US Wasted Billions In Iraq

[Rob Henderson]

What did the US lose?

Irag was not the United States to begin with.

We lost "the war on terror," for one. Mainly because that's like fighting air. It will never go away. But Bushie went to college. :roll:

It was all ways the goal of the US to remove Saddam Hussein. Done

Do you mean always?

Saddam was keeping the two main factions of Islam in check. Yes, life sucked over there. And guess what? It hasn't gotten a whole lot better 7 years later. Saddam is dead, and life still sucks. WHAT A SHOCKER.

Return rule to the Iraqi people. Done.

What they do with it has nothing to do with the US.

As some have said. They may blow it up. It is up to them.

I guess the answer is whether you think the Iraqi's would be better off under Hussein, or free to do as they wish.

Having never known self government they are going to have a very tough time.

But the United States is now directly involved (again, thanks a lot, Graybush) with the future of Iraq. It was the United States who disrupted everything (remember, Osama wasn't in Iraq), so it's the United States who will be held responsible for fixing everything.

And quite frankly, you're an idiot if you don't understand that.


By the way, what we "lost" also includes Spike's suggestions.

 

[Chukpike]

Unfortunately, we can sit here and criticize and blame until we're blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is that we did go into Iraq, we did try to help those people, and now we do have to take the lickin' on the chin and say that America may have kinda sorta lost one a little bit perhaps.

My question of "What did the US lose?"

Was addressed to your statement "that America may have kinda sorta lost one."

Apparently you didn't listen to President Obama's speech on Iraq. I did not hear him say the US had lost the War on terror.

I never supported going in to Iraq in the first place.

If Bush had really wanted to make a statement, he should have used a couple of tactical Nukes on a couple of Hussein's Palaces. There would have been some collateral loses but they shouldn't really matter to the US much.

Other countries might have complained, but what the hay, they complain anyway.

I guess you have given up on President Obama from your comments?

We lost "the war on terror," for one. Mainly because that's like fighting air. It will never go away. But Bushie went to college. :roll:

Again, I do not think you listened to President Obama's speech.

By "we" do you mean just the US or the other countries who are fighting the "War on Terror"

Saddam was keeping the two main factions of Islam in check. Yes, life sucked over there. And guess what? It hasn't gotten a whole lot better 7 years later. Saddam is dead, and life still sucks. WHAT A SHOCKER.

But the United States is now directly involved (again, thanks a lot, Graybush) with the future of Iraq. It was the United States who disrupted everything (remember, Osama wasn't in Iraq), so it's the United States who will be held responsible for fixing everything.

And quite frankly, you're an idiot if you don't understand that.

You have not stated anything here that I don't agree with. Accept of course your calling me an idiot. (won't bother to report it as I just considered the source). :roll:

Don't need your short term history lesson, as I was in Iran when the US was supporting Iran against Saddam Hussein in 1974.

Change of power meant change in allies. It was in the US interest to keep the two regional powers at each others throats.

I could care less about whether life for Iraqis suck.

Should have made sure the Nukes didn't get Hussein. He would have been begging the US and the United Kingdom to make oil deals as Muammar Gaddafi did.

Muammar Gaddafi sure changed his attitude quick

By the way, what we "lost" also includes Spike's suggestions.

As for Spike's comments I just ignored them as he probably knew what I was talking about and choose to ignore it.

I would not waste one American service persons life on these other countries. If they want to be free then let them earn it.

I did read some of the posts in the thread about the Australians having the best troops, let's just send them next time and they will have it wrapped up in time for Tea.:smile:

 

[senojekips]

As for Spike's comments I just ignored them as he probably knew what I was talking about and choose to ignore it.:smile:

Not only did I not know what you were talking about, it was pretty obvious to me that you had no idea either.

"What did US lose" How could anyone who is not blind and deaf not know? I would say that the more likely answer is, that you had no comeback to the painfully obvious truth.

