T Nation

Iraq Invasion 10 Years Ago

Well, hooray for freedom…I am anticipating the reach-around any day now.

And hooray for Empire, too. May her mountains of skulls pile ever higher.

Yeah but most of the dead were religious over there anyway, so they are not really dead, they are forever in a better place…that’s their faith anyway, they are not dead, they are in paradise.
YOU are pissed they are in paradise now…how dare you wishing they be back here suffering in this
world…what’s the matter with you?

This is an oler piece, but makes some good points:

"Critics will claim that no gains could be worth the price we paid – over 4,400 lost lives and untold hundreds of billions of dollars. But we paid a far higher price in the Korean War (36,000 dead). Few would have thought in 1953 that this war, which ended with a deadlocked and ravaged peninsula, was a raging success. The outcome looks considerably better nearly six decades later, now that South Korea has become one of the most prosperous and freest countries in the world.

It is wildly premature to claim that Iraq could become another South Korea – although the latter started off far poorer than the former and had just as little experience with democracy (which is to say none). Yet it is not out of the realm of possibility."

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This is an oler piece, but makes some good points:

"Critics will claim that no gains could be worth the price we paid – over 4,400 lost lives and untold hundreds of billions of dollars. But we paid a far higher price in the Korean War (36,000 dead). Few would have thought in 1953 that this war, which ended with a deadlocked and ravaged peninsula, was a raging success. The outcome looks considerably better nearly six decades later, now that South Korea has become one of the most prosperous and freest countries in the world.

It is wildly premature to claim that Iraq could become another South Korea – although the latter started off far poorer than the former and had just as little experience with democracy (which is to say none). Yet it is not out of the realm of possibility."

[/quote]

So we’re going to go with the “we were spreading democracy” defense because that sounds so much better than they definitely have weapons of mass destruction?

Why are we not “spreading” democracy to every nation that doesn’t currently have it then if it’s such a good thing?

Yay empire is right. Gov’t spending bad unless it’s on defense!

Oh God here we go, cry me a river over defense spending.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Oh God here we go, cry me a river over defense spending. [/quote]

Although I don’t share the extreme views of some here, it is important to consider the long term consequences…and there are many.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Oh God here we go, cry me a river over defense spending.[/quote]

Strong rebuttal.

I’ll just post cry me a river over all the government spending you “claim” to be against.

We have a debt crisis and “conservatives” whine about the President going to Hawaii and how much that costs us, but are totally cool with decades long trillion dollar wars.

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Oh God here we go, cry me a river over defense spending.[/quote]

Strong rebuttal.

I’ll just post cry me a river over all the government spending you “claim” to be against.

We have a debt crisis and “conservatives” whine about the President going to Hawaii and how much that costs us, but are totally cool with decades long trillion dollar wars. [/quote]

WHat is there for him to rebut? You are making arguements agaisnt things he didn’t say…

But, you got to show your chops and take a dig at estblishment, so I guess it was worth it… IDK.

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Oh God here we go, cry me a river over defense spending.[/quote]

Strong rebuttal.

I’ll just post cry me a river over all the government spending you “claim” to be against.

We have a debt crisis and “conservatives” whine about the President going to Hawaii and how much that costs us, but are totally cool with decades long trillion dollar wars. [/quote]

Why should I give you a thought out rebuttal? There have been at least 20 Iraw war threads over the past 10 years. It’s a complete waste of time.

I’ve already mentioned I’m all for a reduction in military spending, but and this important, it’s one of the very few things the governement is supposed to spend money on. Last I checked Healthcare isn’t one.

I should say, smart military spending, not necessarily a reduction; although, smarter spending could easily equal a reduction.

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Oh God here we go, cry me a river over defense spending. [/quote]

Although I don’t share the extreme views of some here, it is important to consider the long term consequences…and there are many.

[/quote]

For me the spending is a huge issue, but I didn’t get to sit in those budget meetings. The thing is, imo, the removal of Saddam gives a chance to those that never ever would have had one. To me that is priceless. Will it amount to anything, maybe, maybe not. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have tried.

