Has the U.S. accomplished ANYTHING positive since the invasion?

Jump to Last Post 1-15 of 15 discussions (207 posts)

60
JeniferDposted 15 years ago
I really don't see how anything positive came out of invading South West Asia. We've lost thousands of U.S. lives, billions of U.S. dollars have been misappropriated, billions in U.S. military equipment have gone missing, and millions of Iraqi citizens have either been killed, wounded or displaced.

Maybe I'm missing something.
reply report
1. 0
  Poppa Bluesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe you didn't notice, that there is now a freely elected government and a mass murdering tyrant has been disposed.
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
  reply report
  0
  Poppa Bluesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  As usual your reactionary comments are without any merit or backing in fact. The bulk of the oil in Iraq is not going to the USA or US companies, nor is the output a significant amount to suppress prices. Prices now are because of reduced demand from the recession.
  
  Maybe you should check with the Iraqi Indians who traded the oil for trinkets from the blue coats.
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOLOL
  
  Are we still paying them off? LOLOLOLO
  reply report
  63
  bgamallposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry Popa you have it wrong. The general in charge said it was all about oil. The reserves are massive. The ceo of Chevron indicated that he wanted those reserves, in about 1998. Condosleaza Rice was a director for Chevron and quickly helped plan the war way before 911. You write on Hubpages, So quit being so naive.
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Define freely elected with regards to the current manipulations of the vote that is now being contested in Iraq.
  
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/0 … 24496.html
  
  While the oil coming out of the ground is going elsewhere who do you think is profiting from it? China gets access to lower oil prices that go into manufacturing products destined for the US and Big Business gets to continue their fleecing of the American economy through higher oil prices. A win win for them.
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, and we ignited a war between Shias and Sunnis; women's rights have suffered; half the Christians have been driven out of the country; and we created a magnet and training ground for crazed terrorists from all over the region. Not to mention that we probably have handed control of Iraq over to Iran.
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Shias and Sunnis have had problems for each other for centuries.
  
  Women's rights have always suffered under most Muslim country's rule.
  
  For many years Christians have been having problems with Muslims in Iraq.
  
  Iraq was already a training camp for terrorists before we got there:
  http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P … 0kmbzd.asp
  
  There are rumors that the US is actually planning an attack on Iran. Hopefully they will just stay rumors.
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  "Shias and Sunnis have had problems for each other for centuries.
  
  "Women's rights have always suffered under most Muslim country's rule.
  
  "For many years Christians have been having problems with Muslims in Iraq."
  
  You're right that there has never been any love lost between the Shias and Sunnis. However, like Tito in Yugoslavia, Saddam Hussein suppressed the conflict.
  
  Since the invasion it has not been safe to walk the streets of Baghdad or hardly anywhere in Iraq except the parts of the country controlled by the Kurds.
  
  Not to mention that the country has been plagued by daily electric power outages.
  
  Saddam Hussein didn't allow religious leaders to prevent women from being employed in a variety of capacities outside the home. He supported women's rights.
  
  The Christians were also protected by Saddam Hussein as long as they didn't become involved in anti-government activities. Of course he was quite ruthless toward anyone of whatever faith who opposed his rule.
  
  Since we invaded Iraq, as I said above, women and Christians have suffered as fundamentalist Shia clerics took control. Iran is Shia, and it's influence in Iraq has grown as a result of our reckless, costly, unnecessary, foolish invasion.
  reply report
  73
  earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well said Ralph. We should never have gone near the place! Iran has it's crazy zealots well entrenched in there now, and all we can do is get the hell out! You are right about the way things have gone downhill for women and minorities in Iraq.
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Excellent points. There is still hope however for something good to come out of this.
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I hope so. Everybody deserves to live in security and with respect for human rights and we owe it to the people of Iraq to do whatever we reasonably can to bring this about. I wish I were more optimistic.
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Apologists for the murdering dictator hussein. Unbelievable.
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Just the truth TK. You're an apologist for Bush. I'm not apologizing for anybody.
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  NO, just your subjective political bias. Did you ever ask an Iraqi about the country before Saddam was deposed?
  reply report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  There's a difference between calling 'em as you see 'em and apologizing for them. I sure didn't see anything from Ralph even hinting at an apology.
  
  Hope that helps.
  reply report
  60
  Valerie Fposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Right, Ralph. Everyone was protected by Saddam as long as they agreed with Saddam. And Iraq was a shiny, happy place until we came along, made up all that stuff about dumping chemical weapons on the Kurds, acid showers, and tortures that made Gitmo look like a picknick by comparison, and being found guilty of war crimes by his own people.
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Most Iraqis will tell you that we worsened the situation rather than improved it.
  reply report
  68
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Unfortunately, the real question is not that, but whether Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Perl-Wolfowitz etc had the right intentions. If they did, that's one thing. But did they? If they didn't, then the whole thing stinks.
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Both are real questions, and both are important questions. My answer is that we were lied into a war that benefited neither the Iraqis nor the U.S. There is slim hope that the Iraqis will ultimately benefit. I hope so.
  reply report
  68
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Both are real questions. But how you would go about deciding that Iraqis are better off or worse off in the long-term is anybody's guess isn't it? Right now, most are probably worse off. A generation from now, they will, I suspect be better off.
  
  But what do these things mean? God knows they weren't very well off under sanctions. Politically they have always done badly under Saddam, because they lived in a police state. Economically they did quite well.
  
  Certainly if you are a mother who has lost her children in the war you are not better off. I mean, that goes without saying. If you were a torture victim in an Iraqi prison under Saddam, maybe you are better off now.
  
  I don't and didn't support the American-British intervention into Iraq by military means, but I can see that there is something inherently good about doing away with a dictator.
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I stated above the facts why the Iraqis are worse off. Apparently you missed my comment. Why do you think they are better off?
  reply report
  68
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't say they were better off
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  " My answer is that we were lied into a war"
  
  But of course you can't prove that.
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  "Most Iraqis will tell you that we worsened the situation rather than improved it."
  
  Most Iraqis wanted saddam gone. He's gone.
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Both statements may be true. Many Iraqis wanted Saddam gone, but many are clearly not better off. Your thought processes are infantile.
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for yet another insult. It reflects well on you.
  reply report
  68
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I think you are right to challenge the assertion that suggests that we can know what "most Iraqis" think. My guess (and it is a GUESS) is that most Iraqis wanted Saddam gone, ALL Iraqis wanted sanctions lifted, as it was literally killing them (or at least their children), and that most Iraqis also now want the British and Americans gone. But I am not in Iraq. So I don't know.
  
  As to the issue of whether the People were lied to, I know more about the British situation, and I can say that there things smell very badly indeed. This whole Niger thing, for example. I don't know how Mr Blair thinks, because I have never been in his head, but he and his government in general seemed to operate on some very "strange" principles
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  "My guess (and it is a GUESS) is that most Iraqis wanted Saddam gone, ALL Iraqis wanted sanctions lifted, as it was literally killing them (or at least their children), and that most Iraqis also now want the British and Americans gone"
  
  My guess is that your guess is pretty close.
  reply report
  68
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Iraq sucked under Saddam. Saddam specifically read biographies of Hitler and Stalin and deliberately modeled his regime on theirs (so it is said, anyway). In the 1970s he had people in parliament taken away before the eyes of everyone else, so they knew who was boss. And, of course, he started the murderous war against Iran, in which thousands of innocent people on both sides died, were maimed, or left bereft and/or homeless. (It's true he was backed by much of the West in doing so, but it was still he who did it; he is hardly blameless!).
  
  The question to me is not one of whether the world had a responsibility to get rid of him. I think it did. (Same goes for the Taliban.) The question for me is whether war and invasion are the best way to do such things.
  
  I am not saying I have an alternative method on hand. But, I mean, if there was a dictator running Britain, should the US bomb the crap out of it to get rid of that dictator? Again, I am not saying there is an obvious alternative. But I am saying, as the expression goes: If they can put a man on the moon surely there's nothing they can't do, with enough foresight, thought, and effort.
  
  Just my thoughts. Saddam was bad. War is bad. Are these really the only two possibilities? Maybe. But surely someone could've come up with something else.
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  There is no shortage of tyrants in the world not to mention starvation, malnourishment, poverty, earthquake victims and so forth. The question is whether it is in the interest of the U.S. to deal with these problems. There were surely other humanitarian situations that should have come before Iraq, if that's your justification.
  reply report
  68
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I am not sure how you decide what situation, in terms of humanitarianism, is "most" important, but I guess my response is that the US (and other countries) do make efforts to address malnourishment, poverty and disaster relief. It's not either or. I'm not saying how good a job is done, but that isn't the question (right now, on this thread). There is indeed no shortage of tyrants in the world, but who would sensibly go after them all at once. Clearly going after one is a mammoth enough task on its own.
  
  The question of a country's self-interest versus its obligations to be a good humanitarian are probably roughly parallel to the same question for individuals and families. Who is to say what the right balance is? I don't know, frankly.
  
  In any event, let's face it, there is a pretty good chance that Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, the Bush family, and so on were not interested in humanitarianism. I would also have to ask how interested they were in America's interests, though that is a more complex question
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  "Iraq sucked under Saddam. Saddam specifically read biographies of Hitler and Stalin and deliberately modeled his regime on theirs (so it is said, anyway). In the 1970s he had people in parliament taken away before the eyes of everyone else, so they knew who was boss. And, of course, he started the murderous war against Iran, in which thousands of innocent people on both sides died, were maimed, or left bereft and/or homeless. (It's true he was backed by much of the West in doing so, but it was still he who did it; he is hardly blameless!).
  
