What did the war in Iraq achieve ?


Recommended Posts

You know I still see around the forums people supporting the Iraqi war claiming it was indeed very purposeful and it held the true meaning of the Liberation by taking out saddam. I really am unable to stand such manipulative (or maybe naive) people. So here are your facts:

- Several prisoner abuse scandals

- Deathroll of American soldiers in Iraq approching 2000 (estimate of 100,000 innocent Iraqi casualties, but only God knows how many Iraqis died with US gunfire)

- Distrust and rejection to the coalition among 80% of Iraqis

Now some of you will say: but the coalition got rid of Saddam and held elections in Iraq (which I'm all for)... but well, how efficient is that when combats and suicide bombings haven't stopped and more recently:

- Millions of dollars for Iraq's reconstruction stolen by American officials and companies

- Anti-US Iraqis are targetting pro-US Iraqis and rumors everywhere about a potential civil war in Iraq.

Now please remind me... how was this war beneficial in any single way on both ends: Iraqis and American soldiers who are both dying everyday to serve the interest of oil corporations.

Edited by Rolando
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The American weapon lobby made millions off the war. There's a benefit for you.

586293348[/snapback]

I hope you're being sarcastic... but anyway read the above post: in what ways did Iraqis and American soldiers benefit from the war ? What purpose did it serve for these groups of people ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you're being sarcastic... but anyway read the above post: in what ways did Iraqis and American soldiers benefit from the war ? What purpose did it serve for these groups of people ?

586293382[/snapback]

Soldiers never get anything out of war. The Iraqis would get better standard of living/better facilities etc if the fanatics would let people get on with rebuilding and ignore(for a few years anyway) the fact that they don't want the invaders in their country.

If the US/UK etc pulled out, the country would never be rebuilt because of factions fighting each other. If the fanatics let the US/UK etc get on with the rebuilding of the country things would be OK eventually.

(Sam Kinison)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There never is an immediate benefit. Transition from authortarian states to democratic ones always have an intial increase in violence and terrorism before coming down. It is always like that, and thinking otherwise is foolish and idiotic. The average insurgency in the 20th century lasted 9 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There never is an immediate benefit.  Transition from authortarian states to democratic ones always have an intial increase in violence and terrorism before coming down.  It is always like that, and thinking otherwise is foolish and idiotic.  The average insurgency in the 20th century lasted 9 years.

586294490[/snapback]

How can you call this a democratic transition when there are foreign military forces in Iraq while the government has been already handed-over ? and speaking of democracy, if someday in the future the Iraqis all agree on doing something against American interests.. do you think the *cough*assigned*cough* Iraqi officials would agree to that ? Comeon' !

If the US/UK etc pulled out, the country would never be rebuilt because of factions fighting each other.  If the fanatics let the US/UK etc get on with the rebuilding of the country things would be OK eventually.

(Sam Kinison)

586293575[/snapback]

I honestly believe Iraqis were doing better without the war, and I can't see how if the US forces stayed it would become better when every now and then you hear of a scandal or a money fraud. See main thread to see what I'm talking about. The people who have their hands in Iraq are corrupt, and can't be given the task of reconstruction.

Edited by Rolando
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you call this a democratic transition when there are foreign military forces in Iraq while the government has been already handed-over ? and speaking of democracy, if someday in the future the Iraqis all agree on doing something against American interests.. do you think the *cough*assigned*cough* Iraqi officials would agree to that ? Comeon' !

Of course it is a democratic transition. The same thing happened in Germany, Japan, and South Korea, unless of course those are also fascist states today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it is a democratic transition.  The same thing happened in Germany, Japan, and South Korea, unless of course those are also fascist states today.

586294998[/snapback]

FWIW. South Korea's first democratic election was held in late 1987 (39yrs after US occupation), which the winner was later jailed for corruption. :rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW. South Korea's first democratic election was held in late 1987 (39yrs after US occupation), which the winner was later jailed for corruption.  :rofl:

586295240[/snapback]

Straw man's fallacy there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which still doesn't take away from what I said. I was just pointing out that the Sout Korea example wasn't the best one :p. I was just too lazy to add that I knew what you meant. Kinda in a "****ing off" mood today :ninja: :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter what events unfold in Iraq, the media will chiefly focus on the negative aspects. On a daily basis, anyone with a voice tells us how bad and wrong the war is. It's all about perspective. What if the media continually fed us front page stories about the 'THOUSANDS killed on U.S. highways this week', or THOUSANDS who died from obesity this week. The statistics may be accurate, but do they accurately tell what the average person experiences every day? Let something like this go on for a few years and you've done enough to sway the public into believing something that simply isn't true. It's really no wonder the World believes the Iraq war has brought about no good when it's almost always on the receiving end of bad press.

