Debates
21 Oct 11
21 Oct 11
(Shrug) Everybody and their mother knows that Obama and this administration tried to get the Iraqis to accept a longer deployment of significant numbers of US troops, but the Iraqi people adamantly refused and their and our leaders had to bow to the inevitable.
Kudos go to the Iraqis for their resistance which prevented their country from becoming a neocolonialist puppet state. The right wing dream of an Iraq with US military bases and an economy controlled by US and western rich guys has been thwarted for now though their government still has a ways to go before it is an effective representative of the wishes of Iraqis. Hopefully they'll get there.
I don't give Obama much credit for this; the withdrawal date was negotiated by GW and this President sought to get around it by various means. Over 250 US troops died for little purpose in Iraq since Obama's inauguration. Obama failed to deliver on the timetable that he promised in the 2008 election and his withdrawals never approached the "brigade a month" marker he laid down to get elected. I guess he gets whatever praise is deserved for bowing to the inevitable (Republicans, including Romney, are hysterical in their insistence that the US should have forced Iraq to accept the continued presence of US troops).
21 Oct 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungBy the way, did we ever find any of those "weapons of mass destruction" that Bush and Cheney insisted were in Iraq, and threatened American security??? It's a real shame over 4,000 brave American troops had to die...for a lie!:'(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9Z7tdukQuo
23 Oct 11
Originally posted by bill718While a lie/mistake was certainly a basis for the war in the first place, I think few would argue that the Iraqis and the world are better off for having deposed Saddam and his cronies. As such, I'd hardly dismiss the sacrifices made the US troops, its allies and the Iraqi people so cavalierly.
By the way, did we ever find any of those "weapons of mass destruction" that Bush and Cheney insisted were in Iraq, and threatened American security??? It's a real shame over 4,000 brave American troops had to die...for a lie!:'(
23 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76I think few would argue that the Iraqis and the world are NOT better off for having deposed Saddam and his cronies.
I think few would argue that the Iraqis and the world are better off for having deposed Saddam and his cronies.
???
Fixed. [edit: doubt creeps in - is your wording "argue that" without 'not' (which strikes me as a syntax error) perhaps an Americanism? cf: 'I couldn't care less' v [the Americanism] 'I could care less' ]
What about arguing that Iraqis and the world would perhaps have been better off if they had deposed Saddam and his cronies in their own way and on their own historical arc?
23 Oct 11
Originally posted by sh76How many Iraqis were killed by our military? Tell their families how better off the world is.
While a lie/mistake was certainly a basis for the war in the first place, I think few would argue that the Iraqis and the world are better off for having deposed Saddam and his cronies. As such, I'd hardly dismiss the sacrifices made the US troops, its allies and the Iraqi people so cavalierly.
23 Oct 11
Originally posted by no1marauderIraq still is a neocolonialist puppet state. Don't be surprised we try to make it look like an independent democracy.
(Shrug) Everybody and their mother knows that Obama and this administration tried to get the Iraqis to accept a longer deployment of significant numbers of US troops, but the Iraqi people adamantly refused and their and our leaders had to bow to the inevitable.
Kudos go to the Iraqis for their resistance which prevented their country from ...[text shortened]... istence that the US should have forced Iraq to accept the continued presence of US troops).
The troops are coming home because that is what our government wants. You should be worried that it is because we are planning to invade another country soon. Let's hope it is simply because Obama wants a second term.
The left and right work together. It is like they tag team and play roles to seem like they don't. Guys like you are suckers for propaganda. The establishment loves it when the left and right blame each other. It is called divide and conquer.
23 Oct 11
Originally posted by Metal Brain🙄🙄
Iraq still is a neocolonialist puppet state. Don't be surprised we try to make it look like an independent democracy.
The troops are coming home because that is what our government wants. You should be worried that it is because we are planning to invade another country soon. Let's hope it is simply because Obama wants a second term.
The left and ...[text shortened]... blishment loves it when the left and right blame each other. It is called divide and conquer.
23 Oct 11
Originally posted by FMFYes, sorry about the syntax error. Not really an Americanism, just a mistake. 😉
[b]I think few would argue that the Iraqis and the world are NOT better off for having deposed Saddam and his cronies.
Fixed. [edit: doubt creeps in - is your wording "argue that" without 'not' (which strikes me as a syntax error) perhaps an Americanism? cf: 'I couldn't care less' v [the Americanism] 'I could care less' ]
What about arguing that Iraqis ...[text shortened]... ey had deposed Saddam and his cronies in their own way and on their own historical arc?[/b]
As for your question, sure, I suppose so. But there's no guarantee they would have been able to do so. Saddam had a heck of a grip on the Iraqi machinery.
Again, I'm not saying the Iraq war was a good thing. I supported it initially because I believed (as most Americans did) that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction to use against western targets. Obviously, that turned out not to be the case. Had I known then what I know now I would not have supported the war.
Still, that doesn't mean that no good came from it or that the deaths on all sides were necessarily in vain.
23 Oct 11
Originally posted by sh76It's hard to envision a probable scenario with as much death and destruction in Iraq as there was over the last 8 years without the invasion.
Yes, sorry about the syntax error. Not really an Americanism, just a mistake. 😉
As for your question, sure, I suppose so. But there's no guarantee they would have been able to do so. Saddam had a heck of a grip on the Iraqi machinery.
Again, I'm not saying the Iraq war was a good thing. I supported it initially because I believed (as most Americans did) ...[text shortened]... sn't mean that no good came from it or that the deaths on all sides were necessarily in vain.
That Saddam ever intended to use WMDs against Western targets was far fetched even given the knowledge we had at the time.
23 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76...and there are very very few that would argue (present company excluded) that spending many billions of dollars and 4,000+ American soldiers lives simply to remove a dictator of a small middle eastern country, simply because we don't like him was among the stupidest moves any American President ever did, not to mention a massive waste of resources.
While a lie/mistake was certainly a basis for the war in the first place, I think few would argue that the Iraqis and the world are better off for having deposed Saddam and his cronies. As such, I'd hardly dismiss the sacrifices made the US troops, its allies and the Iraqi people so cavalierly.
Dictators of countries that oppress there citizens are many and varied in our world. Are we supposed to invade all of them too?🙄🙄🙄