waldo Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 Hmm, that's not what I seem to recall and I was there up until 2 days before the bombs started to fall and was in and out of those no fly zones daiily. The start of the war was in fact delayed because, since it was not a UN sanctioned action, Turkey refused to let US planes fly through it's airspace so some aircraft carriers had to be repositioned. I trust MLW member, 'Shady', has historical data to support his revisionism! Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 I trust MLW member, 'Shady', has historical data to support his revisionism! I trust he will and can hardly wait to read it. Quote
Shady Posted October 3, 2014 Author Report Posted October 3, 2014 Hmm, that's not what I seem to recall and I was there up until 2 days before the bombs started to fall and was in and out of those no fly zones daiily. The start of the war was in fact delayed because, since it was not a UN sanctioned action, Turkey refused to let US planes fly through it's airspace so some aircraft carriers had to be repositioned. You don't recall Iraq being in violation of UN resolutions, or not allowing inspections for 4 years, or them firing on coalition planes? Or all 3? Quote
Shady Posted October 3, 2014 Author Report Posted October 3, 2014 Relative peace and security existed before the US entered Iraq too. Yes it did. Under a dictatorship. Quote
Shady Posted October 3, 2014 Author Report Posted October 3, 2014 If peace and security are relative, how can you say it isn't peaceful and secure? Very little violence compared to earlier years. Quote
BubberMiley Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 Very little violence compared to earlier years.Sounds subjective to me. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
On Guard for Thee Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 You don't recall Iraq being in violation of UN resolutions, or not allowing inspections for 4 years, or them firing on coalition planes? Or all 3? If you reach far enough back in history you can find evidence of such things. None of them reflect the reality in 2003 when Bush invaded. The reality leading up to the invasion was that the UN was on the ground in Iraq with Sadam's blessing, roaming everywhere, finding nothing. Hence the illegal nature of the war and hence why Bush_Cheney are now considered guilty of war crimes. Quote
Shady Posted October 3, 2014 Author Report Posted October 3, 2014 If you reach far enough back in history you can find evidence of such things. None of them reflect the reality in 2003 when Bush invaded. The reality leading up to the invasion was that the UN was on the ground in Iraq with Sadam's blessing, roaming everywhere, finding nothing. Hence the illegal nature of the war and hence why Bush_Cheney are now considered guilty of war crimes.Ok, this thread isn't about relitigating the Iraq war. It's about Obama's decision to not leave any kind of presence, which his own defence secretary says was a huge mistake. Start a new thread if you want to relitigate 2003. Quote
Shady Posted October 3, 2014 Author Report Posted October 3, 2014 Sounds subjective to me. In some ways it is. But when you compare the amount of violence pre-surge vs post-surge, it drops off of a cliff. Quote
Wilber Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 Ok, this thread isn't about relitigating the Iraq war. It's about Obama's decision to not leave any kind of presence, which his own defence secretary says was a huge mistake. Start a new thread if you want to relitigate 2003. You should read the titles to your own topics. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 Yes it did. Under a dictatorship. So when do we invade every other Islamic country? Quote
Smallc Posted October 3, 2014 Report Posted October 3, 2014 Ok, this thread isn't about relitigating the Iraq war. It's about Obama's decision to not leave any kind of presence, which his own defence secretary says was a huge mistake. Start a new thread if you want to relitigate 2003. He couldn't leave anyone behind. The Iraqi government didn't want them. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 4, 2014 Report Posted October 4, 2014 Yes it did. Under a dictatorship.North Korea is under a dictatorship and has numerous human rights violations. They haven't been invaded yet. Quote
dre Posted October 4, 2014 Report Posted October 4, 2014 Yes, we know what initially happened in Iraq. Then there was the surge, and a significant security improvement, as well as an overall improvement. Then Obama trashed it all for political talking points and an election campaign. Even his own Secretary of Defence pins the blame for it on his dumb policy. No what changed things was we gave up trying to fight the insurgents and started paying them money to not attack. 80 thousand insurgents were put on the payroll. Those guys are ISIS now! And even if the US stayed there for 20 more years it would have made no difference. Sectarian tension in Iraq and Syria makes civil war a forgone conclusion. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Bonam Posted October 4, 2014 Report Posted October 4, 2014 (edited) Yes it did. Under a dictatorship. Some cultures in this world simply aren't ready for democracy. There's a reason monarchy was the prevailing form of human government for thousands of years. Some few cultures eventually grew out of it, and replaced their systems themselves, from within. Those who haven't grown up yet will not benefit from being forced into newer systems that they are not yet ready for. Edited October 4, 2014 by Bonam Quote
