You do believe the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do? Don't you?

Oh sure you do! You know you do! Everybody agrees the world is much better off without Saddam Hussein and you do too, don't you? So you agree that we did the right thing by invading Iraq, now don't you?

The Repubs seem to be obsessed about getting everyone to agree with them that they made the right decision by going into Iraq. Because the credibility of their entire Party rests on that premise. So, you see, it was the right thing to do, wasn't it?

Never mind that you and millions around the world did not agree with it from the beginning. They ignored all of you and now they want your approval of a disaster of their own creation. Just say it, dammit! You agree with george Bush's war.....don't you? :)

I thought it was an illegal fool's errand run by a bunch of incompetent con men and signed onto by a bunch of political opportunists who together would lead this country to ruin.

Was I far off?

...it mitigates blame. Welp, not I. And I can prove it. So regarding the cost, the blame, the moral weight upon the soul, it's ALL THEIRS. F'em...

The war fever in the air pre-invasion made me completely nauseous.

The "war parties" going on at bars where people were drinking and cheering and toasting "shock and awe" were so over the top, I came to believe this country had completely lost its fucking mind.

I am disgusted with this country. Utterly disgusted.

It will soon be Kerry's war...just like the first Iraq war became Clinton's war.

If those pesky little resistance fighters would just calm down, then they too could enjoy what we do.....freedom, tax cuts, electricity, jobs, food and the American way of life.

God bless the United States of Amnesia (thanks Gore Vidal!).

to go along with this. How many critiques of Bush's war begin, "There's no question the world is better off without Saddam in power..."? Far too many for my taste. Why should this lie be furthered when the truth is that the price paid to oust Saddam has proven perhaps even higher than the opponents of this war thought it would be? And we're still paying!

I demonstrated against the first Iraq war, and I demonstrated against this one. In both cases it was clearly a war of aggression on our part. This one more so than the first, because the trumped up reasons were even less plausible, and because the crew in the White House was even more transparent in their motivation. Remember when Andy Card mentioned that, heck, you "don't try and market something in August" when asked about his boss's August vacation at the ranch that summer in the run-up to the war? That's all it ever was to them, something to be sold to the public. And unfortunately it worked pretty well at the time, they were able to lie their way into war and gained broad support. Next they decided that "Shock and Awe" was a good phrase to describe dropping bombs on Baghdad, and the media presented it as a 4th of July type entertainment, while they neglected to present images of the havoc wrought below.

And on and on it goes. Now we see images of shit smeared prisoners, prisoners beaten to death and put on ice to hide the crime, a Marine beauty queen grinning next to the corpse, demonstrating to all the world her own debased soul. Cry, the beloved country. Have I heard that somewhere before?

I went to Desert Storm, but I protested against this war. Because it was based a falsehoods and the need of one chimp to show that he was a man. In this endeavor he was supported by politicians who were more concerned with staying in office and are now pretending to have been against this debacle.

Only a few showed true courage by voting against giving the idiot in the White House a blank check, and they were ridiculed and called unpatriotic.

Actually she's an Army beauty queen, let's give credit where credit is due. The Army also has the 4th SS, called the Hostage Takers.

Now the Marines have the 1st MarDiv, the Desert Wedding Butchers, whose commanding general doesn't have to apologize for the actions of his men. But let's wait until all of the facts are in before we make any rash decisions.

As for being better off with Saddam gone, I think the world would be better off if Bush and his war criminals were gone. Saddam was only a threat to his own people, Bush is a threat to the entire world.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I can't imagine what it would be like to be in a war, nor can I imagine a world where we could exist safely without some military strength for our defense. At the same time, and as the years go on, I see more and more how corrupt our leadership is. Never mind the cliche of Ike's warning against the Military Industrial Complex -- he was completely right, of course -- but it's oh, so much worse than that now and has been for some time.

We really are at the mercy of a shadow government, "dark players" and soulless bastards.

Remember, after Desert Storm, how it came out that the story about Kuwaiti babies in incubators being killed by Iraqi soldiers was a complete fabrication? How they had used a 12-year-old diplomat's daughter to LIE to a Congressional committee to put that story forward? Shows us all what a bunch of lying scum we aligned ourselves with for THAT war. And that, of course, was just one indication. I remember reading about the column of retreating Iraqi soldiers, mowed down by OUR tanks and snipers -- no pesky rules of "civilized" warfare for us, such rules are "quaint" and we can do what we damn well please. I seem to remember mass graves as a result of that operation -- in fact, I seem to remember that we bulldozed the living and the dead alike into those graves. And I seem to remember that Timothy McVeigh was a part of that operation and came back a bit "changed" from the experience...

