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.
Look what we get? We arent done yet, Dont be such a quitter. This is going to take dedicated commitment and sacrifice. You should try thinking for yourself and leave the party, cnn, nbc talking points for the glazed over parrots drinking the koolaide.
What a load of horsesh*t. This disaster in Iraq has taken longer than WWII. So please drop the whole "We need more time" BS.
The sad thing is that if we ever do get a stable democratic government in Iraq (that is a big if) that government will be Shia-dominated and almost certainly aligned with Iran. That is why this whole thing was a mistake from the start. It was completely against our interests and cost the lives of thousands of Americans.
But what do we expect from an administration who doesn't even understand the differences between Sunni and Shia? Maybe if they would have listened to some objective Middle East analysts they would have made a better decision. Instead they relied on anti-Saddam Shia groups with links to Iran and neo-con ideologues who thought that Iraq would be the Switzerland of the Middle East. This was and continues to be an absolute disaster of epic proportions.
Why don't you post a comparison since you brought up Haliburton?
Since you asked so nicely, here you go. Happy?
Under the Bush Administration, the “shadow government” of private companies working under federal contract has exploded in size. Between 2000 and 2005, procurement spending increased by over $175 billion dollars, making federal contracts the fastest growing component of federal discretionary spending.
This growth in federal procurement has enriched private contractors. But it has also come at a steep cost for federal taxpayers. Overcharging has been frequent, and billions of dollars of taxpayer money have been squandered.
the topic is Iraq, not Israel. If this comes up in a topic about Israel then we can discuss that.
read the resolutions, your awnsers are in there.
My comment is in direct response to your assertion that the invasion was justified by the litany of UN security violations. I have told you that another country, Israel, also has a list of violations. Using your ad hoc ergo propter hoc logic, if the violations justified the attack on Iraq, why wouldn't the same logic justify another country attacking Israel?
You can read the resolutions here, your answers are in there. Israel in violation of 68 UN Resolutions
NO. I wont be dropping anything because you or anyone else doesnt approve of my very informed opinion. The political and religious landscapes in Iraq change like quicksand and therefore arent really a concern. Removing saddam and doing our best to stabilize the country is the mission. George Bush senior didnt remove saddam for the very reasons everyone now wants to get out. Dubya (his son) knew exactly what we (you, me and him, LOL) were getting into but Rumsfeld pretty much blew it after the invasion. We will correct that error also, it will take time resources and sacrifice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irwin
What a load of horsesh*t. This disaster in Iraq has taken longer than WWII. So please drop the whole "We need more time" BS.
The sad thing is that if we ever do get a stable democratic government in Iraq (that is a big if) that government will be Shia-dominated and almost certainly aligned with Iran. That is why this whole thing was a mistake from the start. It was completely against our interests and cost the lives of thousands of Americans.
But what do we expect from an administration who doesn't even understand the differences between Sunni and Shia? Maybe if they would have listened to some objective Middle East analysts they would have made a better decision. Instead they relied on anti-Saddam Shia groups with links to Iran and neo-con ideologues who thought that Iraq would be the Switzerland of the Middle East. This was and continues to be an absolute disaster of epic proportions.
If you look at the resolutions, what Saddam failed to do was give all records of the distruction of the weapons. He may have destroyed them, but he FAILED AT GIVING THE UN WHAT THEY HAD REQUIRED IN THE RESOLUTION
What, do you think that bad record keeping justified the attack? What about the Bush administration's record of destroying documents? Here is what the expert weapons inspectors said. 01/24/2004 - David Kay, who led the American effort to find banned weapons in Iraq, said Friday after stepping down from his post that he has concluded that Iraq had no stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons at the start of the war last year. In an interview with Reuters, Dr. Kay said he now thought that Iraq had illicit weapons at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf war, but that the subsequent combination of United Nations inspections and Iraq's own decisions ''got rid of them.'' Asked directly if he was saying that Iraq did not have any large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the country, Dr. Kay replied, ''That is correct.'' OCTOBER 4, 2002, VANCOUVER: Scott Ritter, a former United Nations Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq, spoke to over 1100 people at the First Baptist Church in Vancouver and said: "There is no case for war. It would not be justified in international law and it would be morally wrong". Scott Ritter is a former U.S. Marine Major and a ballistic missile technology expert. He worked in Iraq a s a chief inspector with the now defunct United Nations Special Commission in Iraq (UNSCOM) between 1991 and 1998. Svend Robinson, the NDP Foreign Affairs Critic in Parliament, praised Ritter for his courage and determination to stop the war. Robinson said that the American campaign is "really about controlling oil interests in the middle east, and not about any threat from weapons of mass destruction".
