

Right?

one well trained sniper or a drone attack was all we needed. :D

war for oil-like what just happened in libya??

First, yes, there are people in the Bush administration that have publicly said Bush was very interested in retaliating for the attempted assassination of his father.

Secondly, the "war for oil" argument has no credibility whatsoever - unless you are a country that illegally declares war on another so they can steal their natural resources. You know, like if Iraq declared war on us, to steal our oil?

Good grief. You can't just invade countries because you don't like them or you want their stuff!

we invaded them because we thought they had WMDs

I should have said "at least the oil reason makes more sense than the daddy reason" credibility was a poor term.

There is no way on earth we went to war because of vengence over daddy.

you mean like physically going into pakistan to take out bin Laden??

I'm all for it though. save american lives. take out those rat bastards.

We went to war for a variety of made up, shifting reasons, which most our fellow international community thought illegal. And yeah, one was indeed that Bush wanted to get Saddam. Again, you can't declare war, just because you don't like what another country is doing. Which is why George W. Bush can literally not fly out of the United States to Europe, or risk arrest for war crimes.

Yes, we crossed Pakistan's borders without permission and broke international law doing it, but no, we were not declaring war on Pakistan.

our international community thought it was illegal?

is that why 3 other countries invaded iraq along side of us (UK, Australia, Poland)? and 36 more countries were involved in the war in some capacity?


wow... everybody was duped by that lying sack of Bush! and I thought you libtards thought Bush was an idiot?

Bush wanted to free the iraqi people from the terror that Saddam presented. Saddam was like Stalin in a smaller country.

He also believed, and most countries believed, and most intelligence pointed to.. that there were WMD's in Iraq. It was a horrendous error that can never be accepted or forgiven.

:zz: Do you not remember what was discussed in those countries, and in the international community, when we were trying to justify invading Iraq?

Yeah - there was an international outcry over us wanting to invade a country based upon tenuous, unproven reasons!

Are you too young to remember, or you didn't pay attention?

Yeah. There is a generous opinion now, even among many Republicans and conservatards like yourself, (but brighter than you), that Bush and his cronies were a lying sack that got Americans killed for no reason.

But keep carrying his water for him. Maybe you could actually read the article 'Zig posted? You might learn something.

change your tampon wench

Ah. You can dish it out, but you can't take it. You make a terrible bully. You're a fake.

i dont like fighting with words. I prefer balled up fists.

and if you can read.. you are the one that "dished" it.

But please, pat yourself on your back for me.

Yes, people that aren't smart enough to win by words often prefer to fight. Explains your support of Bush invading Iraq.
And nice to know that you think calling someone retarded isn't "starting it". The cognitive dissonance demonstrated by some of you conservatards is astounding.

Daddy one of the reasons,,,Everyone of his 'reasons' proved to non-existent.
If it was oil, why didn't we drain their oilfields?...


...how'd that work out...

People ARE weapons of mass-destruction, particularly brain washed zealots with a sense of purpose and a plan, I think we should have learned that by now, no?
The convenient Bush is a moron argument is always a great one, dumbass was the smartest guy in the room that one day when virtually everyone said "yeah, let's do this."
Based on the mission statement posted above all three points were accomplished.

We didn't invade them because we thought they had chemical weapons. That was the excuse. Stop believing their propaganda.

'When Bush stood with his arm around a NY fireman after the 9/11 attacks promising to find whoever did this to the nation, he was every American's president. His polls soared. He had a unique opportunity to unite America, to bring the U.S. together with allies round the world to fight terrorism and hate, to eliminate al-Qaida, to eliminate our vulnerabilities, to strengthen important nations threatened by radicalism. He did NONE of those things..He invaded Iraq!....excerpt from Richard Clarke's book..

Bush's approval rating was 93% at the time of the speech...I was in the 93%...Until March-03....

I used your mission statement for Iraq, I didn't make up my own.
Taking out dictators that are unfriendly to US interests is nothing new and was not invented by W. in any way.
Do you think the Arab spring would have even been a consideration in places like Egypt were there not a war going on in Iraq that involved the USA?

[quote=Clip-Clop;825590]I used your mission statement for Iraq, I didn't make up my own.
Taking out dictators that are unfriendly to US interests is nothing new and was not invented by W. in any way.
Do you think the Arab spring would have even been a consideration in places like Egypt were there not a war going on in Iraq that involved the USA?[/QUOTE]


yes. egypt has always been more progressive than many other countries over there.

and perhaps there'd have been an arab spring in iraq as well. would've been a lot less costly, both in terms of lives and money. people talk about how it was a good thing we went there because of lives saved...what about the lives lost? there were tens of thousands killed.
does anyone miss saddam? no. doesn't mean we should have done what we did. he damn near got toppled after gulf 1; we blew a prime chance then. i'd have to think things would have unfolded there without us being there.

[quote=Danzig;825593]That would have happened a long time ago, the fact that the worst of the worst was gone and our presence in the region is exactly what caused (is causing still) the revolutions.
Regarding the lives lost, none would be pleased that anyone here or elsewhere are debating the fact that it was worth nothing.

[quote=Clip-Clop;825603]i think it's too soon to tell if it'll all be judged worth nothing. depends on how things unfold the next few years. that's why i can't say it's a 'win'. not sure anyone can right now.

ftfy.

the iraq war was horrible. its terrific Saddam is out. still, it does not justify the war.

I am worried that since now we are pulling out all of our troops, that every small thing that was accomplished over there will be lost.

I am not calling it a win by any means. But a failure it most certainly was not.

Last night, every single one of the Republican candidates for President, except Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, said they would enlarge the military and aggressively go after Iran pre-emptively.

Romney said he wanted to double the size of ships in the navy, and increase the army troop strength by 100,000.

Well if you count the Trillion dollars we spent the loss of our boys and the fact they still hate us and it will fall back into chaos as soon as we leave then it was an epic failure.

If the goal was to topple a dicator that dad failed to take out , generate Billions of dollars for Cheny's former company Haliburton then it was an unmitigated success.

Depends how you look at it. My opionion I can give a **** about any dictator as long as they don't **** with us.. I'd be glad to pitch in a couple troops for a unilateral effort.

Civil War Revolution and WWII in my book are the only 3 wars we should have been involved in.

^^^^ That.

The winds of war blowing again...what is it with these people....
How many of them have kids or grandkids in the Military?

Not my mission statement..

According to U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's alleged support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."

How many countries have we invaded to 'take out dictators'?...Iraq and...and...and..?

:tro:

Bush1 didn't fail to take Saddam out....He had some sense...His son should have read dad's book on why he didn't advance on Baghdad and saddam..