What Is The Big Deal About Staying In Iraq for 10 Years?

Nope, he doesn't. Dayton, flawed though his analysis might be, at least usually works from real data.

In other words, you just want to invade and meddle in countries that don't yet have nuclear weapons while they remain easily exploitable. Gotcha.

Well duh

You "liked" my above post.

So all meddling in other countries is okay if it's in American interests - this includes when hundreds of thousands of non-American non-combatants die and, indeed, when thousands of Americans themselves and their allies also die?

Is this about what is in the interests of America, or what is in the interests of the America that best suits the vision that Dayton would like to live under? Because it seems to me that you are willing to let your own countryman and innocent allies or neutrals die if it advances your own personal interests, rather than you country's?

The Bible that you believe in talks of only going to war when the war is just. This war was based on a falsehood that there were weapons of mass destruction. How can a war that costs thousands of the lives of Americans, allies and innocents, that is premeditated on a lie be just - and therefore in the interest of God fearing Americans? I believe the bible is against murder. But killing based on a lie can never be just, therefore can only be murder. So at what point do your Christian values get dismissed in favour of what you consider to be in America's (readayton's) interest?

It's okay to invade countries that don't have nuclear weapons because they don't have nuclear weapons, got it.

No.

I prefer all wars (those involving the U.S. as well as others) to be as "relatively bloodless" as possible.

About the only time you can obtain this is when one side (the United States in this era) possesses overwhelming firepower and the means and will to bring it to bear quickly.

Long wars serve the interests of no one. Neither victor or vanquished.

Why did you avoid answering the second half of my post?

At the time he was run out of power by the United States (and allies) Saddam Hussein was responsible for nearly TWO MILLION deaths.

I can give you the link that supports that number if you like.

I do not believe God would see anything wrong with destroying a regime that had killed so many. Especially when we were able to do it at relatively low human cost to ourselves.

What a load of utter bull.

Firstly, that answer doesn't address the question that I put to you, which is whether or not a war entered into on the basis of a lie is a just war. The lie that was sold to us, and that was explicitly put to the UN, was weapons of mass destruction. This was the argument, namely that Saddam posed a direct threat to western nations because of those weapons. Garbage about exporting freedom and liberty was a load of rhetoric supplied to you by your politicians after the fact so that you'd think it was noble.

Secondly, you have previously argued that non-Americans are inferior to your great people. So why the pretend concern for them now, when it suits you?

Thirdly, you have previously advocated a wholesale nuclear attack on the Middle East, so why the concern for people living in the region now?

Fourthly, you have repeated stated in the past that you are content for people to die, including Americans, let alone non-Americans, if it serves American interests. So why the concern for liberating Iraqis? So what was the American interest being served? If you say, to be strategically close to Iran, you're now having to work with Iran to help tidy up the mess that now exists because you had not reconstruction plan for the region!

Fifthly, you say that it was a noble mission because Saddam killed 2 million people. So noble, and such a terrible figure, that you sought to put it all in capitals to emphasise it to me. It took 24 years of power to kill that many people. In contrast, it took 8 years for nearly half a million to die as a direct result of the war. On a years to deaths ratio, that's only 25% less deaths than Saddam. What's more, since we've left we've seen what has happen. Civil war, with thousands more dying. There is a view among many Iraqis that even though living under Saddam was horrid, it was the lesser of two evils compared to the complete disaster of a place that now exists, with the western installed government now at serious risk of losing power. So, where is your proof that intervention improved the lives of the Iraqis?

Sixthly, where was America's noble concern for the poor Iraqis during the Iran-Iraq war? A war started by Saddam. A war that cost the lives of 600,000 thousand Iraqis and Iranians. A war in which Saddam used biological weapons on Iranians and Iraqis, a fact known to the US. A war in which America supported Saddam Hussein.

So don't you dare give me that noble cause crap. Not only does the reality paint a very different picture from the "mission accomplished" bull fed to you by your politicians for you to lap up like the flag waver gullible sheep that you are, but there was neither a great liberation nor an improvement in Iraq. There was no great saving of the Iraq people and a reduction in loss of life.....and, most importantly, it was never the reason we purported to to have authority to attack the country anyway. We attacked an independent sovereign nation who, dictator or not, had not attacked us and did not have the the ability to do so. Neither had Iraq had not attacked any neighbouring in over a decade, nor was it in conflict with anyone at the time.

The cold hard facts are that you attacked a non-aggressor soveregin nation, based on a falsehood, causing half a million people to die in the process, including Americans and western allies that would still be alive today but for that war, for which there has been no improvement in the country you invaded, or the region in general.

So, this all comes full circle, does the bible not teach you that unjust killing is murder? Killing, based on a lie, for no noble purpose, must by default be unjust. No? Or have you got another feeble excuse lined up for how you can dump your christian values when it suits you?

There's the answer to what's wrong with ten more years in Iraq. Why ask when you already know?

Our young men and women signed up to protect America from its enemies, not to protect some oil fields so that the one percent can continue to reap profits. I sure as hell didn't and neither did anyone else who served.

Every person who is serving in the U.S. military today either joined or reenlisted long after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. So they new what they were getting in to.

I won't go down the whole list you presented El Chup.

But I will say this:

1) As far as I'm concerned the Bush Admin. never lied about WMDs in Iraq because they fully believed that WMDs were present. Exaggerated the evidence no doubt and gave very "political" answers to inquiries. Still does not rise to the level of a lie.

2) A "Noble Effort" can still be self serving.

Yeah, bit think of all those Iraqis you helped avoid dem weapons of mass distraction, err, destruction!

The very fact that serviceman are detached and unconvinced speaks volume. "Hearts and minds though, right"?. Iraq will go down as America, and the West's, great failure. Personally I think it is close to eclipsing Vietnam in that regard.

Ridiculous. The death toll to Americans and other nations involved is but a fraction of the Vietnam War.

Why don't you answer my other post and the one before it, Are you an utter yellow bellied chicken?

The great presidential candidate is afraid of questions. You won't get elected to any office with that approach matey. Coward...and to think I showed you respect by leaving profanity pit of my post. The thanks I get is total disrespect. Why can't you show me the respect on my terms that I show you on your terms?

Why won't go down the while list? If your argument prevails you should be able to answer every point. Disgusting coward.

So what if they did? If I have to give up stability, time from loved ones, any sense of control in my life and possibly dying, I'd much rather do that for something like Pearl Harbor or the aftermath of 9/11 than lining Cheney's pockets full of gold.

Can I say again thank you for NOT serving? I shutter to think of you moving up and having some impressionable young soldier under your command.

Do you really think he would have lasted any significant amount of time? He would have been discharged before long, most likely an OTH or ELS, but I would lean towards OTH.

You have evidence that Vice President Cheney profited from the invasion of Iraq?

Do you have evidence that he didn't?

Why can't you answer my posts coward?

Why

why can't you answer my posts coward?

Your employment history as a civilian, which the same attitude as a member of the armed services would have resulted in you being dismissed. The ELS would be separation within 180 days of enlistment without a positive or negative reason. The OTH can result from not falling within expected performance.... or from the time you got slappy with your wife.

Well, let's see. My first regular job ever was one I had for nearly NINE years from August 1988 to June 1997. Given these would've been my most likely years to have served in the military at some point (age 21-30) then my employment history would indicate exactly the opposite of what you assert.

And how many times were you written up before you were fired?

Are you fucking kidding? Jesus, either you're a master troll, or a complete retard.

I was never fired. I was hired for a salaried management position elsewhere.