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.

(The Daily Caller)   By the way, we won the Iraq war   (dailycaller.com) divider line 298
    More: Hero, Iraq, Maliki, Prime Minister of Iraq  
•       •       •

7378 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Apr 2013 at 1:42 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-09 08:58:46 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Muta: I can't think of a time when a foreign invader that was able to defeat a well armed guerilla force that has support of the local populous. What happened to the US in Iraq was very predictable.

Boer War. Philippine Insurrection. Malaya.


Northern Ireland.

Heck, the United States - the natives started with Metacom's war and never did manage to dislodge the invaders.
 
2013-04-09 09:08:20 PM

whidbey: Dude O Matic 5000: The world is a better place without Saddam, or his sons, in power.

Not our problem he was in power, or his sons. Never was. Mad?


No. Weak troll.
 
2013-04-09 09:11:36 PM
We won the battle against Saddam and his forces.  Beyond that, we won't know what has really been gained, if anything, from this whole debacle for decades.  However, we sure as fark know what we've lost so far and it's a metric shiatload of lives, money, ethical standing, etc, etc.
 
2013-04-09 09:51:22 PM
 
2013-04-09 09:58:10 PM

MisterRonbo: Philip Francis Queeg: Muta: I can't think of a time when a foreign invader that was able to defeat a well armed guerilla force that has support of the local populous. What happened to the US in Iraq was very predictable.

Boer War. Philippine Insurrection. Malaya.

Northern Ireland.

Heck, the United States - the natives started with Metacom's war and never did manage to dislodge the invaders.


The invaders had the benefit of primitive biological and chemical warfare...

/Who needs missiles when you have blankets and bottles?
 
2013-04-09 10:10:56 PM

James!: The guy who is now in charge of Iraq appreciates us helping him get there?  I. am. shocked.

 
2013-04-09 10:29:53 PM
cdn-media.hollywood.com
Ta-da...
 
2013-04-09 10:39:51 PM

reimanr06: MisterRonbo: Philip Francis Queeg: Muta: I can't think of a time when a foreign invader that was able to defeat a well armed guerilla force that has support of the local populous. 

Heck, the United States - the natives started with Metacom's war and never did manage to dislodge the invaders.

The invaders had the benefit of primitive biological and chemical warfare...

/Who needs missiles when you have blankets and bottles?


On the one hand, that is a brilliant observation.

On the other, somewhere Paul Wolfowitz or Doug Feith or Richard Perle is reading this and saying, "Of course, that's it! Now I know our occupation of Iran will only last perhaps six weeks, certainly less than six months..."

/ let's start up PNNAC and sell 'em the idea
 
2013-04-09 10:44:20 PM
 Here I thought it was the biggest mistake ever, by the most evil president ever. At least that's what I've been told again and again by our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters on the left.

Christ, I can see his sneer and flashing eyes through the Internet.

What is it that makes these guys such stupid, giant assholes?

They'll take any "proof" that their side is correct, no matter how rediculous, and trumpet it.

"The guy who's in power due to our actions thinks they were a good idea!  SO IN YOUR FACE, LIBS!  WOOOOOO!"

Well, obviously, he would, you stupid, giant asshole.

Likewise, these guys take any mistake anyone on the left makes and scream it from the rooftops.  Or, sometimes they'll just make stuff up.

It's like the only thing that matters to them is putting down libs, and they're not even good at that.
 
2013-04-09 10:46:14 PM
And thus, Fark headlines abandoned all pretense of not being straight-up audience trolling.
 
2013-04-09 11:01:36 PM

Muta: Mercutio74: Hmmmm... seemed to have slipped by the Bush administration, the mainstream media (including and especially Fox) and congress pretty easily.

I think a lot of people in the administration and Congress knew the most probable outcome.  They were marginalized and silences.  Of course, "we'll be greeted as liberators", yet no reason was given for why we would.    If you disagreed then you were out of a job.


Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
 
2013-04-09 11:02:31 PM

mrexcess: And thus, Fark headlines abandoned all pretense of not being straight-up audience trolling.


That was the Daily Caller's headline.
 
2013-04-09 11:10:12 PM
sendtodave
That was the Daily Caller's headline.

And if Tucker Carlson put on his Hero tag bow-tie and jumped off a bridge, would you?
 
2013-04-09 11:14:46 PM

Dude O Matic 5000: The world is a better place without Saddam, or his sons, in power.


"Cost-Benefit Analysis." Google it.
 
2013-04-09 11:30:09 PM

Hickory-smoked: Dude O Matic 5000: The world is a better place without Saddam, or his sons, in power.

"Cost-Benefit Analysis." Google it.


NO COST IS TOO HIGH if it gives me my warpr0n but fark people who need real help.
 
2013-04-09 11:38:26 PM
For such a small, shiatty, hack of a website, the DC sure gets a lot of greens on Fark
 
2013-04-09 11:45:02 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Hickory-smoked: Dude O Matic 5000: The world is a better place without Saddam, or his sons, in power.

"Cost-Benefit Analysis." Google it.

NO COST IS TOO HIGH if it gives me my warpr0n but fark people who need real help.


Imagine how we could have transformed our own country with the money spent on Iraq.  Instead of school closures and teacher layoffs everywhere we could have smaller class sizes and full funding of needed supplies.  Plus, free college for everyone.  Plus, free healthcare.  Plus, increased national infrastructure spending.  And on and on.  And we'd still have the most formidable military on the planet.  But no.  Instead, we'll spend probably 6 trillion or more on Bush's misguided disaster which destroyed countless lives instead.  Yeah.
 
2013-04-09 11:49:30 PM
Militarily? Yeah. We stomped the shiat out of the Iraqi Army and the Republican Guard.

Every other way? We lost. Horrifically. In more ways than just conflict.

Why did I waste a click reading this trash.
 
2013-04-09 11:52:00 PM

Dude O Matic 5000: The world is a better place without Saddam, or his sons, in power.


Okay, so the end justifies the means? If the only goal was to oust Saddam and his (admittedly) psychopathic sons, wouldn't an extrajudicial assassination been cheaper and easier, not to mention more plausibly deniable?
 
2013-04-10 12:02:06 AM

Gyrfalcon: Dude O Matic 5000: The world is a better place without Saddam, or his sons, in power.

Okay, so the end justifies the means? If the only goal was to oust Saddam and his (admittedly) psychopathic sons, wouldn't an extrajudicial assassination been cheaper and easier, not to mention more plausibly deniable?


But then Bush couldn't have been a bad-ass wartime preznit and Cheney would have had a sad.  (I'm not sure how you tell when Cheney has a sad, but that's beside the point.)
 
2013-04-10 12:24:57 AM

vrax: A Dark Evil Omen: Hickory-smoked: Dude O Matic 5000: The world is a better place without Saddam, or his sons, in power.

"Cost-Benefit Analysis." Google it.

NO COST IS TOO HIGH if it gives me my warpr0n but fark people who need real help.

Imagine how we could have transformed our own country with the money spent on Iraq.  Instead of school closures and teacher layoffs everywhere we could have smaller class sizes and full funding of needed supplies.  Plus, free college for everyone.  Plus, free healthcare.  Plus, increased national infrastructure spending.  And on and on.  And we'd still have the most formidable military on the planet.  But no.  Instead, we'll spend probably 6 trillion or more on Bush's misguided disaster which destroyed countless lives instead.  Yeah.


We couldn't afford Iraq.  Ergo, we can't afford feel-good entitlements for poor people like public schools.

The difference, of course, is that War is a necessary expenditure.  Everyone can agree that the government exists for war.  Not everyone agrees that it exists to help poors.  So, we could afford Iraq.

Even though we couldn't, of course.  So stop playing "What if?" with money we didn't ever have!
 
2013-04-10 01:07:49 AM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: One more victory like that and we are surely lost.


Really?  Our casualties were pretty damned low even after occupation, probably about as low as any war in history.  We achieved our objectives and actually left the people there not hating us this time.

The downside was mainly money-related, not that the war or the occupation that followed was terrible in itself.  We could probably manage a few more now that we've got the logistics and factors well-established by the first run if we really wanted to.
 
2013-04-10 01:17:06 AM

goatleggedfellow: Everybody who won the Iraq War, raise your hand.

[i.imgur.com image 300x278]


i178.photobucket.com
i931.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-10 01:25:14 AM

Dude O Matic 5000: The world is a better place without Saddam, or his sons, in power.


Citation needed.
 
2013-04-10 01:25:20 AM
I once got stung by a hornet, so I punched a wasp nest as hard as I could. Man, was that a messed up nest when I was done. I really showed them what a boss I am.

Sure, I got stung a few hundred times, but I think the wasps agree that I ultimately won the fight against their nest.

Anyhow, it was best to fight the wasps over there, so I wouldn't have to fight them over here.
 
2013-04-10 01:31:48 AM

Jim_Callahan: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: One more victory like that and we are surely lost.

Really?  Our casualties were pretty damned low even after occupation, probably about as low as any war in history.  We achieved our objectives and actually left the people there not hating us this time.

The downside was mainly money-related, not that the war or the occupation that followed was terrible in itself.  We could probably manage a few more now that we've got the logistics and factors well-established by the first run if we really wanted to.


Can't tell if trolling.
 
2013-04-10 01:35:01 AM

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


It's so cute that you think history will side with you.
 
2013-04-10 01:35:21 AM
Nobody wins a war, one side loses less, but there are no gains to be had when we squander our blood and treasure on tilting at windmills.
 
2013-04-10 01:38:24 AM

Jim_Callahan: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: One more victory like that and we are surely lost.

Really?  Our casualties were pretty damned low even after occupation, probably about as low as any war in history.  We achieved our objectives and actually left the people there not hating us this time.

The downside was mainly money-related, not that the war or the occupation that followed was terrible in itself.  We could probably manage a few more now that we've got the logistics and factors well-established by the first run if we really wanted to.


Sure. In another six or eight wars, we should have the whole thing ironed out completely!
 
2013-04-10 01:59:27 AM

goatleggedfellow: Everybody who won the Iraq War, raise your hand.


ts1.mm.bing.net
 
2013-04-10 02:00:44 AM

Jim_Callahan: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: One more victory like that and we are surely lost.

Really?  Our casualties were pretty damned low even after occupation, probably about as low as any war in history.  We achieved our objectives and actually left the people there not hating us this time.

The downside was mainly money-related, not that the war or the occupation that followed was terrible in itself.  We could probably manage a few more now that we've got the logistics and factors well-established by the first run if we really wanted to.


o_O
 
2013-04-10 02:01:40 AM

sendtodave: vrax: A Dark Evil Omen: Hickory-smoked: Dude O Matic 5000: The world is a better place without Saddam, or his sons, in power.

"Cost-Benefit Analysis." Google it.

NO COST IS TOO HIGH if it gives me my warpr0n but fark people who need real help.

Imagine how we could have transformed our own country with the money spent on Iraq.  Instead of school closures and teacher layoffs everywhere we could have smaller class sizes and full funding of needed supplies.  Plus, free college for everyone.  Plus, free healthcare.  Plus, increased national infrastructure spending.  And on and on.  And we'd still have the most formidable military on the planet.  But no.  Instead, we'll spend probably 6 trillion or more on Bush's misguided disaster which destroyed countless lives instead.  Yeah.

We couldn't afford Iraq.  Ergo, we can't afford feel-good entitlements for poor people like public schools.

The difference, of course, is that War is a necessary expenditure.  Everyone can agree that the government exists for war.  Not everyone agrees that it exists to help poors.  So, we could afford Iraq.

Even though we couldn't, of course.  So stop playing "What if?" with money we didn't ever have!


But we did and continue to "afford" Iraq.  Ergo, and alternatively, we could have afforded to do all the rest.

Unnecessary war isn't a necessary expenditure.  Therefor our government is just as justified in spending that money on improving our country.

If we don't play "What if?" we will continue to chose the destruction of other countries over the betterment of our own.  We are in pretty sad shape because of it.  We're already way too far along the road to having a military that is far too large protecting a citizenry of imbeciles.
 
2013-04-10 02:24:23 AM

vrax: But we did and continue to "afford" Iraq.


Well, sure, but we need to shut down NPR to pay for it.  Thanks, Obama!

Unnecessary war isn't a necessary expenditure.

But once a war is started, it is necessary to fund it.  If we shouldn't pay for unnecessary war, and any war we start we need to pay for, it must mean that any war we start, once started, is necessary!  By your own logic!

If we don't play "What if?" we will continue to chose the destruction of other countries over the betterment of our own.

Those aren't mutually exclusive.  Destroying other countries makes ours better!  At least, for the ones that profit from the destruction.  The ones who matter.
 
2013-04-10 02:29:35 AM

sendtodave: vrax: But we did and continue to "afford" Iraq.

Well, sure, but we need to shut down NPR to pay for it.  Thanks, Obama!

Unnecessary war isn't a necessary expenditure.

But once a war is started, it is necessary to fund it.  If we shouldn't pay for unnecessary war, and any war we start we need to pay for, it must mean that any war we start, once started, is necessary!  By your own logic!

If we don't play "What if?" we will continue to chose the destruction of other countries over the betterment of our own.

Those aren't mutually exclusive.  Destroying other countries makes ours better!  At least, for the ones that profit from the destruction.  The ones who matter.


Our own logic, is, by any standard, flawed.

Destroying other countries sure seems to make some of our country feel better at least.  Mostly the GOP and the deranged, but I repeat myself.
 
2013-04-10 02:50:39 AM

Corvus: Lost Thought 00: What percentage of their oil reserves do we control? How much plunder did the troops return with?

www.aljazeera.com

Western oil firms remain as US exits Iraq

The US government didn't get the plunder, the US oil corporations did.


Not sure how the pie is split, but there you have:

670 Iraq Iraq
? Iraq
3 China Malaysia France
75 US Malaysia
350  US US Russia Norway
227 Italy Korea Iraq US Iraq
1400 China UK Iraq
2725 total

If shares in each region are split evenly (a silly idea, but we'll go with it), you have the US companies getting only about 10% of the total.
 
2013-04-10 03:25:34 AM

sendtodave: If shares in each region are split evenly (a silly idea, but we'll go with it), you have the US companies getting only about 10% of the total.


Don't ruin a good conspiracy theory by saying that the US is the world's third biggest producer of oil by barrels per day at 9.5 Million.

If we were interested in invading a country to steal their oil, we'd have hit Saudi Arabia, who produce 10.5 Million Barrels per day.
 
2013-04-10 03:53:05 AM

sendtodave: vrax: But we did and continue to "afford" Iraq.

Well, sure, but we need to shut down NPR to pay for it.  Thanks, Obama!

Unnecessary war isn't a necessary expenditure.

But once a war is started, it is necessary to fund it.  If we shouldn't pay for unnecessary war, and any war we start we need to pay for, it must mean that any war we start, once started, is necessary!  By your own logic!

If we don't play "What if?" we will continue to chose the destruction of other countries over the betterment of our own.

Those aren't mutually exclusive.  Destroying other countries makes ours better!  At least, for the ones that profit from the destruction.  The ones who matter.


Dude, by definition, any war we start MUST be necessary...because we started it. We are America; we are The Good Guys; we don't start wars that are unnecessary, because that would be Bad, and the Good Guys don't start Bad wars. If we started a war, it therefore is a Good War, and hence necessary. Therefore, no war expense is an unnecessary expense. And therefore we can afford it, because it is necessary.

Even if later on it seems as if a war was Bad (cf. Vietnam), the rationale for the war AT THE TIME will never be questioned. You'll always see it viewed in light of "well, at the time," or "if we'd known then what we know now", or making it the fault of a small cadre of small-minded or short-sighted individuals. NEVER is the idea mooted that perhaps the whole thing was a Bad Idea from the outset and it would have been better if we'd never gone in at all and we as a nation were collectively wrong.
 
2013-04-10 05:25:14 AM

Jim_Callahan: Really? Our casualties were pretty damned low even after occupation, probably about as low as any war in history. We achieved our objectives and actually left the people there not hating us this time.


1. You're mistaking "casualty" for death.  36,395 is the casualty total for the Iraq occupation and it is the highest casualty rate since Vietnam.  The reason only 4,500 of those are dead is because of technology, not the Bush administration's nimble strategy prowess and clarity of vision.

2.  "Probably about as low as any war in history" is a completely nonsensical term.

3. "We," kemosabe?

4.  What objectives?

5.  The Iraqis that don't hate us are the ones that tersely demanded that the we get the f*ck out of their country, as we have f*cked it up enough already.
 
2013-04-10 06:12:00 AM
When are we going to stop winning the war in Iraq?
 
2013-04-10 06:19:38 AM
I just wish that Bush had said that we were going to go in and topple an oppressive dicatator because he was practicing genocide on them instead of screaming WMD.  I at least would have respected him for his decison.  Instead I am once again disappointed that he pulled the same crap it seems LBJ pulled because he wanted to go into Vietnam.
 
2013-04-10 07:16:42 AM
As a conservative, I never approved of invading Iraq and still don't. I don't care frankly that Iraqis are grateful, or that Saddam was a bastard. We don't send our soldiers to die in foreign adventures where our national security isn't threatened.

As much as I disapprove though, ppl tend to forget that it did have some side benefits and probably made war in Iran and NK less likely.

I just don't think I could explain adequately the benefits to parents and spouses of the dead.
 
2013-04-10 09:00:59 AM

regindyn: I wonder if Jon Stewart loads up The Daily Caller and questions his decision to kill Crossfire.


Ten gyars ago, when the 24 hour news cycle was dominated by cable TV shows that were just two jackasses braying at each other for an hour, I honestly believed that the level of discourse could not possibly get worse.

Now the news cycle is dominated by websites that each have a stable full of jackasses, all competing with each other to see who can bray the loudest.

It is horrifying.
 
2013-04-10 09:02:39 AM

Gunny Walker: When are we going to stop winning the war in Iraq?


December 18, 2011.
 
2013-04-10 09:33:18 AM

Rapmaster2000: Well, that's weird. That whole thing was George Bush's idea, wasn't it? And yet this guy is claiming it was the right thing to do? How can that be right?
Isn't it odd how everybody stopped keeping a death toll of Americans killed overseas after January 20, 2009? But then, as the great lady once said: What difference does it make?

Ugh.  You're such a twat.  This is why you can't keep a girlfriend.


The death count watch on the news networks did stop, so that's a valid point.
 
2013-04-10 12:10:13 PM

goatleggedfellow: Everybody who won the Iraq War, raise your hand.


1.bp.blogspot.com

Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq War Contracts
 
2013-04-10 01:40:26 PM

Gyrfalcon: Dude, by definition, any war we start MUST be necessary...because we started it. We are America; we are The Good Guys; we don't start wars that are unnecessary, because that would be Bad, and the Good Guys don't start Bad wars. If we started a war, it therefore is a Good War, and hence necessary. Therefore, no war expense is an unnecessary expense. And therefore we can afford it, because it is necessary.

Even if later on it seems as if a war was Bad (cf. Vietnam), the rationale for the war AT THE TIME will never be questioned. You'll always see it viewed in light of "well, at the time," or "if we'd known then what we know now", or making it the fault of a small cadre of small-minded or short-sighted individuals. NEVER is the idea mooted that perhaps the whole thing was a Bad Idea from the outset and it would have been better if we'd never gone in at all and we as a nation were collectively wrong.


You almost sound reluctant, as if you entertain the idea that the US was, is, or could be wrong?

Don't let the libs poison your mind.
 
2013-04-10 01:42:55 PM

Animatronik: As a conservative, I never approved of invading Iraq and still don't. I don't care frankly that Iraqis are grateful, or that Saddam was a bastard. We don't send our soldiers to die in foreign adventures where our national security isn't threatened.

As much as I disapprove though, ppl tend to forget that it did have some side benefits and probably made war in Iran and NK less likely.

I just don't think I could explain adequately the benefits to parents and spouses of the dead.


I've upgraded you from grey 2 to grey 4.
 
2013-04-10 02:24:21 PM
OK. A couple things buggin' me. This was ultimately about oil supply and protection of the flow of same. Possibly with some hopes for a "Muslim World" buffer zone if it went really well.

Removing Saddam was a noble and justifiable goal in itself and did not require the manufacturing of "evidence" and the humiliation of General Powell at the UN Security Council to make the case. The farker was crazy and gettin' worse, posing active danger to US citizens by "rewarding" the families of suicide bombers who took out innocents in Israel and all over the world. He was not a Muslim, so no case can be made for that. He simply needed to go because he was dangerous to his region and his country. Aside from the oil, which we probably correctly suspect was at least a secondary aim, if not the primary one. Iraq and the world is a better place without him. I have always wondered why they needed additional justification to do it. The popular support which existed at the start of the war would have been there regardless and the aims could have been sold to the masses as a noble enterprise. I know "regime change" is touchy on the world stage, but not too many other countries lined up to protest loudly against the invasion and they probably had mostly the same intel.

He was a destabilizing presence in the region which is why there was not a lot of loud opposition to the invasion from surrounding countries. His time to leave had come. Everyone knew it. So far this could have still been sold at least as effectively as the WMD story which was pure fiction.

The problem and greatest tragedy, since US military victory was never doubted and came swiftly, was that nobody thought of  step 2. Saddam is gone, US has more or less secured things, and they squandered the opportunity to win hearts and minds at this point by assuming (almost insisting) that the Iraqi people would be on their knees thanking their "LIBERATORS" from the great tyrant.

Nobody seems to have given much thought to what they might actually be thinking, which was "ok, thanks for getting him out, now what?" If I lived in Iraq I wouldn't have minded knowing what sorts of things they had in mind since military victory was quick mostly and now farking what? YOU DON'T KNOW? YOU DID THIS WITHOUT A PLAN FOR WHAT CAME NEXT? What the fark idiots?

You knew you were going to be successful in removing him, there was no doubt on that front at all. Your grand plan was that the Iraqi people would have this awesome opportunity to become a democratic nation without the slightest inkling of what that even meant let alone how to accomplish it. They had only experienced dictatorship rule for most of their living memories. The did not know what the hell to do. And the US certainly did not lay much of a roadmap. "OK kid, we got the bad guy out of the Mustang 5.0, I know you have no driver's license, and have only driven bicycles to this point, but here are the keys, hop in and drive, it will be awesome, I promise. Most likely outcome: wrapped around a tree at the first serious corner. Which is kind of what happened.

Which required that the US then send more troops just to beat back the folks who might have had a valid point about being abandoned to their unknown and uncharted fate. Beat them into submission, or at least drive them into Iran and Syria and get the fark out of dodge.

A glorious "win" indeed. It was a golden opportunity squandered by a nation that got cold feet about "regime change" when the time came to do part 2 of "regime change" which is to help establish something in its place. They got nothing, they don't understand democracy because nobody really understood them and their cultural history enough to explain it in terms they could understand and possibly begin to desire that kind of thing for themselves and their future generations. It was a military win and a social and humanitarian disaster, because nobody bothered to consult them and frame things in terms they could get behind. It's like a high handed form of ignorance and laziness at the same time.

I am not suggesting it would have worked, the thing about people is that they have their own minds and will do what they feel is best for them. I think it had a better likelihood of a more favourable result. I am saying we will never know because the US failed to predict the obvious consequences of its actions (again, removing Saddam = good idea) and did not succeed at articulating the alternative in a way that worked in the context and culture they were involved with. It was more like "we are a democracy, and you are gonna be one too, because we say it is the best way for you to go." I would probably lead the charge of "fark YOU" if that happened to me.

Leading a horse to water, but finding it will not drink. This is similar, but the horse went to the water at gunpoint, and even though it wasn't thirsty it had a firehose shot down its throat.  A missed opportunity.

BTW I am kind of liberal in most things. I am not a bleeding heart type but I understand the use of force has its place in the world even if I do not like that.

I don't like the idea of war, but I do believe that sometimes there are no alternatives and it has to happen. But if you commit to killing the other side and sending your own citizens out to be killed or maimed in the name of your objective you better make farking sure you finish the job. That includes some very ugly things like no mercy for terrorists on the other side, and ensuring you do by force all the unpleasant things that we don;t like to think about. There are no half measures in a war you have committed to, and it better end with a goddamn positive result of some kind.

Right now, military victory (foregone conclusion) does not overcome the failures of not having a "step 2."  That is unforgivable and the true waste of the blood and treasure expended. These sacrifices borne by the military personnel and American taxpayer have accomplished no lasting good. Leaving the country creates the conditions for civil war and renders the last 10 years of sacrifices worthless. No greater aims were accomplished.

TL;DR Saddam out = good, Fail to plan step 2 is a disaster of depressing proportions, leaving the country in the situation it is in nullifies the sacrifices made and is setting the stage for collapse into civil war. they should have just killed the bastard and left it at that.
 
Displayed 48 of 298 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report