We have lost the Iraq war

[dogchow108]

Who benefitted? from what?


Like i said, we arent in this war to prevent ourselves from getting into this, we are in it to get out of it. and really about saudi arabia or another country being a better target, thats true. i have never deined that. but theres actually plenty of ways that Iraq was also a good target.

[lester1/2jr]

I just wonder if you don't have a unconscious bias towards an action in Iraq. If I were a full on anti-semite I might even say that Wolfowitz sold Rumsfeld and co. the concept of a cheap quick war simply to get revenge on Saddam. a mafia style hit if you will.

[LeiYunFat]

Are you?

[lester1/2jr]

Donald Rumsfeld?

[zachsan]

mafia style hits, that's the kind of stuff i was expecting when i first heard the term "war on terror". not smart bombs and bunker busters and nation building.

[dogchow108]

Originally posted by lester1/2jr
I just wonder if you don't have a unconscious bias towards an action in Iraq. If I were a full on anti-semite I might even say that Wolfowitz sold Rumsfeld and co. the concept of a cheap quick war simply to get revenge on Saddam. a mafia style hit if you will.

are you kidding me? i have a very conscious bias against Iraq, that asshole Hussein rewarded people who blew my countrymen to bits with tens of thousands of dollars each, why wouldn't I be biased against him. and really, does that make me biased as much as simply against? theres a difference.

but that dosent mean i think Iraq was the best decision. in fact, i've said this again and again and again and people seem to forget that. I just think that either way Iraq was on the target if we go after terrorists in general and the governments which actively aid them in the way that most middle-east regimes have. including Saddam Hussein.

[lester1/2jr]

fact: I got banned from little green footballs for making that same remark.

[dogchow108]

well, LGB is a strongly conservative site, that can be expected. Hell i've damn near gotten booted off pro-Israel sites myself. Sites with an agenda (good or bad) will always have somewhat of a censorship system.

[Beginner's Mind]

Ok, fair enough, my last post was too generalised and over simplistic, not well thought out (smoking never does much for my self-expression…)

“All of these middle east arabs are connected in their hatred of the super succesfull USA.”

While it’s true that most Middle Eastern countries are against the US, that’s not enough to unite them. There are all kinds of complicated divisions, and very few other Arab countries had much sympathy for Saddam (even Palestine only did because he helped them). He wasn’t exactly a good Muslim… He also was paranoid about anyone else getting power in his region, so did his best to undermine organisations like Al Quaeda. Terrorists are often treacherous (by default, anyone who can justify killing innocents as they do can hardly be regarding as having great morals), and it is no contradiction that he feared that arming them could be as dangerous for himself as any of their outright enemies – even if he was supposed to be supporting them.

And regarding Afghanistan, my mistake, I should have said the Taliban were conquered, not Afghanistan. But if you look at what Afghanis say, there aren’t many who would use the term ‘liberated’ themselves. The Taliban were about as bad as it gets, and the scariest image of extreme Islamic militants yet (fortunately most Muslims consider them at least as abhorrent as the rest of us), but it’s a shame we couldn’t leave the country in a better state, especially given it was the scene of so many political struggles between Russia and the US for so many years, so it’s hard to make it appear as purely a liberation when many Taliban leaders were able to escape to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and Osama Bin Laden in particular still hasn’t been brought to justice.

And it’s not a contradiction to say that the rich look after their own, including the small number of other extremely wealthy people. Not that anyone should be punished for being successful, but in the US the gap between the very rich and the very poor is growing all the time, so it was hardly necessary to make the poor pay more and the rich pay less. What do all your taxes go on anyway – you don’t even have a free health care system?

I know politics is about power (and money and oil are just different manifestations of that). It's just, I'm so naive, that I like to think there are moral and ethical aspects to politics too. Like, everyone looks after their own first, fair enough, you, your family, your town, your state, your country. But don't we also want our leaders to improve living conditions for everyone, to make the world safer, etc? I know this sounds like really naive hippy b*ll****, but it would be nice to think that people felt some kind of brotherhood with the people from other countries. When you travel, and meet people from other places, many of whom are just the same as the people you know from home, and are friendly and funny, and welcome you, don't you want to think that in some small way we use our priviledged positions in the wealthy west to make their lives if not better, at least no worse?

Anyway, what I’d really like to understand, is what Americans and British people feel they have got from the war on Iraq?

“We benefited because we were NEVER attacked on our soil again since 9/11.”

As Saddam wasn’t involved in the terrorist attacks on America, do you feel that the fact you haven’t been attacked since is due to the show of power against him being a warning to others? Or is that incidental, and is it the way that Osama has been punished that you feel has kept the US safe since then? Do you feel that it's ok to attack Saddam, and not Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? (or for that matter, Zimbabwe, Iran, Korea, etc. etc.)

And do you feel that the way that Americans (and British) are viewed even more negatively now outside of the US is an acceptable price to pay – even if it means Americans are in greater danger of being attacked when they leave their country?

[mortal]

Us being veiwed negatively is a small price to pay for the prevention of terrorism. You could thank your left wing media for that.

I could care less what France Gemany and Russia think about us. If it means protecting my life when I go to work at my very civilian job.

We are killing hundreds of terrorist animals in fallujah at this very moment. They can't organize attacks on our soil when we are killing them like little filthy roaches in Iraq. Many of the vermin we are killing harbored terrorist feelings before the war. Now they are fighting us in Iraq. Better them fighting our ass kicking marines in Iraq. Rather than blowing up buildings and civilians here in the US. Or more specifically New York.

By nightfall fallujah will be ours and they will be dead.

[zachsan]

look at the history books. "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and that's true even more so for terrorists. they swear by their radical ideals but they have no problem compromising those ideals if it means more guns, bombs or cash. insane, yes, but pragmatic.

use the previous example of the mafia. rival families were constantly looking for ways to betray each other, but if something stood to make them all rich, it would not be unheard of for them to cooperate.

Terrorists are often treacherous (by default, anyone who can justify killing innocents as they do can hardly be regarding as having great morals)

nailed it.

[zachsan]

Originally posted by mortal
By nightfall fallujah will be ours and they will be dead.

yep, definitely one of those neo-hippies.

[mortal]

loolo

[lester1/2jr]

"They can't organize attacks on our soil when we are killing them like little filthy roaches in Iraq. " did they sign an agreement with us that said we'd only fight there?

[mortal]

They might as well have signed that agreement because that is what they are doing.

Allow me to repeat myself.

There HAS NOT BEEN ANOTHER ATTACK ON US SOIL SINCE 9/11.
That is the bottom line.

Can you deny that we are killing terrorists on a daily basis?