Options

Study: False statements preceded war

13

Posts

  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited January 2008
    Irond Will wrote: »
    This trivializes the fact that the "ramifications" you're talking about are generally much longer-term and less overt than "a palpable threat". It also kind of raises the question, though, of why no nation has used a nuclear weapon since Nagasaki. Nations holding nukes have been in wars many times, but no one has ever used them - even little ones. The nonmilitary disincentives are just too significant.

    Which nation that possesses nukes are you thinking might have used one? I mean, I'm entirely incapable of coming up with a single instance of where that would have been a good idea for anyone even completely ignoring political ramifications and global outcry. Like, would France have nuked us for pissing them off with that "freedom fries" thing if not for UN pressure?
    Soft power is something that, I think, some strains of conservatism and especially Bush have been willfully ignorant of.

    Oh, I agree entirely.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    Safety StickSafety Stick Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hmm. Possibly not. I think the shear destructive power of a single weapon terrifies people. Consider the reaction to photos of Nagasaki, when Tokyo, a larger city was wiped just as clean by large formations of bombers with incendiary weapons.

    Its a psychological threshold that even large conventional weapons don't seem to cross.

    Safety Stick on
    5075110276_cc4230e361.jpg
    My other sig sucks as well...
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    This trivializes the fact that the "ramifications" you're talking about are generally much longer-term and less overt than "a palpable threat". It also kind of raises the question, though, of why no nation has used a nuclear weapon since Nagasaki. Nations holding nukes have been in wars many times, but no one has ever used them - even little ones. The nonmilitary disincentives are just too significant.

    Which nation that possesses nukes are you thinking might have used one? I mean, I'm entirely incapable of coming up with a single instance of where that would have been a good idea for anyone even completely ignoring political ramifications and global outcry. Like, would France have nuked us for pissing them off with that "freedom fries" thing if not for UN pressure?

    England fought Venezuela; the Soviet Union fought like all takers in Eastern Europe and Afghanistan. China fought in Tibet. We fought in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. India and Pakistan are always kinda fighting. France... well has France actually fought anywhere since WWII?

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    ApostateApostate Prince SpaceRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Gorak wrote: »
    Apostate wrote: »
    Exactly, because nobody ever did any of that before America got involved in Iraq. The world was a perfectly just place, everyone abided by all UN laws, no one every got out of line, and everbody gave reach arounds.

    Some of you need to step back and get some historical perspective.

    The problem isn't so much what America is doing. The problem is that America claims that it's own actions are justified and necessary whilst simultaneously castigating other nations for doing the same thing.

    It's the doctrine of American exceptionalism whereby American interests are presumed to supercede international law that pisses people off the most.

    Castigating who precisely? If another liberal democracy, providing they are willing to bear the cost in blood and treasure, wants to overthrow a despotic regime and free it's people, then more power to them.

    But last I checked no one else was doing that.

    Apostate on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Algeria?

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited January 2008
    Apostate wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    Apostate wrote: »
    Exactly, because nobody ever did any of that before America got involved in Iraq. The world was a perfectly just place, everyone abided by all UN laws, no one every got out of line, and everbody gave reach arounds.

    Some of you need to step back and get some historical perspective.

    The problem isn't so much what America is doing. The problem is that America claims that it's own actions are justified and necessary whilst simultaneously castigating other nations for doing the same thing.

    It's the doctrine of American exceptionalism whereby American interests are presumed to supercede international law that pisses people off the most.

    Castigating who precisely? If another liberal democracy, providing they are willing to bear the cost in blood and treasure, wants to overthrow a despotic regime and free it's people, then more power to them.

    But last I checked no one else was doing that.

    China's been looking to liberate Taiwan from the shackles of their nationalist overlords for some time. The Soviet Union liberated Cuba and most of Eastern Europe from their despotic "leaders" appointed by the West.

    That was pretty cool, huh?

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited January 2008
    Irond Will wrote: »
    England fought Venezuela; the Soviet Union fought like all takers in Eastern Europe and Afghanistan. China fought in Tibet. We fought in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. India and Pakistan are always kinda fighting. France... well has France actually fought anywhere since WWII?

    The USSR wanted to absorb nations as satellite states, not just blow them up, so using a nuke would've been retarded even absent the knowledge that we'd have bombed the shit out of them. China wants to own Tibet, not make it uninhabitable. We were trying to save Korea and Vietnam, and Iraq was next door to our allies.

    A nuke is a weapon you use when you want to just fuck some shit up and basically destroy the land forever. It's not a weapon you use when you have interest in the region, or when you're even remotely close to the region because of fallout. In not a single example you list would nukes make strategic sense.

    The closest example I can think of where a nuking would've even been useful is if, for example, the US or USSR could have safely hit the other without fear of retaliation. In the situation, it wasn't the lack of a strategic imperative that stayed our hands, it was MAD.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Also, France was in Viet Nam before us.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    England fought Venezuela; the Soviet Union fought like all takers in Eastern Europe and Afghanistan. China fought in Tibet. We fought in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. India and Pakistan are always kinda fighting. France... well has France actually fought anywhere since WWII?

    The USSR wanted to absorb nations as satellite states, not just blow them up, so using a nuke would've been retarded even absent the knowledge that we'd have bombed the shit out of them. China wants to own Tibet, not make it uninhabitable. We were trying to save Korea and Vietnam, and Iraq was next door to our allies.

    A nuke is a weapon you use when you want to just fuck some shit up and basically destroy the land forever. It's not a weapon you use when you have interest in the region, or when you're even remotely close to the region because of fallout. In not a single example you list would nukes make strategic sense.

    The closest example I can think of where a nuking would've even been useful is if, for example, the US or USSR could have safely hit the other without fear of retaliation. In the situation, it wasn't the lack of a strategic imperative that stayed our hands, it was MAD.

    We mount tactical nukes on cruise missiles, Jeff. They have modes between "blow the whole world up and make it uninhabitable for millennia" and "do nothing". These are enormously effective compared to, say, cumbersome fuel-air bombs in terms of knocking out enemy emplacements or formations or population centers. Yet we, and everyone else, refuse to actually use them.

    Fallout is just irradiated ash, and isn't necessarily a big problem - especially on tactical yields in places that there isn't a lot of interest in habitation. The reason that we refused to nuke North Korea or North Vietnam or Iraq has basically nothing to do with questions of environmental habitability or "too much destruction".

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    ApostateApostate Prince SpaceRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Apostate wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    Apostate wrote: »
    Exactly, because nobody ever did any of that before America got involved in Iraq. The world was a perfectly just place, everyone abided by all UN laws, no one every got out of line, and everbody gave reach arounds.

    Some of you need to step back and get some historical perspective.

    The problem isn't so much what America is doing. The problem is that America claims that it's own actions are justified and necessary whilst simultaneously castigating other nations for doing the same thing.

    It's the doctrine of American exceptionalism whereby American interests are presumed to supercede international law that pisses people off the most.

    Castigating who precisely? If another liberal democracy, providing they are willing to bear the cost in blood and treasure, wants to overthrow a despotic regime and free it's people, then more power to them.

    But last I checked no one else was doing that.


    China's been looking to liberate Taiwan from the shackles of their nationalist overlords for some time. The Soviet Union liberated Cuba and most of Eastern Europe from their despotic "leaders" appointed by the West.

    That was pretty cool, huh?

    China is an authoritarian state and Tawian is a democracy. So unless it was going the other way then no, that doesn't apply.

    And in the Cuba case: replacing one despotic regime with another doesn't cut it either. And as that happened in the past I fail to see how current American policy, which is what the subject is, has anything to with that.

    Apostate on
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited January 2008
    Apostate wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Apostate wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    Apostate wrote: »
    Exactly, because nobody ever did any of that before America got involved in Iraq. The world was a perfectly just place, everyone abided by all UN laws, no one every got out of line, and everbody gave reach arounds.

    Some of you need to step back and get some historical perspective.

    The problem isn't so much what America is doing. The problem is that America claims that it's own actions are justified and necessary whilst simultaneously castigating other nations for doing the same thing.

    It's the doctrine of American exceptionalism whereby American interests are presumed to supercede international law that pisses people off the most.

    Castigating who precisely? If another liberal democracy, providing they are willing to bear the cost in blood and treasure, wants to overthrow a despotic regime and free it's people, then more power to them.

    But last I checked no one else was doing that.


    China's been looking to liberate Taiwan from the shackles of their nationalist overlords for some time. The Soviet Union liberated Cuba and most of Eastern Europe from their despotic "leaders" appointed by the West.

    That was pretty cool, huh?

    China is an authoritarian state and Tawian is a democracy. So unless it was going the other way then no, that doesn't apply.

    And in the Cuba case: replacing one despotic regime with another doesn't cut it either. And as that happened in the past I fail to see how current American policy, which is what the subject is, has anything to with that.

    So let me get this straight. Your position is "from this point in history forward it's cool for any democracy to invade and 'liberate' any country they classify as 'despotic'"

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited January 2008
    Irond Will wrote: »
    We mount tactical nukes on cruise missiles, Jeff. They have modes between "blow the whole world up and make it uninhabitable for millennia" and "do nothing". These are enormously effective compared to, say, cumbersome fuel-air bombs in terms of knocking out enemy emplacements or formations or population centers. Yet we, and everyone else, refuse to actually use them.

    Fallout is just irradiated ash, and isn't necessarily a big problem - especially on tactical yields in places that there isn't a lot of interest in habitation. The reason that we refused to nuke North Korea or North Vietnam or Iraq has basically nothing to do with questions of environmental habitability or "too much destruction".

    We also have cruise missiles that don't have nukes on them, and are extremely effective. And "irradiated ash" is a little nastier than you suggest, and carry on the wind for hundreds of miles. You're talking about using nukes on pretty tiny nations where the fallout would likely carry into adjoining nations. This is not a good thing, especially when the same effects can be realized without any risks by using conventional weapons.

    Though you are doing a good job of how stupid the taboo against nukes is. "Let's not use this weapon because, even though it may be the most useful and, shit, may even cause less harm overall, everyone else thinks it's scary." It's like the freak-out over nuclear power plants. I imagine hippies telling their children to behave or else the fissible atom under the bed will get them.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    peterdevorepeterdevore Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    The idea that nations are going to try to start using nukes when they otherwise wouldn't just because they saw the US do it first is pretty silly. The world doesn't operate on peer pressure.

    Also, bunker-busters are not a gateway drug.

    It isn't called 'peer pressure' it's called 'playing with the big boys'. I know it won't be like an arms race, but surely other countries will be more lenient and interested towards nukes if America will be.

    I agree on the bunker busters not being a gateway drug for America, it's just that it will be an (somewhat invalid) excuse for other countries to invest in nuclear weapons again. When you have a whole planet fearing the terrerists getting nuclear weapons, you do not want that happening.

    peterdevore on
  • Options
    ApostateApostate Prince SpaceRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Apostate wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Apostate wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    Apostate wrote: »
    Exactly, because nobody ever did any of that before America got involved in Iraq. The world was a perfectly just place, everyone abided by all UN laws, no one every got out of line, and everbody gave reach arounds.

    Some of you need to step back and get some historical perspective.

