heckofajobbrownie Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 “All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?” Weigh in. I'll go first. That's a resounding no, it was not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 We killed more than half a million brown people including Saddam. Nothing more American than blowing up minorities, right? At least it didn't hurt us in the long run by shifting the balance of power in the region to Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 How much oil did we secure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blowe Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 We killed more than half a million brown people including Saddam. Nothing more American than blowing up minorities, right? At least it didn't hurt us in the long run by shifting the balance of power in the region to Iran. Since its well known that libs HATE facts, I've fact checked your post for you. Of course the number of dead are way inflated. And are you saying the world is a better place with Saddam oppressing his people and Bin Laden running loose? You've seriously need to check yourself into a mental institute because liberalism (also known as stupidity) is a disease and it HAS to have a cure. Right? http://rockrivertimes.com/2013/03/19/iraq-war-10-years-later-189000-dead-32000-u-s-troops-wounded/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Since its well known that libs HATE facts, I've fact checked your post for you. Of course the number of dead are way inflated. And are you saying the world is a better place with Saddam oppressing his people and Bin Laden running loose? You've seriously need to check yourself into a mental institute because liberalism (also known as stupidity) is a disease and it HAS to have a cure. Right? http://rockrivertimes.com/2013/03/19/iraq-war-10-years-later-189000-dead-32000-u-s-troops-wounded/ Lol, you're not really helping your cause by using "Rock River Times" as your source. Not to mention your point is that just under a quarter million Iraqis killed is so much more acceptable. The fact is, the estimates are all over the place, and they're pretty high, even on your end. I'll trust The Lancet's estimate of 600k. Also, please tell me what Iraq had to do with Bin Laden. And next time you decide to call out someone for not citing facts, it'd be wise to make sure that your mark isn't a scientist. Otherwise you'll be left looking like a moron, kind of like you do now. Educate yourself, friend. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted March 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 That was classic. Anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 In my mind we can only judge our success in Iraq by how much oil we secured. If it was a lot then we succeeded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Blowe's got all the answers. And he's an awesome driver high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 In my mind we can only judge our success in Iraq by how much oil we secured. If it was a lot then we succeeded. This is the closest thing to a correct answer, but still doesn't tell the whole picture. I think, more importantly than the oil (of which we will be independent for the next few decades due to fracking and such) is the fact that we've got puppet states on two borders of Iran. As such, we've gained more influence in the region, but so too has Iran, and guess which side has more popular support over there. China, Pakistan, and Russia aren't happy that we have a presence there, as who knows how things will go with them in the long run, but there isn't anything they'll do about it for the time being. I don't know if going there was worth it or not. At this point I'm leaning towards no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 That was classic. Anyone else? Frankly I don't think you want an intelligent discussion on this. Who cares about the Rock River times in light of your buddies accusation of ethnic cleansing by the United States. That's beyond idiotic, and you should at least acknowledge that. But let's pretend that was an oversight. What, in your mind, were the actual reasons for the invitation? And you can spare me the ethnic cleansing, stealing their oil or freeing the Iraqi people gags. Seriously what would be your guess? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Frankly I don't think you want an intelligent discussion on this. Who cares about the Rock River times in light of your buddies accusation of ethnic cleansing by the United States. That's beyond idiotic, and you should at least acknowledge that. But let's pretend that was an oversight. What, in your mind, were the actual reasons for the invitation? And you can spare me the athletic cleansing, stealing their oil or Fri in the Iraqi people gags. Seriously what would be your guess? WSS It's a classic Heck starting point. Brief, with nothing of substance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Frankly I don't think you want an intelligent discussion on this. Who cares about the Rock River times in light of your buddies accusation of ethnic cleansing by the United States. That's beyond idiotic, and you should at least acknowledge that. But let's pretend that was an oversight. What, in your mind, were the actual reasons for the invitation? And you can spare me the athletic cleansing, stealing their oil or Fri in the Iraqi people gags. Seriously what would be your guess? WSS What do you think it was Steve? It was heavily oil and terretorial concerns. I don't believe that wmd excuse for two seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted March 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 I'd love an intelligent discussion. I doubt I'm going to get one in here, but I'd love one. I'd say there were five main reasons for the war: - To eliminate the threat Saddam posed to the United States via WMD and his support of terrorism - To eliminate the threat Saddam posed to his neighbors, namely Israel - To establish a fledgling democracy in the Middle East/to move past the history of American support for dictatorships for the promise of stability now that this was seen as promoting long term instability and terrorism - To establish a more reliable and friendly source of oil than Saudi Arabia - To eliminate/punish Saddam's gross history of human rights abuses. And I didn't have a problem with Vapor's joke, the premise of which is that Americans don't have much regard for the loss of human life when it's not people that look like them, which I think is mostly true. I didn't take it as you did, as an accusation of ethnic cleansing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nunboy Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 I'd love an intelligent discussion. I doubt I'm going to get one in here, but I'd love one. I'd say there were five main reasons for the war: - To eliminate the threat Saddam posed to the United States via WMD and his support of terrorism - To eliminate the threat Saddam posed to his neighbors, namely Israel - To establish a fledgling democracy in the Middle East/to move past the history of American support for dictatorships for the promise of stability now that this was seen as promoting long term instability and terrorism - To establish a more reliable and friendly source of oil than Saudi Arabia - To eliminate/punish Saddam's gross history of human rights abuses. And I didn't have a problem with Vapor's joke, the premise of which is that Americans don't have much regard for the loss of human life when it's not people that look like them, which I think is mostly true. I didn't take it as you did, as an accusation of ethnic cleansing. I agree that the reasons were largely policy. Our stated reasons for going in may have been tenuous but the overall outcome was a positive. We removed a dictator with a pretty horrific rap sheet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted March 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 I'd say the overall outcome was something much closer to "disastrous." The costs were also astronomical, both in human lives and in billions of dollars lost. The most important of the reasons for the war turned out to be false. The second most important goal was bungled and not achieved. And the benefits of removing Saddam have been far, far outweighed by the costs, which we'll be paying for for a generation. A truly epic disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Blows is trying to fill Bunker's spot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nunboy Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 I'd say the overall outcome was something much closer to "disastrous." The costs were also astronomical, both in human lives and in billions of dollars lost. The most important of the reasons for the war turned out to be false. The second most important goal was bungled and not achieved. And the benefits of removing Saddam have been far, far outweighed by the costs, which we'll be paying for for a generation. A truly epic disaster. Maybe to you the costs outweighed the benefit but we are one less despot tin-pot dictator better. Lives were already being lost if we went in or not. If they hate us for it, then that is their problem not ours. We gave them an opportunity to better themselves if they squander it, that is not on us. We get flak for sitting by and watching him attempt genocide invading other nations and threatening war with allies, and we get flak for doing something about it. Some people can just never be satisfied and I am fine with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Maybe to you the costs outweighed the benefit but we are one less despot tin-pot dictator better. Lives were already being lost if we went in or not. If they hate us for it, then that is their problem not ours. We gave them an opportunity to better themselves if they squander it, that is not on us. We get flak for sitting by and watching him attempt genocide invading other nations and threatening war with allies, and we get flak for doing something about it. Some people can just never be satisfied and I am fine with that. Just because Saddam is gone doesn't mean we should have done it, nor that it was a good move. If your point is that there was genocide and lives were being lost, then explain to me why we're not in Darfur or East Timor? The fact is, we went there for other reasons, and the "opportunity to better themselves" involved a whole lot of Iraqis dying. That is on us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nunboy Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Just because Saddam is gone doesn't mean we should have done it, nor that it was a good move. If your point is that there was genocide and lives were being lost, then explain to me why we're not in Darfur or East Timor? The fact is, we went there for other reasons, and the "opportunity to better themselves" involved a whole lot of Iraqis dying. That is on us. This is just my point we get flak for not being in these countries we get flak if we go in. some people will never be satisfied. I also stated in my first response that we went largely on policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nunboy Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 We go into a country that fields child armies we get labeled as child killing monsters. If we sit by, we are apathetic assholes who do nothing. We can't win. It's just the nature of politics in the world, everybody has a nit to pick with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 This is just my point we get flak for not being in these countries we get flak if we go in. some people will never be satisfied. I also stated in my first response that we went largely on policy. But you said that the outcome was largely positive, and you didn't really justify it beyond saying that we killed a guy who did some very, very shitty things as the leader of that country. It's not taking a look at the wider picture. How did this affect perception of the US in the Middle East? Not in a good way. How did it affect Iran? It gave them more power. Tactically, it gave us leverage over Iran in that we literally surround them with potential points of ingress, but is it a strategic advantage? If we can maintain those bases and popular support even as Russia and China are paying people to revolt against the puppet governments (which will probably happen in the next two decades), then I think that's the only time I'd be willing to say it was a success. I'm skeptical if this is good in the long run. What we've done further polarized the region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted March 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Maybe to you the costs outweighed the benefit but we are one less despot tin-pot dictator better. Lives were already being lost if we went in or not. If they hate us for it, then that is their problem not ours. We gave them an opportunity to better themselves if they squander it, that is not on us. We get flak for sitting by and watching him attempt genocide invading other nations and threatening war with allies, and we get flak for doing something about it. Some people can just never be satisfied and I am fine with that. Oh my God. This is a horrible post. We lost over 4,000 Americans with tens of thousands permanently maimed and injured. Families ripped apart. Kids without fathers and mothers. How were those lives already being lost whether we went in or not? Likewise, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died because of our invasion. Yes, they were living under a horribly repressive regime, but Saddam wasn't killing hundreds of thousands of his own people. And you expect them to love us for all of this? Good God. Are you serious? Awful. Awful post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nunboy Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 But you said that the outcome was largely positive, and you didn't really justify it beyond saying that we killed a guy who did some very, very shitty things as the leader of that country. It's not taking a look at the wider picture. How did this affect perception of the US in the Middle East? Not in a good way. How did it affect Iran? It gave them more power. Tactically, it gave us leverage over Iran in that we literally surround them with potential points of ingress, but is it a strategic advantage? If we can maintain those bases and popular support even as Russia and China are paying people to revolt against the puppet governments (which will probably happen in the next two decades), then I think that's the only time I'd be willing to say it was a success. I'm skeptical if this is good in the long run. What we've done further polarized the region. People in the middle east hate us no matter what we do. How they feel about us has not changed, that can hardly be counted against us. There is however one less mass murdering despot bent on the destruction of Israel and the west in stable power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Oh my God. This is a horrible post. We lost over 4,000 Americans with tens of thousands permanently maimed and injured. Families ripped apart. Kids without fathers and mothers. How were those lives already being lost whether we went in or not? Likewise, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died because of our invasion. Yes, they were living under a horribly repressive regime, but Saddam wasn't killing hundreds of thousands of his own people. And you expect them to love us for all of this? Good God. Are you serious? Awful. Awful post. Heck, c'mon, I mean we allegedly killed only 200 thousand of them. That's a positive, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nunboy Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Oh my God. This is a horrible post. We lost over 4,000 Americans with tens of thousands permanently maimed and injured. Families ripped apart. Kids without fathers and mothers. How were those lives already being lost whether we went in or not? Likewise, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died because of our invasion. Yes, they were living under a horribly repressive regime, but Saddam wasn't killing hundreds of thousands of his own people. And you expect them to love us for all of this? Good God. Are you serious? Awful. Awful post. He was using chemical weapons on his own people! Why do you hold us responsible for families torn apart. what about the families torn apart when he went into war. why just gloss over all of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nunboy Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Heck, c'mon, I mean we allegedly killed only 200 thousand of them. That's a positive, right? See, here it is no matter what we do we are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 See, here it is no matter what we do we are wrong. Killing a quarter of a million people for an unjustified reason is what you would consider right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nunboy Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Killing a quarter of a million people for an unjustified reason is what you would consider right? Sitting by and watching him execute and gas his own people, and watching him start wars is right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nunboy Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Sitting by and watching him execute and gas his own people, and watching him start wars is right? Number of Victims According to The New York Times, "he [saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule". Other estimates as to the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam's regime vary from roughly a quarter to half a million, including 50,000 to 182,000 Kurds and 25,000 to 280,000 killed during the repression of the 1991 rebellion. Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Number of Victims According to The New York Times, "he [saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule". Other estimates as to the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam's regime vary from roughly a quarter to half a million, including 50,000 to 182,000 Kurds and 25,000 to 280,000 killed during the repression of the 1991 rebellion. Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000. So are we supposed to kill everyone who commits genocides? There are people with similar numbers to Saddam that are still out there. Not to mention that you're implying that killing 600,000 Iraqis was a good way to liberate the Iraqi people. We should've killed him in the first Gulf War so that we wouldn't get pulled into this decade long occupation bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.