The Iraq Study Group Report

[spain]

Who has ever made that ridiculous assertion?

 

85% of our troops in Iraq said the US mission was mainly "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9/11 attacks"

 

I still think out of all the f'd up stuff that has happened with this war, the above statistic is the one that disgusts me the most. It is almost impossible to believe that this many of our soldiers could believe something so "ridiculous" without a deliberate (though, of course, unofficial) policy to deceive them.

 

Maybe John Kerry was right about our troops...

[spain]

I know that this is likely part of your schtick, but you do realize how silly this statement is?

 

So, your point is that Saddam wasnt a dangerous and de-stabalizing force? You believe that he could be left in power and the world would all be the better for it? In light of his constant warring with Iran; his invasion of Kuwait; his mass genocide of the Kurds; his total disregard for the UN resolutions demanding he abide by the peace treaty he signed; his payment to the families of sucide bombers in Israel; the fact that he had bribed several members of the UN; and his desire to obtain WMD? All of those facts and yet, you still think he could have been left safely in power? How naive do you really have to be to believe that crap Furd?

Edited December 8, 2006 by spain

[untateve]

So, your point is that Saddam wasnt a dangerous in de-stabalizing force? You believe that we could be left in power and we would all be the better for it?

 

 

 

So I want to make sure I understand:

 

Hussein was a dangerous and destabilizing force in the region. The US went in and removed said dangerous and destabilizing force. I think everyone here will agree that Iraq remains dangerous and a perfect picture of instability. So now, the thought is, "Iraqi people, we removed Hussien, a dangerous and stabilizing force in the region. Time for you all to step up and fix your country. The US has done it's job. Good bye."

 

I may have stated the position to simply, so correct me where I am wrong.

[cre8tiff]

So, your point is that Saddam wasnt a dangerous and de-stabalizing force? You believe that he could be left in power and the world would all be the better for it? In light of his constant warring with Iran; his invasion of Kuwait; his mass genocide of the Kurds; his total disregard for the UN resolutions demanding he abide by the peace treaty he signed; his payment to the families of sucide bombers in Israel; the fact that he had bribed several members of the UN; and his desire to obtain WMD? All of those facts and yet, you still think he could have been left safely in power? How naive do you really have to be to believe that crap Furd?

 

 

The poitn would be Bush has no regard whatsoever with the big picture. The short-sighted invasion of Iraq to finish his daddy's war eliminated the only power in the Middle East that held Iran in check. If you truly believe Saddam needed to be removed because he is genocidal, and ignores UN sanctions, then you must support the US doing something like, say getting involved in Somalia, or Darfur. Our president is a single minded simpleton with blinders on. No matter how far up his a$$ your nose is it doesn't change that one bit. The United States had the backing of the WORLD after 9/11 and we could have used that to multi-laterally act. Instead Bush whipped out his cock. The republicans blew it, and that was refelcted in the election. It's going to take DECADES before we can undo the diplomatic damage done. In the eyes of the world we moved from super power to imperialist aggressor.

[spain]

So I want to make sure I understand:

 

Hussein was a dangerous and destabilizing force in the region. The US went in and removed said dangerous and destabilizing force. I think everyone here will agree that Iraq remains dangerous and a perfect picture of instability. So now, the thought is, "Iraqi people, we removed Hussien, a dangerous and stabilizing force in the region. Time for you all to step up and fix your country. The US has done it's job. Good bye."

 

I may have stated the position to simply, so correct me where I am wrong.

 

Not exactly. We could not abide Saddam in power any longer. How he came to power, was the responsiblity of the Iraqi people. Now it will be their responsibility to put the next guy in power. If he poses a threat to our us or our friends, we will frag his sorry ass too. Thats the way it works. If your leader threatens us or others, we kill him. You decide what sort of person you want in office.

 

Your arguement reminds me of us fighting with Nazi Germany. Should we have not deposed Hitler, simply because with his downfall left the door open for an inherently more dangerous Soviet Union to dominate ALOT more of Europe and created the Cold War? Would the world have been better with Hitler, or with a nuclear arms race where the world teetered on the bring of disaster and where a totalatarian state controlled all of eastern europe? Choices have to be made my Democratic niave friends. We had to take out Hitler, just like we had to take out Saddam. Neither could continue on unabated as much as your "give peace a chance" bull chit rings hollow.

[spain]

The poitn would be Bush has no regard whatsoever with the big picture. The short-sighted invasion of Iraq to finish his daddy's war eliminated the only power in the Middle East that held Iran in check. If you truly believe Saddam needed to be removed because he is genocidal, and ignores UN sanctions, then you must support the US doing something like, say getting involved in Somalia, or Darfur. Our president is a single minded simpleton with blinders on. No matter how far up his a$$ your nose is it doesn't change that one bit. The United States had the backing of the WORLD after 9/11 and we could have used that to multi-laterally act. Instead Bush whipped out his cock. The republicans blew it, and that was refelcted in the election. It's going to take DECADES before we can undo the diplomatic damage done. In the eyes of the world we moved from super power to imperialist aggressor.

 

Several members of the UN were taking bribes! How could we have a mulit lateral action against Iraq when in fact Iraq had the UN on the payroll? How stupid do you libs have to be to see that there never was going to be any multi lateral action against Saddam? He could have nuked Israel and the French werent going to be for taking action. Yall dont get it and never will since being brainwashed by the chronically ignorant left.

 

Somalia and The Sudan are different issues that we can discuss in anothe thread.

[Furd]

So, your point is that Saddam wasnt a dangerous and de-stabalizing force?

 

Absolutely.

[skins]

We had to take out Hitler, just like we had to take out Saddam. Neither could continue on unabated as much as your "give peace a chance" bull chit rings hollow.

 

 

That might be the stupidest thing you have ever said here, and that means it would be more stupid than 25,266 very stupid things.

 

Nice work, spain, you and yer Republican buddies cut and ran in Afghanistan, got us totally screwed in Iraq and killed online poker. yer recent work is quite impressive.

Edited December 8, 2006 by skins

[untateve]

Not exactly. We could not abide Saddam in power any longer. How he came to power, was the responsiblity of the Iraqi people. Now it will be their responsibility to put the next guy in power. If he poses a threat to our us or our friends, we will frag his sorry ass too. Thats the way it works. If your leader threatens us or others, we kill him. You decide what sort of person you want in office.

 

Your arguement reminds me of us fighting with Nazi Germany. Should we have not deposed Hitler, simply because with his downfall left the door open for an inherently more dangerous Soviet Union to dominate ALOT more of Europe and created the Cold War? Would the world have been better with Hitler, or with a nuclear arms race where the world teetered on the bring of disaster and where a totalatarian state controlled all of eastern europe? Choices have to be made my Democratic niave friends. We had to take out Hitler, just like we had to take out Saddam. Neither could continue on unabated as much as your "give peace a chance" bull chit rings hollow.

 

 

Here was something I never understood. I know everyone believed Saddam had WMDs. And everyone said he was a ruthless and evil dictator. Now, the thought was, Saddam has to give up his WMDs, or we will destroy you. However, if he actually had any WMDs--AND--he was aware that the USA was going to come into his country and remove him from power, wouldn't the concern be that Saddam would use these WMDs and go out in a blaze of glory and martyrdom?

 

And Spain, your argument is that Saddam posed a threat to us and ignored sanctions (kind of like Iran and N. Korea), so we needed to go into Iraq and topple him from power. Now we need to get out of Iraq and let them fix their government. Do you realistically believe that the people of Iraq are going to do so? I would bet large quantities of $$ that if we leave Iraq, there will be a huge civil war that could very easily spill over into other countries, resulting in huge destabilization and you are aware, I know, that there is a fair amount of oil there. As a country, we're kind of dependant on that oil. Huge civil war that spilled over into other countries could really jack up the prices of oil.

 

I think comparing hitler to sadddam is a bit bogus. Hitler had a pretty scary army that was capable of invading and occupying several countries. He was inflicting serious damage to a number of other countries. Saddam, at his worst, fought Iran and kicked kuwait's ass. I think that me and my cubscout den could put some hurtin' on kuwait.

[Ursa Majoris]

I think comparing hitler to sadddam is a bit bogus.

 

No $hit. It's not just bogus, it's utterly laughable.

[untateve]

No $hit. It's not just bogus, it's utterly laughable.

 

 

 

I find I have better debates when I do not belittle the other point of view.

[Ursa Majoris]

I find I have better debates when I do not belittle the other point of view.

 

What, even when it's a complete joke? Comparing Hitler and Saddam is like comparing a block of concrete to a small bag of silly putty.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

So, your point is that Saddam wasnt a dangerous and de-stabalizing force? You believe that he could be left in power and the world would all be the better for it? In light of his constant warring with Iran; his invasion of Kuwait; his mass genocide of the Kurds; his total disregard for the UN resolutions demanding he abide by the peace treaty he signed; his payment to the families of sucide bombers in Israel; the fact that he had bribed several members of the UN; and his desire to obtain WMD? All of those facts and yet, you still think he could have been left safely in power? How naive do you really have to be to believe that crap Furd?

 

 

Spain, you know as well as the rest of us that Saddam was effectively neutered and contained by the US since the first gulf war. Was there fraud through the UN food for oil program? Absolutely. Did he perhaps provide some minor funding of terrorist activities outside his country by offering cash for suicide bombers in Israel? Most likely. Was he a threat at all to the US or our interests in any substantive way? As Big Dave would say: NO F'N WAY.

[junebugz]

That might be the stupidest thing you have ever said here, and that means it would be more stupid than 25,266 very stupid things.

 

Nice work, spain, you and yer Republican buddies cut and ran in Afghanistan, got us totally screwed in Iraq and killed online poker. yer recent work is quite impressive.

 

Talk about stupid ... online poker being killed should not even be mentioned with flubbing two efforts to combat terrorism. I am sure that many military families and military members would think this is the most stupid statement in this thread if they ever read it.

Edited December 8, 2006 by junebugz

[Savage Beatings]

Its amazing to me that people can't recognize that it MUST be the case that the Iraqi's shoulder the majority of the responsibility for the future of their own country. Our responsibility there (and yes, I recognize that we DO have a responsibility there) is to help them to help themselves. But ultimately you can only lead a horse to water... if the horse absolutely refuses to drink, then it doesn't make sense to allow the Hyenas to come out and kill you while the horse is dying of thirst.

[wiegie]

Its amazing to me that people can't recognize that it MUST be the case that the Iraqi's shoulder the majority of the responsibility for the future of their own country. Our responsibility there (and yes, I recognize that we DO have a responsibility there) is to help them to help themselves. But ultimately you can only lead a horse to water... if the horse absolutely refuses to drink, then it doesn't make sense to allow the Hyenas to come out and kill you while the horse is dying of thirst.

 

This is a strawman as I haven't seen anybody here arguing against this.

 

Now for the record, how will we know for sure when the horse has died?

[Ursa Majoris]

Its amazing to me that people can't recognize that it MUST be the case that the Iraqi's shoulder the majority of the responsibility for the future of their own country. Our responsibility there (and yes, I recognize that we DO have a responsibility there) is to help them to help themselves. But ultimately you can only lead a horse to water... if the horse absolutely refuses to drink, then it doesn't make sense to allow the Hyenas to come out and kill you while the horse is dying of thirst.

 

What about if the horse hates you because you blew it's back legs off? It's amazing to me that anyone thinks Iraq owes us something. As far as cold hard numbers go, would Iraq have had more or less deaths under Saddam than it has had since the invasion? Hint: Over 100,000 Iraqis have died since the occupation and continue to die at the rate of hundreds per week.

 

Would Iraq's infrastructure have been better or worse? Would there have been more or less terrorist incidents?

[Savage Beatings]

This is a strawman as I haven't seen anybody here arguing against this.

 

 

Me: But the people of Iraq own it much more than we do.

Me: Do you disagree?

Skins: Uh, yeah I disagree.

 

[AtomicCEO]

This one time, I was on a ski lift with a woman I didn't know very well. I assumed she was a good skiier, so I dragged her to the top of the mountain and started down a double diamond run.

 

I kept telling her how easy it was, but she refused to head down the hill. It was like she didn't know what to do. So, I ditched her.

 

Screw her though. It's not my fault that bitch couldn't ski.

[Randall]

Its amazing to me that people can't recognize that it MUST be the case that the Iraqi's shoulder the majority of the responsibility for the future of their own country. Our responsibility there (and yes, I recognize that we DO have a responsibility there) is to help them to help themselves. But ultimately you can only lead a horse to water... if the horse absolutely refuses to drink, then it doesn't make sense to allow the Hyenas to come out and kill you while the horse is dying of thirst.

 

 

 

Savage, I really don't think you understand how bad things are over there. Bush and the Pentagon have been lying to us about it for years.

 

Then Iraqis will stand up for those who provide security. When we take an area and drive out the insurgents they are mostly with us. But we don't have anough troops to hold what we take.

 

We go elsewhere and the insurgents come back and provide security. They don't want to take sides because it gets them killed.

 

We drive the fighters out they leave. We leave they come back.

 

It's like the keystone cops and most that can leave have left. Most of those still there are like the poor in New Orleans. They can't leave.

 

The govt over there is stuck in the Green Zone. When they leave they need bodyguards. When Bush met with Maliki he did it in another frickin country.

 

And many Iraqis see us building permanent bases and think we'll never leave.

 

I think it's too late for a solution.

I hope I'm wrong.

[H8tank]

wouldn't the concern be that Saddam would use these WMDs and go out in a blaze of glory and martyrdom?

 

 

How easily you forget, that is ALL we were worried about, hence the use of speed to get Iraq, we were terribly afraid he was going to use his WMD on our soldiers and maybe even isreal.

 

Do you know why saddam is currently on trial? For killing 185,000 people. Is that stablizing?

 

Also, non of you are talking about Iran causing most of this trouble in Iraq, they want us to lose their, they want Iraqs oil. And you people want to chat with them? Lunacy.

[skins]

How easily you forget, that is ALL we were worried about, hence the use of speed to get Iraq, we were terribly afraid he was going to use his WMD on our soldiers and maybe even isreal.

 

 

 

I have no idea whatyer talking about. I wasnt worried or afraid about Saddam. He was contained. Lots of other people werent either.

 

Yer a little fraidy cat.

[Ursa Majoris]

I have no idea whatyer talking about. I wasnt worried or afraid about Saddam. He was contained. Lots of other people werent either.

 

Yer a little fraidy cat.

You speak for yourself. I went outside every morning, turning my wide eyes to the skies, expecting to see an armada of balsa wood drones powered by long range lawnmower engines filling the eastern sky, come to cover me, my wife my kids and the cats with anthrax.

 

I was tewwified, tewwified, I tell you. Then that nice Mr Bush went and took away the nasty man and now all is peace and quiet.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

How easily you forget, that is ALL we were worried about, hence the use of speed to get Iraq, we were terribly afraid he was going to use his WMD on our soldiers and maybe even isreal.

 

Do you know why saddam is currently on trial? For killing 185,000 people. Is that stablizing?

 

Also, non of you are talking about Iran causing most of this trouble in Iraq, they want us to lose their, they want Iraqs oil. And you people want to chat with them? Lunacy.

 

PROOF?

 

PS - I'll give you a hint: you won't find anyway. Our own people say that foreign fighters in the country make up maybe 6% max of the insurgency/civil war/sectarian violence. Yes, Iran is sitting back smiling though that we took out a major enemy for them and left a largely friendly Shia presence in its place that is now practicing internal payback for years of abuse under the minority Sunni controlled government.

Edited December 8, 2006 by CaP'N GRuNGe

[untateve]

QUOTE

wouldn't the concern be that Saddam would use these WMDs and go out in a blaze of glory and martyrdom?

 

How easily you forget, that is ALL we were worried about, hence the use of speed to get Iraq, we were terribly afraid he was going to use his WMD on our soldiers and maybe even isreal.

 

huh? you're going to have use simpler vocabulary because I'm not understanding how this would have prevented Saddam from using his WMDs...if he had them.

 

Do you know why saddam is currently on trial? For killing 185,000 people. Is that stablizing?

 

Also, non of you are talking about Iran causing most of this trouble in Iraq, they want us to lose their, they want Iraqs oil. And you people want to chat with them? Lunacy.

 

Yea--saddam was/is a bad man. Is it stablizing to destroy a country's infrastructure, depose their government and then say bye-bye...you are on your own?

 

Finally, H8, my buddy, are you saying it's time to go to war with Iran?