[Alpharius]

It's been 10 years since Bush announced Operation Iraqi Freedom.

"My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger. On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. … Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. … Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory. My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail. May God bless our country and all who defend her.”

US forces finally left the country in Dec 2011, after removing Saddam's regime, taking 4,485 casualties. Enemy combatants (Iraqi military regulars, terrorist organizations and militia units) took between 28k-38k casualties. Civilian casualties range in number between 112k - 116k.

In addition to being a pivotal moment for American foreign and domestic policy, the war set records for anti-war protests across the world. Barack Obama's primary campaign against Hillary Clinton gained crucial early support from Democrats opposed to the war.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the total cost of the war for US taxpayers will be close to $1.9 trillion.

The war caused massive humanitarian crises, sparked a national interest in foreign policy within the US, and helped create an on-going debate concerning the use of torture, human rights, and the justification of military intervention.
---
On a personal level, the war got me active in politics. I vividly remember taking part in a walkout during freshman year of high school to protest the war. My opposition to it led to an interest in politics, where I eventually got a degree in political science, worked on a number of political campaigns, and got to know many of my representatives on a first name basis.

A decade after it began is a good time to reflect. How has it impacted your life?

[Blaster]

What I remember is that liberal/democrat arguments against the invasion were fucking weak. Beyond "Bush is a liar" which turned out to be true, I don't remember any of the anti-war arguments being persuasive.

[Twister]

How did this help me get laid?

[Emancipator]

(03-19-2013 11:30 AM)Twister Wrote:  

How did this help me get laid?

Bush was trying to help you get your Iraqi flag. All you had to do is enlist.

[Kickb]

The Devils Double was a great movie. I am not sure ifit was ssupposed to be funny, but it had me rolling.

[Cincinnatus]

(03-19-2013 09:58 AM)Osiris Wrote:  

How has it impacted your life?

Negatively. Relatives and close friends in the service have been deployed time and time again to a theater of war where it was implied "mission accomplished" almost ten years ago.

[Menace]

Here is my question: where did the approximately $1 trillion cost for the war come from? What was our ROI?

[sylo]

(03-19-2013 01:26 PM)Menace Wrote:  

Here is my question: where did the approximately $1 trillion cost for the war come from? What was our ROI?

This. A simple question (I do not have the answer) I have is: Almost all of the war protesters kept saying over and over "No blood for oil." Well where is all the oil we are supposed to have taken? Why is petro the most expensive it has ever been?

I am not a conspiracy theorist, the same applies for the "inside job" that was supposedly 911. All that just to get one man, AND to justify a presence in the Middle east? The only thing I see that has happened is raised costs in just about EVERYTHING.

What the hell is the point of all this?

(Slaps forehead realizing asking an actual question to a bunch of parinoid bloggers, MRAs, and MGTOWs could go any/everywhere, with the least possibility of a sincire, critically thought out response.)

[Belize King]

Been deployed twice. Help me get out of debt twice. Got me the GI Bill and job experience. Got me to Thailand. I know Ali is pretty happy also haha.

[Farmageddon]

I was an advocate of removing Saddam Hussein from power, by force if necessary, since the late 1990s. Hearing the debates stemming from Clinton's passing of the "Iraq Liberation Act" prompted me to read "The Republic of Fear" by Kanan Makiya and I was fucking horrified at what life was like for the average Iraqi citizen. People being executed for spilling their drinks on a newspaper with Saddam's portrait, families being forced to attend the execution of their children and then forced to applaud, videos left on the doorsteps of houses with daughters being raped and then killed, straight up genocide in the Kurdish North and Shia South, draining of the wetlands, etc.

   
http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Fear-Poli...0520214390

The war was horribly mismanaged but removing Saddam from power was the right thing to do. The world does not often confront totalitarian regimes and I am generally supportive when we finally get around to it.

Out of everyone who supported the revolution in Iraq, I found Christopher Hitchens arguments to be the most solid. And watching him completely and utterly destroy anti-war (who are actually pro-war, just for the other side) morons like Geroge Galloway in debates was and is one of the great joys of my life.

Take it away Hitch:

Choice quote: "Saddam Hussein is evil, there isn't another word for it. President Bush didn't refer to an 'Axis of Sin', don't get me wrong. Evil is a word not from religion, it's a word from modern political philosophy. In our usage it comes from Hannah Ardent, "Radical Evil" and "The Banality of Evil". It comes from a serious scholarly discussion on why it is that Europe became genocidal. People who titter at this and at the use of necessary words are frivolous and flippant. I can't tell you how through I am with people who talk like that. I can't tell you how through I am with them, how little respect I have for them, how sick I am of their little jingles and their avoidance of reality and responsibility." - Christopher Hitchens schooling anti-war protesters

[hazara]

Note that Hitchens, like most chicken-hawks never served in any army in any war. What about you Farmageddon did you deploy to OIF? Were you in the Infantry? Do you have sons, nephews,? Did you persuade them to enlist in combat arms MOS, it would have been the right thing to do.

