The question of the decade (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

jlf1961 -> The question of the decade (8/19/2010 6:57:58 PM)

quote:

JoyVBehar

I'm watching coverage of troops pulling out of Iraq. What exactly was the point of that war?


This came over my twitter account and considering all the false reasons given for going to war in Iraq, the question becomes very real.



servantforuse -> RE: The question of the decade (8/19/2010 7:03:02 PM)

Should we have not stopped Hitler ? Sometimes wars are necessary.



jlf1961 -> RE: The question of the decade (8/19/2010 7:04:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Should we have not stopped Hitler ? Sometimes wars are necessary.


Iraq was not trying to conquer the world... Hell Iraq was in economic chaos thanks to UN Sanctions.

Are you trying to justify the United States going to war with any country that has a dictator in power?



servantforuse -> RE: The question of the decade (8/19/2010 7:17:01 PM)

I would think that some are and some are not. Saddam was one worth getting rid of.



vincentML -> RE: The question of the decade (8/19/2010 7:17:52 PM)

Objectively, from the reports we get, it seems the Iraqi Sunni have been weakened, the Iraqi Shia have ascended, and Iran has been raised to a position of Middle East Hegemony. The Law of Unintended Consequences, no?



DCWoody -> RE: The question of the decade (8/19/2010 7:38:00 PM)

The point was obvious.

The point was to remove WMD from a potentially nutty regime....especially his son. The mad one.

That turned out to be a load of bollocks, but on the plus side....Saddam & Sons warmongers extrodinaire are now outta business, with fledging democracy there instead...which is great news for Iraqis, and the western world.

The question should be,
'Was it worth it in terms of the lives lost (western, Iraq was never healthy for Iraqis in the first place), the financial cost, and the casus belli for Islamic warriors?'


The answer is probably a question of time, and of not knowing whether the saner son would've calmed down Iraq onto eventual democracyish path anyways.



TtotheC -> RE: The question of the decade (8/19/2010 7:43:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

I would think that some are and some are not. Saddam was one worth getting rid of.


So why all the lies and half truths by various world leaders to get nations to go to war? 

In my opinion Iraq was not necessary, and as most likely cost NATO Afghanistan.  The will to sustain Afghanistan was hugely undermined by the fact that Iraq was shown to based on one huge lie - namely that WMDs existed, and Iraq had launch capabilities putting them just 45 minutes away from hitting Southern Europe.  Plus the finances of most NATO members are now in dire straits (Sultans of Swing!).  So we're stuck with another war which the public see little point in, other then it keeps the bogey man at bay.



juliaoceania -> RE: The question of the decade (8/19/2010 7:48:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Should we have not stopped Hitler ? Sometimes wars are necessary.


Oh come on[8|]



thornhappy -> RE: The question of the decade (8/19/2010 8:12:59 PM)

So were the past or current leaders of the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Burma, Indonesia, Syria (in the past), Libya (yes, we bombed him but didn't go back), etc.  If you're going by human rights abuses.
quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

I would think that some are and some are not. Saddam was one worth getting rid of.



praetorian1974 -> RE: The question of the decade (8/19/2010 8:19:13 PM)

Well, someone has to secure the resources so that Americans can keep living the lifestyle they have become so absurdly accustomed to.



Fellow -> RE: The question of the decade (8/19/2010 8:37:30 PM)

I heard originally they wanted to name it "Operation of Iraq Liberation" but then changed it to "Iraq Freedom" as the first acronym would read OIL.



ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: The question of the decade (8/19/2010 8:52:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

I would think that some are and some are not. Saddam was one worth getting rid of.


Worth a trillion dollars of your taxes?

Seriously?



AnimusRex -> RE: The question of the decade (8/19/2010 9:05:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: praetorian1974

Well, someone has to secure the resources so that Americans can keep living the lifestyle they have become so absurdly accustomed to.



For the win.

Sadly enough.



TtotheC -> RE: The question of the decade (8/19/2010 9:10:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: praetorian1974

Well, someone has to secure the resources so that Americans can keep living the lifestyle they have become so absurdly accustomed to.


Not just America though, if that makes you feel any better.



Hippiekinkster -> RE: The question of the decade (8/19/2010 9:19:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

I would think that some are and some are not. Saddam was one worth getting rid of.


More than Kim Jong Il? He only starved over 100,000 North Koreans to death. A piker compared to Saddam, at least it seems to be the way conservadroids "think", and I use the verb loosely.

Of course, Saddam was an A-rab, and we all know how conservadroids get all hot about killing A-rabs.

North Korea ain't got no oil.



Jeffff -> RE: The question of the decade (8/19/2010 9:36:03 PM)

But they DO have WMD's...... odd isn't it?



juliaoceania -> RE: The question of the decade (8/19/2010 9:48:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

I would think that some are and some are not. Saddam was one worth getting rid of.


More than Kim Jong Il? He only starved over 100,000 North Koreans to death. A piker compared to Saddam, at least it seems to be the way conservadroids "think", and I use the verb loosely.

Of course, Saddam was an A-rab, and we all know how conservadroids get all hot about killing A-rabs.

North Korea ain't got no oil.




Here is what happened to Saddam and the way we ignored North Korea did, it taught people, having weapons of mass destruction will protect you against a US invasion....



Hippiekinkster -> RE: The question of the decade (8/19/2010 9:48:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

But they DO have WMD's...... odd isn't it?

Most peculiar, Dr. Watson...



juliaoceania -> RE: The question of the decade (8/19/2010 9:50:13 PM)

Oh yeah... where you find G.O.D. you will also find the US military...

Guns Oil and Drugs



Hippiekinkster -> RE: The question of the decade (8/19/2010 10:05:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

I would think that some are and some are not. Saddam was one worth getting rid of.


More than Kim Jong Il? He only starved over 100,000 North Koreans to death. A piker compared to Saddam, at least it seems to be the way conservadroids "think", and I use the verb loosely.

Of course, Saddam was an A-rab, and we all know how conservadroids get all hot about killing A-rabs.

North Korea ain't got no oil.




Here is what we did to Saddam and the way we ignored North Korea did, it taught people, having weapons of mass destruction will protect you against a US invasion....

I'm not sure I can get overly excited about Iran pursuing a nuclear program. If I were sitting on a ton of oil, I would want to conserve as much of my inventory as possible for export, and use nuclear as a donestic power source. It makes no sense to burn oil that costs about $USD12 to lift out of the ground, when one can (mostly thanks to the unregulated shithead speculators at the CBOE and in London) sell it for $150 a barrel, and keep the change.

Slightly off topic, but worthy, I think, of consideration, is that, when oil was at $50 or $60 a barrel, Americans had a fairly easy go of things. When oil popped up to $150, and gas went from $1.50 to almost $4.00, all those people who bought houses in the far suburbs because of affordability, had to pay an extra several hundred dollars a month out of their discretionary. They needed gas to work, so mortgage payments fell behind, the default rate (which was insured against by the likes of AIG) went way above what they had predicted, and all the funny papier issued by Goldman, Merrill Lynch, et alia, crashed. Collapse of housing bubble.

And the stupid cocksuckers on the right think that a few minority families forcing mortgage brokers, thru pressure from Barney Frank, to give them money for houses is what led to the crash.

They couldn't connect the dots if the dots were all in a straight line from the top of a cliff to the bottom.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875