Everyone has their thoughts, mine are, we give billions away to fat slobs with a dozen kids, but we can’t spend money helping the oppresed? I don’t agree with that that is all.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Oh God here we go, cry me a river over defense spending.[/quote]

Strong rebuttal.

I’ll just post cry me a river over all the government spending you “claim” to be against.

We have a debt crisis and “conservatives” whine about the President going to Hawaii and how much that costs us, but are totally cool with decades long trillion dollar wars. [/quote]

WHat is there for him to rebut? You are making arguements agaisnt things he didn’t say…

But, you got to show your chops and take a dig at estblishment, so I guess it was worth it… IDK.[/quote]

It was expected.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Oh God here we go, cry me a river over defense spending.[/quote]

Strong rebuttal.

I’ll just post cry me a river over all the government spending you “claim” to be against.

We have a debt crisis and “conservatives” whine about the President going to Hawaii and how much that costs us, but are totally cool with decades long trillion dollar wars. [/quote]

Why should I give you a thought out rebuttal? There have been at least 20 Iraw war threads over the past 10 years. It’s a complete waste of time.

I’ve already mentioned I’m all for a reduction in military spending, but and this important, it’s one of the very few things the governement is supposed to spend money on. Last I checked Healthcare isn’t one.

I should say, smart military spending, not necessarily a reduction; although, smarter spending could easily equal a reduction. [/quote]

I’d be curious to count the number of say gun control threads in the last 10 years. And yet we aren’t saying “waste of time!” And let’s keep in mind this “waste of time thread” didn’t keep you from posting originally in it.

The argument of defense is one of the things government is supposed to spend money on is irrelevant in this day and age. Is the government supposed to spend money on things like the CDC? Is it supposed to spend money on OSHA? Is it supposed to spend money on making sure companies put labels on products?

The thing is it DOES all that stuff, so using the tired line of well defense is what the government is supposed to spend money on as a reason for why it should spend tons of money is tired and let’s call it what it really is, an excuse. But it does allow the narrative for why government spending is so inefficient and bad in other areas, but not when it comes to invading other countries to live on so Repulicans can sleep better at night about supporting such a massive entity.

It’s a shame we could never see how much Republicans would attack the Iraq War if Obama or Clinton was in charge of it and it went down how it went down. Things like don’t question the commander in chief and all the other tired excuse lines went out the door for many on the right the moment a Democrat was in charge of the White House.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Well, hooray for freedom…I am anticipating the reach-around any day now.

And hooray for Empire, too. May her mountains of skulls pile ever higher.[/quote]

Its so fullfiling to liberate people from another continent from their oil.

Its easy to mess with a puny oponent-why not try to liberate Russia of Putin regime??

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Oh God here we go, cry me a river over defense spending. [/quote]

Although I don’t share the extreme views of some here, it is important to consider the long term consequences…and there are many.

[/quote]
The thing is, imo, the removal of Saddam gives a chance to those that never ever would have had one. To me that is priceless. Will it amount to anything, maybe, maybe not. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have tried.
[/quote]

Hundreds of thousands of dead foreigners is not too high of a price for you?

Iraq was never a threat and everyone knew it. The US government does not invade countries it cannot out bomb. Ever.

The US government did not deliver Iraq freedom. They delivered them a new dictator as per their usual MO.

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Oh God here we go, cry me a river over defense spending.[/quote]

Strong rebuttal.

I’ll just post cry me a river over all the government spending you “claim” to be against.

We have a debt crisis and “conservatives” whine about the President going to Hawaii and how much that costs us, but are totally cool with decades long trillion dollar wars. [/quote]

Why should I give you a thought out rebuttal? There have been at least 20 Iraw war threads over the past 10 years. It’s a complete waste of time.

I’ve already mentioned I’m all for a reduction in military spending, but and this important, it’s one of the very few things the governement is supposed to spend money on. Last I checked Healthcare isn’t one.

I should say, smart military spending, not necessarily a reduction; although, smarter spending could easily equal a reduction. [/quote]

I’d be curious to count the number of say gun control threads in the last 10 years. And yet we aren’t saying “waste of time!” And let’s keep in mind this “waste of time thread” didn’t keep you from posting originally in it.

The argument of defense is one of the things government is supposed to spend money on is irrelevant in this day and age. Is the government supposed to spend money on things like the CDC? Is it supposed to spend money on OSHA? Is it supposed to spend money on making sure companies put labels on products?

The thing is it DOES all that stuff, so using the tired line of well defense is what the government is supposed to spend money on as a reason for why it should spend tons of money is tired and let’s call it what it really is, an excuse. But it does allow the narrative for why government spending is so inefficient and bad in other areas, but not when it comes to invading other countries to live on so Repulicans can sleep better at night about supporting such a massive entity.

It’s a shame we could never see how much Republicans would attack the Iraq War if Obama or Clinton was in charge of it and it went down how it went down. Things like don’t question the commander in chief and all the other tired excuse lines went out the door for many on the right the moment a Democrat was in charge of the White House. [/quote]

  1. You are unreal, I didn’t say it is a waste of time. I posted an article I read SUPPORTING MANY OF YOUR POINT. You immediatly jumped on me.

  2. Gun control is a hot issue right now, Iraq isn’t.

  3. The argument for defense spending vs. other spending is not irrelevant at all. We need to reign in spending, that doesn’t mean we just ignore the constitution or the changes in U.S. since the 1700s. You can call it what you want, it’s not an excuss and I;m not going to argue with you about it.

  4. Democrats foavored the war, calling out Republicans just shows how bias you are.

  5. Again, Republicans have criticized the war, you are obviously bias.

  6. Clinton would have gone to war, Obama as well. SOme would have supported it others wouldn’t have. Many people would have shown their bias exactly as you suggest (and are), welcome to reality.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Oh God here we go, cry me a river over defense spending. [/quote]

Although I don’t share the extreme views of some here, it is important to consider the long term consequences…and there are many.

[/quote]
The thing is, imo, the removal of Saddam gives a chance to those that never ever would have had one. To me that is priceless. Will it amount to anything, maybe, maybe not. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have tried.
[/quote]

Hundreds of thousands of dead foreigners is not too high of a price for you?

Iraq was never a threat and everyone knew it. The US government does not invade countries it cannot out bomb. Ever.

The US government did not deliver Iraq freedom. They delivered them a new dictator as per their usual MO.[/quote]

Oh man, you’re right, my bad my stance has complete changed. Thank you for the revelation.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The US government does not invade countries it cannot out bomb. Ever.

[/quote]

Germany & Japan don’t count?

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Oh God here we go, cry me a river over defense spending.[/quote]

Strong rebuttal.

I’ll just post cry me a river over all the government spending you “claim” to be against.

We have a debt crisis and “conservatives” whine about the President going to Hawaii and how much that costs us, but are totally cool with decades long trillion dollar wars. [/quote]

Why should I give you a thought out rebuttal? There have been at least 20 Iraw war threads over the past 10 years. It’s a complete waste of time.

I’ve already mentioned I’m all for a reduction in military spending, but and this important, it’s one of the very few things the governement is supposed to spend money on. Last I checked Healthcare isn’t one.

I should say, smart military spending, not necessarily a reduction; although, smarter spending could easily equal a reduction. [/quote]

I’d be curious to count the number of say gun control threads in the last 10 years. And yet we aren’t saying “waste of time!” And let’s keep in mind this “waste of time thread” didn’t keep you from posting originally in it.

The argument of defense is one of the things government is supposed to spend money on is irrelevant in this day and age. Is the government supposed to spend money on things like the CDC? Is it supposed to spend money on OSHA? Is it supposed to spend money on making sure companies put labels on products?

The thing is it DOES all that stuff, so using the tired line of well defense is what the government is supposed to spend money on as a reason for why it should spend tons of money is tired and let’s call it what it really is, an excuse. But it does allow the narrative for why government spending is so inefficient and bad in other areas, but not when it comes to invading other countries to live on so Repulicans can sleep better at night about supporting such a massive entity.

It’s a shame we could never see how much Republicans would attack the Iraq War if Obama or Clinton was in charge of it and it went down how it went down. Things like don’t question the commander in chief and all the other tired excuse lines went out the door for many on the right the moment a Democrat was in charge of the White House. [/quote]

  1. You are unreal, I didn’t say it is a waste of time. I posted an article I read SUPPORTING MANY OF YOUR POINT. You immediatly jumped on me.

  2. Gun control is a hot issue right now, Iraq isn’t.

  3. The argument for defense spending vs. other spending is not irrelevant at all. We need to reign in spending, that doesn’t mean we just ignore the constitution or the changes in U.S. since the 1700s. You can call it what you want, it’s not an excuss and I;m not going to argue with you about it.

  4. Democrats foavored the war, calling out Republicans just shows how bias you are.

  5. Again, Republicans have criticized the war, you are obviously bias.

  6. Clinton would have gone to war, Obama as well. SOme would have supported it others wouldn’t have. Many people would have shown their bias exactly as you suggest (and are), welcome to reality. [/quote]

  7. You literally called it a waste of time. Your own words.

  8. Government spending is a hot issue right now. Defense is a huge part of it. And this thread is about Iraq. You don’t want to talk about Iraq War don’t enter it.

  9. It’s a talking point that I KNEW would come out because it always comes out from imperialists.

  10. Democrats are fucking morons as well. Where did I say they weren’t. I merely pointed out that had this been a Democrat thing all the Republicans would be leaping up and down calling this the clusterfuck it was. That’s what happens when people wear political jerseys.

  11. It’s LARGELY Republicans you will find defending it today. The fact that some Republicans can admit now what a clusterfuck it was isn’t a feather in Republicans hat.

  12. I don’t think you know for sure what another President would or wouldn’t have done, but THAT is irrelevant. Clinton or Obama or Reagan or Lincoln wasn’t in office.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Oh God here we go, cry me a river over defense spending. [/quote]

Although I don’t share the extreme views of some here, it is important to consider the long term consequences…and there are many.

[/quote]
The thing is, imo, the removal of Saddam gives a chance to those that never ever would have had one. To me that is priceless. Will it amount to anything, maybe, maybe not. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have tried.
[/quote]

Hundreds of thousands of dead foreigners is not too high of a price for you?

Iraq was never a threat and everyone knew it. The US government does not invade countries it cannot out bomb. Ever.

The US government did not deliver Iraq freedom. They delivered them a new dictator as per their usual MO.[/quote]

American primacy benefits the international system immensely. Multipolarity has historically led to far greater bloodshed than the U.S. global hegemony of the post Cold-War era. The 18th century is calling. They want their foreign policy back.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Oh God here we go, cry me a river over defense spending. [/quote]

Although I don’t share the extreme views of some here, it is important to consider the long term consequences…and there are many.

[/quote]

For me the spending is a huge issue, but I didn’t get to sit in those budget meetings. The thing is, imo, the removal of Saddam gives a chance to those that never ever would have had one. To me that is priceless. Will it amount to anything, maybe, maybe not. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have tried.

Everyone has their thoughts, mine are, we give billions away to fat slobs with a dozen kids, but we can’t spend money helping the oppresed? I don’t agree with that that is all. [/quote]

Why are you not jumping up and down supporting us invading Egypt, Syria, Iran, Russia, China, most of Africa, etc? Is there something special about people in Iraq or is oppression oppression? I can only assume you think our work has just started and we need to get busy with the rest of the world correct? I mean we should at least try right?

That’s just being consistent.