Quote:

The war was horribly mismanaged but removing Saddam from power was the right thing to do.

There is no doubt Saddam was a bad guy, but was it worth:
- Over 100k civilian deaths
- Destabilizing the region
- A ten-year live fire field training exercise against US forces for the jihadists, improving their tactics, organization, recruiting, etc.

[kdolo]

(03-19-2013 11:29 AM)Blaster Wrote:  

What I remember is that liberal/democrat arguments against the invasion were fucking weak. Beyond "Bush is a liar" which turned out to be true, I don't remember any of the anti-war arguments being persuasive.

.......you are not serious are you ????

[tenderman100]

(03-19-2013 04:52 PM)hazara Wrote:  

Note that Hitchens, like most chicken-hawks never served in any army in any war. What about you Farmageddon did you deploy to OIF? Were you in the Infantry? Do you have sons, nephews,? Did you persuade them to enlist in combat arms MOS, it would have been the right thing to do.

Quote:

The war was horribly mismanaged but removing Saddam from power was the right thing to do.

There is no doubt Saddam was a bad guy, but was it worth:
- Over 100k civilian deaths
- Destabilizing the region
- A ten-year live fire field training exercise against US forces for the jihadists, improving their tactics, organization, recruiting, etc.

I call bull on virtually all of this.

The notion that you can't support a war unless you either serve in it or have served in war is complete and utter nonsense.

Meanwhile, where did you get the 100k number? And of the number of civilians killed, how many were killed by US troops as opposed to those killed by other Iraqis or al Qaeda interlopers.

And don't say, "Well, al Qaeda wouldn't have been there if it wasn't for us." Horse dung.

[tenderman100]

Those who were against the war, and those who continue to think that the war was wrong, have an obligation to consider the alternatives.

--Saddam still in power, from 2001 on, with all the oil revenues flowing in as sanctions were lifted.
--Saddam still in power, as Iran works toward getting a nuclear weapon. You think Saddam would simply sit by and live and let live?
--Saddam still in power, with the largest army in the region.
--Saddam's son's, Usay, Qusay -- arguably MORE sadistic and vicious than their father -- poised to take control.

Frankly, this alternative should scare the shit out of anyone, given where we are now.

Oh, and don't think Saddam would somehow fall under an Arab spring like rebellion. His control was absolute.

The fact of the matter was that the left's MAIN objection was a root silly -- oh! oh! the war was bad BECAUSE we didn't find WMD. Suppose we had. Then what?

The region is better off with Saddam gone.

[kdolo]

(03-19-2013 01:52 PM)sylo Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 01:26 PM)Menace Wrote:  

Here is my question: where did the approximately $1 trillion cost for the war come from? What was our ROI?

This. A simple question (I do not have the answer) I have is: Almost all of the war protesters kept saying over and over "No blood for oil." Well where is all the oil we are supposed to have taken? Why is petro the most expensive it has ever been?

I am not a conspiracy theorist, the same applies for the "inside job" that was supposedly 911. All that just to get one man, AND to justify a presence in the Middle east? The only thing I see that has happened is raised costs in just about EVERYTHING.

What the hell is the point of all this?

(Slaps forehead realizing asking an actual question to a bunch of parinoid bloggers, MRAs, and MGTOWs could go any/everywhere, with the least possibility of a sincire, critically thought out response.)

The Point:

1. a few trillions dollars to Halliburton and the rest of the MIC - (mil-industrial complex) = PROFIT !

2. Distract the masses while you remove their civil liberties and degrade their Constitution in the name of "SECURITY"

3. Get control of the oil - (2nd/3rd - largest reserves in the world).
- not to pump it so that oil and gas are cheaper, but to control it so that it doesn't come on to the market and weaken prices.
-control is also important to maintaining the petrodollar - dollar as reserve currency system.

4. to plant a giant base in the middle of ARAB/MUSLIM territory in order to continue the crusade to bring them online to 'our' system - capitalism, private central banks, etc.

5. Kill/maim/ destroy some brown people and their country: eugenics and population control - and keeping them down and engulfed in chaos.

[kdolo]

"
Choice quote: "Saddam Hussein is evil, there isn't another word for it. President Bush didn't refer to an 'Axis of Sin', don't get me wrong. Evil is a word not from religion, it's a word from modern political philosophy. In our usage it comes from Hannah Ardent, "Radical Evil" and "The Banality of Evil". It comes from a serious scholarly discussion on why it is that Europe became genocidal. People who titter at this and at the use of necessary words are frivolous and flippant. I can't tell you how through I am with people who talk like that. I can't tell you how through I am with them, how little respect I have for them, how sick I am of their little jingles and their avoidance of reality and responsibility." - Christopher Hitchens schooling anti-war protesters
[/quote]

Wow .... that was compelling .....(eye roll)

[sportbilly]

From a UK perspective...our old friend Tony "Lionel" Blair.....took the UK into the war on the basis of Saddam sitting on a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, which were never found. Hence why a big % of the UK population believe we went to war on the wrong grounds.

