[Orson]

(03-19-2019 06:58 AM)Transsimian Wrote:  

A logical reason for wiping out stable secular Iraq?

[Image snip!]

'Excuse me sir, do you have a moment to talk about our lord and blood god Khorne?'

A jackboot on the throat of the Shia...and that's your "stable secular Iraq?" A jackboot on the Sunni Kurds? - that's your "stable secular Iraq?" Saddam funding Jihadi Pales families who die against Israel? THAT'S your "stable secular Iraq?" And since the First Gulf War, Saddam firing missiles daily at air patrols of the 'no-fly' zone* - that's your "stable secular Iraq?"

I could go on and on with overt threats alone to deny your claim...but you get the point: how easily and ridiculously "we" forget the Truth.
___________
* I recall the continuing cost of maintaining these no-fly zones figuring into the War-no War in Iraq calculations back in 2002-3. Even at a trillion dollars for the Iraq War, break even C-B came in 20 years of continuing expenses. That's coming close, during Trump's next term. Instead, today, the US makes money on arms sales to Saudi - let 'em do it themselves!

[SamuelBRoberts]

Yes, it was very stable and very secular.

What the fuck do I care about the Shia or "Jihadi Pales" families?
Let Israel or the Shia invade Iraq if it's that big a deal for them.

[pitbullowner]

I had heard from molymeme that they were switching away from the Petrodollar standard ?‍♂️

[Tigre]

(03-19-2019 01:53 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

If Trump was President during 9/11, it's almost a certainty that he would have counter-attacked Iraq or Iran as well. So maybe you should not support him.

*facepalm*

(03-19-2019 01:53 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

What exactly do you people think the USA should have done in response to this act of war? Nothing? Go hand out flowers to the middle eastern terrorists and kiss them? LOL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afg...93present)

Quote:

The War in Afghanistan (or the U.S. War in Afghanistan), code named Operation Enduring Freedom – Afghanistan (2001–14) and Operation Freedom's Sentinel (2015–present),[55][56] followed the United States invasion of Afghanistan[57] of 7 October 2001. The U.S. was initially supported by the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia[58] and later by a coalition of over 40 countries, including all NATO members. The war's public aims were to dismantle al-Qaeda and to deny it a safe base of operations in Afghanistan by removing the Taliban from power.[59] Since the initial objectives were completed at the end of 2001, the war mostly involves U.S. and allied Afghan government troops battling Taliban insurgents.[60] The War in Afghanistan is the longest war in U.S. history.[61][62][63][64]

[Foolsgo1d]

Lets not mention the Taliban were in Texas to meet with Bush in the late 90s tos ecure trade deals with the juicy minerals they have there. Oh and dont forget the Opium. Bush didnt want a deal, or better yet, those behind Bush didn't want a bunch of rag heads getting rich as well.

But its all water under a bridge right?

[Ouroboros]

(03-19-2019 01:28 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

This is a good critique.

Cheers.

(03-19-2019 01:28 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

However, you left out the necessary finish to your post. You didn't tell me what the "right" choice was to make.

I'd argue that every objection your making could be applied against WW2 and the Korean and Vietnam wars. Sure, wars are bad. Wars destroy. Wars cause civil wars and unrest.

Nevertheless, we have wars in this world.

The specific historical and demographic reasons why Iraq was likely to descend into an interethnic bloodbath don't apply to every other country, and certainly not to Korea, Vietnam, Germany or Japan at the time that they were invaded. In addition, not all countries engulfed in civil war are equally likely to provide a breeding ground for anti-Western terrorist groups.

I didn't argue that the Iraq War was undesirable simply because it was destructive, like all wars are to some extent. Every war should be separately examined on its own merits, to determine whether it achieved or was reasonably likely to achieve its purported objective. In the case of Iraq, the answer to both of these questions is a resounding 'no'.

(03-19-2019 01:28 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

Terrorists attacked the USA in a way that at the time was seen as a serious destabilization of world peace. Bush had to act firmly. That is not debatable. You can't just sit by and allow an act of war without counter-attack. He had to establish some sort of military response or "doctrine" in response...that's his historic job as President.

So if not attacking Iraq, what equally strong measure do you propose that Bush should have done instead?

If you say "nothing" then your argument is void. There is no option for "no action". Presidents don't get to sit on their ass. They react. That's what the system forces them to do. The only question is, HOW do they react.

If you're going to strike back against an act of aggression, it makes more sense to direct your response towards the people who have actually attacked you. Rather than just picking a country at random in the general geographical region from which your attackers originate.

In any case, Bush already had acted: he invaded Afghanistan immediately after 9/11. This was the direct military response to the attack on the U.S.

However, if Bush was actually serious about tackling terrorism, he should have addressed some of its root causes. At the very least, this would have included putting some serious pressure on Saudi Arabia and other gulf states to stop fomenting extremism all over the world. And if he was truly concerned about the wellbeing of his people, he wouldn't have wasted trillions of dollars of tax payer money on a war that was only likely to amplify the terrorist threat.

[MrLemon]

Quote:

If you're going to strike back against an act of aggression,

It wasn't an "act of aggression'. It was an Act of War against the United States of America, in which a small group of state-sponsored soldiers tried to plunge the USA into chaos by removing our President (Jet into White House), our military leadership (jet into Pentagon), and the largest and most important symbol of our economy (manhatten). It was equivalent to a small nuclear strike.

I think it's important not to minimize or use incorrect terminology. An Act of War is a serious thing...it voids all treaties and laws. It empowers the POTUS to do anything -- up to and including -- destroying entire nations.

Quote:

it makes more sense to direct your response towards the people who have actually attacked you. Rather than just picking a country at random in the general geographical region from which your attackers originate.

I don't agree. It makes perfect sense in that case. The terrorist group, as you know well, was spread out from several different nations. It had support mainly from SA, Iran, some Iraq, and Afganistan. That's why it was so dangerous. Go back and re-read my original post. I adressed this. From a standpoint of global politics, you cannot allow nations to use terror groups to make war and then claim they weren't involved. It made every sense to pick one of those involved nations and attack them, to demonstrate to the rest of the nations the price they would pay for such attacks in the future. It's like cancer. You can't let it spread.

The President of the United States is the current de-facto military ruler of the human race. That's reality, as much as we choose to hide from it. He is responsible for ensuring world peace. If ruthless action is required, he has to make that decision.

Quote:

In any case, Bush already had acted: he invaded Afghanistan immediately after 9/11. This was the direct military response to the attack on the U.S.

That's the big question isn't it? I'm sure this was debated by the Bush security team endlessly. No doubt Bush himself made the final decision -- "attacking Afganistan is insufficient response to be sufficient demonstration to these terror-sponsoring nations of the price of their actions." They needed a bigger demonstration. Iraq suited that need quite well. Since Iraq had already proven itself a bad actor with it's attack on Kuwait, and had already committed an act of war against the USA by attempting to assassinate Bush Sr, they were a lovely and appropriate target. Bush was rather lucky, actually, that they were such a convenient target...attacking anybody else would have been much harder.

The fact that the UN and European nations were not supporting Bush made it an even better demonstration of pure unfettered power. He made it abundantly clear that, if pushed, the United States was perfectly willing and able to ignore the world and wipe out any enemy.

Bush is from Texas. You don't start fights with Texans.

Quote:

However, if Bush was actually serious about tackling terrorism, he should have addressed some of its root causes. At the very least, this would have included putting some serious pressure on Saudi Arabia and other gulf states to stop fomenting extremism all over the world.

He did do all those things as well. But that wasn't sufficient response to satisfy the US public and history books. Attacks on US sovereign soil MUST be paid back 10X. That's how the US fights wars. That's why we bombed Japan into the stone age, and dropped nukes for good measure.

Quote:

And if he was truly concerned about the wellbeing of his people, he wouldn't have wasted trillions of dollars of tax payer money on a war that was only likely to amplify the terrorist threat.