  The question to me is not one of whether the world had a responsibility to get rid of him. I think it did. (Same goes for the Taliban.) The question for me is whether war and invasion are the best way to do such things.
  
  I am not saying I have an alternative method on hand. But, I mean, if there was a dictator running Britain, should the US bomb the crap out of it to get rid of that dictator? Again, I am not saying there is an obvious alternative. But I am saying, as the expression goes: If they can put a man on the moon surely there's nothing they can't do, with enough foresight, thought, and effort.
  
  Just my thoughts. Saddam was bad. War is bad. Are these really the only two possibilities? Maybe. But surely someone could've come up with something else."
  
  Good, well thought-out comments. Good post.
  reply report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You are right, of course. But the question is was the effort worth the monetary cost? One of the reasons our economy is in the (toilet) tank is this expenditure on war.
  
  Oh sure the people who make weapons and provide security came out OK. Some much better than OK. But a lot of other Americans didn't. And it sure hasn't killed the threat of terrorism.
  reply report
2. 60
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Is oil under $100 a barrel?
  
  What are the stocks of the armament makers doing?
  
  Is Citibank doing OK?
  
  What did you think war was about?
  reply report
3. 79
  soumyasrajanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  How can one expect achievements. USA seem to be fighting both sides in af-pak sector. It is financing and arming army top and feudal lords in Pakistan and some other similar countries. These are the rulers who are fiancing training arming foot soldiers of terror- taliban and al qaeda. USA army is fighting these foot soldiers. Thus it is fighting on both sides. Almost similar action it is taking with China in economy. What type of achievements one can expect in such perpetual involvement and self destruction.
  reply report
4. 84
  manlypoetrymanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Along with capturing Saddam Hussein...and removing him from power. You have this as a big landmark...in my opinion:
  
  http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq … news_N.htm
  
  Although...you have a right to question this action in Iraq...and there are alot of questions. I wonder what kind of question the veteran who went over there and went into harm's way...has when he/she reads this? Just saying...
  reply report
5. 60
  JON EWALLposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  SIMPLY AN ACT OF CHARITY AND FREEDOM
  
  EVIL HAS NO BONDARIES
  reply report
  61
  Doug Hughesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, American oil companies liberated the oil. Real Charity.
  
  You think we would have invaded Iraq if the major export was cumquats?
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  American service men and women have fought and died for our national interests. Oil companies (ooh, the boogey man!) did not liberate Iraq and it is deeply offensive for you to make some 'cute' little joke belittling their service and sacrifice just to flatter your own political prejudice.
  
  Show some class for goodness sake.
  reply report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Where's that $2.00 a gallon gasoline again?
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Of course we would have. We eliminated a despot and planted a seed of democracy and human rights in the Middle East. Unfortunately the ground was barren and infertile. There were other despots but Saddam was the only one sitting on the fourth largest pool of oil in the world. Bush's Texas oil men buddies had nothing to do with it.
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  " We eliminated a despot and planted a seed of democracy and human rights in the Middle East. Unfortunately the ground was barren and infertile."
  
  What an incredibly offensive insult to the millions of Iraqis who have risked their lives time and again to participate in a democratic process and forge their nation's future. When was the last time YOU went to vote under the threat of being killed for it? Maybe you should consider whether YOU are as fit for democracy as they are.
  reply report
59
Ron Montgomeryposted 15 years ago
Waterboarding

Most people did not know what waterboarding even was until the occupation, or that lawyers could magically turn it from torture into an "enhanced interrogation technique".

Plus... freedom fries.
reply report
61
secularist10posted 15 years ago
Has the invasion accomplished anything?

Short answer: no.

Long answer: yes, *something* positive has been accomplished (elections are positive in and of themselves, for example), but insofar as those positive things are overwhelmed by the negatives, the net change is negative. And it will continue to be for some time to come.
reply report
68
wyanjenposted 15 years ago
We accomplished...

um...

reply report
61
Doug Hughesposted 15 years ago
Not for weak stomachs -

Here's some of what we accomplished. Declassified video with audio of some low-life bastards in uniform.

http://collateralmurder.com/
reply report
1. 60
  Padrinoposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And it must be true.
  
  i seen it on youtube
  
  derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
  reply report
  61
  Doug Hughesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  and your point is???
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  His point is that the video is not solid evidence. It has been altered by wikileaks. Let me try and find the article that discussed it...
  
  Sorry, I can't find it. I remember reading it earlier today though on a news website. If I locate it I'll put it here.
  reply report
  60
  Padrinoposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I have provided the link elsewhere, don't bother this guy hates the military and the U.S. and will believe any propaganda against it!
  
