Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

To those of you left that tried so hard to convince us we needed in invade Iraq

28 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

What are the chances a preemptive invasion of Iraq would have happened if we had a military draft in this country?

 

I'm guessing not very likely.

 

It is much easier to pull off an imperialistic adventure like the Iraq invasion when only 1% of the population are putting their lives at risk.

 

Iraq posed no direct threat to the United States and we had no legal justification for attacking them as despicable as their leadership may have been.

 

Sadly, we will be dealing with the resulting fallout of the Iraq war internally and externally for the rest of the century, if not longer. 

 

 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Get out of Japan, Germany, Middle East, everywhere is my call.

 

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

So far it looks like abandonment of the conservative belief system, subjective memory loss, or getting out of the Tinderbox for being stupid are all candidates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Do making threads like this make you feel better about yourself or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Yes they do, why do you ask?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

First admit Obama has continued the Iraq policies the same as Bush would have, then ask your question :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

WTF are you talking about?

 

Bush was going to get us out?

 

Of course he was, it was a debacle that he created and everyone knew it. Your "point" is completely stupid, Obama would have never invaded Iraq in the first place since he would never have had Cheney and Wolfie telling him to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Neither would have gotten us out. Obviously Bush wouldn't have and obviously Obama didn't (that is current reality).

My point is that you are bashing neocons (which were tricked), but you don't accept you were tricked. If you were to be able to do so, then maybe those that supported the war from the beginning could accept they were tricked.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

WTF are you talking about?

 

Bush was going to get us out?

 

Of course he was, it was a debacle that he created and everyone knew it. Your "point" is completely stupid, Obama would have never invaded Iraq in the first place since he would never have had Cheney and Wolfie telling him to do it.


You cant honestly still think there is a difference between the two parties, can you? It's not a matter of if Obama would've done this, or that Bush did that. It's not our presidents who run the country, they just act out the agendas that are handed down to them. The goal, regardless of political ideology was to essentially take over and westernize the middle east incrementally over time. The Bush's had gotten our foot in the door with Iraq, and Obama has been fulfilling his role with the expansion of this notion.

The war against terror is an obvious guise, a falsity, with the intention of establishing public sentiment and justification for our continuous presence in the region. It's all semantics really. I mean, can we all not agree at this point that we're over there for reasons that were not initially presented to us? We've been over there for at least 10 years, however there are those that argue we never left after desert storm. Either way, this has gone on for far too long, and the list of promises that have been broken regarding our evacuation of the area is plentiful.

It should be painfully apparent that big-pharma and big-energy have reaped enormous benefits from the resources in the region, correct? Obama is a neocon just as Bush is, if not worse. He's taken the tyranny to heightened levels, eroding more civil liberties than Bush could dream of. I'm not saying Bush is better, because this is not a juvenile game of comparison we're dealing with. I'm just saying that their positions and efforts are part of a bigger plan, a bigger agenda, that had existed long before either of those two had taken office. They're merely the puppets acting it all out.

This has to be painfully obvious to you by now CWG. Please tell me this is so.

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

WTF are you talking about?

 

Bush was going to get us out?

 

Of course he was, it was a debacle that he created and everyone knew it. Your "point" is completely stupid, Obama would have never invaded Iraq in the first place since he would never have had Cheney and Wolfie telling him to do it.

 

Huh? Obama had an easy excuse since he wasn't even in Washington so his promises about Iraq are worth zilch to me. He doesn't seem to have an issue getting involved in Libya or Syria, so any statement on Obama about Iraq is conjecture.

 

That's why I respected Kucinich in 2004 much more than Kerry. Kin was always against the war, not just when it was politically expedient to be for the war before you are against the war.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Yeah, come back to me when we invade Libya or Syria.

 

Wait, does that not sound like the stupidest idea ever?

 

And yet, that's what we did in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Yeah, come back to me when we invade Libya or Syria.

 

Wait, does that not sound like the stupidest idea ever?

 

And yet, that's what we did in Iraq.

 

Ahh, so it's the boots on the ground that you have issue with. Well I guess non-SEAL, non-CIA boots on the ground. Drones strikes, etc...no problem. You want to change the region, if only Bush had the established tech of today he could've fired all day, all night and you'd be cool with it.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

You are reaching juuuuuust a little bit there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

You are reaching juuuuuust a little bit there

 

So you're saying that drone strikes aren't acts of war? What about the mercenaries we've hired out to overthrow middle eastern governments? The end game (westernization/regime change) is the same...however the method is different. This doesn't mean they're not one in the same.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

What the hell venom, you are still making no sense.

 

I'm OK with giving you a pass though as you thought the world was going to end, then get taken over by aliens, then anarchy, or whatever, so many times over so many years that you probably checked out mentally a long time ago.

 

Instead of coming on message boards, if I were you I'd just drop out Lebowski style and enjoy yourself a bit for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

What the hell venom, you are still making no sense.

 

I'm OK with giving you a pass though as you thought the world was going to end, then get taken over by aliens, then anarchy, or whatever, so many times over so many years that you probably checked out mentally a long time ago.

 

Instead of coming on message boards, if I were you I'd just drop out Lebowski style and enjoy yourself a bit for a while.

