Invasion of Iraq

[Gameface]

Seriously? This is the level of communication you aspire to now? You've been reported.

Figured. Will gladly take the infraction.

 

[Gameface]

Typical post from you. Rather than actually communicate you attack. Why am I not surprised?

Not really, usually I carry on for a bit.

 

[Gameface]

One last thing...

Our Constitution doesn't allow us to invade countries because... We feel like it.

We aren't supposed to be in the nation building business.

If we hope to remake countries in our own image then we'll be at perpetual war. We had just as much of a moral right to invade Iraq as they did us. No nation in history has ever "invaded to liberate countries." It always becomes an unrighteous tyranny, no matter how altruistic our intentions might be.

Gerry McNamara actually declared this in his book as one of his lessons from the Vietnam War.

If the United States is going into the invade to liberate business then I want no part of this country anymore.

I agree with every last word in this post.

 

[The Thriller]

Figured. Will gladly take the infraction.

Good. Mods, please give GF what he wants.

 

[♪alt13]

I don't have enough time right now to respond to all the points...

But a few points I wanted to address.

#1 Of course Bush lied. Who controlled the intelligence community? Anyone who wants to know the scoop on this needs to read the book, "Fiasco."
https://www.amazon.com/Fiasco-American-Military-Adventure-Iraq/dp/0143038915
or Hubris
https://www.amazon.com/Hubris-Inside-Story-Scandal-Selling-ebook/dp/B000JMKR3E
Or another book called W (I think. I can't remember the name or author. It was fantastic though. I'll need to search my library for it).

Bush purposely put into place yes men who would quickly look for evidence of WMDs rather than looking at evidence and allow the evidence to build a case for WMDs. Huge difference between looking for evidence of a problem (WMDs) and looking at evidence and seeing that there might be a problem (potential development of WMDs).

Bush has a real complex with his brother and dad. He wanted to become a new "Reagan" like character and outshine both his father and Jeb. So he wanted to have a "tear down that wall" like legacy in the Middle-East. Iraq was the perfect target.

#2 Yes, things were a lot better under Hussein. Under Hussein, utilities worked, order was maintained, people had jobs, we had a check against Iran's power, and radical Islam (our biggest threat) wasn't allowed to flourish. Saddam wasn't going to mass kill anyone anymore. Half of his country was under a no fly zone. After the Persian Gulf War, Saddam toned things down and concentrated mostly on maintaining order and his own power. This worked to our advantage. He kept radical Islam out while we kept him in check at a fraction of a cost of an all out invasion.

#3 How the hell was the Vietnam War successful? We lost. Thousands died and billions were spent and the country STILL went Communist. Under Communism, that country has flourished! It's now one of our greatest allies in Asia. The Domino Theory was wrong. Ho Chi Minh wasn't interested in spreading Communism like the Soviets were. He merely wanted to unite his country. Hell, just read his own Declaration of Independence shortly after WWII ended:



#4 Like Iraq, we can piss away thousands more lives and trillions more and it'll still be a mess. You have too many factions. Gameface, it's not so much that people don't deserve liberty but that a certain country with too many factions CANNOT HANDLE democracy. See, Iraq wasn't ever supposed to be. I know you can shoot stuff real good being in the armed forces and all, but your history is lacking. The British created Iraq after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. They drew lines on a map and said, "Walla! Iraq!" But just because they drew lines on a map didn't mean they got along or even identified themselves as Iraqis.

Anarchy ensued for years and years until Saddam's Baath Party came into power. Iraq couldn't handle democracy before Hussein came into power and it certainly hasn't been able to handle it after he was taken out.

I was very much against the invasion in 2003. I still think that Bush was among our worst presidents.

I also think that your second point makes you sound like an idiot.

 

[The Thriller]

I was very much against the invasion in 2003. I still think that Bush was among our worst presidents.

I also think that your second point makes you sound like an idiot.

How so? Our cure is clearly worse than the disease.

And we are left with thousands dead and maimed and trillions of debt to pay off. What exactly did we get from that war?

 

[♪alt13]

How so? Our cure is clearly worse than the disease.

And we are left with thousands dead and maimed and trillions of debt to pay off. What exactly did we get from that war?

