Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
10 years after the illegal invasion and rape of Irak by USA
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Naib
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5279
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wildhorse wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
First of all, the UN has no legal authority other than that agreed to by treaties bla bla bla
Exactly what President Ahmadinedschad says.
is that the new Goodwin?
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1605
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 2:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wildhorse wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
First of all, the UN has no legal authority other than that agreed to by treaties bla bla bla
Exactly what President Ahmadinedschad says.

He's right about that. However, Iran is a ratifying signatory of the NPT.
_________________
patrix_neo wrote:
The human thought: I cannot win.
The ratbrain in me : I can only go forward and that's it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Navar
Guru
Guru


Joined: 20 Aug 2012
Posts: 353

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darth Marley wrote:
When did the US drop the gold standard? What "dollar bubble" in history do you mean?


Hm, strange comment. Oh, you're serious?

Ok, which one do you want? I'll go back a ways for a cursory review...
--
1913, will be sufficient. Federal Reserve Act. Kind of a big deal the progressives rammed down our throats. Private cartel of banks finally getting their central bank interest in the US with no oversight from Congress. They had been trying to make that happen for years. Forefathers warned repeatedly against establishing such when our nation was formed. Federal Reserve was at least limited by law to have a percentage of gold backing monetary policy, for now. It's kinda like those income taxes I mention later, they start out small and ambigious to keep the public at large oblivious until it's too late.

US still trying to recover from economic panic after turn of century and unaffordable costs of WWI. Come to think of it, there really hasn't been a war we've literally been able to financially afford. Later US does not make fair effort in repayment of War Bond commitments to citzens, including extending into the 1930s after 1934 (that'll be important). The robber barons of Morgans, Rothschilds and Rockefellers continue to make a killing. JP and the Rothschilds in particular have big ongoing plans for US banks.

[ insert a lot of things eerily similiar to 1995-2008 as history repeats, cheap money, housing boom, over speculation, margin call creation by large investment banks... and keep telling yourself this never occured in Europe (yeah, it was imaginary in the late 90s...) ]

1931, Commercial banks converting Fed notes to gold causing panic in dollar. NY Fed loan to Central European banks caused additional contraction in money supply. Loans became questionable as Europe goes off gold standard. The 'European banking crisis' soon became our ongoing crisis.

Smoot-Hawley Tariff and Davis-Bacon Act. That'll fix em! Not.

US Income tax levied during massive social program spending. Easy to pass with so many unemployed. Largest pyramid scheme on planet is created, Social Security, which becomes more abusively revamped in years to come. Both highly questionable items but the entire government is under one party majority passing without issue. The only thing to fear... is... the government. They're here to save you. Just like... 2008!

Federal reserve raises interest rates trying to increase dollar demand.

1934, Congress passes Gold Reserve Act. Dollar devalued by over 40%.

The few crazy rich have suddenly become obscenely richer.

1937, Fort Knox becomes bullion depository.

John Maynard Keynes, once against gold standard now wanted to let the good ol' privately owned powerful Bank of England have the power to print money. Great idea!

1944, Bretton Woods Agreement, IMF established. Post WWII gold exchange standard. All currencies essentially pegged to dollar for fixed value in gold by US promise of $35/ounce.

1971, What a great year. West Germany ditched Bretton Woods first, then a number of other Europeans left... but the biggie was...

France, being the peaceful nation it always claims to be (let's just ignore that 100 years thing, Napoleon and so on), is not 'enjoying' its ongoing war in Vietnam, shows us honors of our pre-existing friendship by dumping US dollar reserves for gold back from US. Thereby hurting our overall economic influence coupled with over expenditures for the stupidity as policeman of the Vietnam War in our building post Korean cold war debt that we could not afford. This was never talked about much.

1971, President Nixon creates the "Nixon Shock" of ending direct convertibility of the dollar to gold. to 'protect' further devaluation of the dollar and officially turning into a fiat currency. Yay? If you need a tried and true example of no longer on the gold standard whatsoever, feel free to look that one up, Economic Stabilization (sic) Act of 1970. Nixon did this without consulting the IMF, so naturally if you were a non US currency counting on the Bretton Woods Agreement, you'd freak a little too. But never fear, Nixon will open the doors to trade relations with communist China. This will help us greatly in the coming years. :P And when that's not enough, he expands the reach and cost in a major overhaul of Social Security. 1971, lowest birthrate in that century for US. The start of dual income households to make ends meet.

We later get to enjoy years of sky high inflation with debt that is made to magically disappear come Reagan year and Mr. Greenspan as longterm Fed replacement. Creative accounting 101 begins. Watch as I magically lower interest rates and make no one desire to buy treasury bonds. This was the start of us no longer being a savers oriented economy and switched to debt, credit cards and all. The top tax rate was also greatly lowered. The very rich were extremely happy. US manufacturing erodes.


So, these are just facts with a touch of embellishment, pick one. They all apply in some form. Some more abundantly obvious than others. Nor is the US the only player (not even close) in this globalized banking scheme. We didn't invent it and we tried, for a good while, to resist it.

energyman76b wrote:
America entered WWI because of economic interest and got pulled into WW2 because its president really wanted to.


You have that backwards, if even that. If you want to argue WWII american war supplies machine (for financial gain) because allied powers practically begged us to, then go ahead. We didn't want war, but we were economically distraught and this meant jobs and food on the table. I'm sure a person from Germany if anywhere can comprehend those extremes in their history. If you want to fault us for having the least manufacturing base destroyed that was heavily built up in support of the war to help rebuild you after the war, go ahead. And then there's the old speculative statements that we knew an attack on Pearl Harbor was coming (and even if that were true, so what? The only real argument remains that the public had to be convinced on that speculation). It wasn't like we weren't backing China and the allies with embargos of needed steel and oil to conquesting Japan (who considered that a declaration of war). And why is someone from Germany arguing financial aspects of WWII?

WWI was as non-interventionalist as it gets, president Wilson even worked out an agreement with Germany after a major passenger ship had been targeted when we weren't trying to get all parties to come to peaceful terms. We didn't have the financing to even attempt involvement the country was in a tough situation economically. It wasn't until Germany opted to help finance Mexico invading to reclaiming some southern US territories that it finally became fighting words for all.
_________________
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darth Marley
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 107

PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Navar wrote:
Darth Marley wrote:
When did the US drop the gold standard? What "dollar bubble" in history do you mean?


Hm, strange comment. Oh, you're serious?



Actually, no, it wasn't a serious question, but an exercise for energyman.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 763
Location: EU

PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:

It's not that it wasn't "thought through"; it's that war is chaotic by nature, and it never goes as planned.


I assume you aren't the person to originally pen such a statement? If the admin was aware of this, surely it should have been taken into account.

Quote:

In order to sell it, the Bush Administration, along with exaggerating the WMD threat and not communicating its real strategic reasons for going in, painted an exceedingly optimistic picture in terms of costs. This also drove them to send as few troops as they could get away with using, which is what led to the extended period of pacification (which was foolishly aborted by Obama just as it was finally solidifying).


Hmm. that's sounds bad. Surely that's a crime of some kind?

Quote:

By the way, Britain and Germany both deserve part of the blame for the war, with respect to the intelligence picture.


sure. but germany and france had the idea of not invading a sovereign nation before the evidence was solid.

Quote:

It's entirely possible that, had Bush not done it, analysts 20 years from now might have been blaming him for not nipping the Ba'ath movement in the bud before it became four times the size of any army on Earth and wreaked all kinds of havoc, destroyed Israel, seized all the Mid-East oil, seized the Balkans, started a century-long war with Europe, etc., etc.


ifs ands and buts. Perhaps you should invade Canada, just in case?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1605
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 1:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
It's not that it wasn't "thought through"; it's that war is chaotic by nature, and it never goes as planned.


I assume you aren't the person to originally pen such a statement? If the admin was aware of this, surely it should have been taken into account.

All I can say, from a purely military perspective, is that I would have sent twice as many men. That's not hindshight, either, I was saying it at the time. A President isn't just thinking militarily, though. He has to think about costs, political consequences, the possibility of other wars popping up and not being able to respond, etc., etc. I think the Bush Administration tried to do it efficiently, didn't foresee the sectarian civil war, and wasn't in a position politically or economically to deal with it. They managed to anyway, though, despite Democrats' best efforts to turn the war into a failure.

Now, Democrats have mis-managed the withdrawal of our forces, doing it suddenly, publicly, and according to a schedule, as opposed to conditions. They may well have undone some of what was achieved (the goal of leaving Iraq a democratic government). They are trying to distract everybody from realizing this, by dredging back up everything that once went wrong before, during, and after the war (except that one thing which is the proximate cause of current deterioration: their mismanagement of the withdrawal).

juniper wrote:
Quote:
It's entirely possible that, had Bush not done it, analysts 20 years from now might have been blaming him for not nipping the Ba'ath movement in the bud before it became four times the size of any army on Earth and wreaked all kinds of havoc, destroyed Israel, seized all the Mid-East oil, seized the Balkans, started a century-long war with Europe, etc., etc.

ifs ands and buts. Perhaps you should invade Canada, just in case?

Strawman. I think I discussed this concept of preemptive warfare in far greater detail than you represent above. Surely you understand that we don't believe Canada to be putting together a vast military alliance aimed at ending Western economic and military dominance, destroying Israel, seizing the World by it's energy supply balls, and essentially crushing Western civilization as we know it.

I think you are intelligent enough to understand that there is more to decision-making under uncertainty and strategic planning that "ifs ands buts [sic]" to be dismissed with a hand-wave. Or maybe not.

Remember, we're talking about a regime that had already moved on our energy supply once, had attacked Israel (multiple times), had made liberal use of nerve and blister agents, had perpetrated recent acts of terrorism, was the acknowledged leader of the Ba'ath Party, had egregiously violated its cease-fire agreement with us and was actively re-arming, and toward whom our established national security strategy (established by Clinton) was regime change. There's no "ifs ands buts [sic]" about it; it's more just a matter of "when" and "by what means" and of "how many good guys will have to die in the process, to prevent far more from dying eventually at the hands of these assholes".
_________________
patrix_neo wrote:
The human thought: I cannot win.
The ratbrain in me : I can only go forward and that's it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 763
Location: EU

PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:

All I can say, from a purely military perspective, is that I would have sent twice as many men. That's not hindshight, either, I was saying it at the time. A President isn't just thinking militarily, though. He has to think about costs, political consequences, the possibility of other wars popping up and not being able to respond, etc., etc. I think the Bush Administration tried to do it efficiently, didn't foresee the sectarian civil war, and wasn't in a position politically or economically to deal with it. They managed to anyway, though, despite Democrats' best efforts to turn the war into a failure.


they didn't need the democrats help.

But isn't that effective leadership? You take your country down an expensive, politically charged path. Various experts had predicted that the sectarian fallout will be huge and the govt isn't prepared for it, yet nobody in power listened. darth cheney was determined anyway.

Quote:

Now, Democrats have mis-managed the withdrawal of our forces, doing it suddenly, publicly, and according to a schedule, as opposed to conditions. They may well have undone some of what was achieved (the goal of leaving Iraq a democratic government). They are trying to distract everybody from realizing this, by dredging back up everything that once went wrong before, during, and after the war (except that one thing which is the proximate cause of current deterioration: their mismanagement of the withdrawal).


You can't be serious, can you? Pinning this on the democrats. They have messed it up too, but they weren't handed a polished piece of silverware that simply had to be put in the cabinet.

Quote:

Remember, we're talking about a regime that had already moved on our energy supply once, had attacked Israel (multiple times), had made liberal use of nerve and blister agents, had perpetrated recent acts of terrorism, was the acknowledged leader of the Ba'ath Party, had egregiously violated its cease-fire agreement with us and was actively re-arming, and toward whom our established national security strategy (established by Clinton) was regime change. There's no "ifs ands buts [sic]" about it; it's more just a matter of "when" and "by what means" and of "how many good guys will have to die in the process, to prevent far more from dying eventually at the hands of these assholes".


Oh, it's a gross regime, no question. They've done all sorts of hideous shit against their own people, israel, and you forgot to mention iran, with whom they had a decade long war where saddam used chemical weapons.


Last edited by juniper on Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:13 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bigun
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 2088

PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmitchell wrote:
wswartzendruber wrote:
For what it's worth, I thought it was a good idea. I wanted Iraqis to have democratic freedom. I didn't realize two things:

1. They won't respect it until they earn it.
2. I didn't consider the relation to Israel and Iran.

Easily the most offensive post I've read in ages. I can't say if they earned it, but they sure as shit didn't deserve it.


For what it's worth, we, ourselves, are raising a generation of people who are starting to not deserve it.
_________________
"It's ok, they might have guns but we have flowers." - Perpetual Victim
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 763
Location: EU

PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bigun wrote:
dmitchell wrote:
wswartzendruber wrote:
For what it's worth, I thought it was a good idea. I wanted Iraqis to have democratic freedom. I didn't realize two things:

1. They won't respect it until they earn it.
2. I didn't consider the relation to Israel and Iran.

Easily the most offensive post I've read in ages. I can't say if they earned it, but they sure as shit didn't deserve it.