War is a terrible thing. Every war has terrible consequences - even when you are winning. Of course not everything has gone as planned, but that doesn't mean we are losing, or that the war isn't going to have positive results. Look at similar events requiring socio-economic change in history-- Chile, Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia, Bosnia, etc.. These took decades to make a similar transition, and it's a bit naive to expect Iraq to be any different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

todo list

Things i Achieved - iraq

sent troops

lots of press (tv+papers+movie)

removed dictator

lives saved?

cleanup?

reelection

extra jobs (military/iraq government/replacement of people killed)

democracy?

oil

european enjoyment? aka trust

un support

peace?

+ some bad after effects

lack of interest init

it was sensational

Edited by zedaxax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes its tough to see the forest for the trees.

Looking at Iraq in the short-term yeah its messed up, war has a tendency to do that. Look at Germany post WW2 ... that was an f'd-up place, tons and tons of people were killed in all sorts of ways there, yet where are the bleeding hearts for the Dresden victims (read very very very nasty firebombing targeting civilians ... eeeck and it wasn't all the US's fault ... yikes! sorry ending sarcasm). The strategic goal is of course to remove as many safe harbors and terrorist recruiting depots as possible in the greater middle-east and I would imagine in se asia. This has a few positive outcomes: 1 the west of obviously slightly safer. 2 the host governments will be happier having that portion of their population either inactive or reduced (assuming the host govt isn't a major supporter themselves read syria, iran, n. korea, etc). If you look at the countries where the vast majority of the bad guys come from (Saudi, Iran, Syria to name a few) they are run buy the rich select few that a large portion of the population dislikes for various reasons. Having bad people running your country from the posh palaces while you stir in your own filth and stew with the prospects of no future and a starving family, what the hell are you going to do when someone offers your family enough money to feed and cloth for years for your sacrifice?

By removing these situations as much as possible we reduce the breeding ground that the real bad guys get to recruit from. Obviously this is only part of the global strategy but you get the idea. As much as Bush seems like a dope on tv and his "direct" manerisms at least he is taking action, I can think of one past president who sat on his fat ass while military lives were being taken with no repercusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There never is an immediate benefit.  Transition from authortarian states to democratic ones always have an intial increase in violence and terrorism before coming down.  It is always like that, and thinking otherwise is foolish and idiotic.  The average insurgency in the 20th century lasted 9 years.

586294490[/snapback]

Like watching water boil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a new (old) ally, we removed a jackass and a disgusting regime, and improved Iraq's infrastructure. We have excellent strategic position currently to wage war on three fronts including the ability to wage war with Iran on two if necessary. We are also an excellent buffer if we decided to let Israel do bombing runs.

As to your points:

Prison scandal: - The unfortunate side effect of giving small minded, zealous people a little too much power has no bearing on the over all effort.

Deathtoll - Such are the sacrifices of war and the horror of modern day terrorism.

Distrust - The Iraqi people, like most people, just want a safe place to raise their kids, do their jobs, and live their lives. The coalition's blame is that their can't protect them from whackos that have decided that their ideology is more important than innocent life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now we have established the bases necessary for our impending invasion of Iran.

586300066[/snapback]

Ignoring the fact that we simply don't have the manpower to do so, what about it? All the reasons that people claim that aren't true for Iraq hence making it "illegal" are true for Iran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the war in Iraq achieved? lets see

Crushed Iraq ? True it was not a beacon of technology before the war, but some parts of it were far more civilized than how the media painted it. The war destroyed most of the well built up parts of it. Not that I?m saying the coalition had a lot to do with it, as the suicide bombings are making the majority of the dent in their infrastructure.

Lose of life ? Obviously. Soldiers on both sides and casualties there after.

Increased global tension towards the US ? Incase anyone is still in the bubble, the world isn?t too happy with the US. In fact they think were obnoxious, pompous, trigger-happy idiots, or at least our government is. Not that the world didn?t think that before, but our administration has only perpetuated that with this war.

Give President Bush a low approval rating ? I was tempted to put this into the good section.

Now for some good. Yes, there is some.

Got rid of Saddam ? He was a pretty bad guy and his sons weren?t much better. They tortured people and massacred many. These guys had no place in a position of power. This is one of the best, if only, reason Bush says we went to war.

?Bring democracy to the world? ? I put this in quotes because I hardly believe attacking an arid desert country and implanting a weak government with a crippled military is ?bringing democracy to the world?. However, if the US does pull this off, which will take years and cost billions more and more deaths, they will have brought a republic to one country. Only one country. It will, most likely, not bring democracy to the rest of the Middle East. But it would be a victory for the people in the long run.

