NationStates Jolt Archive

Saddam Hussein was a secular, dictator that brought stability and security to Iraq. As well as an ally of sorts to the US against Iran and Islamic radicals.

The US removes and kills him. In process billions upon billions of dollars were spent, almost 4,000 coalition forces and upwards of a million Iraqis killed. There is now chaos and daily life for Iraqis is much harder than under Saddam.

We were told, all this is worth it because Iraq will be a democracy and were liberated from a tyrant.

Now, the administration admits to not being as concerned in democracy in Iraq as they were the beginning, claiming "its for the Iraqis to choose" Translate the bullshit and what they are basically saying is they want a secular dictator that will bring stability and security to Iraq. As well as an ally of sorts to the US against Iran and Islamic radicals.

It seems we could have cut out the middle part where lots of people died and money was wasted.
Is this a fair sum up for what has gone on here? If not, please war defenders, defend away.

I think a semi-tolerable secular dictator was the best we could hope for once the attempt to bring order after the invasion began, if you can even call it that. We didn't have enough troops to be able to effectively police the Iraqis, and we disbanded the one force that would have had a hope and a prayer to pull it off themselves.

George Bush and his administration put ideology in front of reality in beginning and carrying out this war. They made the same mistake that countless others had made in the past: The belief that they had stumbled upon an idea that no one had in the past, and that it was a great idea.

Saddam Hussein was a secular, dictator that brought stability and security to Iraq. As well as an ally of sorts to the US against Iran and Islamic radicals.

The US removes and kills him. In process billions upon billions of dollars were spent, almost 4,000 coalition forces and upwards of a million Iraqis killed. There is now chaos and daily life for Iraqis is much harder than under Saddam.

We were told, all this is worth it because Iraq will be a democracy and were liberated from a tyrant.

Now, the administration admits to not being as concerned in democracy in Iraq as they were the beginning, claiming "its for the Iraqis to choose" Translate the bullshit and what they are basically saying is they want a secular dictator that will bring stability and security to Iraq. As well as an ally of sorts to the US against Iran and Islamic radicals.

It seems we could have cut out the middle part where lots of people died and money was wasted.
Is this a fair sum up for what has gone on here? If not, please war defenders, defend away.

I agree more or less. Though I still say Saddam wasn't the best candidate due to his killey tendencies. Now they could select a dictator who is slightly less insane.

Click Stand;13000407']I agree more or less. Though I still say Saddam wasn't the best candidate due to his killey tendencies. Now they could select a dictator who is slightly less insane.

You took the words right out of my mouth. :eek: Are you stealing my thoughts from an alien spy satellite? /me runs to find her tinfoil hat

Translate the bullshit and what they are basically saying is they want a secular dictator that will bring stability and security to Iraq. As well as an ally of sorts to the US against Iran and Islamic radicals.[/B]



well maybe it will be a secular dictator who will support us, I mean thats probably why the bush administration started the war in the first place. And soviestan is a mad tease.

The American say they want the Iraqis to choose, but if they choose;

A religious fundamentalist.

A war mongering religious fundamentalist.

A war mongering religious fundamentalist with no knowledge of the middle east.

A war mongering religious fundamentalist with no knowledge of the middle east, who disrespects and alienates the international community.

A war mongering religious fundamentalist with no knowledge of the middle east, who disrespects and alienates the international community. And who is mentally deficient to do the job he has been elected to do.

A war mongering religious fundamentalist with no knowledge of the middle east, who disrespects and alienates the international community. And who is mentally deficient to do the job he has been elected to do. And was only elected because his father was president before him.

A war mongering religious fundamentalist with no knowledge of the middle east, who disrespects and alienates the international community. And who is mentally deficient to do the job he has been elected to do. And was only elected because his father was president before him. And is bankrolled by large oil corporation that might represent a conflict of interest with him running an oil rich country.


Just a thought. :rolleyes:

The American say they want the Iraqis to choose, but if they choose;

A religious fundamentalist.

A war mongering religious fundamentalist.

A war mongering religious fundamentalist with no knowledge of the middle east.

A war mongering religious fundamentalist with no knowledge of the middle east, who disrespects and alienates the international community.

A war mongering religious fundamentalist with no knowledge of the middle east, who disrespects and alienates the international community. And who is metal deficient to do the job he has been elected to do.

