• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Obama A War Criminal

Is Obama A War Criminal

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 7.9%

  • No

    Votes: 32 84.2%

  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 3 7.9%
  • Total voters
    38
Dutch said:
So, you don't have a problem with us prosecuting mr obama?
Click to expand...

I would insist that Obama, once out of office, be prosecuted for his complicity in war crimes. Same as Bush.
 
MSgt said:
Well, let's look at this. You began with a self-righteous tone about what is and is not collateral damage. Dead babies are just dead babies, right? To the military mission, civilainsdeaths are unfortunate and we have spent billions of dollars perfecting precision weapons to alleviate this burden of war. But in the end, dead babies are collateral damage.

For over ten years, we watched and insured dead babies throughout Iraq via UN sanctions because we were too stupid as a Western people to finish the Gulf War. No care for those babies? After 9/11, a man named Osama Bin Laden (remember him?) used our decrepit mission over Iraq as an excuse for 3,000 dead Americans. Whether you wish to attribute this to corporate greed or not, this war had to be finished once and for all. But in your quest to hate on the war in Iraq (merely part two of the same war), you completely dismissed the little dead babies in Iraq throughout the 90s,didn't you? You seem to be a humanitarian of convenience. Very leftist of you.

It's obvious from this one post that you haven't thought about the entire event at all. Just passing on the rhetoric of the anti-war protestor's bumper sticker.
Click to expand...

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. And dead babies are dead babies, not collateral damage. The term exists only because we don't want to talk about killing babies. You want to talk about it, call it what it is. If that is self-righteous, so be it. We went to war against Iraq because of oil, not ben Laden. The majority of Americans are well aware of that. The crime they commited was socializing oil, not bombing the twin towers.
 
McIntyre said:
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. And dead babies are dead babies, not collateral damage. The term exists only because we don't want to talk about killing babies. You want to talk about it, call it what it is. If that is self-righteous, so be it. We went to war against Iraq because of oil, not ben Laden. The majority of Americans are well aware of that. The crime they commited was socializing oil, not bombing the twin towers.
Click to expand...

It wasn't about 9/11, and I not convinced it was about oil either. But I do agree that the term collateral damage is a way of softening what's happening. People die. They're not collaeral damage; they're the cost and result of war, made all the more damning when the war is needless, as iraq was.
 
Last edited:
McIntyre said:
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Click to expand...

Ah..The typical war protestor cut off. It is absolutely true that there was no tie between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. However, this is not what I stated. I believe that you knew exactly what I stated, but chose to pretend that another argument was being made so that you could cut off and not have to think about it. The fact is that Osama Bin Laden wrote in his letter that our UN mission over Iraq for the last 10 years was a reason for 9/11. Face it, Mr. Terrorist made this Iraq mission a part of the regional mission. People (like you I would guess?) are all about accusing America of wrong doing and insist that we be perfect. They were all about taking Bin LAden'sletter as gospel to show how we are screwing up in our foriegn policies. However, these same people careful remained far from the part where he usedthe UN Iraq mission didn't they? Of course, when it comes to actually dealing with our imperfections (UN Iraq mission) you shut down and simply spew..."Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11."

Figure it out.


McIntyre said:
And dead babies are dead babies, not collateral damage.
Click to expand...

A dead baby is no more unfortunate than a dead adult. Collateral damage is the term used not to avoid the truth, but to simply move on with the mission. Because, in military terms, nobody cares what age the dead civilian is. Mission is mission and unintended death is unintended death. No dead baby halted the allied forces from winning two World Wars andno dead baby will halt the Western world'sfight agaonst those who would destroy what we hold dear. Time to whine about the casualties of war can come later..... after we've won. But my guess is that you only care about dead babies in wars you disagree with.

McIntyre said:
We went to war against Iraq because of oil, not ben Laden. The majority of Americans are well aware of that. The crime they commited was socializing oil, not bombing the twin towers.
Click to expand...