That?s about it. There are some gives and some take on both sides, but I believe, that this war had far greater negative affects than positive ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the war in Iraq achieved? lets see

Crushed Iraq ? True it was not a beacon of technology before the war, but some parts of it were far more civilized than how the media painted it. The war destroyed most of the well built up parts of it. Not that I?m saying the coalition had a lot to do with it, as the suicide bombings are making the majority of the dent in their infrastructure.

The only reason why most of this is happening is because we didn't crush Iraq, because it is politically unacceptable to do so. Crushing the opponent is in fact pretty much the only counter-insurgency policy you can adopt, as we witnessed in World War II.

Lose of life ? Obviously. Soldiers on both sides and casualties there after.

It happens, but is more the responsibility of terrorist foreign fighters and insurgents. To me, its very ironic how the most important reason for opposition to the war in Iraq (to many) seems to convince them that their staying out of Iraq is righteous...yeah...sure...

Increased global tension towards the US ? Incase anyone is still in the bubble, the world isn?t too happy with the US. In fact they think were obnoxious, pompous, trigger-happy idiots, or at least our government is. Not that the world didn?t think that before, but our administration has only perpetuated that with this war.

The reason why it has perpetuated that with this war is because they already think that way. Of course Europe would oppose a war that would remove an enemy of the United States and Israel. Take France, a country that oppossed the invasion of Iraq because it would curb the Americans and would interrupt their lucrative OIL MONGERING *hint hint*.

Give President Bush a low approval rating ? I was tempted to put this into the good section.

Bush deserves a low approval rating, but this isn't one of them. Or rather, its not time to judge that yet.

Now for some good. Yes, there is some.

Got rid of Saddam ? He was a pretty bad guy and his sons weren?t much better. They tortured people and massacred many. These guys had no place in a position of power. This is one of the best, if only, reason Bush says we went to war.

If only he had stepped down, we wouldn't have even had to have the war. Thanks again to our wonderful allies, you torpedoes your only chances of avoiding the war.

?Bring democracy to the world? ? I put this in quotes because I hardly believe attacking an arid desert country and implanting a weak government with a crippled military is ?bringing democracy to the world?. However, if the US does pull this off, which will take years and cost billions more and more deaths, they will have brought a republic to one country. Only one country. It will, most likely, not bring democracy to the rest of the Middle East. But it would be a victory for the people in the long run.

Being in an arid desert country makes it less suitable for a democratic style government? Governments in the earlier stages of transition are always weak, and we're sort of trying to address that "crippled military," but *GASP* no one wants us to do it! Fortunately, we might be able to begin pulling out next year, and I have to say to our 'loyal' allies with regards to Iraq, thanks for nothing! If it succeeds, well you did nothing, and if it fails, well you certainly played a part in it. I must say, it really takes some reasoning to do everything in your power to torpedo every effort to take something good out of a war you so vehemently oppose.

That?s about it. There are some gives and some take on both sides, but I believe, that this war had far greater negative affects than positive ones.

586300715[/snapback]

This is one of the areas where I differ with other people, because I am willing to give the war a chance to prove whether it has more positive than negative ones. You yourself said Iraq should take billions more and years longer. Why on earth are you already drawing conclusions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ignoring the fact that we simply don't have the manpower to do so, what about it?  All the reasons that people claim that aren't true for Iraq hence making it "illegal" are true for Iran.

586300562[/snapback]

Well, of course we have the manpower. We just need to start-up the draft. Or, if there is another mind blowing attack on the U.S. like Sept 11, then it is not too hard to imagine our patriotic young men and women volunteering in enough numbers to fight in Iran.

As for your 2nd point, the U.S., being the "supercop" of the world, makes its own laws, as it has done in the "liberation" of Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok yeah the only point of this topic was to basically start an arguement between the two sides...what a ****ing waste. You are not going to convice one side to see the other and go oo yeah i guess you are right. This topic should of been locked from the start, the mod's obviously were incoherit or just plain irresponsible..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, of course we have the manpower. We just need to start-up the draft. Or, if there is another mind blowing attack on the U.S. like Sept 11, then it is not too hard to imagine our patriotic young men and women volunteering in enough numbers to fight in Iran.

As for your 2nd point, the U.S., being the "supercop" of the world, makes its own laws, as it has done in the "liberation" of Iraq.

586301240[/snapback]

Whats wrong with signing up to defend your country and creating simple rules that should be a given yet its ignored?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.