Dale 2.0 (Or the Revenge of Robert?)

[MOBIUS]

The Iraq war was a good idea, it was just poorly executed.

The actual fighting bit to topple Saddam's regime was extremely WELL executed!

It's a pity that virtually every other possible decision made - like even starting the war in the first place - was a total and utter cluster**** of unimaginable proportions!

And it's STILL a total and ONGOING ****ing cluster****!

Funny, coming from a Christian - considering what's happened to the Christians in Iraq since the US made Iraq a 'better' place...

[SlowwHand]

Kind of hard to topple a regime without going to war. Typical for you though.

[MOBIUS]

Not disagreeing with you there, obviously.

But don't try changing history by justifying the US' squalid little illegal war as regime change. Nope, you and all the other rabid right-wing loons on this forum got sucked in by the lies of your war criminal govt about WMDs who fought an unnecessary war - spending over a trillion dollars in the process and getting tens of thousands of US soldiers killed or wounded (often gruesomely!) or permanently mentally ****ed up from PTSD!!!

THAT'S what you and your moronic friends supported - you should be ****ing ashamed of yourself with all that blood on your hands! If you see an Iraqi war vet amputee - can you even look them in the eye? Because you and all the other people who supported the war did that to him, Slowwie...

[Cort Haus]

The twee little pre-troll Drake was funny in those days.

[Robert]

The actual fighting bit to topple Saddam's regime was extremely WELL executed!

It did indeed start pretty well.

It's a pity that virtually every other possible decision made - like even starting the war in the first place - was a total and utter cluster**** of unimaginable proportions!

Starting the war was a very good decision.
It was the only solution to the problematic situation around SH.

And it's STILL a total and ONGOING ****ing cluster****!

Well, it's better then Afghanistan.
And the Afghanistan war was UN and worldwide approved.

Funny, coming from a Christian - considering what's happened to the Christians in Iraq since the US made Iraq a 'better' place...

Well, that's part of the execution.
Not to mention that I would not oppose to something only b/c it may turn out badly for people of 'my' kind. That would be kinda selfish.

[Elok]

I turned 20 in 2003. It was obvious to me that the official case for war was asinine, but being young and naive I figured all the people in the Bush administration who weren't Bush--e.g., Colin Powell--wouldn't tie themselves to such an obvious sinking ship. Ergo, there must be some information they were holding back from the American people, something that would make the Iraq invasion not utterly stupid.

Then it turned out that they did, in fact, know, and tied themselves anyway.

[Elok]

Starting the war was a very good decision.
It was the only solution to the problematic situation around SH.

How was it a good decision? We were already fighting in Afghanistan. Saddam posed no imminent or even distant threat; as I believe GePap and Boris said in that ancient thread, even if Saddam had WMD he was not insane enough to use them, and certainly not stupid enough to give them to terrorists.

Well, it's better then Afghanistan.
And the Afghanistan war was UN and worldwide approved.

The Afghanistan war was approved because they were sheltering the people who had just killed 3000+ Americans. Iraq was what happened when...okay, I don't know what happened with Iraq. It was totally out of left field, the most plausible explanation is Cheney and Rumsfeld experimenting with LSD. Therefore, the fact that it went better than Afghanistan is irrelevant. If we'd decided for some other insane reason to invade Paraguay or New Zealand in 2003, those countries would probably be more or less stable by now, but it would still be idiocy.

[Robert]

Nope, you and all the other rabid right-wing loons on this forum got sucked in by the lies of your war criminal govt about WMDs who fought an unnecessary war

I've always said that regime change was my reason to support the war. Not WMD.
GWB failed to convince the rest of the world though and for stupid reasons was tricked by Blair into making "WMD" the argument to convince the rest of the world.

FTR, after the war was over, the same report that concluded that there were no WMD in Iraq (which was headlined in all media), also concluded that SH had the intention to restart all WMD programs as soon as the UK/US would have left the regio. So eventhough there were no WMD, SH still had the intention to build them again.

No, WMD was not the reason to go to war. But even in itself WMD was a valid argument. SH had them, he had used them twice(!) and he wasn't willing to account for them.

But his support to terrorism (Hamas) and his ongoing threat to the regio (Kuwait, SA) was reason enough for regime change. Add all ignored resolutions to that, and the most important reason: Al Qaida started to attack the USA b/c of the presence of non-Islam armies (American/English) in the holy land (Saudi Arabia). And yes, those armies were there to contain SH. And, like the reports said, whenever these armies would be gone, SH would continue his WMD program again.

Now remember that Russia/France were dealing with Iraq, behind the UN resolutions. What solution was there?
Did Germany and China enforce the no fly zones? Nope.

So there was one solution: war.
But war needed a plan for the post-war situation as well, especially b/c a dead horse could see that a nation like Iraq would collapse into a civil war. That's where GWB failed. But also did the rest of the world. Everybody was like: "Iraq is a problem, we'll let the USA solve it and stay on a far distance."

Is this the wrong thread?

[ZEE]

.

[Robert]

How was it a good decision? We were already fighting in Afghanistan. Saddam posed no imminent or even distant threat

Al Qaida and muslim radicalization was all based upon the presence of American soldiers in Saudi Arabia (Being the holy land for Islam b/c of Mecca/Medina).
This army presence was the reason for Al Qaida to be formed! (first against the Saudi government b/c it cooperated with America and let American troops stay on Saudi soil).

After 9/11 something had to be done about this Status Quo.
Without American presence the Kurds, the Saudi and Kuwait would not be save.
With the American presence more Muslims would sympathize with Al Qa'ida.

And the other reason of course was SH's support of Hammas terrorism, supporting the problems in the other problematic situation in the same regio.
But the Saudi-Status Quo was the main reason. And it's a very valid reason.

[Robert]

the correct thrade is 9 years old and lost in the broken archives.

lol

[MOBIUS]

It did indeed start pretty well.

Apart from the fact the douchebags didn't have a single clue what to do after they'd secured the Oil Ministry - er, toppled Saddam's regime.

Starting the war was a very good decision.
It was the only solution to the problematic situation around SH.

WTF!?!?!?!?

It was an illegal act of aggression against harmless opponent. Regime change alone is not a pretext for war - that's why they had to make up their lies about WMDs! Saddam was contained and harmless to the West - in fact he was still useful as a bulwark against Iran.

Well, it's better then Afghanistan.
And the Afghanistan war was UN and worldwide approved.

Better than Afghanistan - is that the best you can manage!? Perhaps Afghanistan wouldn't be the **** up it is today if we hadn't spent 7 years getting distracted by Iraq and letting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda regroup! What's that old adage about not fighting a war on two fronts!? Jesus H. Christ Plompie - please tell me you're still not sucked in by all that bullcrap!

Well, that's part of the execution.
Not to mention that I would not oppose to something only b/c it may turn out badly for people of 'my' kind. That would be kinda selfish.

Yep, the policies you support have seen a Christian population that's been living peacefully in Iraq for millennia halved as half a million refugees have fled the country and countless hundreds been murdered, tortured and raped! But hey, you're not being selfish. That must be real nice in the comfort of your home in a safe country like the Netherlands!

[MOBIUS]

How was it a good decision? We were already fighting in Afghanistan. Saddam posed no imminent or even distant threat; as I believe GePap and Boris said in that ancient thread, even if Saddam had WMD he was not insane enough to use them, and certainly not stupid enough to give them to terrorists.

The Afghanistan war was approved because they were sheltering the people who had just killed 3000+ Americans. Iraq was what happened when...okay, I don't know what happened with Iraq. It was totally out of left field, the most plausible explanation is Cheney and Rumsfeld experimenting with LSD. Therefore, the fact that it went better than Afghanistan is irrelevant. If we'd decided for some other insane reason to invade Paraguay or New Zealand in 2003, those countries would probably be more or less stable by now, but it would still be idiocy.

[MOBIUS]

Nope, you and all the other rabid right-wing loons on this forum got sucked in by the lies of your war criminal govt about WMDs who fought an unnecessary war

I've always said that regime change was my reason to support the war. Not WMD.
GWB failed to convince the rest of the world though and for stupid reasons was tricked by Blair into making "WMD" the argument to convince the rest of the world.

FTR, after the war was over, the same report that concluded that there were no WMD in Iraq (which was headlined in all media), also concluded that SH had the intention to restart all WMD programs as soon as the UK/US would have left the regio. So eventhough there were no WMD, SH still had the intention to build them again.

No, WMD was not the reason to go to war. But even in itself WMD was a valid argument. SH had them, he had used them twice(!) and he wasn't willing to account for them.

But his support to terrorism (Hamas) and his ongoing threat to the regio (Kuwait, SA) was reason enough for regime change. Add all ignored resolutions to that, and the most important reason: Al Qaida started to attack the USA b/c of the presence of non-Islam armies (American/English) in the holy land (Saudi Arabia). And yes, those armies were there to contain SH. And, like the reports said, whenever these armies would be gone, SH would continue his WMD program again.

Now remember that Russia/France were dealing with Iraq, behind the UN resolutions. What solution was there?
Did Germany and China enforce the no fly zones? Nope.

So there was one solution: war.
But war needed a plan for the post-war situation as well, especially b/c a dead horse could see that a nation like Iraq would collapse into a civil war. That's where GWB failed. But also did the rest of the world. Everybody was like: "Iraq is a problem, we'll let the USA solve it and stay on a far distance."

Is this the wrong thread?

Jesus, you're dense!

But instead of wasting my valuable time, unlike KH, I will just say this:

If you truly believe all that utter horsecrap - why didn't you choose to invade Iran over Iraq in 2003!? Why aren't you invading Iran now - as Iran is many orders of magnitude more dangerous (using your logic!) than Iraq under Saddam ever was!?

Why aren't you invading NK as we speak!?

FFS!

[MOBIUS]

How was it a good decision? We were already fighting in Afghanistan. Saddam posed no imminent or even distant threat

Al Qaida and muslim radicalization was all based upon the presence of American soldiers in Saudi Arabia (Being the holy land for Islam b/c of Mecca/Medina).
This army presence was the reason for Al Qaida to be formed! (first against the Saudi government b/c it cooperated with America and let American troops stay on Saudi soil).

After 9/11 something had to be done about this Status Quo.
Without American presence the Kurds, the Saudi and Kuwait would not be save.
With the American presence more Muslims would sympathize with Al Qa'ida.

And the other reason of course was SH's support of Hammas terrorism, supporting the problems in the other problematic situation in the same regio.
But the Saudi-Status Quo was the main reason. And it's a very valid reason.

Utter and total bull**** that even an illiterate 4 year old with access to google could expose in minutes!

Your deluded imaginings are not worth my time!

I will leave you with the thought that you have the misery of a million Iraqi Christians on your bloody hands...