U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-13-2019, 07:54 AM
 
66,437 posts, read 30,294,925 times
Reputation: 8660

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
Trumplings...

Still eager to blame Clinton for Dubya's Iraq invasion.
Since when does liberating a country not require deposing it's current leader? 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. Signed into Law by Bill Clinton.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-13-2019, 07:54 AM
 
15,087 posts, read 3,983,077 times
Reputation: 10936
I was there the whole time. The polling is right on....in fact, in public even more than 90% of Republicans would not come out against it....polls, at least, allow for secrecy. If you think any of the thousands who worked for Lockheed Martin (locally in NJ where I was) was going to come out against war and violence, you don't know how that system works. They might tell you over a drink if you were friends with them..or they'd tell a poll taker on the phone.

Putting it simply, most ALL Republicans were for the Wars Without End and for the enhancement of the Security State. The typical saying was "I'm not doing anything wrong, so why do I care?". I heard this over and over again.

Among Dems it was probably 50/50 and among "liberal Dems" it was probably 75/25. My guess is that independents were about 40/60 (all for/against)....

None of that changes the basic facts. Republicans started, continued and borrowed for the Wars without End to a degree that never would have happened if another party was in power.

This is already burnt into history so trying to change it with forum posts is not going to work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2019, 08:02 AM
 
Location: Somewhere below Mason/Dixon
6,507 posts, read 7,452,949 times
Reputation: 10901
The Iraq war was the right thing to do but it was done the wrong way.

Why was it right?

1. The Iraqis were a threat to the US, they were supporting terrorist groups including al queida.

2. Iraq constantly was making public threats against us, even after 9-11. They publicly sided with the enemy. Not too smart in the days after Arab Muslims attacked the United States on 9-11.

3. The WMDs were secretly moved to Syria during the build up to war. They had months to do this and saddams Bathist buddies in Syria are still using the stuff.

Why was the war conducted badly?


1. We should have went in immediately when WMDs were discovered, no time to hide them and clean up sites

2. Not enough troops sent to invade and overwhelm a nation. A larger force would have crushed opposition quickly, seven years is way to long to subdue a weak Arab nation.

3. We played too nice. We should have used the force necessary to win quickly and save American lives. If this means collateral damage and civilian loss so be it. The misery of war is a big factor in destroying the enemies will to fight.

4. We should have installed a puppet government sooner and left. No nation building, no fostering democracy, we should have left a pro American government in charge and support and supply it from afar. We should only go to war to serve our own interests.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2019, 08:13 AM
 
Location: Texas
35,209 posts, read 19,272,053 times
Reputation: 20835
Talking "Liberation" you say...

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Since when does liberating a country not require deposing it's current leader? 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. Signed into Law by Bill Clinton.
Since when does Dubya's 2003 invasion become clinton's action by his signing 1998 legislation?

Get a grip on the causes of that invasion.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2019, 08:18 AM
 
15,087 posts, read 3,983,077 times
Reputation: 10936
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72 View Post
The Iraq war was the right thing to do but it was done the wrong way.

Why was it right?

.
So, all the Kings Horses and all the Kings Men were not as smart as you?

Or, the other option is "after all mistakes are made it's easy to figure out what went wrong?"

I suspect the 2nd, but the problem is that the Next War will contain that Hubris...."now we know what we should have done".

No we don't. Generals have know this for millennia. Once the Dogs of War are unleashed all bets and planning are off.

Lots of things represent a danger to us. Maybe we should measure these dangers like we do the 30K yearly car deaths or about the same in opiate deaths? Or ER visits for Tylenol, or gun deaths?

Expecting a "zero" rate of Americans killed after killing millions and displacing or wounding tens of millions worldwide is a fallacy. People are always going to die for one reason or another. That doesn't mean you unleash 5 Trillion Dollar Wars against the people.....who didn't attack you!

See if you can get these famous words into your mind "proportional response". Reagan, the Hero of the Right, Cut and Ran when the Marine barracks were bombed...the largest loss of Marine (I think) in a single action for a LONG time. Maybe he was right for doing so? Maybe his advisors said, behind closed doors, this is a "cluster-folk" and we shouldn't have been there, so let's not go all-in and have even more dead.

Maybe he was right...looking back. Or maybe something else. But, in any case, we can't go unleashing full fledged wars on any person or state that kills Americans. It does depend on proportion.

That is the way the world works...or should work. Short of that every country on the planet would be exacting full time revenge on every other one.

From that perspective everything about Iraq and Afghanistan was wrong wrong wrong. At the time I supposed covert and police actions. Walk softly and carry the stick. Let them put their guard down and then go in swift and silent and deal out some lessons.

Cost in men, women, time, money, etc? Maybe 1/100th of what we spent making things worse....

One must understand that this is not over. It may end up being called a 100 year war. Think of the good those trillions (that we didn't and still don't have) would do for our country.

We don't all stop driving because 30K die on the roads. We don't all stop our medication because 100K or more die from all medications. We don't stop going to the doctor or hospital because 100's of thousands die from treatments and mistakes.

Rather we weigh things and try to learn...proportion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2019, 08:18 AM
 
121 posts, read 20,202 times
Reputation: 140
Today's republicans are the least intelligent group that I can recall in a long time. Their defiance for reading is really disturbing. It is also disturbing that they think the news is providing them with in depth reporting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2019, 08:36 AM
 
15,087 posts, read 3,983,077 times
Reputation: 10936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh Oh It's Magic View Post
Today's republicans are the least intelligent group that I can recall in a long time. Their defiance for reading is really disturbing. It is also disturbing that they think the news is providing them with in depth reporting.
In a decade..I PROMISE YOU that they will claim they supported Free Trade and a Balanced Budget and were against Tariffs.

Short memories are a feature for this crowd. The only question is whether they do so intentionally or if they truly don't know stuff.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2019, 08:42 AM
 
66,437 posts, read 30,294,925 times
Reputation: 8660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
Since when does Dubya's 2003 invasion become clinton's action by his signing 1998 legislation?
Bill Clinton's 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. Liberating another country requires deposing it's current leader.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2019, 08:44 AM
 
16,272 posts, read 9,105,195 times
Reputation: 6548
so its interesting. President Trump was against that war from the beginning. He has taken very hard shots at Bush over it. yet 61% of republicans think it was the right thing to do.




I thought then it was the right call. I still think it was the right call.


I think GWB messed up big time in how we talked about it, how we approached it and when the left decided to make political hay over it, he failed utterly to challenge them.


We are still in Germany and Japan. Being there is what made the peace after WW2 and it was a lesson learned following WW1.


We should have gone in with the full intention of staying like we did in Germany and Japan. period. Like we did in South Korea. Had we approached Iraq that way we would have had a shot
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2019, 08:52 AM
 
2,455 posts, read 859,545 times
Reputation: 1714
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Iraq did move them. To Syria. According to Clapper. That still leaves the Iraq Liberation Act. Bill Clinton signed it into Law in 1998. Bush followed through and deposed Saddam.

As for Clapper and the moved illicit weapons... Clapper told US intel that Iraq was hiding them in Syria, after Syria was tipped off by Dem Senator Rockefeller that: "it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq.

A stroll down memory lane...
THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ - WEAPONS SEARCH - Iraqis Removed Arms Material, U.S. Intelligence Agency Director Says - NYTimes.com

Clapper said satellite imagery showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria, just before the American invasion in March, led him to believe that illicit weapons material ''unquestionably'' had been moved out of Iraq. Clapper was speaking in his then capacity as the Director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.
https://www.nga.mil/Pages/default.aspx

Obama subsequently promoted Clapper to Director of National Intelligence.

And exactly how would Iraq know to move its illicit weapons right before the invasion? Answer: The treasonous stunt Democrat Senator Rockefeller pulled that prompted Iraq to move the weapons:
Transcript: Senators Roberts, Rockefeller

(Oh, and by the way... Rockefeller voted FOR the Iraq War.)

Now look at how all this has played out since then.

How is any of what Rockefeller did not treason?
Except that the WMD were not moved to Syria, because there were never WMD in the first place. Bush administration knew this (how could they not) but lied to the American people to justify an invasion that the neocons had been itching to do for years. How is that not a crime? Why are Cheney, Rumsfeld and other not in jail?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top