  I'm pretty sure their are some pro-Nazi films in existence that he probably thinks are important and eye opening!
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Oh yeah! I remember now, it was your link. *Facepalm*
  reply report
  60
  Padrinoposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It happens!
  reply report
  61
  Doug Hughesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Excuse me??????
  
  I don't hate the military. I am a Viet Nam era veteran.
  
  However, I have NO sympathy for criminals in uniform. We don't need racist psychopaths in helos shooting civilians out of sadism.
  
  I am NOT saying that most troops are like that - quite the opposite. Which is why an incident as well documented as this one should result in criminal prosecution of the perp(s) and anyone in the chain of command who tried to cover it up.
  
  If you search, you can find the orginal declassified film - and it's gong to show the same truth as what you want to casually dismiss. War crimes are war crimes - - it doesn't change just because the criminal has a uniform with a US flag.
  reply report
  60
  Padrinoposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Did the men in the video actually say anything racist? I don't remember hearing that. Is it criminal to kill those who you thought had weapons and were the enemy? The men did follow protocol when it came to shooting orders.
  
  What they said I attribute to extreme stress and anxiousness and to some attempt at justification for themselves.
  reply report
  60
  Valerie Fposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Are you talking about the same "criminals" who ordered a medevac of the children their own father endangered?
  reply report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  There are both a short and long version of the video. The "alteration" is the addition of subtitles. If anything the subtitles are "kinder" to the participants than the actual recording.
  reply report
  60
  Padrinoposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And that whole rocket launcher that was ignored, but hey, what does a rocket launcher have to do with terrorists?
  reply report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What "rocket launcher?" I didn't see that or an RPG. That the gunship pilot mentioned them doesn't mean they were actually there.
  
  Another thing I didn't see that was AK47s. I saw one person with anything that might have been considered a weapon. It was a camera hanging off his left side by the strap. Every other individual in the film had both hands empty.
  
  I too am a vet and know what the frig these things look like. I also know what a camera in it's case hanging from a shoulder strap looks like. Guess the gunship jockey didn't know that himself.
  
  The video is clearly real. The delay between the shots and the rounds hitting the ground, the sound of the guns from within the cockpit, the dust kicked up and the occasional flying body parts are all in line with what I've seen with my own two eyes.
  reply report
  60
  Padrinoposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You sure didn't see it! But you saw the camera's, I know, I know, everybody is a vet these days, thanks for serving.
  reply report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  When did you serve?
  
  Bet you didn't. Know why? You don't know what the frig you are looking at that's why.
  reply report
  60
  Padrinoposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  How much would you like to wager?
  reply report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What the hell does that mean hoss?
  reply report
  60
  Padrinoposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What do you think it means, little joe?
  reply report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Explain it. "...everybody is a vet these days."
  
  I'd say just the tone of that phrase indicates disbelief.
  
  But that's fair. Your challenge to a bet tells me your full of it.
  reply report
  60
  Padrinoposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Explain it?
  
  Ok, most internet tough guys claim they are veterans, I consider you an internet tough guy!
  
  Explanation enough?
  
  Oh yeah, I don't care what you think I'm full of, I have a DD-214
  
  Need me to explain that?
  reply report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  In other words you are calling me a liar.
  
  I see. Well you have a right to your opinion even if it's based on bovine excrement, a bloated sense of self-worth, and an "internet tough-guy" persona of your own.
  
  You didn't serve. Your vision is so bad you'd have been rejected on medical.
  report
  60
  Padrinoposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  My vision isn't that great and it wasn't in 2007 either, but it was excellent 45 years ago when I enlisted.
  report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Apparently not excellent enough to tell a pointing arm from an RPG or a hanging camera case from a side-arm.
  report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You edited.
  
  So you have discharge papers. Wow! I'm impressed. So tell me smart guy, what's the DD stand for?
  report
  60
  Padrinoposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You need me to explain that too?
  report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yup! Mighty self-important aren't you? Like most of you John Wayne lovers.
  report
  60
  Padrinoposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Whatever you say internet tough guy with great vision, DD? Jeebus, that's classic.
  report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yup, you know what an RPG and sidearm look like even when they aren't there. Classic!
  report
  60
  Padrinoposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Prove they aren't there!
  
  Anyway, going out with the wife Sergent York, try and keep yourself under control.
  report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The wikileaks released version was actually altered by more than just subtitles, they slowed the video down for certain parts or something like that.
  reply report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry I missed this.
  
  So they slowed it down. They also digitally zoomed in. I supposed you could call it an alteration. But by that standard so would changing the brightness and contrast.
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No problem.
  
  My point is though that it gives a false perspective for the people watching the video. They slowed it for the parts showing the camera/"rpg" and the men carrying "Ak-47s"/whatever they were. This allowed the viewer to have more time to watch and analyze those parts compared to the helicopter crew, who really only had a short while to make decisions and then relay them back to their commanders.
  reply report
  60
  Padrinoposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That you should believe every edited thing you see on youtube!
  
  Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
  reply report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, sure. I heard the same sort of thing when I pointed out the first IED exploded in Iraq one week to the day after Bremer determined not to pay the disbanded Iraqi army.
  
  Coincidence? Maybe, but not likely.
  reply report
60
Padrinoposted 15 years ago
I think the U.S. has done pretty well since invading Europe, what's the problem?
reply report
1. 61
  cally2posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And they are still there. 65 years after the end of WWII
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And some people have forgotten to appreciate why.
  reply report
2. 70
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Track record for flops could be one, or many.
  
  Korea
  Vietnam
  Panama
  Somalia
  Beirut
  etc.........
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Why list Korea among "flops"?
  reply report
  65
  Greek Oneposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  World War II was kind of a big win
  reply report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Half a Korea then?
  reply report
  59
  Ron Montgomeryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hopefully the half that makes kim chee
  
  mmmmmm, fermented cabbage
  reply report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Actually tried that for the first time a few months ago. I liked it. Sort of a pickled hot cabbage.
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  First time?! You gotta try some other Korean food - it's great.
  reply report
0
Poppa Bluesposted 15 years ago
The question was what "good" came out of the war, not what "bad" came out of it.

Like any endeavor orchestrated by nature or man, there is a light and dark side, a good and an evil, a positive and negative. It is our politics and are personality that dictates which portion of those equations receive our focus. If you look for the good in things you will find it just as if you look for the bad you will find it.
reply report
1. 70
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  To truly answer the question you need to ask what good came out of it for who?
  
  If you are on the US end of it yes we did depose a brutal dictator and install our brand of government with blinding speed. The negative side of that equation is that the US installed him with a military to back him up and supported him until he became a headache. Then we overthrew him and started a civil war for the country.
  
  For some Iraqis Saddam represented stability and order. He provided many modern conveniences and services for his constituency. The negative side was the lack of common law and consistant defending of personal rights. But that is typical when you have a dictator.
  
  The US decided to change all that and acted without provocation to overthrow him.
  
  Who gave the US that right?
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  "For some Iraqis Saddam represented stability and order."
  
  Only for those who gained through his terror and intimidation advantage over the majority of the nation.
  reply report
59
Greg Cremiaposted 15 years ago
I have an Iraqi client who says we set the country back 80 years. The running water is gone, the electricity is gone, the farms are all destroyed, the sand storms are the worst the region has ever seen because of the destruction and the people don't want a democracy.

When you think about it, democracy is all about having a choice. When democracy is forced on a population it goes against the fundamentals of democracy and the people resent it. Look at the resentment here in America when democracy doesn't work the way everybody wants.
reply report
1. 70
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I too have had Iraqi clients that have expressed the same opinion. They also expressed the animosity they feel towards the US for killing family members that were innocent bystanders.
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  There are plenty of Iraqis in the Detroit area. Almost universally thay think Iraq was better off before our invasion. Most of them say that Iraq "needs a strong man" to keep the lid on the conflicts. Most of the ones I've talked to are Christians who have emigrated to the U.S.
  
  One other point about Saddam--he didn't allow al Qaida terrorists in the country.
  reply report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Right! He didn't want the competition.
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  "Almost universally thay think Iraq was better off before our invasion. "
  
  Provide some proof of that or stop promoting your own political bias dishonestly.
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I'm just repeating what I've heard from 20 or more Iraqi Americans most of whom are in touch with relatives in Iraq and who have followed the situation closely. Some supported Bush's folly initially, but I haven't heard any support recently.
  If you don't believe what I said that's your problem. Several others have said in earlier comments that they have heard essentially the same things from Iraqis now living in this country.
  reply report
  59
  Ron Montgomeryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That boy's a hoot ain't he?
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Does anyone think things have worked out just perfectly for the people of Iraq? That would be a ridiculous thing to say. But as you came close to admitting, the people of Iraq very much wanted that murdering scum and his regime gone. You had said, "Almost universally thay think Iraq was better off before our invasion" and that is where you blended in your own politics.
  reply report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Stop telling others what to provide.
  
  Jeebus!
  
  You wing-nuts sure assume a lot of authority. Authority NO ONE gave you. Tell you what hot-shot, you start signing my paycheck and I might do what you say. I require $5,000 a week...minimum.
  reply report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yup. Crickets!
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Do you have any other stream-of-consciousness, completely unrelated things to say?
  
  reply report
2. 0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You know, democracy was forced upon the American and French people who wanted to follow their kings after/during their respective revolutions and it turned out pretty well for them.
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Semantics. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Not really...
  reply report
  59
  Greg Cremiaposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  @lengednary
  
  What was George Washington and the Revolutionary Army fighting for?
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Separation from the British Empire. You know, only about 30% of Americans supported the war, while 30% were neutral, and 30% supported the crown.
  reply report
  59
  Greg Cremiaposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Only 30% didn't want the Democracy imposed on them by their brethren, friends and neighbors. This is a big difference from stranger's political impositions.
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It doesn't matter, it still follows my point that democracy can be forced upon people.
  reply report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  True, but democracy was forced on the British Loyalists in a very diplomatic way. I think the constitution bears witness to that.
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It didn't work like that for the French loyalists.
  reply report
  65
  Greek Oneposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Democracy was forced on the British Loyalists through tar and feathering
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Righto.
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  By who? The British?
  
