Iraq war, the worst foreign policy mistake un US History

Abuskedti

from Mr. Reid

enharmonic

Well...yeah.

scot88

to make a claim like that while the event in question is still going on is as rediculous as it is ignorant. the end result has yet to be seen (and wont be for a long time after the conflict is over.)

sapperskunk

Abuskedti wrote:

from Mr. Reid

Ha ha ha. LMFAO.

Pearl Jam and toast

scot88 wrote:

to make a claim like that while the event in question is still going on is as rediculous as it is ignorant. the end result has yet to be seen (and wont be for a long time after the conflict is over.)

I agree. It should say,... "Iraq war.. most likely the worst foreign policy mistake in US history"

Last Exodus

I guess he missed Vietnam. 58k Dead I think outranks Iraq by....55K

lukin2006

Abuskedti wrote:

from Mr. Reid

Nope, not getting bin laden when he could be found.

The Illinoisemakers

A little early to be calling it the worst. Let's wait another decade.

NCfan

chiefojibwa wrote:

i think it's ignorant to spell "ridiculous" wrong, but whatever.

ah, the ol' "history will decide" argument. don't criticize, in fact don't question, look at the big picture, blah blah. i think mr. reid's point is that this war has been horribly mismanaged from the beginning. and it's gonna be a lot harder to see a positive result now because of the terrible way we have conducted the war.

The "history will decide" argument does not mean people shouldn't criticize, question or blah blah...

Americans have a right to protest their government, but they also have a duty to do it in a responsible way.

At this point in the conflict, saying that it is our worst policy mistake is completely pointless. It's like running out of gas in the desert and after about 5 days deciding wether to go for help or wait to be rescued, and Harry Reid is the guy saying "well if you hadn't run out of gas."

No shit captain obvious... but those comments only serve to demoralize the group and pat himself on the back for feeling superior. It is counter-intuative and political posturing. Statements like that only serve to divide the country, not solve our problems.

NCfan

chiefojibwa wrote:

i completely agree that we need to move forward and figure this thing out. but i don't think that it's wrong for some to point out that they were right about some things. maybe that would indicate that they would be right about other things in the future. that's why bush's surge is being met with such strong opposition...it's just the latest in a series of "plans", and his administration does not have a very good track record in this war. so why continue to give him the benefit of the doubt?

Becuase it is better than giving up and going home... at least Bush's plan gives us a chance. If the democrats had a plan, I would listen to it.. but all I hear is confusion and GOP paranoia coming from their party. They have no cohesiveness. They spent all this time arguing about a silly, pointless piece of legislation to impede the president's plan. Well what the hell is their own plan?

The problem with Reid's statement is that he is taking credit for someone else's failure. His narrative is that the US should have never gone to Iraq in the first place. And because we did, we have failed. A lot of people disagree with that.

Many people think that it was the right choice to topple the Saddam governement, but the post-war planning and stategy was a failure. Toss in presidential denial and an unwillingness to listen to critics and you have our current mess.

Many people believe that Iraq could have been handled better, and there was and still is a chance to stabilize and create a democratic government there.

Harry Reid challenges that reasoning. He is saying that no, there is no chance that the US could have pulled it off.

So his choice of words are not only pointless at this time, but they are also divisive.

Just becuase Bush failed to secure the country, doesn't mean that whatever his policy is now - it is automatically wrong.

I don't like Joe Biden, but I think he has the best policy to get us out of Iraq.

Byrnzie

I think that calling the Iraq war 'a mistake' only serves to deflect blame from those responsible for deliberately planning and executing this war. The Bush Administration made no mistake. They are fully responsible for their actions, and deserve to face the consequences. The only mistake that was made was made by the American people who voted these neo-con greed heads into power in the first place.

scot88

Byrnzie wrote:

The only mistake that was made was made by the American people who voted these neo-con greed heads into power in the first place.

because the american people could have forseen all of this prior to voting for him :rolleyes:

Byrnzie

scot88 wrote:

because the american people could have forseen all of this prior to voting for him :rolleyes:

If you'd done your homework, then yes. What did you think you'd get from these people? Have you ever taken a look at The 'Project for a New American Century' website? It's all there to see, plain as day.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Pearl Jam and toast

Last Exodus wrote:

I guess he missed Vietnam. 58k Dead I think outranks Iraq by....55K

Death toll isn't everything you know. BTW count iraqi casualties too.. count just the innocents.. it's a pretty mind blowing number.

sapperskunk

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

Death toll isn't everything you know. BTW count iraqi casualties too.. count just the innocents.. it's a pretty mind blowing number.

Sure lets count the citizens too. Thousands in Iraq, compared to the millions in Vietnam.

But like you said, death toll isn't everything.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Pearl Jam and toast

sapperskunk wrote:

Sure lets count the citizens too. Thousands in Iraq, compared to the millions in Vietnam.

But like you said, death toll isn't everything.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

I should've reversed those statements. I was saying death toll isn't the only HUGE problem with what we've done in the middle east (obviously), but to only count American deaths in this sort of thing seems really repulsive to me.

Last Exodus

Byrnzie wrote:

I think that calling the Iraq war 'a mistake' only serves to deflect blame from those responsible for deliberately planning and executing this war. The Bush Administration made no mistake. They are fully responsible for their actions, and deserve to face the consequences. The only mistake that was made was made by the American people who voted these neo-con greed heads into power in the first place.

Now were all responsible for the War? If memory serves me, Gore actually won the popular vote in 2000, and Kerry was close in 04. So did we all really vote for the war? How bout half of us. How bout the people who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 like people on this board and probably Pearl Jam themselves? Coudln't a more informed vote for Gore have been useful? Lets also remember, the vast majority of Democrats in congress at the time also voted for the Iraq War. So Im not buyin that a vote for Bush was tantamount to a vote for war. That war had support on both sides. It's really easy to monday morning quarterback all of this now...

ThumbingMyWay32

Byrnzie wrote:

I think that calling the Iraq war 'a mistake' only serves to deflect blame from those responsible for deliberately planning and executing this war. The Bush Administration made no mistake. They are fully responsible for their actions, and deserve to face the consequences. The only mistake that was made was made by the American people who voted these neo-con greed heads into power in the first place.

It's wacky, crazy, cool Clinton quote time! These are dedicated to the smartest guy in the thread... Byrnzie!


"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Wait a minute... One more time for the kids in the back...

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, "While other countries also have weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors."


Whoops! That's all for now!

Cosmo

NCfan wrote:

The "history will decide" argument does not mean people shouldn't criticize, question or blah blah...

Americans have a right to protest their government, but they also have a duty to do it in a responsible way.

At this point in the conflict, saying that it is our worst policy mistake is completely pointless. It's like running out of gas in the desert and after about 5 days deciding wether to go for help or wait to be rescued, and Harry Reid is the guy saying "well if you hadn't run out of gas."

No shit captain obvious... but those comments only serve to demoralize the group and pat himself on the back for feeling superior. It is counter-intuative and political posturing. Statements like that only serve to divide the country, not solve our problems.

...
But, at some point... don't you quit listening to the driver? Who didn't make provisions and fill up when he should have? Who made the decision to sit in the desert for 5 days instead of taking immediate action? When do you say, "Your decisions suck... we're not going to follow your bad advice anymore."

Cosmo

Dead U.S. servicemen are not points on a scoreboard. If ONE soldier is killed based on a political whim of our leaders... that is too many.
...
It was immoral for U.S. foriegn policy to allow the Viet Nam War to continue to rage for years, after military planners said there was not chance of a declared victory. Washington politicians kept the war going because they did not want to be in office during the first war that was 'lost' by our military. So, they kept it going... civilians controlling the battlefield... just as it is happening today. Let let the civilians (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) run the first phase... and the Democratic representatives in the House run it from here. And the ones who pay the price are the guys in the Kevlar and BDUs in that desert shithole.

ThumbingMyWay32

Cosmo wrote:

...
Dead U.S. servicemen are not points on a scoreboard. If ONE soldier is killed based on a political whim of our leaders... that is too many.
...
It was immoral for U.S. foriegn policy to allow the Viet Nam War to continue to rage for years, after military planners said there was not chance of a declared victory. Washington politicians kept the war going because they did not want to be in office during the first war that was 'lost' by our military. So, they kept it going... civilians controlling the battlefield... just as it is happening today. Let let the civilians (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) run the first phase... and the Democratic representatives in the House run it from here. And the ones who pay the price are the guys in the Kevlar and BDUs in that desert shithole.

You directed this post at the wrong person.

Cosmo

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

You directed this post at the wrong person.

...
Okay... fixed it.
I was reading through the thread and got to the one that talked about the number of dead in comparison.
Thanx.

Abuskedti

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

It's wacky, crazy, cool Clinton quote time! These are dedicated to the smartest guy in the thread... Byrnzie!


"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Wait a minute... One more time for the kids in the back...

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, "While other countries also have weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors."


Whoops! That's all for now!

Clinton, nor anyone else, had invaded and occupied Iraq.

Only Bush did that..

Please don't confuse political propaganda for intelligence -

The decision to Invade and invade and occupy belonged the Bush and his subordinates.

those in congress who supported the presidents right to defend the nation and to make such decisions - does not consitiute a desire to invade or occupy. Our government has an executive branch and our congress respected that after 911 as Mr. Bush spewed propaganda designed to mislead everyone - including those he is charged to represent.

Those days are gone - though sitting in the office, President Bush has lost credibility and respect - Congress can no longer repspect his words or his actions.. Today, congress will have to micro manage every proposal for this president and his staff.. he not only can not be trusted to be truthful, but he has also proven unable to make responsible decisions.

We are in the midst of a war - but no longer have an executive branch..

If you are so worried about your party - you should lead the charge in removing this embarassment, this poison to mankind so he can take us no deeper. Then you can again spin these things in support of a party that you can honestly say is worthy of something.

FredFlintstone

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

It's wacky, crazy, cool Clinton quote time! These are dedicated to the smartest guy in the thread... Byrnzie!


"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Wait a minute... One more time for the kids in the back...

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, "While other countries also have weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors."


Whoops! That's all for now!

Wake me up when you get to the part about Clinton advocating a full scale invasion of Iraq. Never. Regime change? sure....but not at the cost of a US invasion - BECAUSE HE AND PRES BUSH 41 WERE TOO SMART - W wanted to play GI Joe.

ThumbingMyWay32

Abuskedti wrote:

Please don't confuse political propaganda for intelligence -

LMAO No futher questions...

angelica

scot88 wrote:

because the american people could have forseen all of this prior to voting for him :rolleyes:

A mistake is when we think something is okay, but in hindsight we come to realize how erroneous it actually was. We make an error. Hence the applicability of the word "mistake" in this context.

ThumbingMyWay32

FredFlintstone wrote:

Wake me up when you get to the part about Clinton advocating a full scale invasion of Iraq. Never. Regime change? sure....but not at the cost of a US invasion - BECAUSE HE AND PRES BUSH 41 WERE TOO SMART - W wanted to play GI Joe.

Looks like you wont be waking up for a while.

Certainly explains your politics.

angelica

Last Exodus wrote:

Now were all responsible for the War?

Who would you like to think is responsible for the war if not America and it's people?

I do agree Monday morning quarterbacking is not fair in that hindsight is 20/20. Still, life itself tells us that accountability falls squarely on the shoulders of those accountable.

ThumbingMyWay32

angelica wrote:

Who would you like to think is responsible for the war if not America and it's people?

I do agree Monday morning quarterbacking is not fair in that hindsight is 20/20. Still, life itself tells us that accountability falls squarely on the shoulders of those accountable.

Republicans and Democrats were responsible up until around the beginning of 2004. Then, things started getting a little tough. Democrats are no longer responsible. Just ask them.

Hope this clears things up a little!

Cosmo

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

It's wacky, crazy, cool Clinton quote time! These are dedicated to the smartest guy in the thread... Byrnzie!


"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Wait a minute... One more time for the kids in the back...

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, "While other countries also have weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors."


Whoops! That's all for now!

...
I think to be fair... we should take those comment in the context from which they were spoken.
Full Transcript:
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/121798iraq-clinton-speech.html
...
Most came from debates about the U.S. sponsored U.N. Ecomomic Sanctions set against Hussein's Iraq as a result of the first Gulf War. There were parties who believed the sanctions should be lifted and Iraq allowed to trade freely in the market. Other comments were made after Hussein continued to interrupt U.N. Weapons Inspections by limiting access to weapons insprctors, a clear violation of the agreed upon cease fire that ended the war.
When placed in those contexts, they make case for the continuing sanctions and military No-Fly Zones established by the George H.W. Bush administration.

ThumbingMyWay32

Cosmo wrote:

...
I think to be fair... we should take those comment in the context from which they were spoken.
Full Transcript:
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/121798iraq-clinton-speech.html
...
Most came from debates about the U.S. sponsored U.N. Ecomomic Sanctions set against Hussein's Iraq as a result of the first Gulf War. There were parties who believed the sanctions should be lifted and Iraq allowed to trade freely in the market. Other comments were made after Hussein continued to interrupt U.N. Weapons Inspections by limiting access to weapons insprctors, a clear violation of the agreed upon cease fire that ended the war.
When placed in those contexts, they make case for the continuing sanctions and military No-Fly Zones established by the George H.W. Bush administration.

Nah, all of those quotes were taken from a single article from December 18th, 1998, as reasoning, before he ordered action on the Democratic People's Republic of Iraq.