You claim it amplified the terrorist threat, but we all know that's speculation. You have no idea, nor do I. Most american citizens think, despite the high cost, that the extremes of the Bush/Cheney team were necessary surgery to stop the cancer from spreading further.

And, it worked. There have been no major terrorist attacks on the US since then. All attacks have been in Europe...perhaps because Europeans don't have the stomach to fight back. Who knows.

[griffinmill]

(03-19-2019 07:48 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

He made it abundantly clear that, if pushed, the United States was perfectly willing and able to ignore the world and wipe out any enemy.

Good for Bush. This proved he had the necessary steely resolve to avenge an act of war upon American soil. The problem is, bin Laden also had that steely resolve; after all, part of his justification for hitting back at an enemy he saw in the United States was the killing of 500 000 Iraqi children during the sanctions in the 1990s which was sanctioned by the American government. The killing of these children was a crime Madeline Albright said was "worth it".

So, the question is: where does the cycle of violence and retribution end?

[Ouroboros]

(03-19-2019 07:48 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

Quote:

it makes more sense to direct your response towards the people who have actually attacked you. Rather than just picking a country at random in the general geographical region from which your attackers originate.

I don't agree. It makes perfect sense in that case. The terrorist group, as you know well, was spread out from several different nations. It had support mainly from SA, Iran, some Iraq, and Afganistan. That's why it was so dangerous. Go back and re-read my original post. I adressed this. From a standpoint of global politics, you cannot allow nations to use terror groups to make war and then claim they weren't involved. It made every sense to pick one of those involved nations and attack them, to demonstrate to the rest of the nations the price they would pay for such attacks in the future. It's like cancer. You can't let it spread.

Neither Iraq nor Iran were supporters of al-Qaida. Where did you get this idea from, the public statements of Bush himself?

(03-19-2019 07:48 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

Quote:

However, if Bush was actually serious about tackling terrorism, he should have addressed some of its root causes. At the very least, this would have included putting some serious pressure on Saudi Arabia and other gulf states to stop fomenting extremism all over the world.

He did do all those things as well. But that wasn't sufficient response to satisfy the US public and history books. Attacks on US sovereign soil MUST be paid back 10X. That's how the US fights wars. That's why we bombed Japan into the stone age, and dropped nukes for good measure.

What exactly did Bush do to prevent the likes of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, or Pakistan from promoting Salafism and supporting anti-American terrorist groups?

If he did anything at all it was ineffective, since these countries haven't stopped. Nor has the invasion of Iraq scared them into changing their behaviour.

(03-19-2019 07:48 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

Quote:

And if he was truly concerned about the wellbeing of his people, he wouldn't have wasted trillions of dollars of tax payer money on a war that was only likely to amplify the terrorist threat.

You claim it amplified the terrorist threat, but we all know that's speculation. You have no idea, nor do I.

Have you heard of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham)?

(03-19-2019 07:48 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

Most american citizens think, despite the high cost, that the extremes of the Bush/Cheney team were necessary surgery to stop the cancer from spreading further.

The Iraq war had the exact opposite effect. Their other actions may or may not have been responsible for the lack of subsequent terror attacks on U.S. soil, but that's a debate for another thread.

[TigerMandingo]

I think Lemon is obtuse or he's trolling. He still doesn't get that the invasion had nothing to do with responding to 9/11. That's what the Afghanistan war was about.

[MrLemon]

(03-19-2019 08:32 PM)Ouroboros Wrote:  

(03-19-2019 07:48 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

Quote:

it makes more sense to direct your response towards the people who have actually attacked you. Rather than just picking a country at random in the general geographical region from which your attackers originate.

I don't agree. It makes perfect sense in that case. The terrorist group, as you know well, was spread out from several different nations. It had support mainly from SA, Iran, some Iraq, and Afganistan. That's why it was so dangerous. Go back and re-read my original post. I adressed this. From a standpoint of global politics, you cannot allow nations to use terror groups to make war and then claim they weren't involved. It made every sense to pick one of those involved nations and attack them, to demonstrate to the rest of the nations the price they would pay for such attacks in the future. It's like cancer. You can't let it spread.

Neither Iraq nor Iran were supporters of al-Qaida. Where did you get this idea from, the public statements of Bush himself?

(03-19-2019 07:48 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

Quote:

However, if Bush was actually serious about tackling terrorism, he should have addressed some of its root causes. At the very least, this would have included putting some serious pressure on Saudi Arabia and other gulf states to stop fomenting extremism all over the world.

He did do all those things as well. But that wasn't sufficient response to satisfy the US public and history books. Attacks on US sovereign soil MUST be paid back 10X. That's how the US fights wars. That's why we bombed Japan into the stone age, and dropped nukes for good measure.

What exactly did Bush do to prevent the likes of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, or Pakistan from promoting Salafism and supporting anti-American terrorist groups?

If he did anything at all it was ineffective, since these countries haven't stopped. Nor has the invasion of Iraq scared them into changing their behaviour.

(03-19-2019 07:48 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

Quote:

And if he was truly concerned about the wellbeing of his people, he wouldn't have wasted trillions of dollars of tax payer money on a war that was only likely to amplify the terrorist threat.

You claim it amplified the terrorist threat, but we all know that's speculation. You have no idea, nor do I.

Have you heard of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham)?

(03-19-2019 07:48 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

Most american citizens think, despite the high cost, that the extremes of the Bush/Cheney team were necessary surgery to stop the cancer from spreading further.

The Iraq war had the exact opposite effect. Their other actions may or may not have been responsible for the lack of subsequent terror attacks on U.S. soil, but that's a debate for another thread.

Well, that's the debate in a nutshell. Clearly we'll never agree, and that's ok.

I remember this debate happening endlessly back during the Bush era. Back then, just as they do now with Trump, the liberals were refusing to acknowledge that it was a real debate, instead trying to substitute endless put-downs and ad-hominem attacks.

Bush did the right thing of course, just as Trump is doing now: ignoring the liberal's trolling and obtuse squawking and making the best decisions possible, in a time of war.

No doubt historians will forever be debating the right or wrong of it, just as they still debate Hiroshima and Sherman's march.

No matter what, remember: Trump or any US president would make the same decisions when pressed. So would any of you if put into a real position of authority.

[Lunostrelki]

The invasion of Iraq was dumb because the amount of money, political capital, and strategic opportunity costs it took were nowhere near what America got out of it.

Following the OP, America did well to invade Iraq because it made an ideal show of force in the Middle East and also because Saddam was a right bastard who had it coming. The former is highly debatable, and the latter, while true, is at least partially offset by the chaos the invasion caused in the broader scheme of the War on Terror.

By invading Iraq, America played right into the hands of bin Laden. Destroying the WTC wasn't going to bring America down, but goading the USA into intervening in the ME had the potential (and still does) to drain American resources and weaken it like the Soviet Union was during the 1980s.

The need to invade Afghanistan was bad enough, but a police action there had worldwide support, and America may have had the ability to win where the Russians had failed, provided US assets were concentrated and committed. Not this back-burner intervention while Iraq exploded into insurgent violence and became a new hotbed of terrorism. ISIS is pretty much just the next evolution of Al-Qaeda and Iraq certainly added fuel to that fire.

In 2001, America needed to commit to totally and unapologetically pacifying and rebuilding Afghanistan in a timely manner using whatever means necessary — this would have been the greatest show of force. Iraq was a neocon, globalist operation that hijacked the legitimate mission of the US military and put America in a strategic quagmire that let countries like China and Iran get ahead.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(03-19-2019 09:50 PM)Lunostrelki Wrote:  

The invasion of Iraq was dumb because the amount of money, political capital, and strategic opportunity costs it took were nowhere near what America got out of it.

...

America no. Bush's corporate buddies yes.

The Iraq war was an outstanding example of privatizing the profits and socialising the losses. They spent trillions of US taxpayer dollars and spent thousands of lives of American soldiers but what's important is that corporations were able to farm in billions over billion first destroying the country then "rebuilding it" and sometimes destroying what they'd rebuilt just so they could rebuild it again.

If anyone bothered to look I suspect they didn't even bother to build half the shit they promised.

