|
the ultimate post war thread
|
View this Thread in Original format
| tranceaholic |
| ok guys we havent had any of these...now that the war is over please discuss if the U.S achieved any goals..anything good came out of this war? was it worth it? was it justified?.. |
|
|
| rizen |
| quote: | Originally posted by tranceaholic
ok guys we havent had any of these...now that the war is over please discuss if the U.S achieved any goals.. |
Yeah, my government achieved a few goals from PNAC. Other than that, I don't see less terrorism from this action. WHERE ARE WMDs?
| quote: | | Originally posted by tranceaholic anything good came out of this war? |
Our former CIA 'agent', Saddam, is out.
| quote: | | Originally posted by tranceaholic was it worth it? |
NO. Our borders, sea and air ports are not secured. I just heard on the news that one airport security agency will be cutting 6000 jobs. The $80billion+ money we used to wage war could of been used here at home. Maybe put it into medical coverage (didnt Iraq's citizens have this?) and public schools (1 out every 7 teachers in my state got layed off).
| quote: | | Originally posted by tranceaholic was it justified?.. |
of course not :(
edit: the 6000 airport jobs that will be cut, are screeners. |
|
|
| cougar23 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tranceaholic
ok guys we havent had any of these...now that the war is over please discuss if the U.S achieved any goals..anything good came out of this war? was it worth it? was it justified?.. |
Well, as much as I abhore the approach to the war, I am glad Saddam is removed. He surely is a sick gangster. No wonder Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz liked him so much in the 80's. But in classic gangster style, the US clan turned it's back on the Iraq clan, and now one clan is destroyed. Let's just hope the other one is dismantled soon, too. :) |
|
|
| occrider |
Well ... any good for the US or the region? No not really. No huge depots of WMDs were found so Saddam really didn't pose much of a destabilizing threat to the region. If there were WMDs then I would change my mind. Did any good come of it? Yes I'm sure that a significant amount of good came to the Iraqi people. ************ of the protests going on in Iraq, I have the utmost confidence that they are better off now that saddam is gone, and with the reconstruction packages earmarked for Iraq, as well as the removal of sanctions, I'm sure that they have better times to look forward to. Was it worth it? From the US perspective no. The US has alienated a lot of countries, is widely hated, and all for the elimination of a overestimated threat. From the perspective of the IRaqi people ... yes, they experienced some suffering from the war but far less suffering than they would endure under the continuance of saddam's regime.
Other possible gains ... it brought N. Korea to the bargaining table. Perhaps rogue nations will be less likely to instigate hostilities ...
Would I still give approval of a war knowing what I know today? I dunno ... it really depends on how post saddam Iraq is handled. If we really do implement democracy and reinstate human rights into the country than yes. I don't care what the original motives were, if the Iraqi people are better off post saddam than they were otherwise than I would support it. Even if the original motivation for action is tainted. For example ... if some rich guy kidnaps me and keeps me down in his dungeon, and a thief robs the guy and kills him in the process, would I still approve of his actions? Yes because I am free ************ of the thiefs motives. You may claim that the removal of Saddam could have been achieved without the use of force but I think that possiblity is virtually nill. It would almost be like saying that the removal of Hitler or Stalin could have been accomplished without force. Anyway my 2 cents. |
|
|
| Nadi |
They certantly achieved a goal, the removal of sadam. Even if he doesnt have wmd's he's without a doubt a brutal dictator who tortured his own people. Whatever new goverment is set up, will probably be american controlled, and a lil messed up, but I can't see it possibly being as bad or worse as the previous one.
With that said, the main goal was supposedly finding the wmds if there not found soon the war looses almost all of the legitimacy it had, and I think the U.S will be in a lot of trouble. |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by rizen
WHERE ARE WMDs?
|
interesting irony in how those who earlier wanted to give the UN inspectors more time all of a sudden want to US to find weapons of mass destruction now
btw i hold the same position as occrider does. nicely said mate. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Other possible gains ... it brought N. Korea to the bargaining table. Perhaps rogue nations will be less likely to instigate hostilities ...
|
I agree with the rest of your post, but have to take issue with this part. Is it not the US who has been unwilling to negotiate with North Korea? I have not been following the news closely, but I seem to recall that North Korea started their quest for WMD after being appointed to member of the Axis of Evil by Bush? And that they - through the entire crisis - have asked for only a public statement from the Bush administration ensuring that the US would not attack North Korea? Furthermore, I'm under the impression that the Bush administration has refused to meet with officials of North Korea until North Korea give up their nuclear program.
As I wrote, I'm not sure about this information, but if it is true then I do not think that you can claim that North Korea has been brought to the bargaining table - it's the Bush administration who reluctantly has been brought there. |
|
|
| cougar23 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Izzy
interesting irony in how those who earlier wanted to give the UN inspectors more time all of a sudden want to US to find weapons of mass destruction now |
Invalid analogy. The situation is different now. There are no more Iraqi armies and secret police stopping America from finding the weapons. There is no more threat of retaliation from Saddam's mafias preventing officials from coming out and saying where they are. If the US hasn't found them by now, with the administration collapsed, I doubt they ever will.
Which brings up another point: if the US had just put tracking devices in the chemical weapons and anthrax it sold Iraq, than we would have found our own chemical weapons by now, if they still existed.:rolleyes:
It's like this:
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz in the 1980's:
Yay Saddam!! Gas those bastard Iranians. Here's some chemical and biological weapons!! We'll even share military intelligence with you!! We got your back, Mr. Evil dictator!
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz in the 1990's and beyond:
Saddam must go! He is evil! He uses chemical weapons on Iran! He is a terrible, evil dictator, and has chemical weapons that could harm us.
If you ask me, the primordial PNAC shouldn't have started this mess in the first place, and above all, shouldn't have sacrificed American lives to clean it up. And shouldn't have intentionally overstated the thread of a decrepid regime in an attempt to decieve Americans into war. Instead, I think a commando team of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Abrams, Libby, etc. should have been air dropped inside of Baghdad to take Saddam out. If they succeed, then they are forgiven of their sins. If they fail, well, then they deserve to die anyways. |
|
|
| rizen |
| quote: | | Originally posted by Izzy interesting irony in how those who earlier wanted to give the UN inspectors more time all of a sudden want to US to find weapons of mass destruction now |
Wait... have you forgotten Powell's UN speech? He said the US government knew where they were at exsactly, and that we couldnt give the info to the UN inspectors because our spies/informants would be in danger. Other administration officals also went on this to sell the war. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Izzy
interesting irony in how those who earlier wanted to give the UN inspectors more time all of a sudden want to US to find weapons of mass destruction now
btw i hold the same position as occrider does. nicely said mate. |
Supposedly, the US knew where they were, and that was the justification of the US to go to WAR, if it's then so hard for the US to find then, then they should've done their homework first instead of just rushing through... |
|
|
| CortexBomb |
I think it's still too early to tell whether or not the end results will justify the means.
The US has yet to locate the WMD that they claimed they were going to certainly find, but I honestly didn't expect them to be found either, I don't know if anyone else noticed this, but the reasons for going into the war changed about 3 times a week, which to me indicates the administration had actual goals they didn't want to vocalize and were scrambling to find an excuse to sell to the people in the meantime.
IMHO, said goal was to gain a toehold in the middle east, and for the economic gains to be had from controlling the oil fields.
Now it all comes down to what kind of government ends up replacing Saddam's regime. I'm glad to see him deposed, but given recent history I doubt the new government will be significantly better for the Iraqi people, in which case this whole thing will have been a total waste from anything but a US economic perspective.
The US has garnered yet more enmity, made a mockery of the UN, and given potential terrorists more excuses for attacking, it'd take a big payoff to justify that kind of thing, and I'm doubting that said payoff will actually come.
But as I said, I think the actual benefits/non-benefits will be seen in the coming years when the new government comes into place, and when the overall results on the middle east are more fully felt, right now it's just too soon to tell. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
I agree with the rest of your post, but have to take issue with this part. Is it not the US who has been unwilling to negotiate with North Korea? I have not been following the news closely, but I seem to recall that North Korea started their quest for WMD after being appointed to member of the Axis of Evil by Bush? And that they - through the entire crisis - have asked for only a public statement from the Bush administration ensuring that the US would not attack North Korea? Furthermore, I'm under the impression that the Bush administration has refused to meet with officials of North Korea until North Korea give up their nuclear program.
As I wrote, I'm not sure about this information, but if it is true then I do not think that you can claim that North Korea has been brought to the bargaining table - it's the Bush administration who reluctantly has been brought there. |
Well the issue is slightly complex. N. Korea wanted to only deal with the US in talks. The US has been unwilling to engage in exclusive talks just between the US and N. Korea. The US insists that any talks should involve S. Korea as a participating member which is understandable.
Secondly, the N. Koreans began their WMD program during the Clinton administration and after concessions were made to build them two light water reactors in exchange for a shutdown of their weapons producing nuclear power plant. They only admitted to having restarted their wmd program after Bush put them in his stupid axis.
After admitting to having the wmds N. Korea has stated that the only way they would stop their wmd program is if the US were to sign a non-aggression pact. It has been Bush's policy to refuse to reward a rogue state for breaking treaty obligations. I more or less agree with this stance. If N. Korea desires a non-aggression pact then they must be good on their earlier treaty obligations to not have a wmd program. Then the US would sit down on the bargaining table. Essentially, what N. Korea is attempting to do is to blackmail the US and the UN with threats in an effort to gain more concessions. At any rate, the US won't sit down to negotiate with N. Korea unless S. Korea and possibly China and Japan are included. |
|
|
|
|
