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.

(Bloomberg)   Was the Iraq invasion worthwhile? Let's ask Ahmed, the Iraqi. Oh...wait, Ahmed just got pinched by a religious group. How about we go to Ollie Hussein for this report. Ollie? "LOTSA PEOPLE DEAD" Thanks, Ollie   (bloomberg.com) divider line 80
    More: Interesting, Iraq, Iraqis, Iraq invasion, Iraqi Kurdistan, Toni Morrison, liberal education, navel-gazing, torture chambers  
•       •       •

3940 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Apr 2013 at 9:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-09 08:16:21 AM  
For some reason all I can think about after reading the headline is ass and pinching.
 
2013-04-09 08:24:13 AM  
O I L

/that's the reason
//shh don't tell anyone
 
2013-04-09 08:24:32 AM  
This kind of reminds me of the old line, "What do you think of the French revolution"   "Hmm, too early to tel yet."

Sure Saddam was an unmitigated bastard, and I have no doubt that those who survived some of his torture were quite glad to see him go.  So it was worth it to some of them.  Was it worth it to US?  How has any of this advanced U.S. interests?  Not to sound selfish, but aren't most nations advancing their own interests?  As brutal a prick as he was, he posed absolutely ZERO threat to the U.S.  How are our interests now better served?  This is an honest question, and if anyone has a good answer, I would love to hear it.
 
2013-04-09 08:31:24 AM  

gopher321: O I L

/that's the reason
//shh don't tell anyone


Yeah, because gas is so much cheaper now.

HALIBURTON

and Dubya's ego. Those are the reasons.
 
2013-04-09 08:31:33 AM  

nekom: This kind of reminds me of the old line, "What do you think of the French revolution"   "Hmm, too early to tel yet."

Sure Saddam was an unmitigated bastard, and I have no doubt that those who survived some of his torture were quite glad to see him go.  So it was worth it to some of them.  Was it worth it to US?  How has any of this advanced U.S. interests?  Not to sound selfish, but aren't most nations advancing their own interests?  As brutal a prick as he was, he posed absolutely ZERO threat to the U.S.  How are our interests now better served?  This is an honest question, and if anyone has a good answer, I would love to hear it.


It was supposed to be a show of force but really if just taught the world that you can occupy the largest army in the world for over a decade with a hand full of fanatics and twenty year old technology.
 
2013-04-09 08:51:49 AM  
I'm going to go with no, just like I did the last time this ridiculous question was asked.
 
2013-04-09 08:57:24 AM  
In the annals of totally avoidable military clusterfarks it will be recorded alongside the time a young Churchill stuck his cock in an electrical socket.
 
2013-04-09 08:59:49 AM  
Just once I make fun of spelling in the headline and I get pinched...
 
2013-04-09 09:13:54 AM  
If you owned stock in the right corporations, yes.
 
2013-04-09 09:15:25 AM  

James!: It was supposed to be a show of force but really if just taught the world that you can occupy the largest army in the world for over a decade with a hand full of fanatics and twenty year old technology.


You'd think we'd had learned that lesson seeing that we helped that same thing in Afghanistan
 
2013-04-09 09:15:34 AM  
Some people made huge personal fortunes off of the war, so I'm betting they're itching to do it again.
 
2013-04-09 09:20:07 AM  
Holy shiat not even 20 posts and this thread has gone full Alex Jones

/IT'S A CONSPIRACY!
 
2013-04-09 09:21:49 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: James!: It was supposed to be a show of force but really if just taught the world that you can occupy the largest army in the world for over a decade with a hand full of fanatics and twenty year old technology.

You'd think we'd had learned that lesson seeing that we helped that same thing in Afghanistan


Nobody was really paying attention to Afghanistan.
 
2013-04-09 09:22:09 AM  
That's really strange because everything was really great under Saddam and his sadistic sons.
 
2013-04-09 09:25:05 AM  
The day when the (newly minted) Iraqi Parliament voted not to allow the US and Britain to run the state oil company, I knew the war was over.

I was working for the Air Force and every time there was a supplemental budget request approved for the war, a thousand new requests came through the finance office (A8) all in support of Iraqi Freedom. We had these really nice 21" Sony monitors (80 pounds each) for a whole year. They were replaced by 17" flat screems which were thankfully a lot lighter. The Sonys? They went stacked on a pallet and left outside over at DRMO
 
2013-04-09 09:25:05 AM  

GORDON: That's really strange because everything was really great under Saddam and his sadistic sons.


What's your point?
 
2013-04-09 09:25:23 AM  

GORDON: That's really strange because everything was really great under Saddam and his sadistic sons.


I don't think, even here on Fark with all its various people's political leaning and of course the outright trolls, that I've EVER seen anyone defend Saddam as a nice guy. The guy was a prick, and the people they interviewed were victims of his shiat, of course they're glad he's gone. That doesn't explain why we invaded Iraq, and not say Best Korea, you know the one member of the dubious "axis of evil" that has developed, tested and threatened to use nuclear weapons.

I'm asking the selfish question here. Forget whether the war was "legal" or not, that has no real bearing as war crimes are only prosecuted by the victor. Forget whether it was morally right or wrong, from a purely selfish U.S. interests perspective, was it worth it? I fail to see how, but I invite anyone to explain why it was.
 
2013-04-09 09:25:30 AM  

GORDON: That's really strange because everything was really great under Saddam and his sadistic sons.


Saddam had been pinned down by no fly zones since the early nineties. You may also recall that Clinton periodically shot missiles at him when he acted up. Oh and the UN sanctions, don't forget those.
 
2013-04-09 09:27:02 AM  

James!: MyKingdomForYourHorse: James!: It was supposed to be a show of force but really if just taught the world that you can occupy the largest army in the world for over a decade with a hand full of fanatics and twenty year old technology.

You'd think we'd had learned that lesson seeing that we helped that same thing in Afghanistan

Nobody was really paying attention to Afghanistan.


I don't think a great many people were paying attention to anything during that decade.

We'll just go ahead and mark down 2000 to 2010 as the lost years for America
 
2013-04-09 09:28:57 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: James!: MyKingdomForYourHorse: James!: It was supposed to be a show of force but really if just taught the world that you can occupy the largest army in the world for over a decade with a hand full of fanatics and twenty year old technology.

You'd think we'd had learned that lesson seeing that we helped that same thing in Afghanistan

Nobody was really paying attention to Afghanistan.

I don't think a great many people were paying attention to anything during that decade.

We'll just go ahead and mark down 2000 to 2010 as the lost years for America


The decade America got black out drunk started a bunch of fights and lost all of it's money gambling.
 
2013-04-09 09:29:46 AM  

GORDON: That's really strange because everything was really great under Saddam and his sadistic sons.


Well...didn't he kept Iran in check...which isn't happening any more?

It's a real shame we squandered all the goodwill the US had after 9/11.

But, on the plus side there's this "being the most hated and despised nation on the globe" thing....which those folks won't be forgetting any time soon.
 
2013-04-09 09:30:20 AM  
I actually had this conversation with several Iraqis a number of times, in Baghdad in 2006-07 (before the surge, during the worst of the sectarian murderfest). The consensus was that they were really glad the U.S. had gotten rid of Saddam, but they couldn't fathom why we had farked up the occupation so badly (they were much more diplomatic in how they put it). shiates tended to think it was worth it, Sunnis not so much.

Fact is, the Bushies had reasonable motives, if ones that weren't good enough, and they didn't have anything to do with WMDs. 1. Cheney and the other oil men (remember, the Bushies were almost ALL oil men) wanted a more stable supply of Persian Gulf oil, which was constantly at risk because of Saddam's habit of invading his neighbors. 2. They really thought they could diminish terrorism by removing the state sponsors of it, by imposing a sort of America-led Arab spring. Rumor had it in Iraq that in 2003 we were planning to invade five countries in seven years, in this order, in order to "liberate" them from autocratic rule: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria. This turned out to be a ridiculous pipe dream, but a lot of them STILL think it could be done, by using better tactics. 3. Saddam tried to kill Bush 41. Never underestimate how personal motivations drive national leaders.
 
2013-04-09 09:34:59 AM  
Look at all the angst and hand wringing after the fact. Told you so, you farking assholes. Told you Iraq was going to be a cluster fark. Boomers you stupid assholes farked up Vietnam, farked up Afghanistan, and now farked up Iraq. You are 3-1-1 as far as war goes.

But hey the QE bubble will allow us to roll you for your retirement money, again. You never seem to learn.
 
2013-04-09 09:35:12 AM  

James!: Oh and the UN sanctions, don't forget those.


Who could forget those?  Millions of babies died annually under those draconian sanctions!
 
2013-04-09 09:35:27 AM  
He asks one kurdish person.  That isn't meaningful statistically.

"Saddam tortures people" isn't compelling as a reason to go to war; just imagine Bush using that and leaving out any nonsense about WMDs as his sole justification for going to war.
 
2013-04-09 09:36:15 AM  

Mugato: gopher321: O I L

/that's the reason
//shh don't tell anyone

Yeah, because gas is so much cheaper now.

HALIBURTON

and Dubya's ego. Those are the reasons.


The latter two, definitely, but the first could still be valid. You don't seriously expect the oil companies to pass the savings onto us, do you?
 
2013-04-09 09:37:29 AM  
You mean the one they had to lie to their allies to start, killed nearly 200,000 people (more than half of whom were civilians) and shipped thousands more to rot in a gulag and replaced a dictator who was only a 7/10 on the asshole scale with a series of potentates and puppets, all to secure weapons that never existed because "them's the folks that tried to kill my dad"? That war? Hm, let me think now, was that a good idea...hmmmm.....
 
2013-04-09 09:37:46 AM  

stevarooni: James!: Oh and the UN sanctions, don't forget those.

Who could forget those?  Millions of babies died annually under those draconian sanctions!


MIllions?  I heard it was billions, TRILLIONS!! AN INFINITE LOOP OF DYING BABIES!!
 
2013-04-09 09:38:53 AM  

James!: stevarooni: James!: Oh and the UN sanctions, don't forget those.

Who could forget those?  Millions of babies died annually under those draconian sanctions!

MIllions?  I heard it was billions, TRILLIONS!! AN INFINITE LOOP OF DYING BABIES!!


It was pretty brutal...which was why it was used in slogans to end the sanctions.
 
2013-04-09 09:39:17 AM  

James!: stevarooni: James!: Oh and the UN sanctions, don't forget those.

Who could forget those?  Millions of babies died annually under those draconian sanctions!

MIllions?  I heard it was billions, TRILLIONS!! AN INFINITE LOOP OF DYING BABIES!!


To be fair, that number is a bit inflated as a lot of those babies were killed several times each.

/sanctions don't appear to work. Castro is still there, fatty ding dongs too
 
2013-04-09 09:41:55 AM  

nekom: James!: stevarooni: James!: Oh and the UN sanctions, don't forget those.

Who could forget those?  Millions of babies died annually under those draconian sanctions!

MIllions?  I heard it was billions, TRILLIONS!! AN INFINITE LOOP OF DYING BABIES!!

To be fair, that number is a bit inflated as a lot of those babies were killed several times each.

/sanctions don't appear to work. Castro is still there, fatty ding dongs too


It depends on what you're trying to do with them.
 
2013-04-09 09:45:04 AM  

James!: nekom: James!: stevarooni: James!: Oh and the UN sanctions, don't forget those.

Who could forget those?  Millions of babies died annually under those draconian sanctions!

MIllions?  I heard it was billions, TRILLIONS!! AN INFINITE LOOP OF DYING BABIES!!

To be fair, that number is a bit inflated as a lot of those babies were killed several times each.

/sanctions don't appear to work. Castro is still there, fatty ding dongs too

It depends on what you're trying to do with them.


Sure, but I can't think of too many rousing success stories. If regime change is the goal, at least, I can't recall them ever working. I would argue that the no-fly zone kept Saddam properly contained far more than any sanctions did. ESPECIALLY in a totalitarian regime, they appear to only harm the people, never saw them collapse a government.
 
2013-04-09 09:46:48 AM  
It was an entertaining way of draining the Treasury without appearing to so that when the boomers needed to retire, the cupboard was bare.

"We can't afford that"  is the very convenient phrase inside the Beltway when people who are not your contributors need something.
 
2013-04-09 09:51:00 AM  

nekom: James!: nekom: James!: stevarooni: James!: Oh and the UN sanctions, don't forget those.

Who could forget those?  Millions of babies died annually under those draconian sanctions!

MIllions?  I heard it was billions, TRILLIONS!! AN INFINITE LOOP OF DYING BABIES!!

To be fair, that number is a bit inflated as a lot of those babies were killed several times each.

/sanctions don't appear to work. Castro is still there, fatty ding dongs too

It depends on what you're trying to do with them.

Sure, but I can't think of too many rousing success stories. If regime change is the goal, at least, I can't recall them ever working. I would argue that the no-fly zone kept Saddam properly contained far more than any sanctions did. ESPECIALLY in a totalitarian regime, they appear to only harm the people, never saw them collapse a government.


Sanctions are more about bringing the offending party to the negotiation table.  Like NK under Clinton with the Six Party talks.  We had them at the table  and were working on improving their relations with the rest of the world.  They shut down their nuclear weapons facilities and were allowing inspectors in so we could confirm it.
 
2013-04-09 09:52:54 AM  
Something just struck me funny about the insurgency: If all Iraqis (and most humans) agree that Hussein should've been disassembled, and many insurgents are capable of fashioning a device that will blow a hole in a LAV, how is it that nobody thought to do this until after the guy they actually wanted to get rid of was already dead?
 
2013-04-09 10:01:46 AM  

James!:
Sanctions are more about bringing the offending party to the negotiation table.  Like NK under Clinton with the Six Party talks.  We had them at the table  and were working on improving their relations with the rest of the world.  They shut down their nuclear weapons facilities and were allowing inspectors in so we could confirm it.


That's certainly true, but it ultimately failed to resolve the situation, and we're right back where we started on that front. I suppose it can be said that it prolonged the peace there, but it's about as unstable now as it's ever been. The people starve, but the leadership lives in luxury.

With regard to Iraq, I don't know if they are directly responsible for infant deaths, they well may be I'm just not really familiar with the pre-2nd war history in detail.
 
2013-04-09 10:05:24 AM  
I guess the big point is that this question SHOULD HAVE been asked in an honest way BEFORE the clusterfark that followed.  And had congress been given the same intelligence that the CIA gave the White House (the intel that said NO, he has no WMD's)  And had the American people not been given that "Saddam was involved in 9/11" sleight of hand.
 
2013-04-09 10:07:00 AM  

Mugato: gopher321: O I L

/that's the reason
//shh don't tell anyone

Yeah, because gas is so much cheaper now.

HALIBURTON

and Dubya's ego. Those are the reasons.


This, And possibly the Wolfowitz plan.
 
2013-04-09 10:08:25 AM  

James!: MyKingdomForYourHorse: James!: MyKingdomForYourHorse: James!: It was supposed to be a show of force but really if just taught the world that you can occupy the largest army in the world for over a decade with a hand full of fanatics and twenty year old technology.

You'd think we'd had learned that lesson seeing that we helped that same thing in Afghanistan

Nobody was really paying attention to Afghanistan.

I don't think a great many people were paying attention to anything during that decade.

We'll just go ahead and mark down 2000 to 2010 as the lost years for America

The decade America got black out drunk started a bunch of fights and lost all of it's money gambling.



That's actually a pretty good description. I will be stealing that.
Hopefully, we can go into a recovery program that doesn't involve a lot of Jesus.
 
2013-04-09 10:08:50 AM  

nekom: James!:
Sanctions are more about bringing the offending party to the negotiation table.  Like NK under Clinton with the Six Party talks.  We had them at the table  and were working on improving their relations with the rest of the world.  They shut down their nuclear weapons facilities and were allowing inspectors in so we could confirm it.

That's certainly true, but it ultimately failed to resolve the situation, and we're right back where we started on that front. I suppose it can be said that it prolonged the peace there, but it's about as unstable now as it's ever been. The people starve, but the leadership lives in luxury.

With regard to Iraq, I don't know if they are directly responsible for infant deaths, they well may be I'm just not really familiar with the pre-2nd war history in detail.


Well, with NK there was a change of American leadership that wanted to take a harder line and killed negotiations.  With Iraq we pinned Saddam down and locked him up but we had inspectors going in checking for weapons.  We had UN monitors making sure the aid we were sending was going to the right places.  But there again, the leadership changed and they wanted to take a harder line.
 
2013-04-09 10:10:47 AM  

Flakeloaf: Something just struck me funny about the insurgency: If all Iraqis (and most humans) agree that Hussein should've been disassembled, and many insurgents are capable of fashioning a device that will blow a hole in a LAV, how is it that nobody thought to do this until after the guy they actually wanted to get rid of was already dead?


They had electricity, running water, job prospects, a decent economy, law and order... you know... something besides rubble and dead bodies. I hope there is a hell, just so GW and his little gang of sour-faced retards can burn there forever.
 
2013-04-09 10:11:40 AM  

hammettman: I guess the big point is that this question SHOULD HAVE been asked in an honest way BEFORE the clusterfark that followed.  And had congress been given the same intelligence that the CIA gave the White House (the intel that said NO, he has no WMD's)  And had the American people not been given that "Saddam was involved in 9/11" sleight of hand.


Remember Bush's EPIC approval ratings after 9/11? They certainly rolled with that. People at the time pointed it out, but I'll admit I was fooled at the time. We were pretty much flat out lied to. It wouldn't have been so bad if the rationale had simply been that he was an evil man (true), or even that terrorists were operating in Iraq (not really, at the time), but he poured it on with the WMD talk and well, we all know how that went.

Then of course, the backlash. Even suggesting that Iraq might not be a good idea in some circles would get you "WTF are you with us, or with the terrorists?" For lack of a better phrase, we were on a war roll and nobody was going to stop Iraq from happening. By the time the public at large began to realize it, Bush was already into his second term.

I've said this before, if you remove the Iraq war from history, Bush would go down with a pretty decent legacy.
 
2013-04-09 10:12:25 AM  
Simple answer: no

Long answer: nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
 
2013-04-09 10:13:11 AM  
So you're saying that, as always, it depends on who you ask?
 
2013-04-09 10:16:16 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: Look at all the angst and hand wringing after the fact. Told you so, you farking assholes. Told you Iraq was going to be a cluster fark. Boomers you stupid assholes farked up Vietnam, farked up Afghanistan, and now farked up Iraq. You are 3-1-1 as far as war goes.



The "Greatest" Generation are the military geniuses that brought us the Vietnam War. By the time the late '50s and early '60s rolled around, they had replaced all of their real memories of Europe and the Pacific with scenes from John Wayne movies and figured that all the country needed to get back on track was a big patriotic war.
 
2013-04-09 10:19:42 AM  
Mr. Goldberg should have interviewed the executives of the no-bid contractors.

He would have got glowing reviews!

"A+++ will profit from the death of thousands again!!"
 
2013-04-09 10:19:45 AM  
imgc.allpostersimages.com http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/5044/libyanwoman2012election.jpg encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.comencrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

Ask these people if it was worth it.

Oh, so sorry, I forgot they already answered that.
newsbusters.orgwww.findingdulcinea.com
 
2013-04-09 10:21:16 AM  
As a person who served in a Diplomatic function in Iraq post Saddam (I was there in 2009/2010) allow me to elaborate on WHY we went to war with / invaded Iraq.  Since it seems the bullshiat revisionist history has become almost cemented as fact in the minds of the masses.

The US did NOT go to war in Iraq because we thought Saddam had ties to al Qaeda, and we definitely did NOT go to war over oil.  Give me a break.  We went to war because of the lies peddled by a CIA asset code-named CURVEBALL, and his attempt to get a visa.  His lies lead to lots of corroborative rumint (slang for rumor-gathered-intelligence) from multiple intelligence agencies, and the summation of that rumint started to make WMD proliferation look possible.  UN Resolution 1441 was passed in order to prevent this proliferation and Saddam defied it at every turn.  Hans Blix was sent in to inspect, but not wanting to be the guy who started a war, did a half-assed job of it.  Satellite imagery showed that Saddam was moving things out of places set to be inspected.  It was all bad news, and the actions of the Saddam regime did not reflect the actions of innocence.  When the UN would NOT follow through on the sanctions and penalties 1441 was supposed to impose, the few nations that saw this potential threat as a problem took action.  All this time some pencil pushing analyst at the CIA probably was tasked with finding out if Saddam had any ties to al Qaeda.  It's a CYA move.  Not at all surprising considering people like al-Zarqawi moved in, and al-Sadr controlled almost every neighborhood east of the Tigris.  In all my meetings and interviews with Iraqis, I would go so far as to say most of them were glad Saddam was gone, and placed the blame on the lack of a new functional government at the hands of power grabbing Iraqis trying to fill the power void (this view was especially prominent with the Kurds).  And go ahead and look up the back and forth that happened between al-Malaki and Allawi in the race to become prime minister.  The majority of negative feelings toward the US held by non-extremists was because the US did a lot of damage to historical locations and neighborhoods, and didn't do much to compensate.  But that's part of why I was there.  The experience was both eye-opening and worth it.

I need to start purchasing books now that accurately explain the events that led up to the invasion of Iraq.  By the time my future kids get to High School or College, God only knows what they will be teaching.  We (unfortunately) live in the era of apologist America, where everything that we are even remotely involved in is somehow our fault.  Hell, even if everything went to plan, people in the US would still feel like we were in the wrong and needed to apologize.

If anyone has a chance to visit Kurdish Iraq, I highly recommend it.  Beautiful landscape and architecture, super friendly people, and the food was the best I've ever had in all my travels.  Irbil is a particular favorite, especially the hills / mountains north of the city proper.  Amazing.
 
2013-04-09 10:25:00 AM  

nekom: hammettman: I guess the big point is that this question SHOULD HAVE been asked in an honest way BEFORE the clusterfark that followed.  And had congress been given the same intelligence that the CIA gave the White House (the intel that said NO, he has no WMD's)  And had the American people not been given that "Saddam was involved in 9/11" sleight of hand.

Remember Bush's EPIC approval ratings after 9/11? They certainly rolled with that. People at the time pointed it out, but I'll admit I was fooled at the time. We were pretty much flat out lied to. It wouldn't have been so bad if the rationale had simply been that he was an evil man (true), or even that terrorists were operating in Iraq (not really, at the time), but he poured it on with the WMD talk and well, we all know how that went.

Then of course, the backlash. Even suggesting that Iraq might not be a good idea in some circles would get you "WTF are you with us, or with the terrorists?" For lack of a better phrase, we were on a war roll and nobody was going to stop Iraq from happening. By the time the public at large began to realize it, Bush was already into his second term.

I've said this before, if you remove the Iraq war from history, Bush would go down with a pretty decent legacy.


Except for ignoring that whole "Bin Laden determined to attack..." thing and staying on vacay and appointing incompetent stooges to run things like the Federal Emergency Management Agency and taking a budget surplus and turning it into deficits we're still trying to deal with and giving Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and other big banks an exemption from the net capital rule which allowed them to take their debt exposure leverage from 3:1 to 40:1, and that "special" exemption they gave BP in February 2001, which allowed them to build the Deepwater Horizon without an acoustic shutoff switch that they'd had to install in other wells, which helps if there ever were a leak at the floor, which what do you know, did happen and the overall mangling of the language and groping of other world leaders, these are just a few things that stick at the top of my head, but yeah, without all these, perhaps Bush may have scraped up a close to decent legacy.
 
2013-04-09 10:25:58 AM  

give me doughnuts: The "Greatest" Generation are the military geniuses that brought us the Vietnam War.


Hilarious bit of irony, they avoided using the word "war" with VietNam and Korea. The were "police actions". But Iraq and Afganistan, which were really just occupations, were all out "wars".
 
Displayed 50 of 80 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report