U.S. and Iraq are officially winning:

[Tim]

BTW--do you think more people died as a result of the US entereing WWII or are there more people alive today because of the US entering the war?

I actually don't have enough knowledge of WWII to give an informed opinion...

Iraq is the discussion, not WWII

 

[Peter Parka]

That's a very interesting take given you completely disagree with the invasion of Iraq, which by conservative estamtes has saved a couple hundred thousand lives. What justification would there have been for America to have entered the war before they were attacked? That would be a "pre-emptive" strike, which liberals don't believe in. Time and time again I've heard the same rhetoric that America was not attacked by Iraq and therefore not justified in its invasion.

Where the hell do you get that from?

I'm beginning to think that a lot of you people selectively believe what you want to believe. I know that public opinion was against war in Europe, but I NEVER heard that "most Americans at the time supported Hitler. I've never read that nor heard that. You'll need to provide proof of that.

I would have thought you'd have learned your lesson after the last arse-wooping I put on you. Oh well, time for another one!!!!

Here is an article from Slate, which is a leftist publication discussing a proposed Canadian compromise to avoid the war:

Give Saddam two more weeks. - By Fred Kaplan - Slate Magazine



Hussein allowed UN Inspectors back into Iraq--that's true, but that's a far cry from:



It was a half-hearted, non-complying effort done solely because the UN had passed a resolution calling for it. He knew if he didn't allow them back, his ass would be invaded and he'd be disposed. He never believed the world would allow the US to invade. He had been calling the world's bluff for 12 years--had violated dozens of UN resolutions on a regular basis and he was continuing to "push the envelope as far as he believed he could." I frankly find it shocking that anyone would take the position that the US and the UK were not justified in using military force. I cannot conceive of a situation that would warrant it if Hussein's thumbing his nose at the world would not.

Yup, you talk shit. I'm for debating with people who disagree with me but when you deny facts you leave yourself up in the air and your argument, pointless.

 

[Peter Parka]

You deny that weapons inspectors were making progress in Iraq

 

[Peter Parka]

opcorn2:opcorn2:opcorn2:opcorn2:opcorn2:opcorn2:

 

[Peter Parka]

I never said anything about whether they were making progress or not (and "progress" is a matter of opinion, its not a fact). All I did was disagree with your assertion that Hussein was cooperating with them.

You think a dictator of a country didn't have any say in his weapons being inspected? You really do live in cloud cokoland, dont you?

 

[ssl]

Here is a common theme I see here: left versus right wing.

Who gives a shit?! It is a fucking war. War produces two things: technology and death. That is a fact, attempt to debunk that if you wish; requires no alignment with left or right wing.

Of course, I realize that this is in the Politics section, so a little left versus right will exist, but damn, 7 pages of "so and so are left or right, so they should not be trusted, blah blah blah." Come on, people need to get over party affiliations, they fuck us all in the end.

Back to the point to discuss: the effectiveness of the Iraqi people with coalition support. I think they are doing quite well, and should be congratulated on their efforts, but also reminded there is a long road ahead. Iraq is an extremely fragile location for *anyone* to be in right now, and instead of arguing left/right stuff, how about support for those who are over there, regardless of whether or not you think we should be over there in the first place?

 

[FreeWorkVest]

That's a very interesting take given you completely disagree with the invasion of Iraq, which by conservative estamtes has saved a couple hundred thousand lives. What justification would there have been for America to have entered the war before they were attacked? That would be a "pre-emptive" strike, which liberals don't believe in. Time and time again I've heard the same rhetoric that America was not attacked by Iraq and therefore not justified in its invasion.

And it is true. We were the aggressor, we went into Iraq without provocation. The US has ALWAYS been against pre-emptive wars

 

[FreeWorkVest]

Are you denying that under Hussein hundreds of thousands of people died?

Are you aware of the problem with Iraq's children starving to death?

Have you even bothered to reasearch how many people died under Hussein's regime?

Have you considered the flaws in the "body count" numbers?


Do you know how they go about calculating the number of people killed "as a result of the war?"

Do you not think any "offset" of that number no matter how its calculated is justified (i.e., do you not beleive any lives will be saved with Hussein out of power)?

What's fucking unbelievable is how people just buy the socialist/liberal propoganda without ever giving it a second thougth.

LOL. Why is it reporting truth you dont want to here is called this.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Hussein allowed UN Inspectors back into Iraq--that's true, but that's a far cry from:

It was a half-hearted, non-complying effort done solely because the UN had passed a resolution calling for it. He knew if he didn't allow them back, his ass would be invaded and he'd be disposed. He never believed the world would allow the US to invade. He had been calling the world's bluff for 12 years--had violated dozens of UN resolutions on a regular basis and he was continuing to "push the envelope as far as he believed he could." I frankly find it shocking that anyone would take the position that the US and the UK were not justified in using military force. I cannot conceive of a situation that would warrant it if Hussein's thumbing his nose at the world would not.

Exactly. And well put.:clap

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Here is a common theme I see here: left versus right wing.

Who gives a shit?! It is a fucking war. War produces two things: technology and death. That is a fact, attempt to debunk that if you wish; requires no alignment with left or right wing.

Of course, I realize that this is in the Politics section, so a little left versus right will exist, but damn, 7 pages of "so and so are left or right, so they should not be trusted, blah blah blah." Come on, people need to get over party affiliations, they fuck us all in the end.

