Topic: Remember when it was imperative to overthrow Saddam Hussein?
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 week ago #138,953
An evil secular Baathist bore who was evilly suppressing the kind Shiites and clerics of all stripes? Only to have religious nuts turn around and set off IEDs against the people liberating them.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 week ago, 3 minutes later[^] [v] #1,469,289
I have to say I admire the fact muslims don't just go along with bullshit. They know when you're trying to invade them or use them as a pawn in your geopolitical games and they won't stand for it and they'll die to fight against it. That's badass
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 week ago, 2 hours later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,469,318
@OP
> An evil secular Baathist bore who was evilly suppressing the kind Shiites and clerics of all stripes? Only to have religious nuts turn around and set off IEDs against the people liberating them.
Secular guy oppressing religious nuts, kill the secular guy, religious nuts start doing terrorism.
When you put it like that the outcome seems rather obvious.
> An evil secular Baathist bore who was evilly suppressing the kind Shiites and clerics of all stripes? Only to have religious nuts turn around and set off IEDs against the people liberating them.
Secular guy oppressing religious nuts, kill the secular guy, religious nuts start doing terrorism.
When you put it like that the outcome seems rather obvious.
(Edited 11 seconds later.)
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 1 week ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,469,340
Nice bush
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 week ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,469,343
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 week ago, 2 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,469,362
Saddam shouldn't have done 9/11 then.
Sir Carves-A-Lot !nFL78DnUTg joined in and replied with this 1 week ago, 3 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,469,384
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 week ago, 9 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,469,385
It demonstrates one of the many lies behind the Zionist narrative. He and Assad in Syria were "secular" but daring to not be servile to Israel means they had to be removed even to replace them with "Islamists."
Sir Carves-A-Lot !nFL78DnUTg replied with this 1 week ago, 27 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,469,387
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 1 week ago, 30 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,469,391
@1,469,385 (H)
> It demonstrates one of the many lies behind the Zionist narrative. He and Assad in Syria were "secular" but daring to not be servile to Israel means they had to be removed even to replace them with "Islamists."
It goes deeper into Neocons’ stridently stupid ideology. Replace these dictators and the Middle East will magically blossom participatory democracies. Even though it’s not organic. Even with societies divided among religious factions, Arabs, Bedouins, religious minorities, other ethnic groups, oil interests, the army. Even though Europe had hundreds of years of religious and dynastic wars and France is in its 5th republic. But the Middle East was going to embrace democratic norms overnight.
> It demonstrates one of the many lies behind the Zionist narrative. He and Assad in Syria were "secular" but daring to not be servile to Israel means they had to be removed even to replace them with "Islamists."
It goes deeper into Neocons’ stridently stupid ideology. Replace these dictators and the Middle East will magically blossom participatory democracies. Even though it’s not organic. Even with societies divided among religious factions, Arabs, Bedouins, religious minorities, other ethnic groups, oil interests, the army. Even though Europe had hundreds of years of religious and dynastic wars and France is in its 5th republic. But the Middle East was going to embrace democratic norms overnight.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 1 week ago, 13 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,469,392
@previous (I)
It’s kinda dumb the US has looked at the most impoverished countries in the world in the middle of a desert, decided what these people need to become democracies is to get bombed, it doesn’t work, and then we repeat the process. You have to wonder if Washington is stupid or what. There’s this dumb idea that democracy makes countries rich, but it’s the other way around. Citizens can’t establish a democracy if they’re too poor to have the free time to protest. Bombing the Middle East will never fix it.
It’s kinda dumb the US has looked at the most impoverished countries in the world in the middle of a desert, decided what these people need to become democracies is to get bombed, it doesn’t work, and then we repeat the process. You have to wonder if Washington is stupid or what. There’s this dumb idea that democracy makes countries rich, but it’s the other way around. Citizens can’t establish a democracy if they’re too poor to have the free time to protest. Bombing the Middle East will never fix it.
Anonymous I replied with this 1 week ago, 7 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,469,396
@previous (J)
> It’s kinda dumb the US has looked at the most impoverished countries in the world in the middle of a desert, decided what these people need to become democracies is to get bombed, it doesn’t work, and then we repeat the process. You have to wonder if Washington is stupid or what. There’s this dumb idea that democracy makes countries rich, but it’s the other way around. Citizens can’t establish a democracy if they’re too poor to have the free time to protest. Bombing the Middle East will never fix it.
The U.S. has a particularly odd mix of massive firepower, global logistics reach, and cultural ignorance. You have all kinds of specialists who study cultures and languages but the top “leaders” instead “go with their gut.” Or hand off responsibility to equally obtuse administrators - Rumsfeld, Bremer, Feith, and Wolfowitz were hacks in over their heads. Plenty of nice Ivy League degrees but stumbling blindly into another quick war-lasting peace folly.
You also have to wonder, is it democracy if it’s imposed by force?
> It’s kinda dumb the US has looked at the most impoverished countries in the world in the middle of a desert, decided what these people need to become democracies is to get bombed, it doesn’t work, and then we repeat the process. You have to wonder if Washington is stupid or what. There’s this dumb idea that democracy makes countries rich, but it’s the other way around. Citizens can’t establish a democracy if they’re too poor to have the free time to protest. Bombing the Middle East will never fix it.
The U.S. has a particularly odd mix of massive firepower, global logistics reach, and cultural ignorance. You have all kinds of specialists who study cultures and languages but the top “leaders” instead “go with their gut.” Or hand off responsibility to equally obtuse administrators - Rumsfeld, Bremer, Feith, and Wolfowitz were hacks in over their heads. Plenty of nice Ivy League degrees but stumbling blindly into another quick war-lasting peace folly.
You also have to wonder, is it democracy if it’s imposed by force?
Anonymous J replied with this 1 week ago, 3 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,469,399
@previous (I)
My entire life, I think the reality of the US military has just gotten more and more detached from the everyday experience of ordinary Americans. Men from my grandparent’s generation served, it was a common thing because of WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, etc. Generations back when Americans used to get drafted everyday people had the experience of serving. The war on terror started with 9/11 before I was born, and the war in Afghanistan didn’t end until I was an adult. So the war on terror lasted my entire childhood and there was never a draft.
These days it doesn’t matter if we win or we lose, and nobody’s going to get drafted, so people just don’t care.
My entire life, I think the reality of the US military has just gotten more and more detached from the everyday experience of ordinary Americans. Men from my grandparent’s generation served, it was a common thing because of WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, etc. Generations back when Americans used to get drafted everyday people had the experience of serving. The war on terror started with 9/11 before I was born, and the war in Afghanistan didn’t end until I was an adult. So the war on terror lasted my entire childhood and there was never a draft.
These days it doesn’t matter if we win or we lose, and nobody’s going to get drafted, so people just don’t care.
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Anonymous J double-posted this 1 week ago, 5 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,469,401
Also with drone warfare, each decade it’s been getting easier to kill people without risking our own troops. But it’s difficult to verify how many of those people are actually terrorists. At some point if they haven’t already, they’re going to start killing people without any human in the loop.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 6 days ago, 16 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,469,543
@1,469,399 (J)
> My entire life, I think the reality of the US military has just gotten more and more detached from the everyday experience of ordinary Americans. Men from my grandparent’s generation served, it was a common thing because of WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, etc. Generations back when Americans used to get drafted everyday people had the experience of serving. The war on terror started with 9/11 before I was born, and the war in Afghanistan didn’t end until I was an adult. So the war on terror lasted my entire childhood and there was never a draft.
>
> These days it doesn’t matter if we win or we lose, and nobody’s going to get drafted, so people just don’t care.
Which returns militaries to the 18th century personal force of the monarchs and their ministers. Bush and his people knew a draft would kill reelection. So they stop-lossed people. Guys I went to high school with got stuck in endless loop National Guard deployments and lost their jobs and homes. RAND and Bremer called for 500,000 troops to occupy Iraq, but the real key was early elections, handoff, GTFO of a religion and sectarian power scrum. We also backed Chalabi, who used U.S. backing to line his pockets and settle personal vendettas. And the Neocons thought they were rebuilding Germany or Japan.
> My entire life, I think the reality of the US military has just gotten more and more detached from the everyday experience of ordinary Americans. Men from my grandparent’s generation served, it was a common thing because of WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, etc. Generations back when Americans used to get drafted everyday people had the experience of serving. The war on terror started with 9/11 before I was born, and the war in Afghanistan didn’t end until I was an adult. So the war on terror lasted my entire childhood and there was never a draft.
>
> These days it doesn’t matter if we win or we lose, and nobody’s going to get drafted, so people just don’t care.
Which returns militaries to the 18th century personal force of the monarchs and their ministers. Bush and his people knew a draft would kill reelection. So they stop-lossed people. Guys I went to high school with got stuck in endless loop National Guard deployments and lost their jobs and homes. RAND and Bremer called for 500,000 troops to occupy Iraq, but the real key was early elections, handoff, GTFO of a religion and sectarian power scrum. We also backed Chalabi, who used U.S. backing to line his pockets and settle personal vendettas. And the Neocons thought they were rebuilding Germany or Japan.
Anonymous D replied with this 5 days ago, 23 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,469,730
USA is dumb
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 5 days ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,469,737
@1,469,543 (K)
Tbh the only reason why Germany and Japan are so successful after losing World War Two is because they were only able to fight World War Two because they were already powerful industrial economies before World War Two.
Tbh the only reason why Germany and Japan are so successful after losing World War Two is because they were only able to fight World War Two because they were already powerful industrial economies before World War Two.
Anonymous L double-posted this 5 days ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,469,741
Iraq is a desert. Germany is located in the middle of Europe and Japan is an island. They both have a huge trade advantage so it makes sense they would be manufacturing hubs. Democracy isn’t an economic plan, and thinking Iraq would become wealthy by establishing democracy was dumb. Even with Japan, we gave them billions of dollars to rebuild their country. We didn’t spend billions rebuilding Iraqi cities and building Iraqi factories.
Anonymous L triple-posted this 5 days ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,469,742
And I’m not even saying Iraq couldn’t ever be wealthy, I’m just saying, if they want to be, step one is probably invading Kuwait to actually get enough coastline to build some ports and start trading with the outside world.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 10 hours ago, 5 days later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,471,207
Iran now allies with IraqGreat job in 2003, Bush jnr!
Mission Accomplished.