  The American Revolution was fought to free us from England and their ruling over us without representation. There were enough colonists that wished to stop this and mounted a war to win that freedom.
  
  The concept is simple. We fought our own war to win our freedom. No one else fought it in our stead or decided we should have it.
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Only 30%.
  
  Yeah, those pesky French did absolutely nothing to help us, just like were doing absolutely nothing to help the pro-democracy forces of Iraq and Afghanistan...
  reply report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Regardless, there were a large number of New Yorkers who gave, hosted, and financed parties in both Clinton and Cornwallis' honors. New York was hardly a "rebel stronghold."
  
  Not quite. The French, Spanish, and Dutch freely contributed commanders and supplies to American independence. France ships and troops. Baron von Stuben, in particular, an Austrian colonel wrote the drill manual that the United States used until 1812. He also served as Washington's chief of staff.
  
  The British also had the help of German, Hesse (Hessian), and Brunswick Hanover troops. Mostly mercenaries.
  
  It wasn't strictly a British against colonist war. France and Spain participated in order to stunt Britain's expansionist plans for the world.
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  "Behold the conquering hero" should be the name of that tune as nothing can be forced upon people with any lasting acceptance merely because it is forced upon you.
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes it can.
  
  Religion.
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Please explain your concept.
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Religion has been forced upon conquered people for thousands of years and they eventually learned to accept it.
  reply report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Like the Jews?
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LegendaryHero
  
  You know, democracy was forced upon the American and French people who wanted to follow their kings after/during their respective revolutions and it turned out pretty well for them.
  
  Who forced it on them? The struggle came from within as well it should with Iraq and Afghanistan. It took a Civil War to cement it into our brains that we were a "UNITED STATES" with democracy as our form of government.
  
  No one ever gave a country freedom. They all earned it on their own with their own blood. The only thing we have taught people with our meddling in their affairs is that the one with the latest and best weapons is in charge.
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Your saying their were never any pro-democracy Iraqis and Afghans?
  
  The British Empire did.
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  There absolutely are pro democracy Iraqis and Afghans. Let them fight their own fight.
  
  This is so reminiscent of Vietnam. Because there are some who wish our help to overthrow their government, should we become embroiled in a nation makeover?
  
  The British Empire did what?
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Gave countries freedom, when they had them leave the empire.
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Why shouldn't we aid them?
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Giving aid such as the French did for us during the Revolution is a lot different then fighting the war for them.
  
  There were mercenaries from France and Hessians but they were very few and not sent at the behest of their governments.
  
  Let them fight their own fight.
  reply report
  65
  Greek Oneposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  "French involvement proved decisive, with a French naval victory in the Chesapeake leading at Yorktown in 1781 to the surrender of a second British army."
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes the French were incremental in defeating Cornwalis at Yorktown but did they fight the war for us? And were they fighting against us? No.
  
  As I said before the Iraqis and the Afghanis need to win their own civil wars and define a government that they choose. We can't give it to them.
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  They're supplies and financial assistance practically did.
  
  Yes, American loyalists signed up with the British Army.
  reply report
  65
  Greek Oneposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  From what I can find on line, thousands of Frenchmen fought and at least 1000 died
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The only solid number I could find is 6000 though I'm pretty sure it was more total.
  
  The French did provide over one billion livre tournois (money) which was enough to supply over 300,000 American soldiers and militia men.
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Not really. The French basically had to supply us with everything. And "French financial assistance to the American war effort was of critical importance"
  
  Very few? And the French weren't mercenaries, they were soldiers.
  
  "Over the course of the war, Great Britain signed treaties with various German states, which supplied about 30,000 soldiers. Germans made up about one-third of the British troop strength in North America.
  
  "Support became more notable when in 1780, 6,000 soldiers led by Rochambeau were sent to America. In 1779, 6,000 French had already faced 3,000 British in the Siege of Savannah."
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If you take ques from the American Revolution and apply them to our helping Iraq or Afghanistan the scenario is quite different.
  
  In Iraq the Iraqis could equate to the American role of fighting for their freedom. The Americans are much like the British in their invasion to determine the outcome and Irans role is much like the French. The British and other UN forces could be considered much of a Hessian (German) role.
  