A war mongering religious fundamentalist with no knowledge of the middle east, who disrespects and alienates the international community. And who is metal deficient to do the job he has been elected to do. And was only elected because his father was president before him.

A war mongering religious fundamentalist with no knowledge of the middle east, who disrespects and alienates the international community. And who is metal deficient to do the job he has been elected to do. And was only elected because his father was president before him. And is bankrolled by large oil corporation that might represent a conflict of interest with him running an oil rich country.


We all know how bad those metal deficiencies get. Especially Iron.

We all know how bad those metal deficiencies get. Especially Iron.

I think he means that they don't have enough metal *plays heavy metal song on guitar*

yes you have it about right.

remember that speech by dick cheney from '94 that has been in the news lately?

it has always been obvious that removing hussein without having a replacement ready to drop into place was a very bad idea. for reasons that are very obvious today. it seems that they were obvious since '94 at least, eh?

its my understanding that one of the reasons that bush1 didnt invade iraq was because he was hoping that if he left him in place and humiliated he would be assassinated by his own party. then the party would continue in power under a new leader and things could go back to "normal"

the assassination didnt materialize.

the second use for hussein was as a whipping boy. all US officials could seem strong by kicking him around a bit. clinton did it. the various senators trying to look tough did it. when bush2 started acting tough about iraq, it was not an unreasonable assumption on the part of congress that he too was just doing it to look tough. so they joined in by authorizing the war they never really expected.

oops.

no we were never interested in democracy in iraq. that was just a lie the adminstration jumped to when it became clear that there were no WMD. now that democracy is out of the question we pretend that we never told that lie. i wonder what the next lie will be.

Now, the administration admits to not being as concerned in democracy in Iraq as they were the beginning, claiming "its for the Iraqis to choose"

So is true of all democracies. I am not a Bush fan but goddam the media is really unfair to him.

Well I think Iraq was also saber rattling towards Israel, and Bush got his bunched up undies even more bunched up.

The whole Iraq situation is a massive scar on any reason, compassion or responsibility the governments* of the western world ever claimed to have. It's a mess, and there is almost no way out in sight. If this is anything to go by when debating the aspects of democracy**, then Iraq was better off without it.

*participant governments.
** democracy in relation to the actions of responsible governments.

i wonder what the next lie will be.

"We were never in Iraq. We were never at war with the Iraqis. We were always in Iran. We were always at war with the Iranians."

Dur.

Of course the sad part is that I fully expect the usual lot of ignorant Americans, sycophants and fascists to eat it all up. They haven't proven me wrong so far.

"We were never in Iraq. We were never at war with the Iraqis. We were always in Iran. We were always at war with the Iranians."

Dur.

Of course the sad part is that I fully expect the usual lot of ignorant Americans, sycophants and fascists to eat it all up. They haven't proven me wrong so far.

o

of course youre right

o

We all know how bad those metal deficiencies get. Especially Iron.

Damn you spellcheck!
At least it not as bad as that essay I wrote on Beast feeding.

Click Stand;13000407']I agree more or less. Though I still say Saddam wasn't the best candidate due to his killey tendencies. Now they could select a dictator who is slightly less insane.
I have to disagree, a benign dictator like a monarch or whatever would just not be good enough at keeping the Kurds and Shias down, Iraq never had much of a national identity to begin with.

The American say they want the Iraqis to choose, but if they choose;

A religious fundamentalist.

A war mongering religious fundamentalist.

A war mongering religious fundamentalist with no knowledge of the middle east.

A war mongering religious fundamentalist with no knowledge of the middle east, who disrespects and alienates the international community.

A war mongering religious fundamentalist with no knowledge of the middle east, who disrespects and alienates the international community. And who is mentally deficient to do the job he has been elected to do.

A war mongering religious fundamentalist with no knowledge of the middle east, who disrespects and alienates the international community. And who is mentally deficient to do the job he has been elected to do. And was only elected because his father was president before him.

A war mongering religious fundamentalist with no knowledge of the middle east, who disrespects and alienates the international community. And who is mentally deficient to do the job he has been elected to do. And was only elected because his father was president before him. And is bankrolled by large oil corporation that might represent a conflict of interest with him running an oil rich country.


Just a thought. :rolleyes:Whoa, they might end up choosing just like America apparently "chose" the past two elections! :eek:

Remember, it's "Mission Accomplished" when they finish that deal on the oil. Not when people just parachute onto flight decks of aircraft carriers.

The first Iraq War was a UN-sanctioned thing, whicxh is why it went unresolved. By the second, Iraq had violated every tenet of the treaty that allowed Hussein to remain in power, and got away with it due to the total incompetancy of the Clinton Administration and it's refusal to shoulder trhe responsibilities of being the world's only super-power-or maybe Bill's Chinese contributors didn't want anything done. I note that the charge of no WMDs didn't stop the criticism from the New York Times that WMDs were smuggled into Syria as US troops took Baghdad. Of course, Hussein was training terrorists to seize aircraft, Czechoslovakia insists he was funding al-Qaida or making major donations to them in Prague, and he did use WMDs against the Kurds. Of course he must have used them all up on the Kurds, since we haven't found any more.
Most criticism against the War stems from one party in the US positioning itself so any US success is a failure for them and any failure by the US is a success for them. They will grasp at any straw to proclaim this a failure then try to pull out prematurely so it will fail, then blame their political opposition for the failure.

Well both the Republicans and Democrats are guilty of trying to shift the blame for all failures onto the Iraqis themselves, rather than where it should go - themselves. It's like taking to someones legs with a chainsaw and then saying to them 'Come on, run you bastard!'.

golly gee. a thread about Iraq and how the USA made a big mistake about going in. lets all jump on in and give our 2 cents.

golly gee. a thread about Iraq and how the USA made a big mistake about going in. lets all jump on in and give our 2 cents.

2 cents? You sound like a cut-and-runner. Surely you can contribute more than 2 cents.

2 cents? You sound like a cut-and-runner. Surely you can contribute more than 2 cents.

oh i have alot more than 2 cents, but here in NSG it is just a waste to type it all out. much like trying to teach a mute to talk

oh i have alot more than 2 cents, but here in NSG it is just a waste to type it all out. much like trying to teach a mute to talk

Yeah, but why else hang around? The links and/or smilies are the only real substance besides.
:p

When Bush was "elected" I thought that Iraq was GUARANTEED to improve if Saddam was overthrown.

Obviously, I was wrong.

When Bush was "elected" I thought that Iraq was GUARANTEED to improve if Saddam was overthrown.

Obviously, I was wrong.

You weren't wrong, persay, it's just that we outsourced our credibility right around the same time Bush was "elected" ... and it just got worse and worse, as in, all the "guaranteeing" responsibility also got outsourced.

I think a semi-tolerable secular dictator was the best we could hope for once the attempt to bring order after the invasion began, if you can even call it that. We didn't have enough troops to be able to effectively police the Iraqis, and we disbanded the one force that would have had a hope and a prayer to pull it off themselves.

George Bush and his administration put ideology in front of reality in beginning and carrying out this war. They made the same mistake that countless others had made in the past: The belief that they had stumbled upon an idea that no one had in the past, and that it was a great idea.

wasn't that Saddam Hussein?

It's like taking to someones legs with a chainsaw and then saying to them 'Come on, run you bastard!'.

"Its only a flesh wound!"

The first Iraq War was a UN-sanctioned thing, whicxh is why it went unresolved. By the second, Iraq had violated every tenet of the treaty that allowed Hussein to remain in power, and got away with it due to the total incompetancy of the Clinton Administration and it's refusal to shoulder trhe responsibilities of being the world's only super-power-or maybe Bill's Chinese contributors didn't want anything done. I note that the charge of no WMDs didn't stop the criticism from the New York Times that WMDs were smuggled into Syria as US troops took Baghdad. Of course, Hussein was training terrorists to seize aircraft, Czechoslovakia insists he was funding al-Qaida or making major donations to them in Prague, and he did use WMDs against the Kurds. Of course he must have used them all up on the Kurds, since we haven't found any more.
Most criticism against the War stems from one party in the US positioning itself so any US success is a failure for them and any failure by the US is a success for them. They will grasp at any straw to proclaim this a failure then try to pull out prematurely so it will fail, then blame their political opposition for the failure.

*yawns*

"We were never in Iraq. We were never at war with the Iraqis. We were always in Iran. We were always at war with the Iranians."


Sure it wasn't East Asia/Eurasia?

Oh the timeless parallels!