10 Lessons the US should learn from Iraq defeat

The North Koreans are persistent and unrelenting.

Gradually...incrementally...the range of the Taepodong II is being extended. It appears that the missile can now reach Anchorage, Alaska and the Alaskan missile defense base.

I see Hak Kwai is at the Korean DMZ. What a worthless little man he is! Wen Jibao would be a better American president than the Monkey King.

 

So, what`s your excuse?

 

It's a satellite launch.

 

Satellite launches result in a package going into orbit. This launch has no orbital package. You are out of your depth discussing anything concerning East Asia. There are none so blind as they who refuse to see.

 

You have just sumed up the way i view this forum.

None so blind as they refuse to see. Even when educated chatters like yourself and Ray try to teach them. The savage scurge of your underclass americans refuse to take the information on board and like drooling cretins they continue with the same nonsensical propraganda while waving their guns in the air.

 

That Ray is a helluva guy. I would love to take him on a pub crawl. You too.

 

8 years doesn't seem very quick to me. I think you should consider the possibility that the public is not quite as fickle as you may have thought.

Kinda like Obama's did?

Bush's didnt fall enough to keep him from being re-elected though.

Not that I am surprised, but it is nice to see a liberal actually admit this for once. If literacy levels do not meet your personal expectations, you prefer a dictatorship. Got it.

And, naturally, you should get to determine how educated people need to be before they are allowed to make decisions for themselves. Yes, that is pretty much what I have been assuming when it comes to liberal views on democracy.

In this context? Yes. Because Defense and Security are the reasons behind the interventionism.

Ok...so you admit they are fully aware of what their obligations will be, and yet still choose to voluntarily go into military service. So explain to me why you think they are being treated unfairly since you admit they know and understand the terms of their service and entered into it consensually.

So you do not believe military personnel are being treated unfairly?

 

The goal of the 'Murkan led Iraq invasion remains crystal clear, notwithstanding the spin that GOP supporters try to use to morph it after it had failed. You can find that goal as broadcast to the world here in full, clear and unambiguous print: "United Nations Security Council resolution 1441" as proposed by the USA for global approval. Have you forgotten poor scapegoat Colin Powell making an ass of himself in front of the entire planet?

OMG it is so funny that the rednecks try to pretend that negation of WMDs was not the goal, and try to tell us that it was "regime change" because Dubya had mentioned that a few times to his neocon masters and to "Da Boss" Cheyney. Come ... let us look for "regime change" in UBSCR 1441. Is this it?:

That was all about regime change, right RA, Sadistic Savior and Stekim?

All to initiate regime change .... right?

Gimme a break!!! Some of us actually have functioning memories. Or are you telling us that 'Murka deliberately lies to the world to get approval for one thing and then uses that for totally different purposes. You know, you just may be right. So when next some naive 'Murkan asks "Why do they hate us so much and refuse to accept our word", you will know how to answer them. And when the repulsion at the 'Murkan way builds up, you will be able to explain why some loonies fly planes into tall twin buildings.

Oy vey!! The power of delusion and verifiable documented fact rejection.

MYTH ALERT!!! MYTH ALERT!!! MYTH ALERT!!!

Go read Dubyas goals as stated in 1441. This BS brokering gives me a headache.

 

Why did we not win in Iraq? Politicians. Media bias and misinformation.

 

American leftists stabbed the country in the back.

 

Come on leftists. Rise to the bait. It is your fate.

 

American righties can't even win topic debates on this forum. without being routinly mocked in their own ignorance.

If they were not armed to the teeth in the usa, the lefties could tame them, even educate and at some level domesticate them.

 

I'm going to let you in on a secret. Even the leftists here have firearms. And they know how to use them. Leftists have nothing to teach us.

 

Of course it was the goal. Regime change was required because Saddam would not cooperate to achieve that goal. Regime change was required to verify that Saddam did not have WMDs because he kept interfering with us when we tried to verify while he was in power.

I don't understand why this has to be spoon fed to you people. I mean, this really isn't obvious to you?

Regime change was a means to an end. Had Saddam cooperated, he would still be alive and in power and the war would not have happened.

umad bro?

Yeah, you have functioning memories. Just very very selective ones, heh heh.

We do that all the time. And I dont have a problem with that. The American government works for us, not the world. I dont really care if the world is lied to if it removes a threat to us.

The government laid out the reasons for the war to the American People and the American People agreed (explicitly or tacitly) for those reasons. Whether or not foreigners believe those reasons are real or legitimate is completely irrelevant. The government serves us, not them. For whatever reason, WE wanted Saddam gone. Our government made him gone. That = victory.

We already know the explanation for that. And it has nothing to do with whether or not America "lied" about anything.

My heart bleeds. And I really mean that. Dont let my mocking laughter fool you.

 

There were numerous reasons for the liberation of Iraq and they are all listed in the AUMF against Iraq authorized by both Houses of Congress and ratified by the POTUS, and yes regime change is among them. Besides UN authorization for the liberation of Iraq does not stem from 1441 it stems from UNSC resolution 678 which granted member states "all necessary means" to enforce UNSC 660 and "all subsequent resolutions". Not to mention that regime change had been official U.S. policy towards Iraq since 1998 and the Iraq Liberation Act.

 

lol religion is an ideology, race is something which can not be helped, so once again only a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing moron would confuse race with religion.

 

Hmm; so it was regime change that America wanted-but if Saddam was co-operative he would still be in power? You might want to explain how that would work.

 

And only a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing moron wouldn't understand Iolo's post...

 

LOL...paying attention isnt your strong point eh? Let me quote myself again for your benefit.

I underlined it for you this time.

Regime change was only necessary because we were unable to accomplish the goal with Saddam still in power. He was in the way. He kept preventing inspectors from inspecting.

Had he not been in the way (had he cooperated) then regime change would not have been necessary.

I've explained it twice now. Lets see if it sticks this time.

 

Yes - that is why the racists do it all the time. There being no races other than human, and racists understanding no religion other than Mammon or satanism, they find it easier to say 'Muslim' than 'Arab' - of whatever they think Muslims might be. Send the racist nutters back to Mars and let's get on with living togerther as people, I say.

 

The liberation of Iraq.

The Liberation of Iraq for who, the Iraqi people or America's oil industry and colonialist appetite?

Or, did you liberate the Iraqi's by slaughtering them? I can see the logic in that, being, the less Iraqi's alive, the less Iraqi's to be oppressed, right?

 

There is a human race, child. Are you in it or not? If not, go home. If so, shut up and learn manners.

 

You say that as if the two are mutually exclusive.

At the very least it is likely the Iraq People will actually see some of the oil profits. Now that they elect their own leaders, they can set whatever policy they want. It was not like that under Saddam.

Obviously not all of them.

You would know if our goal was to slaughter them. Because the current population would be zero instead of 26 million. If our goal had really been to slaughter them all, there would be no one left right now.

Therefore we should side with the dictators like you want to? Is that your alternative?

 

Still peddling the same tired old hate-filled rants then PeaceBeautyLove, Michael Collins, RoryMac, Macca, gougeway, Rangertom, PatrickPearse, mendoza, Bonardi, TheGreatGatsby, Controller, whistleblower, chimera, mollywhacker, Hendrix, Isaacnewton ... Paolo Di Canio ...

 

Ahh, some of the profit from the oil on their land. How generous of the invaders.

Obviously. I didn't say all were killed.

Slaughter does not specifically mean wipe all the Iraqi's out. Hitler slaughtered the Jews, but there was still some alive.

But let me rephrase that, sure you didn't slaughter - by your definition - the entire population, you chose villages to wipe out instead.

I did not say that. What is the alternative? That is a good question, why not let the Iraqi's decide that for themselves.

Besides, America had no problem siding with Saddam Hussein - and many dictators - when it benefits them, especially in the Middle East.