I found this on my journey through the day's news:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/iraq-war-10-years-later-worth-141829429.html
I thought it was going to be about the Cigarette Smoking Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Smoking_Man)...
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.angelfire.com%2Ffm%2Fmycloset%2FXFsite%2Fcsm01.jpg&hash=b494ede80a88a80458301a04cb788caebe632c9d)
Boy do I miss that show. :(
He was kool.
Another view, same thing:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/10-years-later-iraq-war-still-failure-062800357.html
The Washington Post puts it in perspective of all American wars since the Revolution. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ten-years-after-the-invasion-did-we-win-the-iraq-war/2013/03/08/9c18c10e-80f3-11e2-8074-b26a871b165a_story.html)
Quote from: Longdan on March 19, 2013, 02:20:56 PM
Another view, same thing:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/10-years-later-iraq-war-still-failure-062800357.html
Paul Brandus tries to claim the administration was wrong about it being "a cakewalk"?!?
Uh, no, that was completely correct. It was what happened
after the cakewalk that was hell. The administration told everyone from the beginning that
that part would be long and difficult. (And expensive. The cheap part was the cakewalk, simply destroying their military.)
Complaints about us not getting any oil revenue afterward? PEOPLE WERE COMPLAINING IT WAS ALL ABOUT OIL REVENUE TO BEGIN WITH!! This baffles me more than anything. I can understand charges, or at least concerns, about imperialism for oil (although the country would have probably turned out better had we actually practiced imperialism); I can understand complaints that we didn't get any oil out of it. But the same people charging the administration as being death-for-oil imperialists and then turning around later to complain that we didn't capitalize on the oil after all?! That's just mindless political opposition for the sake of opposition.
Did it make America safer overall? No, and admittedly that was part of the administration marketing piffle. Did it make the Middle Eastern region safer? That remains to be seen in the long run, but in the short run the answer can only be yes: a rogue nation with a significant army and air force no longer gasses its own inhabitants and no longer tries to invade its neighbors. That may change in the next few years as America withdraws its influence, and I'll grant that I don't know whether things are better for Iraqi inhabitants on average -- very possibly not, despite some improvements in some areas -- but considering the region overall, yes, while we were there, it was safer.
Was it a just war fought with American values? By and large, yes -- even the complaints about Abu Gharib exemplified that in a backhanded way, because we ourselves took seriously complaints about the misbehavior of a tiny minority doing something that the majority among our enemies would have not only considered entirely acceptable treatment of enemies but also would have forcibly suppressed internal dissent and criticism about!
I am glad they did not come here and kill me and then see if they could justify it after the fact.
A whole lot of Iraqis got killed for the crime of living in their own country when somebody decided
to bring them some good old democracy. They do not count anymore. That is pretty much what I see.