eyeball Posted October 4, 2014 Report Posted October 4, 2014 Some cultures in this world simply aren't ready for democracy. There's a reason monarchy was the prevailing form of human government for thousands of years. Go tell it to Mossadegh... Some few cultures eventually grew out of it, and replaced their systems themselves, from within. Those who haven't grown up yet will not benefit from being forced into newer systems that they are not yet ready for. ...go tell it atop a mount, you know, from on high somewhere. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Bonam Posted October 4, 2014 Report Posted October 4, 2014 Go tell it to Mossadegh... ...go tell it atop a mount, you know, from on high somewhere. Nowhere higher to be than on the waves of electromagnetic radiation permeating around the Earth allowing instantaneous communication. Quote
jbg Posted October 4, 2014 Report Posted October 4, 2014 Regardless you're purposely changing the subject. Relative peace and security was finally established, and Obama threw it all away for political reasons. Even his former defence secretary makes that point. Winning re-election was a state interest. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
eyeball Posted October 4, 2014 Report Posted October 4, 2014 Nowhere higher to be than on the waves of electromagnetic radiation permeating around the Earth allowing instantaneous communication. Say it loud say it proud. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
On Guard for Thee Posted October 4, 2014 Report Posted October 4, 2014 If you reach far enough back in history you can find evidence of such things. None of them reflect the reality in 2003 when Bush invaded. The reality leading up to the invasion was that the UN was on the ground in Iraq with Sadam's blessing, roaming everywhere, finding nothing. Hence the illegal nature of the war and hence why Bush_Cheney are now considered guilty of war crimes. I see so you just want to carve out a little piece of history so you can try to slam Obama, and ignore all the rest. Good luck. Quote
sharkman Posted October 5, 2014 Report Posted October 5, 2014 North Korea is under a dictatorship and has numerous human rights violations. They haven't been invaded yet. Oh please, you really don't want to bring up NK, Jimmy Carter's biggest embarrassment, and the primary reason, along with Clinton's nose picking, why NK ended up with nukes. And on top of all that, it's about as far from an apples to apples comparison as one can get when comparing to Iraq. Quote
sharkman Posted October 5, 2014 Report Posted October 5, 2014 If you reach far enough back in history you can find evidence of such things. None of them reflect the reality in 2003 when Bush invaded. The reality leading up to the invasion was that the UN was on the ground in Iraq with Sadam's blessing, roaming everywhere, finding nothing. Hence the illegal nature of the war and hence why Bush_Cheney are now considered guilty of war crimes. When one is so willing to rewrite the history of the UN's adventures in Iraq, nothing that you respond with is worth considering. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 5, 2014 Report Posted October 5, 2014 Oh please, you really don't want to bring up NK, Jimmy Carter's biggest embarrassment, and the primary reason, along with Clinton's nose picking, why NK ended up with nukes. And on top of all that, it's about as far from an apples to apples comparison as one can get when comparing to Iraq.Is it not under a dictatorship that's oppressive and violates human rights? I thought that was the benchmark for invading Iraq. What's the reason for Iraq then? Quote
GostHacked Posted October 6, 2014 Report Posted October 6, 2014 Is it not under a dictatorship that's oppressive and violates human rights? I thought that was the benchmark for invading Iraq. What's the reason for Iraq then? Resources and a theater for a perpetual war. Quote
The_Squid Posted October 6, 2014 Report Posted October 6, 2014 Is it not under a dictatorship that's oppressive and violates human rights? I thought that was the benchmark for invading Iraq. What's the reason for Iraq then? lol Are we really going to rehash that one??? WMD of course... that one was my favourite... did you know some delusional right-wingers still believe that??? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.