But the roots of the corruption and evil demonstrated by this bunch go back much further than that, in my opinion they have been operating since we brought back Nazi thugs from WWII over to this country. Prescott Bush -- Nazi collaborator. George HW Bush, erstwhile head of the CIA. George W Bush, idiot scion of an evil clan. And while they hold the reins of power, they are not the only manifestation of this foul stream that has infected our land.

Ah well, enough for one post...

EOM

:shrug: I doubt you will get to many "Yes I agree with Bush*" answers here. Even the youngest poster on our board is more of an "Adult" than the entire Bush* Cabal.

think Iraq was directly responsible for 9/11. I can show them Chimpy's televised ADMISSION (made several copies on VHS) and they STILL refuse to admit it! :grr:

I ask "So Bush was lying when he said that?" Their eyes glaze over and suddenly remember an important errand that can't wait.
:eyes: :grr:

and inhereting our own West Bank.

We were better off with Saddam in power.

If Bush can negotiate with a KNOWN terrorist state, like Libya. Then why did we destroy the most moderate Middle Eastern country, Iraq? We took a place that had universities (attended by men and women), symphony orchestras, tea rooms, etc. and we bombed them into a Taliban Afghanistan. Bush misrepresented life there.. I can't count how many people believed that it was basically a sandy desert, with people running around in burkas.. riding camels.

There were other ways to achieve what they wanted to achieve, removing Saddam. They didn't have to kill 10k+ Iraqis, nearly 1,000 of our troops, and destroy the infrastructure and culture of that country in the process. We fucked up.

I think it's at last a minority, but it may turn out to be a stubborn one. :(

What could possibly go wrong?!

I am the first to admit that that puts me in the uncomfortable position of saying that it would have been better to allow Saddam to continue to rule Iraq. That is not a defense of Saddam, who was one of the worse criminals of modern times. Thus, it says a mouthful about the folly of invading Iraq.

Saddam's rule had certain virtues in spite of its brutal nature. One of these, that he was inalterably opposed to Islamism, would have made him useful to us in any rationally conceived war on terror. Any proposal that Saddam be supported as an ally against Islamist terrorists would have to be balanced against what he did to repress it. It would have been a controversial decision and not one I would have liked. Nevertheless, from an American perspective, it would have been better than what the Bushies did.

Saddam's other virtue was that he held Iraq together. This is the reason why President Bush (the one who actually won an election) didn't oust him when he had the opportunity in 1991. Again, this "virtue" was a function of his brutality. Moreover, it would have ended when Saddam, who is in his late sixties, passed the scene. With Saddam's passing, Iraq may very well have descended into a period of chaos.

Right now, American occupuation of Iraq may be holding Iraq together, but only by giving those who would otherwise be opposing each other in civil strife a common enemy. Even with the American occupation, some ethnic conflict raises its ugly head, such as when the headquarters of Kurdish political parties are bombed or when Shia celebrations are attacked.

While we're at it lets redo all the money get rid of those damn liberals Kennedy, Roosevelt, Lincoln, Jefferson. Lets replace them with images of george I and II, rumsfeld, cheney.
No, I knew what was coming back in 2000 if the fucking moran* got in.

"If he does this, invades Iraq, Bush is going to create more
terrorists than he could ever kill."

Did he ever. The bastard.

Let's not forget that.

The Iraqi War was and still is wrong.

They should all rot in hell.

Like many around here, I was horrified at the first thought of it. I cried the night before we invaded, when I heard it over the car radio.

Just about the only reason there are still people not opposed to it are:

1. They don't want to admit being wrong

2. They believe the inference that Irag was involved with 9/11 and still view it as part of "The War On Terror"

Just my humble opinion.

And I won't change my mind.

and this war will not be won.

I love that little poem ! :)

Not you or I and other tax paying citizens, necessarily; not for our soldiers, and apparently not for Iraqi society in an honest 'cost/benefit' analysis.

HOWEVER, it was very PROFITABLE for SOME PEOPLE, was it not? Wouldn't it be WONDERFUL if we were to compile a LIST of WHO these people are? Names, address, phone numbers, companies--that sort of thing? Just like FREE REPUBLIC did for those who OPPOSED this INVASION?

Like my caps?

;)

less jobs, worse electricity and water, less security, less benefits like free health and free university.............

i am thinking the are worse off.

there may be hope for a future without saddam, but as of now, worse than with saddam

Bush. I feel strongly about this.

If you feel that the war in Iraq is a good thing, a noble cause that we were right to start, then you SHOULD vote for Bush. Because without his administration, we never would have had this war. It is his "accomplishment". He deserves any "credit", and all the blame, in spades. Their "leadership" led us into this. I would think that virtually everyone on DU didn't want this war and is opposed to it now.

If you are against the Iraq war, either now or from the beginning, then you should vote AGAINST Bush, because it is entirely the folly of this administration. Sure, the Dems in Congress enabled him, but again, without this administration, we never would have had this war.