Simple. Very simple. The majority of Americans have put further thought into this over the years and are no longer sitting on the fence of designed ignorance and politicial defiance. Oil was a part of this. So was this region's health. So was the never ending UN mission to starve out Iraqis just to contain one man and his regime. So was our allie's concerns that bordered Hussein's Iraq. So was a big excuse for all terroists to kill Americans. But "oil" is all you wish this to be about? Tell me... how's your gas prices been? Seems to me that if oil was all that mattered in this then we'd be sitting pretty right now. But let's just say that nothing else existed and oil was all there was for the sake of being simple. Historically, just about all wars have been about resources or land. From crusade missions to water, civilizations have fought over what is essentieally land and resource. Let's not pretend that oil doesn't matter today.
 
MSgt said:
Ah..The typical war protestor cut off. It is absolutely true that there was no tie between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. However, this is not what I stated. I believe that you knew exactly what I stated, but chose to pretend that another argument was being made so that you could cut off and not have to think about it. The fact is that Osama Bin Laden wrote in his letter that our UN mission over Iraq for the last 10 years was a reason for 9/11. Face it, Mr. Terrorist made this Iraq mission a part of the regional mission. People (like you I would guess?) are all about accusing America of wrong doing and insist that we be perfect. They were all about taking Bin LAden'sletter as gospel to show how we are screwing up in our foriegn policies. However, these same people careful remained far from the part where he usedthe UN Iraq mission didn't they? Of course, when it comes to actually dealing with our imperfections (UN Iraq mission) you shut down and simply spew..."Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11."

Figure it out.
Click to expand...

Which was neither the stated reason for us invading Iraq, or reason to invade Iraq.
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
It wasn't about 9/11, and I not convinced it was about oil either. But I do agree that the term collateral damage is a way of softening what's happening. People die. They're not collaeral damage; they're the cost and result of war, made all the more damning when the war is needless, as iraq was.
Click to expand...

It was absolutely about ending the UN mission and dealing with this failing region. Everything else has been piled on and used by pundits to legitimize their political grandstanding or inabilities to think it through.

Collateral damage is the general term to encompass civilian death and civilian structure. It doesn't just mean civilian death.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Chill out dude. I was stating an argument. I did not say that it was MY opinion. Only that the argument exists. Just because the UN says it's okay to do something doesn't mean that the UN had the right to give permission. All this BS about Johnson and Clinton is just water under the bridge and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. And yeah, I think there are reasonable arguments for classifying Johnson and Clinton as war criminals. I'm not saying I think they are. Just that the arguments exist and that they are not unreasonable or moronic arguments.
Click to expand...

If Clinton is water under the bridge, then so is Bush. He's not President.
 
earthworm said:
Well ! I see that the "tea bagging conservatives" ,the haters of President Obama, have defecated all over this poll.
Now this poll should be flushed down the toilet.
Thus, all the polls are meaningless and should be ignored.
Click to expand...

And who are the teabagging conservatives who defecated on this poll?
 
MSgt said:
It was absolutely about ending the UN mission and dealing with this failing region. Everything else has been piled on and used by pundits to legitimize their political grandstanding or inabilities to think it through.

Collateral damage is the general term to encompass civilian death and civilian structure. It doesn't just mean civilian death.
Click to expand...

That was never argued. WMDs were. And yes, everything including the kitchen sink was throw on. But nothing that justifed invasion was ever really argued. the war was needless.

Now, the term. It's too clean. Too inaccurate. When people die, especiallywhen people die, the damage is real, and not clean at all. There may be times when we need to do this. But the reasoning needs to be sound, and the reasons strong and real. Iraq was none of this.
 
Boo Radley said:
Which was neither the stated reason for us invading Iraq, or reason to invade Iraq.
Click to expand...

Well, of course not. Bush sold it wrong and played on all of your fears and wants for revenge. He had more faith in your desires to protect yourselves from immediate threats than your sense of duty, obligation, and long term security. But the truth is the truth and there was a reason to complete what we started 13 years prior. Think it through....

