There was never any good reason for the invasion. It was obvious to the people who engineered it and to anyone else not deliberately blinding themselves that every justification given was built on a stack of lies.
Once the war ends, it will be remembered as nothing more than an embarrassing, tragic, and unnecessary waste of our national resources and of lives on every side of the conflict. Trillions of dollars will have been wasted, and thousands of precious lives will have been extinguished for little if any gain.
The war, along with torture and other appurtenant outrages, will constitute one of the most shameful acts perpetrated by our government in our name, on par with the Trail of Tears and slavery.
Since he was still around then, yes. Or maybe someone else, I don’t know. I don’t have to know. I’m pretty sure what should not have happened was for the US to continue to behave as it was, however.
I have no idea if theirs was a good plan or not, but the US did have the Iraqi Oil Ministry Building taken immediately, and it did have legislation drafted opening up a lot of Iraq’s natural resources to foreign companies. You might convince me theirs was a bad plan without too much difficulty, but you’ll have a harder time convincing me they were acting in good faith.
But you didn’t answer my question: how, if at all, will this book of yours address the fact that the claims used to justify the invasion of Iraq were false? “It was a mistake”? If so, that’s the answer. Invasion of Iraq = Mistake. One for the history books.
When a “mistake” is perpetrated with an absolute disregard for truth, when so manyhave been and are being sentto their deaths on the basis of a “mistake” that coils have been avoided had those in charge employed the least quantum of good faith, then it is indistinguishable from evil. Men and women join our armed forces with the understanding that their lives will be risked only for good reason. Instead we have been sending them to their deaths for no good reason at all. That is tantamount to killing them with our own hands. Serial killers get sexual satisfaction from thrir murders. We have not even that we can call as gain. To me, when you have less justification than a psychopath, you’re in the realm of evil. We might as well have lined them up over here and just shot them one by one without going yo yo trouble and expense of sending them to Iraq.
You could have just said “the Allies”. But the phraseology you used struck me almost as a kind of Freudian slip. You seem so anxious to see the U.S. as having acted rightly in Iraq that maybe you were a bit quick to attribute victory in WWII only to America. I’ve heard others who had vague or biased knowledge of history say similar things.
Even if that’s not how it happened in your mind, my point is you seem to argue from a position of unyielding defense, rather than in an effort to learn.
A statement pregnant with delusion. How about I come over to your house, shoot your pets and children, blow off the roof and tell you it was all for your own good?
I suppose one could believe that this was just a big oopsie, that the dubious nature of the intelligence just kinda slipped past the entire US intelligence gathering machine, that the US military was accidentally ordered to ignore weapons depots in favour of natural resource offices. I suppose one could believe all that.
I still can’t parse you. The government should forbid abortion but appoint women to kill the abortionists or whatever?? Nevermind.
I can’t parse this either. You’re in school, right? Do they still teach the paragraph? Thesis. Clarification. Example. Reiteration. Your clause might be an explication of something but I can’t guess what.
Do you get all your info from FoxNews? :smack: I’ve no idea if you really believe what you’re writing. Google “yellowcake Plame” or something if you don’t have time to actually read a book.
Wrong. Bush is clearly the worst ever. Anyone who denies this is in fantasy land.
There’s Doper threads on Buchanan’s failure to prevent the Civil War. What do they conclude? Or do you diagree with Lincoln and think “half-free and half-slave” would have endured for another 150 years and been just fine?
Very astute observation. Evil doesn’t make sense and sometimes it is so absurd that it is unthinkable. That is where we get into trouble. We think we are doing the right things for the right reasons until you lift it to the light and really look at it. Then you realize that beautiful bouquet of freedom is really a bunch of maggots and you drop it and have to look away. It is too disgusting to look at but we must.
How many Jews died because the government said it was the right thing to do? Did it ever occur to the people that it was wrong to put human beings on railway cars and send them away to be slaughtered like animals? Sure it did but the country said it was the right thing to do with these “Jews”. They were the problem. Or was evil at the helm the real problem? History shows it was one psychopath on a mission that caused it. How did he pull it off? Why didn’t anybody stand up and revolt?
It can happen again. It could be us or some segment of our population being herded onto a death train with our own next door neighbors pushing us on the train at gunpoint. We need to hold up the maggot covered bouquet of freedom to the light and examine it and why it is hard to look at. What is wrong with it? What doesn’t make sense and why? Is my government doing something good in Iraq or something evil? Is Iraq even the problem or is it someones solution? Think, Think, Think!
Why the Hell do you think I support slavery? Anyways Buchanan was a pathetic weakling who didn’t do anything to say prepare the Union for war and generally sucked up to the South.
To keep the “debate” focused, can you pick just one? Is my claim especially irrational, or especially ridiculous?
I didn’t think you did support slavery, though I do admit to being unclear on your political views. Did you ever answer the abortion question? For that matter, did you Google “yellowcake Plame” like I told you to?
Buchanan was selected as a pro-Southern and tried, however ineptly, to serve Southern interests. Whose interests was Bush serving? Halliburton’s? Most of us now understand that he took one winnable necessary war and “doubled down” to lose two wars … for no discernable reason except his opportunity for a fighter-jet publicity stunt.
Oh, perhaps I should apologize! I didn’t realize you were such a discerning and clear-minded political expert. :dubious:
I think it’s unfair to say Buchanan caused the Civil War. Given the political climate, it seemed like a conflict was inevitable. He certainly didn’t do much to stop it.
Bush, on the other hand, caused his major disaster. There was no inevitable conflict with Iraq until Bush came into the picture. He went out of his way to destroy the country and everyone would have been better off if he hadn’t done it. Sure the Civil War took more American lives than the Iraq War, but Bush is far more culpable for Iraq than Buchanan is for the Civil War.
Pointing this out is a typically liberal defeatist way of looking at the situation over there though. The correct way to look at it is that there’s lots of potential for improvement.
The government should forbid abortion but appoint women to kill the abortionists or whatever?? 
Nevermind.