Iraq Invasion - America's Shame... 10 years on

[WWWTT]

Life was a paradise in Iraq while Saddam was dictator.

Actually,compared to the later Iraq,yes it was!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

The U.S. has spent more on their pets

Just take your word for it?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Well like BC_2004 said, at least he was their dictator (aka bastard). Rumsfeld looked good shaking hands with Hussein back in the day when he was their bastard. Remember the war was about oil, the Saddam being a dictator thing was a ruse.

Actually,didn't Saddam take power(US backed military coup) after the Shaw of Iran was ousted and encouraged by the US to start a war with Iran???

WWWTT

[DogOnPorch]

Actually,compared to the later Iraq,yes it was!

WWWTT

As mentioned, there was a time when Berlin looked like crap. And a time before that, too.....

Myself? I was never a fan of Hitler like some are of that murderer, Saddam. That's the odd bit. Dictator love. Perhaps some long for a strong hand to guide them?...A fatherly...mustachioed...figure.

[DogOnPorch]

Actually,didn't Saddam take power(US backed military coup) after the Shaw of Iran was ousted and encouraged by the US to start a war with Iran???

WWWTT

Uhhhh...no.

[WWWTT]

As mentioned, there was a time when Berlin looked like crap. And a time before that, too.....

Myself? I was never a fan of Hitler like some are of that murderer, Saddam. That's the odd bit. Dictator love. Perhaps some long for a strong hand to guide them?...A fatherly...mustachioed...figure.

And as a result of the actions from those that share your view,it is clearly shown the result is more death,more chaos,more instability,less opportunity and greater despair.

But for some reason,it's all worth it to get rid of one person????

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Uhhhh...no.

Uhhh....Yes.

WWWTT

[DogOnPorch]

Uhhh....Yes.

WWWTT

No...Saddam had been in power since the 1968 coup...just not officially. In 1979, he did make it official, however.

[DogOnPorch]

And as a result of the actions from those that share your view,it is clearly shown the result is more death,more chaos,more instability,less opportunity and greater despair.

But for some reason,it's all worth it to get rid of one person????

WWWTT

I certainly think getting rid of Hitler was a good idea. I'm not surprised you'd have let him be.

[bush_cheney2004]

I certainly think getting rid of Hitler was a good idea. I'm not surprised you'd have let him be.

Indeed...some of these guys would have had the Allies just stop at Germany's border during WW2. In stark contrast, the U.S. is still there.

[DogOnPorch]

Indeed...some of these guys would have had the Allies just stop at Germany's border during WW2. In stark contrast, the U.S. is still there.

Much like the various US nuclear policies over the years...max/min damage, target cities-no cities, etc...one must not assume the opponent views deterrence the same darn way you do. I believe I learned that from Mr. McNamara.

[WWWTT]

I certainly think getting rid of Hitler was a good idea. I'm not surprised you'd have let him be.

Was not commenting on Hitler.

But you seem bent on marrying the two.

Ironically,Hitler was all for an independant Iraq from British rule.(but I am not sure about that one)

WWWTT

[Moonlight Graham]

Until about 1952, the Soviet Union lacked a viable delivery system. The Tu-4*, while available, didn't have the needed range plus early Soviet A-Bombs were HEAVY. Nor did the later Tu-16 and Mya-4...range-wise. It wasn't until 1954 that the USSR was truly a threat with the introduction of the intercontinental Tu-95 which is still around today.

America, during this period, enjoyed almost a complete nuclear monopoly with the huge B-36 and very capable B-47.

* A B-29 clone.

I knew someone was going to nit-pick on that.

[DogOnPorch]

Was not commenting on Hitler.

But you seem bent on marrying the two.

Ironically,Hitler was all for an independant Iraq from British rule.(but I am not sure about that one)

WWWTT

Both are cut from the same cloth. Germany did send the Mufti to Iraq to cause an uprising against the British.

[DogOnPorch]

I knew someone was going to nit-pick on that.

But there it is. MAD has changed over the years, too.

[Guest Derek L]

If you were JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis you probably would have supported the Joint Chiefs and called for an invasion/first strike of Cuba, and hundreds of thousands of Americans would have been nuclear vapor (plus many dead Cubans and possible nuclear exchange with the USSR) because Cuba was, unknown to US intelligence, already armed and capable of a nuclear strike and, according to Castro decades later, very willing to use the nukes in such a situation.

No, because the nukes in Cuba were Soviet and Khrushchev had all his marbles and a firm grasp on the military and KGB at the time………….Now if Stalin had of based a couple of regiments of strategic and medium bombers in Cuba a decade earlier…………

It's a crappy situation any way you slice it, but I think the more prudent action is dealing with verbal threats over starting guaranteed warfare. If the US strikes N.Korea it could lead to them deploying the nukes on S.Korea or Japan etc., and re-starting North/South Korean full-blown warfare. Strike Iran and you're opening the possibility of massive warfare in the region. Since 1949, MAD has resulted in zero nuclear strikes.

Again no………If the United States struck now they could debilitate the rudimentary North Korean launch facilities…………..And even with the estimated tiny arsenal North Korea now posses, the real threat isn’t so much the North Koreans nuking Japan or South Korea, but coupled with their rudimentary space program, putting a couple of low yield nukes ~300-400 km above North America and turning us all Amish…….

Remember, BMD interceptors are designed to intercept re-entry vehicles………And the two reported North Korean tests, were both low yield but produced significant gamma radiation…..

As to Iran, it will be much easier attacking them without nuclear weapons then with for obvious reasons……..

[WWWTT]

You got to be freekin jokin Derek???

This thread is about how silent the war hawks now are 10 years after the massive failure of Iraq!

But somehow you think that a massive failure should be followed by a couple more that would reverbarate on a scale of ten fold worse than Iraq and Afganistan?

I seriously doubt any US government would take your advise.

WWWTT

[Guest Derek L]

You got to be freekin jokin Derek???

This thread is about how silent the war hawks now are 10 years after the massive failure of Iraq!

But somehow you think that a massive failure should be followed by a couple more that would reverbarate on a scale of ten fold worse than Iraq and Afganistan?

I seriously doubt any US government would take your advise.

WWWTT

The reason for your doubt is your lack of understanding the subject mater:

http://www.empcommission.org/

http://www.empcommission.org/docs/empc_exec_rpt.pdf

[bush_cheney2004]

President Clinton orders attacks against Iraq in 1998 for WMD inspections:

[Guest Derek L]

President Clinton orders attacks against Iraq in 1998 for WMD inspections:

And of course:

http://youtu.be/1r3lZohzaUs

[DogOnPorch]

Pretty busy for a massive failure. No Viet-Nam style dodging artillery shells as you land/take-off.

Edited March 22, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[WWWTT]

The reason for your doubt is your lack of understanding the subject mater:

http://www.empcommission.org/

http://www.empcommission.org/docs/empc_exec_rpt.pdf

Ya I don't think more regurgitated military war tactics justifies your lust for unjustified destruction and loss of human life!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

President Clinton orders attacks against Iraq in 1998 for WMD inspections:

Sorry attacks and invasion to expell an acting government are two different things.

Somehow you think nobody would notice?

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

Sorry attacks and invasion to expell an acting government are two different things.

Somehow you think nobody would notice?

Wrong...the four day bombing campaign at over 100 sites was also intended to decapitate Saddam's regime. Would it be OK to just 'attack' Toronto and Ottawa instead of invading Ontario ?

[GostHacked]

Truly...if you're serious about your outrage over dead babies, stop buying oil/gas. No need to feed the beast...you're only killing more kids.

Considering even the USA imports less than 5% of it's oil from Iraq, it's a non starter. But good to know you value a tank of gas over the life of a human.