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
 
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".
 
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 80 of 80 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report