Quote :

" Again this thread is about the decision to invade, and what actually happened afterwards."

And I already said that no, an exact recreation of events as they took place was obviously not something we want.

Quote :

"While it's not the best metaphor, you're acting like the only way Iraqi civilians died during and after the invasion/occupation was ethnic violence, which obviously is not the case."

Not at all. I acknowledged that we killed many. But the number you threw at me certainly included people killed in ethnic and sectarian violence.

Quote :

" So the reason you keep bouncing around about the invasion is a mix of trolling and you posting your actual position."

I'm not trying to troll by any meaning of that word that I know. There is still a debate going on in my head. You guys have more than covered one side of that debate, I'm trying to supply the other side so I can see if there are good responses.

6/25/2014 4:24:36 PM

Quote :

"an exact recreation of events as they took place was obviously not something we want."

Obviously. I'm pretty sure the only people who would disagree with that is ISIS and maybe Big Oil...I kid, I kid (on the former)

Quote :

"I'm trying to supply the other side so I can see if there are good responses."

So you're not trying to elicit reactions from those who think the invasion was a bad idea, you're trying to supply the ones who still think it was a good idea with talking points. Ok. We'll see if you can find many of those...

6/25/2014 7:30:13 PM

You seem oddly opposed to the idea of there even being a debate or discussion on this issue. Is this it, now? Trying to argue the opposing side equals "talking points?"

6/26/2014 12:07:57 PM

>arguments torn apart
>"well i was just playing devil's advocate!"

6/26/2014 12:21:04 PM

Quote :

"You seem oddly opposed to the idea of there even being a debate or discussion on this issue."

Not in the least bit. What do you think we've been doing here? [Though it's hard to call it a debate when your opinion on the issue changes with every post]

Quote :

"Trying to argue the opposing side equals "talking points?""

Misread the phrase "supply the other side"

[Edited on June 26, 2014 at 1:19 PM. Reason : ^ pretty much]

[Edited on June 26, 2014 at 1:20 PM. Reason : still reaks of trolling to me]

6/26/2014 1:16:17 PM

The irony of that post is nearly suffocating.

6/26/2014 6:10:13 PM

My position hasn't changed, I'm not the one backing a position I don't agree with just to "spark conversation," what most would call trolling, and we have been debating the points of this issue for three pages despite your constantly changing position.

Please elaborate.

6/26/2014 6:46:57 PM

Quote :

"This metaphor isn't working. We didn't import some problem to Iraq."

You might want to rethink even that. We supported the Ba'athist coup in 1963, which helped usher Sadaam into power. We sold him the chemical weapons he used against his people. We then demolished his government, throwing his entire country into anarchy and civil war. Then we armed a wholly different group in Syria, which took those weapons and then invaded Iraq. I'd say we've been pretty consistently "importing some problems [into] Iraq," wouldn't you? And if you want to just focus on the recent ethnic violence, the last two still apply, even if helping put Saddam into power doesn't. Hell, we routinely arm every side of conflicts in the middle east, knowing its continuing history of ethnic tensions, knowing damned well what is going to happen with those weapons!

6/26/2014 8:22:47 PM

6/27/2014 1:27:39 AM

Supposedly the Iraq army has beat back some Isis forces with the help of local militias.

6/28/2014 4:09:56 PM

Quote :

"The 2003 war in Iraq was the wrong thing to do, American voters say 61 - 32 percent, and President Barack Obama's decision to withdraw all U.S. troops in 2011 was the right thing to do, voters say 58 - 37 percent in a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today. But voters disapprove 55 - 37 percent of the way President Obama is handling the situation in Iraq and disapprove 52 - 42 percent of the way he is handling the situation in Afghanistan, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. The pace of U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan is "about right," 46 percent of voters say, while 26 percent say Obama is moving "too quickly" and 20 percent say "not quickly enough." Among voters in military households, 32 percent say "too quickly," as 19 percent say "not quickly enough" and 41 percent say "about right." By a 51 - 27 percent margin, American voters blame former President George W. Bush, rather than Obama, for the situation in Iraq. Only 35 percent of voters, however, say Obama is better than Bush conducting foreign policy, while 39 percent say he is worse. American voters oppose 63 - 29 percent, with opposition from all party, gender and age groups, sending U.S. ground troops back into Iraq. When asked about air strike options: 2 percent support the use of piloted aircraft; 20 percent support use of drones or cruise missiles, where American pilots are not at risk; 30 percent support using both options; 39 percent say there should be no U.S. airstrikes. "By 2-1, American voters believe the Iraq War was a mistake and most say it was the fault of President George W. Bush, but President Barack Obama isn't exactly getting high marks for the way he has handled the two conflicts he inherited," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll. American voters say 56 - 39 percent that it is not in the U.S. national interest to get involved in Iraq. But a total of 72 percent of voters say it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that if Islamic militants take over Iraq, "they would launch a terrorist attack against the U.S. in the near future." "

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2057

7/7/2014 3:50:35 PM

Bueller...Bueller

7/24/2014 1:27:24 PM

the invasion was good but we should have doubled down and finished the job. (and claimed the oil for payment for iraqi freedom)

7/25/2014 6:22:30 PM

so we didn't surge... enough?

