Will Anything Good Ever Come From The U.S. Invasion of Iraq

[BroomJockey]

Saddam is gone and people are happy about that."

Did you forget?

http://www.cracked.com/article/118_t...off-as-real_p2

I know you said you're done, but still, take a look at this. #2 on the list.

[Gravekeeper]

My friend said Bush failed at rebuilding Iraq, I don't dispute it. So you saying "... he *did* fail" is beyond me.

I misread the sentence, it has a word missing and it threw me. ( Rebuilding killed Iraqis? -.- ). My apologies there.

Despite the dangers of voting, nearly 60% still managed to vote.

Incorrect. Sunni turn out was as low as 2% due to threats of violence in Jan 2005. In Dec 2005, the turn out was high, supposedly 76% or so, but the Sunnis protested the results as fraudulent and demanded an electoral review. It was denied. In 2009 the turn out was 51% but there were several complaints of voter list problems to the tune of hundreds of thousands of ballots.

The figure you're referring too I assume is the 63% turn out for a referendum in Oct 2005. Which was merely to decide whether or not to ratify the proposed constitution of Iraq.

The most recent polls in Iraq are very cautiously optimistic for the first year since the war started. By optimistic I mean 50-60% are now hopeful that the future will improve or at least maintain the same. However, by the same poll measures, 60-65% of Iraqis still do not have stable access to clean water, medical care, electricity or jobs.

The number one concern in Iraqi is still security. The number two and number three concerns are tied. They are terrorist attacks and the US occupation. Yes, they have the US occupation on par with terrorist attacks. >.>

I'm done on this topic. You deny what someone who lived through a majority of that war says is what kills me.

Oh please, spare me the melodrama. I'm actually trying to argue this without bringing in hear say examples from friends in the military. Basing your entire opinion on what a single person says, than using that to support your point on the Internet is a weak argument and you know it.

http://www.cracked.com/article/118_t...off-as-real_p2

I know you said you're done, but still, take a look at this. #2 on the list.

Thank you. -.-


Edit: Now that I'm at work and can resume my blathering. You know, I don't mean to chew on you this much Lad. Its not personal, its just like bloody oil and water when we're in the same thread. We need to find something we can agree on. ;p

[Wingates_Hellsing]

It has and with proper management there will be more. The whole thing is a story of tactical success and strategic failure from the get go, and even so the net result after a while was improvement across the board.

Saddam sucked, plain in simple. It's not that his regime never did any good, but the net result was still incredibly terrible. He had to go, that much I'm sure of.

And while the country isn't entirely free of US presence yet, there is substantial progress in giving over territory to Iraqi control. To say nothing of infrastructure improvement.

It definitely could have been better, no doubt, but too many people take the flaws and wave them around like the entire thing failed completely.

At least part of the problem here is that there are boatloads of information backing the sucky bits and awesome bits to the war, and it's difficult to find anything that isn't either ridiculously pessimistic or hopelessly optimistic.

What bugs me is how just about every time in recent history where people were outraged over something horrific that just had to end, they changed their tune the day after troops arrived. It's as if all the people against trying to help woke up suddenly and got their turn on the soapbox while everyone else just sat their thinking 'well we went over there everything must be okay'. I don't think I have ever heard an argument that wasn't colored beyond the point of validity one way or the other excepting one or two points in this thread.

[joe hx]

Will Anything Good Ever Come From The U.S. Invasion of Iraq

Perhaps a greater distaste for war, especially as a national policy?

[Rapscallion]

Perhaps a greater distaste for war, especially as a national policy?

Only if you can stop all the really good propoganda folk from operating.

I had a holiday in the US three weeks or so after 911. Bedsheets scrawled with, "Open a can of whoop-ass, Mr Bush," and similar were dangled from many bridges. A reasonable response from the public, considering the circumstances.

Individuals are hard to predict. People as a mass are far easier, and when a group has a spark of outrage remaining then you can fan the embers and get them to do all sorts of things. Get enough members of a herd moving in one direction, and others will follow.

Distaste, sure, but enough appetite will always remain, unfortunately.

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

Only problem is Raps, Americans were quite justified in that situation. Yes we wanted war. We wanted war with the terrorists who committed those atrocities. And I'm damn proud of the ass kicking we handed Al Queda. But what you saw in America has nothing to do with the war in Iraq. We weren't gunho for that war.

[Flyndaran]

Only problem is Raps, Americans were quite justified in that situation. Yes we wanted war. We wanted war with the terrorists who committed those atrocities. And I'm damn proud of the ass kicking we handed Al Queda. But what you saw in America has nothing to do with the war in Iraq. We weren't gunho for that war.

You underestimate american's lust for blood, and overestimate their intelligence. For long into the Iraq war, most americans believed, because Cheney wanted them to believe, that Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
All the "he was just a bad bad man" was lame retconning. I didn't magically forget the past.

[Rapscallion]

Only problem is Raps, Americans were quite justified in that situation.

Wasn't my point. Also a separate issue. My point is that it provided a memorable spark of outrage for the propogandists to work with. Well, more than a spark, but it worked. It's a spark that they tried to use for invading Iraq as well.

Rapscallion

[crashhelmet]

I believe that nothing good will come out of the invasion and occupation. Unless it prevents our government from doing something just as stupid in the future. We've been there too long without any real progress.

If we pull out completely and some other dictator comes in, we'll be blamed for "abandoning" them despite the pleas for us to leave. If they get a productive leader and achieve that progress on their own, it will be because we left them to themselves. We'll be further painted as the burden to their growth.

If we stay and help them, we'll only continue to get lambasted for it and continue to be accused of burdening their progress even more than we already are.

Whatever happens, I foresee another Iran vs Iraq war. This time, it will be much quicker as Iran has Nukes and other WMDs while Iraq is defenseless.

CH

[protege]

Whatever happens, I foresee another Iran vs Iraq war. This time, it will be much quicker as Iran has Nukes and other WMDs while Iraq is defenseless.

You're not the only one who thinks that. It wouldn't surprise me if Iran started up another war with Iraq...as soon as the last of our troops leave. As awful as Saddam was, at least with him in power, the region was somewhat stabilized.

As to his WMDs, everyone knew that he had mustard gas and other nasties in the 1980s--he used them on the Kurds, and possibly on the Iranians as well. As to where that stuff is now...is anyone's guess. Probably ended up in Syria, or is still buried in the desert somewhere. I say "buried in the desert," because photos have surfaced which show MiGs being uncovered after the invasion.

[Greenday]

You underestimate american's lust for blood, and overestimate their intelligence. For long into the Iraq war, most americans believed, because Cheney wanted them to believe, that Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
All the "he was just a bad bad man" was lame retconning. I didn't magically forget the past.

I don't know one person who thinks we went to war because Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

[BroomJockey]

http://www.prwatch.org/node/6427

2007- 1/3 of Americans thought Saddam was involved in 9/11.

[Gravekeeper]

Only problem is Raps, Americans were quite justified in that situation. Yes we wanted war. We wanted war with the terrorists who committed those atrocities. And I'm damn proud of the ass kicking we handed Al Queda.

No offense, but which asskicking was that exactly? Bin Laden was practically forgotten about by Christmas for fuck sakes. =/

They sent twice as many troops to Iraq as there are total in the entire UN coalition in Afghanistan. Which is where my own countrymen ( and women ) are fighting as well. As a result Afghanistan, where everyone should have been to begin with, is still frighteningly delicate.

The US still has about 130,000 ( Down from 170,000 after the Surge(tm) ) on the ground in Iraq with 180,000 private contractors and security forces backing them up. Afghanistan? 58,000 if you include Americans that are part of the UN coalition security force. 28,300 otherwise.

Sorry, the whole thing peeves me off. After 9/11 Bush could have united the world, everyone was listening to the US and ready to help. He literally could have changed the world for the better. And what does he do? Pisses away the entire opportunity than starts a war that makes most the world go "What the FUCK, dude?" and reinforce every negative stereotype the rest of the world had about the US.

Argh. ><

[protege]

Sorry, the whole thing peeves me off. After 9/11 Bush could have united the world, everyone was listening to the US and ready to help. He literally could have changed the world for the better. And what does he do? Pisses away the entire opportunity than starts a war that makes most the world go "What the FUCK, dude?" and reinforce every negative stereotype the rest of the world had about the US.

I agree with you, GK. It could have been dealt with better.

Of course, I still stand by my opinion that if Saddam had been dealt with back in 1991...we wouldn't have gone to war in the first place. Of course, the Middle East would be a very different place now. Saddam and the Iranians kept each other in check. I'm sure that had we taken his ass out in '91, it would have ended up in a similar situation to now.

I also agree that we should have found that asshole bin Laden...before starting another war. Odd that 8 years on, we still can't find him. Of course, he's probably fled into Pakistan by now...cowering in a cave like the little bitch he is. If that's the case, it's a bit ironic--Saddam himself was found under similar circumstances...

[Flyndaran]

I hate to sound callous, but why was it the U.S.'s job to take out Saddam? There are evil dictators all over Africa and Asia, but no one does jack squat abou them.
At best, the U.S. is other countries big brother not Father.