jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (207 posts)

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

  1. JeniferD profile image61
    JeniferDposted 7 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.

    1. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe you didn't notice, that there is now a freely elected government and a mass murdering tyrant has been disposed.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO

        1. profile image0
          Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in 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.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            LOLOL

            Are we still paying them off? LOLOLOLO

          2. bgamall profile image84
            bgamallposted 7 years ago in 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.

      2. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 7 years ago in 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.

      3. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in 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.

        1. profile image0
          LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in 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.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
            Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in 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.

            1. earnestshub profile image87
              earnestshubposted 7 years ago in 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.

            2. profile image0
              LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Excellent points. There is still hope however for something good to come out of this.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
                Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in 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.

            3. Sab Oh profile image57
              Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Apologists for the murdering dictator hussein. Unbelievable.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
                Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Just the truth TK. You're an apologist for Bush. I'm not apologizing for anybody.

                1. Sab Oh profile image57
                  Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  NO, just your subjective political bias. Did you ever ask an Iraqi about the country before Saddam was deposed?

              2. LiamBean profile image88
                LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in 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.

            4. Valerie F profile image60
              Valerie Fposted 7 years ago in 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.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
                Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Most Iraqis will tell you that we worsened the situation rather than improved it.

                1. AdsenseStrategies profile image68
                  AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in 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.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
                    Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in 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.

                2. Sab Oh profile image57
                  Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in 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.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
                    Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in 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.

                  2. AdsenseStrategies profile image68
                    AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in 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

              2. AdsenseStrategies profile image68
                AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in 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.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
                  Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in 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.

                  1. AdsenseStrategies profile image68
                    AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in 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

                2. Sab Oh profile image57
                  Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in 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.

      4. LiamBean profile image88
        LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in 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.

    2. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in 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?

    3. profile image79
      soumyasrajanposted 7 years ago in 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.

    4. manlypoetryman profile image67
      manlypoetrymanposted 7 years ago in 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...

    5. JON EWALL profile image45
      JON EWALLposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      SIMPLY AN ACT OF CHARITY AND FREEDOM

      EVIL HAS NO BONDARIES

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in 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?

        1. Sab Oh profile image57
          Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in 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.

          1. LiamBean profile image88
            LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Where's that $2.00 a gallon gasoline again?

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
          Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in 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.

          1. Sab Oh profile image57
            Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in 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.

  2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 7 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.

  3. secularist10 profile image87
    secularist10posted 7 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.

  4. wyanjen profile image85
    wyanjenposted 7 years ago

    We accomplished...

    um...


    http://politicaldemotivation.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/bush_mission_accomplished.jpg?w=655

  5. Doug Hughes profile image60
    Doug Hughesposted 7 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/

    1. Padrino profile image56
      Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      And it must be true.

      i seen it on youtube

      derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        and your point is???

        1. profile image0
          LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in 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.

          1. Padrino profile image56
            Padrinoposted 7 years ago in 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!

            1. profile image0
              LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Oh yeah! I remember now, it was your link. *Facepalm*

              1. Padrino profile image56
                Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                It happens!

            2. Doug Hughes profile image60
              Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in 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.

              1. Padrino profile image56
                Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

              2. profile image0
                LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in 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.

              3. Valerie F profile image60
                Valerie Fposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Are you talking about the same "criminals" who ordered a medevac of the children their own father endangered?

          2. LiamBean profile image88
            LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in 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.

            1. Padrino profile image56
              Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              And that whole rocket launcher that was ignored, roll  but hey, what does a rocket launcher have to do with terrorists?

              1. LiamBean profile image88
                LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in 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.

                1. Padrino profile image56
                  Padrinoposted 7 years ago in 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.

                  1. LiamBean profile image88
                    LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in 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.

                  2. LiamBean profile image88
                    LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    What the hell does that mean hoss?

            2. profile image0
              LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in 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.

              1. LiamBean profile image88
                LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in 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.

                1. profile image0
                  LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in 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.

        2. Padrino profile image56
          Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          That you should believe every edited thing you see on youtube!

          Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

          1. LiamBean profile image88
            LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in 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.

  6. Padrino profile image56
    Padrinoposted 7 years ago

    I think the U.S. has done pretty well since invading Europe, what's the problem?

    1. cally2 profile image60
      cally2posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      And they are still there. 65 years after the end of WWII

      1. Sab Oh profile image57
        Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        And some people have forgotten to appreciate why.

    2. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Track record for flops could be one, or many.

      Korea
      Vietnam
      Panama
      Somalia
      Beirut
      etc.........

      1. Sab Oh profile image57
        Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Why list Korea among "flops"?

        1. Greek One profile image78
          Greek Oneposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          World War II was kind of a big win

        2. LiamBean profile image88
          LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Half a Korea then?

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
            Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Hopefully the half that makes kim chee


            mmmmmm, fermented cabbage

            1. LiamBean profile image88
              LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Actually tried that for the first time a few months ago. I liked it. Sort of a pickled hot cabbage.

              1. Sab Oh profile image57
                Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                First time?! You gotta try some other Korean food - it's great.

  7. profile image0
    Poppa Bluesposted 7 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.

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in 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?

      1. Sab Oh profile image57
        Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in 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.

  8. Greg Cremia profile image58
    Greg Cremiaposted 7 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.

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in 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.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in 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.

        1. LiamBean profile image88
          LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Right! He didn't want the competition.

        2. Sab Oh profile image57
          Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in 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.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
            Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in 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.

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              That boy's a hoot ain't he?

            2. Sab Oh profile image57
              Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in 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.

          2. LiamBean profile image88
            LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in 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.

            1. LiamBean profile image88
              LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Yup. Crickets!

              1. Sab Oh profile image57
                Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Do you have any other stream-of-consciousness, completely unrelated things to say?

                roll

    2. profile image0
      LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in 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.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Semantics. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

        1. profile image0
          LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Not really...

      2. Greg Cremia profile image58
        Greg Cremiaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        @lengednary

        What was George Washington and the Revolutionary Army fighting for?

        1. profile image0
          LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in 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.

          1. Greg Cremia profile image58
            Greg Cremiaposted 7 years ago in 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.

            1. profile image0
              LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              It doesn't matter, it still follows my point that democracy can be forced upon people.

              1. LiamBean profile image88
                LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in 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.

                1. profile image0
                  LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  It didn't work like that for the French loyalists.

                  1. Greek One profile image78
                    Greek Oneposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Democracy was forced on the British Loyalists through tar and feathering

              2. rhamson profile image76
                rhamsonposted 7 years ago in 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.

                1. profile image0
                  LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes it can.

                  Religion.

                  1. rhamson profile image76
                    rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Please explain your concept.

      3. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 7 years ago in 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.

        1. profile image0
          LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Your saying their were never any pro-democracy Iraqis and Afghans?



          The British Empire did.

          1. rhamson profile image76
            rhamsonposted 7 years ago in 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?

            1. profile image0
              LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Gave countries freedom, when they had them leave the empire.

            2. profile image0
              LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Why shouldn't we aid them?

              1. rhamson profile image76
                rhamsonposted 7 years ago in 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.

                1. Greek One profile image78
                  Greek Oneposted 7 years ago in 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."

                  1. rhamson profile image76
                    rhamsonposted 7 years ago in 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.

                2. profile image0
                  LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in 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."

                  1. rhamson profile image76
                    rhamsonposted 7 years ago in 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.

    3. JeniferD profile image61
      JeniferDposted 7 years ago in 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.

      1. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 7 years ago in 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?

    4. Sab Oh profile image57
      Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in 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.

      1. Greg Cremia profile image58
        Greg Cremiaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I guess you know more about the Iraqi people than my Iraqi friend does.

        1. Sab Oh profile image57
          Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in 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.

          1. Greg Cremia profile image58
            Greg Cremiaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I described a historic truth.

            from your perspective not the Iraqi perspective.

            1. Sab Oh profile image57
              Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              An objective truth. Millions of Iraqis braved the threat of death to exercise their right to vote.

              1. LiamBean profile image88
                LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in 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.

                1. Sab Oh profile image57
                  Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in 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.

                  1. LiamBean profile image88
                    LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Worst...dodge...ever!

                2. profile image0
                  LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Ah, but respect is earned not given. What you are talking about is politeness.

                  1. LiamBean profile image88
                    LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Respect and the resulting politeness are presumed until proven to be pointless and wasted.

