|
On December 16 2011 00:39 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 00:16 Dfgj wrote:On December 16 2011 00:08 jungsu wrote:
But what if they attack us again? Oh wait... that wasn't them... The US, and international community, have been containing Iraq ever since the invasion of Kuwait. The end of that conflict never saw major resolution, assuming that internal pressure would bring down Saddam and that no international action need be taken in that regard. This did not happen (rebels were slaughtered), and we come to the logical progression of another operation to remove Saddam. But hey, it was totally your government flailing at the desert at terrorists without direction. Yeah. And the result is a country that is worse of than under Saddam. GOOD JOB!
It was also a much better country before they invaded Kuwait and a even better country before they attacked Iran, what's your point?
At least now the government can actually allocate all it's money to rebuilding the country instead of just building more palaces, buying more boats and car's for the ruling family.
Oh, I'd also like to point out, the country is actually much better off than before, because Saddam never rebuilt anything since the Iran/Kuwait wars, he just built more palaces/bunkers.
|
On December 16 2011 03:20 BeJe77 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 00:39 Velr wrote:On December 16 2011 00:16 Dfgj wrote:On December 16 2011 00:08 jungsu wrote:
But what if they attack us again? Oh wait... that wasn't them... The US, and international community, have been containing Iraq ever since the invasion of Kuwait. The end of that conflict never saw major resolution, assuming that internal pressure would bring down Saddam and that no international action need be taken in that regard. This did not happen (rebels were slaughtered), and we come to the logical progression of another operation to remove Saddam. But hey, it was totally your government flailing at the desert at terrorists without direction. Yeah. And the result is a country that is worse of than under Saddam. GOOD JOB! It was also a much better country before they invaded Kuwait and a even better country before they attacked Iran, what's your point? At least now the government can actually allocate all it's money to rebuilding the country instead of just building more palaces, buying more boats and car's for the ruling family. Oh, I'd also like to point out, the country is actually much better off than before, because Saddam never rebuilt anything since the Iran/Kuwait wars, he just built more palaces/bunkers.
how could you possibly know its better? we're on the otherside of the planet. you cant take a damn word that the mainstream media says, of course they make it seem better. we went over there, killed over a million ppl, to remove Saddam from power? lol?
|
It's definitely better off in certain ways. The real question is if the cost for all sides involved was worth it. Right now thats looking like a big fat no.
|
On December 16 2011 03:27 PhiliBiRD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 03:20 BeJe77 wrote:On December 16 2011 00:39 Velr wrote:On December 16 2011 00:16 Dfgj wrote:On December 16 2011 00:08 jungsu wrote:
But what if they attack us again? Oh wait... that wasn't them... The US, and international community, have been containing Iraq ever since the invasion of Kuwait. The end of that conflict never saw major resolution, assuming that internal pressure would bring down Saddam and that no international action need be taken in that regard. This did not happen (rebels were slaughtered), and we come to the logical progression of another operation to remove Saddam. But hey, it was totally your government flailing at the desert at terrorists without direction. Yeah. And the result is a country that is worse of than under Saddam. GOOD JOB! It was also a much better country before they invaded Kuwait and a even better country before they attacked Iran, what's your point? At least now the government can actually allocate all it's money to rebuilding the country instead of just building more palaces, buying more boats and car's for the ruling family. Oh, I'd also like to point out, the country is actually much better off than before, because Saddam never rebuilt anything since the Iran/Kuwait wars, he just built more palaces/bunkers. how could you possibly know its better? we're on the otherside of the planet. you cant take a damn word that the mainstream media says, of course they make it seem better. we went over there, killed over a million ppl, to remove Saddam from power? lol?
