Senior Member
Your question reflects a false premise. America's involvement in Iraq is not directed toward democratization of that country. It's directed toward colonization and an empire is not worth a single life or a single dollar.Originally Posted by Black Lance
Last edited by Joe Steel; 02-27-2008 at 07:47 AM.
Building a better America by hammering the Right.
Steelers in '23
Trying to put any type of exact dollar or casualty amount on a war is preposterous. You can't go into a war and say "we'll fight until 1 billion dollars is used or we lose 50 men". That's absurd and a recipe for failure.
You fight to win and/or achieve your goal. You spend what is necessary as you go along and do your best to lessen the loss of life.
How many lives or how much money was the goal in previous wars that the US was involved in? Did we lose too many or spend too much to accomplish any of our goals in them?
“You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named "Bush", "Dick", and "Colin." Need I say more?” - Chris Rock
Banned
I agree that it makes no sense to place some sort of body count/dollar limit on the achievement of military objectives.
At issue here is whether or not invading, conquering, and occupying Iraq for the purpose of force feeding the Iraqi people multicultural democracy was or is an appropriate and worthwhile military objective.
God is with Us
As many others have said already in this thread, now that we have shed blood, both American and Iraq, we owe it to those who have fallen to honor their sacrifices and bring freedom (not necessarily in the form of democracy) and prosperity to the people of Iraq. Many of you know that I have soured on the war effort over the last several years. I truly do not believe this can be accomplished. I believe the President and his advisors blew it on this. However, I would guess many said the same thing about Germany, Japan, Viet Nam and who else. I'm pessimistic on the outcome this time around. But someone said it earlier, maybe, I'm being short-sighted on this.
I did, however, want to point out LN's post here. She's right. The people of Iraq will have to want and fight for freedom and democracy before we can bring it to them! Until such a time... this ain't happenin'!
Immie
For it is by Grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast. Eph 2:8-9
Senior Member
America involved itself with Iraq in the Gulf War for one reason, it was in the US interests to maintain the ME Gulf region in balance of power to assure world oil is not controlled directly by a single nation of the oil producing states. Should Saddam been allowed to keep Kuwait the combined oil wealth and WMD's would have allowed him to build a superior war force and blackmail or take over other ME oil producing states allowing Iraq to control oil prices as OPEC now does. OPEC does not use oil as a political weapon but a single ME nation would use oil for political power.
Leaving Saddam in power was not an option following 9-11. Leaving a defeated Iraq can only happen when it allows a circumstance pre-Gulf War where no one nation is more powerful than the other. Iraq is now weak militarily... Iran is very powerful and equal to or greater threat than Iraq following the invasion of Kuwait so we cannot leave! If we leave then Iran will attempt to topple Iraq as Iraq toppled Kuwait... domino's will fall and other ME nations, in fear will support any individuals willing to fight Iran... millions, no tens of millions of people will die assuring Iran doesn't take OPEC's power. America will stay until Iraq is equal in power to Iran or Iran is equal in power to that of Iraq... Nuke Iran or stay in Iraq... Simple as that!
The alternative is allowing Iran to take over OPEC and then the option is to allow Iran to destroy Israel or pay $15 a gallon for gas until we allow them or we fight them, Iran, no super Iran with all the oil money and nukes it will buy.
"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."
---Thomas Jefferson (or as Al Sharpton calls him: Grandpappy)
Banned
Leaving Saddam in power was not only an option...it was, in my opinion, the PREFERRED option. Saddam did three things that we would dearly love to be able to do in that region:
1. He kept wahabbists from using Iraq as a base of operations
2. He kept sunnis and shiites in Iraq from slaughtering one another
3. He kept Iranian regional hegemony in check.
As much of an asshole as he was, it would still have been better in our fight against islamic extremism to allow Saddam to stay in power doing those three things in Iraq so that we would be free to pursue the extremists who attacked us and who want to do so again.