 

[A Can of Man]

The answer is, the US lost a LOT.
Over four thousand of its finest sons and daughters.
More money than all of us combined will make in countless lifetimes.
Credibility.

List goes on I'm sure.

 

[Chukpike]

Unfortunately, we can sit here and criticize and blame until we're blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is that we did go into Iraq, we did try to help those people, and now we do have to take the lickin' on the chin and say that America may have kinda sorta lost one a little bit perhaps.

Let's start with more than 4000 lives and another 30,000 wounded and maimed, plus a few billion dollars.

The answer is, the US lost a LOT.
Over four thousand of its finest sons and daughters.
More money than all of us combined will make in countless lifetimes.

Well, there you have it Rob. The US did not lose one as you implied.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Yep. ......

 

[Yossarian]

I do not completely see how you can judge a story that has not ended yet.

 

[senojekips]

I do not completely see how you can judge a story that has not ended yet.

In that case, you could never judge anything. As long as life goes on, nothing has ever finished in your view?

When the cat has died and the maggots have consumed it, he can be said to be finished, likewise our valiant attempt to pacify Iraq is finished. As much as people will argue, we have done exactly the same as we did in Vietnam, though we organised our retreat a little better this time. At least this time we convinced ourselves that the job was done, no one else in their right mind would believe it though.

It seems to be the only thing that we are getting better at, making excuses for a halfway dignified retreat.

 

[George]

We lost "the war on terror," for one. Mainly because that's like fighting air. It will never go away.

Same is true about the War on Poverty thay you guys started. Trillions down the rathole, nation massivly in debt, no end in sight & no exit strategy.

 

[Chukpike]

Seems some are willing to claim defeat even though President Obama still has 50.000 troops in Iraq.

"Yet, there are still six brigades made up of 50,000 troops in Iraq, ahead of a full withdrawal at the end of 2011. Their focus is to assist and advise their Iraqi counterparts, not lead the fight against insurgents, but they remain heavily armed and face frequent threats."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100913/ts_nm/us_iraq_usa_army_1

These are the same Democrats that claimed the GOP was finished after the last election. So pardon me if I don't think the War on Terror is over yet. It probably will not end, the world will always have those dissatisfied or disgruntled with life.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Same is true about the War on Poverty thay you guys started. Trillions down the rathole, nation massivly in debt, no end in sight & no exit strategy.

Ah, but the "war on poverty" (catchy, but completely fabricated, nonetheless) is not a true war. Simply an attempt to make better. King Georgie actually believed (with a Yale education, mind you) that he could kill all the terrorists in the world. You can provide everyone in the world with money. You cannot eliminate an idea. It is physically impossible.

Seems some are willing to claim defeat even though President Obama still has 50.000 troops in Iraq.

"Yet, there are still six brigades made up of 50,000 troops in Iraq, ahead of a full withdrawal at the end of 2011. Their focus is to assist and advise their Iraqi counterparts, not lead the fight against insurgents, but they remain heavily armed and face frequent threats."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100913/ts_nm/us_iraq_usa_army_1

These are the same Democrats that claimed the GOP was finished after the last election. So pardon me if I don't think the War on Terror is over yet. It probably will not end, the world will always have those dissatisfied or disgruntled with life.

You can believe whatever the hell you want. I'm convinced that you life in an alternate reality as it is. The fact of the matter is that the War on Terror will NEVER BE OVER. There is no "victory." At NO point will anyone be able to say, "We won. We beat terrorism."

 

[Chukpike]

These are the same Democrats that claimed the GOP was finished after the last election. So pardon me if I don't think the War on Terror is over yet. It probably will not end, the world will always have those dissatisfied or disgruntled with life.

You can believe whatever the hell you want. I'm convinced that you life in an alternate reality as it is. The fact of the matter is that the War on Terror will NEVER BE OVER. There is no "victory." At NO point will anyone be able to say, "We won. We beat terrorism."

I believe you meant "you live in an alternate reality", not "you life in an alternate reality".