Stop trying to incite a venomous argument over everything and start writing in complete sentences please.
|
On December 16 2011 03:27 PhiliBiRD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 03:20 BeJe77 wrote:On December 16 2011 00:39 Velr wrote:On December 16 2011 00:16 Dfgj wrote:On December 16 2011 00:08 jungsu wrote:
But what if they attack us again? Oh wait... that wasn't them... The US, and international community, have been containing Iraq ever since the invasion of Kuwait. The end of that conflict never saw major resolution, assuming that internal pressure would bring down Saddam and that no international action need be taken in that regard. This did not happen (rebels were slaughtered), and we come to the logical progression of another operation to remove Saddam. But hey, it was totally your government flailing at the desert at terrorists without direction. Yeah. And the result is a country that is worse of than under Saddam. GOOD JOB! It was also a much better country before they invaded Kuwait and a even better country before they attacked Iran, what's your point? At least now the government can actually allocate all it's money to rebuilding the country instead of just building more palaces, buying more boats and car's for the ruling family. Oh, I'd also like to point out, the country is actually much better off than before, because Saddam never rebuilt anything since the Iran/Kuwait wars, he just built more palaces/bunkers. how could you possibly know its better? we're on the otherside of the planet. you cant take a damn word that the mainstream media says, of course they make it seem better. we went over there, killed over a million ppl, to remove Saddam from power? lol?
How could you possibly know its worse? we're on the otherside of the planet.
|
On December 16 2011 03:27 PhiliBiRD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 03:20 BeJe77 wrote:On December 16 2011 00:39 Velr wrote:On December 16 2011 00:16 Dfgj wrote:On December 16 2011 00:08 jungsu wrote:
But what if they attack us again? Oh wait... that wasn't them... The US, and international community, have been containing Iraq ever since the invasion of Kuwait. The end of that conflict never saw major resolution, assuming that internal pressure would bring down Saddam and that no international action need be taken in that regard. This did not happen (rebels were slaughtered), and we come to the logical progression of another operation to remove Saddam. But hey, it was totally your government flailing at the desert at terrorists without direction. Yeah. And the result is a country that is worse of than under Saddam. GOOD JOB! It was also a much better country before they invaded Kuwait and a even better country before they attacked Iran, what's your point? At least now the government can actually allocate all it's money to rebuilding the country instead of just building more palaces, buying more boats and car's for the ruling family. Oh, I'd also like to point out, the country is actually much better off than before, because Saddam never rebuilt anything since the Iran/Kuwait wars, he just built more palaces/bunkers. how could you possibly know its better? we're on the otherside of the planet. you cant take a damn word that the mainstream media says, of course they make it seem better. we went over there, killed over a million ppl, to remove Saddam from power? lol?
The argument you just said can be also be used on the people who say "it was better off before the USA got there". How do they know? Did they live as Iraqi's? Hell no they didn't. I've had family do business there in the 80's, 90's and some in the 2000's. At least I can go off their stories and a few documentaries that have been done on iraq pre-9/11.
The reality was, Iraq was a hell hole since the Iraq/Iran war and that was all because of Saddam. He built countless palaces, villas, bunkers and all kinds of extravagant things for himself and his family while the rest of the country was rotting. He did not repair or reconstruct a single thing post the Iraq/Iran war, the country was in shambles. Then he invaded Kuwait and the consequences of that added even further upon the countries infrastructure, again, he didn't rebuild anything, just continued to build a more lavish life style for himself.
That is why I am going to continue to say, Iraq is better off. At least this time around, they can use their money to rebuild the nation and move on, as opposed to having a country with a destroyed infrastructure for the past 30 years.
|
Whether it is better off or worse is besides the point. This was never America's job in the first place and should have been left up to the UN to decide what to do. The case for taking out Saddam's regime should have continued to have been brought up there instead of unilateral action.
|
On December 16 2011 00:22 Tewks44 wrote:
does anyone find it odd that right as we're pulling out of Iraq, Iran mysteriously acquires a fully intact drone and frictions between the U.S. and Iran begin growing...
No. This has been scheduled for months
|
Well it's only good if they dont invade Iran next
maybe there is no more oil in Iraq ?
|
They need the troops for Iran... :/
|
good timing. we can just truck everyone over into tehran and make a new iraq! :D
|
The US should just stop invading people. Every time we do it money is drained and the people of each nation we occupy are worse off in the end.
