Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Fark)   Ten years ago today was the first day of the Iraq invasion. Farkers debated whether it was a good idea or not. See what we were saying here in the original comment thread from 2003   (fark.com) divider line 616
    More: Followup, Iraq invasion, Tha, blast radius, Iraq  
•       •       •

11941 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Mar 2013 at 10:47 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-19 09:27:54 AM  
Yes, because when I think about an interesting retrospective of a pivotal moment in American history, I think, "I wonder Fark commenters thought about this?".
 
2013-03-19 09:28:37 AM  
A little bit before my Farking days.  Don't recognize too many Farkers in that thread.  Does anyone want to claim any of those old Alts?
 
2013-03-19 09:29:21 AM  

WTF Indeed: Yes, because when I think about an interesting retrospective of a pivotal moment in American history, I think, "I wonder Fark commenters thought about this?".



Prefer the lame-stream media do we?
 
2013-03-19 09:29:23 AM  
Certainly time to round up all those in support of the invasion at that time and SHOOT THEM.

.

.

...or just point and laugh at them. Whichever.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-03-19 09:31:01 AM  
Apparently I said nothing. That means I can take all the credit and none of the blame.
 
2013-03-19 09:35:34 AM  
Loud_Mouth_Soup
Where's the poolie taking bets on how many days this lasts?
4 in 91. Do I hear 5 this time? 3, maybe?


Haha, someone find him and give him a prize for being wrongest person ever. Actually, I'm not even a millionth of the way through the thread, so lets have a competition to find who was the most wrong commenter.
 
2013-03-19 09:35:50 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org
Hated this guy's tenure as Canuckistan's PM BUT he said no to the Iraq war/militarized lynch mob - making him a hero in my books.
 
2013-03-19 09:37:27 AM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-19 09:38:21 AM  

mrshowrules: A little bit before my Farking days.  Don't recognize too many Farkers in that thread.  Does anyone want to claim any of those old Alts?


There are two current TFers on the first page, that's it.  Oh, and  3hornis there too.  That's about the only name I remotely recognize, and I only remember him for his sister's topless pic that floated around for a while.
 
2013-03-19 09:38:59 AM  
Good lord there were some serious a-holes in that thread.  It was just slightly before my time, but I'm pretty damned sure that no one will ever dredge up any comments by me that favored that debacle.  (I came online that September, still before the wargasm had worn off)
 
2013-03-19 09:43:34 AM  
I have one post in that thread, near the middle.

Now playing in iTunes: "War Pigs" - Black Sabbath.

The paper US Flag that's been in my front window since 9/11 has now been taken down. I'm ashamed of Big Bully Bush.

 
One reply claims Bush would be ashamed of me.
 
2013-03-19 09:45:34 AM  

Alphax: I have one post in that thread, near the middle.

Now playing in iTunes: "War Pigs" - Black Sabbath.

The paper US Flag that's been in my front window since 9/11 has now been taken down. I'm ashamed of Big Bully Bush.
 
One reply claims Bush would be ashamed of me.


I'm sure he is. Clearly you're history's greatest monster.
 
2013-03-19 09:45:59 AM  
Looks like I sat this one out. Had already had enough of the oo-rah USA glitter eagle crowd, and the 2004 election hadn't even happened yet.
 
2013-03-19 09:47:12 AM  
After further review i found a few more names I recognize, but that's about it.  Though the thread does include appearances by  Jeff and  fb-.
 
2013-03-19 09:47:47 AM  
Nonsense... War is ALWAYS a good idea.
 
2013-03-19 10:10:25 AM  

oldfarthenry: [upload.wikimedia.org image 220x264]
Hated this guy's tenure as Canuckistan's PM BUT he said no to the Iraq war/militarized lynch mob - making him a hero in my books.


I remember Canada being rebuffed by the US Ambassador to Canada for this in a speech at the time.  I was at the 9/11 rally in Ottawa after 9/11.  Fifty thousand people and you could have heard a pin drop.
 
2013-03-19 10:11:40 AM  
i.imgbox.com
 
2013-03-19 10:16:47 AM  
9/19/2002

Iraqi Move Puts Israel In Lonely U.S. CornerPeres: Ousting Saddam a 'Must'
By MARC PERELMAN
FORWARD STAFF

UNITED NATIONS - Saddam Hussein's surprise acceptance of "unconditional" United Nations weapons inspections put Israel on the hot seat this week, forcing it into the open as the only nation actively supporting the Bush administration's goal of Iraqi regime change.

Israel and its supporters have insisted for weeks that while they sympathize with the administration's hard-line stance toward Baghdad, they were reluctant to advocate any position openly. The reluctance was fueled by fears that critics would claim the United States was going to war on Israel's behalf - or even, as some have suggested, at Israel's behest.

But Israel's diffident stance appeared untenable this week after most capitals welcomed the Iraqi announcement Monday that it would accept the return of weapons inspectors without conditions. The Iraqi gambit seems to have reversed the momentum created by President Bush's forceful speech to the U.N. General Assembly on September 12 and left only Jerusalem, and to a lesser extent London, backing Washington in its determination for regime change in Iraq.

"The campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must," Foreign Minister Shimon Peres flatly told reporters this week in New York, after a meeting with Secretary of State Colin Powell. "Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors."

"Saddam Hussein is the dictator with the worst record," Peres said. "This is not a war against Iraq. It is a campaign against Saddam Hussein."

While the dramatic shift at the U.N. has pushed Jerusalem closer to Washington, diplomats and observers warned that it might increase American pressure on Israel - both to moderate its stance toward Iraq and to soften its views on talks with the Palestinians.

In particular, observers pointed to heightened American fears of an Israeli retaliation to an Iraqi attack provoking a regional escalation - especially at a time when the U.S. appears to be unexpectedly isolated in its confrontation with Baghdad.

"The U.S. would not welcome Israeli participation because it is not needed and would only complicate the political reaction from the Arabs," said Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's counter-terrorism division. "It would also likely hurt Kuwait and Qatar, two Arab countries from which U.S. force will be deployed."

The same dangers would exist, several observers said, in the event of a total collapse of ongoing Israeli discussions with the Palestinians. Arab politicians, including King Abdullah of Jordan, have speculated that Israel might use the disruption of an American-Iraqi war to move against the Palestinians, warning that such an Israeli move would provoke "chaos."

Israeli officials acknowledged this week that they had received indications of American nervousness, though it was unclear whether or not there had been a formal American request for Israeli restraint on either front.

In the months leading up to this week's U.N. drama, Israeli officials have warned more than once that Israel would retaliate in the event of an Iraqi strike, hinting that they believed Washington would not object. Last week, however, Israel's military chief of staff, Lieutenant General Moshe Ya'alon, told the Knesset foreign affairs and defense committee that "America would be very happy if we are not involved in this attack, at least at this stage."

"Let them do the job alone," Ya'alon told lawmakers, according to Israeli news reports.

Israel's new ambassador to the United States, Danny Ayalon, quickly responded to Ya'alon's reported comments by telling reporters that Washington had not asked Israel to stay out of any military action against Iraq.

Gregg Sullivan, a State Department spokesman, confirmed that there were "no indications" that Washington had asked Israel to refrain from retaliating to an Iraqi attack.

"I suppose we'll talk about implications later on," he added.

Peres, asked whether Washington had made a formal request for Israeli restraint, remained vague.

"I would leave it to the circumstances," he said. "There are so many variations that it would be unwise to elect one."

He said that in the event of a war, however, Israel would behave as a "responsible soldier and a loyal one."

"There will be one war and one command," he said. "We don't suggest there will be two wars and two commands. Within that, Israel will take all the measures to defend itself and Powell said the U.S. would also take measures to protect us."

On Friday, an Iraqi cabinet minister threatened that Baghdad would attack Israel if it took part in an American military strike. Israel "will suffer a profound and an unforgettable strike if it interferes in the war," Iraqi Trade Minister Mohammed Mahdi Saleh told the United Arab Emirates newspaper  Al-Khaleej.

In another nod to Washington's concerns, Peres said Israel would not halt ongoing discussions with the Palestinians in the event of a war.

"The Israeli policy is clear. We are not going to link the Palestinian issue to the Iraqi one, and we will continue our talks with the Palestinians no matter what happens," he said.

Sullivan, the State Department spokesman, said Washington had asked Israel to continue discussions with the Palestinians regardless of whether or not there is a war with Iraq.

Last weekend, Americans started providing security training to some 30 Palestinians, mostly members of Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement, with Egyptian and Jordanian assistance and partial Saudi financing.

Diplomats agreed that Iraq had managed at least momentarily to halt the momentum created by Bush's speech last week at the U.N.

"Saddam was very clever on this one," a diplomat at the U.N. told the Forward. "He knows that most countries want the inspectors back in quickly but that only America and to a lesser degree Great Britain are demanding regime change."

After Iraq agreed to admit U.N. weapons inspectors without conditions, Washington dismissed the move as a tactic meant to split the Security Council and called for a new council resolution spelling out in precise terms the steps Iraq needs to take to meet U.N. demands.

While British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw expressed what he called a "high degree of skepticism" toward Iraqi compliance, Russia and China said the Iraqi acceptance of inspections was a victory for concerted international efforts.

"Now our main task is to ensure that the inspectors can get to Iraq as soon as possible and start their work," Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov told reporters.

France held the middle ground, saying that the U.N. must take Iraq at its word and send inspectors, but that the U.N. must also hold Saddam to his words.

Despite the swirling debate, Sullivan said there were no substantial differences among council members. While he acknowledged Washington was the only country openly advocating regime change, he said it was a natural consequence of U.N. resolutions.

Nevertheless, he said the administration was willing to give the inspections "one last chance."

"We are ready to do it, although we are very skeptical and we believe Saddam will thwart them like he did in the past," he added. "When he fails, we will need to use other means."

The diplomat at the U.N. said that even if Washington agrees to the return of inspectors, there would still be a strong likelihood that disagreements would surface between Washington and Baghdad, either during negotiations over the scope of the inspectors' mandate or after the inspectors hit the ground in Iraq.
 
2013-03-19 10:17:39 AM  
SpaceCoyote You know what's great about the Internet? Everything people say on here is archived. Forever. So your grandkids will see what you wrote on this day, and some of them will be seeing things like "I wish the stupid liberals were in Iraq right now.". Is this what you want them to see? Will this be your legacy?

I think this one has a Flux Capacitor.
 
2013-03-19 10:29:09 AM  

mrshowrules: A little bit before my Farking days.  Don't recognize too many Farkers in that thread.  Does anyone want to claim any of those old Alts?


Ok.
I claim all of them.
 
2013-03-19 10:33:40 AM  
interesting comment from the Daily Show - assuming it is true

"We tape this show, so we don't know if war has started yet. So let me say this, if we havenot yet gone to war with Iraq, I wholeheartedly condemn this action. But if wehave started war by the time you're watching this, we completely support our President's decision to use force in Iraq."
 
2013-03-19 10:33:52 AM  

FriarReb98: mrshowrules: A little bit before my Farking days.  Don't recognize too many Farkers in that thread.  Does anyone want to claim any of those old Alts?

There are two current TFers on the first page, that's it.  Oh, and  3hornis there too.  That's about the only name I remotely recognize, and I only remember him for his sister's topless pic that floated around for a while.


I recognize whidbey and this fellow who has the most awesome fail in the thread:
    
FishingWithFredo       
2003-03-20 05:17:50 AM  
Wait until about 11 a.m. EST. Should be dark in Baghdad by that time.
Shock and awe.
P.S. You anti-war people are still as illogical as ever. We can have peace when the enemies of peace are eliminated. You know, the people who use your idiotic pacifism-at-all-costs to continue their evil?
Boy, are you ever going to look stupid when the Iraqi people dance in the streets, being liberated from that tyrant. And I'm naming names.
 
2013-03-19 10:37:06 AM  
DrToast
May this be over soon with minimal loss of lives on all sides :(

Yea, about that...
 
2013-03-19 10:39:18 AM  
Battle Joined, a Hawk Spreads His Wings

FORWARD
Oct 12, 2001

WASHINGTON -- As the television cameras have captured him, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the official whose feral-sounding surname and bellicose sound-bites have marked him as the administration's wild-eyed warmonger, the wooly counterpoint to that suave and sensible diplomat, Secretary of State Colin Powell.

To see Mr. Wolfowitz at work in Washington, however, is to come away with a more nuanced impression. As Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld flew last week to the Middle East to shore up the alliance against the Taliban, Mr. Wolfowitz was dispatched to Capitol Hill to deliver a long-awaited report on the restructuring of the armed forces to the Senate Armed Services Committee. An old hand at the customary photo-ops, handshakes and back-slapping that precede such hearings, he strode gamely around the hall, his barrel chest almost bursting from his dark suit jacket.

The subject of the hearing, the so-called Quadrennial Defense Review, seemed a bit beside the point in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. The White House and its military aides were in the midst of final preparations for an extended war. Aircraft carriers were steaming toward the Persian Gulf in order to be able to strike at Afghanistan. It hardly seemed the moment to be considering an overhaul at the Pentagon. Only a handful of senators had even bothered to show up for the hearings, which had been planned long before September's events. Even so, Mr. Wolfowitz made the most of the occasion -- and the senators listened.

"Just as we were taken by surprise on September 12, the surprises 10 or 15 years from now may be very different," Mr. Wolfowitz told them. "September 11 means we have to move in these directions even more rapidly."

As Mr. Wolfowitz pointed out, the question of reforming the armed forces remains as pertinent as ever. The report, four years in the making, called for a new focus on homeland security, a more versatile military and a strategy for dealing with multiple, shadowy threats rather than the old-style challenges of conventional theatre warfare -- all points hammered home by the attack and the war on terrorism.

Committee chairman Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, interviewed after the hearing, said that the report was prescient. The report will now serve as a roadmap for future reshaping of the military, the specifics of which will be up to Congress.

As he showed at the hearing, Mr. Wolfowitz, a longtime academic as well as policymaker, combines an impressive scholarly understanding of war with a formidable political agility at skirting red tape -- qualities that have made him one of the most important figures in the Defense establishment. He has also emerged, with Vice President Dick Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld, as one of the administration's leading hawks and one of Israel's most important allies.

As an official in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, he advocated for hard-line, interventionist positions on China and the Balkans. During the Gulf War, he argued that the United States should march on Baghdad to eliminate the regime of Saddam Hussein, a position that put him at odds with Mr. Powell. (In his autobiography, Mr. Powell playfully labeled his longtime adversary a "right-wing nut.")

A vocal critic of Clinton-administration Iraq policy and the Oslo peace process, Mr. Wolfowitz has since September 11 pushed for the new war against terrorism to target Saddam, again drawing Mr. Powell's fire. Speaking at the Pentagon two days after the September attacks, Mr. Wolfowitz called for "ending states who sponsor terrorism" -- at the time an echo of the president's stance. Mr. Powell later delivered an icy riposte to the comment, saying, "I think `ending terrorism' is where I would leave it and let Mr. Wolfowitz speak for himself."

Mr. Wolfowitz remains undaunted. Although the October 4 hearing focused on planning minutiae, he was quick to raise the menace of Iraq, denouncing the Iraqi dictator's ability to wreak havoc on the energy market and calling on the United State to "reduce the number of people who have their hands on that kind of trigger."

Even if, in the initial stages of the war on terrorism, Mr. Powell appears to have the upper hand, capital watchers do not underestimate the influence of Mr. Wolfowitz, who was among those considered to head the Pentagon. The deputy secretary brings impressive academic credentials to the party -- he has written authoritatively on a number of foreign-policy issues, from Russian and Southeast Asian policy to arms control -- and, unlike the pragmatic Mr. Powell, he comes to the craft of policymaking with a distinct philosophy.

Born in Brooklyn in 1943, Mr. Wolfowitz received a doctorate in political science from the University of Chicago, studying under conservative icons Allan Bloom and Albert Wohlstetter. Mr. Wolfowitz came to Washington with neo-conservative Chicago alumni Francis Fukuyama, a historian, and Gary Schmidt, of the up-and-coming Project for a New American Century. He served in high-level posts at the State Department and the Pentagon, including as ambassador to Indonesia, undersecretary of defense for policy, assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs and State Department director of policy planning. In doing so, he forged close ties with Mr. Cheney and others now in the administration. In between, he was a leading interventionist in foreign-policy academia, recently serving as dean of the Johns Hopkins University-affiliated School of Advanced International Studies before being appointed by Mr. Bush.

"Most professors are lousy policymakers," said Karl Jackson, a former SAIS colleague of Mr. Wolfowitz. "Paul has both knowledge and good judgment."

Mr. Wolfowitz is also a fixture of the capital's Jewish circles. A longtime member of a Reform synagogue, Temple Sinai, where his three children celebrated their b'nei mitzvah, Mr. Wolfowitz attended High Holy Day services there this year despite being caught up in the response to the bloody attack on the Pentagon. "He has a strong Jewish commitment, as I see it," Rabbi Reiner said.

Mr. Wolfowitz and his associate Douglas Feith, an undersecretary of defense for policy, are known as among the administration's most hawkish members when it comes to Israel. With Mr. Rumsfeld, they round out a Defense triumvirate that has often clashed over Israel with Mr. Powell. Speaking to The Jerusalem Post last December, an official of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee commended both Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Rumsfeld for their "very strong records on Israel." Mr. Powell's team at State reportedly fought the nominations of both Mr. Feith and Mr. Wolfowitz.

Even Mr. Wolfowitz's outspoken beliefs in missile defense -- "The long-range threat to our cities is just over the horizon," he told Congress in July -- stem in part from his strong feelings about Israel. At the height of the Gulf War, Mr. Wolfowitz was sent to Israel to convince the Israelis to stay out of the conflict, despite the torrent of Scud missiles the Iraqi regime was launching against the Jewish state.

"We saw children walking to school carrying gas masks in gaily decorated boxes -- no doubt to try to distract them from the possibility of facing mass destruction," Mr. Wolfowitz said in House testimony last summer. "They were awfully young to be thinking about the unthinkable."
 
2013-03-19 10:40:06 AM  
I miss fb-
 
2013-03-19 10:40:10 AM  

mrshowrules: FriarReb98: mrshowrules: A little bit before my Farking days.  Don't recognize too many Farkers in that thread.  Does anyone want to claim any of those old Alts?

There are two current TFers on the first page, that's it.  Oh, and  3hornis there too.  That's about the only name I remotely recognize, and I only remember him for his sister's topless pic that floated around for a while.

I recognize whidbey and this fellow who has the most awesome fail in the thread:
    
FishingWithFredo       
2003-03-20 05:17:50 AM  
Wait until about 11 a.m. EST. Should be dark in Baghdad by that time.
Shock and awe.
P.S. You anti-war people are still as illogical as ever. We can have peace when the enemies of peace are eliminated. You know, the people who use your idiotic pacifism-at-all-costs to continue their evil?
Boy, are you ever going to look stupid when the Iraqi people dance in the streets, being liberated from that tyrant. And I'm naming names.


Holy shiat, I remember that guy. What a tool.

I had been a Farker for about 4 months at that point, but I didn't comment for some reason. Probably drinking it off with my other libby libs in college. I mean, it WAS a Saturday night.
 
2013-03-19 10:41:40 AM  
 
2013-03-19 10:42:37 AM  
While i didn't comment in that particular thread, I was one of the hawks....and I'm ashamed of it. At the time, my "news" consisted of listening to Sean Hannity on the radio, and watching Fox News. I don't blame them, it was my fault for exclusively using them for sources of information.

WTF Indeed: Yes, because when I think about an interesting retrospective of a pivotal moment in American history, I think, "I wonder Fark commenters thought about this?".


If it wasn't for Fark, I'd still have my head in the sand. Joining TF and spending countless hours arguing with tards was the best thing that could have happened to me, from a geopolitical perspective.
 
2013-03-19 10:43:23 AM  
I did not have a Fark account then.  I believed the WMD claims and was still 100% against the invasion and was 100% supportive of Canada not joining the war effort.  The weapons inspectors were finally getting some traction and Hussein was not a threat to anyone (other than his own people unfortunately).
 
2013-03-19 10:45:56 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: interesting comment from the Daily Show - assuming it is true

"We tape this show, so we don't know if war has started yet. So let me say this, if we havenot yet gone to war with Iraq, I wholeheartedly condemn this action. But if wehave started war by the time you're watching this, we completely support our President's decision to use force in Iraq."


Just wondering, where did you get that? Because if we started the "war" on a Saturday, that doesn't make any sense. And I can't find that quote on the Googles.
 
2013-03-19 10:47:23 AM  

mrshowrules: I did not have a Fark account then.  I believed the WMD claims and was still 100% against the invasion and was 100% supportive of Canada not joining the war effort.  The weapons inspectors were finally getting some traction and Hussein was not a threat to anyone (other than his own people unfortunately).



Just about everyone minus Israel was against the invasion and letting the inspectors do their job. <a data-cke-saved-href="<a href=" href="<a href=" http:="" www.fark.com="" comments="" 7653056="" 83116154#c83116154"="" target="_blank">2013-03-19 10:16:47 AM
 
2013-03-19 10:47:44 AM  
At the time, our nation had been flying air patrols over Iraq for a decade.  They couldn't put anything in the air without our permission.

Then we're told that Iraqi is a threat, and we need to attack them before they nuke us?  Not remotely plausible.
 
2013-03-19 10:49:42 AM  
I wasn't on Fark in those days, but I did identify as a Republican.  The Iraq war was one of the larger things that convinced me to abandon the GOP entirely.  I'll still vote for a local (R) if I like the candidate better, R and D don't really mean much at the local level, but for the most part I just vote straight Democrat.
 
2013-03-19 10:50:09 AM  
Iraq:  Good idea, or great idea?  -Lindsay Graham, John McCain and the Federation of GOP Chickenhawks
 
2013-03-19 10:50:28 AM  
 
2013-03-19 10:52:18 AM  
I remember the Photoshop contest for "Shock and Awe."  I believe it was to recreate CNN.com's front page.  The one that sticks in my head was "NI88AS GETTIN' BLASTED."
 
2013-03-19 10:52:37 AM  
Stomping out rats which are on fire is always a good idea. But once again the hated and hateful Federal Establishment pulled our punch and failed utterly to get'er done.
 
2013-03-19 10:53:25 AM  
I was a lurking files.myopera.com
 
2013-03-19 10:53:42 AM  

Car_Ramrod: tenpoundsofcheese: interesting comment from the Daily Show - assuming it is true

"We tape this show, so we don't know if war has started yet. So let me say this, if we havenot yet gone to war with Iraq, I wholeheartedly condemn this action. But if wehave started war by the time you're watching this, we completely support our President's decision to use force in Iraq."

Just wondering, where did you get that? Because if we started the "war" on a Saturday, that doesn't make any sense. And I can't find that quote on the Googles.


Sounds like bullshiat to me.  Plus, Stewart wouldn't say "we" and speak on behalf of everyone on the show.  There are  tons of people who work on the show and he would not be arrogant enough to presume to speak on everyone's behalf.
 
2013-03-19 10:53:51 AM  
"I wish there were more pictures of cats"?
 
2013-03-19 10:53:58 AM  

NateGrey: June 16, 2003

Poll: One in three Americans believe WMD have been found in Iraq. Nearly one in four Americans believe Iraq actually used WMD in the war


Poll: One in three Americans are retarded and vote potato.  Nearly one in four Americans are legally incapable of breathing or thinking without oxygen tanks and constant electro-shock therapy.
 
2013-03-19 10:54:06 AM  

NateGrey: June 16, 2003

Poll: One in three Americans believe WMD have been found in Iraq. Nearly one in four Americans believe Iraq actually used WMD in the war


Too bad they did not specify how many of them are republican. DNRDTLink
 
2013-03-19 10:54:13 AM  
Apparently I didn't post that day.

Also, it's interesting that a guy with his balls stuck in a chair got more posts than a war did.
 
2013-03-19 10:54:57 AM  
(04/07/2003) Found: Missiles equiped with sarin and mustard gas in Iraq
(04/07/2003) U.S. officials now trying to kill buzz about "WMD site" that actually only contained pesticides


These two are funny.
 
2013-03-19 10:56:19 AM  
There is no good reason for the USA to act as the worlds policeman.

The Mid East has been fighting among themselves for 2000 years.
We should either leave them alone or nuke Mecca and the surrounding muslim areas.
 
2013-03-19 10:57:09 AM  
I counted 7 current Totalfarkers on the first 200 comments of that thread.
40 out of the first 43 comments here are TFers.  Where will you be in 10 years?
 
2013-03-19 10:57:13 AM  

people: mrshowrules: I did not have a Fark account then.  I believed the WMD claims and was still 100% against the invasion and was 100% supportive of Canada not joining the war effort.  The weapons inspectors were finally getting some traction and Hussein was not a threat to anyone (other than his own people unfortunately).


Just about everyone minus Israel was against the invasion and letting the inspectors do their job.


I knew that Iraq was not going to go well when we asked the Germans if they wanted in and they said no.
 
2013-03-19 10:58:11 AM  
In retrospect, with the development of drones, the invasion looks even stupider. Saddam would have been killed and removed with far less loss of life and damage, leaving an unstable government. What did we do? We made a fortune for Dick Cheney's buddies, killed Saddam, and left an unstable government. I wonder who was motivated to invade?
 
2013-03-19 10:58:27 AM  
To be fair, many of us really did not have our heads screwed on straight then

...I also had a different username, so Im getting a kick and all that
 
2013-03-19 10:59:19 AM  
Hey, I just realized my 10 year anniversary was last week.

I didn't post in that thread though. Shucks.
 
Displayed 50 of 616 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report