"Oy vey, terrorists have occupied the hospital we've built for 100 million bucks!"

"Uhh, sir. All we've built so far is a pre-fab concrete shell..."

"Yes, but nobody will ever know that after we lob in a few dozen hellfire missiles to kill the terrorists."

[Pride male]

If the actual reason for taking out Gaddafi and Saddam was because they wanted to sell oil for goalld and euros then that makes sense. But it seems fucked up how America treats their friends a like Noreaga, Osama, Saddam, Pinochet, Mubarak etc.

[Aurini]

(03-19-2019 01:28 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

(03-19-2019 08:38 AM)Ouroboros Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 11:40 AM)MrLemon Wrote:  

When Bush and Cheney decided to kick the crap out of Iraq, they had almost no support in Congress or the world. But they did it anyway.

Why?

Some people think it was a stupid move, but like many at the time, I never thought it was stupid. Harsh, yes, but in the eyes of many, necessary to the future of the world.

The middle eastern countries had attacked the US on 9/11.

You're really blaming all Middle Eastern countries for 9/11, even though it was committed by 19 individuals, none of whom were from Iraq?

(03-18-2019 11:40 AM)MrLemon Wrote:  

They used terrorism and thus, could disclaim personal responsiblity. Bush and Cheney knew they had to nip this in the bud. The entire basis of world peace is this: if your country attacks a big nation, you will be obliterated. But using terrorists, the Iraq/Iran/Saudis had undercut that system.

Why do you mention Iran? It's a Shi'ite country, they obviously hate al-Qaida, the Sunni group responsible for 9/11.

It's fitting that you mention Saudi Arabia, from which 15 of the 19 hijackers (as well as the founder of al-Qaida) originated. And yet Saudi Arabia has faced no repercussions, and certainly no threats of invasion or even sanctions. It has also continuously been permitted to fund Salafism, the common doctrine of most/all Sunni terrorist groups, throughout the world.

(03-18-2019 11:40 AM)MrLemon Wrote:  

If that trend were allowed to continue, the next step would be, you would have nukes set off in Wash DC. That would destroy world peace utterly. It was a very dangerous situation and Bush, as president, had to stop it by any means necessary. That was his job.

It's hard to say what the likelihood of nukes being 'set off in Wash DC' was/is, or whether that likelihood has increased or decreased since then or as a result of the Iraq War. Too many unknown variables. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that such an attack was imminent, however.

(03-18-2019 11:40 AM)MrLemon Wrote:  

So he randomly picked a middle-eastern nation. Yawn. Well, why not Iraq? Good choice. Evil dictator, had already pissed on America's leg, had a seemingly huge army. Great choice.

It was a terrible choice. Iraq was a secular dictatorship which kept a lid on religious fanaticism, much like Assad in Syria and Mubarak in Egypt. There were obvious sectarian tensions arising from the fact that the Sunni minority had violently crushed any dissent from the Shi'ite Arabs and Kurds who made up the majority of the population. What could possibly go wrong if an outside power were to remove that minority from power, leaving them to the mercy of a hitherto oppressed majority with deeply held historical grievances? (Rwanda should have provided an instructive example)

The likely prospect of unleashing a civil war should have been pretty obvious. And civil war in a Muslim country provides an excellent opportunity for terrorist groups to proliferate (as Afghanistan, Lebanon and Somalia had already shown, and as Iraq, Syria, and Libya would subsequently demonstrate yet again).

(03-18-2019 11:40 AM)MrLemon Wrote:  

So Bush stomped Iraq, as a man might stomp a bug. He did so without anybody's approval. He didn't ask or care if Iraq was the main aggressor. He was conveying a message, that if terrorism was used, anybody with even a partial connection to the terrorists could and would be destroyed.

It seems Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, countries that actually support terrorism, never received that message.

(03-18-2019 11:40 AM)MrLemon Wrote:  

All the nations of the world were reminded: "oh fuck, the US military can stomp us casually, any time, with or without UN approval."

It was the perfect demonstration. It conveyed the message that the POTUS wanted to convey.

After his term of office, Bush essentially went into political exile, knowing that his choice would forever darken his reputation, but he is regularly visited by American citizens, who thank him for doing what needed to be done.

Of course there are many evils that have come from this choice. There are many evils that come from any situation like this. But the choice still has to be made.

It was unequivocally the wrong choice to make.

This is a good critique. However, you left out the necessary finish to your post. You didn't tell me what the "right" choice was to make.

I'd argue that every objection your making could be applied against WW2 and the Korean and Vietnam wars. Sure, wars are bad. Wars destroy. Wars cause civil wars and unrest.

Nevertheless, we have wars in this world.

Terrorists attacked the USA in a way that at the time was seen as a serious destabilization of world peace. Bush had to act firmly. That is not debatable. You can't just sit by and allow an act of war without counter-attack. He had to establish some sort of military response or "doctrine" in response...that's his historic job as President.

So if not attacking Iraq, what equally strong measure do you propose that Bush should have done instead?

If you say "nothing" then your argument is void. There is no option for "no action". Presidents don't get to sit on their ass. They react. That's what the system forces them to do. The only question is, HOW do they react.

Continue the war in Afghanistan, which all of NATO supported. Stop trying to nation build, and just spend another couple of years kicking the shit out of the terrorists. Don't start a war with a country that had no ties to 9/11, pissing off your allies in the process (I was in the Canadian military at the time - all of us were asking WTF is he doing going into Iraq?). Offer some carrots, instead of the economic stick which is destroying the lives of Iraqi civilians; bring Saddam back into the fold, he used to be a loyal ally to the United States.

Pull out of all wars by 2005, aside from focussed strikes on the villages of terrorists whenever they attack the west. Kill their families in retaliation. Don't destroy domestic freedom.

[Enoch]

We would be wise to remember that its only OK for the goyim kill innocent Muslims in the Middle East. New Zealand is off limits, for example.

[Bluto]

(03-18-2019 12:57 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 12:22 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

If think next time we have a problem, we should just nuke Canada right off the bat. Then we say "Hey, don't mess with us, that's what we do to people we LIKE.".

That probably wouldn't be a good move. When you are the world's policeman, you have to support the narrative that there are "good guys" and "bad guys".

Canada, at least for now, is a good guy. However, if they keep sending down those fucking geese every winter to shit on our cars, we might have to re-evaluate.

Shoot the geese, they taste good.

[Pride male]

Why is America and Canada even two separate countries anyway?

[AneroidOcean]

(03-27-2019 02:15 AM)Pride male Wrote:  

Why is America and Canada even two separate countries anyway?

I hope you're joking. The United States was formed when we kicked the British monarchy in the nuts and told them to pound sand. Canuckdia is still under the crown. For that reason alone!

[Pride male]

∆ I forgot about that. Makes sense. But a guy unified Anglo Saxon empire would be pretty cool though.

[heavy]

(03-25-2019 09:15 PM)Bluto Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 12:57 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 12:22 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

If think next time we have a problem, we should just nuke Canada right off the bat. Then we say "Hey, don't mess with us, that's what we do to people we LIKE.".

That probably wouldn't be a good move. When you are the world's policeman, you have to support the narrative that there are "good guys" and "bad guys".

Canada, at least for now, is a good guy. However, if they keep sending down those fucking geese every winter to shit on our cars, we might have to re-evaluate.

Shoot the geese, they taste good.

This really pisses me off. We can't have a season because they migrate between countries. It's dumb. There are way, way too many.

Instead of generating money for conservation purposes, we pay money to snipers to shoot them on golf courses...if lucky.

(I'm not sure what this has to do with attacking Iraq, I just read the last few posts)

[lookslikeit]

MrLemon you are either trolling or just your reasoning is way too off.

First, it is Saudi Arabia that planned and executed the 9/11. It is funny, because after they found no substantial evidence for WMD in Iraq, they found substantial evidence for SA involvement in 9/11: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Sa...11_attacks

But that went unnoticed. And even trump went ahead and shook hands with the Saudis: https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intel...0.h467.jpg

Trump allegedly managed a few hundred billions business with SA. But that's still way far from the 5 Trillion USD cost.