On the other hand, I completely and totally support aiding nations in the formation of strong governments should they ask for our help.
|
Well, at least we can finally begin to see progress both in America (hopefully) and Iraq.
And by progress in America i mean i hope we can get our shit together back home now that we are only spending half (Afghanistan LOL) of our defense budget in the middle east.
|
|
|
On December 16 2011 04:41 Happylime wrote:
The US should just stop invading people. Every time we do it money is drained and the people of each nation we occupy are worse off in the end.
On the other hand, I completely and totally support aiding nations in the formation of strong governments should they ask for our help.
Or you should just conquer people for good oldfashioned world domination or just a little bit of landgrabbing, something that would be more understandable than trying to play world police and just creating more pain in the process.
If you wanna go down in history as a nation of great warriors you have to man up and conquer canada or shit and stop stomping 3rd world countries, that just makes you seems like assholes.
|
|
|
On December 16 2011 05:44 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 04:41 Happylime wrote:
The US should just stop invading people. Every time we do it money is drained and the people of each nation we occupy are worse off in the end.
On the other hand, I completely and totally support aiding nations in the formation of strong governments should they ask for our help. Or you should just conquer people for good oldfashioned world domination or just a little bit of landgrabbing, something that would be more understandable than trying to play world police and just creating more pain in the process. If you wanna go down in history as a nation of great warriors you have to man up and conquer canada or shit and stop stomping 3rd world countries, that just makes you seems like assholes.
The fact that you're from germany just puts a smile on my face ^^
|
On December 16 2011 03:20 BeJe77 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 00:39 Velr wrote:On December 16 2011 00:16 Dfgj wrote:On December 16 2011 00:08 jungsu wrote:
But what if they attack us again? Oh wait... that wasn't them... The US, and international community, have been containing Iraq ever since the invasion of Kuwait. The end of that conflict never saw major resolution, assuming that internal pressure would bring down Saddam and that no international action need be taken in that regard. This did not happen (rebels were slaughtered), and we come to the logical progression of another operation to remove Saddam. But hey, it was totally your government flailing at the desert at terrorists without direction. Yeah. And the result is a country that is worse of than under Saddam. GOOD JOB! It was also a much better country before they invaded Kuwait and a even better country before they attacked Iran, what's your point? At least now the government can actually allocate all it's money to rebuilding the country instead of just building more palaces, buying more boats and car's for the ruling family. Oh, I'd also like to point out, the country is actually much better off than before, because Saddam never rebuilt anything since the Iran/Kuwait wars, he just built more palaces/bunkers.
How could anything be rebuilt when the country was under sanctions on literally everything? Even food had to be illegally smuggled into the country, and there was still widespread famine. It was also one of the worst economic depressions easily. Of course you can't do much besides create public works projects for landmarks just for the sake of giving people jobs when few people have one any longer. What 'rebuilding' could be done was also done, but when you have no money nor economy, you can't really do so much.
The current government is actually really corrupt, so corrupt, that it's even made US news headlines when Iraq was still in the news half the day. Don't expect much allocation to rebuilding as there could be. While the previous administrations were fairly dedicated to build up the country, this current administration seems to be far less motivated, despite receiving tons and tons of investment, easily the most in the country's history unless I'm missing some fine detail somewhere. And in the one period of time the country needs rebuilding the most, the government is sorely slacking. Well, when the ruling party is a [former] Islamic terror group, can't really expect much development or rationality out of them.
I'll give them 20-25 years to get back to where they were 20 years ago, without taking into account the fact they have like 12 million or so more people today.
On December 16 2011 04:05 feanor1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 00:22 Tewks44 wrote:
does anyone find it odd that right as we're pulling out of Iraq, Iran mysteriously acquires a fully intact drone and frictions between the U.S. and Iran begin growing... No. This has been scheduled for months
Only months? Bush signed the capitulation/withdrawal back in 2008. Try ~40 months ago. lol
|
Heheheheh, Pulling out. :}
Good Job US!
|
How many security contractors and military bases are we leaving there for the time being?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
