• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Iraq War a Mistake

It should be easy enough for you to source the claim that rėgime change was an allied war aim.

Well, yes, but so glaringly obvious I almost forgot to jump through that somewhat desperate-appearing hoop.

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/vi...06361.001.0001/acprof-9780198206361-chapter-8

The heterogeneous alliance that defeated the Axis states in the Second World War was united by its determination to demand the unconditional surrender of the enemy powers and to prevent their resurgence. For Russia, the war was a struggle for survival in which many of its great cities were destroyed and some 20 million people died. The Western democracies saw it as a crusade against the forces of evil. The allied leaders, Josef Stalin of Russia, Winston Churchill of Britain, and Franklin D. Roosevelt of the United States, agreed that enemy governments should be removed and Nazism and Facism should be eradicated.

It seems so elementary to me that such regimes must be eradicated, that I find it incomprehensible that it needs such tedious justifying, explaining, and citing.

Unless I speculate that all political forums are deeply infested with trolls, many of whom do a fair job of concealing their manic trolling behavior behind a mask of ideological concern. Then it all makes a kind of insane sense, in troll-think, if I also speculate that these trolls are bored paraplegics.

Or maybe most of them are denizens of Russian troll houses, paid by Putin & Co. to make crazy seem normal.
 
Last edited:
Oh for Christ's sake, that lying liar of a right-wing shill known as Bob Woodward is now lying for the lying liar George Bush and his lies about the Iraq war.

Former President George W. Bush did not lie about the presence of weapons of mass destruction to justify the Iraq War, journalist Bob Woodward said Sunday.

The argument has been used for years by Democrats and other detractors, but Woodward said on "Fox News Sunday" that his own 18-month investigation showed that Bush was actually skeptical that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had WMDs as Saddam claimed.

Though plenty of mistakes were made in the invasion of Iraq, Bush actually told CIA Director George Tenet, "Don’t let anyone stretch the case on WMD," Woodward said.

The reason the United States went into Iraq was "momentum," he said.

"That war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end people were saying, 'Hey, look, it'll only take a week or two.'"

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ge...ss-destruction-iraq-war/2015/05/24/id/646530/
 
Why on earth can't this discussion ever happen without the political tribalism completely poisoning it? Is it really that important to be right? Take a deep breath, Jesus.

This is one of those topics where both sides tend to behave deplorably.
 
Why on earth can't this discussion ever happen without the political tribalism completely poisoning it? Is it really that important to be right? Take a deep breath, Jesus.

This is one of those topics where both sides tend to behave deplorably.

That's great!

Could you please outline the non-political tribalism issues and facts so we can discuss them?
 
It was painfully obvious at the time that war in Iraq was a horrific mistake, and that Bush admin justification consisted of steaming bs. I'm glad to see diehards finally acknowledge this tragic mistake. Better late than never I suppose.
 
Again, the real "mistake" was believing the lie. To so many of us it was obvious.
 

Relevant quote from that page, from 2 days before the invasion:

Washington Post article headlined "Bush Clings to Dubious Allegations About Iraq" notes, "As the Bush administration prepares to attack Iraq this week, it is doing so on the basis of a number of allegations against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that have been challenged—and in some cases disproved—by the United Nations, European governments and even U.S. intelligence reports."

So this was all known before the invasion, but who was listening?
 
and as evidence of that had used WMD in the past to kill thousands of people.

Yes when he was one of our main allies in the middle east he was a brutal mass murdering dictator who gassed his own people. But what is that between friends?
 
Saying that today makes you some dupe shilling for Bush.

Saying that in 1998 made you the National Security Adviser.

“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″ — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

And the Reagan really should have done something about him then.
 
that's a classic Nirvana fallacy.

Plus, that seriously needs a cite. I don't recall anyone in the administration promising that Iraq would be transformed into an earthly paradise.

They were clear that we would be greeted as liberators and we would be out in short order with no more troops needed, because how could it possibly be easier to conquer a country than rebuild it?
 
So, say a rogue state illegally invades another and in the course of doing so kills people, destroys property and commits other war crimes. Are you suggesting that a UN resolution purporting to wipe the slate clean would be effective in international law in barring any subsequent prosecution or claim for reparation? If so, I would appreciate some authority for that.

Yes we clearly need to invade Russia.
 

Back
Top Bottom