Syria crumbled because a ruthless dictator slaughtered his own citizens when the Arab Spring arrived there. DO you think that Saddam would have been more successful than Assad at holding his ethnically diverse country together in 2011? The Arab Spring and Assads reaction to it created a vacuum in Syria. It created a situation for the people there where the enemy of their enemy was their friend. Of course radicalized muslims were going to flock there.

Would you prefer a world where we had 2 Syrias? Iraq isn't a peach but the government in Baghdad and the Kurdistan regional government is certainly preferable to it's counter part in Damascus.

 

[The Thriller]

Syria crumbled because a ruthless dictator slaughtered his own citizens when the Arab Spring arrived there. DO you think that Saddam would have been more successful than Assad at holding his ethnically diverse country together in 2011? The Arab Spring and Assads reaction to it created a vacuum in Syria. It created a situation for the people there where the enemy of their enemy was their friend. Of course radicalized muslims were going to flock there.

Would you prefer a world where we had 2 Syrias? Iraq isn't a peach but the government in Baghdad and the Kurdistan regional government is certainly preferable to it's counter part in Damascus.

Syria has crumbled? Really? So that dictator is gone then, right? Assad is out, right? Oh wait, no he isn't.

Do you know who these "freedom fighters" are who fight against Assad? They're a greater threat to us than he will ever be. they're radical muslims who want to turn Syria and Iraq into a Sunni theocracy. Basically the sunni version of Iran. I'm sorry, but I'll take Assad's socialist dictatorship over radical theocracy any day of the week. Go ahead Assad, gas these fantatics.

They've found safe haven and a multitude of new recruits from desenfrachized Sunnis and ex Baath party members. If we don't get rid of Saddam, then ISIS doesn't really exist. With Saddam still in power, these radicals don't have safe haven in western Iraq nor do they receive so many new recruits. Without new recruits then Assad isn't gassing anyone.

see how our invasion destabilized this entire region? Assad and Hussein clearly aren't popes. But the cure? ISIS? Radical Islam? Religious fanatics with ties to terrorist groups? Far worse than those 2 secular dictators. Assad and Hussein were hell bent on maintaining power in secular states. These fanatics? There's no telling what exactly they'll do.

Our cure is worse than the disease. Just like vietnam, our puppets like Diem (or the corrupt shia government we put into Iraq who merely want to f up the Sunnis and join iran), are far worse than those "evil" guys we got rid of/tried to get rid of (minh and Hussein).

 

[♪alt13]

Syria has crumbled? Really? So that dictator is gone then, right? Assad is out, right? Oh wait, no he isn't.

Do you know who these "freedom fighters" are you fight against Assad? They're worse, they're radical Islamists who want to turn Syria and Iraq into a Sunni theocracy. Basically the sunni version of Iran. They've found safe haven and a multitude of new recruits from desenfrachized Sunnis and ex Baath party members. If we don't get rid of Saddam, then ISIS doesn't really exist. With Saddam still in power, these radicals don't have safe haven in western Iraq nor do they receive so many new recruits.

see how our invasion destabilized this entire region? Assad and Hussein clearly aren't popes. But the cure? ISIS? Radical Islam? Religious fanatics with ties to terrorist groups? Far worse. Assad and Hussein were hell bent on maintaining power in secular states. These fanatics? There's no telling what exactly they'll do.

Our cure is worse than the disease. Just like vietnam, our puppets like Diem, are far worse than those "evil" guys we got rid of/tried to get rid of (minh and Hussein).

1)The red thing is not dependent upon the green thing for it to be true. Yes Syria has crumbled. It crumbled 2-3 years ago. Assad only retains control of the Alawite areas. Pay attention.

2)Assad is also a brutal Baathist dictator. You are making the assumption that Saddam being a brutal Baathist dictator would have been able to hold it together during the Arab Spring when the evidence seems to say otherwise.

3) We could be facing a situation where Iraq falls apart ala Syria but instead of the KDP we have the PKK. Ask a Turk if that sounds better. We could be facing a situation where instead of the Shiite being part of a government in Baghdad(where they can be tempered to some degree) they were doing the same thing the Sunni are doing in Syria. How long before Saddam attacks Iran for their meddling?

Iraq is still better off than Syria.

4)The Arab Spring began in Tunisia with the public suicide of a fruit vendor. Maybe just maybe all the dictators in the middle east was a powder keg ready to be lit. Maybe dictatorial muslim nations aren't more stable. Maybe we are all safer in a world full of democratic muslim countries like Turkey and Indonesia.

 

[mellow]

I was very much against the invasion in 2003. I still think that Bush was among our worst presidents.

I also think that your second point makes you sound like an idiot.

I don't think Thriller is an idiot or an a-hole for comment #2. I think it would be more productive to address his argument than to call him names. For myself, I have read reports where Iraqi citizens have said as much. Ask the 50,000 Yazidis what they would prefer. A couple of years ago I read a story about a Muslim shop keeper who was going out of business because of the constant fighting and explosions on his street, he said he was better off under Sadam.

The idea of a virtuous war and the noble cause has been so inlaid in the American culture that it is difficult to see another perspective. This is especially true for those who were manipulated to do things they regret in the name of the noble cause, and in the case of Iraq2 all Americans were manipulated to some degree. I feel sorry for those who were manipulated the most and understand how painful it could be to realize the noble cause was a lie, and the people over there are now worst off.

 

[Gameface]

I don't think Thriller is an idiot or an a-hole for comment #2. I think it would be more productive to address his argument than to call him names. For myself, I have read reports where Iraqi citizens have said as much. Ask the 50,000 Yazidis what they would prefer. A couple of years ago I read a story about a Muslim shop keeper who was going out of business because of the constant fighting and explosions on his street, he said he was better off under Sadam.

The idea of a virtuous war and the noble cause has been so inlaid in the American culture that it is difficult to see another perspective. This is especially true for those who were manipulated to do things they regret in the name of the noble cause, and in the case of Iraq2 all Americans were manipulated to some degree. I feel sorry for those who were manipulated the most and understand how painful it could be to realize the noble cause was a lie, and the people over there are now worst off.

The war can be a mistake without having to grant that Saddam was pretty good for Iraq.

Iraq was not in a good spot under Saddam and it's not in a good spot now.

Would our inaction have helped Iraq? Probably not. Saddam was going from being mostly secular in his rule to being more and more Sunni. There was a lot of resistance at home and from Iran. Do you know that SAddam had many of his family members under house arrest? That he was killing by the thousands to suppress revolutionaries?

Who knows how good or bad Iraq would be today with out OIF? I don't. But one thing is clear, it is not a choice between peace and prosperity or chaos. It was your classic giant douche vs turd sandwich situation.

 

[Stoked]

Syria crumbled because a ruthless dictator slaughtered his own citizens when the Arab Spring arrived there. DO you think that Saddam would have been more successful than Assad at holding his ethnically diverse country together in 2011? The Arab Spring and Assads reaction to it created a vacuum in Syria. It created a situation for the people there where the enemy of their enemy was their friend. Of course radicalized muslims were going to flock there.

Would you prefer a world where we had 2 Syrias? Iraq isn't a peach but the government in Baghdad and the Kurdistan regional government is certainly preferable to it's counter part in Damascus.

Want a good sign that Syria has crumbled? (yes I know you are showing up Thriller)

When the population is 17.9 million and out of that over 250,000 are dead and 6.5 million have been displaced.

 

[Gameface]

Uncle Saddam

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt9CStVF20k

 

[candrew]

Iraq was not in a good spot under Saddam and it's not in a good spot now.

Would our inaction have helped Iraq? Probably not. Saddam was going from being mostly secular in his rule to being more and more Sunni. There was a lot of resistance at home and from Iran. Do you know that SAddam had many of his family members under house arrest? That he was killing by the thousands to suppress revolutionaries?

Not for a moment do I think the American people as a whole ever cared about the Iraqi people under Saddam, during the war or after we left. What we cared about is what kind of threat Iraq posed to us under Saddam.

Bearing that in mind, when you're a country as big and as powerful as the United States the best way to deal with a vastly inferior opponent is to either buy them out or cut them off at the head and then buy-out whatever pops up in its place. My feelings are Saddam and a secular Iraq could have been bought. ISIS, on the other hand, cannot be bought, suicide bombers cannot be bought, Shia extremists cannot be bought.