Also, here are other consequences of the Iraqi War:

1- Iran gained terrain in Iraq.

2- Iraq is not a democracy today and not a US friendly nation.

3- The instability created ISIS; a more violent version of AlQaeda.

[AManLikePutin]

(03-27-2019 07:43 AM)lookslikeit Wrote:  

MrLemon you are either trolling or just your reasoning is way too off.

First, it is Saudi Arabia that planned and executed the 9/11. It is funny, because after they found no substantial evidence for WMD in Iraq, they found substantial evidence for SA involvement in 9/11: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Sa...11_attacks

But that went unnoticed. And even trump went ahead and shook hands with the Saudis: https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intel...0.h467.jpg

Trump allegedly managed a few hundred billions business with SA. But that's still way far from the 5 Trillion USD cost.

Also, here are other consequences of the Iraqi War:

1- Iran gained terrain in Iraq.

2- Iraq is not a democracy today and not a US friendly nation.

3- The instability created ISIS; a more violent version of AlQaeda.

This doesn't get enough mentions, but Bush' Iraq war was the greatest gift ever to the regime in Iran. The biggest winner of the Iraq war was the Islamic Republic (I refuse to call them Iran...hell even Khamenei always refers to the country as the Islamic Republic and not Iran). I think Mullah's could have been long gone had it not been for Iraq war.

To this day, Islamic Republic state media mocks and thanks Bush for invasion of Iraq. Hell, the boss of the IRGC made a joke a few months ago that roughly translates to:

"Bush gave us Iraq, Obama gave us Syria, and Trump will give us Israel."

[Barron]

I gotta say, all the shaming and moral high grounding this thread has trudged up speaks volumes. Anyone that disagreed with Lemon could have done so in a hundred different ways that would have been far more interesting and thought provoking than this sad spectacle of virtue-arguing.

What the fuck are you guys so afraid of?

Good post by Lemon.

[EndsExpect]

I was in college when 9/11 hit. I had to have my fiance and family drag me forcibly out of the army recruiters office to keep me from signing up... to this day my biggest life regret is not fighting them off.

The Iraq War was very justified at the time given the information we had. To be honest, if we had the chance to knock out Kim Jong Whatever before he got nukes then we should have done that. I think younger people stupidly forget the devastation of nuclear arms. We should do our absolute best to prevent crazy assholes from having them. A dictator like Hussein would use them as a trump card to stay in power forever. Also... to the dumbfucks who keep claiming that Iraq had no WMD's... shut the fuck up with your liberal CNN talking points. We know for fact that Iraq had WMD's and they were found and disposed of. We know because if you remember back Hussein used WMDs on the Kurdish after the first gulf war. Most of those WMDs were actually given to him to fight Iran by the US... so we fucking knew for fact that he had shit tons of chemical weapons. We found those chemical weapons depots about 3 years into the war and disposed of them. I've had soldiers show me the pictures. Of course the bullshit propaganda artists that run the media won't show this, because to them a WMD is exclusively a Nuke and Bush Lied was just as important of a liberal campaign slogan as Russiagate is today. I really hope the dishonest fuckers choke to death on dicks and rot in hell.

The real screw up from Bush, Rummy, and those in leadership at the time was after winning the war. In no way shape or form should we have stuck around and tried to build a western style democracy out of a country with such deep religious hatred. Iraq should have been partitioned into 3 separate countries, and we should have pulled out within 6 months of the wars conclusion. If we had doubts about self government... then and Independent Kurdistan would have been easy and successful... because fuck the Dirty Turks! The Sunni part of Iraq could have been added to the Saudi Kingdom, or Syria... whoever was willing to grant the US the most economic benefit from it. The Shiite part of Iraq should have been added to Iran.

So, to my opinion the great sin of Bush and his Neocons is that of believing in the Woodrow Wilson fallacy. Republics are not an ideal government for many cultures... especially when faced with tribes or sects that thoroughly enjoy killing each other.