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.

(Gallup)   On the 10th anniversary of the Iraq war, 53% of Americans say the war was a mistake. The other 47% are still deciding between disaster, debacle or catastrophe   (gallup.com) divider line 45
    More: Obvious, Iraq, Americans, United States, Iraq War, attitude change, the leaner, double coverage, John McCain  
•       •       •

1323 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2013 at 8:13 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-21 08:39:00 AM  
6 votes:
To quote from John Cole, since it sums me up as well:

I see that Andrew Sullivan was asked to list what he got wrong about Iraq for the five year anniversary of the invasion, and since I was as big a war booster as anyone, I thought I would list what I got wrong:

Everything.

And I don't say that to provide people with an easy way to beat up on me, but I do sort of have to face facts. I was wrong about everything.

I was wrong about the Doctrine of Pre-emptive warfare.
I was wrong about Iraq possessing WMD.
I was wrong about Scott Ritter and the inspections.
I was wrong about the UN involvement in weapons inspections.
I was wrong about the containment sanctions.
I was wrong about the broader impact of the war on the Middle East.
I was wrong about this making us more safe.
I was wrong about the number of troops needed to stabilize Iraq.
I was wrong when I stated this administration had a clear plan for the aftermath.
I was wrong about securing the ammunition dumps.
I was wrong about the ease of bringing democracy to the Middle East.
I was wrong about dissolving the Iraqi army.
I was wrong about the looting being unimportant.
I was wrong that Bush/Cheney were competent.
I was wrong that we would be greeted as liberators.
I was wrong to make fun of the anti-war protestors.
I was wrong not to trust the dirty smelly hippies.

I mean, I could go down the list and continue on, but you get the point. I was wrong about EVERY. GOD. DAMNED. THING. It is amazing I could tie my shoes in 2001-2004. If you took all the wrongness I generated, put it together and compacted it and processed it, there would be enough concentrated stupid to fuel three hundred years of Weekly Standard journals. I am not sure how I snapped out of it, but I think Abu Ghraib and the negative impact of the insurgency did sober me up a bit.

War should always be an absolute last resort, not just another option. I will never make the same mistakes again.
2013-03-21 08:26:44 AM  
5 votes:
Those stats at the bottom:
sas-origin.onstreammedia.com
Its like there's space for some kinda conclusion regarding who is capable of 20/20 hindsight and who isn't.
2013-03-21 08:20:14 AM  
5 votes:
Philip Morris doesn't sit around hoping more people start smoking, they do every dirty trick in the book to increase their client base.  The military-industrial crowd is the exact same way, if people aren't using weapons on each other, then they aren't buying more weapons.  The US is the world's biggest arms dealer.  These guys love war and promote it every chance they get, peace is bad for business.
2013-03-21 08:21:01 AM  
4 votes:

dr_blasto: The question that remains is "why?"


1) Destroy country
2) Get the company you were CEO and major shareholder of a no bid contract to fix country
3) Profit
2013-03-21 07:00:07 AM  
4 votes:
I fail to see how anyone cannot regard this adventure as a mistake. We went to find WMDs, we didn't find any. That is a mistake.

The only real question, if there is one, is what kind of mistake was it? Was a intelligence mistake, a diplomatic mistake, or a political mistake.
2013-03-21 10:10:13 AM  
3 votes:

EvilEgg: I fail to see how anyone cannot regard this adventure as a mistake. We went to find WMDs, we didn't find any. That is a mistake.

The only real question, if there is one, is what kind of mistake was it? Was a intelligence mistake, a diplomatic mistake, or a political mistake.


Yes.

It was an intelligence mistake: we built a war on shaky, poorly sourced intelligence.

It was a diplomatic mistake: we completely threw out diplomacy in a mad rush to war.

It was a political mistake: The Shrub wanted to prove he was better than daddy and actually get Hussein, and wanted to bang the war drums and be the Wartime President. . .never mind we were already fighting in Afghanistan.

It was a goddamn trillion dollar mistake.  If we'd taken that trillion dollars and spent it on other things we could have had a farking moonbase, men on Mars, a vastly updated and upgraded transportation and communications infrastructure, totally overhauled and upgraded public schools, and the best healthcare system on the planet. . .instead we got debt, a looted war-torn crater where Iraq was, defense contractors lining their pockets, and thousands upon thousands of bodies.
2013-03-21 09:08:38 AM  
3 votes:

randomjsa: 25 million people are free now live under the fear of an Islamic government that is backed by Iran and the world is a better Middle East is an even more unstable place.


Fixed for accuracy.
2013-03-21 08:35:47 AM  
3 votes:

thecpt: Found this interesting:
The same March survey finds 57% of Americans saying the Vietnam War -- which resulted in the most U.S. casualties of the three recent wars -- was a mistake, but that is down from 69% in Nov 2010.

Also, looking at the elderly opinions on war is interesting.  They seem to be the most pacifistic, probably because it has nothing to do with their lawn.


Also, there's the direct knowledge factor - I , for instance, got drafted in 1968. Nobody will ever be able to fool me  that the Vietnam war was anything but a racket.
Young fools, on the other hand, can sometimes be convinced that it was a noble conflict that could have been "won" , if it wasn't for those darn "liberals".
But don't stop believing, sonny-boy. It's cute.
gja [TotalFark]
2013-03-21 08:15:26 AM  
3 votes:

dr_blasto: The question that remains is "why?"


Three words:
Follow......the........money.
2013-03-21 07:33:14 AM  
3 votes:

EvilEgg: I fail to see how anyone cannot regard this adventure as a mistake. We went to find WMDs, we didn't find any. That is a mistake.

The only real question, if there is one, is what kind of mistake was it? Was a intelligence mistake, a diplomatic mistake, or a political mistake.


It wasn't a mistake. It was completely intentional and the administration knew what it was doing. The administration misled Congress and the general population intentionally. I think they even lied to themselves at various stages. The question that remains is "why?"
2013-03-21 09:34:50 AM  
2 votes:

thecpt: jso2897: I don't tell war stories, and I never will. Sorry to disappoint you.

definitely not asking for war stories, just why you don't think it was to stop the spread of communism.  (seriously, every history book tries to say that.  not saying you're wrong, just asking what kind of racket you think it was)


You seem to have very poor reading comprehension. I thought I made it clear that I perceive you as a troll, who is trying to draw me into a conversation that had already bored me to tears by the late 1960s.
If you really believe in the veracity of meaningless strings of bullshiat like "stop the spread of communism", you are beyond any intellectual help I can provide you. I can recommend two things to you:
1. Read "War is a Racket" by Major General Smedley Butler.
2. Kindly have the good manners to f**k off, and leave me alone, as I have already made it clear that I wish you to do. I'm an old man who is tired of wars, and the lies that are told to trick people into them. Go pester somebody else.
2013-03-21 09:15:16 AM  
2 votes:
It wasn't a mistake, it was a crime.
2013-03-21 08:23:31 AM  
2 votes:

EvilEgg: I fail to see how anyone cannot regard this adventure as a mistake. We went to find WMDs, we didn't find any. That is a mistake.

The only real question, if there is one, is what kind of mistake was it? Was a intelligence mistake, a diplomatic mistake, or a political mistake.


It was "we let our collective selves be lied to" mistake.
2013-03-21 08:22:49 AM  
2 votes:

rjkline: amazing how liberals have been proven wrong in almost everything they get their skirts up about after a little time passes...........just a sad group of proven losers.......almost funny


i18.photobucket.com
Black-Nosed Buddha

A nun who was searching for enlightenment made a statue of Buddha and covered it with gold leaf. Wherever she went she carried this golden Buddha with her.
Years passed and, still carrying her Buddha, the nun came to live in a small temple in a country where there were many Buddhas, each one with its own particular shrine.
The nun wished to burn incense before her golden Buddha. Not liking the idea of the perfume straying to the others, she devised a funnel through which the smoke would ascend only to her statue. This blackened the nose of the golden Buddha, making it especially ugly.
2013-03-21 08:19:14 AM  
2 votes:
We've fallen for this crap twice in my lifetime. We'll do it again within the next ten years or so.
2013-03-21 07:39:58 AM  
2 votes:
47% thats how many people voted for Rmoney.
2013-03-21 10:16:38 PM  
1 votes:

EvilEgg: I fail to see how anyone cannot regard this adventure as a mistake. We went to find WMDs, we didn't find any. That is a mistake.

The only real question, if there is one, is what kind of mistake was it? Was a intelligence mistake, a diplomatic mistake, or a political mistake.


It was a decade long Christmas if you were an oil company, a security contractor or an arms dealer.
2013-03-21 05:02:58 PM  
1 votes:

weltallica: [i.imgur.com image 504x351]


Before, after, and during the war I was on active duty...and saw (still see) the people that opposed the invasion of Iraq as patriots.  Supporting the troops means not putting them in harms' way unnecessarily.

Iraqi liberation, huh?  I guess we really did free the shiat outta them.
2013-03-21 04:47:48 PM  
1 votes:

weltallica: [i.imgur.com image 504x351]


Since other than Colin Powell not a single member of the Bush cabinet served in combat at any point in their lives, that applies either way.

And considering that the Iraqis still live in daily fear of arrest and torture at the hands of the government, and random suicide bombings for a bonus, I'm not sure that cartoonist understands the definition of 'liberated'.
2013-03-21 03:45:48 PM  
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-03-21 02:29:48 PM  
1 votes:
Old poll (circa 2005), but I doubt attitudes have changed much. Even back then, these percentages are stunning:

64 percent believe that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda
47 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001
44 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/iraq-911-al-qaeda-and-w eapons- of-mass-destruction-what-the-public-believes-now-according-to-latest-h arris-poll-54105582.html

And in an informal poll (margin of error +/- potato):

100% of the people who believe Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 are idiots.

Was Saddam an a**hole?  Sure.  Is the world in general better off without him?  Probably.  But regardless of the outcome, the American public was deceived into going to war.

I have a rat in my house.  I call an exterminator.  He convinces me to spend a lot of money to tent the house because there "might" be more than one rat, but he doesn't even look around the house to confirm if he's right.  Worse, he makes up evidence to convince me my house is swarming with rats.  Well when all is said and done, the rat gets dead because of the tenting, but does that make what the exterminator did right?
2013-03-21 11:24:15 AM  
1 votes:

This text is now purple: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: Three letters:
O....I.....L

This phrase is a useful trigger for determining who in the thread is part of the derp brigade.

What country do you think trades internationally for Iraqi oil the most?


The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were a means for establishing more military bases in the Middle East  to secure the area for western oil companies.  Just as old British Empire military adventures were a means of opening and securing areas for their corporate interests so it is in the age of American Empire.

Do you think that the US would give a flying Fark about the Middle East if they didn't have large oil reserves?  Have you also noticed that the only African countries that our government has taken an interest in also coincidentally have large undeveloped oil reserves?

Our economy is entirely based on oil, and it will be obtained by any means necessary...
2013-03-21 11:24:08 AM  
1 votes:

TheShavingofOccam123: Thousands of Americans volunteered to go kill the men who murdered thousands of Americans on 9-11. Instead they were sent by oil men to fight an oil war.

I'd call that a crime. And America let those rich oil men do it. I'd call that a crime, too.


It's always been a double lie. Back in me and my dad's day, the bosses told us that the Russians were coming to get us, and if we didn't get our asses shot off in irrelevant shiatholes like Korea and Vietnam, they'd be marching up Fifth Avenue and Wilshire Blvd. any day now. meanwhile, the same lying asshole were telling poor, starving Ivan that all he had to do was starve, live under the threat of nuclear annihilation , and get HIS ass shot off in some shiathole like Afghanistan (while meanwhile trying to scratch a living out of his shabby beet-patch) and the capitalist running dogs would be defeated forever, and the Worker's Paradise would come to be. And all those bums, in Washington, Moscow and Wall street lved high, while poor men died and got crippled for their wealth, power, and comfort.
Today, we convince poor dumb Cletus. Trayvonne, and Ricardo that they need to go fight "terrorism" in some other shiathole on the other side of the planet, unless they want to wake up living under Sharia law tomorrow, and have Taylor Swift put into some Imam's harem and forced to wear a veil (probably not a bad idea, but that's for the "Entertainment" tab).Meanwhile, of course, poor broke, unlaid Achmed is being preached to by some smelly Mulah that all he has to do is strap some dynamite on and blow himself to hell enough times,and the infidel dogs and the modernism they represent will magically vanish from the world, and Allah's eternal paradise will be ushered in. And the liars get rich and powerful, and the little assholes die.
So it goes, and so it WILL go until we all wise the f**k up.
2013-03-21 10:57:31 AM  
1 votes:
By the way - it is not to say that America could have avoided every single war we've ever gotten into. I have trouble seeing any way we could have avoided the two wars against British occupation. The Civil War, tragically, seems like it would have been nearly impossible to avoid, the way things went down. And I can even give us a pass for getting into WWII - the world was on fire, and our house was going to burn one way or the other.
But that's about it. I can't think of any other wars we've fought that were anything but rackets to enrich and empower a wealthy and powerful few. And we never, ever,ever seem to learn.
2013-03-21 10:47:40 AM  
1 votes:
purdeyisa10:

When Gen Butler earned the two Medals of Honor, it was for fighting in Veracruz Mexico and Haiti. I wonder how many people alive today even knew we had troops fighting in those areas?

Hell, I just found out the other day we had U.S. troops in Siberia during the Bolshevik Revolution.
2013-03-21 10:41:14 AM  
1 votes:
What's wrong with some people? Iraq and Afghanistan have sucked the life blood out of our economy and worn down our military. What have we gained from it? We killed Bin Laden I guess, but thousands of American lives for this on guy, how good a deal was that?
2013-03-21 10:34:35 AM  
1 votes:

Silverstaff: It was a goddamn trillion dollar mistake.  If we'd taken that trillion dollars and spent it on other things we could have had a farking moonbase, men on Mars, a vastly updated and upgraded transportation and communications infrastructure, totally overhauled and upgraded public schools, and the best healthcare system on the planet. . .instead we got debt, a looted war-torn crater where Iraq was, defense contractors lining their pockets, and thousands upon thousands of bodies.


SIX trillion, by the time it's all totted up, according to a new study.

so yeah - there's education, universal healthcare, infrastructure (and the jobs that go with it) all down the farking tubes. no republican should EVER be allowed to speak on an economic issue again after this war.
2013-03-21 10:18:05 AM  
1 votes:

jso2897: Also, there's the direct knowledge factor - I , for instance, got drafted in 1968. Nobody will ever be able to fool me that the Vietnam war was anything but a racket.


Thing is, the Vietnamese snookered everyone.

1941 -- Vietnam is an unhappy colony of Vichy France, and is dealing with the Japanese occupation. Annam (north) is more unhappy than Cochinchina (south). Supported by US, USSR, and "China".

It all rolls back to WWII, where the Viet Minh were part of the French Resistance, staying loyal to the Allies, such as it was, and fighting the Vichy government and the Japanese. They win, more or less, although it's a deferred win brokered by a phase-in treaty with France, Nationalist China, and Vietnam. Vietnam gets the French back, at least temporarily, but kicks the Chinese out.

1945 - Japanese out, Nationalist Chinese in.
1946 - French back in, Nationalist Chinese out.

Come 1946, de Gaulle and the "macquis" want to hear none of it, and decide to reimpose colonial government. This worked about as well in Vietnam as it did everywhere else outside of France -- this is to say, poorly. Vietnam eventually wins the 1st Indochina War, after getting the support of newly communist China. This results in the temporary state of a communist North Vietnam and a nominally imperial South Korea.

1954 - French out; communist Chinese have influence; USA in in South.

Now things get sticky. WWII has begotten the Cold War, and the various regional disputes about communism versus democracy. As poorly run as the South is, the North has just conducted a purge (as communisms were prone to do), and the Viet Minh are in tatters.

The US sees this as encroaching Russo-Chinese communism. As such, they back the South Vietnamese. Somewhat unappreciated is that the Soviets and the Chinese don't much care for each other. The US is involved in a low-level war of various heats from 1955 to 1975. Vietnam is primarily supported by the Russians, which the Chinese do not appreciate.

1975; US out, North Vietnam seizes and purges South Vietnam; communist Chinese out; Soviets have influence.

1978: Vietnam invades Cambodia, kicks out Chinese-backed Khmer Rouge. This precipitates the Sino-Vietnamese war. Both sides claim victory. End result: Chinese out, Russians out, Vietnam remains independent, China and Russia nearly at state of war.

Basically, the Vietnam war did end up breaking communism, but only indirectly and accidentally, and it required the deaths and repudiations of both Stalin and Mao.

What everyone missed is that Vietnam saw all of these as colonial wars -- they fought against both Frances, the US, Cambodia, and China. They kicked out both the Kuomintang and the communist Chinese. They remained allies with the USSR because Russia didn't want a colony -- Russia wanted an asian Cuba. Unlike the others, Vietnam wasn't fighting ideological wars, it was fighting a very long war for independence. But no one really appreciated that until 1980.
2013-03-21 10:17:24 AM  
1 votes:

purdeyisa10: jso2897: thecpt: jso2897: I don't tell war stories, and I never will. Sorry to disappoint you.

definitely not asking for war stories, just why you don't think it was to stop the spread of communism.  (seriously, every history book tries to say that.  not saying you're wrong, just asking what kind of racket you think it was)

You seem to have very poor reading comprehension. I thought I made it clear that I perceive you as a troll, who is trying to draw me into a conversation that had already bored me to tears by the late 1960s.
If you really believe in the veracity of meaningless strings of bullshiat like "stop the spread of communism", you are beyond any intellectual help I can provide you. I can recommend two things to you:
1. Read "War is a Racket" by Major General Smedley Butler.
2. Kindly have the good manners to f**k off, and leave me alone, as I have already made it clear that I wish you to do. I'm an old man who is tired of wars, and the lies that are told to trick people into them. Go pester somebody else.

When Gen Butler earned the two Medals of Honor, it was for fighting in Veracruz Mexico and Haiti. I wonder how many people alive today even knew we had troops fighting in those areas?


Anyway - if these comic-book-reading little snotnoses want to learn - they should go fight in a war themselves - there'll always be one.
The "stop the spread of communism" hustle is old and busted, as is the "yellow peril". The new one is the "war on Terror". I mean, who wouldn't want to join up for the "War on Terror", right? I mean, "terror" is bad, right?
There will always be another generation of young, stupid assholes willing to go bleed and die for whatever horseshiat some preacher or politician sells them. It's Darwin's way.
2013-03-21 09:56:38 AM  
1 votes:

DamnYankees: I mean, I could go down the list and continue on, but you get the point. I was wrong about EVERY. GOD. DAMNED. THING. It is amazing I could tie my shoes in 2001-2004. If you took all the wrongness I generated, put it together and compacted it and processed it, there would be enough concentrated stupid to fuel three hundred years of Weekly Standard journals. I am not sure how I snapped out of it, but I think Abu Ghraib and the negative impact of the insurgency did sober me up a bit.

War should always be an absolute last resort, not just another option. I will never make the same mistakes again.


Let's face facts.  We, the American People, were conned by our government.  We were lied to by our government.  In the wake of 9/11, we were living in fear that something like that could happen again, and it opened us up for the lies.  I admit I bought into them.  I was wrong to do so.

I know many people have pointed out that the Democrats were in on this, that they also believed the WMDs existed well before Bush got into power.  The difference is they didn't throw American lives and trillions of dollars down the toilet to force the regime change.

There has been enough evidence presented that Bush II had his sights set on Saddam when he took office, and that 9/11 and Afghanistan were distractions to that goal.  And believe me, is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein and his sons in power?  Yes.  Was the price we paid and continue to pay worth that?  I don't believe so.

We can't fall for this again.

And despite John McCain insisting that this has all been properly investigating, we need to fully investigate the intelligence failures that led us into this war.  Enough with the Benghazi dog whistle already.
2013-03-21 09:48:28 AM  
1 votes:

Thunderpipes: Hitler didn't attack us either. Maybe we should have not gotten involved.

Liberals, imagine them in charge during WWII? Fark would be rallying behind Hitler, after all, he didn't like Jews either.


You really don't know your history.  FDR did everything he could to get involved...and I'm pretty sure he's among the most hated of the libby libs that libbed theri liberal way into the White House.
2013-03-21 09:43:27 AM  
1 votes:
Depends what you mean by "mistake." They were certainly aware of what they were doing.
2013-03-21 09:41:16 AM  
1 votes:

Thunderpipes: Hitler didn't attack us either. Maybe we should have not gotten involved.

Liberals, imagine them in charge during WWII? Fark would be rallying behind Hitler, after all, he didn't like Jews either.


Aye, good thing we had that very conservative icon of the right, Franklin D. Roosevelt as a President during that time in our history. Dodged a bullet there, we did.
2013-03-21 09:28:07 AM  
1 votes:
The invasion of Iraq was the single worst decision any president ever made, in this nations history.
Alright, maybe second worst.
2013-03-21 09:03:13 AM  
1 votes:

ReapTheChaos: "Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted March 7-10, 2013, on the Gallup Daily tracking survey, with a random sample of 1,022 adults."

This is why I never believe anything claimed in a poll, 1,022 out of 314 million is hardly what I would call an accurate sampling.


Samples in statistics have to be chosen well to be valid. The key word here is "telephone," which means these were likely landline phones, meaning older Americans mostly responded.

I'll remind everyone one that Gallup was one of those pollsters calling it a horse race and even skewed towards Romney approaching Election Day. Gallup fully nullified itself this past fall.
2013-03-21 09:02:40 AM  
1 votes:

ReapTheChaos: "Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted March 7-10, 2013, on the Gallup Daily tracking survey, with a random sample of 1,022 adults."

This is why I never believe anything claimed in a poll, 1,022 out of 314 million is hardly what I would call an accurate sampling.


Study statistics.
2013-03-21 08:58:36 AM  
1 votes:

rjkline: words which add nothing to the discussion


1/10 only because I responded solely to invalidate you.
2013-03-21 08:41:31 AM  
1 votes:

InfrasonicTom: Close2TheEdge: The Muthaship: Got rid of Saddam, and gave them a chance to have a country governed in whatever way the people want.  Awful.

Which likely would have happened by itself without the cost of BILLIONS of dollars and THOUSANDS of lives.

Yes, it was awful.

You misspelled TRILLIONS


This still pisses me off. This was from Nicholas Kristoff's pre-war column, and he was relatively against the war:

But Mr. Bush has not overcome some practical concerns about an invasion. These concerns, which we need to focus on in the coming months, include:

...

4. Is the Iraqi desert the best place to spend $55 billion? Fighting a war will cost perhaps $35 billion, and it will take $20 billion more to rebuild Iraq. That's more than the federal government spends in a year on elementary and secondary education and health research combined.
2013-03-21 08:32:04 AM  
1 votes:

dr_blasto: EvilEgg: I fail to see how anyone cannot regard this adventure as a mistake. We went to find WMDs, we didn't find any. That is a mistake.

The only real question, if there is one, is what kind of mistake was it? Was a intelligence mistake, a diplomatic mistake, or a political mistake.

It wasn't a mistake. It was completely intentional and the administration knew what it was doing. The administration misled Congress and the general population intentionally. I think they even lied to themselves at various stages. The question that remains is "why?"


It's pretty well known that Rumsfeld and his cronies had drafted up a letter outlining their plans to go back into Iraq as far back as Bush I. The fact that Bush II appointed them and put them in key positions was a huge black mark for him, since after he already began moving against the Taliban/Al Qaeda they saw their opportunity to say "WEll, gee, boss, see, this guy your dad went after is also sponsoring terrorism, and you should totally go after him too, and there're WMDs, etc.", and he was willing to listen to his advisers push a plan.

Unfortunately, when you have people that control the sources of information, and feed bad intel to the president, the president isn't going to go out of his way to go around them and fact-check what his advisers are spouting. It's their job to, you know, get it right.

So you end up with a military spoiling for a fight, an easy win, a way to make the Generals who wanted to go all the way to Baghdad the last time look like heroes, and a bunch of guys who are in cabinet positions that have the ability and desire to scratch something off their bucket list who are all "Well, since we have a president who is already willing to fight a war, and we have a blank check from congress, what the fark why not?"

Then, when shiat doesn't go as easy as you think it will, since you have a president who, despite what many want to believe, has a conscience and decides "Well, gee, we went in and farked up this country, we can't just level the place and leave with people in abject poverty, all sources of income and their own farking dwellings blown to shiat, we gotta clean up this farking mess and make sure they get back on their feet in a democratic, free way", and so what was going to be a fun night out of blowing shiat up and shooting rag-heads turns into a clusterfark as you try to force a destructive organization into a humanitarian one.

The biggest difference between Obama and Bush, as near as I can tell, in this regard is that Obama's unwilling to do the heavy lifting in cases where a populace want a dictator gone. He's willing to tacitly support with air power and aid, but he's not going to send in troops to do the job.

On one hand, I applaud his efforts to force the people to make changes themselves. On the other, I must disagree with the tactic as it's incredibly naive to believe that untrained freedom fighters without sufficient armament can take on a vastly superior military force and have a meaningful victory without outside intervention.

Even in Iraq and Afghanistan, we roflstomped the shiat out of the Taliban and beat them in the numbers and might game. The only thing left is for them to fight the superior force with small cuts here and there, and a show of resistance which is not effective militarily, but in the long haul may be enough to make us think it's not worth continuing.
2013-03-21 08:31:06 AM  
1 votes:
Welp, we've reached the point where ideological lenses have attained critical mass.  Welcome to the era when one's political loyalty supplants all critical analysis and reasoning.

Thanks, guys.  You're doing a heckuva job.
2013-03-21 08:30:48 AM  
1 votes:

Mugato: rjkline: amazing how liberals have been proven wrong in almost everything they get their skirts up about after a little time passes...........just a sad group of proven losers.......almost funny

So you think invading Iraq was a good idea? I've heard that people like you existed, I just never caught a glimpse of one in the wild,


Really, old buddy? Seriously? You are going to try to argue with that clown?
My granddad had an expression: "Wrestle with a turd, and, win or lose, you're going to get messed up."
2013-03-21 08:27:15 AM  
1 votes:
If it was a mistake then it was a mistake by all of America. No one that I personally know was against it when it started and it was all but lauded by the entire country, even hard core democrats in Washington. Now after 10 years...sure..hindsight says we could have done more good by spending that money and effort in Afghanistan, but at the time it seemed the right thing to do. Second guessing it now is nothing more than self destruction. The problem with Iraq was that once it was started then it had to be finished regardless of the right/wrong of the war. Some wars a re justifiable, some are not, but they can all be classified as mistakes if examined closely enough.
2013-03-21 08:26:52 AM  
1 votes:

dr_blasto: EvilEgg: I fail to see how anyone cannot regard this adventure as a mistake. We went to find WMDs, we didn't find any. That is a mistake.

The only real question, if there is one, is what kind of mistake was it? Was a intelligence mistake, a diplomatic mistake, or a political mistake.

It wasn't a mistake. It was completely intentional and the administration knew what it was doing. The administration misled Congress and the general population intentionally. I think they even lied to themselves at various stages. The question that remains is "why?"


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
2013-03-21 08:24:30 AM  
1 votes:
The only people in the US who benefited from the Iraq War were oil companies who enjoyed the price spikes and Haliburton shareholders who enjoyed numerous no bid contracts.  It's a good thing our leaders at the time didn't have ties to those industries or it might have looked a tad suspicious.
2013-03-21 08:23:57 AM  
1 votes:
Was it a mistake to send them?  Maybe, maybe not.  Was everything afterwards a mistake?  Hell yeah.  The survey is not asking the latter question.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report