That was something I heard people start saying after a year of no WMDs being found. "We just had to take the evil Saddam out." More cognitive dissonance.
No they didn't, and they didn't in the first to stop an Arab superstate. If they had it might have been much more palatable although I doubt the people at home would have allowed it to happen.
I've already admitted that it's wrong to say there were no wmd's, however to claim that we found what was used to justify the war is wrong.
This was not why we went to war:
Emphasis on "long abandoned". Bush's pretense for war was bs, getting techincal about the defintion of a wmd isn't going to change that. That you refuse to address the singular point I've made is rather telling of how desperate your revisionism is.
I don't get it, was the war on Iraq (getting rid of Saddam) a good thing ("stop the genocide") or a bad thing ("but they were not WMD's even tho technically they were?") now?
Depends on what point the far left is trying to make.
__________________ posted by Badabing
I don't know why some of you are going on about being right and winning. Rob and Impediment were in on this gag because I PMed them. Silent and Rao PMed me and figured I changed the post. I highly doubt anybody thought Quan made the post, but simply played along just for the lulz.
And who said I was only talking about what you said? A bit presumptuous aren't we?
Also, a little reading comprehension is in order here, too, sport.
Notice the "even tho technically they were" (meaning: an acceptance that they were WMD's but not the WMD's that were "acceptable" as justification) as part of the quotations?
You will look long and hard at my entire posting history and you won't find me supporting foreign wars like that and I was especially vocal about my opposition to the Iraq War. I am very strongly opposed to things like murder and killing, you see. And, for me, the absolute worst thing possible is the taking of innocent life. How many innocents did we kill with "collateral damage" in Iraq? Mistakes?
The rest of your post is just you going in special ed circles...
Iraq 2.0 was so war machine corporations could rake in billions at the expense of the US tax payer, millionaires/billionaires who held stock in said companies could get richer and to set up a US friendly regime in Iraq like we had in Iran prior to the Iranian Revolution.
Agenda #1 and #2 were achieved, eg Halliburton and its subsidiaries like KBR raked in high billion dollar contracts. The US ultimately failed in agenda #3, Iraq is a broken mess and I wouldn't be surprised if a civil war breaks out between the factions.
I think you're right about everything except to the severity of #3. I don't think Iraq is as unstable as you're assessing. I'm open to changing my mind, however. Smack my face with some recent assessments.
Iraq is a mess, like most of the middle east, held together by hated/loved generals (to use the roman model).
You have to understand through the friendly regime was needed Rob. I'm no war monger and I know a lot of people who served in it as do probably most people here. I think it was ill-judged in aftercare, you'd be terrified if you heard how fondly many non-Saudi Arabs talk of Sadaam. Especially, Egyptians and Syrians. It actually creeps me out how loved by a significant number he was.
^Not that uncommon I find. I know a guy whose father was one of Gaddafi's bodyguards a long time ago and he constantly sang his praises, know a few Russians who revere Putin too. Due to this I'm always wary of believing the western media's stance on non-western leaders, at least not at face value anyway.
__________________ Then lets head down into that cellar and carve ourselves a witch
KMC Community Forums
Apr 17th, 2018 07:41 PM
