Iraq war 2003-2010

I agree that Iraq wasn't the same as Vietnam but curious how you meant it. Scale of failure? Lack of a draft? Absence of substantive, probing mainstream media coverage?

I think history will show that we figured out how to 'win', or at least fight, this war at about the time we're fighting the Chinese. Go figure.

That's contingent upon on whether you're on the winning or the losing side.

The reason the death toll was as low as it is was because the US at a point stopped actively trying to win this and just decided to wait it out. And considering that once the US leaves Iraq will end up as a loose federation under heavy Iranian influence I would hardly call it a victory.

If Iraq's new democracy lasts after American troops leave, that will be the biggest and most important difference between Iraq and Vietnam where the American supported government quickly fell to the invading Communists from the north.

I think Obama was wise to keep the majority of the withdrawals until after the Parliamentary Elections in December. I also think keeping the 35,000 to 50,000 troops in Iraq until the end of the SOFA agreement in 2011 is very smart of him.

It wasn't like 7 years of military vs. military action. The actual war was over in less six months, the rest of the time has been the U.S. military vs. ghostly insurgents utilizing IEDs.

So now that this "war" is ending what will be the next war? Iran? They'd probably last a little longer than Iraq.

Not to mention we aren't now and were never fighting a force that's equipped with M1-Abrams tanks, remote-controlled drones, APCs, attack helicopters, fighter jets, AC-130 gunships, cluster munitions, laser-guided ordnance, etc., etc..

There is no winning side.

Once the troop withdrawals are finished, I'll give it three to six months before someone with a "return to traditional values" agenda stages a coup.

4,252 deaths for precisely fuck-all...

Not quite accurate.

Still waiting on the news that we'll stop paying the almost 200,000 contractors in Iraq, the true cost of the war.

As to why we've been doing good? There was an article I read a while back that said we stumbled upon some Al-Queda documents via those bribed Iraqi's that led us to understanding their network (they had books with names in it, identities, contacts, who was giving them information like blueprints) and enabling us to break into other Al-Queda safe houses. It was pure luck we got that info too but it turned out to be invaluable. I linked the article in another thread, not sure what the search terms are now.

Here is the link to Obama's speech. I think it is pretty good.

Barack Obama's Iraq speech in full

Some Excerpts:

I notice a lot of "we" and "us" in your post.

Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

Odd thing... I don't remember seeing you kicking in doors when I was there.

There's certainly a losing side.

Agreed...

It is not yet time to see whether the US Invasion changed much in the long run. Someone recently said, I believe it was an US General, that the events for which the Iraq War will be remembered have not happened yet.
I tend to agree.
I believe what comes AFTER the US troops left is the relevant part.

Personally, I think of the Iraq war as 3 things:
1.) It is the first war in a long time in which a western first world country just ignored any kinds of treaties and just invaded a country cause they, basically, felt like it. And they got away with it. Even more sad, the EU nor anyone else really did anything, or could do anything, so I believe for the forseeable future, we lost a lot of moral higher ground in the world. An illegal war of aggression, and nobody gets a trial except the attacked one.

2.) Prisoner Treatment: Something I have believed since my own military service years proven again: Nobody is yet above torture, especially not power-greedy politicans who dont have to do it themselves. We have not come far since WW2 at all.

3.) The wars of the first world will, in all likelyhood, become wars to save our way of life..... by securing the resources needed for it. The wish for diamond wedding bands, for cheap fuel and for whatever else we want, and is denied at the price we like to pay, will be fought over. The Iraq war is in many areas a corporate war, a privatized war, and I think a line was crossed here that will shape and define many wars to come. War, Inc., so to speak.

I have never served in Iraq myself, being a member of the german military I had more to do with Afghanistan-related stuff, primarily training and only 4 weeks down there myself. I do however feel for the US soldiers right now in Iraq who, as usual, go to war and die because old men need more money and power.

That still counts.

Didn't Iraq break the cease-fire agreement it signed after it was driven out of Kuwait by the Coalition. Didn't the UN pass a final resolution saying Iraq would face grave consequences if they didn't get back into compliance with this agreement?

Didn't Clinton drop bombs on Iraq in the late 90's for this exact same violation of the cease-fire agreement? Is anyone calling for Clinton to go on trial for this military attack on Iraq along with Bush?

Please tell me you're not serious.

oh, just because someone has conservative views does not make them war mongers.

I think the treatment of detainees will be part of it but I think history will look more at how the whys of this war: how intelligence was actively manipulated to create the war, the ultimate failure of neo-conservative policy that democracy is magic and can transform any region, and that while oil was a consideration, the greatest financial boon was to military contractors like KBR and Blackwater.

Oh dear sweet Jesus. I mean seriously. Jesus Fucking Christ. Every time I try and cut you some slack, you come out with mindless idiocy like this. There was no justification, moral or legal, for the invasion of Iraq. This is a fact. It was a preemptive, unilateral act of brutality built on the back of bare-faced lies and deliberate, calculated misinformation - not to mention preying on the gullibility and desperation of a bloodthirsty populace eager for revenge. I can actually deal with the 'We're there now, we better make the best of a terrible situation' but trying to justify going in in the first place with some pathetic, ham-fisted retrofit of the facts? Fuck you.

If you ask me, put them both, heck, but Bush Senior on a fair trial ,and see what happens. But that wont happen, because we all know that in reality, nobody goes to jail for bombing a country nobody liked much in the first place. We, the first world countries, are no better than any other country in that regard. We just claim to be for some unfathomable reason while we are not at war that we behave.
We dont.

And frankly, " its ok because they did it too" doesnt cut it when you are older than about 8 years. Which, I believe, Bush was. At least I hope so.
An illegal war of aggression based on lies motivated by greed is what it is. And that is how its going down in history I hope.

What I dont get is: Why do people truly believe the lies going along with it, when its so easy to prove they are in fact lies?

Because my friend, people do not like to think for themselves. It's easier to bury one's head in the sand and believe a lie than to seek out truth. That requires effort... and that is something most people are unwilling to do.

"Why should I read a magazine or book? All them pages to turn! I'll just listen to Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh! They tell the truth... Fox News says they do, and that's good enough for me!"

People like that deserve EXACTLY the kind of government they get...

I joined the United States Army in 1986 during the glory years of the Reagan Administration. I was young, stupid, and other adjectives as well. I joined because when I was younger, I believed in "my country, right or wrong".

It took only the first 4 years of the 22 years I served, to beat that ideal out of me. I've seen too many young people with the ideals that I had, end up in steel coffins loaded up onto planes. It's a horrible, criminal waste of lives... and they were lost because someone felt the need to start a war. Not because they had to, but because they wanted to. It looks good on the CV when you remove a dictator from power.

Forgive my rant... this is not exactly a good subject to hit me with before I've had coffee.

No UN Sanction mentions letting member states deal with Iraq when they please, as they please. The UN 'remains seized of the matter' as they so eloquently phrase it. And how funny is it for a Bush apologist to try to hide behind a treaty?


What NoahThePlumber doesn't seem to grasp is that invading countries under false pretenses in order to commandeer their resources is wrong, and it would be wrong even if Bill Clinton had never been born. Clinton has nothing to do with anything. Clinton may have been wrong, he may have been right, he may have been drunk. Doesn't matter.

I think democracy has been successfully imposed according to the most recent poll in Iraq by the BBC.

Iraqis 'more upbeat about future'

A total of 64% now think democracy is the best political system for Iraq, up from only 43% in 2007.

A few more years down the line when the coalition troops are gone and Iraq is an established democracy controlling their own security and resources, I'll be content with my defending of the war in Iraq.

And Iraq, like Germany and Japan before them who suffered great losses at the hands of American guns and bombs but ended up as rich democracies, will end up being a friend to the USA.

You really put the moron in oxymoron.

That's not stupid, it's just vile. Unless he's talking about the good kind of conquering.

The comparison to the second world war is what's stupid. We didn't fight the Axis in order to force our preferred systems of government on them, so I don't really see how anything about that situation can be used to justify this one.

It's hard not be cynical when we read about how Iraq is now "more stable" and "less violent" when

1) The last few years have seen incredible blood letting which has left the Shia in charge and/or remaining ethinic and religious groups gathered in their own areas.

2) There are thousands of refugees desperately trying to flee Iraq, and (esp in the case of the USA) being rejected ('cause Iraqi=Terrorist!)

3) Less living people means less killing!

4) Iran now (indirectly) dominates the region

I'd love to see Iraq become a stable Democracy but I think we'll see one of three outcomes

1) New Strong man takes over

2) Puppet head takes over with Iran pulling the strings

3) more chaos and blood letting followed by 1

I've actually come to suspect taking out Saddam could have been a good move, had it not been handled so poorly. Having fucked it up, I think doubling down in an attempt to salvage the situation was more moral than just leaving the country in flames.

What happens when we leave? The whole damned thing is predicated on a free and democratic Iraq . . . I don't subscribe to the thinly veiled racism that posits you can never have a free and democratic nation in the Arabic world. But even if we do see a democratic Iraq, it will be a fragile thing, and no amount of support or benefit from such an entity can deny the horror and carnage visited upon the country by the incompetent civilian leadership in America. And that's if we see Iraq emerge in one piece, a prospect that is far from certain.

I hope for the best, but history of the region is replete with foreign powers attempting to impose their values on the Iraqis and failing. And this goes back to the ancient Persians

Explain why overthrowing a sovereign nation under false pretenses is a 'good move'. Would it be a 'good move' for you to be invaded under false pretenses and have your country thrown into chaos?

False dichotomy. You could have left and forked over for reparations, whatever they might be. There are other options too, no doubt.

There will be great rejoicing at your absence coupled with cursing you for the effects of your presence. Shoes may be thrown at helicopters. And the failed state the US created will sort itself out. Yay Bush, huh?

Edited to add that this post is unnecessarily snarky. Sorry. But I don't think intentions matter here because the bombs don't know, and the American presence causes a lot of grief. I don't think the US's intentions were noble anyway. When it was officially discovered that the claims of Iraq as a threat to the US were false, what did Bush do? Apologize, withdraw, and begin to make amends? No! He made a funny video about looking for the alleged weapons in his office then carried on pretending the invasion was justified. Even though Iraq posed no threat at all. So why should I believe anything else about the US's good intentions under Bush when it comes to Iraq?

Countries should be invaded only when absolutely necessary, not because it's a good move.

Well bully for you. There are thousands upon thousands of Iraqi citizens who won't be around to enjoy that particular luxury.


Noah would have stood on the outskirts of Hiroshima and said to the survivors, "Hey, don't worry, this is all worth it! Someday you'll be our friends!"

This was in my email today: