- This topic has 18 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 5 months ago by
svelte.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 11, 2014 at 9:05 PM #21122June 11, 2014 at 9:56 PM #774980
spdrun
ParticipantIt certainly didn’t appear to make the world better, though I have to say that Hussein got what he deserved in 2006.
June 11, 2014 at 10:15 PM #774981scaredyclassic
ParticipantHe seems in retrospect to have been doing a really good job of holding that country together.
June 12, 2014 at 2:17 PM #775034The-Shoveler
ParticipantI would not have guessed that Iraq would cause the next economic downturn.
But yea in general very few wars have ever accomplished anything and are a catastrophic waste of human capital and resources.
June 12, 2014 at 2:31 PM #775036ParticipantWorld production capacity has ratcheted up considerably over the last 5-7 years. Is Iraq really relevant anymore?
June 12, 2014 at 2:54 PM #775037FlyerInHi
Guest[quote=spdrun]Is Iraq really relevant anymore?[/quote]
A vast portion of the public, let by some public figures, is still mentally stuck on 9/11 and Iraq and the two are not even related.
It’s like a mental illness.
The world has moved on… we need to move on. Concentrate on living our lives, doing business, etc…
June 12, 2014 at 3:04 PM #775038Guest[quote=scaredyclassic]Is it fair to say there was no fucking point whatsoever to the iraqi war, that all the deaths and injuries served no purpose, and that if anything it just made the world a much worse place?[/quote]
yes, it’s more than fair.
Iraq was a blunder of epic proportions.
As was Afghanistan. We should have taken a different tack to revenge for 9/11. There were alternatives to invading Afghanistan. But our leaders were intent on swift retribution to 9/11.
Pyrrhic victories.
June 12, 2014 at 4:08 PM #775040Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=scaredyclassic]Is it fair to say there was no fucking point whatsoever to the iraqi war, that all the deaths and injuries served no purpose, and that if anything it just made the world a much worse place?[/quote]
yes, it’s more than fair.
Iraq was a blunder of epic proportions.
As was Afghanistan. We should have taken a different tack to revenge for 9/11. There were alternatives to invading Afghanistan. But our leaders were intent on swift retribution to 9/11.
Pyrrhic victories.[/quote]
Victory? What victory?
June 12, 2014 at 4:41 PM #775042Hatfield
ParticipantThis country really went off the rails after 9/11.
We had bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora when Bush yanked all the troops out for his little Iraq adventure. Had we just finished the job and gone home, hundreds of thousands of lives would have been spared (not to mention untold trillions of dollars). What a tragic waste of time, money, and lives. It will take generations to undo this mess.
I wonder what Bush had on Tony Blair – why did he go along with it? (Interesting bit in the Economist about this, had the UK not gone along with the plan it may have been enough to stop our blunder. No speculation offered though on what was in it for Blair).
June 12, 2014 at 4:59 PM #775043ucodegen
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
[quote=FlyerInHi]Pyrrhic victories.[/quote]
Victory? What victory?[/quote]
And thus the definition of Pyrrhic.June 12, 2014 at 5:29 PM #775045ParticipantIs there any number of wrongful wars where it is no longer honorable to volunteer for the military? Say 10 Iraqs in a row. Is it still honorable to “serve” no matter how absurd the missions in the past were?
Is there ever a duty on a citizen to question his country’s motives before volunteering for its military if it’s motives are utterly corrupt malicious and wrong?
I think the narrative is a soldiers heart is pure always, regardless of how disgusting the nation’s motive
June 12, 2014 at 7:12 PM #775049Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
[quote=FlyerInHi]Pyrrhic victories.[/quote]
Victory? What victory?[/quote]
And thus the definition of Pyrrhic.[/quote]Actually, Pyrrhic means you won, but at a grievous cost. There is no victory here.
June 13, 2014 at 2:22 AM #775061CA renter
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]He seems in retrospect to have been doing a really good job of holding that country together.[/quote]
Exactly what a friend of mine said years ago. We try to intervene in things that we do not understand. Poor decision making skills all around.
June 13, 2014 at 1:38 PM #775076GuestPyrrhic means you won, but at such grievous costs that it’s tantamount to losing.
The narrative that there were no victories is valid on the whole, I suppose.
Technically, the situation in Iraq now is not our problem. We withdrew from Iraq and it’s their civil war to fight.
BTW, I was reading that Petraeus achieved some stability in Iraq, not through military victories, but by making political deals with various factions.
June 13, 2014 at 1:46 PM #775077Guest[quote=Hatfield] I wonder what Bush had on Tony Blair – why did he go along with it? (Interesting bit in the Economist about this, had the UK not gone along with the plan it may have been enough to stop our blunder. No speculation offered though on what was in it for Blair).[/quote]
Britain is America’s poodle. Everybody knows that.
Canada and Australia are more independent than Britain because they have natural resources.
I think that Britain is aiming for a third way to be relevant in the world. Britain can’t stand on its own. It doesn’t want to be equal partners with France and Germany in Europe. Germany clearly dominates economically and France is geographically the center of Europe.
So Britain latches on to America in a special transatlantic relationship. Blair or any other prime minister would have gone along with Bush just the same.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.