You're damn right. Your sarcasm duly noticed but I agree with the post. All of this horror is totally worth it. The loss of life is sad and I am one of the weak nuts that has actually cried about the loss of American and innocent lives. On two specific occasions I have sobbed and cried and broke down and prayed for their souls and families. (We pray for them daily but I'm talking about break downs) But that being said the liberation of the Iraqis and fringe benefits the world will receive is a worthy cause.
You forgot to add the damage done to Iraq by the US/UK "regime change motivated" economic sanctions, the UNSC busting no-fly zones, CIA fomented coupes, 1998 Operation Desert Fox bomb free for all, ... All of this reminds me of those late night 30 seconds TV commercials hawking sh*t nobody really needs or wants. With 5 seconds left, you know they are gonna say "but wait there's more .."
Hey liberals, guess what? WE WON !!! Now be happy, or are you mad that all the things that you guys predicted about vietnam, or that it would be a long war, or that the world would never recover, or that it would inflame Arab worlds, or that terrorism would increase...or that....well, you get the drift,,,,,,,all of them WRONG !!!! BE HAPPY WE WON !!! WOOOT !! DD
No one ever said we would lose, and will you find a thread where someone said this would be another Vietnam, and proclaiming that the world has recovered after three weeks is ridiculous. Lets wait a little while to see how well its going to go. Hopefully it continues, but don't blow your load just yet I will get you some clean up materials.
I keep forgetting that Saddam put a gun to the USA's head and demanded those crazy *ss sanctions. What a sadistic bast*rd!!! It's not like the USA has a choice in the matter, to say further a foreign policy goal.
Listen to the UN! Listen to the UN! ...oh, unless it imposes sanctions....then...BLAME THEM ON THE US! Yeah! That's it!
So your suggestion would have been to allow Saddam to surrender, admit defeat in Gulf War 1, yet allow him to violate the terms of the treaty (re: disarmament) without repercussion. Yeah, that would have shown him.
Cool gif, btw. You might want to check the last UNSC vote wrt Iraq eco sanctions. In particular, look which veto members abstained. Imagine a country which has fine wine and cheese, and who also btw were making direct flights to Bagdad with humanitarian supplies.
...and had oil contracts with Iraq...while Bill Clinton was busy trying to get the UN to understand that this was a serious matter.
Those economic sanctions really showed him who was boss. The US has used economic sanctions in the past (see Cuba) and knew that they were unlikely to be an efficacious policy. Not only did we know the policy would not work, but we also knew that it would likely lead to devasting results with the innocent Iraqi citizens (500,000 deaths of Iraqi children below the age of 5 have been attributed directly to the sanctions). Thus, the economic sanctions caused Saddam no pain while causing "genocide" to Iraqi citizens. Way to go USA!!!
I think the issue with sanctions is that they are what the U.N. embraces to put pressure on misbehaving governments. I can't tell you how many anti-war people I heard on TV saying that we should let the sanctions "work" (not just in this conflict either - it seems to be the knee jerk reaction to counter the suggestion of war). I agree that sanctions don't work when dealing with dictators but so many people who think that war should be the last resort will suggest sanctions because aside from war and sanctions what else can you do? Send special forces in to assasinate someone?
