Third Day Of Fighting Takes Over Iraq - Politics on The Huffington Post
Ouch... That doesn't bode well.
Ouch... That doesn't bode well.
Shit, meet fan
- Thread starter Groff
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
playstopause
Contributor
But what will it take? 4000 more dead soldiers? A new president?
Bingo. And one not named McCain. Not even 4000 more dead will get out of Iraq under Bush or McCain.
if it happens, i hope you are right Eric. iraq was unavoidably fucked the day the U.S mil. overrode (grammar?) the U.N and basically said fuck you to the entire world and invaded iraq for "no apparent" reason.
leaving now will cause new problems, if they are worse or better is a gamble but it will save american soldiers lives and that is of course in any american's interrest. i hope you are right cus i prefer the choice that saves more innocent iraqi civilians lives, atleast they didnt make a conscious decision to sign a contract. they just die cus no one cares or has the balls to do anything about it.
your troops started it and die for nothing, the iraqi's didn't start it and die atleast 20x more. the only chance to really minimize both sides losses was removed at the invasion, and now all we can do is guess.
meanwhile, bush has this to say to both sides:
SevenDeadly
Loomis Brotherhood
I get so sick of the Bush bashing around here. The brutal fact is that there are people out there that want to kill us. Bush's entire presidency has been defined by 9/11 and the war on terror. I don't care who you think you are or how highly you value your own opinions, any president faced with the same decisions Bush has had to make was bound to stumble a bit. Lay off.
I don't mean to be disrespectful of your opinion, but I totally 
'ed when I read that.
'ed when I read that.Yes there are. But they were not in Iraq in March of 2003. We never had a single good reason to go into Iraq. If we were serious about getting the people who want us dead, he would have focused on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan exclusively.
Yes because Bush has defined himself by the events of 9/11 and repeatedly and maliciously has used fear to get reelected and get legislation through that was both unnecessary and illegal, such as warrantless wire tapping.
Stumble a bit? The Iraq War is a colossal failure. It has killed 4000 Americans, of course this doesn't count people that die later of injuries or commit suicide. It has wounded tens of thousands. There are about 1000 Iraq War vets who are already homeless. God only knows how many will end up with PTSD after so many deployments. The military will take at least three years to recover. Military recruiting is declining steadily. Also we can't forget the at least 80,000 dead Iraqis and it may go as high as 1.2 million. There are also 2 million displaced Iraqis and their infrastructure is in ruins. I will never lay off of Bush. He is easily the worst President in US history and has done damage that will take generations to repair. It is the duty of all citizens in a democracy to speak out against injustice and I can think of nothing less just than this unholy war in Iraq.
True.
Do you think any of the Bush bashers will care who you are or how right you think you are? I do not think so. Speaking for myself, I don't even know who you are, but I take your post to mean that there is too much political dissent on this board. Well, the statistics say that it is pretty much everywhere now. I happen to think it is for a good reason, as well, although I can't tell you who would have done a good job in Bush's place during 9/11. He acted in a way that I, at the time and now, have disapproved.
The leader of this country faces a great deal of scrutiny in everything he does, be it a war that was started for a reason the evades the american people, a blowjob from an intern, or even doing a poor job managing things. If I was the president, I would expect no less from the people I govern.
SevenDeadly
Loomis Brotherhood
let me say that I am independent. I am not right facist slaver nor pinko commy labrat. I guess my point is that regardless of how we got there, as a country we are there and until your democrats can get over arguing with themselves, nothing will get done. This is a war run by corporations, we all know that. Bush may be in someone elses pocket, but knowing that doesn't do anyone any good until we can stop arguing with each other.
D
Desecrated
With all respect;
I don't think driving the economy down the drain, starting a unnecessary war, killing 4000 americans and ignoring the people in New Orleans as "stumbling a bit".
Drew
Forum MVP
There. Is. No. Correlation. Between. 9/11. And. Iraq.
Are there terrorists in Iraq today? Yes. Why are we there? Because with no provocation we invaded their country, toppled their government, and went door to door searching homes at gunpoint for "weapons of mass destruction."
Honestly, if Iran came to the united states, launched a 30 day military campaign cumulating with taking Washington, DC street-by-street, and executed Bush for war-crimes, and then gutted the american government and replaced it with a pro-Iranian one that existed solely to give them a better oil market, yeah, I'd probably buy a sniper rifle too.
Simply, Bush had a lot of international support after 9/11. He chose to squander it by invading a country that was no longer a threat to anyone, and in doing so touched off a civil war and turned the country into a symbol and a training ground for islamic extremist terrorists.
In short, there do not exist words to adequately describe the degree to which he fucked up. If you want to debate whether cutting and running would make things better than trying to fight it out, go right ahead, but there is absolutely no grounds to defend Bush here. He didn't "make a stumble." He invaded the wrong fucking country.
There. Is. No. Correlation. Between. 9/11. And. Iraq.
Are there terrorists in Iraq today? Yes. Why are we there? Because with no provocation we invaded their country, toppled their government, and went door to door searching homes at gunpoint for "weapons of mass destruction."
Honestly, if Iran came to the united states, launched a 30 day military campaign cumulating with taking Washington, DC street-by-street, and executed Bush for war-crimes, and then gutted the american government and replaced it with a pro-Iranian one that existed solely to give them a better oil market, yeah, I'd probably buy a sniper rifle too.
Simply, Bush had a lot of international support after 9/11. He chose to squander it by invading a country that was no longer a threat to anyone, and in doing so touched off a civil war and turned the country into a symbol and a training ground for islamic extremist terrorists.
In short, there do not exist words to adequately describe the degree to which he fucked up. If you want to debate whether cutting and running would make things better than trying to fight it out, go right ahead, but there is absolutely no grounds to defend Bush here. He didn't "make a stumble." He invaded the wrong fucking country.
That sir, was a great post!
I'd like to add that he's never made any effort to reconcile that fact, or even admit the "mistake". To me, that says he knew damn well what he was doing and it was no "stumble".
Drew
Forum MVP
SevenDeadly, I'm a little hung over at the moment so I may have come on a little strong there, but seriously think about what you would do in the scenario below:
Hell, I don't even LIKE Bush, and I'd be fighting back. Does that make me a terrorist? It's something you have to think long and hard about before you can answer, because on some level "terrorist" is a term that's used awfulyl fast and furious with this administration, and seems functionally to mean "anyone who we're at war with" which I think we both agree is too broad.
Hell, I don't even LIKE Bush, and I'd be fighting back. Does that make me a terrorist? It's something you have to think long and hard about before you can answer, because on some level "terrorist" is a term that's used awfulyl fast and furious with this administration, and seems functionally to mean "anyone who we're at war with" which I think we both agree is too broad.
lordofthesewers
Well-Known Member
The Iraq War was a major fuck up by the Bush administration. As it has been said, the invasion was pointless, and even worse it was done stupidly with no other plan than taking over Baghdad and killing Saddam Hussein. That was the problem in the first place, pure incompetence at the civilian command of the military. Colin Powell and the chiefs of staff argued clearly that 140K troops are not enough to have an invasion done properly, but rumsfeld never listened. They didn't know what Sunnis and what Shiiites are before they started fighting each other.
The capital mistake they made right after the invasion was to disband the Iraqi army. That created a trained insurgency with guns and a command chain, mostly sunni. The Americans, after signing peace with the collapsing Iraqi army after saddam fled, could have used the iraqi army to surrender the borders so that Al quida would have never come in. Plus, elections were such a shitty idea, that is what basically sparked the civil war, and with more troops on the ground they could have secured areas faster, thus not create a need for the population to go apeshit on each other.
The capital mistake they made right after the invasion was to disband the Iraqi army. That created a trained insurgency with guns and a command chain, mostly sunni. The Americans, after signing peace with the collapsing Iraqi army after saddam fled, could have used the iraqi army to surrender the borders so that Al quida would have never come in. Plus, elections were such a shitty idea, that is what basically sparked the civil war, and with more troops on the ground they could have secured areas faster, thus not create a need for the population to go apeshit on each other.
