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  
•       •       •

2025 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 12:35:37 PM
Donald Rumsfeld  @RumsfeldOffice
10 yrs ago began the long, difficult work of liberating 25 mil Iraqis. All who played a role in history deserve our respect & appreciation.



Go fark yourself.
 
MFK
2013-03-19 12:44:15 PM

DamnYankees: Alphax: We'd been flying air patrols over Iraq for the past 10+ years.  Nothing could move in their air space without US permission.  And now they're a threat that must be attacked before they nuke us?  Not credible.

Once again - congratulations for thinking that in 2003. You were right and I was wrong. I readily admit it.

Now, how is this helpful in figuring out how to prevent this in the future?


for starters, when they start beating the war drums over Iran or North Korea, you demand hard solid evidence and don't shut up until they provide it. If they can't provide it, you do everything you can to stop them.
 
2013-03-19 12:44:22 PM

thecpt: jso2897: As in Vietnam - there was never any "victory" there for us to "win" in the first place, and no way to "develop" one later that was going to fool anybody.

the goal was to stop the spread of the red,no?  Sounds fun.


Wasn't.
 
2013-03-19 12:46:31 PM

DamnYankees: Donald Rumsfeld  @RumsfeldOffice
10 yrs ago began the long, difficult work of liberating 25 mil Iraqis. All who played a role in history deserve our respect & appreciation.


Go fark yourself.



Wow.

I'm speechless.

How the f*ck does that guy sleep at night?
 
2013-03-19 12:46:47 PM

midigod: If you feel shame about your previous support, I'd genuinely like to hear why you supported it at the time.


I'll go.  First, I didn't believe the Iraqi WMDs being a threat story.  I thought it was clear it was being used as a false pretense for invasion--the real purpose of which was an expansion of American interests.  And I suppose it was, but never in my wildest dreams did I imagine they'd fark up the post-war aspects as badly as they did.

 
I envisioned us getting in, whacking Hussein, installing a marginally American-friendly dictator and letting him rule with an iron fist as long as we were allowed to call a shot every now and then and set up a few bases out in western Iraq that would grant us increased leverage with some of the other nations in the region.  Reduce the need to move an entire carrier group into the eastern Med or Gulf every time another nation wanted to threaten the flow of oil, raise hell with Israel, etc.

Rather than hunt down and kill or arrest every single member of Hussein's regime and then proceed to outlaw the Baath party, we'd employ many of them with the understanding it could be their neck with a noose around it unless they played ball. 


I thought the administration was lying, but didn't care because they couldn't just say, "We're invading to get a foothold in the Middle East and have opted for Iraq because of its location and the relative ease with which we can justify an attack."  But as I said I never imagined they would not only fail to execute a plan for Iraq in the post-war period like the one I had envisioned, but that they would have absolutely no plan at all--for years.

 
Now, that said, my world views have changed drastically over the past 10 years, and not just due to Iraq or with foreign policy in general.  Socially I was always somewhere in the middle, but I've shifted left on almost everything.  I've always been a late bloomer, and I think uncommonly grow more liberal as I grow older, rather than the opposite.  I feel where I am now is my natural comfort zone; however, born and raised in a super conservative household with almost no exposure to an alternative viewpoint until well into college really stifled that evolution.  It's why I get pissed at people that bash Obama for his 'evolution' on gay marriage.  I'm living proof such a thing is possible on a range of issues, and I have no external motivation for such changes...they just happened as more data became available and I was more willing to take it in.


So there it is.I'm not claiming I know better than anyone else, and I congratulate everyone here who claims they were right all along and knew it.I'll take my lumps for being wrong, and commit the cardinal sin of admitting as much on Fark.
 
2013-03-19 12:49:49 PM

DamnYankees: Once again - congratulations for thinking that in 2003. You were right and I was wrong. I readily admit it.

Now, how is this helpful in figuring out how to prevent this in the future?


For one, the people who (FINALLY) admitted that the war they wanted might not have been such a brilliant strategy after all can be assessed by their friends and loved ones accordingly. For example, if we're lost on the highway, and a person in the car says, "We should take this exit," I can ask that same person, "What did you think about the Iraq War?" If they say they supported it, I'll probably skip that next exit and keep driving.
 
2013-03-19 12:55:27 PM

jso2897: Wasn't.


what was it?

(honestly, I like history but I can't bring myself to read about that era or conflict because of the amount of derp that was flying around)
 
2013-03-19 01:02:35 PM
i.imgur.com
derpderpderpderpderpderp
 
2013-03-19 01:05:02 PM

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.


hmmmmmmmmmmmm

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57575054/syria-rebels-and-regime -b lame-each-other-for-1st-alleged-chemical-weapons-attack/
 
2013-03-19 01:08:29 PM

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 SO MUCH
 
2013-03-19 01:10:15 PM

thecpt: jso2897: Wasn't.

what was it?

(honestly, I like history but I can't bring myself to read about that era or conflict because of the amount of derp that was flying around)


If you are too lazy to read, I am too lazy to write.
Have a nice day.
 
2013-03-19 01:11:16 PM

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.


During the first Gulf War, the assumption was a lot of it was moved to Syria.  In the days prior to the Coaltion air strikes beginning there were convoys heading in and out of Syria.  I think the idea was they'd get them back after the Coalition was defeated or ultimately didn't attack...much like Hussein did with a portion of his air force as well which worked about just about as well.  But on top of that there's the fact the stuff has a shelf life, and the possibility the estimates regarding the overall quantity of chemical weapons may have always been overestimated to begin with.  Iraq was notoriously difficult to get intelligence on after the Iran/Iraq war ended and the US decided Hussein was going on the Bad Guy list.
 
2013-03-19 01:16:44 PM

jso2897: If you are too lazy to read, I am too lazy to write.
Have a nice day.


c'mon.  What I have read and what they choose to teach in schools indicates that the US did it to prevent the spread of communism.  If there is such a simple alternative reason then you can say that one goddamn word and move on, and I'll do the work from there.  No, you wrote that response instead.  Have a nice day, douche.
 
2013-03-19 01:18:19 PM
i wish i wasn't right about all of the bush lies...and it doesn't appear to matter, with a democrat murderer in the white house now.

it's all gravy!

murder for fun and profit!
 
2013-03-19 01:19:41 PM

thecpt: jso2897: If you are too lazy to read, I am too lazy to write.
Have a nice day.

c'mon.  What I have read and what they choose to teach in schools indicates that the US did it to prevent the spread of communism.  If there is such a simple alternative reason then you can say that one goddamn word and move on, and I'll do the work from there.  No, you wrote that response instead.  Have a nice day, douche.


Like I didn't know I was being trolled in the first place. Take it back to 4chan - you're an amateur.
 
2013-03-19 01:20:26 PM
if you know about remote viewing...you know i'm telling the truth.

i have seen better days ahead, tho.    : )
 
2013-03-19 01:25:39 PM

jso2897: Like I didn't know I was being trolled in the first place. Take it back to 4chan - you're an amateur.


I'm actually interested, and expressed such but hey don't bother to share what you know with other people.  that's not how conversation works or anything.
 
2013-03-19 01:32:35 PM

Shrugging Atlas: I envisioned us getting in, whacking Hussein, installing a marginally American-friendly dictator and letting him rule with an iron fist as long as we were allowed to call a shot every now and then and set up a few bases out in western Iraq that would grant us increased leverage with some of the other nations in the region.  Reduce the need to move an entire carrier group into the eastern Med or Gulf every time another nation wanted to threaten the flow of oil, raise hell with Israel, etc.


Thank you for your answer.  If we assume for a moment that everything you thought was true, was in fact absolutely accurate, why would it be okay for the US to do such a thing; destabilize an entire nation and install a puppet (or puppet-like) regime for the sake of exerting possible future force against other nations, simply for economic reasons?
 
2013-03-19 02:02:32 PM

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.


And the very clever folks at the top pointed at the people saying they were lying and replied "See, America? They've already infiltrated! We  have to be ready, or we'll lose our country to people who are secretly working for the terrorists, or just poor misguided souls who are soft on terror!"

/I was about...eleven or so, I want to say? Maybe ten? And I still remember the way it felt like one of my historical novels about Nazi Germany. It was farking  creepy.
//Also, to the headline: ...*twitch*
 
2013-03-19 02:26:29 PM

DamnYankees: Donald Rumsfeld  @RumsfeldOffice
10 yrs ago began the long, difficult work of liberating 25 mil Iraqis. All who played a role in history deserve our respect & appreciation.


I had to check if that was fake, seems it's not. But why is he retweeting the people calling for his head?
 
2013-03-19 02:54:48 PM

midigod: Thank you for your answer. If we assume for a moment that everything you thought was true, was in fact absolutely accurate, why would it be okay for the US to do such a thing; destabilize an entire nation and install a puppet (or puppet-like) regime for the sake of exerting possible future force against other nations, simply for economic reasons?


Why would it be OK in my view?  It's a complicated answer made more difficult by the fact I'm having to provide a defense for a belief I haven't held for nearly a decade but I'll give it a shot.  At the time, I would have said it was OK because it would have been in our best interests if done well, and frankly was bound to happen anyway (I'll have to explain that further) so we might as well do so under our own terms.

I think it's important to note the fact we had by then  already been trying destabilize Iraq and oust Hussein for over a decade.  We were into the term of a third President under which the US was enforcing a seemingly endless no-fly zone and embargo under UN approval and having to maintain a perpetual military presence in the region under less than ideal conditions.  Between the embargo and the no fly zones which were a more than just tacit acceptance of the nearly independent Kurdish state in the north we had already been doing plenty to take down Hussein's regime.

In my view at the time, the country was already balkanizing and under less than controlled conditions because there was literally no telling what would happen if Hussein died from a heart attack, shot himself, or was offed by a body guard.  Replaced by someone worse?  Complete and total chaos with absolutely nobody there to stop it?  Or was Hussein going nowhere and the US destined to repeat the Cuba scenario and enforce the no-fly and embargo for 30 more years with absolutely nothing to show for it?

But to my earlier point about the US entering Iraq being bound to happen.  Honestly I thought we'd end up there anyway as some sort of UN Peacekeeping Force whenever Hussein was gone to keep the Kurds, Sunni and Shia from killing each other in droves such as we did in the Balkans, but unlike the Balkans we'd be dealing with a much, much more difficult situation.  Stuck there for who knows how long  either trying to hold Iraq together, or enforcing the division of Iraq into three countries and then stuck in those keeping them from each other's throat.

Guess there's no telling what would have happened had we not invaded, though I'm sure it would have been better than the results we ended up with.  And as I said, I'm the first to now admit the flaws in that thinking and lament the results of the invasion.  But as I said, at no time did I buy into the Iraq-9/11 theories or the belief Hussein was going to somehow attack the United State above or beyond the constant incidents in the no-fly zones at any rate.
 
2013-03-19 04:02:52 PM
Shrugging Atlas, thanks for your elaborations. Those stories fascinate me.

/was wondering if your username came from your previous world view days, but then I read your profile
 
2013-03-19 04:21:05 PM
Hey, it put lots of people to work. Lobbyists. Consultants. Doctors. Psychiatrists. Funeral home directors. Military contractors of various kinds.

It's the Republican jobs program. We don't need to fix roads or bridges or build schools over here. We need to blow those things up over there. For freedom.
 
2013-03-19 04:37:04 PM

Shrugging Atlas: At the time, I would have said it was OK because it would have been in our best interests if done well, and frankly was bound to happen anyway (I'll have to explain that further) so we might as well do so under our own terms.


While I think both you and I disagree with what you thought ten years ago, it's not often one gets to have a discussion like this, so thank you.  It's really very interesting.  I would still have disagreed with you about the destabilization's desirability, and even whether it would have escalated had we not gone in full-tilt, but our conversation probably wouldn't have been so civil at that time, and I think that's why it's fascinating to discuss.
 
2013-03-19 05:13:59 PM

midigod: While I think both you and I disagree with what you thought ten years ago, it's not often one gets to have a discussion like this, so thank you.  It's really very interesting.  I would still have disagreed with you about the destabilization's desirability, and even whether it would have escalated had we not gone in full-tilt, but our conversation probably wouldn't have been so civil at that time, and I think that's why it's fascinating to discuss.


I completely agree, and am more than happy to have the discussion.  I'll admit that while the results of the invasion clearly prove me wrong, I still to a degree cling to the belief my logic behind why I personally thought it might have been for the best if done well was sound.  That logic doesn't at all fit with the Bush Administrations stated goals for the invasion (WMDs / 9/11 and then just the spreading of 'freedoms') and certainly not with their intended goals which appears to have been nothing more than simple war profiteering.

What amazes me most and what I find more reprehensible than their lying to the public was the fact the administration had absolutely no idea whatsoever about what to do once the invasion was complete.  I mean we were fighting on our own time table, and had ample resources available to dedicate to stabilizing the situation as soon as we took over, and they just wasted it.  More than anything I think that symbolizes the complete and total incompetence of the Bush Administration from the top down and their total disregard for the Allied forces involved in the invasion and occupation not to mention the Iraqi people.

Anyway, discussions like this on this topic for me are both liberating and slightly amusing.  It's an interesting reminder how much I've changed in 10 years, and still is a source of wonder for close friends that have known me for far longer.
 
2013-03-19 05:30:57 PM

Deep Contact: The repercussions were that Obammmma was elected twice.


2/10
 
2013-03-19 05:37:45 PM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: 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.


Hey Collaborators never fair well in an occupation
 
2013-03-19 07:14:39 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: 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.

That's not in dispute, I'm just trying to remember the conversation the country was having at the time without injecting what we've found out in hindsight.


Well it's very difficult to remember the whole conversation because only one side of it was presented. Remember the public protest in New York against the war? You probably don't because the media purposely ignored it.
 
2013-03-19 08:30:19 PM
When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we were not satisfied until we had destroyed the Empire of Japan and demanded its peoples' unconditional surrender under the threat of nuclear genocide.  Our response to the 9/11 attacks should be no less thorough.

10 years on, and the Middle East is in flames, with most of its governments on the brink of collapse and its peoples engaged in bloody internecine warfare.  So far, I'd say we've almost achieved our goal--the destruction of the Arab culture that gave rise to Al Qaeda.
 
2013-03-19 08:59:02 PM

Mouser: When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we were not satisfied until we had destroyed the Empire of Japan and demanded its peoples' unconditional surrender under the threat of nuclear genocide.  Our response to the 9/11 attacks should be no less thorough.

10 years on, and the Middle East is in flames, with most of its governments on the brink of collapse and its peoples engaged in bloody internecine warfare.  So far, I'd say we've almost achieved our goal--the destruction of the Arab culture that gave rise to Al Qaeda.


Lol, you cannot be serious.
 
2013-03-20 04:39:15 PM
You know who also had a boner for Drang Nach Osten?

i.ytimg.com
 
2013-03-20 09:04:53 PM
The neo-con agenda does not represent America.
 
Displayed 32 of 182 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report