Who is winning in Iraq?

Four years later and half a million dead people, what has Bush purchased for this optional blood sacrifice?

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• apache
• iraq
• war
• gun
• camera
• farmers
• insurgents
• massacre
• crime
• analysis
• marines
• USAF
• terrorist

[sc0pl355]

Ok, let's say there's this guy. Let's call him Tom.

He's a big guy that feels he has to be an asshole to everybody until one day a small guy... Let's call him Bill... throws a few rocks, two of which hit Tom in the head, causing some bleeding.

Tom chases Bill, but can't catch him. So he beats the daylights out of another boy named Joe. Joe had nothing to do with what Bill did.

Is this honorable?

[sc0pl355]

"Americas #1 mission was to make them adopt a non totalitarian government which they are doing"

No and No

Mission #1 was to find and destroy their weapons of mass destruction, which didn't exist.

Our government was perfectly happy to have Iraq under some kind of totalitarian rule. After all, it was OUR government that helped the Baath party and Saddam Heussein rise to power to begin with.

[vaultbull706]

where did those statistics come from

[smileyking96]

@sc0pl355 Oil. Lol.

[grimblebrumble17889]

@lonewolfM16 So your reasoning is to only fight countries that are unable to defend themselves. There wanst suspicion of WMDs, they said there was certainty. They were certain. Now they either lied or they were wrong. Either way someone (namely the man in charge) must be punished. That was the entire premise for war. And I see absolutley no parallel between Iraq and Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany had armed forces that were the best in the world and had half the world under their boot.

[lonewolfM16]

@grimblebrumble17889 it wasnt near as bad as afghanastan but the oppression still existed. also in edtion to liberation we had goals of stopping a terrorist threat to our nation. also north korea would send us to a long and costly war probably involveing china. we had military reasons to invade a country which presented a great threat and yes suspicion of wmds was another reason to invade. sometimes nations present a threat that must be dealt with to insure freedom. same idea as ww2.

[grimblebrumble17889]

@lonewolfM16 Women got an education in Iraq anyway. Iraq was perhaps one of the most secular of the muslim countries. And it is not for us to decide which countries to liberate. If you say it is for liberation why then are N Korea, Zimbabwe and many other countries still under dictatorships? And Iraq was not about liberation, it was about WMDs. They did not exist. And AQ was had no significant prescence in Iraq until late 2004.

[Zuifan]

@MatoVuc Nor is it necessarily an indicator that the oil companies are not in the shitter. For the record though, if you are responding to a comment that I made 3 months ago, then in all likeliness I will have already stopped caring.

[MatoVuc]

@Zuifan oil prices going up is not necessarily an indicator that the oil companies are in the shitter.

[vegalord]

@Zuifan the source was JOSHUA from the Movie War Games.

[Zuifan]

I'd say the only people winning are people not involved. Our soldiers are dying, so we're not exactly 'winning' their civilians are dying, so I'd say that they aren't winning either. Gas prices are still going up, so obviously oil companies aren't doing too great either. I forget the source, but it's a good lesson: sometimes the only way to win, is to not play at all.

[sc0pl355]

@lonewolfM16 Well, Saddam Heussein and Al Queida were not allied with each other. Iraq was a secular government. Al Quieda is a religious extremist group.

In fact, we helped Saddam Heussein fight the Iranians and he was our loyal servant until he invaded Kuwait.