Back to the point to discuss: the effectiveness of the Iraqi people with coalition support. I think they are doing quite well, and should be congratulated on their efforts, but also reminded there is a long road ahead. Iraq is an extremely fragile location for *anyone* to be in right now, and instead of arguing left/right stuff, how about support for those who are over there, regardless of whether or not you think we should be over there in the first place?

Bloody bravo.

 

[GraceAbounds]

True Dat. The man thumbed his nose at the UN and the US for years. At some point, the rest of the world sees this and figures they can get away with it too. Well, that sent a message--you don't comply--you suffer the consequences. Now liberals generally believe in talking people to death and so they don't quite understand the concept of consequences.

My take on it is this: Saddam, whether he had WMD's or not, wanted the world to THINK he did. I believe he wanted everyone to think he had them in order to bolster his standing/power in the region and in his country. We called his bluff, and he lost.

My question to you is this: IF we had found WMD stockpiles, would the invasion and subsequent attempt at rebuildng the nation have been justified in your mind?

Didn't need to--he only needed one nuclear or chemical weapon to kill hundreds of thousands.

Again--what is the point of rules if they are broken. You just made a post today about a guy (Ziggy) who basically thumbed his nose at you so you banned him. The reason is because rules without reprecussion are no rules at all--chaos.

Total unadulterated bullshit. Survey after Survey after Survey establish the clear majority of Iraqi's believe the country is better off without him in power. There will always be some people who believe otherwise because there were people who had it good with Hussein in power--certainly not the majority.

Here is a common theme I see here: left versus right wing.

Who gives a shit?! It is a fucking war. War produces two things: technology and death. That is a fact, attempt to debunk that if you wish; requires no alignment with left or right wing.

Of course, I realize that this is in the Politics section, so a little left versus right will exist, but damn, 7 pages of "so and so are left or right, so they should not be trusted, blah blah blah." Come on, people need to get over party affiliations, they fuck us all in the end.

Back to the point to discuss: the effectiveness of the Iraqi people with coalition support. I think they are doing quite well, and should be congratulated on their efforts, but also reminded there is a long road ahead. Iraq is an extremely fragile location for *anyone* to be in right now, and instead of arguing left/right stuff, how about support for those who are over there, regardless of whether or not you think we should be over there in the first place?

Goodness, this thread was a long read.

Ditto and rep to the above posts.

 

[ssl]

Bloody bravo.

New idea:

A count of how many times CB replies with 'the clap'

Thanks.

 

[Tim]

I guess I will never truly understand the thirst for blood some of you have.

I don't care what spin you put on it, there was absolutely no good reason to sentence thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians to death.

 

[Zorak]

I don't care what spin you put on it, there was absolutely no good reason to sentence thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians to death.

And then to be so callous as to continue the "sentencing."

Those responsible know of these facts, and I hope it hangs on their mind - and weighs heavy on their conscience, and that their obtusity is not so grand that they can permit themselves to slumber every night.
For every soldier, every fighter, every 'martyr' who was sent to his own sepulchre, has died for naught. Most the same age as me, or even younger.

I guess I will never truly understand the thirst for blood some of you have.

To you who'd read my songs of War
And only hear of blood and fame,
I'll say (you've heard it said before)
"War's Hell!" and if you doubt the same,
Today I found in Mametz Wood
A certain cure for lust of blood:

Where, propped against a shattered trunk,
In a great mess of things unclean,
Sat a dead Boche; he scowled and stunk
With clothes and face a sodden green,
Big-bellied, spectacled, crop-haired,
Dribbling black blood from nose and beard.
​

Robert Graves, "A Dead Bosche"

 

[Josef]

I'm tired of having this debate, it just seems some people love war. Perhaps because it makes for good TV?

Anyway, this:

I did get the impression the regions stability would be compromised if Iraq remained unfettered.

Is perhaps the most mental thing I have ever heard. The Middle East has been unstable since the days of the carve up, but it was a hell of a lot more stable before Iraq was destroyed than it is now.

 

[Tim]

And saved thousands upon thousands who would have been killed by Hussein:



Anyone who thinks Iraqis are not better off with Hussein gone is living in a very distorted reality. Hell, even if many thousands more die than would have, it is worth it for the chance at a free society.

I never said that we shouldn't get rid of Saddam... We have the best air force in the world. We couldn't wait for the perfect opportunity and send a SAM up his ass? Hell, we would have been better off carpet bombing Baghdad.

There was absolutely no reason in this day and age to have a ground war. We very easily could have got his own country to dispose of him.

I would have been in complete support of a surgical strike to take him out. But Bush had it in his demented mind that he had to have troops on the ground.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Hate to be a prude, but as I've got nothing much more to add at this point...

SAM's go up, not down, and a B-52 carpet bombing campaign on the heart of Baghdad would have killed a lot more than have currently died in the war.... by any estimate.

The Air Force can't win wars all by itself (that'll end up on Donnie's quote list I'm sure). Boots on the ground are a requirement even for us.

 

[Josef]

How do you come to that conclusion? That's what you've been told or read, but its total bullshit.

You tell me in what way Hussein's regime was a threat to stability in the Middle East. I can tell you now that before the war Iran was not in control of Southern Iraq. Iraq was the balance to Iranian ambitions. That is gone now and Iran couldn't be happier.

Also before 9/11 Iran was on the brink of armed conflict with Afghanistan, and had large numbers of forces near the border.

Now Iran has major influence in both countries.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

New idea:

A count of how many times CB replies with 'the clap'

Thanks.

I only give it to those that deserve it.

 

[Josef]

BTW lol @ the ridiculous assertion that the invasion of Iraq has saved lives. I followed the link and saw some mind boggling leaps of logic.