The Financial Cost of the Iraq War - A Total DISASTER

Sorry that you find the truth so disturbing. Maybe one day you will learn to accept it.

 

!st Saddam long ago went rogue, 2nd Saddam wasn't originally running the BAATH party in Iraq.

 

it was a religious war, Bush thought he was on a mission from God, Bush and his cronies thought they could convert everyone to Christians over there, sad fact is, the Christians that were there are now even worse off then before.. if not dead

 

​

Damn you got that from three …?

Or you haven't grasps the complexities of the QUOTE function

​

 

BS.

 

does the B stand for "Bush"?

"Donald Rumsfeld's holy war: How President Bush's Iraq briefings came with quotes from the Bible"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...t-Bushs-Iraq-briefings-came-quotes-Bible.html

"U.S. Military Weapons Inscribed With Secret 'Jesus' Bible Codes"

https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-m...bed-secret-jesus-bible-codes/story?id=9575794

"George W. Bush and the Crusades"

https://www.marxist.com/iraq-bush-crusades080503.htm

"On the eve of the war in Iraq, George W. Bush talked about a "crusade". He was obviously quite pleased with himself for having thought of such a catchy phrase. But he was quickly silenced by his advisers, who pointed out to him that the word "crusade" has very unfortunate associations for the Moslem world."

 

Well, to be honest, at the time a lot of Americans really wanted some payback, well lets put some strong Emphasis on Americans not your average leftist! They would have simply sent a mean letter with a couple derogatory mother insults inside

 

UK news, like I said, AMERICANS

 

You just proved where is your proof for the Saddam info. The both sides of the 38th Parallel were run by authoritarian ass hats. We can see by the results on opposites sides of the 38th parallel that we were on the side of the angels in that one. By the way what Cummings book demonstrates is that both sides were guilty of provocation and both sides had it in mind to unify Korea.

 

huh? yes, most that post here are Americans, what country you from?

 

Bush said, if Saddam did not let inspectors in, he was going to war, he let them in, inspectors found no signs of WMD, the inspectors had not even left yet and he warned them to leave as he was going to war anyways... he never found any WMD

Bush thought he was on a mission from God and nothing was gonna stop him from going to war

 

Well in one aspect Freshair is correct, it is a religious war! He just doesn't realize what Jihad means and who practices the ideology

 

good, I would of preferred that after the inspectors found no WMD to the 10+ year Bush war

 

we are talking about Iraq, they had nothing to do with 9-11, even Bush admitted that - but thank you for agreeing it was a religious war

"Bush admits that Iraq Had Nothing To Do With 9/11"

 

Why, once they discovered the Iraq's moved them out Iraq did that change their ideology of Jihad and by some miracle all the Jihadist found love for Americans

 

Ah, so they loved us up until 9-11! So the great Satan is a affectionate nick name they gave us over the 100 years.. Man, Leftist are in the know'ns big time!

 

never said Iraq loved us, nor do we love them... but that is still no excuse for the 10+ year war

do you think we should go to war with any country that doesn't "love" us?

do you think going to war with a country will make a country "love" us

Iraq and Iran were at war for years and years, we helped break them up... and then we go to war with Iraq and maybe soon with Iran... what?

all that money spent on those wars could of been much better spent here at home

 

Well better to keep their attention in their shithole country then have them sit about with idle hands scheming on how to attack the homeland! Besides seasoned commanders are better than logistical theorist! And munition testing is a huge boon to R&D!

 

Iraq was not responsible for 911

the Iraq war made us weaker financially - in addition to the Afghanistan war, these two 10+ year wars have made us less safe

we should of just did a quick Arial retaliatory strike to Afghanistan to send them a message to control their people, then backed off

 

From the Wikipedia entry on Bruce Cummings emphasis mine

Cumings has been described as "the left's leading scholar of Korean history." [8] Scholars have called his work revisionist. Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies scholar Kathryn Weathersby wrote that Cumings’ two-volume study of the origins of the Korean War was the "most important revisionist account," and she reports Cumings' conclusions that "the question remains open whether it was in fact the DPRK or the ROK that initiated the military action on 25 June 1950." [9] University of Georgia historian William W. Stueck agreed that Cumings' work was "revisionist", and did not find it convincing, but said "I do not regard revisionism as a pejorative label... That usage simply has to do with the time frame within which the arguments became prominent among American scholars." Cumings, Stueck continued, published more than a generation after the start of the war and his arguments "challenged the views that the war was largely international in nature and that the American participation in it was – with at least one prominent exception – defensive and wise.” Historian Allan R. Millet argued that the work's "eagerness to cast American officials and policy in the worst possible light, however, often leads him to confuse chronological cause and effect and to leap to judgments that cannot be supported by the documentation he cites or ignores." Cumings himself has rejected the "revisionist" label.

No way I'm considering valid the ravings of an anti American hack writer.

Neither should you.

 

Who cares? and I don't know why people keep claiming the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq lasted 10 years. They were both over much shorter than that.

 

Close enough! Talk is cheap, at some point you have to set an example, besides, our military isn't going away anytime soon so we might as well use it for what it's purpose is

Again, if honest reign supreme then we would be honest and state we could have pulled out under the last administration. But there were some blunderous inept decision and blatant ignoring of military advisors that gave rise to a whole new set of problems..

Regardless, one President and his side kick may be blamed for fabrication but the other can without a doubt be blamed for allowing the creation of much greater threat and extending the conflict.

 

Well let Colin Powell pay for it himself. I did not know he was a shill for Haliburton.

Of course our government has been lying to us for decades. I do not care what the "international community" tolerates. The US should take to posture of looking out for its own interests.

 

both, but republicans told us Iraq's oil woudl pay for the war, it woudl cost us virtually nothing

http://watchingthewatchers.org/news/624/iraq-war-cost-little-and-iraq-oil

"If you can remember that far back, before the invasion of Iraq, Dick Cheney and friends were arrogantly sure that (a) the cost of the war would be minimal, and (b) Iraq's oil revenue would fund reconstruction efforts; it would virtually be a no-cost war, one that paid for itself."