 

Typical. How am I not making any sense? Would you care to elaborate? The point we're making should be pretty clear.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

No not at all. You are trying to make a different point for some reason.

 

To try and compare drone strikes against Al Queida (the group that you know, killed a lot of Americans a while back) targets with invading Iraq which had nothing to do with Al Quieda and involved thousands of dead Americans for no reason whatsoever, well. thats the kind of thinking that makes people think you are living in la la land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

No not at all. You are trying to make a different point for some reason.

 

To try and compare drone strikes against Al Queida (the group that you know, killed a lot of Americans a while back) targets with invading Iraq which had nothing to do with Al Quieda and involved thousands of dead Americans for no reason whatsoever, well. thats the kind of thinking that makes people think you are living in la la land.


...talk about living in la la land.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

No not at all. You are trying to make a different point for some reason.

To try and compare drone strikes against Al Queida (the group that you know, killed a lot of Americans a while back) targets with invading Iraq which had nothing to do with Al Quieda and involved thousands of dead Americans for no reason whatsoever, well. thats the kind of thinking that makes people think you are living in la la land.


I think he's referring to the same gang that forcibly took over the US in 2000 and is still in power today ( see the recent trip to Africa). Unfortunately most Americans are still oblivious to the criminal empire we've been turned into.

He's saying there was no "change" and control is in the same hands. We have not left Iraq and will not until real "change" happens despite all the lip service. W and O have been hand in hand. The view from outside this country is a lot clearer than from inside so viewpoints other than the mainstream are valuable right now.

The Vatican is even in the process of purging (which I could never imagine) as are many other countries. The complete takeover of our media in the eighties has produced the desired result, a completely unaware thus complicit society that has no interest in what it's government is doing in their name, only fake news and Justin Beiber.

I hope we all wake up before it's too late for us. War is often the cover for more nefarious acts, slight of hand, stealing and such, that's what it was all about. Pulled off by the same players who have their hands on everything and everybody. That's why our buddy Venom sees no difference. I'd agree.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I think he's referring to the same gang that forcibly took over the US in 2000 and is still in power today ( see the recent trip to Africa). Unfortunately most Americans are still oblivious to the criminal empire we've been turned into.

He's saying there was no "change" and control is in the same hands. We have not left Iraq and will not until real "change" happens despite all the lip service. W and O have been hand in hand. The view from outside this country is a lot clearer than from inside so viewpoints other than the mainstream are valuable right now.

The Vatican is even in the process of purging (which I could never imagine) as are many other countries. The complete takeover of our media in the eighties has produced the desired result, a completely unaware thus complicit society that has no interest in what it's government is doing in their name, only fake news and Justin Beiber.

I hope we all wake up before it's too late for us. War is often the cover for more nefarious acts, slight of hand, stealing and such, that's what it was all about. Pulled off by the same players who have their hands on everything and everybody. That's why our buddy Venom sees no difference. I'd agree.

 

I agree that our nation's never ending interference in Middle East affairs is alarming, often counterproductive and will continue regardless of which major party is in office.  You also make an excellent point that the consolidation of our nation's media into the hands of a few powerful organizations has resulted in an woefully misinformed public.

 

However, CWG makes a valid point.  A major ground conflict and UAV attacks are worlds apart in their long term effects on our nation and the world in general.  Also the Iraqi invasion had nothing to do with the War on Terrorism, unlike the UAV issue.  Members of GWB administration were discussing the invasion of Iraq prior to 9/11 and just used that day's events to justify a war they desperately wanted to have.

 

That leads me to my final point.  There is an important difference between the two main political parties when it comes to the willingness to engage in large scale conflict.  Members of the previous administration and the last GOP Presidential candidate were in favor of military action against Iran and questioned the loyalty and wisdom of those who weren't.  The Obama administration has resisted a lot of political pressure from the right to use the military option.  Imagine the military and economic quagmire of starting yet another large conflict in the Middle East. 

 

Also, isn't it interesting to note that now that the election is over, the impending threat of Iran seems to have subsided?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The miscommunication going on in this thread comes down to the basic premise of why we're over there in the first place. One of which being that we're there to fight "terror" (cwg's view); and the other being that we're there to essentially take over and westernize the middle east (my view), as outlined in PNAC and in written works by the CFR's Zbigniew Brzezinski...which is funny considering he is Obama's senior advisor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The miscommunication going on in this thread comes down to the basic premise of why we're over there in the first place. One of which being that we're there to fight "terror" (cwg's view); and the other being that we're there to essentially take over and westernize the middle east (my view), as outlined in PNAC and in written works by the CFR's Zbigniew Brzezinski...which is funny considering he is Obama's senior advisor.

 

No matter how the US and European nations try and rationalize it, we will continue to interfere in the region until the oil runs dry.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The miscommunication going on in this thread comes down to the basic premise of why we're over there in the first place. One of which being that we're there to fight "terror" (cwg's view); and the other being that we're there to essentially take over and westernize the middle east (my view), as outlined in PNAC and in written works by the CFR's Zbigniew Brzezinski...which is funny considering he is Obama's senior advisor.

 

You were wrong starting with the first thing you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

You were wrong starting with the first thing you said.

 

Ok. Again, would you care to elaborate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites