do you think gwb made the right decision when he decided to invade iraq?

do you think gwb made the right decision when he decided to invade iraq?

  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .
Kel-Tec Sub 2000 said:
Agreed, but the end result may still be beneficial. A democratic ME, even a fundamentalist one, is in the interest of freedom in the long run.
Click to expand...
Agreed but your completely divorced from reality if you think the Iraq invasion even remotely had anything to do with the ME uprising and the Arab Spring.
 
Thing1 said:
It didn't with Iraq. There was nothing inevitable about war after that resolution. It was entirely at the discretion of the executive.

Attempts to absolve Bush of accountability bother me quite a bit. It was his call. The accountability that Congress deserves is being stupid enough to trust him & give him that authority - they were cowards, and history will recognize them as such.
Click to expand...
They were cowards but political realist. The historical record of what happens to politicians who oppose the drum beat of war is pretty stark. Even Lincoln lost his congressional seat for opposing the Mexican war.
 
Kel-Tec Sub 2000 said:
Oh true enough, but the two are quite linked (on my thing, not yours). Tactics, fervor, and a united zeal are all intangible values that were created by the Iraq invasion and resulting insurgence. And then there is the immeasurable materiel wealth that was "lost" both by the current and former Iraqi army, and our own agents.

There is more of course, but it's much less verifiable at this juncture.
Click to expand...
The only question this raises is what the hell does this have to do with the price of cumin in Alexandria?
 
christiefan915 said:
Here's the link. I had too many characters in it the first time.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

I put that sentence in red because it refers to your original list of quotes. When you take some of those quotes in full context, the speaker is not supporting any action to invade Iraq or remove Hussein.
Click to expand...


And as I pointed out, that is irrelevant.....It doesn't change the FACT that what they believed about Saddam as a threat and him having possession, stockpiles, etc.
of WMD and that is exactly what just about everyone around the world believe at that point in time.....

Its irrelevant that they didn't have the balls to actually do anything about it....Republicans didn't want to start a war with Iraq at that time either, did they.....as a matter
of fact, they weren't evening openly bitching about him like the Democrats were.....

9/11 changed all that....we got pissed off.....Bush wanted to retaliate against the Muslim world and suddenly the Dems yellow streak began to show and they
started to backtrack on the rhetoric but they couldn't take take back their public statements.....
......A new sheriff was in town and he was mad as hell about the Muslim attacks.....the rest is history.
 
NOVA said:
And as I pointed out, that is irrelevant.....It doesn't change the FACT that what they believed about Saddam as a threat and him having possession, stockpiles, etc.
of WMD and that is exactly what just about everyone around the world believe at that point in time.....

Its irrelevant that they didn't have the balls to actually do anything about it....Republicans didn't want to start a war with Iraq at that time either, did they.....as a matter
of fact, they weren't evening openly bitching about him like the Democrats were.....

9/11 changed all that....we got pissed off.....Bush wanted to retaliate against the Muslim world and suddenly the Dems yellow streak began to show and they
started to backtrack on the rhetoric but they couldn't take take back their public statements.....
......A new sheriff was in town and he was mad as hell about the Muslim attacks.....the rest is history.
Click to expand...

I love it. Now, not wanting to attack a secular country that had nothing to do with 9/11 is "yellow," and Bush is some sort of courageous sheriff for making one of the most disastrous foreign policy decisions of modern times and causing incomprehensible suffering.

Man, are you twisted.
 
Rehashing this Iraq stuff is useful for pretty much one purpose: anyone who supported the war that can't today say they got it wrong will never admit to being wrong about anything ever.
 
Thing1 said:
I love it. Now, not wanting to attack a secular country that had nothing to do with 9/11 is "yellow," and Bush is some sort of courageous sheriff for making one of the most disastrous foreign policy decisions of modern times and causing incomprehensible suffering.

Man, are you twisted.
Click to expand...


Not quite, the yellow was already apparent with the big talk and no action all though the 90's....as Christiefan's post pointed out.....
(if you have a problem with that article, take it up with her)

Clinton did show a little backbone with his bombing of Iraq in 1993 and again during his impeachment....but it seemed to be mostly for show....

After 9/11, things got a little more serious....the whole country was pissed, liberals and conservatives alike......it was the politicians in Wash. that
started to quiet down because they knew it was no longer a game of words and who could sound the bravest....

They couldn't hid from their previous rants and voted on the War Resolution accordingly....


If you imagine I'm saying or implying, Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, you need to take a fuckin' reading course.
 
Dungheap said:
Rehashing this Iraq stuff is useful for pretty much one purpose: anyone who supported the war that can't today say they got it wrong will never admit to being wrong about anything ever.
Click to expand...


Its not a matter of was it 'right or wrong'....its a matter of understanding the world as it was going back to the late 80's.....
What people believed then is the point, not if they were proven right or wrong 15 years later....
What the politicians publicly said then, not if they were proven right or wrong 15 years later....

Mistakes are made throughout history, no one is infallible.....and you can expect more to be made in the future.....

Discussing the decisions made, can't be seriously done if you insist on ignoring what was believed to be the facts at that moment in time.....

A decision YOU make today is made in good faith with the facts you believe today....certainly not with information you'll come across 10 years from now.
 
Bravo, there absolutely is a "right & wrong" on Iraq. As for the "facts" when Bush chose to invade, the case that they were relying upon against Iraq was falling apart - but they pushed forward anyway. Because they were determined to invade Iraq, even if Iraq wasn't any threat to the U.S. whatsoever.

I wish you wouldn't post about Iraq. It makes me queasy reading your denial and apologism.
 
What kind of President would everyone want, all other things being equal? A Prez who bent over backwards to find reasons to not go to war, and only committed forces when it was absolutely necessary for the nation's defense?

Or a President who cherrypicked intelligence, fabricated a threat and chose to rush a nation into war - a war that was completely unnecessary for our security?
 
Thing1 said:
It's not really a matter of opinion at this point. It was the worst foreign policy decision in modern times.

I was just watching a little more on the history of it; there was never even a meeting in the WH to make a final decision - to decide if war was the right thing to do. It just became this inevitability.

And they kept pushing even after their original "case" for war started to crumble.

Worst President Ever.
Click to expand...

Someone actually voted yes! And it wasn't Dixie!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top