This. Un-fucking-believable that anyone (including those who served) would even try to find a shred of justification for the complete clusterfuck and utter failure that was Iraq.
I did the exact same thing as you. That is why my entire political outlook has changed. Trust no one!
And Afghanistan isn't any better. After all those years and lives lost, it will be just as big of a shithole when we leave as it was when we first arrived. :terrorist:
Can you be sure of that? What makes you think that in the ten years Saddam Hussein would not have done something to provoke an invasion regardless. Not to mention the 30,000 Iraqis dying per year due to U.S. led sanctions. Or the 60 or so Americans dying annually enforcing the sanctions against Iraq (that amounts to 600 over a decade which ultimately accomplished nothing).
Other than an insatiable addiction to black gold, why does America care about a third-world country that's half a world away? And don't give me some bullshit answer about humanitarian reasons or "regional stability". If America (and before you guys, the UK and Europe) hadn't fucked around in that neighbourhood for so long, we wouldn't be faced with a situation where a nutjob (Iran) has potential access to nuclear weapons. I don't expect a serious answer from the likes of you, so my question is more rhetorical than anything else.
Saddam Hussein invaded two neighbors within 10 years. He was extremely reckless and foolish. Believing that he would've happily left well enough alone indefinitely without starting something requiring U.S. military response is hopelessly naive. Very Jimmy Carterish. And remember it was OFFICIAL U.S. Policy (established under President Clinton) for the U.S. to actively seek to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
It was none of our fucking business! It was none of our fucking business! For the last time, IT WAS NONE OF OUR FUCKING BUSINESS!!!
Yes it was. Still is. Everything that happens that involves U.S. economic interests is by definition "our business". And IIRC, Black Dove, 10 years ago you were not exactly ranting against the invasion of Iraq. Correct me if I'm wrong (with a link perhaps) but IIRC you were a classic front runner supporting the removal of Saddam Hussein until it became unpopular. The only person I remember at Wordforge who was against it from the beginning was Rick Deckard (HenryHill back then) and perhaps one or two other foreigners.
If you would have bothered reading my earlier post (which I know that reading comprehension is difficult for you), you would have seen that, like Diacanu, I originally supported the war until I came to understand that it was all based on a pack of lies. Unlike chicken hawks like yourself, I'm able to change my opinions and admit when I'm wrong.
No one lied about WMDs in Iraq. What part of the CIA Director insisting the evidence was a "slam dunk" do you not understand? I did not care in the least whether there were WMDs in Iraq or not. I supported the invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam Hussein well before President Bush even took office. I supported it in 1998 when the Clinton Administration was floating the idea of doing it then. And given that you supported the war (by your own admission) back then....but did not volunteer to serve in the military....doesn't that make YOU by YOUR own definition a "chickenhawk"?
That it was a blatant lie. Next. Warmongering chicken hawk. Next. Did you enjoy slapping your wife again today?
Yes they did, repeatedly. Did you miss my post further up? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21829148 Iraq intelligence was 'fabrication and lies'
Paul: "TEN YEARS, MAN! TEN! Where have you been for ten years?" Martin: "I freaked out, join the army, went into business for myself. I'm a professional killer." Paul: "Oh, do you have to do postgraduate work for that, or can you jump right in? I'm curious." Martin: "It's an open market." Paul: "Open market. That's good. Wow. Ten years, man! Ten year--Ten years! Ten years! Ten! Ten years! Ten years." Martin: "I freaked out! I joined the army! I worked for the government! I went into business with myself! I'm a professional killer. That's what I did!" Paul: "Okay. Well, can I join up?" Martin: "Yes!"
Yeah, lies. Either flat out, or from assholes with such raging agenda-hardons, that they wanted it to be true so bad, they didn't care if it really was. (It's all the same to me, personally). At some point, once it was ramping up though, they had to know it was bullshit, and then it didn't matter anymore. It's hard to scientifically dissect the exact actual moment this occured, but it's clear to me when they bullied and bullshat Powell into making his UN speech, they knew they were full of shit.
Then he lied too. I can quote the lies individually again, if you wish. Big stinking lies with bells on them too. Not mistakes. Not "incorrect assessments". Direct, wilful, deliberate lies.
There are many, many differences between mistakes and lies, but one simple test is this: When you've made a mistake, and even more so once you and your whole generation aren't running for anything anymore, you can say: "We were wrong about the WMDs." It's the liars who won't.
I would recommend Decision Points. It might clarify things for you. Meanwhile the scumbag in your avatar cowers in fear. And the scumbag in the White House fills out NCAA brackets instead of submitting a budget.
I read it. This guy wanted vengance on Afghani's and somehow thought he would get to choose exactly where he would be sent? Cmon... I thank him for his service but he's not splitting the atom.
Now, look, I -- part of the reason we went into Iraq: was -- the main reason we went into Iraq: at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Bush_calls_Lebanon_aid_troops_0821.html "No one was more shocked and angry than I was when we didn't find the weapons," he writes. "I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do." http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11680239 What more do you want?