  Afghanistan would look much the same way.
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Its not completely the same as the American Revolution, I was just using that as a point that democracy can be forced upon people.
  
  With this war you can't equate any groups to any American Revolutions groups.
  reply report
  65
  Greek Oneposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The real point is, when is the US finally going to apologies to the British and finally seek reunification under the Crown?
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  "If you take ques from the American Revolution and apply them to our helping Iraq or Afghanistan the scenario is quite different.
  
  In Iraq the Iraqis could equate to the American role of fighting for their freedom. The Americans are much like the British in their invasion to determine the outcome and Irans role is much like the French. The British and other UN forces could be considered much of a Hessian (German) role.
  
  Afghanistan would look much the same way"
  
  That is one of the worst and least appropriate comparisons I've ever seen.
  reply report
3. 60
  JeniferDposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  My thoughts exactly. When I was in SWA in 1991, my division was all set to roll into Baghdad and #41 told us, "Go home". I knew we'd be back in SWA, it was just a matter of time. Yes, the U.S. made a big mess over there that's going to take decades to clean up.
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you for your service to our country and I am glad you made it out of there.
  
  Do you think we can afford to stay the decades it will take to clean up the mess?
  reply report
4. 57
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  To say that the Iraqi people, who have more than once bravely faced down the very significant prospect of death for themeselves and their families in order to cast their votes and forge their nation's future, "don't want democracy" is patently false and unbelievably offensive.
  reply report
  59
  Greg Cremiaposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I guess you know more about the Iraqi people than my Iraqi friend does.
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Oh? Now do we add up how many Iraqis we both know and the higher number is the 'winner'? Does that make sense to you? I described a historic truth.
  reply report
  59
  Greg Cremiaposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I described a historic truth.
  
  from your perspective not the Iraqi perspective.
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  An objective truth. Millions of Iraqis braved the threat of death to exercise their right to vote.
  reply report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thousands braved Saddam as we called for an uprising then walked away.
  
  You get as much respect as you give. You don't. Get over it.
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If you want to change the topic that's one thing, but it doesn't change the fact of what we were talking about.
  reply report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Worst...dodge...ever!
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I agree your dodge was clumsy and transparent.
  reply report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  My mistake. THIS was the worst dodge ever. Let me know when you are tired of the kindergarten "bounce off me; stick on you games."
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Let's see: We were discussing Iraqis risking their lives to vote, you suddenly change the subject to the first Gulf War and now you are trying to play at being exasperated? Do you really think no one notices what you are doing?
  reply report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No, you were attempting to change the topic of the thread which is "Has the U.S. accomplished ANYTHING positive since the invasion?"
  report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I think I'm the one who sidetracked it unfortunately with my invade Canada stuff.
  report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That tends to happen a lot here. Usually it indicates that a thread has run it's course.
  report
  69
  alternate poetposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I guess you must be a reasonable guy with moderate views that are clearly not rabid right wing vitriol - because you are being harassed by the same troll that stuck to me within three posts of arriving here.
  
  Hi -
  reply report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Some folks have interesting ideas when it comes to entertainment. That or mommy hasn't called bedtime yet.
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, now this is really useful stuff...
  
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Ah, but respect is earned not given. What you are talking about is politeness.
  reply report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Respect and the resulting politeness are presumed until proven to be pointless and wasted.
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You doth presume too much.
  reply report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  This is the way I was raised. Now if you are through pretending to be superior maybe we can get back to a discussion.
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I was actually just joking, meaning that you were presuming too much about Sab, my fault really, I thought the ye olde english would give it away, I should have been more clear...but anyways...
  
  I think this thread has already discussed everything.
  reply report
  59
  Ron Montgomeryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  That won't kill it though. Try a stake through the heart of it under a full moon.
  report
  70
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I just love it when the western mind applies its' understanding to the middle eastern culture.
  
  The Arab mind is totally different than what we expect. Terms such as "enemy of my enemy is my friend" just does not compute to our society. I am sorry Sab Oh but your take on the situation lacks reason or reliably explains what is going on over there. Maybe that is why the US has such a problem getting to the bottom line of this situation, too much self injected into the mix.
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  "The Arab mind is totally different than what we expect."
  
  That is ridiculous and deeply offensive.
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Once again you do not understand and take offense to something you are incapable of understanding as evidensed by your replies.
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I understand just fine, that's why I find your attitude offensive. Btw, that's a pretty weak attempt at evasion...
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  "Terms such as "enemy of my enemy is my friend" just does not compute to our society"
  
  Says who?
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Says most of the moral wingnuts in this country that find negotiating with your enemy offensive.
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You are obviously familiar with the expression. It is a common expression in the English language. Examples of it's use abound. "Just does not compute" makes no sense. You only mentioned it in an attempt to paint yourself as an 'expert' and alienating people from a certain part of the world as 'exotic' and 'inscrutible.' It's offensive and self-serving.
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Samantics on your part.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_enemy_ … _my_friend
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  When confronted with a truth insurmountable attack the messenger? Is that where you want this to go?
  
  Sorry, but I don't need to explain myself to you or look for your respect.
  
  I do however respect your opinion but you have proven through this exchange that you just wish to be argumentative and not logical by wanting to exchange personal attacks.
  
  If you can respond to the subject at hand I would very much like to continue but if you wish to sling mud i will take my leave and allow you to get your hands dirty needlessly.
  reply report
  57
  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  "Sorry, but I don't need to explain myself to you or look for your respect."
  
  Doesn't seem you're up to the task of either.
  
  If you don't like where this has gone, maybe you shouldn't have started by throwing out a sweeping, alienating generalization. I'm not a big fan of essentializing millions of people in one poorly-chosen remark and certainly not for the reason it was done so here.
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  From the master of sweeping, unsupported, alienating generalizations
  reply report
0
Poppa Bluesposted 15 years ago
Of course your point of view is critical in deciding what good came out of it, as well as what one considers a "good" thing or a "bad" thing. We all have to make our own judgements based upon our beliefs. I believe in freedom, so from my point of view freeing Iraqis from Saddam was a good thing, regardless of how Saddam came to be the dictator of the country.
reply report
1. 70
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I can appreciate that and I too will always side with the idea of freedom. This is where I grew up and the system I choose to live in.
  
  The problem comes when other people decide what is best for you and then put their efforts in achieving something that was not asked. No one ever gave anybody freedom. No country has ever achieved it for their people without earning it and in most cases with their own blood.
  
  Iraq has always been a political problem being solved with a military solution. The US just speeded up the process and fell into the trap of thinking that we could give them something they haven't earned on their own.
  reply report
65
Greek Oneposted 15 years ago
NOT that I am saying that it justified the invasion (or that it didn't lead to more problems), but I think this was a good thing...

reply report
1. 70
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Why should we expect any clarity in Iraq?
  
  With our own situation the only clarity is where the lines are drawn and not the issues that seem to be the resulting casualty.
  reply report
2. 74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You know, don't you, that this photograph violates the Geneva Conventions.
  reply report
  65
  Greek Oneposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I didnt take it.. I was the one behind the mask
  reply report
65
Greek Oneposted 15 years ago
sign... I miss more peaceful times

reply report
1. 70
  rhamsonposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  There is a little good in anything if you look for it.
  
  Take Hell for instance, if something so terrible was not a possibility there would be a lot more people getting into serious trouble. That could be a good thing.
  reply report
65
Greek Oneposted 15 years ago
I wasn’t in favor of the war, but I could suppress internal conflicts too..

just give me a few thousand sadomasochists with enough weapons who need me for their jobs, and everything will be nice and calm
reply report
60
tobey100posted 15 years ago
What invasion???
reply report
1. 0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  This one!
  
  reply report
  65
  Greek Oneposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Do you wanta rematch even though you lost in 1812??
  
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  How do you plan on defending yourself with this?
  
  and with this?:
  
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Knock knock
  
  Who's there?
  
  AMERICA!!!!!!!!! KA-CHOW!!!!!
  
  reply report
  71
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It might be better if Canada annexed the United States before the Tea Bagging viral epidemic crosses the border.
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think those Texans would appreciate that...
  
  I'm pretty sure Texas would counter-annex Canadia.
  reply report
  65
  Greek Oneposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I think they would head back south after experiencing their first few snowflakes in Ohio
  reply report
70
rhamsonposted 15 years ago
Boy did this conversation go south in a hurry!
reply report
1. 65
  Greek Oneposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LegendaryHero made a direct threat to my liberty and my longstanding right to free healthcare!!!!
  
  He should apologies immediately
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
2. 0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If by south you mean awesome, then yes, yes it did.
  reply report
  65
  Greek Oneposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No need for a war after all.... we just finished the last battle with successful results…
  
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Ooo, low blow.
  
  *Shakes fist defiantly at the heavens* "Curse you Canadia!!!! Land of the Happy and home of the Beavers!!!
  reply report
  74
  LiamBeanposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Happy Beavers? Hmmm. Better leave it at that.
  reply report
  65
  Greek Oneposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  it's the name of the best "Gentleman's club' ever!
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  http://www.cracked.com/article_18454_oh … ghbor.html
  reply report
  65
  Greek Oneposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Just for you, Legendary....
  
  http://video.aol.ca/video-detail/93-ws- … /801768701
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well played sir.
  reply report
  0
  LegendaryHeroposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
65
Greek Oneposted 15 years ago
apology accepted
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Has the U.S. accomplished ANYTHING positive since the invasion?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Has the U.S. accomplished ANYTHING positive since the invasion?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies