Thread: iraq study group

Should not have invaded in the first place.

Originally Posted by surasak

Should not have invaded in the first place.

Yeah, well, 20/20 hindsight is great, ain't it?
That's par for the course though in the dishonest, ethically-challenged childish babbling that passes for leftist “debate” in this modern age.

We are witnessing a clash of civilizations which has been brewing for 30+ years and was inevitable.
The big player which has yet to be dealt with is Iran. Iran is due for a spanking.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

The big player which has yet to be dealt with is Iran. Iran is due for a spanking.

And you think the USA is big enough to do it? Don't make me laugh!

Originally Posted by Milkman

1. disbanding the Baath party (civil servants, bureaucrats like mailmen, and cops).

Do you remember part of the reason Patton was fired ? He saw no reason not to leave the Nazis in similar positions.

Originally Posted by gulfcoast

It's all such a bloody conundrum...so frustrating.

Iraqis killing Iraqis is a frustrating thing.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by surasak

Should not have invaded in the first place.

Yeah, well, 20/20 hindsight is great, ain't it?

my guess is that you don't realize it, but you've just admitted that you agree the invasion was a mistake.

and for some of us, there's no 'hindsight' about it. we knew all along it was wrong headed....both in a moral and pragmatic sense.


and as far as earl puffing his chest up about iran....why can't he learn from his short sighted war mongering on iraq....or is that he doesn't have to learn because he has no direct connection to anyone who might be killed...iranian or israeli civilian or US military personnel?

Originally Posted by surasak

Should not have invaded in the first place.

I take comfort in knowing though that you at least support assassination teams (which are illegal) ... and you probably wouldn't have really minded if we would have just bombed the fuck out of them without putting any troops on the ground.

Alas, I still believe it was the right thing to do. But I will admit the after invasion planning could have been much better.

And it was a 'strategic' move above all, as a stepping stone to further US dominance in the ME.

Originally Posted by Milkman

The Nazis are a different story than the Baath party, as is WWII and the holocaust.

sk just doesn't 'understand' the true threat of terrorism and still has a pre 9/11 mentality.

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

If the USA invaded Iraq because of WMD, why Iraq, why not N. Korea, Pakistan, or, India? A much better case could be made for invading them.

If the USA invaded Iraq because of a nasty dictator, why Iraq, why not Zimbabwe, N. Korea, Sudan or Myanmar?

If the USA invaded Iraq to impose democracy, why Iraq, why not N. Korea, Myanmar, or, most of the Central Asian countries?

Why? Oil. American soldiers are losing their lives so that other Americans can still drive those big gas-guzzling SUVs. That's the reality.

steady on Sir Bur.
I didn't realise that flawless logic was allowed in here.

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

Why? Oil. American soldiers are losing their lives so that other Americans can still drive those big gas-guzzling SUVs. That's the reality.

And also because Saddam tried to kill his daddy

and also because the US was kicked out of SA, they needed a new base in the ME

That's why I don't believe a minute the US will leave Iraq anytime soon.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by surasak

Should not have invaded in the first place.

I take comfort in knowing though that you at least support assassination teams (which are illegal) ... and you probably wouldn't have really minded if we would have just bombed the fuck out of them without putting any troops on the ground.

Given the choice of two evils it should be clear which one would be the one chosen: a full scale invasion with little to no hope of success, or, a carefully selected assassination of bin Laden (don't think you're going to shoehorn me here on the assassination/torture issue). I don't think there is any justification whatsoever for what we've done in Iraq (especially since the mess is completely our fault). There was no threat. I supported the original Gulf War with no precondition; I supported this one initially with reservations due to the fact that every other agency involved with weapons inspections told the truth: there were no banned weapons, there was no threat, Saddam was not in possession of nuclear weapons.

Assassination of bin Laden? Or a full scale war? A no brainer which is the lesser of two evils (and in reality putting bin Laden on trial would show the world that we are indeed civilized people).

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

If the USA invaded Iraq because of WMD, why Iraq, why not N. Korea, Pakistan, or, India? A much better case could be made for invading them.

If the USA invaded Iraq because of a nasty dictator, why Iraq, why not Zimbabwe, N. Korea, Sudan or Myanmar?

If the USA invaded Iraq to impose democracy, why Iraq, why not N. Korea, Myanmar, or, most of the Central Asian countries?

Why? Oil. American soldiers are losing their lives so that other Americans can still drive those big gas-guzzling SUVs. That's the reality.

Someone else who gets it. Bravo.

Originally Posted by stroller

And it was a 'strategic' move above all, as a stepping stone to further US dominance in the ME.

As usual, our illustrious Headmaster sums up the argument with perfect logic and reason.

Thank you.

And I am sure you've come across the plan outlined by the PNAC before

Originally Posted by stroller

And it was a 'strategic' move above all, as a stepping stone to further US dominance in the ME.

WESTERN dominance ...

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by stroller

And it was a 'strategic' move above all, as a stepping stone to further US dominance in the ME.

WESTERN dominance ...

AMERICAN dominance.

Surasak ... it's starting to appear to me that it's the method you have a problem with ... not really the goal. I think you and I ae actually closer to being in agreement than we might realize.

Sir Burr ... that's just plain kindergarten logic pal.

Originally Posted by Milkman

AMERICAN dominance.

Oh no ... we're perfectly willing to share the spoils with the Aussies, Britards, JNs and others ...

I think you're letting yourself get fooled by the limey rhetoric.

^ Unilateralism.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Sir Burr ... that's just plain kindergarten logic pal.

Sorry SK, which post of mine are you refering to?
If it's the one which asks the reason why Iraq was invaded, then, I don't see why you think the logic is faulty?

N. Korea, as has been shown by their nuclear test has nuclear capability. They must have been working on this for many years. They also have cheated, why no invasion? Because the casualties would have been too high and the US knew that China would not tolerate an invasion, even though Dear Leader is clearly nuttier than Saddam ever was.

Admittedly, India was never a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation pact, but when they went nuclear, they got a pat on the back from GWB. This is why countries like Iran think the US is hypocritical and has double standards.

Pakistan, a nation that could in the forseeable future have a fundamentalist muslim theocracy as a government has nuclear weapons too and has consistently lied about their nuclear efforts and has exported nuclear technology to pariah states such as Libya just got a slap on the wrist ie. they didn't get the F-16s they ordered.

The perceived double standards in US foreign policy is one of the root causes of problems in the ME.

If the US had spent half the time and money it has used in Iraq to resolve the Israeli - Palestinian problem, knocked heads together and be seen as a fair and impartial mediator, this would have done far more to reduce terrorism than anything else.
The Israeli - Palestinian problem is the root cause of most of the problems in the ME today.

Western?

Definately American dominance.