But since you are either "in an alternate reality" or simply to much in a hurry to argue to notice, I said the War on Terror won't end.

It is you who stated:
"Originally Posted by Rob Henderson
We lost "the war on terror," for one."

Even your Presidential choice has not given up yet.

 

[Rob Henderson]

I believe you meant "you live in an alternate reality", not "you life in an alternate reality".

You're correct. I did mean "live." Congratulations. How does it feel that you've got one grammatical correction to my... Oh... 200?

But since you are either "in an alternate reality" or simply to much in a hurry to argue to notice, I said the War on Terror won't end.

I think you mean "too," not "to." 201.

It is you who stated:
"Originally Posted by Rob Henderson
We lost "the war on terror," for one."

Even your Presidential choice has not given up yet.

The War on Terror will end, because we will exhaust all resources to fight it. We cannot win, therefore we will lose. It's as simple as that.

 

[Chukpike]

The War on Terror will end, because we will exhaust all resources to fight it. We cannot win, therefore we will lose. It's as simple as that.

It is a sad commentary to see a young generation like yours ready to throw in the towel and give up. The men and women who volunteer and serve now have not given up. But it is sad to see someone so young willing to give in to Terrorism.

Unfortunately freedom is not bought with blood, it is only rented and each generation has to pay the rent.

Man has been fighting tyranny ever since the first cave man threw a rock at another. The bullies were dealt with, banned from the group, or dealt with if they could not live by community rules. They might "reign temporarily" like Hitler but so far the "bad guys" have not won.

 

[HokieMSG]

It is a sad commentary to see a young generation like yours ready to throw in the towel and give up. The men and women who volunteer and serve now have not given up. But it is sad to see someone so young willing to give in to Terrorism.

The problem is that he is taking the lead from the government.
Just do some research into the Korangal Valley in A'stan. We lost 50 soldiers there and pulled out in the middle of the night in April 2010. I think the government owes the families an explanation. Maybe Pelosi, Boxer and Schumer can do a fact finding mission there.

 

[Chukpike]

The problem is that he is taking the lead from the government.
Just do some research into the Korangal Valley in A'stan. We lost 50 soldiers there and pulled out in the middle of the night in April 2010. I think the government owes the families an explanation. Maybe Pelosi, Boxer and Schumer can do a fact finding mission there.

Probably right, but he got to vote for the first time this last Presidential election. So I guess you could say he is getting what he voted for.

 

[Rob Henderson]

It is a sad commentary to see a young generation like yours ready to throw in the towel and give up. The men and women who volunteer and serve now have not given up. But it is sad to see someone so young willing to give in to Terrorism.

How is not wanting to lose lives unnecessarily "giving in" to terrorism? (By the way, it's not a proper noun, it's a common noun. Not capitalized.) Giving in to terrorism would be living in fear every day. Giving in to terrorism would be allowing myself to become paranoid that the worst was going to happen in every scenario. Giving in to terrorism is NOT saying that it is impossible to defeat an idea. That is called realism. Thinking that terrorism could ever be truly defeated is something called naïvety. And I'd much rather surround myself with realists than the naïve.

Unfortunately freedom is not bought with blood, it is only rented and each generation has to pay the rent.

Quite true. But isn't education and prevention a better method of investment than simply tackling each individual case as it comes along? What I mean to say is, wouldn't it be better to just show Middle Eastern people what America is truly like? Wouldn't it be better to NOT attack a country who took preliminary strikes? I'd be willing to bet that if the United States had stayed in Afghanistan and NOT invaded Iraq, there would be a very different sentiment about the Middle Eastern Theater as a whole.

To be frank, the men and women who are fighting in Iraq are not fighting a war on terror; they are fighting a war for King George. Obama is like the parent who has to clean up the child's mess on the playground. He is not allowed to simply up and leave, because it was his child who made the mess. He must stay, attempt to finish the job to the best of his abilities, and THEN exit. But I digress.

To put my point in layman's terms, the War in Iraq will always be a loss, because it shouldn't have been started in the first place. The GWOT is not equal to the War in Iraq. So I am not "giving in" to terrorism. I simply believe our resources could be put to better use in fending it off.

Man has been fighting tyranny ever since the first cave man threw a rock at another. The bullies were dealt with, banned from the group, or dealt with if they could not live by community rules. They might "reign temporarily" like Hitler but so far the "bad guys" have not won.

I'm not exactly sure why this is relevant. I'm not against opposition to tyranny. But I believe I'm not the only person who believes there is a difference between tyranny and terrorism (the reason we entered the Middle Eastern Theater at all).

The problem is that he is taking the lead from the government.
Just do some research into the Korangal Valley in A'stan. We lost 50 soldiers there and pulled out in the middle of the night in April 2010. I think the government owes the families an explanation. Maybe Pelosi, Boxer and Schumer can do a fact finding mission there.

But according to Chukpike, the government hasn't given up yet.

 

[HokieMSG]

Rob. Obama, to his credit, has always opposed our involvement in the middle east. That being said, he campaigned that he would get us out of both Iraq and A'stan. America gets involved in these things for good reason, however the general public has not, and IMHO will not, ever take the long view. We have to start thinking strategically and looking at long term relationships. Making fundamental changes to their thinking, i.e. showing them that democracy can work for them, will take generations. It is not something that can be accomplished in 1 election cycle. Maybe our first question should be, Do they want our help? If the answer is No then don't get involved as long as it does not affect our security. If our security is threatened, capture or kill the threat and move on.

Rob, you hit on a key point. EDUCATION. Without the alternatives that education offers, we will continue to see extremism both here and abroad.

I have always felt that we should get our own house in order first. Then we can worry about helping others.

My 2 cents.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Rob. Obama, to his credit, has always opposed our involvement in the middle east. That being said, he campaigned that he would get us out of both Iraq and A'stan. America gets involved in these things for good reason, however the general public has not, and IMHO will not, ever take the long view. We have to start thinking strategically and looking at long term relationships. Making fundamental changes to their thinking, i.e. showing them that democracy can work for them, will take generations. It is not something that can be accomplished in 1 election cycle. Maybe our first question should be, Do they want our help? If the answer is No then don't get involved as long as it does not affect our security. If our security is threatened, capture or kill the threat and move on.

They've already shown they don't want our help. They're glad we're there as long as they don't have to do any of the work. But when we ask them to take the guns and fight for themselves, we get nothing. Let us remember that Al Qaeda is NOT a group specific to Iraq or Afghanistan. They permeate the entire Middle East and some parts of Northern Africa. When we were attacked on 9/11, the best intelligence we had told us that Osama Bin Laden (the man responsible for the attacks) was in Afghanistan. I, along with so many other Americans, was all for invading Afghanistan in search of the b@stard. However, when the first talks of invading Iraq came to the surface, I dug in my heels. We needed to invade Afghanistan, not Iraq. Bin Laden wasn't in Iraq. Iraq was balanced on a needle point, and while life was not perfect, there was not a constant threat of death.

Rob, you hit on a key point. EDUCATION. Without the alternatives that education offers, we will continue to see extremism both here and abroad.

I have always felt that we should get our own house in order first. Then we can worry about helping others.

My 2 cents.

Absolutely. And even getting more education in the United States might help our situation abroad. First generation immigrants could phone home to their families in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, or any other country and tell them, "Hey, you know, the United States really isn't a bad place."

 

[George]

Absolutely. And even getting more education in the United States might help our situation abroad. First generation immigrants could phone home to their families in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, or any other country and tell them, "Hey, you know, the United States really isn't a bad place."

& how many go back believing they really need to spread Islam here to clean this place up to thier standards? After all the women here don't wear tents, they can't be divorced by a male saying so, no stoning of female adulteresses, no poligamy except in parts of Utah....