The war brought instability to the region which will last for another 50 years. "Best case" scenario for us is we get an independent Kurdistan (which we will probably have to support being their land has no significant oil deposits) and a continued dialogue with Iran which in turn may convince them that it is in both our interests to stabilize the region.

Worst case scenario (and more likely) is terrorism will continue to breed in the region, like it does in any area with a power vacuum, we have another 9/11-like event in the US and we're back in Iraq with another 100K plus troops by the end of this decade.

 

[Gameface]

Not for a moment do I think the American people as a whole ever cared about the Iraqi people under Saddam, during the war or after we left. What we cared about is what kind of threat Iraq posed to us under Saddam.

Bearing that in mind, when you're a country as big and as powerful as the United States the best way to deal with a vastly inferior opponent is to either buy them out or cut them off at the head and then buy-out whatever pops up in its place. My feelings are Saddam and a secular Iraq could have been bought. ISIS, on the other hand, cannot be bought, suicide bombers cannot be bought, Shia extremists cannot be bought.

The war brought instability to the region which will last for another 50 years. "Best case" scenario for us is we get an independent Kurdistan (which we will probably have to support being their land has no significant oil deposits) and a continued dialogue with Iran which in turn may convince them that it is in both our interests to stabilize the region.

Worst case scenario (and more likely) is terrorism will continue to breed in the region, like it does in any area with a power vacuum, we have another 9/11-like event in the US and we're back in Iraq with another 100K plus troops by the end of this decade.

Clinton really screwed all that up.

 

[The Thriller]

Want a good sign that Syria has crumbled? (yes I know you are showing up Thriller)

When the population is 17.9 million and out of that over 250,000 are dead and 6.5 million have been displaced.

So the majority still supports Assad? You do realize that many of those dead or displaced are radical jihadists. If you think that a radical religious Syria would be better for us than a secular Syria run by Assad, then we're done speaking here.

It really seems like Gameface and Stoked are driven more by a neocon ideology rather than history of the region.

Lets look at things rationally:

https://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/pos..._removing_saddam_hussein_in_fact_a_good_thing

Recently I was at a foreign policy discussion in which a participant said that everybody agrees that the removal of Saddam Hussein was a good thing, despite everything else that went wrong with the boneheaded invasion of Iraq.

I didn't question that assertion at the time, but found myself mulling it. Recently I had a chance to have a beer with Toby Dodge, one of the best strategic thinkers about Iraq. He said something like this: Well, you used to have an oppressive dictator who at least was a bulwark against Iranian power expanding westward. Now you have an increasingly authoritarian and abusive leader of Iraq who appears to be enabling Iranian arms transfers to Syria.

And remember: We still don't know how this ends yet. Hence rumors in the Middle East along the lines that all along we planned to create a "Sunnistan" out of western Iraq, Syria, and Jordan.

Clinton really screwed all that up.

Huh?

Daddy Bush and Clinton had Iraq (Saddam) contained. 9/11 was the result of failed communication among several government agencies under Bush's watch. Here's a great take on this from 2002:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10749-2002Jul27.html

Despite President Bush's repeated bellicose statements about Iraq, many senior U.S. military officers contend that President Saddam Hussein poses no immediate threat and that the United States should continue its policy of containment rather than invade Iraq to force a change of leadership in Baghdad.

The cautious approach -- held by some top generals and admirals in the military establishment, including members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- is shaping the administration's consideration of war plans for Iraq, which are being drafted at the direction of Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

The senior officers' position -- that the risks of dropping a successful containment policy for a more aggressive military campaign are so great that it would be unwise to do so -- was made clear in the course of several interviews with officials inside and outside the Pentagon.

High-level civilians in the White House and Pentagon vehemently disagree. They contend that Hussein is still acting aggressively, is intimidating his neighbors and is eager to pursue weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them.

The uniformed military's skepticism would not stop Bush if he were determined to attack Iraq, a White House aide said. "I assume that if the president decides this is going to happen, they'll go along with it," he said.

More than one officer interviewed questioned the president's motivation for repeatedly calling for the ouster of Hussein. "I'm not aware of any linkage to al Qaeda or terrorism," one general involved in the Afghanistan war said, "so I have to wonder if this has something to do with his father being targeted by Saddam," a reference to the U.S. government's belief that Iraqi agents plotted to assassinate former president George H.W. Bush with a car bomb during a 1993 visit to Kuwait.