NO. I wont be dropping anything because you or anyone else doesnt approve of my very informed opinion. The political and religious landscapes in Iraq change like quicksand and therefore arent really a concern. Removing saddam and doing our best to stabilize the country is the mission. George Bush senior didnt remove saddam for the very reasons everyone now wants to get out. Dubya (his son) knew exactly what we (you, me and him, LOL) were getting into but Rumsfeld pretty much blew it after the invasion. We will correct that error also, it will take time resources and sacrifice.
Change like quicksand? These are religious conflicts that have been going on since the Dark Ages. If you think this stupid invasions and a couple of Bush speeches about "freedom" are going to change that then you are more naive then I thought.
And no, Bush Jr. didn't know exactly what he was getting into. He brought us into an invasion with little plan for what would happen after the obvious defeat of the regular Iraqi army. Plan for the insurgency? Of course not! They are going to love us and shower us with flowers! Plan for Shia domination and the strategic advantage this will give to Iran? Of course not! They are Iraqis first and they won't support those "terrorists." Plan for staff to run an American occupation post invasion? Of course not! Remember, the Iraqis are going to love us. No need to hire those eggheads or people who actually speak Arabic. Send a bunch of anti-abortion activists instead! And all the while, we are ignoring Afghanistan!
I will repeat - the greatest strategic mistake since the Vietnam War.
Nope. The greatest strategic mistake was not removing saddam at the end of the Gulf war. That was a foreign policy blunder of huge proportions that left the entire region unstable. We had to correct that error and im glad. This sends the correct message to the rest of the world that the US follows through on foreign policy commitments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irwin
Change like quicksand? These are religious conflicts that have been going on since the Dark Ages. If you think this stupid invasions and a couple of Bush speeches about "freedom" are going to change that then you are more naive then I thought.
And no, Bush Jr. didn't know exactly what he was getting into. He brought us into an invasion with little plan for what would happen after the obvious defeat of the regular Iraqi army. Plan for the insurgency? Of course not! They are going to love us and shower us with flowers! Plan for Shia domination and the strategic advantage this will give to Iran? Of course not! They are Iraqis first and they won't support those "terrorists." Plan for staff to run an American occupation post invasion? Of course not! Remember, the Iraqis are going to love us. No need to hire those eggheads or people who actually speak Arabic. Send a bunch of anti-abortion activists instead! And all the while, we are ignoring Afghanistan!
I will repeat - the greatest strategic mistake since the Vietnam War.
Nope. The greatest strategic mistake was not removing saddam at the end of the Gulf war. That was a foreign policy blunder of huge proportions that left the entire region unstable. We had to correct that error and im glad. This sends the correct message to the rest of the world that the US follows through on foreign policy commitments.
The entire region was unstable because we didn't overthrow Saddam?
Hah! Given the complete mess the Middle East is in at the moment, I find it difficult to argue that the removal of Saddam and a Shia-dominated Iraq with a resurged Iran is "stability."
But, perhaps in the world of Fox News and neo-con ideologues things are different.
Nope. The greatest strategic mistake was not removing saddam at the end of the Gulf war. That was a foreign policy blunder of huge proportions that left the entire region unstable. We had to correct that error and im glad. This sends the correct message to the rest of the world that the US follows through on foreign policy commitments.
Removing Sadaam back then would have been just as stupid as was today. You would have had chaos, just like now. Sadaam was a STABILIZING force in Iraq. He was Sunni, but under his rule the were many inter-marriages, women had rights, there was no Islamic Fundamentalism permitted, it was a SECULAR government, Christians were not under attack. Any uprisings were of course dealt with severely, but Iraqis today will tell you that they were better off under Sadaam than they are today under the American occupation.
Maybe let the Iraqi people vote for the US election and see which way they would vote.
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.
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.
