jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (35 posts)

Long-Term Effects of Iraq

  1. 0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/1 … 64728.html

    History will surely vindicate George Bush and Dick Cheney big_smile.

  2. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 4 years ago

    History vindicate Bush and Cheney? Don't you mean indict Bush and Cheney?

    They don't need to be vindicated. They are both morons and led the general public astray by implying something which it couldn't ultimately prove true. They had indications that Saddam was arming WMDs, but those weapons were NOT of the Nuclear Weapons type. Saddam had for years produced WMDs on a chemical level and even used them against people on Iraq territory.

    I don't mind Saddam taken down, but there was nothing of value put into it's place. The supposed Democracy being established is nothing more than the BS it is here, there and that's not good.

    Taking Saddam down should have been done quietly, quickly and simply. The object was to get him on crimes against humanity on his own people. There was absolutely no reason to invade the country.

    There should've been a warrant issued for crimes against humanity, one country should have been assigned by the U.N. to secure him in custody. A full invasion of the country wasn't necessary.

    1. Gypsy Willow profile image80
      Gypsy Willowposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Totally agree with cagsil. Mosad would have taken him out without a doubt. The destruction of Iraq is a sin by any religious term.

    2. 0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Sarcasm.  Sorry, it's hard to get through with text sometimes.  I figured most people who respond to the forums already know i am a lefty.

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I know you're on the left side. wink But, did miss the sarcasm. My bad. wink

  3. JSChams profile image61
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    We are all aware that the original push to get Saddam came from the Clinton administration right?
    With the same WMD evidence?

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

    1. 0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I don't see how this is relevant to the argument that Bush's hollow mind pushed for a war that could very well end up making the world a more dangerous place than before.

      1. JSChams profile image61
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You are kidding right? Clinton and the Dems of his day get a pass for asking to do the same thing and using the same intel?

        1. 0
          Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Clinton sucked,  but he isn't the one who ordered the invasion of Iraq tongue.

          1. JSChams profile image61
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Oh yes he did. He got Congressional approval it just never occurred.
            You don't know any of this do you?

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoI … plpp_video

            I'm not surprised...can't have any blame on a Democrat.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image84
              PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              He ordered air strikes, not an invasion.  Do you have a problem telling the truth, or are you unable to understand the difference?

              http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hist … ck-on-iraq

              1. JSChams profile image61
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You know I already used Snopes, a favorite of the left when they want to slap someone, to show you the truth.
                You can't handle the truth?

                1. Cagsil profile image60
                  Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Hey JSChams, air strikes are not invasion. Get it or not?

                  1. JSChams profile image61
                    JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Hey Cags...


                    THE SAME INTELLIGENCE
                    THE SAME
                    that everyone said Bush lied about was used.

                    THAT PEOPLE IS MY POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
                    All I here is Bush lied.
                    I think he was lied to but believed it.
                    So who lied first?

                2. Josak profile image59
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You are wrong, a bombing campaign was suggested and approved but no invasion.

                  1. JSChams profile image61
                    JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Josak:

                    All that was planned ON THE SAME FRIGGING INTELLIGENCE that everybody claims Bush lied about.
                    Who lied?
                    Somebody lied before Bush now did they not?
                    Actually there were chemical weapons at the least. Just ask the Kurds.

      2. Pearldiver profile image88
        Pearldiverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Like your post... his held a subtle sarcastic spike!  smile

        Did you miss that very distant reference to Monica's influence?  big_smile

        [Great.... it's being covered up by another subtle response sad ]

  4. maxoxam41 profile image79
    maxoxam41posted 4 years ago

    What did we think will happen with Iraq. We went, we pilfered, we left! As we did in Afghanistan... When alliances are made such as the one with the U.S., Israel, Europe, why wouldn't oppressed countries ruined by the U.S. military interventions gathered to form a block? Since every U.S. action is driven by economical interests, it is fair, that their victims react negatively (adopt an oil related policy generating world ire or favor political and economical partnerships that will trigger worldwide discontent). Our neocons' greed are getting their paybacks!

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      +1

  5. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    "The most recent major report on these costs come from Brown University in the form of the Costs of War project,[1] which said the total for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is at least $3.2-4 trillion.[2] The report disavowed previous estimates of the Iraq War's cost as being under $1 trillion, saying the Department of Defense's direct spending on Iraq totaled at least $757.8 billion, but also highlighting the complementary costs at home, such as interest paid on the funds borrowed to finance the wars and a potential nearly $1 trillion in extra spending to care for veterans returning from combat through 2050."

  6. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    Military Industrial Banker Complex.

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Short and simply stated. smile

    2. Hollie Thomas profile image61
      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      yep, how much better off the world would be without them.

  7. JSChams profile image61
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    It's amazing.

    Can someone explain to me why one party lies about something and we turn our head and the other party lies about the very same thing and that is the most hideous evil imaginable????????

    I am watching this unfold right here on this forum. No one will admit the Democrats plotted years before Bush to do exactly the same evil they lay on him with the same intelligence. It's like complete taboo to admit it isn't it?

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Not at all, it's just that your claims make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

    2. Cody Hodge profile image85
      Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Clinton:

      Ordered airstrikes in an effort to keep Saddam isolated so other nations in the region wouldn't be affected.

      Bush:

      Became the first president in American history to order an invasion of a country that had not previously attacked us.

      1. JSChams profile image61
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You still either don't get the point or you won't look at it.
        Did Bush lie? Why?
        If so he followed the Clinton lie.

        Do you not see that?

  8. JSChams profile image61
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    I hear nothing but crickets.........

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      So you bump the thread to get attention or to bring this pathetic thread back to the top of the forums for what reason exactly?

      You were the last one to post and if no one else chose to respond, then so be it to this being a dead thread. There's no rhyme or reason for you to bother with it any longer.

      Beating a dead horse isn't going to accomplish anything meaningful. hmm

      1. JSChams profile image61
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Actually I am a little disappointed. I thought you would see the truth of this but I guess not.

  9. JBrumett profile image59
    JBrumettposted 4 years ago

    Speaking from a perspective of someone who was on the ground during the war.  You guys beat yourselves up over this a weeeee bit to much.  Self inflicted wounds anyone?  I moved on, everyone I know moved on.  Let it go.   =-P

 
working