Thread: Iraq 10 Years after....
03-19-2013, 11:10 PM #1
Iraq 10 Years after....
4,500 Americans killed
over 150,000 Iraqs killed
between 1.7 to 2.2 TRILLION spent ...
60 Billion in reconstruction thus far
What have we won and lost?
03-19-2013, 11:27 PM #2
What have we won?
Well, we "defeated" a country that didn't attack us on 9/11, they were NOT building WMD's and the country was later torn apart by civil war.
What did we lose?
4,500 of our brave young men and women, our respect around the world, an insane amount of money that could've been spent to help our own citizens here, our credibility as a military force that obeys international law, and last but not least.....our dignity.
I'm glad it was worth it.
Logic and reason is all you need.
03-19-2013, 11:28 PM #3
Most people thought that Iraq was going to be a cakewalk and didn't plan seriously. That was the main problem with the US going into Iraq in the first place. There was no real plan once Saddam was thrown out of power. No way should it have taken nearly a decade. And the money that was wasted, over two trillion dollars. Makes my head hurt.
03-20-2013, 09:48 AM #4
If you guys know anyone who has served in Iraq, ask them what was won. Liberal media likes to paint the bleak, evil story of the horrible American military invading a poor little country (see Alex's regurgitated comment). The story they don't tell is how loved the troops are by the non-extremist citizens, which make up the bulk of the Iraqi citizenship. They are happy that for the first time in their history they get to have input into their society, government and future. They are happy to no longer be under the thumb of a dictator who viewed them as nothing more than subjects to do with as he pleased.
Here are some more numbers...
- Under Hussein, political participation was limited to the Ba'ath party which was just 8% of the population. The other 92% had no say in anything that went on in their country or community.
- In 1988 Hussein carried out attacks against Shi'ite Kurds in Northern Iraq that resulted in the death of somewhere between 50,000 and 180,000 Kurds, many of whom were women and children.
- In 1991, after being driven out of Kuwait, Hussein took his anger out on Kurds in the north and Shi'ites to the south, killing 20,000-100,000 Kurds and 60,000-130,000 Shi'ites.
- During the 1991 rebellion prisoners were freed from dungeons. Many of these prisoners thought that Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr was still president. He had not been president since 1979.
- The Iran-Iraq War resulted in the death of 500,000 Iraqis and 300,000 Iranians. At the end of the war, just for kicks, Hussein released gas against the Kurdish town of Halabja killing 3200-5000, mostly women and children.
- The Al-Anfal Campaign against Kurds and every other ethnic group in Northern Iraq lasted from 1986-1989 and resulted in the death of approximately 182,000 people.
Did we go into Iraq for the wrong reason? No. We just should have been honest about why we were doing it. It wasn't to find WMDs, it was to take down a dictator that was massacring innocent people and threatening stability in the region.
During his reign somewhere between 1.12 million and 1.4 million people died, most of them were citizens of his own country. If you don't think that putting an end to his regime was a worthwhile effort...well, I will leave it at that.
03-20-2013, 10:51 AM #5
Keep drinking the kool-aid Duane. Where were these "take down a dictator" plans when he was killing all these people? Bush Sr. didn't have a problem with him until he invaded Kuwait (Oil), Clinton didn't care what Hussein did during his Administration, and Junior only went along with Cheney and his defence contract cohorts at Haliburton when they thought they could sham the world with WMDs nonsense.
It has never had anything to do with doing the "right thing". It has always been about doing the "profitable thing".
03-20-2013, 12:09 PM #6
03-20-2013, 12:53 PM #7
03-20-2013, 01:08 PM #8
And no, Habs was right. It was all about profits. If it was about what you're saying, why Iraq? Why not somewhere else? Why not decide which countries are run by horrible people and take them all down at once?
Unless it was always about oil and profit. Then only attacking Iraq makes sense.
I also don't like the emotional "THE TROOPS!" argument. No one is saying a single word against, or even about the troops. This is about the people on top. Those who try to turn policy arguments into "You must hate the troops" type of arguments simply have nothing to say.Hidden Content
click to visit Black'N'Blueline
03-20-2013, 01:12 PM #9
I can't answer all of that because, as you know, there are lots of things that go into deciding what to do. It took years before the decision was made to go into Afghanistan because of fears that Russia would intervene. We still have done nothing about conditions in North Korea because of fears that China will get involved. It is not as cut and dry as just doing it.
The decision to invade Iraq was supported by many in the international community and an overwhelming majority of Americans. I find it interesting that George W. is demonized over Iraq when virtually everyone supported doing it. I guess it is easier for people to pass the blame and ignore their own demons rather than face a little reality.
03-20-2013, 01:14 PM #10