He is wrong, France did not believe the intel and didn't support the war, remember Freedom Fries! Lol
Kasich vs. Sanders would have been such a great campaign
- Thread starter Cancel 2020.1
- Start date
Going in to get Saddam, not staying, once I discovered we were staying, I opposed occupying Afghanistan, too
get a fucking clue you moron. I supported her despite her Iraq vote in 2008
thinking she was "experienced" ( and learned from her mistakes).
She's doubled down on interventionism since then. she's hopelessly clinging to US war-power makes everything OK.
Of all freaking people -you who claim "anti war " status - should see this, but partisanship blinds you to who she is at her core.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
I saw a bumper sticker once that said "I'm even against the next war," and that sort of sums me up (I used the same line a few posts back, and use it fairly often in these discussions).
I don't trust our leaders and the people who make these decisions. Obviously, there are times when war is necessary - WWII is the classic example. We were attacked, and the entire world - including our allies - were under immediate threat from tyranny.
Most wars since just haven't passed that test, and many haven't even come close. I feel like 2003 was a situation where we really took the concept of war lightly. Cheney was talking about 6 months, and no one was considering the long-term ramifications of invading. If history has shown us anything about war, it's that war really opens up a Pandora's Box of possibilities, and can lead to a lot of outcomes that no one saw coming. If we had known that the Iraq War would be a 10+ year commitment in '03, no one would have gone for it.
A long-winded explanation, but I think it's an important question. The answer, for me, is that you only engage in war when it is an absolute last resort, and all other options have been exhausted.
ChoppedLiver
New member
That's because you're an idiot who can't make a rational assessment of the situation we were faced with, dumb shit.
Again, loser,
Words have actual meanings.
Buy a fucking dictionaryand until you get one shut your fucking piehole.
cawacko
Well-known member
And back during the '00's people who supported the war were all called neo-cons as a prejorative and my guess is you weren't pissed off about it or telling people to buy dictionaries.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Well, that explains a lot. No wonder you feel as you do if you're reading reports that have been 75% redacted.
And even w/ the redactions, it has as "low confidence" the idea that Saddam could attack the U.S.
This was not a WMD war. It was a PNAC war. PNAC wanted to re-shape the Middle East - even Paul Wolfowicz admitted that WMD's were what they used to sell the war to the public.
Unless we all wake up a bit & learn what happened to us in '03, we're really doomed to repeat the same mistakes again.
There is a list of known neo-cons.
Hillary isn't on it.
Check wiki if you care enough.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
In some ways, that's true. But that guy refuses to get pulled down into the mud - like Sanders, he is running a positive campaign that's focused on the issues. Also, like Sanders, he is a principled man, and is a true believer in his core ideas.
Beyond all of that, he has a track record both in OH and Congress of getting things done and improving the quality of people's lives. He's so far above the rest of the GOP field (imo) that it's not even worth comparing. I have no idea why he didn't catch on.
Yeah, Cheney was mistaken....in reality, the shooting war and overthrow of Saddam took only about 3 weeks.....the mistakes were made in the occupation of the country....especially not
realizing the danger of a civil war within the country and the extreme hatred of Sunni and Shia denominations....
As for war being a last resort....obviously Clinton saw fit to start bombing Bosnia which was absolutely no danger to the US in any way....
So the question is what you are trying to accomplish.....like the debate of Iran going nuclear....is it wise to wait until they actually have the power or stop them before
they get it....that debate still goes on....The Vietnam war was a total waste of American lives....I still fail to understand exactly what we were trying to accomplish there....
Amen, seen too any wars we've been lied into!
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
You're "they do it too" doesn't work with me, bravs. I was against Vietnam & every action under Clinton.
And I won't even address your idea that the war was only a few weeks. It's one of the most embarrassing, apologist arguments I've seen presented on this site. Try telling that to family members of kids that were dying or maimed for the 10 years after that.
Get your head out of the sand. That is absolutely pathetic.
disbanding the Iraqi army was the kiss of death - that was Bremmer's work
Then add in al-Malaki's purging of any Sunni officer corps,and the current army is little more then another Shi'a militia.
There is no interests in defending the Sunni heartland, and the Sunni's don't want the Iraqi Amy into Anbar
recall ISIS is made up of not just Sunni insurgents, but former Baathists officers ..
Then add in al-Malaki's purging of any Sunni officer corps,and the current army is little more then another Shi'a militia.
There is no interests in defending the Sunni heartland, and the Sunni's don't want the Iraqi Amy into Anbar
cawacko
Well-known member
I got called it multiple times. Am I on it?
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
That decision was disastrous.
But again - that's what happens when you start a war in the 1st place. Bad decisions get made, and things don't go according to script.
it was multi-level stupidity, resulting in a failed state and Iranian colonization in the east and south
You are correct, but the French were pretty specific in saying that Saddam did not pose a threat in nuclear capability.....there is more to WMD than just
nuclear capacity.....which I don't think they addressed.....ie, chem. and bio. warfare....even the US was saying Iraq would not be a nuclear threat before 2006 and later.....
The NIE covers US concerns in 2002.....we don't know what the Clinton admin. had in intell that prompted his warnings as early as 1996.
Its all ancient history not worth the trouble of debating over and over at this stage....whats done is done....