7/25/2014 8:04:45 PM

ya that surge thing, that was doubling down, we tried that

10/22/2014 10:17:03 PM

and it worked while we surged.

10/22/2014 10:57:26 PM

perma-surge. problem solved.

10/22/2014 11:13:52 PM

make it a US territory, nationalize their oil fields

10/23/2014 8:37:05 AM

I read where they actually found WMD's that were stockpiled from 1991. You could make the argument that those weren't the WMD's they went in for, but they found some nonetheless.

10/23/2014 9:33:31 AM

I saw those reports, but I thought it was already known that some expired inert WMDs were found

10/23/2014 10:09:36 AM

Those pre-'91 chemical weapons were not secret, American and European companies even helped supply them. We knew about them and they were not WMD's that we were going in to find and they posed no military threat.

The point of the news story was the military's poor handling of the treatment and monitoring of service members exposed to them. The new part of the story is the number of people exposed and number of pre-'91 munitions found being higher than what was reported, it's clear that there was an active effort by the military and civilian leadership to keep that quiet.

10/23/2014 12:31:44 PM

Those WMDs we found... yeah, we either sold them to Iraq or taught Iraq how to make them. Woops!

10/27/2014 12:57:25 AM

This guy does...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2014/11/12/bush-i-could-argue-that-were-much-safer-without-saddam/

11/12/2014 9:26:27 PM

bttt for Kurtis636

2/24/2015 1:30:32 PM

4/30/2015 9:24:19 AM

5/21/2015 9:54:55 AM

^ Not remotely surprising. Of course no one wants to admit supporting a clusterfuck.

What would be interesting would be getting people to admit it and then listening to their rationalizations. Not that you can trust them, but it would still be an interesting exercise.

5/21/2015 10:33:39 AM

i'll admit it. i supported it. i was in the military at the time and bought the reasons hook, line, and sinker. i never would have thought someone like the secretary of state would go before the UN without completely vetted information.

5/27/2015 3:02:29 PM

Yeah, I also supported it, because how could we possibly be THAT fucking dead wrong or utterly unprepared yet publicly certain? Jesus.

I wouldn't say I was hook, line, and sinker...mine was a more uneasy support, but yeah...I definitely supported it once upon a time.

_____________________________________________________
Being there was a weird thing...believing the war to be a grave mistake for a variety of reasons, with little expectation for success by that point (although I didn't expect it to end up THIS bad), yet I (and many of my friends) did our jobs as aggressively and to the very edge of our abilities, nearly every single day for 6 months...pushing fuels and weather, doing things that would be illegal had it been governed by the FAA, trying to squeeze every last bit of effectiveness out of the jammers every way we could, etc...it was a sort of mix of a view of futility at the macro level with a ferocious effort at the micro level.

and oddly, I enjoyed it a lot, minus the shitty food, separation from my daughter (her mom wouldn't even put her on the phone with me), celibacy, and 30-second showers and stinking porta-jons.

[Edited on May 27, 2015 at 11:12 PM. Reason : ]

5/27/2015 11:11:23 PM

Quote :

"i never would have thought someone like the secretary of state would go before the UN without completely vetted information."

He did the best he could. Don't try and pin shit on him.

5/28/2015 9:26:34 AM

lol you got that from that statement? settle down, chief.

that was the point where I was convinced the invasion was right. it could have been anybody...i could rephrase it as "i never would have thought our leadership would go before the UN...." if that would get your panties out of a knot

[Edited on May 28, 2015 at 10:19 AM. Reason : .]

5/28/2015 10:19:26 AM

It's weird you're focusing on the UN thing. Powell vetted the information given to him, and discarded some of it as a result. Read a book or something.

5/28/2015 10:25:28 AM

i'm not "focusing" on the UN. I made a comment about how much I bought in to the whole invasion, including believing that having someone go before the UN being proof of infallible evidence of a WMD program

stop trying to get offended.

[Edited on May 28, 2015 at 11:02 AM. Reason : .]

5/28/2015 11:01:42 AM

bttt

3/27/2016 10:23:07 PM

More people in fl vote -> no George bush -> no Iraq war -> no Isis

3/28/2016 1:37:42 AM

Of course there's war. The stupid French-Chinese think they have a right to Hawaii.

3/28/2016 10:20:26 AM

Man, the IS shitstorm is really kicking into high gear these last couple of weeks. There's been more than the usual violence recently. I've read that it's a possible sign of desperation because they're losing ground and this is a last gasp/desperation thing OR they're not at all on the fall back and this is them asserting their dominance over cities or regions. Whatever it is, they've been on a bombing spree the last couple weeks and I've seen very little reaction to it from our leaders.

Couple if big suicide and car bombings in Iraq, and today a suicide bomber killed 25 in Yemen, which seems to be a bit of a new wrinkle. For a while al queda has been more prominent in Yemen with isis a bit if a secondary power. Now that aqap has started losing ground it looks like isis is trying to fill that vacuum. I'm honestly not super in touch with what's going on in Yemen, but it seems things are, if possible, getting even messier.

5/15/2016 6:29:38 AM

It was actually pretty stupid. History has shown time and time again that the people who live in the Middle East are cray cray and always will be.

5/15/2016 11:51:13 AM

Quote :

" History has shown time and time again that the people who live in the Middle East are cray cray and always will be."

wrong. history has shown that western intervention has fucked up the middle east

5/15/2016 1:03:12 PM

I think the Middle East is crazy, and western intervention has in some cases aggravated it, and in most cases made it our crazy problem now.

5/15/2016 10:00:12 PM

^^^ If it wasn't for Genghis Khan, the Middle East would be the superpower colonizing everyone, and white people would have been the crazy mountain niggers.

5/17/2016 11:38:53 AM

^^^^^

All signs point to ISIS reverting towards insurgency in Iraq. Assuming no major F-UP or political revolution in Baghdad.

5/18/2016 11:12:43 AM

Quote :

"If it wasn't for Genghis Khan, the Middle East would be the superpower colonizing everyone, and white people would have been the crazy mountain niggers."

Ehh, maybe. China would more likely have been the big winner. They were far and away the most advanced culture in the world at the time. They probably would have "discovered" the Americas.

Historical counterfactuals are fun to debate but ultimately not very useful. I'd much rather delve into why things are the way they are and how we can course correct rather than discuss what could have been.

5/18/2016 7:38:47 PM

Iraq is like 80 years old. There is no inherent reason that it should even exist at all. Iraq is a more recent concept than social darwinism

5/20/2016 3:58:24 PM

Yup. I've said repeatedly and continue to say that the country needs to be repadtitioned into at least 3 different countries. As long as you force Shia, Sunni, and Kurds together your will need a strongman type or you will get internal conflict.

The way post WWI middle east and former Ottoman territory was apportioned did a lot of harm. It's a lot like post colonial Africa. Stick multiple tribes/ethnicities in one state, and you get brutal oppression of minority groups by a majority group or coalition and then civil war.

The fact that we continue to be blind to the "unintended cinsequences" of our bipartisan foreign policy is reason enough to change it.

5/20/2016 5:28:56 PM

Yup. I've said repeatedly and continue to say that the country needs to be repadtitioned into at least 3 different countries. As long as you force Shia, Sunni, and Kurds together your will need a strongman type or you will get internal conflict.

The way post WWI middle east and former Ottoman territory was apportioned did a lot of harm. It's a lot like post colonial Africa. Stick multiple tribes/ethnicities in one state, and you get brutal oppression of minority groups by a majority group or coalition and then civil war.

The fact that we continue to be blind to the "unintended cinsequences" of our bipartisan foreign policy is reason enough to change it.

5/20/2016 5:29:25 PM

Just to be clear though, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was dumb as fuck right?

[Edited on May 21, 2016 at 2:06 AM. Reason : But yeH, ]

5/21/2016 2:06:21 AM

at least we

1. freed the iraqi people
2. rebuilt the country into a prosperous democracy
3. got them back for 9/11
4. found and destroyed all the wmd
5. stabilized the region by removing an aggressive dictator
6. made our country safer in the long run
7. showed iran who has the most influence in the region

5/21/2016 10:59:58 AM

Oh yah somehow those outcomes slipped my mind!

5/21/2016 11:01:34 AM

^^^yes, although I do think our management of the situation after removing Sadam has been even worse. We did something dumb followed by a series of decisions that exacerbated the consequences of our original dumb decision.

5/21/2016 7:13:13 PM