- Do you really believe that the most sophisticated spy network in history thought he might have WMD? In the end, Americans simply wanted revenge on anybody and our leaders used it top do what was necessary even before 9/11.

After denying the Iraqi people their freedom from the dictator after the Gulf War, we went on to encourage starvation for a decade. We also bombed Iraq 4 separate times under Clinton as he toyed with our forces on the border and toyed with UN conditions for his continued survival. In Bin Laden's letter to you, he made mention of our UN mission with Iraq as one of the excuses for 9/11. Another excuse he used was our presence in Saudi Arabia, which was because of the UN Iraq mission. At the end of 2002, Saddam Hussein flew military jets over Jordanian and Saudi air space. The fact is that we had no choice but to end this mission for a mulitple of reasons. Walking away and leaving the region to his antoginizing ways was not a solution. We have a history of getting sucked into unhealthy regions. Continuing the UN mission was not a solution. Finishing the Gulf War was. To sit back and deny the truth of this and pretend these matters were mere inconvenience is dishonest. I don't understand how you could still state that there was "no reason." I guess we were just in the neighborhood and haphazardly decided over night to kill people for nothing?


You see, the fact was that Western policy toward Iraq had collapsed. Sanctions were leaking, countless civilians were dying (McIntyre's neglected babies) because of embargo, and Al-Queda was enraged by our base in Saudi Arabia, from which we operated the no-fly zone. Furthermore, whether the White House knew it or not, a more modern and moderate Iraq in the middle of the Arab world would help break the dysfunctional political dynamics of the Arab world. A continued effort by Iraqis to stregthen their democracy and develop tribal ties of collaberations inside Iraq will have major ramifications on the region as a whole. It already has.

So for McIntyre to simple state "oil" as the reason and yourself simply stating that there was "no reason," I am prone to believe that you both have largely simply dismissed the history of this for the sake of the quick rebellion and a hope that Bush's excuse of WMD is an excuse to play ignorant.

Think it through, because politicians will never spell it out for you.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
But the reasoning needs to be sound, and the reasons strong and real. Iraq was none of this.
Click to expand...

According to those that matter, it did. My guess is that you simply don't know the situation.
 
MSgt said:
According to those that matter, it did. My guess is that you simply don't know the situation.
Click to expand...

Those who mattered? A double cone of silence secret reasoning? Well, I can't speak to that, but the public reasoning did not. And as I said, that wouldn't justify invading either. The reasons to invade must be serious, and limited. Imminent threat comes to mind. Stopping genocide comes to mind. Little else.
 
MSgt said:
Well, of course not. Bush sold it wrong and played on all of your fears and wants for revenge. He had more faith in your desires to protect yourselves from immediate threats than your sense of duty, obligation, and long term security. But the truth is the truth and there was a reason to complete what we started 13 years prior. Think it through....
Click to expand...

Saw your other response first.

I have thougth it through. That rationale doesn't hold up and it has nothing to do with duty, obligation or long time security. In fact, we likely hurt our long term securityy more than we helped it. The expense alone hurts more.


- Do you really believe that the most sophisticated spy network in history thought he might have WMD? In the end, Americans simply wanted revenge on anybody and our leaders used it top do what was necessary even before 9/11.
Click to expand...

Nope. Never did. But you are correct here. As Powell said, they ahd the fever.

After denying the Iraqi people their freedom from the dictator after the Gulf War, we went on to encourage starvation for a decade. We also bombed Iraq 4 separate times under Clinton as he toyed with our forces on the border and toyed with UN conditions for his continued survival. In Bin Laden's letter to you, he made mention of our UN mission with Iraq as one of the excuses for 9/11. Another excuse he used was our presence in Saudi Arabia, which was because of the UN Iraq mission. At the end of 2002, Saddam Hussein flew military jets over Jordanian and Saudi air space. The fact is that we had no choice but to end this mission for a mulitple of reasons. Walking away and leaving the region to his antoginizing ways was not a solution. We have a history of getting sucked into unhealthy regions. Continuing the UN mission was not a solution. Finishing the Gulf War was. To sit back and deny the truth of this and pretend these matters were mere inconvenience is dishonest. I don't understand how you could still state that there was "no reason." I guess we were just in the neighborhood and haphazardly decided over night to kill people for nothing?
Click to expand...