For what it's worth, we, ourselves, are raising a generation of people who are starting to not deserve it.


I think by "deserve it" he meant all the shit afterwards.

Democracy is a strange thing, especially when you are not used to it. Look at Russia. They are back to their authoritarian ways, and they all enjoyed a few years of democracy. People will trade a nice economy for freedom. The problem is that the money will run it, and shit will hit the fan there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zenlunatic
Guru
Guru


Joined: 09 Apr 2003
Posts: 312

PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I hope the people don't buy the WMD story again. Seems like that's likely a card to be played against Iran. I could go on and on, but I really think this country is just fucked...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1605
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, I agree. There's no such thing as WMDs, nobody has any, and even if they did, they'd never use one on me or anybody I care about. Stuff like that just doesn't happen to me.
_________________
patrix_neo wrote:
The human thought: I cannot win.
The ratbrain in me : I can only go forward and that's it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
antonlacon
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 27 Jun 2004
Posts: 243

PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
juniper wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
It's not that it wasn't "thought through"; it's that war is chaotic by nature, and it never goes as planned.


I assume you aren't the person to originally pen such a statement? If the admin was aware of this, surely it should have been taken into account.

All I can say, from a purely military perspective, is that I would have sent twice as many men. That's not hindshight, either, I was saying it at the time. A President isn't just thinking militarily, though. He has to think about costs, political consequences, the possibility of other wars popping up and not being able to respond, etc., etc. I think the Bush Administration tried to do it efficiently, didn't foresee the sectarian civil war, and wasn't in a position politically or economically to deal with it. They managed to anyway, though, despite Democrats' best efforts to turn the war into a failure.


Their Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, testified to congress it would take hundreds of thousands of soldiers to invade and manage a post-war Iraq. Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz was telling us that the Iraq War would pay for itself, including reconstruction by way of oil revenue.

Both of these statements may have been true, if not for Paul Bremer's move to disband the Iraqi military, and de-Ba'athification strategy. Let's make a ton of unemployed soldiers, remove the pension payments for former soldiers, and not have the manpower to secure the region on their own. Why would that form a guerrilla movement? The de-Ba'athification removed all of the existing government bureaucracy because party membership was a requirement, even if you don't follow any of the ideals. Bremer got into the position because they fired the retired General who was originally in charge, Jay Garner, for not de-Ba'athifying the country according to the administration's wishes, but was more interested in getting the country into the hands of the Iraqis as fast as possible.

The intelligence itself was focused by the administration to only point to the result they wanted. The CIA did not engage the use of alternative theory teams. These are groups of people who are given the same set of data, and told to form a conclusion for comparison to the people that are solely looking for X.

The Ba'ath party itself had already divided itself in two in the 1960s. Why the suspected rise of a pan-Arab union leading to a World War?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1159
Location: Austin, Texas

PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
I think by "deserve it" he meant all the shit afterwards.

Afterward, during, and before. I'm still reeling at wswartzendruber sneering that Iraqis don't "respect freedom" and "haven't earned it" after he was personally involved in making that place into a living hell of nightmare death.
_________________
Your argument is invalid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1605
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

antonlacon wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
juniper wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
It's not that it wasn't "thought through"; it's that war is chaotic by nature, and it never goes as planned.


I assume you aren't the person to originally pen such a statement? If the admin was aware of this, surely it should have been taken into account.

All I can say, from a purely military perspective, is that I would have sent twice as many men. That's not hindshight, either, I was saying it at the time. A President isn't just thinking militarily, though. He has to think about costs, political consequences, the possibility of other wars popping up and not being able to respond, etc., etc. I think the Bush Administration tried to do it efficiently, didn't foresee the sectarian civil war, and wasn't in a position politically or economically to deal with it. They managed to anyway, though, despite Democrats' best efforts to turn the war into a failure.


Their Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, testified to congress it would take hundreds of thousands of soldiers to invade and manage a post-war Iraq. Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz was telling us that the Iraq War would pay for itself, including reconstruction by way of oil revenue.

This shows you the difference between professional military officers and civilians making military decisions. We did have 300,000 troops there at peak, including allies, during the invasion, but we cut that in half for the occupation, and given the decision to de-Ba'athify the government and disband the Army, we needed that entire strength and more to secure the country for restructuring. Note that the generals told it like it is, and the Pentagon civilians said what they needed to (i.e., lied) in order to get the "Go" from Congress.

antonlacon wrote:
Both of these statements may have been true, if not for Paul Bremer's move to disband the Iraqi military, and de-Ba'athification strategy. Let's make a ton of unemployed soldiers, remove the pension payments for former soldiers, and not have the manpower to secure the region on their own. Why would that form a guerrilla movement? The de-Ba'athification removed all of the existing government bureaucracy because party membership was a requirement, even if you don't follow any of the ideals. Bremer got into the position because they fired the retired General who was originally in charge, Jay Garner, for not de-Ba'athifying the country according to the administration's wishes, but was more interested in getting the country into the hands of the Iraqis as fast as possible.

Exactly. You hit it right on the head. The most brilliant occupation and post-war transformation of any country I've ever read about in history was that of Japan after World War II. It was personally managed by General Douglas McArthur. Civilians need to stay the fuck away from making military decisions. They all grew up being told soliders are dumb and military matters are trivial, but they don't have any idea of the multidisciplinary complexities and don't know what they're doing.

Patton ran into similar problems in post-war Germany, when he wanted to allow former Nazis to work government, police, and military positions and was flatly told "no". Debathification was indeed a necessary goal (it really was central to the actual reason we invaded, I think), but it could have been carried out later and gradually.

antonlacon wrote:
The intelligence itself was focused by the administration to only point to the result they wanted. The CIA did not engage the use of alternative theory teams. These are groups of people who are given the same set of data, and told to form a conclusion for comparison to the people that are solely looking for X.

There's no doubt the White House performed a sales pitch for the war. The intelligence was real, but was not treated with the appropriate degree of skepticism. The real reasons for the war made it more of a preemptive act, rather than obvious self-defense, so they focused on the WMDs. They should have told the truth to Congress, in classified sessions if necessary, and abided by the decision of Congress one way or the other.

antonlacon wrote:
The Ba'ath party itself had already divided itself in two in the 1960s. Why the suspected rise of a pan-Arab union leading to a World War?

In short, while the possibility of a unified Arab or Muslim force is not great, the consequences of allowing one to emerge would be so devastating that everything must be done to prevent it. Also, there were signs of cooperation among various parties. The Ba'ath Party was just one of several potential centers of mass for such a conglomeration, but smashing it proved a point.
_________________
patrix_neo wrote:
The human thought: I cannot win.
The ratbrain in me : I can only go forward and that's it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 763
Location: EU

PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmitchell wrote:
juniper wrote:
I think by "deserve it" he meant all the shit afterwards.

Afterward, during, and before. I'm still reeling at wswartzendruber sneering that Iraqis don't "respect freedom" and "haven't earned it" after he was personally involved in making that place into a living hell of nightmare death.


BK made the best, albeit somewhat downplayed, point. War is ugly. War never goes as planned. We have seen time and time again that old rivalries crop up after the dust settles, wars last longer than planned etc etc.

To me, that is a good argument to abstain unless there is a pressing reason to do something. That's easy to say from my couch, but it did look like america was looking for a fight in 2003.


Last edited by juniper on Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:21 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 763
Location: EU

PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
Yeah, I agree. There's no such thing as WMDs, nobody has any, and even if they did, they'd never use one on me or anybody I care about. Stuff like that just doesn't happen to me.


And thus we have a major casualty of the iraq invasion. American credibility is shot, the american people's appetite for war gone, and Iran's propaganda machine to arm in the face of american aggression in full force. All these things are a result of the lies, the hubris, and the "unseen consequences" of the invasion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1605
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
Yeah, I agree. There's no such thing as WMDs, nobody has any, and even if they did, they'd never use one on me or anybody I care about. Stuff like that just doesn't happen to me.


And thus we have a major casualty of the iraq invasion. American credibility is shot, the american people's appetite for war gone, and Iran's propaganda machine to arm in the face of american aggression in full force. All these things are a result of the lies, the hubris, and the "unseen consequences" of the invasion.

I agree. And, we can't really claim anything was gained, because that is the nature of preemptive action: it becomes a road not travelled.

Also, it contributed to the financial collapse by causing a perception of regional instability and risk to the oil supply (which was silly, really, because Iraq's oil sales were already constrained by sanctions, but perception is reality). It also became a major distraction from the "Global War on Terror".

Nevertheless, the real fuck-up is the Obama administration (Hillary, most specifically) failing to maintain the stability of the new bi-sectarian state, and pulling out our troops too suddenly and publicly, inviting renewed use of force by the still-bloody contenders for dominant status.
_________________
patrix_neo wrote:
The human thought: I cannot win.
The ratbrain in me : I can only go forward and that's it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum