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  
•       •       •

3944 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 10:26:26 AM  

varmitydog: [imgc.allpostersimages.com image 391x488] http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/5044/libyanwoman2012election.jpg [encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 191x264][encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 260x194]

Ask these people if it was worth it.

Oh, so sorry, I forgot they already answered that.
[newsbusters.org image 512x385][www.findingdulcinea.com image 456x275]


Then ask these ones

(any photo of a U.S. serviceman's casket)

and these ones

(any photo of a car bombing in Iraq)

and this guy

(rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein)

etc, etc.

Again, OF COURSE some Iraqis think it was worth it. And good for them, I wish them the best of luck in their fledgling democracy, but I don't see how it was worth it for the U.S. in any way whatsoever.
 
2013-04-09 10:29:46 AM  

varmitydog: Ask these people if it was worth it.


Oh please. So by that logic we should invade every repressive regime in the world? Ask all the civilians in Iraq we killed first.
 
2013-04-09 10:30:11 AM  

WhiskeyBoy: allow me to elaborate on WHY we went to war with / invaded Iraq.


You SOUND like you worked for the Bushies all right. A hundred brutal dictators defying UN resolutions around the world and we just up and decided we'd blow half our GDP on this particular guy huh? A whole bunch of countries that WOULD have benefited from our intervention and we chose to just level a thriving one and turn it into rubble?

Dude, STFU.
 
2013-04-09 10:33:42 AM  

hitlersbrain: WhiskeyBoy: allow me to elaborate on WHY we went to war with / invaded Iraq.

You SOUND like you worked for the Bushies all right. A hundred brutal dictators defying UN resolutions around the world and we just up and decided we'd blow half our GDP on this particular guy huh? A whole bunch of countries that WOULD have benefited from our intervention and we chose to just level a thriving one and turn it into rubble?

Dude, STFU.


We went to Iraq because it was a convenient war for a Republican president.
Republicans pride themselves on being warriors, without a war they seem useless.
George Bush also had it out for Saddam for attempting to assassinate his father (Bush senior).
Finally, America was suffering from post 9/11 blues, where we felt we had to get anger out of our system... Iraq was our rebound war, to make us feel like we are winners (vs. Afghanistan which no one can conquer).

All in all, the Iraq war was the LARGEST protested war BEFORE it started and it still did not matter.
We the people know that this is all political theater with our lives and treasure.
 
2013-04-09 10:39:38 AM  

NostroZ: (vs. Afghanistan which no one can conquer).
.


Unless you are, wait for it,

imageshack.us
 
2013-04-09 10:42:12 AM  

Mugato: varmitydog: Ask these people if it was worth it.

Oh please. So by that logic we should invade every repressive regime in the world? Ask all the civilians in Iraq we killed first.


Our counter to this argument in 2003 was "And you put Iraq at the top of that list?"
 
2013-04-09 10:48:26 AM  
WhiskeyBoy:
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.

Critics from the start said this war was started on lies. You're just clarifying the lies. And at the time, opinion polls showed the majority of Americans did believe Saddam was tied to Al Qaeda, so lies fomented more lies. The war for oil claim I agree has always been highly speculative, but there's no doubt companies made out like bandits in other areas. That was another major criticism of the war.So if you want to teach the "apologists" the truth, you should learn the actual details of their argument.
 
2013-04-09 11:16:52 AM  

James!: 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.


20 year old? RC controllers, Kalashnikovs, and fertilizer bombs are a bit older than that.
 
2013-04-09 11:21:23 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 Republicans certainly wish we would.
 
2013-04-09 11:24:51 AM  

Gergesa: 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.


Then there's the fact that our invasion didn't exactly stop the torturing, merely changed who was getting the torture (and sometimes not even that as Iraq's press corp can well attest).
 
2013-04-09 11:26:09 AM  

Heron: 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 Republicans certainly wish we would.


Heh. Kinda like the Family Guy skit with the German tour guide. We were out of town that year. Everyone was on vacation.
 
2013-04-09 11:32:25 AM  

Kryllith: 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?


Exactly. If supply increases, profits increase, but prices stay the same or go up, you can be pretty sure that the corporations in question are simply hoarding the windfall for themselves, and probably using it to manipulate prices via speculation as well. Coincidentally, middle-man effects like this are why the basic supply-demand curve they teach you in high school economics is a crock.
 
2013-04-09 11:38:50 AM  

WhiskeyBoy: 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 ...


The notion that WMDs were the real cause of the war ignores the fact that IMMEDIATELY after 9/11, Rumsfeld and Cheney were desperately seeking an al Qaeda link in order to excuse an Iraq invasion. And that the decision to invade was set in stone by July, 2002, well before all the WMD salesmanship that happened that fall and winter. And that Cheney set up his own military-based intel filter because the CIA wasn't confirming the WMDs.

Here's a good, academic look at it. The Bushies had a lot of reasons to go to war, but no COMPELLING reasons that would convince the public that an invasion was justified, so they wildly inflated the WMD threat in order to get backing for their little adventure.
 
2013-04-09 11:39:55 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?


Most of the "insurgents" (I guess they were in the same way as the Sioux?) were ex-military or ex-Baathists; soldiers and political leaders who we fired and then declared unhireable after the invasion. The rest just wanted the invaders gone. As to why they didn't take out Saddam; he had a huge secret police force and an army of doubles for very good reasons. Not succeeding doesn't equate to not trying.
 
2013-04-09 11:44:40 AM  

WhiskeyBoy: 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. ..



So you went to war based on lousy intel.

That doesn't excuse you, you know - you done goofed And the profiteering done by BushCo is totally beside the point, huh?
 
2013-04-09 11:48:17 AM  

WhiskeyBoy: 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 ...


That's some nice revisionism you've got there. I particularly like how you left out everything the Bush admin force-fed the media on it, Cheney blowing a CIA agent to punish her husband for undercutting the Bush admin's case that Saddam was building nuclear weapons, the UN not buying the ridiculous "evidence" we provided to justify the use of force, and the way you put the fault on everybody but the people who decided to pursue a war of choice.
 
2013-04-09 11:51:59 AM  

NostroZ: hitlersbrain: WhiskeyBoy: allow me to elaborate on WHY we went to war with / invaded Iraq.

You SOUND like you worked for the Bushies all right. A hundred brutal dictators defying UN resolutions around the world and we just up and decided we'd blow half our GDP on this particular guy huh? A whole bunch of countries that WOULD have benefited from our intervention and we chose to just level a thriving one and turn it into rubble?

Dude, STFU.

We went to Iraq because it was a convenient war for a Republican president.
Republicans pride themselves on being warriors, without a war they seem useless.
George Bush also had it out for Saddam for attempting to assassinate his father (Bush senior).
Finally, America was suffering from post 9/11 blues, where we felt we had to get anger out of our system... Iraq was our rebound war, to make us feel like we are winners (vs. Afghanistan which no one can conquer).

All in all, the Iraq war was the LARGEST protested war BEFORE it started and it still did not matter.
We the people know that this is all political theater with our lives and treasure.


Don't forget the perennial chicken-hawks who simply felt a "good war" would do the 80s-90s gen some moral good. Killing poor foreigners for the sake of war profiteers, getting horribly injured, and being abandoned by the military once you can no longer serve builds character.
 
2013-04-09 12:06:19 PM  

Mugato: Yeah, because gas is so much cheaper now.


I'm not sure why you expected to personally benefit from Iraq.
 
2013-04-09 12:18:51 PM  
My question is then should the US move forward as more isolationist in the future? Avoid outsourcing, limit importing, bring jobs back on US soil, and only maintain a strong national defense, versus go on the offense? Under what exact circumstances should we go to "war"? In my opinion, the term "war" is a bit misleading, as conventional warfare now is more of a policing affair and diplomatic nightmare rather than all-out warfare. If we were truly at war now, it seems this would be an extremely short affair ending in one side totally obliterated.

The problem is that there isn't a "side" now but splinter cells that require tactical strikes. Strikes which must go through a series of approvals, review, and bureaucratic clusterfark before it even gets onto the agenda - and after it IS approved will be scrutinized to no end. Even a good clean operation will be picked apart and put under a microscope with opponents wildly exaggerating or in some cases putting forth false testimony. This is a no-win situation with an almost infinite life cycle. When you go to war, casualties and collateral damage is expected. When you are in the middle of a police affair, there is a 0% margin of error, which just isn't possible.

In the case of the Iraq War / occupation, it was doomed from the beginning. Although successful I guess in removing Saddam and ultimately Bin Laden as adversaries, has the net gain really been THAT great? How do you qualify and quantify that? A few testimonies from X, Y, Z? What is the measurement here and how do you place value upon human lives? Less people are being tortured (supposedly) soooo it is all good? Fark it, I think it best we do not act as the World Police and instead squash any sort of offensive vs us, and let everyone else fend for themselves. Watch our allies backs, and anyone else is SOL.
 
2013-04-09 12:19:27 PM  
"  I've said this before, if you remove the Iraq war from history, Bush would go down with a pretty decent legacy "

Annnndddd   "if you remove the Viet Nam war from history, LBJ   would go down with a pretty decent legacy"
 
2013-04-09 12:40:04 PM  

Mugato: Yeah, because gas is so much cheaper now.

HALIBURTON

and Dubya's ego. Those are the reasons.


It was never about giving cheaper gas prices to the sheeple.  It was about OPEC controlling the output and therefore the controlling the supply/demand through price fixing.
 
2013-04-09 12:56:38 PM  
the money is in the banana stand :
My question is then should the US move forward as more isolationist in the future? Avoid outsourcing, limit importing, bring jobs back on US soil, and only maintain a strong national defense, versus go on the offense? Under what exact circumstances should we go to "war"? In my opinion, the term "war" is a bit misleading, as conventional warfare now is more of a policing affair and diplomatic nightmare rather than all-out warfare. If we were truly at war now, it seems this would be an extremely short affair ending in one side totally obliterated.

The finest minds in the state department and the various military war colleges of the USA got together at the end of the Vietnam war and vowed that never again would the USA get involved in such a fiasco. They came up with something called "The Weinburger Doctrine", which the news media changed to "The Powell Doctrine" during Desert Storm against Iraq.
It is basically 8 questions that have to be answered before the United States Congress commits the nation to war.
They are:
Is a vital national security interest threatened?
Do we have a clear attainable objective?
Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
Is the action supported by the American people?
Do we have genuine broad international support?

Not only did our Congress let us down, the nation's military also let us down, as the joint-chiefs all took the attitude of "the
civilians decide when we go to war, we only fight them"; knowing full well that the operation was poorly planned and doomed to failure from the get go. A lot of that had to do with Rumsfeld, who was a walking talking clusterfark poseur who together with Cheney vindictively attacked them---but a lot of it had to do with their commitment to their pensions and perks instead of their troops and the good of the nation. The USA's service academies have been churning out sh*theads, not warriors for decades and it finally caught up with them.
 
2013-04-09 01:31:02 PM  

Heron: 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?

Most of the "insurgents" (I guess they were in the same way as the Sioux?) were ex-military or ex-Baathists; soldiers and political leaders who we fired and then declared unhireable after the invasion. The rest just wanted the invaders gone. As to why they didn't take out Saddam; he had a huge secret police force and an army of doubles for very good reasons. Not succeeding doesn't equate to not trying.


Something, something, failed assassination attempt of July 8, 1982;  something something,    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dujail_Massacre,    something, something, one of the reasons that Hussein was executed.

Seems like dictators get all stabby when someone tries to assassinate them.  Or so I hear.

/all the "somethings" refer to all the little details that I don't really know or remember
 
2013-04-09 01:43:39 PM  

generallyso: Mugato: Yeah, because gas is so much cheaper now.

I'm not sure why you expected to personally benefit from Iraq.


Wait, I thought that was the three hundred dollar check the government sent me just to remind me how farked I was
 
2013-04-09 01:47:57 PM  
I really hope that history nicknames this event The Many Reasons War.
 
2013-04-09 03:07:26 PM  
We went to war with Iraq in 1991. After that invasion Bush the first called upon the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam's regime. The Shia majority rose up and a brief civil war happened. Realizing that if Saddam was over thrown Iraq would be a Shia majority state likely friendly to Iran the US provided no support except a no fly zone which didn't include helicopter gunships. The Iraqi military still had plenty of heavy weapons and tanks. Saddam was able to crush this rebellion by executing one million dissenters. Crushing this rebellion strengthened the Saddam regimes grip on power. Almost all the claims of Saddam executing his own people come from this period.

I might be an old fogey but I remember when the US was friendly with Iraq and it was the Iranians that used chemical weapons against the Iraqi Kurds. It wasn't until the lead up until the first Gulf war that the US government decided that it wasn't the Iranians that gassed the rebellious Iraqi Kurds. Wonderful picture of Donald Rumsfeld smiling and shaking hands with Saddam from that period.

WhiskeyKey I'm sorry, but your the one pedaling revisionist history. I lived through the propaganda blitz that led to the second gulf war. The American people supported that war because Saddam's regime had or was out to acquire WMDs and had ties to Al'Qaeda. There are plenty of people who still believe that statement to be true.

As for the article itself, it's amusing that only one Iraqi is mentioned who thinks the invasion was worth it. Truth is we replaced a brutal American backed dictator, who was the arch nemesis of our enemies in Iran, used death squads on his own people, but who went rouge and stopped selling us oil with a brutal American backed dictator, who is friends with Iran, uses death squads on his own people, but who sells us oil.

It's interesting that we invaded a country that had no WMDs, posed no threat to us, and wasn't even threatening us, but we're bending over backwards to avoid war with a country that has WMDs and is actively threatening us. North Korea doesn't have oil...
 
2013-04-09 05:23:09 PM  
the money is in the banana stand: ... Under what exact circumstances should we go to "war"?
Maybe we never should. Maybe we've outgrown that idea since conquest is often met with international outrage. See: the incredible shrieking about Israel's land-grab. We can't go to war just because we don't like somebody's hats or they sold us a bad wagon or their ugly rattletrap is affecting our property value.

The problem is that there isn't a "side" now but splinter cells that require tactical strikes. Strikes which must go through a series of approvals, review, and bureaucratic clusterfark before it even gets onto the agenda - and after it IS approved will be scrutinized to no end. Even a good clean operation will be picked apart and put under a microscope with opponents wildly exaggerating or in some cases putting forth false testimony. This is a no-win situation with an almost infinite life cycle. When you go to war, casualties and collateral damage is expected. When you are in the middle of a police affair, there is a 0% margin of error, which just isn't possible.

Yeah, I agree with that. It wasn't a complete loss, external military intervention was a decent way to remove Saddam. Arming up Kurds and shiates and letting them rebel would have been a bigger mess and it'd likely end with a different asshole in charge of the exact same situation, so a turbulent reset button wasn't that bad.
Saddam's Iraq was ultimately the kind of problem the U.N. should have dealt with, so no single country with vested interests could fark it up. But no, they have to stay impotent and we're too too trigger-happy to resist jumping in yelling "TURRORISTS" and immediately ensuring the safety and well-being of the oilfields. And then we look like an even more reckless idiot because sticking your nose in somebody else's business instantly puts you under stricter criticism.

Until there can be more of a global consensus on how to deal with situations like this, we can be the cautionary tale. Ultimately (maybe soon: NK), there has to be a better solution developed besides ineffective sanctions. And more countries need to be equally involved so it's less "I don't like what you're doing so I'm going to slap you" and more "We all agree you're being a prick so we're ALL going to line up and slap you."
 
2013-04-09 07:28:28 PM  

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.


Is not the destruction of Arab civilization and the existential threat it poses to the West good enough reason?
 
2013-04-09 08:17:00 PM  

Heron: Kryllith: 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?

Exactly. If supply increases, profits increase, but prices stay the same or go up, you can be pretty sure that the corporations in question are simply hoarding the windfall for themselves, and probably using it to manipulate prices via speculation as well. Coincidentally, middle-man effects like this are why the basic supply-demand curve they teach you in high school economics is a crock.


We get very little oil from Iraq percentage wise.
 
2013-04-10 04:43:32 AM  
 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.

Oil companies and Dickwad Cheney, Bushiat and their legacy Oblama.........are whistling all the way to the bank.
 
Displayed 30 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