And then we added injury to injury. After all that was done. All those deaths. We brough them war? What the modest estimates of Iraq deaths? 100,000? No, there was nothing that justified invading Iraq. Adding the cost we added, both to us and to them. Something less costly could have been done as Iraq posed no real or significant threat.

You see, the fact was that Western policy toward Iraq had collapsed. Sanctions were leaking, countless civilians were dying (McIntyre's neglected babies) because of embargo, and Al-Queda was enraged by our base in Saudi Arabia, from which we operated the no-fly zone. Furthermore, whether the White House knew it or not, a more modern and moderate Iraq in the middle of the Arab world would help break the dysfunctional political dynamics of the Arab world. A continued effort by Iraqis to stregthen their democracy and develop tribal ties of collaberations inside Iraq will have major ramifications on the region as a whole. It already has.
Click to expand...

And as I recall, we, some from the Bush administration, had even commented that Saddam was ready to rejoin the world community. We didn't fear Saddam, and most his killing was over, not that his killing bothered us on the whole. We would never invade for that reason as evidenced by us not invading while he was doing it.

An no, it hasn't. Democracy was already moving in the region. Iraq may actually have hindered movements in Iran. Back then it was pointed out that Iraq played a role in helping their present leader take power. Iraq helped Iran in a lot of ways. Like I said, it hurt our long term interests far more than it helped.

So for McIntyre to simple state "oil" as the reason and yourself simply stating that there was "no reason," I am prone to believe that you both have largely simply dismissed the history of this for the sake of the quick rebellion and a hope that Bush's excuse of WMD is an excuse to play ignorant.
Click to expand...

I believe I told him I didn't buy oil either. I really don't have an official explination I accept. But a conservative (Muley for those who remember) once gave me an article from a conservative think tank (straffor) that make the argument that Bush told the wrong lie. They argued we wanted a base close to Ian and Iraq was the easy solution. We'd now have bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm sure Iraqis should feel better about that rationale. I can't say I do, but it makes more sense than iol or wmds, or even your argument. In any case, I've heard nothing I consider valid enough to justify the cost, the human misery associated with 7 -8 years of war.
 
Boo Radley said:
No. Bush tortured people, and excused torture. If I were seeking prosecution I would start there. Did Obama do this? If so, bring him up. Bush started a needless war. Not sure that is a "WAR CRIME" per sa, but it should be a crime of some sort. If Obama starts one the same war, charge him under whatever law that shoud fit.
Click to expand...

After a great deal of introspection I decided waterboarding shouldn't be done by americans. If you remember I made that assertion back on whistlestopper. Having said that I don't believe waterboarding constitutes torture. If you believe it does then you need to come to terms with the fact nancy pelosi was aware, despite her protestations, and needs to be prosecuted as well, along with an assortment of other democratic and republican leaders.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I would insist that Obama, once out of office, be prosecuted for his complicity in war crimes. Same as Bush.
Click to expand...

You're going to have trouble rounding up "leaders" for this country. Have you even considered the ramifications of what you are actually proposing? :mrgreen:
 
McIntyre said:
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. And dead babies are dead babies, not collateral damage. The term exists only because we don't want to talk about killing babies. You want to talk about it, call it what it is. If that is self-righteous, so be it. We went to war against Iraq because of oil, not ben Laden. The majority of Americans are well aware of that. The crime they commited was socializing oil, not bombing the twin towers.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way...........about abortion. What say you? :mrgreen:
 
Dutch said:
After a great deal of introspection I decided waterboarding shouldn't be done by americans. If you remember I made that assertion back on whistlestopper. Having said that I don't believe waterboarding constitutes torture. If you believe it does then you need to come to terms with the fact nancy pelosi was aware, despite her protestations, and needs to be prosecuted as well, along with an assortment of other democratic and republican leaders.
Click to expand...

I don't care who was aware of it. Prosecute her too as far as I'm concerned. The point is, it was a crime.
 
Dutch said:
After a great deal of introspection I decided waterboarding shouldn't be done by americans. If you remember I made that assertion back on whistlestopper. Having said that I don't believe waterboarding constitutes torture. If you believe it does then you need to come to terms with the fact nancy pelosi was aware, despite her protestations, and needs to be prosecuted as well, along with an assortment of other democratic and republican leaders.
Click to expand...

I believe that waterboarding IS torture (how is it not?). I also have no problem with acknowledging that Pelosi lied on this issue and went along with it.
 
Dutch said:
You're going to have trouble rounding up "leaders" for this country. Have you even considered the ramifications of what you are actually proposing? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I think Guy was insisting that it SHOULD be done, not that it CAN.
 
earthworm said:
So you think its OK for scamming tea bagging conservatives to upset a poll.....
Click to expand...
It's a public poll, therefore the public votes. Being pissy about it because you don't like "tea baggers" is no more valid then me disliking moonbats who use the word "tea bagger" as some epithet. I thought a pinko-libbo would know about that.

earthworm said:
Neither Truman, nor Reagan, Bush, and now Obama are "war criminals".
Click to expand...
Thanks for weighing in... I assume you voted in the scammed poll appropriately.
earthworm said:
Who cares what scamming-fools think ?
Click to expand...
Apparently you do.
 
Boo Radley said:
Saw your other response first.

I have thougth it through. That rationale doesn't hold up and it has nothing to do with duty, obligation or long time security. In fact, we likely hurt our long term securityy more than we helped it. The expense alone hurts more.
Click to expand...

You might have thought this through, but not with the tools you need. It seems your thought process is peppered with denial or with headlines. It had everything to do with obligation and long term securty. History did not begin in February 2003. We spent an entire decade building our obligation to deal with our mess. It was a denied obligation that culminated in 9/11.

And just what do you base this damage to our long term security on? This is based on what? Immediate sensationalism in the newspaper? The fact is that 9/11 was orchestrated by people throughout the region. Al-Queda recruits from throughout the region. Therefore, for our long term security, the Arab world needed a hand out of their designed path to hell. With a continued UN mission over starving Iraq, the exponentially growing radical base throughout the Arab world would continue to have their "excuses." What hurt us was allowing a civilian named Rumsfeld and his coven of misfit theologists to dictate military mission. he mission was sound inthe handsof a military planner, which is what General Zinni and CENTCOM had devised over a decade. It was Washington dimwits with absolutely no military experience that made this expensive in treasure and blood. If you had thought it through honestly, your gripe would be about the execution, not some fancy that after a decade of starving these people out and aiding in Al-Queda's radical voice that we had no obligation. And don't cop out and state that we should have just invaded Saudi Arabia, because we didn't invade the Soviet Union to defeat that theology either.

An unhealthy Middle East is exactly counter to our long term security and despite Washington's willingness to ignore it, the military and CIA had been pointing this region out since Somalia. And with Iran looking to kick off a tribal/religious nuclear Cold War in the region, we can use as much democracy leaning help in the region that we can get. Saddam's Iraq was not the solution.


Boo Radley said:
And then we added injury to injury. After all that was done. All those deaths. We brough them war?
Click to expand...

You seem to keep dismissing the key issues here. We brought them exactly what their culture demanded. We brought them what we denied them in 1991 and what Europeans denied them for two centuries. We brought them opportunity and ourselves a way out of the UN mission that led us to 9/11. Simply pretending that we have to be on our death beds or be attacked to deal with obvious issues that lead us into very few choices is not honest. Our entire history is one of preservation and this most often meant conflict without your idea of imminent national danger. Keeping regions "peaceful" and opening up sea lanes and such for free trades never came after our being attacked. And let's be even more honest. If slaughtering themselves was their way of expressing decades of pent of rage once the dictator's bayonet was removed then so be it. Culture is fate. As you have seen, they have grown tired of slaughtering themselves and now seek a progressive future. In the mean time, they have all in this region looked in the mirror and recognized that the biggest threat to Muslims are fellow Muslims.

Until we wean off of oil we are stuck to what this regional culture can do. If they are to be nothing more than slaves to dictators and oppresive regimes for the sake of resource flow to the world, then let's stop bitching about supportng dictators. However, if we are better than our Cold War ways (forced by Soviet behaviors), then we have to start looking at long term security without the expense of the people we pretend we don't enslave by our "containment" missions. In the mean time, maybe we will lighten the radical load and make their streak of extremism more manageable, which is the ultimate goal to our long term security. Until 9/11, none of you would even know of the threat that is the Tali-Ban. Until 9/11, Al-Queda was just some thug organization that murdered those nothing military members abroad in their missions. But you people assume to know that merely containinng the Hussein regime indefinately would bring good things eventually? No you hjaven't really thought this trhough. You made an uniformed conclusion years ago and now you stick to it. Even the French government knew enough to throw in a consulate building into Iraq in 2005 so that they could steal some future inflluence in the region.


Boo Radley said:
We didn't fear Saddam, and most his killing was over, not that his killing bothered us on the whole. We would never invade for that reason as evidenced by us not invading while he was doing it.
Click to expand...

Are you doing this on purpose? Who gives a **** about Saddam Hussein? This is why you are hung up. The man and his supposed WMD was the simple explanation to do the necessary. The issue is Iraq and it's location in the heart land of extremist central. The region is the threat..not one neutered dictator who murdered and tortured while we supported his preservation and gave Al-Queda a legitimate gripe about our depravity. Leftists all over the world agree on America's hypocracy and why we should wither away into the trash heap of history. But when it comes to identifying where we are imperfect these same worthless human beings pretend to need a better excuse to do what is righton many levels. These are the pundist who make your headlines and report the sensationalism that warps opinions that conclude false analysis.

Boo Radley said:
An no, it hasn't. Democracy was already moving in the region. Iraq may actually have hindered movements in Iran. Back then it was pointed out that Iraq played a role in helping their present leader take power. Iraq helped Iran in a lot of ways. Like I said, it hurt our long term interests far more than it helped.
Click to expand...

This is your opinion. It is not the truth. First of all, Iran is not apart of the Arab world, which have been 95 percent of our extremist threat since Khomeini died. I don't know what you are basing your assumptions on, but they contradict the cultural experts, the local regions, intelligence reports, and even some headlines (when they feel like printing good news.) From Cairo to Islamabad, the modernists have been gaining steam since they watched Iraqis vote for the laws that would govern them (a first in Arab history.) Muslims groups have protected Christina celebrations in Egypt. The House of Saud have given into pressure and allowed low level elections as well as giving women more freedom (the first to drive a car was a few years ago). Because women have been allowed into schools and into leadership positions in Iraq, Egypt, Afghanistan, and Jordan, Al-Queda has been them targets making this modernist voice even more determined. Freedom of expression has loosened in Egypt and -to a lesser degree I grant you- in Saudi Arabia (but even they have to start somewhere). Did you know that in 2005, President Bush refused to give Egypt their annual allowance unitl they released a political author who was jailed for talking against the Egyptian "Pharoah?" (Ironically, he is also fond of talking crap about oppressive America.) Our influence, with the aid of progressing Iraq, into encouraging social change throughout the region has exponentially grown since we removed the the thorn of the desert and gave Iraqis their opportunity to prove to the world that they are good enough to offer hope towards. With every milestone, the people throughout this region gain hope and envy to create what they currently do not have in their own Arab countries. And in the end, our religious enemies come from locations where ignorance is bliss, there's a lack of education, and they have no way to express their political views other than the sword (or a good old fashion coup, which we deny them). You are confusing our long term security with what you see in the short term immediate headlines. Washington did this throughout the Cold War and pretended that we had no agenda for the decade leading up to 9/11. Long term security is exactly what Iraq was about. Even President Clinton knew this, which is why a 9/11 scenario under his watch would have sent us through the door as well. Of course, I'm inclined to believe that he would have allowed themilitary to do what it does best rather than relying on a coven of civilians who couldn't recite the rank structure.

But back to Iran......even Iranians are largely seeking for a way to invite the Western world into their country if only the religious zealots who oppress them would give them a chance. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the Iranian government speaks on behalf of the people. It speaks on behalf of the religious zealots who only lose power if the people start to speak for freedom. Think Middle Age Catholic Church and you have exactly what is going on in the Middle East. We break this, we break the Middle East threat. This also means that bombs alone will not solve our problems, so don't think I'm a warmonger. I just know that in this world, some people just need killin so that everyone else can breath easy.

Boo Radley said:
In any case, I've heard nothing I consider valid enough to justify the cost, the human misery associated with 7 -8 years of war.
Click to expand...

That's because you assume that only Rumsfeld's answer to the mission was possible. The rediculous cost was due to Rumsfeld bungling, not the mission. If they had gotten out of the way, CENTCOM would have wrapped this up years ago and cheaper the cost and in treasure and blood. You should analyze the mission..not the civilian execution of it as the only way.
 
Iraq is not our country. While countries may have helped us during our revolution, they did not come and free us from England. We made the choice to break free. Iraq did not pose any significant threat to us. Not to our security. Nor were we under any obligation to free them, or mold them, or bring more injury to them.

And no, the cost of the mission was always going to be high. Bush the sr was correct when he said going in was easy, leaving would be hard.

As for Iran, they were doing that before Iraq, and moving rather quickly to a more friendly government. Iran's less desirable elements need a reason to push the hardliners forward. That's just one of the reasons they helped us going in. We enabled the less dersireable elements an opening, not to mention making Iraq more friendly for them.

Iraq was always a bad idea. A reckless one. No rewriting of history or new rationale will change that. In fact, no outcome there will change that.
 
Boo Radley said:
Those who mattered? A double cone of silence secret reasoning? Well, I can't speak to that, but the public reasoning did not. And as I said, that wouldn't justify invading either. The reasons to invade must be serious, and limited. Imminent threat comes to mind. Stopping genocide comes to mind. Little else.
Click to expand...

By "those who mattered" I meant those who expressly deal with foriegn affairs, cultural issues, and wider national threats. Seeing the man in Iraq as compared to seeing the regional threat are two different things. Public reasoning needs little more than a sensational headline and some extremist chain e-mails. I don't place too much faith in a people who use these things to determine national policy. Besides, aren't they too busy flipping channels or deciding whether or not to fully respect homosexuals? Foriegn affairs are for other positioned people to figure out, because the average public reasoning is void of the facts, history, and the efforts continually going on.

Most of our national conflicts came from neither imminent threat nor attempts to stop genocide. Your way of life has been built by missions that have contained and/or stabilized regions and trade routes. Good men have died for over two hundred years fighting in "wars" that have had everything to do with making sure you have all the luxuries Disney Land has to offer. Of course, the Gulf War was the only war in history where we drew a line in the sand and threw ourselves a false victory parade only to go and set up the mechanisms that would lead to 9/11. And still people deny the obligation to finish this even for their own sake. One may wonder what mechanism would have been set in play had we simply reached the German border and merely "contained" the dictator.
 
Last edited:
I stated various times that it's stupid to call Bush a war criminal. So I find it even more ridiculous to call Obama one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom