"As far as I'm concerned, the debate is over. Historians will ultimately judge those decisions." - G
62 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;40412756]Yes, the debate is over. The Iraq war was a useless fraud that resulted in the meaningless deaths of over a hundred thousand people.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand how people could see it as anything but. How is it even slightly justifiable to wage a war to directly decide the fate of an antonymous nation, while still staunchly peddling opinions like "colonialism is bad" or "nations have a right to self determination"
It was and is the Iraqi peoples job to decide their own fate. Hundreds of thousands of people died in the Second Gulf War [B]anyways[/B], the only difference between an Iraqi civil war to oust Hussein vs American intervention to oust Hussein is that one of them involves Iraqi self-determination and the other involves a foreign power invading to forcibly dictate the future of the country.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40412694] iraq we really fabricated and assumed.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2013/03/507648.jpg"]Yeah, we just made it all up[/URL]
[url=http://varifrank.com/images/kurd_15.jpg]I mean, what were we thinking?[/url]
[url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Chemical_weapons_Halabja_Iraq_March_1988.jpg/300px-Chemical_weapons_Halabja_Iraq_March_1988.jpg]Saddam wasn't bad[/url]
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40908000/jpg/_40908793_halabja_pa_238.jpg]He was just misguided, is all[/url]
[url=http://cache3.asset-cache.net/gc/1374513-kurdish-victims-of-an-iraqi-poison-gas-attack-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=OCUJ5gVf7YdJQI2Xhkc2QI8CdtyHlTK9UEv%2BOS%2B3Uf6BaOFlZe5sF3JFxuupwn1Y]I mean, look at these fabrications[/url]
Iraq was a massive fuck up on both sides. the reason why Saddam was always shaky about UN weapons inspectors is because he wanted the world - specifically Iran, which he saw as his primary enemy - to think that he had nuclear weapons. He misperceived US rhetoric as targeting Iran, as in the early stages before Iraq Bush never referred to Iraq or Saddam by name, so it was an utter surprise to Saddam that we were talking about him. He naturally viewed himself as an American ally, as he viewed himself as a secularist bastion in the middle east and viewed himself as having very similar policy objectives as the US.
the bush administration outright lied about the capabilities of Iraq; but had they just laid down the barriers to arms inspectors, everyone would've seen that it was bullshit
just a question - If we figure out that north korea has WMD would the states invade?
[QUOTE=ridinmybike;40414338]just a question - If we figure out that north korea has WMD would the states invade?[/QUOTE]
we already do know north korea has them, we just dont attack them otherwise seoul will be attacked
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;40414279][URL="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2013/03/507648.jpg"]Yeah, we just made it all up[/URL]
[url=http://varifrank.com/images/kurd_15.jpg]I mean, what were we thinking?[/url]
[url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Chemical_weapons_Halabja_Iraq_March_1988.jpg/300px-Chemical_weapons_Halabja_Iraq_March_1988.jpg]Saddam wasn't bad[/url]
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40908000/jpg/_40908793_halabja_pa_238.jpg]He was just misguided, is all[/url]
[url=http://cache3.asset-cache.net/gc/1374513-kurdish-victims-of-an-iraqi-poison-gas-attack-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=OCUJ5gVf7YdJQI2Xhkc2QI8CdtyHlTK9UEv%2BOS%2B3Uf6BaOFlZe5sF3JFxuupwn1Y]I mean, look at these fabrications[/url][/QUOTE]
There was no evidence that Iraq held chemical weapons before the invasion in 2003, they had had them previously no-one refutes that.
Saddam was a terrible human being who deserved everything he got.
But three hundred thousand Iraqis deserved better than the way Bush handled Saddam's ouster.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;40414470]There was no evidence that Iraq held chemical weapons before the invasion in 2003, they had had them previously no-one refutes that.[/QUOTE]
What.
No Evidence that they had Chemical weapons before 2003? They had them Previously?
You just contradicted yourself. I'm pretty sure we found Chemical weapons when we went back in 2003. I know we found a few chemical weapon factories.
[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;40414633]What.
No Evidence that they had Chemical weapons before 2003? They had them Previously?
You just contradicted yourself. I'm pretty sure we found Chemical weapons when we went back in 2003. I know we found a few chemical weapon factories.[/QUOTE]
I meant directly before the iraq war after the programs of dismantlement geez
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;40414279][URL="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2013/03/507648.jpg"]Yeah, we just made it all up[/URL]
[url=http://varifrank.com/images/kurd_15.jpg]I mean, what were we thinking?[/url]
[url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Chemical_weapons_Halabja_Iraq_March_1988.jpg/300px-Chemical_weapons_Halabja_Iraq_March_1988.jpg]Saddam wasn't bad[/url]
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40908000/jpg/_40908793_halabja_pa_238.jpg]He was just misguided, is all[/url]
[url=http://cache3.asset-cache.net/gc/1374513-kurdish-victims-of-an-iraqi-poison-gas-attack-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=OCUJ5gVf7YdJQI2Xhkc2QI8CdtyHlTK9UEv%2BOS%2B3Uf6BaOFlZe5sF3JFxuupwn1Y]I mean, look at these fabrications[/url][/QUOTE]
i never said saddam wasn't bad or that he never possessed chemical weapons. you completely missed the point of what i was saying.
1) saddam is no more terrible than some of the usa's buddies over the years. in fact, saddam was quite the pal of ol' uncle sam when he was using chemical weapons bought from the us to attack the iranians. saddam was a terrible human being, but that was NOT the reason we ever invaded iraq. if we invaded iraq because of the genocide of the kurds we would have invaded decades ago. no, we invaded the first time when saddam became american blowback and threatened our middle eastern oil supply in kuwait.
2) saddam destroyed pretty much all the weapons he had after the first gulf war. there wasn't much evidence to support him having weapons, and any claims or allusions made by the iraqi regime were likely exaggerations and fabrications meant to counter against iran. we assumed that saddam still had a stockpile of chemical weapons because we still held the receipt for them, then used that story to fabricate a reason to invade iraq for our corporatist and geopolitical purposes. it was not to "oust a bad guy", it was to get rid of someone who was not useful to the american empire anymore.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;40414774]I meant directly before the iraq war after the programs of dismantlement geez[/QUOTE]
Sarin and Mustard Gas was used in some bombs during the Iraq War, and I'm pretty sure that they found more shells loaded with Chemical Weapons too.
I wonder how orchestrating an attack on his own country sits with him.
"oh yeah bush wasn't such a bad guy i don't know what y'all are talkin' about, i sure never criticized him"
-Facepunch
lmao
i was never really old enough to be into politics when he was president, so i dont really have an opinion of his policies. however, he seems like a genuinely nice guy, and would probably make a really cool uncle to hang out with
[QUOTE=acpm;40415384]"oh yeah bush wasn't such a bad guy i don't know what y'all are talkin' about, i sure never criticized him"
-Facepunch
lmao[/QUOTE]
this happens to almost every famous figure that ends up doing something nice once in awhile in sensationalist headline
[QUOTE=Fish Muffin;40415416]i was never really old enough to be into politics when he was president, so i dont really have an opinion of his policies. however, he seems like a genuinely nice guy, and would probably make a really cool uncle to hang out with[/QUOTE]
If I recall, he was voted something like "Number one president to go out for a beer with" or something like that.
[editline]25th April 2013[/editline]
Yeah, he was
[url]http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2008/09/want-a-presiden/[/url]
i'd rather have a beer with teddy roosevelt.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40415509]i'd rather have a beer with teddy roosevelt.[/QUOTE]
I'd rather just hang out with the tedster full stop.
That dude is interesting as fuck. Boxer, judoka, wrestler, amateur zoologist, police commissioner in NYC at the turn of the century, etc.
Somehow political figures just pale in comparison across the board against Roosevelt. Everyone today just seems so boring and milquetoast lol.
Teddy actively thought about ways to make himself appear more manly because of an inferiority complex he developed as a sickly and asthma suffering child and young adult. Many of his most famous pictures were staged.
However, most of the stuff he is known for doing was NOT staged, including fighting in Cuba, shrugging off a bullet wound, etc.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;40412232]The [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian%27s_fallacy]Historian's fallacy[/url][/QUOTE]
The major problem with history books is that the writers very rarely try to put themselfs into the boots of the people they are writing about, the feelings, mindsets, different social and other standards, motivations and goals. I have read a book about my country's history that did just that, I learned a lot more than from a standard history books that just tells what happened where and when with only a bit of explaining why.
[QUOTE='[LOA] SonofBrim;40413311']I'm glad to see that the senseless part of the hate for Bush is dying down.
People who dislike him for his policies are justified, but the majority of the hate I've seen (here included) was bandwagoning "lol oil and wmds lol" with little actual knowledge of what they're actually mad about, which is in my opinion no better than those who hate Obama because "he's a socialist communist who'll take away muh freedoms"
I'm very interested in seeing what historians have to say about the early 21st century in the future, this is an incredibly interesting time for humanity.[/QUOTE]
I would genuinely agree with you if it hadn't been for one event. When I was young, and the Iraq war just began, I remember watching the news with my mom, and they had on the phone a fairly high ranking guy serving there. They said that they couldn't give away their position, but they certainly for a fact had seen proof of WMD's. They said that they were planning on making a move soon, but couldn't say anything else for now.
In retrospect, it was all bullshit. We found no WMD's, and the whole interview was a fraud to convince more Americans to support the war effort.
What is the motive though on invading Iraq? Is it really oil, plain and simple? Or is it American Jingoism gone mad? I would definitely see Saddam as an ally and the best counter-weight against Iran. His reasoning was quite good. So, in hindsight, it was an utterly stupid decision destroying him.
The mistake of invading and dismantling Iraq can be seen in Syria as Iran spread its tentacles over there without anyone checking them.
[editline]25th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;40412092]I actually supported his invasion of Iraq, because Sadaam Hussein was a terrible human being who was a huge threat to the international community.[/QUOTE]
Woah. We're still playing this stupid song?
Bush was a sucky president, but he actually doesn't seem that bad a guy... just one who wasn't fit for president.
Lately the guy's been doing more and more to earn my props, though.
he is the reason hundred thousands of people died.
'' b-but he seems like a nice guy ''
bush was a driveling embarrassment: shockingly unintelligent, incredibly inarticulate, completely uncultured, utterly uneducated, said putin was trustworthy
and proud of all of that lmao
presidency-wise; his ridiculous tax cuts, the patriot act, the attack on women's reproductive rights, the war that MIGHT have had justifiable ends but was run extremely poorly, his vile inability on hurricane katrina (if he does care about black ppl he has an interesting way of showing it), and his terrible handling of the economy which the republicans are forced to hold as gospel because its the only thing they have left in their fickle party
who cares if hes a nice guy
[QUOTE=thisispain;40417078]who cares if hes a nice guy[/QUOTE]
The same could be said of a lot of leaders, like the last Czar.
Guess not everyone's cut out for the job.
[QUOTE=smeismastger;40416203]The major problem with history books is that the writers very rarely try to put themselfs into the boots of the people they are writing about, the feelings, mindsets, different social and other standards, motivations and goals. I have read a book about my country's history that did just that, I learned a lot more than from a standard history books that just tells what happened where and when with only a bit of explaining why.[/QUOTE]
You have either never read an actual history book or only have read history textbooks if you're saying that.
[QUOTE=acpm;40415384]"oh yeah bush wasn't such a bad guy i don't know what y'all are talkin' about, i sure never criticized him"
-Facepunch
lmao[/QUOTE]
they are literally erasing history when they say shit like this
you people are defending the neocon "architects" that collapsed the economy congratulations
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40417552]You have either never read an actual history book or only have read history textbooks if you're saying that.[/QUOTE]
I doubt you could see my response from that high horse of yours.
[QUOTE=smeismastger;40417606]I doubt you could see my response from that high horse of yours.[/QUOTE]
Historians would quite frankly have an impossible job if they had to dissect history from pathos appealing history books made to engage nonacademic individuals like you in history.
[editline]25th April 2013[/editline]
Here's a nice flashback of 2003 era political satire
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/lMID4LU.jpg[/IMG]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.