- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 'American War Generals' a sobering reflection on U.S. failures in Iraq
Posted on 9/13/14 at 12:35 pm to doubleb
Posted on 9/13/14 at 12:35 pm to doubleb
quote:
Bush unwisely decided to invade Iraq a second time. We know that now. We didn't know that then.
Actually, if you listened to anyone outside of the President's incestuous circle, we knew then too. I had plenty of friends in the military questioning going into Iraq. Including one who didn't come back. I was hearing things like colonization etc etc. It was very disheartening.
This post was edited on 9/13/14 at 12:38 pm
2
Posted on 9/13/14 at 12:39 pm to The Third Leg
quote:
What's comical about Iraq is that never before has a large scale US military operation been met with so much protest and resistance before it even began.
I agree. No one wanted to invade Iraq. Even the gullible ones in Congress who would know better when the 2004 election cycle came into play never wanted to invade Iraq when they voted for it.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 12:40 pm to asurob1
quote:
I had plenty of friends in the military questioning going into Iraq. Include one who didn't come back. I was hearing things like colonization etc etc. It was very disheartening.
So you had enlisted/low level military personnel questioning whether they should be sent to Iraq? Hot damn. I'd probably question invading a country, too, when I'm the one doing the fighting and have a family to provide for.
The original reasons for invading Iraq was to expand the War on Terror - which in 2002/2003 very few people in the United States had a problem with. 9/11 was still fresh in our minds and we wanted to stick it to anyone who we believed was a sponsor of terrorism. Most of the world's best intelligence agencies all agreed that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. That was justification enough (at least at the time) to invade Iraq.
Hindsight is definitely 20/20, however, because Iraq completely took the fight out of us. The War on Terror pretty much ended in 2005 or 2006 when America finally got tired of fighting it. 9/11 started getting further and further away from us and we stopped caring about fighting terrorism.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 12:41 pm to son of arlo
quote:
No one wanted to invade Iraq.
An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken after the beginning of the war showed a 62% support for the war. In the lead up to the war, before we actually went into Iraq, support for an invasion never got below 60%.
This post was edited on 9/13/14 at 12:43 pm
Posted on 9/13/14 at 12:45 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
So you had enlisted/low level military personnel questioning whether they should be sent to Iraq? Hot damn. I'd probably question invading a country, too, when I'm the one doing the fighting and have a family to provide for.
uh...no. I don't know any low-level enlisted guys...
quote:
The original reasons for invading Iraq was to expand the War on Terror - which in 2002/2003 very few people in the United States had a problem with.
This couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, when W floated this trail balloon it was shot down.
quote:
9/11 was still fresh in our minds and we wanted to stick it to anyone who we believed was a sponsor of terrorism. Most of the world's best intelligence agencies all agreed that Saddam Hussein had WMDs.
Sure they did. Just another W failure.
quote:
Hindsight is definitely 20/20, however, because Iraq completely took the fight out of us. The War on Terror pretty much ended in 2005 or 2006 when America finally got tired of fighting it. 9/11 started getting further and further away from us and we stopped caring about fighting terrorism.
You're a fool if you bought into the whole invade Iraq to fight terror....
Posted on 9/13/14 at 12:48 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
which in 2002/2003 very few people in the United States had a problem with.
There were Democrats who were quoted as saying they were secretly happy GWB was prez instead of Gore after 911. It's fascinating how history is being rewritten.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 12:51 pm to asurob1
quote:
uh...no. I don't know any low-level enlisted guys...
Uh-huh. Whatever. Unless you knew people above the rank of major general, I don't care what your friends thought.
quote:
This couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, when W floated this trail balloon it was shot down.
Sure it was shot down. Two years later. When it was originally pitched in 2002 and 2003, the popular thinking was that Saddam Hussein was directly linked to terrorism. You are letting hindsight cloud your memory because, had it been 'shot down' as soon as W floated it, we would have never voted to go into Iraq. Democrats wouldn't have supported it like they did.
quote:
Sure they did. Just another W failure.
They did. To say otherwise ignores fact. But by all means, continue to live in hindsight.
quote:
You're a fool if you bought into the whole invade Iraq to fight terror....
In March 2003 I was 15 years old. I just wanted to watch shite get blown up. I couldn't have cared less if Iraq was involved in terrorism or not.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 12:54 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken after the beginning of the war showed a 62% support for the war. In the lead up to the war, before we actually went into Iraq, support for an invasion never got below 60%.
That was reflected in the Dem votes in Congress. It's funny how everyone, including the friendly neighborhood republican conveniently forgets.
It's just my personal opinion, but the way the Democrats turned on the war to get political advantage is the definition of treason.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 12:55 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
thinking was that Saddam Hussein was directly linked to terrorism
Posted on 9/13/14 at 12:57 pm to asurob1
quote:
You're a fool if you bought into the whole invade Iraq to fight terror....
So you're calling the 2004 and possible the 2016 Dem prez candidates fools?
Posted on 9/13/14 at 1:07 pm to Robin Masters
We were never attacked again on our home soil which I recall very well was a major fear and concern by every American in the years after9/11. I guess we will never know what we don't know but I consider that a success. Our soldiers don't have to have died or have been injured in vain.
Agreed
Agreed
Posted on 9/13/14 at 1:16 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Uh-huh. Whatever. Unless you knew people above the rank of major general, I don't care what your friends thought.
Of course you don't, wasn't your friends dying in W's war of colonization.
quote:
Two years later. When it was originally pitched in 2002 and 2003, the popular thinking was that Saddam Hussein was directly linked to terrorism.
No it wasn't. Again, you couldn't be more wrong about this. The Administration floated this out there hoping the public would buy into it. The public did not. You forget...W's gang tried to tie Iraq to 9/11 within days of its happening. Hell it was on the table to invade Iraq right after 9/11. If only they could blame Saddam to justify it. Which they tried and failed.
quote:
In March 2003 I was 15 years old. I just wanted to watch shite get blown up. I couldn't have cared less if Iraq was involved in terrorism or not.
Which shows more about your lack of memory then any other statement you have made. I was 38 when I watched the towers fall. I remember the build up to the war in Afghanistan as well as the one in Iraq very very well. I was smart enough not to fall for W's bullshite reasons for Iraq something clearly you...the teenager let's watch shite blow up was not (Never mind the fact that people were dying because the teenage you could care less about that...amirite?).
You're not only full of it...you actually have no idea of the events that led up to Iraq.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 1:18 pm to son of arlo
quote:
That was reflected in the Dem votes in Congress. It's funny how everyone, including the friendly neighborhood republican conveniently forgets.
I have never once said that the demorats didn't support the propaganda W was pushing out. It was frankly criminal which is why Cheney won't travel outside the country...
quote:
It's just my personal opinion, but the way the Democrats turned on the war to get political advantage is the definition of treason.
of course it is
Posted on 9/13/14 at 1:19 pm to son of arlo
quote:
So you're calling the 2004 and possible the 2016 Dem prez candidates fools?
Yes.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 1:20 pm to Nunk Red
quote:
I guess we will never know what we don't know but I consider that a success. Our soldiers don't have to have died or have been injured in vain.
This is just whitewashing to make you feel good about yourself.
Any soldier who fought and died in Iraq was in vain.
Look at that shite hole now...was it worth it?
Posted on 9/13/14 at 1:46 pm to asurob1
quote:
Of course you don't, wasn't your friends dying in W's war of colonization.
We created quite a few colonies in Iraq, did we? Your hatred for W distorts your version of history and diminishes your credibility. You have an obvious agenda
Posted on 9/13/14 at 1:57 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
We created quite a few colonies in Iraq, did we?
That we did.
quote:
Your hatred for W distorts your version of history and diminishes your credibility. You have an obvious agenda
Pointing out the truth of Iraq. Absolutely.
The rest of you can white wash what happened. The gump obviously is...ooo shite blowing up cool...
You have fricking generals saying what a mistake it was...
but remember we were chasing terrorists into Baghdad.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 2:05 pm to asurob1
Sure there was opposition but Bush had the support of Congress and many of our allies.
Your military friends may have been against the invasion but they couldn't have been very influential. The idea that Saddam was dangerous and would use WMDs was real and prevalent.
Your military friends may have been against the invasion but they couldn't have been very influential. The idea that Saddam was dangerous and would use WMDs was real and prevalent.
Posted on 9/13/14 at 2:08 pm to asurob1
quote:
colonies in Iraq
What the frick are we importing from these Iraqi colonies? Sand?
Cause it damn sure isn't oil
Does Obama subsidize your household tin-foil imports?
This post was edited on 9/13/14 at 2:09 pm
Posted on 9/13/14 at 2:21 pm to doubleb
quote:
The idea that Saddam was dangerous and would use WMDs was real and prevalent.
Explain to me again how Saddam was a threat to the United States in any way.
I am really curious about why people bought into this obvious lie.
Even if he had WMDs...which we have seen clearly he did not...he had no way to deliver them against anyone but his own people.
He was isolated and could not move. He couldn't fly anything in his own country.
SO explain to me how exactly he was so dangerous to the United States that some 4000 of our own people had to die to kill this 1 man.
Page 3 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News