Here is something incredible seeing how this was written in 2002:

they expect the United States would prevail quickly in any war, but in the course of the conflict would face several challenges.

How to predict the costs of a post-victory occupation, which presumably would require tens of thousands of U.S. troops, not only to keep the peace and support the successor regime, but also to prevent Iraq from breaking up.

A major goal of U.S. policy in a post-Hussein Iraq would be to prevent the creation of an independent state in the heavily Shiite south, or an independent Kurdish state in the north. To fulfill U.S. promises to Turkey and Arab states that Iraq would remain whole, a defense official said, "I think it is almost a certainty that we'd wind up doing a campaign against the Kurds and Shiites." That would represent a striking reversal of administration policy of supporting the Kurds against Baghdad.

Also, officials worry, a large U.S. presence might antagonize Arab public opinion as well as impose heavy financial and human costs on the U.S. military, which already feels stretched by the war on terrorism and peacekeeping commitments in the Balkans.

 

[The Thriller]

Here's the bottom line:

Containing Saddam was cheaper, cost fewer lives, and was more effective than invading Iraq and unleashing radical Islam on that country.

Syria? Isn't a paradise right now. But would be hella worse under ISIS/ISIL control. Those of you who defend those attacking Assad are defending radicals who desire to make Syria and Iraq essentially a Sunni Iran. You realize that's worse for us than a secular Assad government, right?

 

[The Thriller]

1)The red thing is not dependent upon the green thing for it to be true. Yes Syria has crumbled. It crumbled 2-3 years ago. Assad only retains control of the Alawite areas. Pay attention.

2)Assad is also a brutal Baathist dictator. You are making the assumption that Saddam being a brutal Baathist dictator would have been able to hold it together during the Arab Spring when the evidence seems to say otherwise.

3) We could be facing a situation where Iraq falls apart ala Syria but instead of the KDP we have the PKK. Ask a Turk if that sounds better. We could be facing a situation where instead of the Shiite being part of a government in Baghdad(where they can be tempered to some degree) they were doing the same thing the Sunni are doing in Syria. How long before Saddam attacks Iran for their meddling?

Iraq is still better off than Syria.

4)The Arab Spring began in Tunisia with the public suicide of a fruit vendor. Maybe just maybe all the dictators in the middle east was a powder keg ready to be lit. Maybe dictatorial muslim nations aren't more stable. Maybe we are all safer in a world full of democratic muslim countries like Turkey and Indonesia.

Having the 2 dictators would have maintained control of the region.

Without the pissed off Sunnis in western Iraq, this whole ISIS/ISIL thing and Syrian Civil War never happens.

 

[The Thriller]

The war can be a mistake without having to grant that Saddam was pretty good for Iraq.

Iraq was not in a good spot under Saddam and it's not in a good spot now.

Would our inaction have helped Iraq? Probably not. Saddam was going from being mostly secular in his rule to being more and more Sunni. There was a lot of resistance at home and from Iran. Do you know that SAddam had many of his family members under house arrest? That he was killing by the thousands to suppress revolutionaries?

Who knows how good or bad Iraq would be today with out OIF? I don't. But one thing is clear, it is not a choice between peace and prosperity or chaos. It was your classic giant douche vs turd sandwich situation.

Huh?

Our cure (the "liberation" of Iraq) is worse than Iraq's disease (Hussein). For both Iraqis and us. That's it. I know you feel one way because of your buddies serving over on that side of the world. but like Vietnam, the orders you were given, no matter how noble they were, have made Iraq worse.

 

[Gameface]

Huh?

Our cure (the "liberation" of Iraq) is worse than Iraq's disease (Hussein). For both Iraqis and us. That's it. I know you feel one way because of your buddies serving over on that side of the world. but like Vietnam, the orders you were given, no matter how noble they were, have made Iraq worse.

You don't know anything about how I feel or why I feel that way. I don't have buddies serving anywhere. I've been out of the Navy for over 8 years and haven't kept in contact with anyone still in. Most of my friends from that time did not reenlist and left not supporting the invasion. I love when you call me a neocon. It's so ****ing clueless.