Having said that if he had come out and told the truth, ie - the US are going to war and we are their lapdogs and follow them everywhere.....he would have earnt a great deal more respect from the UK public.

Ps - Agree with Tendermans points....irrespective of the lack of WMD....the region is safer without Saddam..............

Have to say the international governments are guilty of lots of hypocrisy though......look at the attrocities in Syria..........China & Russia blocking UN resolutions....and the world essentially watching innocent people die...........how fucked up is this world we live in.

[Hencredible Casanova]

Plenty of "bad guys" all over the world, including the US. Funny how our foreign policy outlook frames the issue in children's story concepts (good vs. evil). There's dictators in Africa who make Saddam Hussein look like Santa Claus. The war was most definitely not worth the sacrifice of American and Iraqi lives, military and civilian, as well as the astronomical price tag. Lets not forget about the soldiers who are still alive but suffering mental anguish (and injuries) over what they experienced during combat. GWB is hands down the most incompetent American President possibly in history.

But, instead of debating the issue here, tell the scoundrel how you feel.

http://gawker.com/5991411/wish-george-w-...socialflow

[kdolo]

"Those who were against the war, and those who continue to think that the war was wrong, have an obligation to consider the alternatives.

--Saddam still in power, from 2001 on, with all the oil revenues flowing in as sanctions were lifted.
--Saddam still in power, as Iran works toward getting a nuclear weapon. You think Saddam would simply sit by and live and let live?
--Saddam still in power, with the largest army in the region.
--Saddam's son's, Usay, Qusay -- arguably MORE sadistic and vicious than their father -- poised to take control.
Oh, and don't think Saddam would somehow fall under an Arab spring like rebellion. His control was absolute. "
The region is better off with Saddam gone."
[/quote]

great argument:
-minor fact followed by:
a question no one can answer: followed by a conjecture: followed by another question no one can answer: followed by a fact: followed by another conjecture and question no one can answer: followed by another conjecture:

and finally a conclusion - that does not at all follow from the previous statements.

I'm convinced ! (sarcastic eye roll)

[thegmanifesto]

(03-19-2013 04:56 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 04:52 PM)hazara Wrote:  

Note that Hitchens, like most chicken-hawks never served in any army in any war. What about you Farmageddon did you deploy to OIF? Were you in the Infantry? Do you have sons, nephews,? Did you persuade them to enlist in combat arms MOS, it would have been the right thing to do.

Quote:

The war was horribly mismanaged but removing Saddam from power was the right thing to do.

There is no doubt Saddam was a bad guy, but was it worth:
- Over 100k civilian deaths
- Destabilizing the region
- A ten-year live fire field training exercise against US forces for the jihadists, improving their tactics, organization, recruiting, etc.

I call bull on virtually all of this.

The notion that you can't support a war unless you either serve in it or have served in war is complete and utter nonsense.

Why is it nonsense?

Why is it that every chicken hawk never served?

For instance, I don't care about gay marriage because it has nothing to do with me.

Why do republicans care about gay marriage so much?

Oh, wait. Nevermind.

[kdolo]

"the region is safer without Saddam"



Another conclusion based on conjecture and belief .....

[Farmageddon]

Quote:

Note that Hitchens, like most chicken-hawks never served in any army in any war. What about you Farmageddon did you deploy to OIF? Were you in the Infantry? Do you have sons, nephews,? Did you persuade them to enlist in combat arms MOS, it would have been the right thing to do.

So you can only argue for or against a war if you have served in one? That's absurd. The case for or against a certain proposition stands or falls on the merits of the arguments presented by either side regardless of the history of the people presenting the case.

Using your reasoning, none of us understand what works in regards to bedding women because we're not actual women. Are you a woman? Have you ever been a woman? Are you a mother, wife, or sister? Then there is no way that you can understand what it takes to bed one of us.

Your reasoning is faulty.

[kdolo]

(03-19-2013 03:00 PM)TexasMade Wrote:  

Been deployed twice. Help me get out of debt twice. Got me the GI Bill and job experience. Got me to Thailand. I know Ali is pretty happy also haha.

Not that you could have paid off your debt - twice, pay for your education (work/loan/scholarship), and work/do a business and make money and eventually go to Thailand without participating in a near pointless was based on lies ...........

but then again for many people it beats having to think on you own doesn't it ??

[thegmanifesto]

(03-19-2013 05:16 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

Quote:

Note that Hitchens, like most chicken-hawks never served in any army in any war. What about you Farmageddon did you deploy to OIF? Were you in the Infantry? Do you have sons, nephews,? Did you persuade them to enlist in combat arms MOS, it would have been the right thing to do.

So you can only argue for or against a war if you have served in one? That's absurd.

No, you can only argue for a war if you have served in one.

Well, I guess you can argue for a war if you haven't served in one, but then don't get mad when everyone calls you a b*tch and a p*ssy that never stepped up to the plate.

[el mechanico]

The question is when are George Bush and all his buddies finally going to get to cash in o. The Dinar????