No, THIS is what going crazy must feel like.
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 18:21
VIEWED: 13059
PAGE 1 of 15
For 10+ yrs, we tried. Tried diplomatically. Tried the multi-lateral approach. Tried working w/ the U.N. The U.N. even says...nope, Iraq isn't doing it's part. Which is funny, because it was th U.N. which was involved in the biggest bribe scandal of all time, but that's not the point.
And where'd that lead us? Well, it lead us exactly where we said it would. War. But now, it seems there's a collective amnesia going on, all across the world. It seems that the REASONS for going to war never changed, although the many and obvious reprecussions were mentioned... sometimes loudly, other times,...not so much.
So, today there are folks, lying or fogetting about what got us here to this point, and they are rallying for and end to war. Ok ,fine. But then what ? Sure, Saddam's gone. And his two sons. Mission accomplished. Right ? Only the ensuing bloodbath which is sure to follow ( everyone says it'll happen, right ) will just open up howls by others standing on the side lines for something else to be done. Something ? WTF ?? BY WHO ? Certainly no one else has the goods to even try to step in, or they'd have done so already. And we don't want the big bad USA doing anything else....that's why everyone is so pissed off as it is right now!
Funny, it's not the terrorist anyone cares about. Cutting/ sawing off heads of innocents. Naww...that's just muslims being muslims, right ? In any other context, that'd be seen as a most racist remark. But not here. No. We'll overlook that sort of generalization , at least in this case.
Damned if you do,damned if you don't. Personally, I think our biggest mistake was not doing ENOUGH , early on and then thinking things would chill out. Once it became obvious that that wasn't going to happen, politics kicked in, from both sides. Those who voted for the war are now crying about it. Please. If you're not going to lead, then get the hell out of the way. Sadly, everyone just wants the spot light.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No the biggest mistake was wanting it now now now. The biggest mistake was thinking you can bully the rest of the world into falling into line. The whole endeavour was destined to lead right where it's going while there was no real multi-national support and while the regional powers weren't in support. The reason the first Gulf War wasn't as big a fuck up as this one, was precisely because it was a joint effort and the regional powers were on board.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Damned if you do,damned if you don't. Personally, I think our biggest mistake was not doing ENOUGH , early on and then thinking things would chill out. Once it became obvious that that wasn't going to happen, politics kicked in, from both sides. Those who voted for the war are now crying about it. Please. If you're not going to lead, then get the hell out of the way. Sadly, everyone just wants the spot light.
This time around though all you had was George Bush saying "my way or the high way", not to Iraq, but the people whose support he needed but was both too inept and too disinterested to actually try to garner. That's why its a fuck up.
So you are absolutely right, not enough was done, not enough was done by the coalition to actually make it a coalition rather than a team of countries that did what Bush told them to. Not enough by half to make this anything more than America throwing it's military weight around, and it could have been more than that, but it's not.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not really. In 1991 we were using a different strategy. One that involved carpet bombing and artillery barrages that produced widespread damage to civilian infrastructure, whihc was something we were trying to avoid in 2003. Furthermore, in 1991 we left without actually achieving any real goal other then to force Hussein out of Kuwait, as opposed to actually removing Hussein from power. Had we used a humanitarian strategy and removed Hussein from power in 1991, the war would have been just as complicated. Multi-national support has nothing to do with that.
Originally posted by citizen:
No the biggest mistake was wanting it now now now. The biggest mistake was thinking you can bully the rest of the world into falling into line. The whole endeavour was destined to lead right where it's going while there was no real multi-national support and while the regional powers weren't in support. The reason the first Gulf War wasn't as big a fuck up as this one, was precisely because it was a joint effort and the regional powers were on board.
Secondly, the multi-national support in 2003 was larger then it was in 1991, with 49 nations supporting the 2003 invasion, as opposed to about 30 nations in 1991. Only a UN mandate is different. In 1991 the UN mandated the invasion of Iraq, in 2003, it did not. However the difficulty with getting a UN mandate in 2003 had nothing to do with a lack of multi-national support for the invasion obviously, but rather with the fear that France and Russia would seek to veto the action. So by claiming that absence of a UN mandate constitutes no international support for the 2003 Iraq war is essentially granting France and Russia the ability to define what international support means, which is nonsense.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Bollocks. This time around it was basically the US and the UK and a bunch of nations that said "sure we'll sign our name there so it looks like someone supports you".
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Secondly, the multi-national support in 2003 was larger then it was in 1991, with 49 nations supporting the 2003 invasion, as opposed to about 30 nations in 1991.
Quote:Where as we all know that distinction lands at the feet of the US alone?
So by claiming that absence of a UN mandate constitutes no international support for the 2003 Iraq war is essentially granting France and Russia the ability to define what international support means, which is nonsense.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
It seems that the REASONS for going to war never changed
You mean to find all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? We went, we looked, they don't have any. Time to come home.
David
"Not completely as well as the series of Firefly..." - From a review of Serenity at amazon.de
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by daveshayne:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
It seems that the REASONS for going to war never changed
You mean to find all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? We went, we looked, they don't have any. Time to come home.
David
"Not completely as well as the series of Firefly..." - From a review of Serenity at amazon.de
No, that's not right. It was Saddam's links to the al-Queda terrorists, wasn't it? Or it was his DESIRE to have WMD? Or his ongoing WMD research program? Or his DESIRE to have an ongoing research program? His role in 9/11? Or wasn't it to spread democracy in the Middle East? or to remove a tyrant who was nasty to his own people, to liberate them? or to fight the terrorists in their own neighborhood, so they'd be too busy to cause trouble over here?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In reality however in both invasions ~90%-95% of the troops came from only three countries with most countries in the coalition providing less then one percent of the invasion complement. In both cases the US/UK contributed the vast majority of the invasion force, 94% in 2003 and 85% in 1991.
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:Bollocks. This time around it was basically the US and the UK and a bunch of nations that said "sure we'll sign our name there so it looks like someone supports you".
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Secondly, the multi-national support in 2003 was larger then it was in 1991, with 49 nations supporting the 2003 invasion, as opposed to about 30 nations in 1991.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In reality though I'm not talking about merely the troops. In reality I'm talking about the support being real rather than traded by predominatly third world nations, none of which were the local powers. In reality I'm talking about real support rather than on paper to look good support. In reality.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
In reality however in both invasions ~90%-95% of the troops came from only three countries with most countries in the coalition providing less then one percent of the invasion complement. In both cases the US/UK contributed the vast majority of the invasion force, 94% in 2003 and 85% in 1991.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wrong.
For 50+ years we meddled, and meddled, playing favorites, playing pattycake with scum, propping up tyrants, throwing down moderates, and it lead exactly where folks with sense said it would.
We threw down Mossedeigh for the Shah, they threw down the Shah, and sent in Khomeni, so we propped up Hussien, etc etc.
And who propped up and practically built Osama ?
And for a fact we're the primary financiers of the Isreali war machine.
These chickens came home to roost, that's all, and whatever scumbag we prop up in Iraq on the way out is likely to either turn on us when we hang em out to dry, or be thrown down and replaced by someone else who despises us, whether it happens now, or a couple years from now, the end result is the same - it boomerangs on us every single time, and what do we learn from it ?
Not a damned thing.
Time we learned the merit of leaving the hell alone.
On a side note - one of our more blatant recent actions unfortunately legitimizes Iran's storming and hostage taking of OUR consulate in 1979.
We stormed theirs in Iraq recently and did exactly the same thing, for exactly the same reasons.
So much for the moral high ground.
In Hindu lore, there is the myth of the monkey trap. The monkey spies a bottle with a banana inside it. The neck of the bottle is just big enough for the monkey's empty hand to slide in. The monkey grabs the banana and, whoops! He finds he cannot extract his hand and the banana. To retrieve his hand he must let go the banana.
The whole middle east is a monkey trap to us, all we need to do to solve the problem is let go, but the greedy stupid bastards in power cannot accept that, and so all our blood and treasure is spilled in futile efforts to change a reality that will not be changed.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The majority of the countries involved in both cases were not third world nations. The fact is that many countries supported both the the 1991 and the 2003 invasion, and in both cases the majority of the countries provided only token support. So if the 1991 gulf war had multi-national support, so did the 2003 war.
Originally posted by citizen:
In reality though I'm not talking about merely the troops. In reality I'm talking about the support being real rather than traded by predominatly third world nations, none of which were the local powers. In reality I'm talking about real support rather than on paper to look good support. In reality.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME