The UN

[whatsamattau]

Originally Posted by Astrocreep

cept for the ones that killed all the people in that kurdish village!

Which was in 1988.... which was before 1993... which makes you a dumb mother fucker as usual.

[Astrocreep]

Originally Posted by whatsamattau

Which was in 1988.... which was before 1993... which makes you a dumb mother fucker as usual.

yes because a country that uses WMDs 5 years earlier wouldnt ever do it again.

[Chips]

It's common knowledge that once a country uses a weapon of mass destruction that it loses all ability to use it ever again.

[whatsamattau]

Originally Posted by Chips

It's common knowledge that once a country uses a weapon of mass destruction that it loses all ability to use it ever again.

Which is why you do things such as imposing sanctions. Listen you dumb fuck, you asked the question. I just gave you the obvious answer. I'm sorry that reality smacked you in the face, but try not to act like a child.

[Dumar]

Originally Posted by Taranatar

it's just a circus

congratulations. now that you realize this you should see that talking about the UN, politics, or government policy in america and in general is completely pointless and a waste of time.

[Astrocreep]

Originally Posted by whatsamattau

Which is why you do things such as imposing sanctions. Listen you dumb fuck, you asked the question. I just gave you the obvious answer. I'm sorry that reality smacked you in the face, but try not to act like a child.

which sanction was it? sanction 1 or sanction 23?

[whatsamattau]

Originally Posted by Astrocreep

which sanction was it? sanction 1 or sanction 23?

Does it matter? One or one thousand won't change the undeniable fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

[Astrocreep]

Originally Posted by whatsamattau

Does it matter? One or one thousand won't change the undeniable fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

except the tons of old ones they found you mean

[whatsamattau]

Originally Posted by Astrocreep

except the tons of old ones they found you mean

Ok, degenerate. Go on believing he had weapons of mass destruction. I'm done with this fool. Find someone else to play Sean Hannity with.

[Requiem]

Did anybody really think we were invading Iraq over WMDs even at the time? I know I didn't. The point seems moot.

[Astrocreep]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Did anybody really think we were invading Iraq over WMDs even at the time? I know I didn't. The point seems moot.

i didnt even care why they liberated Iraq, just so long as they took saddam out of the picture and secured that oil for the US. 1 out of 2 wasnt so bad .

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Astrocreep

i didnt even care why they liberated Iraq, just so long as they took saddam out of the picture and secured that oil for the US. 1 out of 2 wasnt so bad .

I always saw it as one simple power move of a broader strategy on the global playing field. The largest obvious future threat to the USA has been the middle east and Islamic fundamentalism for decades now. Yes, this is likely the USA's own fault, but that doesn't change the veracity of the statement.

Thinking in broad terms, "Liberating" Iraq and placing them under a democratic system, if successful, is literally like adding 4 knights on USA's side to the political and strategic playing boards in the middle east. Think about how much that fucks with the "moves" the neighboring countries can now make both politically and in any real conflict, especially if Iraq remains friendly to the USA(it will).

Also, the USA will recover from this war having vastly increased their military might, technology, and experience on the realities of the 21st century battlefield. It's true that more fundamentalists have been generated by the war to date, but the global Islamic fundamentalism movement will be increasingly hindered by it as the decades go by and Iraq becomes more and more like America, and less and less like its neighbors. The grass will indeed be greener, the people will have their liberties and security, and the region will look on as ignorance, and therefor fundamentalism, are shed in lieu of a burgeoning new Islamic country and society fueled by free information, freedom of speech, heightened international commerce, power to the people, and vast oil resources compared with the population of the country. They'll begin to ask why they are still living under an oppressive autocracy with a physical standard of living like it's 1910 and social norms like it's 910, if Iraq, even after 4 decades of turmoil, can rise from the ashes so readily and successfully. Along the same thinking, don't underestimate the women. They make up more than 50% of the population in most countries, so stirring unrest among them, even if they don't wield any official power yet, is huge.

Given that this was always sort of my view on what was going on, I think that what we've done in Iraq has actually been quite successful. In just 7 years, the Iraqi people have come so close to the possibility of becoming the country described in the above paragraph that you can almost taste it, and it's really looking like it's inevitable. Think about that. 7 years. It almost seems impossible if you remove yourself from your bias and rage, and consider it in flat terms.

[Mimirswell]

I suppose it depends on whether you believe that sacrificing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, thousand of US lives and trillions of dollars is worth increasing/maintaining geopolitical hegemony of the region, democratizing a small country (0.45% of world's pop), and modernizing the US military (the latter which would of happened regardless albeit slower).

[brekk]

Its not just modernizing of the technology its getting field experience for a whole generation of soldiers.

Attacking Iraq now was the practice round for when we have to do it again in 50 years when the oil starts to run out. It was a massive training exercise.

[Mimirswell]

Considering the widespread use of robotics, in 50 years, there will be a lot less need for field experience. I don't think we are going to outright eliminate the use of human soldiers but our military-industrial complex would love for us to wage war without US casualties (the primary determinant of negative domestic support for foreign wars) and it's certainly trending in that direction.