      2. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 7 years ago in 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.

        1. Sab Oh profile image57
          Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          "The Arab mind is totally different than what we expect."

          That is ridiculous and deeply offensive.

          1. rhamson profile image76
            rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Once again you do not understand and take offense to something you are incapable of understanding as evidensed by your replies.

            1. Sab Oh profile image57
              Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I understand just fine, that's why I find your attitude offensive. Btw, that's a pretty weak attempt at evasion...

        2. Sab Oh profile image57
          Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          "Terms such as "enemy of my enemy is my friend" just does not compute to our society"

          Says who?

          1. rhamson profile image76
            rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Says most of the moral wingnuts in this country that find negotiating with your enemy offensive.

            1. Sab Oh profile image57
              Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in 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.

              1. rhamson profile image76
                rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this
              2. rhamson profile image76
                rhamsonposted 7 years ago in 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.

                1. Sab Oh profile image57
                  Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in 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.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
                    Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    From the master of sweeping, unsupported, alienating generalizations

  9. profile image0
    Poppa Bluesposted 7 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.

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in 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.

  10. Greek One profile image78
    Greek Oneposted 7 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...

    http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/Saddam1AP.jpg

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in 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.

    2. LiamBean profile image88
      LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You know, don't you, that this photograph violates the Geneva Conventions.

      1. Greek One profile image78
        Greek Oneposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I didnt take it.. I was the one behind the mask

  11. Greek One profile image78
    Greek Oneposted 7 years ago

    sign... I  miss more peaceful times

    http://www.schwartings.com/emailstuff/Pictures/Bush_Saddam.jpg

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in 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.

  12. Greek One profile image78
    Greek Oneposted 7 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

  13. tobey100 profile image61
    tobey100posted 7 years ago

    What invasion???

    1. profile image0
      LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      This one!

      http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/0907/invasion-of-canada-canada-our-s-in-two-hours-of-duty-time-demotivational-poster-1246480700.jpg

      1. Greek One profile image78
        Greek Oneposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Do you wanta rematch even though you lost in 1812??  tongue


        http://www.alliancecoin.com/images/gallery/images/upper_canada.jpg

        1. profile image0
          LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          How do you plan on defending yourself with this?

          http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/countries/canadas_army.jpg

          and with this?:

          http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0810/the-canadian-army-demotivational-poster-1224394955.jpg

        2. profile image0
          LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Knock knock

          Who's there?

          AMERICA!!!!!!!!! KA-CHOW!!!!!

          http://neveryetmelted.com/wp-images/KnockKnock.jpg

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        It might be better if Canada annexed the United States before the Tea Bagging viral epidemic crosses the border.

        1. profile image0
          LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I don't think those Texans would appreciate that... big_smile

          I'm pretty sure Texas would counter-annex Canadia.

          1. Greek One profile image78
            Greek Oneposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I think they would head back south after experiencing their first few snowflakes in Ohio

  14. rhamson profile image76
    rhamsonposted 7 years ago

    Boy did this conversation go south in a hurry!

    1. Greek One profile image78
      Greek Oneposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      LegendaryHero made a direct threat to my liberty and my longstanding right to free healthcare!!!!

      He should apologies immediately

      1. profile image0
        LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        lol

    2. profile image0
      LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      If by south you mean awesome, then yes, yes it did.

      1. Greek One profile image78
        Greek Oneposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        No need for a war after all.... we just finished the last battle with successful results…

        http://www.sportingnews.com/images/178392/article.jpeg

        1. profile image0
          LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Ooo, low blow.

          *Shakes fist defiantly at the heavens* "Curse you Canadia!!!! Land of the Happy and home of the Beavers!!!

          1. LiamBean profile image88
            LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Happy Beavers? Hmmm. Better leave it at that.

            1. Greek One profile image78
              Greek Oneposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              it's the name of the best "Gentleman's club' ever!

              1. profile image0
                LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in reply to this
                1. Greek One profile image78
                  Greek Oneposted 7 years ago in reply to this
                  1. profile image0
                    LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Well played sir.

            2. profile image0
              LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              http://i31.tinypic.com/99i3yg.jpg

  15. Greek One profile image78
    Greek Oneposted 7 years ago

    apology accepted

 
working