If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   10 years ago today, the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq began and answers once and for all the age old question of "What could possibly go wrong?"   (reuters.com) divider line 182
    More: Fail, invasion of Iraq, Iraq, U.S., Said Ali al Farha, Maliki, ISI, Anbar, Shiites  
•       •       •

2032 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Mar 2013 at 8:38 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



182 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-19 09:10:56 AM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: nekom: So what happened to them?

Some chemical weapons degrade over time to the point where they're effectively useless.  Not sure about nerve gas though.


No doubt, but if he had the capability to make them at one point, he could have renewed the aging supply. I don't think it's all that difficult to manufacture VX, mustard gas, etc. At least it's a lot easier than getting a nuke or weapons grade anthrax. That's always kind of puzzled me.
 
2013-03-19 09:11:45 AM

neversubmit: and everybody lived happily ever after

Bombs kill 50 on Iraq invasion anniversary

(Reuters) - A dozen car bombs and suicide blasts tore into Shi'ite districts in Baghdad and south of the Iraqi capital on Tuesday, killing more than 50 people on the 10th anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein.


Aww.... they remembered.  How sweet.
 
2013-03-19 09:12:34 AM

dukeblue219: I still can't believe "Freedom Fries" actually happened in the United States Congress.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 400x599]


I liked when a bunch of dullards went and bought up tons of French wine to dump in to the sewer. That must have really killed the people collecting the cash.
 
2013-03-19 09:12:38 AM

Dinki: It certainly was a low point in the maturity level of the US congress.


And then they started to dig...
 
2013-03-19 09:13:05 AM
God I was so farking stupid. I won't bullshiat people and say I opposed it at the time.  I'd like to go back in time and cockpunch my 2003 self.
 
2013-03-19 09:14:52 AM
nekom:
No doubt, but if he had the capability to make them at one point, he could have renewed the aging supply. I don't think it's all that difficult to manufacture VX, mustard gas, etc. At least it's a lot easier than getting a nuke or weapons grade anthrax. That's always kind of puzzled me.

It always puzzled me why he ordered parts specifically meant for nuclear power/weapons.  Yeah, he was faking it and trying to intimidate us.  But really?  He had to of known that meant war, which they would lose.

/farker was insane
 
2013-03-19 09:16:01 AM

DubtodaIll: What I've always wondered was what they hoped to gain by this invasion.  And if they actually had a goal did they achieve it?   The best I can figure was to extend our influence in the zone to make sure we were on top of the limited resource of oil.  And that's really not all that bad a thing to do strategerically speaking.  But it's not like we didn't have plenty of influence there already and all that has happened is oil prices have continued to climb.  So really we just spent several trillion dollars to spend more money.  I guess the only way to justify the "Defense" budget is to use it every now and then and this was as good a reason as any.


It was about the neo-cons trying to create the new American Empire.
 
2013-03-19 09:16:48 AM
The war payed for itself and peace has swept across the region.  I fail to see the problem here.
 
2013-03-19 09:17:16 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: DamnYankees: about 150K Iraqis (still a staggering number). If you compare to Vietnam, those are small numbers. So that's something.

That 150k number that keeps getting thrown out is a lowball based only on reports in the media. The real number is several times higher.


Drone's cant make notches in their helmet?
 
2013-03-19 09:17:37 AM

DamnYankees: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: DamnYankees: about 150K Iraqis (still a staggering number). If you compare to Vietnam, those are small numbers. So that's something.

That 150k number that keeps getting thrown out is a lowball based only on reports in the media. The real number is several times higher.

All I can use is the numbers reported by people I can trust. Also, just like the 150K is an approximation, so are the Vietnam numbers. For the sake of comparison I don't know what else to use.



Based on the work done by British based Opinion Research Business back in 2007 and the subsequent tracking by organizations adding to that research in the time since, I'd argue that number is actually closer to 1.4 million dead (with another 4.5 million injured and 4.2 million refugees). The book Erasing Iraq: The Human Costs of Carnage is an excellent overview of the efforts by our government to undermine every serious attempt at estimating the true human cost of the invasion and occupation. Regardless, those are number *I* trust. If I take that as a jumping off point, we're talking about 5% of the population of Iraq. Compare that to 2.5% of the population lost in the U.S. Civil War or 3% to 4% of the population of Japan in WWII. So no, I think your premise is deeply flawed.
 
2013-03-19 09:17:38 AM
Before I post anything, I forget. Are we allowed to comment, or are we still waiting for history to judge this boondoggle a waste and Americans complacent for not having the offenders hung, drawn and quartered for lying a nation into war and promoting torture?
 
2013-03-19 09:17:42 AM

thecpt: nekom:
No doubt, but if he had the capability to make them at one point, he could have renewed the aging supply. I don't think it's all that difficult to manufacture VX, mustard gas, etc. At least it's a lot easier than getting a nuke or weapons grade anthrax. That's always kind of puzzled me.

It always puzzled me why he ordered parts specifically meant for nuclear power/weapons.  Yeah, he was faking it and trying to intimidate us.  But really?  He had to of known that meant war, which they would lose.

/farker was insane


Well, he overplayed his hand, whatever the case. I think he probably believed that we'd have a Gulf War I redux, we'd bomb and eventually get tired of bombing, he'd go back to his palace, declare victory and move right along. He misunderestimated Bush, apparently.
 
MFK
2013-03-19 09:17:58 AM

Flakeloaf: DamnYankees: \MFK: solitary: This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.

Too easy. Do you really think a majority of Americans were knowingly complicit in a lie? Please.

When Colin Powell says he didn't know he wasn't telling the truth to the UNSC (even though he probably should have) there's no way a public who believes what FOX tells them could reasonably be expected to figure it out.


Bullshiat. This is a cop out of the highest order. It was glaringly obvious that the whole debacle was trumped up. Remember the million-strong protests in NYC and elsewhere? Millions of us knew it was lies. If you weren't paying attention at the time, that's not the fault of "the media", that's on you.
 
2013-03-19 09:20:03 AM
DubtodaIll: What I've always wondered was what they hoped to gain by this invasion.  And if they actually had a goal did they achieve it?   The best I can figure was to extend our influence in the zone to make sure we were on top of the limited resource of oil.  And that's really not all that bad a thing to do strategerically speaking.  But it's not like we didn't have plenty of influence there already and all that has happened is oil prices have continued to climb.  So really we just spent several trillion dollars to spend more money.  I guess the only way to justify the "Defense" budget is to use it every now and then and this was as good a reason as any.

i think it was along these lines:

"well, boys, what do we do to assure 9 11 cant happen again, and to "drain the swamp of the middle east" of terrorism? how do we modernize the place, we cant touch the sauds and the iranians are our sworn enemies and stronger than iraq. if we can bring one of the major players forward, we can hopefully modernize the whole place and its McDonalds and Starbucks on every corner, peace, prosperity, and lucrative oil contracts as a nice perk. how bout baghdad? they should be the most receptive. they dont like saddam, theyre a relatively secular arab society (in contrast to the sauds), if we can real quick topple saddam in the way that Rummy thinks he can with this new modern invasion concept, it wont cost much, wont take many guys to do, and we can have iraq, the biggest guy in the region, as our best friend in the region.  this will put reform pressure on iran and saudi and make the whole place mroe stable."

i really dont think oil was the driver, although it was certainly going to be a nice kickback / perk.

wolfowitz and his other neocon cronys really believed in leveraging american power "for good" (read: to further American interests); and using it to expand American style power and freedom around the world and to change the region for "everyone's benefit", this follows the neocon ideology (from wiki): "Neoconservatism is a branch ofAmerican conservatism that includes endorsement of political individualism, free markets and the assertive promotion of democracy, and American national interest in international affairs including by military means"

-------
Further wiki stuff:
During Bush's State of the Union speech of January 2002, he named Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as states that "constitute an axis of evil" and "pose a grave and growing danger". Bush suggested the possibility of preemptive war: "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.

Some major defense and national-security persons have been quite critical of what they believed was neoconservative influence in getting the United States to war with Iraq.
Nebraska Republican U.S. senator Chuck Hagel, who has been critical of the Bush administration's adoption of neoconservative ideology, in his book America: Our Next Chapter wrote:

"So why did we invade Iraq? I believe it was the triumph of the so-called neo-conservative ideology, as well as Bush administration arrogance and incompetence that took America into this war of choice. . . . They obviously made a convincing case to a president with very limited national security and foreign policy experience, who keenly felt the burden of leading the nation in the wake of the deadliest terrorist attack ever on American soil."

Policy analysts noted that the Bush Doctrine as stated in the 2002 NSC document had a strong resemblance to recommendations presented originally in a controversial Defense Planning Guidance draft written during 1992 by Paul Wolfowitz, during the first Bush administration. The Bush Doctrine was greeted with accolades by many neoconservatives. When asked whether he agreed with the Bush Doctrine, Max Boot said he did, and that "I think [Bush is] exactly right to say we can't sit back and wait for the next terrorist strike on Manhattan. We have to go out and stop the terrorists overseas. We have to play the role of the global policeman. . . . But I also argue that we ought to go further. Discussing the significance of the Bush Doctrine, neoconservative writer William Kristol claimed: "The world is a mess. And, I think, it's very much to Bush's credit that he's gotten serious about dealing with it. . . . The danger is not that we're going to do too much. The danger is that we're going to do too little."
----------

The thing is, this, on paper, is not a terrible idea. What was so criminally incompetent was how it was executed. If bush could've been more patient, built the case necessary with the Supranational bodies like the UN and gotten legitimacy and a broader base of support (had an alliance more along the lines of what Baker assembled for his father during the Liberation of Kuwait) and invaded Iraq, even if had been under BS terms as it surely would've been, but with a UN mandate and blue helmets on every street corner in Iraq in large numbers, the insurgency "against the americans" never would've had the legitimacy it had in the eyes of the Iraqis as fighting an oppressor/imperialist/invader.

We would've had other countries helping foot the bill for it, and it would've had a much larger potential for success.

As it was, just letting the US military run it along with Bremer, who completely clusterfarked it, was just a recipe for failure. Noone even appears to have given what happens AFTER the toppling of saddam a second thought.

The breath taking incompetence of the Bush administration in this regard is mind boggling. The accusation of "theyre war criminals" has merit. Certainly a stronger case for that than the evidence which justified the invasion.
 
2013-03-19 09:20:07 AM

nekom: He misunderestimated Bush, apparently.


I think you misdispronounciated that one.
 
2013-03-19 09:20:28 AM
The repercussions were that Obammmma was elected twice.
 
2013-03-19 09:21:40 AM
How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.
 
2013-03-19 09:21:40 AM
I'll tell you what. The programs that progress a civilization were cut or reduced in order to pay for a war nobody wanted.
 
2013-03-19 09:22:24 AM

HotWingConspiracy: dukeblue219: I still can't believe "Freedom Fries" actually happened in the United States Congress.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 400x599]

I liked when a bunch of dullards went and bought up tons of French wine to dump in to the sewer. That must have really killed the people collecting the cash.


you remember that nutjob florida politician who wanted to have all our GIs in French cemetaries who fell in ww1 and ww2 disinterred and buried on US soiL?
 
2013-03-19 09:23:11 AM

Earl of Chives: Bladel: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: solitary: WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.

I don't think that's 100% true, although I think the majority opposed to the war knew, for whatever their reasons, that the whole thing was a bad idea.

Ok, but the original point stands:  People spoke out at the time.  Not only were they ridiculed, their love of America was called to question.

This is the correct answer. Many people could see this was a horrific mistake from jump street.


Too many of the wrong people, too few of the ones that mattered.
Someone will always disagree with any decision and appear to be right in hindsight. But many of these views developed along partisan lines.   Those who thought they were seeing the evidence decided to go along with the war.

Fact is that wars never go smoothly.  You've got to adapt your goals to a changing situation.
We should be looking at the present situation and sorting out why its falling apart and how to fix it.
Instead we are looking to blame someone, because that's what politics is these days.

We didn't have a long term goal going in and we never developed one throughout a decade of debate.
Its going to end in a miserable pile of failure, but not just because of how it started. Its because of our habitual inability to construct and enforce a strait forward policy on foreign intervention.
 
2013-03-19 09:24:08 AM
I wouldn't have a hard time with a sad tag, but a big hearty fuk U to Subb, his enabler and his groupies for the FAIL tag. War sucks, but kindly go shove it in your stinkholes. I'm really surprised you don't picket VFW parking lots and boast your huge intellectual superiority there.
 
2013-03-19 09:24:42 AM

I'd just like to say sorry to all of the service members who ended up there because of lies. But thank you - that doesn't make your service less admirable in the slightest.

Sorry to all the Iraqi families torn apart by this. Especially those who aided the Americans and coalition who weren't offered a fast track path to citizenship for themselves and their families after they were put in harms way.

A big F--K YOU to the people who orchestrated this bullsh-t. I hope you realize the blood on your hands Lady Macbeth style.

solitary: This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.


This.

I do wish I could have done more. Don't know what that would have been, though.


Shrugging Atlas: God I was so farking stupid. I won't bullshiat people and say I opposed it at the time.  I'd like to go back in time and cockpunch my 2003 self.


Thanks for admitting it.  That sounds sarcastic, but it isn't.

 
2013-03-19 09:26:26 AM
Pottery Barn rule?

Pottery Barn rule.
 
2013-03-19 09:26:49 AM

Stinkyy: I wouldn't have a hard time with a sad tag, but a big hearty fuk U to Subb, his enabler and his groupies for the FAIL tag. War sucks, but kindly go shove it in your stinkholes. I'm really surprised you don't picket VFW parking lots and boast your huge intellectual superiority there.


Dafuq are you going on about?
 
2013-03-19 09:27:38 AM

DamnYankees: It is interesting to point out though that, historically speaking, our wars are getting 'better' - ie less people are dying. Whether its due to a better sense of morality in war, more precision weapons, better health care or something else, in the 10 years since we went into Iraq, we 'only' lost about 4.5K Americans and about 150K Iraqis (still a staggering number). If you compare to Vietnam, those are small numbers. So that's something.


While I don't doubt that the US military is much more skilled in 2013 than it was in 1973, that conclusion should be tempered by the fact that 1) Vietnam was a much more populated country, both in absolute numbers and in density; 2) we were essentially fighting a foreign army (the NVA), and one supported by two fairly powerful allies at that (USSR and China -- Iran and Syria can't compare); and 3) we were fighting with a draftee army.
 
2013-03-19 09:27:46 AM
 
2013-03-19 09:29:27 AM

MFK: solitary: This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.


QFT - I remember going to protests before the war (and I'm not a stand with a sign protest type).  I was in such a minority. It seemed everywhere I turned people were beating the drums for war.

I wish we could impose a tax on all those that wanted the war...
 
2013-03-19 09:31:43 AM

MFK: Flakeloaf: DamnYankees: \MFK: solitary: This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.

Too easy. Do you really think a majority of Americans were knowingly complicit in a lie? Please.

When Colin Powell says he didn't know he wasn't telling the truth to the UNSC (even though he probably should have) there's no way a public who believes what FOX tells them could reasonably be expected to figure it out.

Bullshiat. This is a cop out of the highest order. It was glaringly obvious that the whole debacle was trumped up. Remember the million-strong protests in NYC and elsewhere? Millions of us knew it was lies. If you weren't paying attention at the time, that's not the fault of "the media", that's on you.


This.

In my hometown there's a decent population of folks who fled Iraq.  There is no f--king love lost for Saddam.  And of the half-dozen or so conversations I can remember with some of them off the top of my head, not a single person believed the BS reasoning for going into war.  Most of them said that it was still justified, or that Saddam had to be stopped by any means necessary anyway, but if people who have damn good reasons for hating Saddam didn't buy into this crap... COME ON.

It was stupidly, mind-blowingly obvious.
 
MFK
2013-03-19 09:32:57 AM

way south: Earl of Chives: Bladel: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: solitary: WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.

I don't think that's 100% true, although I think the majority opposed to the war knew, for whatever their reasons, that the whole thing was a bad idea.

Ok, but the original point stands:  People spoke out at the time.  Not only were they ridiculed, their love of America was called to question.

This is the correct answer. Many people could see this was a horrific mistake from jump street.

Too many of the wrong people, too few of the ones that mattered.
Someone will always disagree with any decision and appear to be right in hindsight. But many of these views developed along partisan lines.   Those who thought they were seeing the evidence decided to go along with the war.

Fact is that wars never go smoothly.  You've got to adapt your goals to a changing situation.
We should be looking at the present situation and sorting out why its falling apart and how to fix it.
Instead we are looking to blame someone, because that's what politics is these days.

We didn't have a long term goal going in and we never developed one throughout a decade of debate.
Its going to end in a miserable pile of failure, but not just because of how it started. Its because of our habitual inability to construct and enforce a strait forward policy on foreign intervention.


Are you serious? We shouldn't be blaming anyone?? I guess then in a situation where some guy breaks into your house and rapes your wife and kills your kids, you would be "let's just figure out how i'm gonna move forward and not spend any time pointing fingers or squabbling about who raped who", right?
 
2013-03-19 09:38:40 AM

Publikwerks: http://www.fark.com/comments/473888/White-House-says-disarmament-of-I r aq-has-begun-President-Bush-to-make-statement-at-1015-PM-EST-link-goes -to-not-much


and from the first 100 or so comments alone, that is farking hilarious and exactly what I was trying to say.  The amount of people who don't take responsibility for their public opinion is staggering, and whether they like it or not their opinion matters.

/was in 8th grade at the time
 
2013-03-19 09:39:34 AM
Some of us were on fark way back when, and I remember how openly hostile a lot of Americans were towards Canadians. We'd get the "you only exist because we protected your ass against invasion from the Soviets", and "you're cowards hiding under our coat tails"...
We'd also read how sh*tty our socialist commie government was, how we were communists supporting terrorism by letting 9/11 terrorists cross the border and into your country (a complete f*cking lie that few bothered to correct), how we were traitors and didn't have the balls to stand up to anyone. Out in Alberta we'd read stories how farmers who had known each other for years could no longer drive across the border into Montana and sit in a restaurant without some asshole calling us cowards, throwing food on us or spitting on us and such for not joining the co-alition. And this taking place only a short while after Canada had hosted thousands of stranded Americans when 9/11 shut down the skies over the U.S. Also while Bush and co were ratchecting the trade embargo on beef cattle, and Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh said that the United States should invade Canada.

I got to tell you. It changed a lot of us and how we feel about Americans. I haven't been across the border since. Some of you won't care, but it was a sh*tty way to treat your closet allies and neighbours.
 
2013-03-19 09:39:51 AM

DubtodaIll: What I've always wondered was what they hoped to gain by this invasion. And if they actually had a goal did they achieve it?


I recall seeing Kurt Vonnegut on one show (don't remember which one) where he raved about how the suits in office wanted the Iraqi oil.  I suppose it was a factor.

But as to the actual "achievements"...?  The administration at the time believed Iraq would become this "shining beacon, demonstrating a new standard of living in a free democratic society."  But what actually happened?

- America is now the most hated and despised country on the globe.  None of us will live to see that opinion change.  Nor will our children.  Crusades, anyone....?

- Iraq is now more closely aligned with Iran, when previously they kept Iran in check.  The fact that Iran is now running rampant is one consequence we'll be dealing with for a long time.

- Does anyone recall hearing the phrase "our credibility in the region"?  It was used frequently by the Bush administration.  *What* credibility?  It's evident that the mass quantities of outright lies that were cited to justify the invasion did an outstanding job of sustaining that credibility.

- We did have the support of the entire world after 9/11.  That was a prime opportunity that was squandered in the worst possible way.  The Iraq invasion wiped that clean.

- Haliburton and some other corporations made a LOT of money.  But for some reason this war did not stimulate the economy on the homefront as others have in the past.

There are more.  But I'm feeling a bit nauseated for some reason.
 
2013-03-19 09:39:59 AM

Publikwerks: http://www.fark.com/comments/473888/White-House-says-disarmament-of-I r aq-has-begun-President-Bush-to-make-statement-at-1015-PM-EST-link-goes -to-not-much


This proves once and for all Fark wasn't better 10 years ago.
 
2013-03-19 09:41:22 AM

solitary: This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.


This * 2infinity-1
 
2013-03-19 09:42:15 AM

MFK: way south: Earl of Chives: Bladel: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: solitary: WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.

I don't think that's 100% true, although I think the majority opposed to the war knew, for whatever their reasons, that the whole thing was a bad idea.

Ok, but the original point stands:  People spoke out at the time.  Not only were they ridiculed, their love of America was called to question.

This is the correct answer. Many people could see this was a horrific mistake from jump street.

Too many of the wrong people, too few of the ones that mattered.
Someone will always disagree with any decision and appear to be right in hindsight. But many of these views developed along partisan lines.   Those who thought they were seeing the evidence decided to go along with the war.

Fact is that wars never go smoothly.  You've got to adapt your goals to a changing situation.
We should be looking at the present situation and sorting out why its falling apart and how to fix it.
Instead we are looking to blame someone, because that's what politics is these days.

We didn't have a long term goal going in and we never developed one throughout a decade of debate.
Its going to end in a miserable pile of failure, but not just because of how it started. Its because of our habitual inability to construct and enforce a strait forward policy on foreign intervention.

Are you serious? We shouldn't be blaming anyone?? I guess then in a situation where some guy breaks into your house and rapes your wife and kills your kids, you would be "let's just figure out how i'm gonna move forward and not spend any time pointing fingers or squabbling about who raped who", right?


He meant, "Don't blame the guys I voted for and cheered on 10 years ago while I called anyone who doubted or argued terrorist sympathizers."
 
2013-03-19 09:43:28 AM
Where are all the farkers who always used the "Glass. Parking. Lot." gem? Seriously, everybody who posted shiat like that and supported the wars and the assholes who launched them, f*ck you. You have shown you can't be trusted choosing a breakfast cereal.
 
2013-03-19 09:47:58 AM
Let's go to war! Glass parking lot! Muslims suck!

Oh, we have to actually pay for it?

With tax dollars?

Stop the freeloaders! Stick it to the poor! Taxed Enough Already!
 
2013-03-19 09:48:59 AM

Flakeloaf: That is why we did not join you. For all of Jean Chretien's flaws, he was the proud owner of some of the largest testicles on the planet, and he had no problem at all telling Blair and Bush to go pound sand all by themselves. I saw an interview with him last week and the journalist suggested it was some huge, moumental step forward for Canadian sovereignty to tell the US that we wouldn't be joining a war on the wrong side. He agreed it was a big deal on the national stage, but correctly pointed out that there really is no other way that decision should've gone.


I'm always sure to mention that to the legions of Stephen Harper supporters I am surrounded by. I'm also sure to further remind them that ol' Stevie, supported the US and would have sent Canadian troops to Iraq had he been Prime Minister at the time.

Stephen Harper would rather have played nice with the US than do the right thing.

What an ass.
 
2013-03-19 09:54:04 AM
Mission Accomplished!
 
2013-03-19 09:56:46 AM

nekom: There is one thing that I still haven't been able to figure out.  Saddam DID at one time have nerve gas, in fact he used it on the Kurds.  The USA wasn't the ONLY intelligence agency that said that he had them.  So what happened to them?  Obviously they were gone, I think they found some old shells with residue but that's about it.  People said they went to Syria, but with all that's going on there and the fact that they weren't deployed, that's obviously not the case.

So what really happened?  Did Saddam voluntarily get rid of them years ago?  Or did he think they still had them, perhaps his generals just lied to him and said they did?  It's said that near the tail end of WW2, Hitler was commanding imaginary armies, no one wanted to tell him the truth, perhaps that was the case there?  Obviously they are gone, just wondering what led from him having them to him not.


Chemical weapons have a shelf life of 5 years. Bio weapons 3 years. That's why they were making such a big deal out of labs and production facilities. To have an active weapons program, they needed a shiat ton of production because it dies off so quickly. That's how simple chuckleheads like me knew they had nothing before the war started. As an engineer who helps design mass spectrometer systems, if you can't find traces of the bad stuff, it never existed. That's how we know there was nothing to move as mass spec technology measures parts per million. In other words, you can't move that stuff without a trace. When I had this discussion with my teatard brother, he called me an idiot spouting talking points. And I'm at least as conservative as him. The biggest difference being, I have a fully functional bullshiat detector.

We were had - plain and simple. Bush got 100% of every facet of that war wrong and you can't accidentally 100% wrong about anything of that scope and size. Especially with unlimited resources at your disposal. In fact, they found so little that they could not find a single shred of evidence they could overhype to justify the invasion.
 
2013-03-19 09:56:54 AM

Flakeloaf: When Colin Powell says he didn't know he wasn't telling the truth to the UNSC (even though he probably should have) there's no way a public who believes what FOX tells them could reasonably be expected to figure it out.


Assuming he was honest when he said that, that comment is what made me lose respect for Powell.  I watched him talk to the UN, and when he held up those pictures of the "chemical trucks," my honest-to-Cthulu reaction was "Please tell me that's not all you've got."  I knew it was complete bullshiat at the time, so I can't imagine how stupid he had to have been to not see it.
 
2013-03-19 09:57:14 AM
 
2013-03-19 10:04:24 AM

Farkomatic:
We were had - plain and simple. Bush got 100% of every facet of that war wrong and you can't accidentally 100% wrong about anything of that scope and size. Especially with unlimited resources at your disposal. In fact, they found so little that they could not find a single shred of evidence they could overhype to justify the invasion. ...


Oh I don't dispute that one bit. There absolutely were NOT any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in Iraq, nor did they appear to have the ability to produce them. That much is glaringly obvious at this point. But the fact remains that at one time, he did possess and deploy chemical weaponry. At one time, therefore, he must have had the means to produce them. The only question left in my mind is exactly WHY they appear to have stopped making them.

To be fair, they DID find residue on very old shells, but that's hardly a "see, told ya so!" moment. There was NOTHING there, that's crystal clear. But why? That's what I don't really get.
 
2013-03-19 10:08:55 AM
From those posting the 2003 thread, I found this comment which speaks volumes (i didn't want to use the Farker's name):


All I have to say is after 9/11 Bush stated that after Afghanistan, that was not the end. We were fighting a war against terrorism and anyone that sponsored, funded, or participated in that would be handled. He also stated that this would be a long task and that even though most of the nation is for that now, the support would start to taper off. Also why is it that all I see on the news is Anti-war protests? We had a pro-america rally attended by 25,000 people here in Atlanta and a anti-war rally attended by 450 people. The only thing CNN showed was the anti-rally. So you tell me how we can depend on info from the media when they only show one side. There are as many pro-america rallies as anti yet you see none of those on tv...The media is all about what will make controversial news and nothing about fact. 71% of the nation support the war effort yet all you see on tv is the opposite. I don't like war and would love to avoid it. But does anyone else see the comparisons of Saddam and Hitler? Germany opposed military action against Hitler and look what he did to that country? But if Bush didn't call for this war and another 9/11 scenario happened they'd blame him for that too. He'll never win either way.

/NOT SAYING THAT POST PROVED ANYTHING.  I just found it to be extremely interesting and informative.
 
2013-03-19 10:15:53 AM

indarwinsshadow: I got to tell you. It changed a lot of us and how we feel about Americans. I haven't been across the border since. Some of you won't care, but it was a sh*tty way to treat your closet allies and neighbours.


I'm sorry on behalf of the morons who acted like that. A lot of us, myself included, supported the war. I wish I hadn't.

Come back and visit sometime... I hope things have changed a bit. We're still crazy, loud, and obnoxious, and we love to rag on Canada, but it's just in a little brother sort of way. I can't recall the last time I heard someone actually say something bad aboot you guys :)
 
2013-03-19 10:21:31 AM

thecpt: From those posting the 2003 thread, I found this comment which speaks volumes (i didn't want to use the Farker's name):


All I have to say is after 9/11 Bush stated that after Afghanistan, that was not the end. We were fighting a war against terrorism and anyone that sponsored, funded, or participated in that would be handled. He also stated that this would be a long task and that even though most of the nation is for that now, the support would start to taper off. Also why is it that all I see on the news is Anti-war protests? We had a pro-america rally attended by 25,000 people here in Atlanta and a anti-war rally attended by 450 people. The only thing CNN showed was the anti-rally. So you tell me how we can depend on info from the media when they only show one side. There are as many pro-america rallies as anti yet you see none of those on tv...The media is all about what will make controversial news and nothing about fact. 71% of the nation support the war effort yet all you see on tv is the opposite. I don't like war and would love to avoid it. But does anyone else see the comparisons of Saddam and Hitler? Germany opposed military action against Hitler and look what he did to that country? But if Bush didn't call for this war and another 9/11 scenario happened they'd blame him for that too. He'll never win either way.

/NOT SAYING THAT POST PROVED ANYTHING.  I just found it to be extremely interesting and informative.


What you see in this thread is the political victors indulging in a Squealer-style rewriting of history, pretending their politically motivated naysaying was propelled by knowledge Hussein himself didn't have at the time.

/someday PsiChick will be proudly declaring that 9/11 was carried out in response to Dubya's invasion of Iraq
//hopefully there will still be someone left who values little details like "chronological order"
 
2013-03-19 10:25:31 AM

Tatterdemalian: What you see in this thread is the political victors indulging in a Squealer-style rewriting of history, pretending their politically motivated naysaying was propelled by knowledge Hussein himself didn't have at the time.


LOLWUT?  (to be polite)
 
2013-03-19 10:25:44 AM
But I thought we won!

www.famouspictures.org
 
2013-03-19 10:29:25 AM
Its a fail tag so lets post some fail from that 2003 thread:

We elected him, get over it. Vietnam was a Democrat war with the purpose of containment. That shiat won't happen here, Bush knows what he's doing without wimpy liberal nice guy weasel attempts.

I wish the stupid liberals were in Iraq right now.

You know, Bush and Blair are either gonna go down as Abe Lincoln and Winston Churchill
 
2013-03-19 10:32:08 AM

solitary: This has nothing to do with hindsight.  WE KNEW AT THE TIME THEY WERE LYING.  Those of us who were paying attention.  Those of you who weren't should be ashamed of yourselves.


THIS THIS THISITY THIS.
 
Displayed 50 of 182 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report