Saddam was not going to be able to take over the gulf oil supply. He could not prevail over Iran. Our misguiding invasion has primarily served to INCREASE the regional influence of Iran. Stupid stupid move, IMHO.
Last edited by retiredman; 02-27-2008 at 09:07 AM.
Senior Member
Even in the rear view mirror Iraq under Saddam was not an option. He was defiant of the UN and his defiance was "unreasonable". Logic and reason would demand that Iraq and Saddam would be better off in a pre-Kuwait invasion state. There was the Gulf War... a ceasefire that offered Saddam and Iraq to revert to pre-Kuwait invasion Iraq free form UN, US or other outside interference what so ever. His actions were "unreasonable" and unexplainable, actions of a mad man and following 9-11 there was enough doubt that some of those 250 tons of WMD's not accounted for by the UN inspectors could be given to terrorists. Saddam gave nor offered any reason for trust.
"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."
---Thomas Jefferson (or as Al Sharpton calls him: Grandpappy)
Gunny's nightmare
Of course you conveniently ignore the fact that Saddam supported terrorism against Israel and the US. He also tried to assassinate a former president.
Because of the Democrat policy of extreme environmentalism and limitations on home-grown energy development we have no choice but to be involved in the middle east. Your party’s policies have made this region wealthy, and they have used that wealth to broaden the influence of extremist Islam.
Forced into this environment, the best strategy is to go after the biggest bully with the loudest mouth, because to do so will make the lesser pests respect you. That was Saddam, and that’s what we did.
Banned
Saddam did not support the terrorists we were fighting.
Saddam was no longer the biggest bully - our own secretary of state clearly said that months BEFORE 9/11.
and does it look like we were successful in making Iran "respect" us? To the contrary, our invasion of Iraq has served to increase the regional reputation of Iran and has emboldened them and their surrogates throughout the region.
Senior Member
Because America is fighting two enemies...Iraq and Democrats supporting failure.
"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."
---Thomas Jefferson (or as Al Sharpton calls him: Grandpappy)
Banned
cute.... so when your "enemies" are in the white house, I hope you'll take the hint and move to some nice autocratic country across the pond somewhere.
democrats do not support failures.... republicans elect them.
try addressing my points instead of just lobbing shitbombs
Senior Member
The nation and both political parties supported the Iraq War through the falling of the Statue of Saddam! President Bush's American support was 80+% and then the Democrats smacked their forehead and said, damn I could of had a V-8... from that point forward Bush was a liar and tricked us into war. The more terrorists attacked our troops the more Democrats blamed Bush... the Democrats encouraged terrorists to attack our troops as they assured they would quit the war if only the terrorists make it a bad enough taste in the American people's mouth... Over half of US casualties can be directly attributed to the Support for Failure ... every time you call for withdraw they answer up and say here are some more reasons for you to leave in defeat as your Democrats state!cute.... so when your "enemies" are in the white house, I hope you'll take the hint and move to some nice autocratic country across the pond somewhere.
democrats do not support failures.... republicans elect them.
try addressing my points instead of just lobbing shitbombs
"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."
---Thomas Jefferson (or as Al Sharpton calls him: Grandpappy)
Banned
nobody wants to leave in defeat. If Iraq wants democracy, they will have to fight for it themselves and earn it and spill THEIR blood in the process....we have spilt enough of ours for their freedom. Our enemies are not the sunnis and shiites in Iraq...our enemies are the wahabbist islamic extremists that attacked us on 9/11 and now. five years, 32K dead and wounded Americans, and a half a trillion dollars later, THEY are just as capable as they were the day they attacked us.
and you still didn't address my points!
Last edited by retiredman; 02-27-2008 at 09:46 AM.
Gunny's nightmare
Wrong, wrong, and not surprisingly, wrong!
Banned
proof, proof and, not surprisingly, more proof!Wrong, wrong, and not surprisingly, wrong!
and don't bother with the milnet shit....
but DO stop by the state department website and read Powell's comments from 02/01 made in Cairo.
Last edited by retiredman; 02-27-2008 at 09:48 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