    The problem isn't so much what America is doing. The problem is that America claims that it's own actions are justified and necessary whilst simultaneously castigating other nations for doing the same thing.

    It's the doctrine of American exceptionalism whereby American interests are presumed to supercede international law that pisses people off the most.

    Castigating who precisely? If another liberal democracy, providing they are willing to bear the cost in blood and treasure, wants to overthrow a despotic regime and free it's people, then more power to them.

    But last I checked no one else was doing that.


    China's been looking to liberate Taiwan from the shackles of their nationalist overlords for some time. The Soviet Union liberated Cuba and most of Eastern Europe from their despotic "leaders" appointed by the West.

    That was pretty cool, huh?

    China is an authoritarian state and Tawian is a democracy. So unless it was going the other way then no, that doesn't apply.

    And in the Cuba case: replacing one despotic regime with another doesn't cut it either. And as that happened in the past I fail to see how current American policy, which is what the subject is, has anything to with that.

    So let me get this straight. Your position is "from this point in history forward it's cool for any democracy to invade and 'liberate' any country they classify as 'despotic'"

    Let's not go off the deep end here.

    A country that has no mechanism for the people to change their government, oustide of violent rebellion, is by defintion despotic. That country's UN representatives and the like are not representatives of the people that populate the country. They only represent the will of the despots. So to treat them if they had the same status and legitimacy as democraticly elected nations is ridiculous.

    Does that mean you fire up the tanks and break out the artillery everytime one looks at you crosswise? Certainly not. You weigh the costs as best you can, both to your country and theirs and try to take the best path to help those suffering oppression. This could be as little as just passing out pamphlets and working to liberalize instituitions from within. Other times it could be encouraging or funding resistance forces. And some times you roll out the tanks. Each case is different and there is no one way to do it.

    Iraq was simply a case where the administration came to the conclusion that nothing short of full on military occupation was going to solve the problem. They believed the benefits would outweigh the costs. Whether that's true or not remains to be seen, and is obviously up for debate. However, I don't believe there was any morale issue with the decision to go in.

    Apostate on
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    We mount tactical nukes on cruise missiles, Jeff. They have modes between "blow the whole world up and make it uninhabitable for millennia" and "do nothing". These are enormously effective compared to, say, cumbersome fuel-air bombs in terms of knocking out enemy emplacements or formations or population centers. Yet we, and everyone else, refuse to actually use them.

    Fallout is just irradiated ash, and isn't necessarily a big problem - especially on tactical yields in places that there isn't a lot of interest in habitation. The reason that we refused to nuke North Korea or North Vietnam or Iraq has basically nothing to do with questions of environmental habitability or "too much destruction".

    We also have cruise missiles that don't have nukes on them, and are extremely effective. And "irradiated ash" is a little nastier than you suggest, and carry on the wind for hundreds of miles. You're talking about using nukes on pretty tiny nations where the fallout would likely carry into adjoining nations. This is not a good thing, especially when the same effects can be realized without any risks by using conventional weapons.

    Though you are doing a good job of how stupid the taboo against nukes is. "Let's not use this weapon because, even though it may be the most useful and, shit, may even cause less harm overall, everyone else thinks it's scary." It's like the freak-out over nuclear power plants. I imagine hippies telling their children to behave or else the fissible atom under the bed will get them.

    Fusion weapons have relatively low levels of radioactivity and if we actually had serious qualms about environmental degradation or radioactivity or spewing poison into the air or lingering hazards we wouldn't use or have used spent-uranium rounds or land mines or cluster bombs or agent orange.

    The reason we don't use nukes isn't because of hippie squeamishness. It's because we don't want to start a precedent of the use of nuclear weapons - even itty-bitty ones - in wartime. And even Bush at times has enough lucidity to realize that nuclear "bunker-busters" or tactical nukes set a bad precedent. It's bad enough that we've dropped out of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty (with predictable results from France and Russia among others).

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited January 2008
    Irond Will wrote: »
    The reason we don't use nukes isn't because of hippie squeamishness. It's because we don't want to start a precedent of the use of nuclear weapons - even itty-bitty ones - in wartime. And even Bush at times has enough lucidity to realize that nuclear "bunker-busters" or tactical nukes set a bad precedent. It's bad enough that we've dropped out of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty (with predictable results from France and Russia among others).

    I'm not saying our hand is stayed by hippie squeamishness. I'm saying it's stayed by a lack of compelling strategic argument. Can you give me an example of a situation where, political ramifications aside, we really should have been lobbing tactical nukes at someone instead of whatever conventional weapons we used in their place?

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Apostate wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Apostate wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Apostate wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    Apostate wrote: »

    Iraq was simply a case where the administration came to the conclusion that nothing short of full on military occupation was going to solve the problem. They believed the benefits would outweigh the costs. Whether that's true or not remains to be seen, and is obviously up for debate. However, I don't believe there was any morale issue with the decision to go in.

    Please define what the problem was in Iraq. That Saddam was a dickhead 20 years ago? That he supposedly had WMD (not true) and helped plan/fund/instigate 911 (also not true)? Because that was the spin I remember hearing. and WHOOPS none of it was true.

    What were the benefits? A free and happy Iraq? Or was it the oil? Because I remember when people asked whether the invasion was about oil we got bombarded with "911 911 911 911! You want the tur'rists to win!"

    As for the costs, I remember Rummy saying the war would last a few weeks, a few months, not more then a year. That we were gonna kick Saddam's ass and the Iraqis were going to greet us with flowers afterwards, and everyone was going to get on just fine. Too bad Dick Cheney had to travel back in time and give this interview back when he worked for Pappa Bush to spoil that notion:

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

    And when you say full one military invasion how come we only went in with a sconce more troops then we had gone into Kuwait with? Why were the generals who asked for more fired?

    And can you really honestly say that the "benefits" (which are?) of going into Iraq are outweighing the costs we're seeing now (the economy tanking, a trillion dollar war debt, going from rockstars on the world stage post 911 to fucking despised the world over, Guantanamo, waterboarding, warrant-less wire tapping, the patriot act, blowback, 4000 Americans dead and counting with no end in sight, 600k to 1million dead Iraqis, an administration that refuses to act like any of this is any of their fault)?

    Honestly are you fucking serious?

    No-Quarter on
  • Options
    an_altan_alt Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Interesting article... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml

    Apparently Saddam didn't think the US would attack so he kept up the image of having WMDs to keep Iran from invading.

    an_alt on
    Pony wrote:
    I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
    Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
    If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
  • Options
    jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    It's too bad that these well documented lies won't lead to impeachment.

    We only impeach presidents for harmless lies, apparently.

    Kuchinich tried impeaching Cheney (good man!) but the measure was sent off to the Island of Lost Bills by Pellosi - because she rightly understood that it would make the dems look vindictive in an election year, and would probably blow up in their face. The whole bunch of them are going to walk away from this whole disaster without a scratch.

    Not necessarily. Maybe they'll get away with the war itself, but things could get interesting if and when we have an attorney general who is willing to enforce the already existing torture laws. Any guesses on how high the charges of conspiracy to commit torture could hit?

    jothki on
  • Options
    Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Also, bunker-busters are not a gateway drug.

    Apparently you've never called in an airstrike on target. It's very moreish.

    Not Sarastro on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    The reason we don't use nukes isn't because of hippie squeamishness. It's because we don't want to start a precedent of the use of nuclear weapons - even itty-bitty ones - in wartime. And even Bush at times has enough lucidity to realize that nuclear "bunker-busters" or tactical nukes set a bad precedent. It's bad enough that we've dropped out of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty (with predictable results from France and Russia among others).

    I'm not saying our hand is stayed by hippie squeamishness. I'm saying it's stayed by a lack of compelling strategic argument. Can you give me an example of a situation where, political ramifications aside, we really should have been lobbing tactical nukes at someone instead of whatever conventional weapons we used in their place?

    That didn't stop us from using it on Japan, even after the success of operation starvation.
    Anybody remember the 14 points?
    # The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.
    How things change.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    It's interesting to note that much of America was likely shocked to learn of 18 missing minutes from the Nixon White House tapes. That sort of thing just gets buried in about a thousand other corrupt things in this administration.

    It kind of sucks that we had to start the new millennium with this dark and deep of a black mark.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    Scalfin wrote: »
    That didn't stop us from using it on Japan, even after the success of operation starvation.
    Anybody remember the 14 points?

    Er cough, the success of 'operation starvation' was far from total. The Japanese were well prepared to fight for home using every man, woman and child.

    The number of US casualties alone estimated for the invasion of Japan ran into the mid-hundreds of thousands. The number of Japanese casualties would have been higher. Neat fact: you know the Purple Heart medal awarded for wounds in combat? The ones being awarded today were all printed in preparation for the invasion of Japan. The number of US soldiers wounded and killed in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, every conflict in the 60 years since WW2, has been less than the estimated casualties from the invasion of Japan.

    To top it all off, if they had invaded Japan, a major part of the plan was using tactical nukes on the landing beaches. They understood the weapons so little, that the advice was: "Use nuke, then wait 48 hours before landing troops. As long as they don't drink the water, they'll be fine."

    Rather puts the several hundred thousand killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki into perspective, no?

    Not Sarastro on
  • Options
    ApostateApostate Prince SpaceRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Apostate wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Apostate wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Apostate wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    Apostate wrote: »

    Iraq was simply a case where the administration came to the conclusion that nothing short of full on military occupation was going to solve the problem. They believed the benefits would outweigh the costs. Whether that's true or not remains to be seen, and is obviously up for debate. However, I don't believe there was any morale issue with the decision to go in.

    Please define what the problem was in Iraq. That Saddam was a dickhead 20 years ago? That he supposedly had WMD (not true) and helped plan/fund/instigate 911 (also not true)? Because that was the spin I remember hearing. and WHOOPS none of it was true.

    What were the benefits? A free and happy Iraq? Or was it the oil? Because I remember when people asked whether the invasion was about oil we got bombarded with "911 911 911 911! You want the tur'rists to win!"

    As for the costs, I remember Rummy saying the war would last a few weeks, a few months, not more then a year. That we were gonna kick Saddam's ass and the Iraqis were going to greet us with flowers afterwards, and everyone was going to get on just fine. Too bad Dick Cheney had to travel back in time and give this interview back when he worked for Pappa Bush to spoil that notion:

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

    And when you say full one military invasion how come we only went in with a sconce more troops then we had gone into Kuwait with? Why were the generals who asked for more fired?

    And can you really honestly say that the "benefits" (which are?) of going into Iraq are outweighing the costs we're seeing now (the economy tanking, a trillion dollar war debt, going from rockstars on the world stage post 911 to fucking despised the world over, Guantanamo, waterboarding, warrant-less wire tapping, the patriot act, blowback, 4000 Americans dead and counting with no end in sight, 600k to 1million dead Iraqis, an administration that refuses to act like any of this is any of their fault)?

    Honestly are you fucking serious?

    Yes, yes. BUSHHITLERCHENRYLIESLIESHALIBURTONHALIBURTON!!!!

    I've heard it all before. Like many in the frothing mouth camp your memory is selective and you remember only what you want to.

    Iraq was picked because Saddam was a continuing problem and his ouster would be an example for those authoritarian regimes, who repeatedly ignored international agreements and fostered instability in the region, that their behavior was not going to be tolerated anymore. The idea was by producing a democracy it would be an example for the rest of the Middle East to follow. A sort of "look how great everything is over here, don't you want some too." The ultimate rational being democracies do not make a habit of attacking each other. This would help ease the tensions in the region and promote peace and prosperity.

    Now, whether you believe any of that can be accomplished is up to you. However, the notion that this war was cooked up just to get oil or win an election belongs right along side people who think the Earth is flat and the world is actually controlled by the 4 Jew bankers. If Bsuh wanted oil all they had to do was accept bribes from Saddam to look the other way (like certain other countries I won't name for reasons of tact). If Bush wanted re-election why risk an uncertain war? He was sky high in the polls after Afghanistan and only lost ground when Iraq went badly. It's quite clear they went to war on principles and their own foreign policy analysis, right or wrong.

    Just because someone may be wrong about something doesn't immediatley make them liars.

    Apostate on
  • Options
    TachTach Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    An uncertain war?

    It wasn't uncertain. The hawk-ish attitude was that we would hit it and quit it. The Iraqis would greet us with flowers and rainbows and "oh-thanks-very-much-for-teh-freedoms". When that went to shit, THAT'S when it became "uncertain".

    The citizens of the US, and the rest of the "coalition of the willing" were duped and misled into a battle that has decimated our standing in the world, cost us TRILLIONS of dollars, and destroyed the lives of good people both in Iraq and the US.

    There were falsehoods, mis-statements, underestimations, mis-directions, flubs, exaggerations, and YES, outright LIES told by this adminstration specifically to build a case for invasion. If you don't understand that, then you're delusional, or an apologist.

    All the best.

    Tach on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    It's interesting to note that much of America was likely shocked to learn of 18 missing minutes from the Nixon White House tapes. That sort of thing just gets buried in about a thousand other corrupt things in this administration.

    It kind of sucks that we had to start the new millennium with this dark and deep of a black mark.

    Seriously. This is the birth of the fucking 21st century! We should be doing awesome shit and pushing off the blatant corruption urges until we hit the teens. :(

    Hopefully we'll create a new calendar once space colonies and stuff become a reality somewhere and this'll just be, like, year 40 or something.

    moniker on
  • Options
    ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    An attitude of "we're responsible enough to have and use nukes, but no one else is" is fairly hypocritical. Also, considering it's on a scale which could wipe out the human race, it's even worse. Russia and the US having not wiped us out is a miracle, less about design and responsibility on the part of nations and more about luck and individuals who would be pushing the buttons not wanting a nuclear war. It perhaps would make more sense if the US had nukes in the kind of numbers as the UK or France - enough to say "don't mess with us" without saying "we'll wipe everyone out if you mess with us"

    That's not exactly true. We're responsible to have and use nukes. So are many other democratic nations that have institutional and systemic controls on their use, proliferation and protection. Those without those protections are not responsible enough.

    Also, MAD doctrine is not "luck", it's a proven defense mechanism.

    Finally, our nuclear arsenal was built and deployed in specific numbers and arrangements. Having the numbers the UK or France does would not be an adequate deterrant. Our arsenal was designed for second strike capability, assuming a near complete destruction of our delivery ability by those perpetrating the first strike against us (read: USSR).
    And like SoL said, saying "the way we'd use nukes is okay, the way they'd use nukes is wrong" is idiocy - it's mass death on a large scale either way. Why is say, Iran, less responsible than the US? How many wars has Iran started lately? Ever? How about the US? Exactly. The myth that every crazy dictator that has a nuke will immediately drop it on the nearest city or at the start of a war doesn't really withstand logic - they'd have to deal with consequences.

    Also, the US was recently talking about bunker-busting nukes, Rumsfeld was quite enthusiastic about the idea.

    Iran was involved in a lengthy campaign against Iraq, resulting in over 1 million deaths (though I would not argue they were the first to start the war itself). Iran has also called (numerous times) for the total destruction of Israel and for the death of every Jew in the Middle East.

    ryuprecht on
  • Options
    ScikarScikar Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    An attitude of "we're responsible enough to have and use nukes, but no one else is" is fairly hypocritical. Also, considering it's on a scale which could wipe out the human race, it's even worse. Russia and the US having not wiped us out is a miracle, less about design and responsibility on the part of nations and more about luck and individuals who would be pushing the buttons not wanting a nuclear war. It perhaps would make more sense if the US had nukes in the kind of numbers as the UK or France - enough to say "don't mess with us" without saying "we'll wipe everyone out if you mess with us"

    That's not exactly true. We're responsible to have and use nukes. So are many other democratic nations that have institutional and systemic controls on their use, proliferation and protection. Those without those protections are not responsible enough.

    Also, MAD doctrine is not "luck", it's a proven defense mechanism.

    Finally, our nuclear arsenal was built and deployed in specific numbers and arrangements. Having the numbers the UK or France does would not be an adequate deterrant. Our arsenal was designed for second strike capability, assuming a near complete destruction of our delivery ability by those perpetrating the first strike against us (read: USSR).

    Second strike capability through brute force. The UK has second strike capability too.

    Scikar on
    ScikarSig2.png
  • Options
    ApostateApostate Prince SpaceRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Tach wrote: »
    An uncertain war?

    It wasn't uncertain. The hawk-ish attitude was that we would hit it and quit it. The Iraqis would greet us with flowers and rainbows and "oh-thanks-very-much-for-teh-freedoms". When that went to shit, THAT'S when it became "uncertain".

    The citizens of the US, and the rest of the "coalition of the willing" were duped and misled into a battle that has decimated our standing in the world, cost us TRILLIONS of dollars, and destroyed the lives of good people both in Iraq and the US.

    There were falsehoods, mis-statements, underestimations, mis-directions, flubs, exaggerations, and YES, outright LIES told by this adminstration specifically to build a case for invasion. If you don't understand that, then you're delusional, or an apologist.

    All the best.

    Please find me an article, published during the run-up, where the administration said we would be greeted with rainbows and flowers. Or even that the operation would be short and easy.

    As far as their optimistic attitudes toward Iraqi self rule it's hard to fault them given the timeframe thay made the decision in. Afghanistan had fallen faster than anyone thought possible. Numerous Iraqi refugees were insisting that Iraqis were ready to help topple Saddam as evidenced by the unsuccesful attempt after the first Gulf War. Saddam's army was still crippled and the US Army was perfectly staged to attack out of Kuwait. And a population that was willing to support it.

    It's easy to look back and say, "look how stupid they were." Decisions are always obvious after the fact.

    As Yogi Berra once said, "Prediction is easy, unless it involves the future."

    Apostate on
  • Options
    CabezoneCabezone Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Apostate wrote: »
    Tach wrote: »
    An uncertain war?

    It wasn't uncertain. The hawk-ish attitude was that we would hit it and quit it. The Iraqis would greet us with flowers and rainbows and "oh-thanks-very-much-for-teh-freedoms". When that went to shit, THAT'S when it became "uncertain".

    The citizens of the US, and the rest of the "coalition of the willing" were duped and misled into a battle that has decimated our standing in the world, cost us TRILLIONS of dollars, and destroyed the lives of good people both in Iraq and the US.

    There were falsehoods, mis-statements, underestimations, mis-directions, flubs, exaggerations, and YES, outright LIES told by this adminstration specifically to build a case for invasion. If you don't understand that, then you're delusional, or an apologist.

    All the best.

    Please find me an article, published during the run-up, where the administration said we would be greeted with rainbows and flowers. Or even that the operation would be short and easy.

    As far as their optimistic attitudes toward Iraqi self rule it's hard to fault them given the timeframe thay made the decision in. Afghanistan had fallen faster than anyone thought possible. Numerous Iraqi refugees were insisting that Iraqis were ready to help topple Saddam as evidenced by the unsuccesful attempt after the first Gulf War. Saddam's army was still crippled and the US Army was perfectly staged to attack out of Kuwait. And a population that was willing to support it.

    It's easy to look back and say, "look how stupid they were." Decisions are always obvious after the fact.

    As Yogi Berra once said, "Prediction is easy, unless it involves the future."

    One of the incredibly stupid parts was ignoring the generals telling Rumsfield that they needed half a million boots on the ground to properly secure the country and Rumsfield deciding to go in with less than 200k.

    Cabezone on
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Apostate wrote: »
    Tach wrote: »
    An uncertain war?

    It wasn't uncertain. The hawk-ish attitude was that we would hit it and quit it. The Iraqis would greet us with flowers and rainbows and "oh-thanks-very-much-for-teh-freedoms". When that went to shit, THAT'S when it became "uncertain".

    The citizens of the US, and the rest of the "coalition of the willing" were duped and misled into a battle that has decimated our standing in the world, cost us TRILLIONS of dollars, and destroyed the lives of good people both in Iraq and the US.

    There were falsehoods, mis-statements, underestimations, mis-directions, flubs, exaggerations, and YES, outright LIES told by this adminstration specifically to build a case for invasion. If you don't understand that, then you're delusional, or an apologist.

    All the best.

    Please find me an article, published during the run-up, where the administration said we would be greeted with rainbows and flowers. Or even that the operation would be short and easy.

    http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cheneymeetthepress.htm

    Cheney:
    my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

    shryke on
  • Options
    ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Scikar wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    An attitude of "we're responsible enough to have and use nukes, but no one else is" is fairly hypocritical. Also, considering it's on a scale which could wipe out the human race, it's even worse. Russia and the US having not wiped us out is a miracle, less about design and responsibility on the part of nations and more about luck and individuals who would be pushing the buttons not wanting a nuclear war. It perhaps would make more sense if the US had nukes in the kind of numbers as the UK or France - enough to say "don't mess with us" without saying "we'll wipe everyone out if you mess with us"

    That's not exactly true. We're responsible to have and use nukes. So are many other democratic nations that have institutional and systemic controls on their use, proliferation and protection. Those without those protections are not responsible enough.

    Also, MAD doctrine is not "luck", it's a proven defense mechanism.

    Finally, our nuclear arsenal was built and deployed in specific numbers and arrangements. Having the numbers the UK or France does would not be an adequate deterrant. Our arsenal was designed for second strike capability, assuming a near complete destruction of our delivery ability by those perpetrating the first strike against us (read: USSR).

    Second strike capability through brute force. The UK has second strike capability too.

    Perhaps you missed the second part of my sentence. Our second strike capability is based on the assumption that 2 out of 3 delivery methods is 100% incapacitated and up to 80% (or so) of the 3rd method is also no good. With 93.4% of our arsenal no longer useable, we still had adequate response capabilities to enact MAD.

    ryuprecht on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Scikar wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    An attitude of "we're responsible enough to have and use nukes, but no one else is" is fairly hypocritical. Also, considering it's on a scale which could wipe out the human race, it's even worse. Russia and the US having not wiped us out is a miracle, less about design and responsibility on the part of nations and more about luck and individuals who would be pushing the buttons not wanting a nuclear war. It perhaps would make more sense if the US had nukes in the kind of numbers as the UK or France - enough to say "don't mess with us" without saying "we'll wipe everyone out if you mess with us"

    That's not exactly true. We're responsible to have and use nukes. So are many other democratic nations that have institutional and systemic controls on their use, proliferation and protection. Those without those protections are not responsible enough.

    Also, MAD doctrine is not "luck", it's a proven defense mechanism.

    Finally, our nuclear arsenal was built and deployed in specific numbers and arrangements. Having the numbers the UK or France does would not be an adequate deterrant. Our arsenal was designed for second strike capability, assuming a near complete destruction of our delivery ability by those perpetrating the first strike against us (read: USSR).

    Second strike capability through brute force. The UK has second strike capability too.

    Perhaps you missed the second part of my sentence. Our second strike capability is based on the assumption that 2 out of 3 delivery methods is 100% incapacitated and up to 80% (or so) of the 3rd method is also no good. With 93.4% of our arsenal no longer useable, we still had adequate response capabilities to enact MAD.

    This is what I don't get. We'd have known their ICBM's were inbound and launched our own well before theirs even left Russian airspace. Not to mention the missiles we had on subs that can be assumed to not be incapacitated. Even the most dire situation that is slightly realistic has us way over the necessary number of nukes to freak people out. We should be in triple digits and declining at the moment and that'd still enough to win a pissing contest with Russia, China, and NATO.

    moniker on
  • Options
    LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Iran has also called (numerous times) for the total destruction of Israel and for the death of every Jew in the Middle East.

    Really? Then wow, Iran must really, really, really suck at that whole "killing Jews" thing, since Iran is home to the largest community of Jewish folks in the Middle East outside of Israel. There's even a lone Jewish member of Iran's Parliament.

    Not that the Islamic government of Iran isn't repressive towards Persian Jews, or doesn't revel in heaving belligerent rhetoric at Israel, but let's dial down the Mahmoud Newarabhitlerejad rhetoric.

    Lawndart on
  • Options
    TachTach Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Apostate wrote: »
    As far as their optimistic attitudes toward Iraqi self rule it's hard to fault them given the timeframe thay made the decision in. Afghanistan had fallen faster than anyone thought possible. Numerous Iraqi refugees were insisting that Iraqis were ready to help topple Saddam as evidenced by the unsuccesful attempt after the first Gulf War. Saddam's army was still crippled and the US Army was perfectly staged to attack out of Kuwait. And a population that was willing to support it.

    It's easy to look back and say, "look how stupid they were." Decisions are always obvious after the fact.

    As Yogi Berra once said, "Prediction is easy, unless it involves the future."

    What does this even mean? You're saying that because the Taliban fell quickly to US forces, and because Chalabi and company were so "gung ho", and the fact that Iraq's military was a joke- that the EXTREME lack of focus on ANY post-invasion plan was acceptable?

    They fucked up because "Mission Accomplished" was all they were going for. They fucked up because they didn't listen to the commanders on the ground, before or after the invasion. They fucked up because they had NO PLAN for fixing what they broke. They fucked up because they didn't follow the Powell Doctrine. They fucked up because they completely do not understand the culture, the attitude, and the feelings of the people of the region. They fucked up because, plain and simple, they wanted a Drive-Thru War.

    THEY FUCKED UP left and right, said, "Uhhhh..." and stumbled around like a blind man in a room full of sharp glass.

    And you would have us believe that it's all alright because hindsight is always 20/20.

    People like you are the reason my father-in-law is in Iraq right now. People like you are the reason we've spent TRILLIONS of dollars so Bush can play at building a legacy. People like you are to blame for this mess we're in.

    Tach on
  • Options
    AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Apostate wrote: »
    Yes, yes. BUSHHITLERCHENRYLIESLIESHALIBURTONHALIBURTON!!!!

    I've heard it all before. Like many in the frothing mouth camp your memory is selective and you remember only what you want to.

    Iraq was picked because Saddam was a continuing problem and his ouster would be an example for those authoritarian regimes, who repeatedly ignored international agreements and fostered instability in the region, that their behavior was not going to be tolerated anymore. The idea was by producing a democracy it would be an example for the rest of the Middle East to follow. A sort of "look how great everything is over here, don't you want some too." The ultimate rational being democracies do not make a habit of attacking each other. This would help ease the tensions in the region and promote peace and prosperity.

    Now, whether you believe any of that can be accomplished is up to you. However, the notion that this war was cooked up just to get oil or win an election belongs right along side people who think the Earth is flat and the world is actually controlled by the 4 Jew bankers. If Bsuh wanted oil all they had to do was accept bribes from Saddam to look the other way (like certain other countries I won't name for reasons of tact). If Bush wanted re-election why risk an uncertain war? He was sky high in the polls after Afghanistan and only lost ground when Iraq went badly. It's quite clear they went to war on principles and their own foreign policy analysis, right or wrong.

    Just because someone may be wrong about something doesn't immediatley make them liars.
    ^Bullshit, revisionism and right-wing dishonesty at its finest.

    Anyone else remember back in 2003 when the Right's reason for wanting to invade Iraq changed daily, before our eyes? Apparently they still haven't decided.

    Azio on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    Tach wrote: »
    Apostate wrote: »
    As far as their optimistic attitudes toward Iraqi self rule it's hard to fault them given the timeframe thay made the decision in. Afghanistan had fallen faster than anyone thought possible. Numerous Iraqi refugees were insisting that Iraqis were ready to help topple Saddam as evidenced by the unsuccesful attempt after the first Gulf War. Saddam's army was still crippled and the US Army was perfectly staged to attack out of Kuwait. And a population that was willing to support it.

    It's easy to look back and say, "look how stupid they were." Decisions are always obvious after the fact.

    As Yogi Berra once said, "Prediction is easy, unless it involves the future."

    What does this even mean? You're saying that because the Taliban fell quickly to US forces, and because Chalabi and company were so "gung ho", and the fact that Iraq's military was a joke- that the EXTREME lack of focus on ANY post-invasion plan was acceptable?

    They fucked up because "Mission Accomplished" was all they were going for. They fucked up because they didn't listen to the commanders on the ground, before or after the invasion. They fucked up because they had NO PLAN for fixing what they broke. They fucked up because they didn't follow the Powell Doctrine. They fucked up because they completely do not understand the culture, the attitude, and the feelings of the people of the region. They fucked up because, plain and simple, they wanted a Drive-Thru War.

    THEY FUCKED UP left and right, said, "Uhhhh..." and stumbled around like a blind man in a room full of sharp glass.

    And you would have us believe that it's all alright because hindsight is always 20/20.

    People like you are the reason my father-in-law is in Iraq right now. People like you are the reason we've spent TRILLIONS of dollars so Bush can play at building a legacy. People like you are to blame for this mess we're in.

    Besides this, I read an article saying that the U.S. had given NATO an uncontrollable Afghanistan. A month later, Afghanistan started assploding.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    moniker wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Scikar wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    An attitude of "we're responsible enough to have and use nukes, but no one else is" is fairly hypocritical. Also, considering it's on a scale which could wipe out the human race, it's even worse. Russia and the US having not wiped us out is a miracle, less about design and responsibility on the part of nations and more about luck and individuals who would be pushing the buttons not wanting a nuclear war. It perhaps would make more sense if the US had nukes in the kind of numbers as the UK or France - enough to say "don't mess with us" without saying "we'll wipe everyone out if you mess with us"

    That's not exactly true. We're responsible to have and use nukes. So are many other democratic nations that have institutional and systemic controls on their use, proliferation and protection. Those without those protections are not responsible enough.

    Also, MAD doctrine is not "luck", it's a proven defense mechanism.

    Finally, our nuclear arsenal was built and deployed in specific numbers and arrangements. Having the numbers the UK or France does would not be an adequate deterrant. Our arsenal was designed for second strike capability, assuming a near complete destruction of our delivery ability by those perpetrating the first strike against us (read: USSR).

    Second strike capability through brute force. The UK has second strike capability too.

    Perhaps you missed the second part of my sentence. Our second strike capability is based on the assumption that 2 out of 3 delivery methods is 100% incapacitated and up to 80% (or so) of the 3rd method is also no good. With 93.4% of our arsenal no longer useable, we still had adequate response capabilities to enact MAD.

    This is what I don't get. We'd have known their ICBM's were inbound and launched our own well before theirs even left Russian airspace. Not to mention the missiles we had on subs that can be assumed to not be incapacitated. Even the most dire situation that is slightly realistic has us way over the necessary number of nukes to freak people out. We should be in triple digits and declining at the moment and that'd still enough to win a pissing contest with Russia, China, and NATO.

    Well, we can send nukes via ICMB, drop them from planes, or fire from submarines. The plan was to make sure that 20% of any one of those was sufficient to deter the enemy. Is it realistic to think the USSR could really get us down to that level? Not really. But was there a chance that someone in the USSR thought they could pull it off? Maybe. And that was enough to not risk it.

    ryuprecht on
  • Options
    ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Lawndart wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Iran has also called (numerous times) for the total destruction of Israel and for the death of every Jew in the Middle East.

    Really? Then wow, Iran must really, really, really suck at that whole "killing Jews" thing, since Iran is home to the largest community of Jewish folks in the Middle East outside of Israel. There's even a lone Jewish member of Iran's Parliament.

    Not that the Islamic government of Iran isn't repressive towards Persian Jews, or doesn't revel in heaving belligerent rhetoric at Israel, but let's dial down the Mahmoud Newarabhitlerejad rhetoric.

    And what part of what I said isn't true? That's like saying if your neighbor loudly talks about killing all the black people in your city you should dial down the rhetoric because he's nice to his black neighbor.

    ryuprecht on
  • Options
    ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Azio wrote: »
    Apostate wrote: »
    Yes, yes. BUSHHITLERCHENRYLIESLIESHALIBURTONHALIBURTON!!!!

    I've heard it all before. Like many in the frothing mouth camp your memory is selective and you remember only what you want to.

    Iraq was picked because Saddam was a continuing problem and his ouster would be an example for those authoritarian regimes, who repeatedly ignored international agreements and fostered instability in the region, that their behavior was not going to be tolerated anymore. The idea was by producing a democracy it would be an example for the rest of the Middle East to follow. A sort of "look how great everything is over here, don't you want some too." The ultimate rational being democracies do not make a habit of attacking each other. This would help ease the tensions in the region and promote peace and prosperity.

    Now, whether you believe any of that can be accomplished is up to you. However, the notion that this war was cooked up just to get oil or win an election belongs right along side people who think the Earth is flat and the world is actually controlled by the 4 Jew bankers. If Bsuh wanted oil all they had to do was accept bribes from Saddam to look the other way (like certain other countries I won't name for reasons of tact). If Bush wanted re-election why risk an uncertain war? He was sky high in the polls after Afghanistan and only lost ground when Iraq went badly. It's quite clear they went to war on principles and their own foreign policy analysis, right or wrong.

    Just because someone may be wrong about something doesn't immediatley make them liars.
    ^Bullshit, revisionism and right-wing dishonesty at its finest.

    Anyone else remember back in 2003 when the Right's reason for wanting to invade Iraq changed daily, before our eyes? Apparently they still haven't decided.

    Or do you remember when there was more than one reason for doing so and at times different reasons for the war were openly debated?

    ryuprecht on
Sign In or Register to comment.