Iraq is about to fall, again. biggest foreign policy failure of all time?

[ThemBombs]

the Iraq war has wasted something north of 6 trillion dollars, killed thousands of American soldiers, killed over one million innocent civilians, and now it is about to fall, again, this time to jihadists.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/islamist-rebels-vow-to-march-on-iraqs-capital-1402562192

biggest American foreign policy disaster? up there with Vietnam, or worse?

[kentatm]

yes, going in there was always dumb as hell.

it was always a broken country that would have devolved into civil war once their strong man dictator fell.

the fact that the Bush admin was able to get the media to be complicit and actually cheer lead us into the invasion is a disgrace.

:facepalm at our media buying bullshit lies like Iraq being capable of hitting us w/nuclear missiles when their military was made of outdated shit they bought from the Chinese in the 70s.

[Ass Dan]

http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/msnbc/Components/ArtAndPhoto-Fronts/COVER/080501/g-cvr-080501-mission-10a.grid-6x2.jpg

[KingBeasley08]

nah we got some good oil out of it I'm sure

[ItsMillerTime]

yes, going in there was always dumb as hell.

it was always a broken country that would have devolved into civil war once their strong man dictator fell.

the fact that the Bush admin was able to get the media to be complicit and actually cheer lead us into the invasion is a disgrace.

:facepalm at our media buying bullshit lies like Iraq being capable of hitting us w/nuclear missiles when their military was made of outdated shit they bought from the Chinese in the 70s.

Had to have an event that would unite all American citizens so we would be okay with the invasion.. something like a.... 9/11?

[Akrazotile]

yes, going in there was always dumb as hell.

it was always a broken country that would have devolved into civil war once their strong man dictator fell.

the fact that the Bush admin was able to get the media to be complicit and actually cheer lead us into the invasion is a disgrace.

:facepalm at our media buying bullshit lies like Iraq being capable of hitting us w/nuclear missiles when their military was made of outdated shit they bought from the Chinese in the 70s.


The majority of both parties approved the war in Congress. :confusedshrug:

[MavsSuperFan]

Honestly for america, this is a good thing.

Sunni Control of Iraq will prevent A superstate (iran + Iraq) forming that would totally rebalance the American friendly middle east.

And yes the governments of the middle east are american friends. Eg. the House of Saud.

[kentatm]

Had to have an event that would unite all American citizens so we would be okay with the invasion.. something like a.... 9/11?

Anyone who had any understanding of Saddam and the ME should have known that Saddam would not be working w/a person like OBL.

Saddam had zero friends in the region (that happens when you attack everyone) and knew the US was more than happy to **** his shit up if they had an excuse. He was a horrible human being but he wasn't a moron and wouldn't have taken that kind of risk because he had already seen how badly his military would be whipped against our forces in the first Gulf War. Never mind that OBL was a radical Jihadist while Saddam was a secular leader. OBL would want nothing more than to pop a cap in his ass. Those two were always enemies.


The majority of both parties approved the war in Congress. :confusedshrug:

:lol

Yes this is true.

and it happened AFTER the Bush admin started trotting out complete horseshit via the media (who never questioned their claims) that whipped the populace into being angry enough to support a war, which in turn led to a ton of spineless Dems who were scared of being called soft on terror to go ahead and agree w/the Bush admin on the invasion.

That war never happens if the Bush admin wasn't dead set on going after Saddam from the get go. Congress didn't just wake up one day and start claiming Saddam was behind 9/11.

This is why I'll never vote for people like Hillary (who damn well should have known it was all bullshit) who supported going in on obviously false pretenses.

[bdreason]

Our goal was never to provide stability to the country, so we didn't fail.

[MavsSuperFan]

Our goal was never to provide stability to the country, so we didn't fail.
Partially Correct.

Although we did fail. We wanted to put in a pro-America government.

Eg. the house of saud, The Al Nahyan family, House of Khalifa, etc.

It seems our 2 options now are a violent Sunni extremist government. Or an elected shia government. Given those 2 options obviously for selfish american interests it is best Iraq be lead by violent sunni extremists.

At least then we know that an Iran-Iraq alliance is unlikely.

[MavsSuperFan]

Anyone who had any understanding of Saddam and the ME should have known that Saddam would not be working w/a person like OBL.

Saddam had zero friends in the region (that happens when you attack everyone) and knew the US was more than happy to **** his shit up if they had an excuse. He was a horrible human being but he wasn't a moron and wouldn't have taken that kind of risk because he had already seen how badly his military would be whipped against our forces in the first Gulf War. Never mind that OBL was a radical Jihadist while Saddam was a secular leader. OBL would want nothing more than to pop a cap in his ass. Those two were always enemies.



:lol

Yes this is true.

and it happened AFTER the Bush admin started trotting out complete horseshit via the media (who never questioned their claims) that whipped the populace into being angry enough to support a war, which in turn led to a ton of spineless Dems who were scared of being called soft on terror to go ahead and agree w/the Bush admin on the invasion.

That war never happens if the Bush admin wasn't dead set on going after Saddam from the get go. Congress didn't just wake up one day and start claiming Saddam was behind 9/11.

This is why I'll never vote for people like Hillary (who damn well should have known it was all bullshit) who supported going in on obviously false pretenses.
The really stupid part is Saddam overall was good for american interests.

He scared our allies in the region (saudis, bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, etc) and was weak enough that we could quite easily liberate our allies if he actually did attack.

He made our allies more dependant on us.
He also served as a great hedge against Iran. Iraq is like 60-65% Shia. Saddam dominated them and placed Sunnis at the head of the country. This made it impossible to work with Iran. A Democratic government in Iraq realistical is going to be Shia dominated and most likely pro-Iran.

One of the stupidest things the US has ever done was to try to remove Saddam. The only thing dumber would have been to try to remove the House of Saud or Mubarak back in the day.

[boozehound]

The majority of both parties approved the war in Congress. :confusedshrug:
under purposefully misleading intelligence from the administration. Its all out there now, but the bush admin purposefully only presented the intelligence that supported invading Iraq, rather than the unbiased intelligence from the actual intelligence community.


Also, they sat on something like 600 billion for most of a year (authorized for the war on terror) and then used it to invade iraq.

[~primetime~]

Perhaps it needs to "fall"

I mean shit, if that country is ever going to evolve from the dark ages then things need to happen. It's a disaster today but when hasn't that country been a disaster?

[Joshumitsu]

Perhaps it needs to "fall"

I mean shit, if that country is ever going to evolve from the dark ages then things need to happen. It's a disaster today but when hasn't that country been a disaster?

Agreed.

Let them duke it out without interference. Protect the Kurds in the North but otherwise, this is the only way shit will solve itself.

[MavsSuperFan]

Perhaps it needs to "fall"

I mean shit, if that country is ever going to evolve from the dark ages then things need to happen. It's a disaster today but when hasn't that country been a disaster?
A fallen Iraq is certainly better for American than a democratic iraq.

A democratic Iraq with full and fair elections can only result in close relations with Iran.

We should have either stayed out of Iraq or After we invaded and sent Saddam running, offered control of Iraq to one of his Sunni generals and made him the Iraqi version of Mubarak. Bush's idiotic insistence on democratic elections has screwed Iraq and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict for us.

[bladefd]

The results for this is almost equivalent to Vietnam part 2. I guess people never learned from Vietnam war.. :facepalm

[MavsSuperFan]

The results for this is almost equivalent to Vietnam part 2. I guess people never learned from Vietnam war.. :facepalm
Its actually very different from vietnam.

America never had a chance in vietnam. Ho Chi Minh was beloved and we would have never overcome his vision of a united vietnam.

I believe had Bush not been naive and stupid, it was possible to set up a Sunni, secular, pro american dictatorship in Iraq.

[~primetime~]

The results for this is almost equivalent to Vietnam part 2. I guess people never learned from Vietnam war.. :facepalm
4.5 thousand died in Iraq

58 thousand died in Nam

We would need another 12 or so more Iraq wars for it to be part 2.

[KevinNYC]

the Iraq war has wasted something north of 6 trillion dollars, killed thousands of American soldiers, killed over one million innocent civilians, and now it is about to fall, again, this time to jihadists.

Where are you getting your figures from?

[Derka]

Good. Islam *needs* a civil war.

Moderate Muslims preach up and down that extremists are not the majority...that the quacks that want to hide women inside at all times and follow hardline interpretations of the religion are a small number.

Well. Prove it. Stand up and fight for yourselves.

[KevinNYC]

The majority of both parties approved the war in Congress. :confusedshrug:

There was never a vote for the War in Congress. There was a vote to approve military force to enforce the existing UN Security Council resolutions against Iraq that Saddam flouted. That was in October 2002

In November 2002 The UN Security Council unanimously approved Resolution 1441 which allowed inspectors to go into Iraq and by the end of November they were on the ground in Iraq. As we know, they didn't find any WMD. Bush claimed the threat from Iraq remained he could have gone back to the Security Council asking for authorization for use of force, but he didn't.

According to the Iraq War Resolution the Congress passed in Nov 2002, the Presdient would have to go back to Congress and explain why there was still a threat to the US. It also explicitly stated nothing in that vote superseded the War Powers Resolution.


SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm)

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.


The war started in March 2003. Bush never went back to Congress or back to the UN security council for approval, because it was quite clear by March 2003, the threat was not what he had said it was.

[KevinNYC]

Your numbers are also incorrect.


The majority of both parties approved the war in Congress. :confusedshrug:The vote in November 2002 was

House
Republican
215 yes
6 no

Democratic
82 yes
126 no

Senate
Republican
49 yes
1 no

Democratic
29 yes
21 no

That's about 57% to 43% against the war from one of the parties.

[Marlo_Stanfield]

yes, going in there was always dumb as hell.

it was always a broken country that would have devolved into civil war once their strong man dictator fell.

the fact that the Bush admin was able to get the media to be complicit and actually cheer lead us into the invasion is a disgrace.

:facepalm at our media buying bullshit lies like Iraq being capable of hitting us w/nuclear missiles when their military was made of outdated shit the bought from America and the CIA in the 80s and 90s.
fixed it for you, maybe some children reading here:applause:

[Marlo_Stanfield]

Honestly for america, this is a good thing.

Sunni Control of Iraq will prevent A superstate (iran + Iraq) forming that would totally rebalance the American friendly middle east.

And yes the governments of the middle east are american friends. Eg. the House of Saud.
America is a disgrace and constantly cuasin mass genocides by destabelizating entire regions.
been doing that since WW2:facepalm :facepalm

[KevinNYC]

Good. Islam *needs* a civil war.

Moderate Muslims preach up and down that extremists are not the majority...that the quacks that want to hide women inside at all times and follow hardline interpretations of the religion are a small number.

Well. Prove it. Stand up and fight for yourselves.
Wars empower the extremists.

Do you think it's middle class professionals: doctors, lawyers, architects who do better during wars or the guys with guns? Usually during a civil war, civil society collapses. There's tons of evidence of the extremists being empowered from the recent history in Iraq. When the sectarian civil war went full scale in Iraq in 2005-2007 you couldn't just stand on the sidelines. You needed protection, and this drove the population into the hands of sectarians. Check out this map of Baghdad. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/baghdad_navigator/) You can click the settings and the see the changing demographics. Prior to 2006, most of the city had mixed neighborhoods, now you primarily live in a Sunni or Shiite area because it was too dangerous not to be with "your" people.

[KevinNYC]

If Bam Bam lets Iraw fall without even dropping an american bomb, hes lost all my respect.
ISIS doesn't have enough strength to take Baghdad, so it's not going to be a case of Iraq falling so much as Iraq splitting. It would be a three way split.

[MadeFromDust]

No failure except by Obamanation.

Bush attacked the terrorists and Obamallama pussified and retreated. Any results of that is on his increasingly hoary head.

[KevinNYC]

No failure except by Obamanation.

Bush attacked the terrorists and Obamallama pussified and retreated. Any results of that is on his increasingly hoary head.

hoary head?

[Relinquish]

America is a disgrace and constantly cuasin mass genocides by destabelizating entire regions.
been doing that since WW2:facepalm :facepalm

Come back when you learn to spell please. :applause:

[MavsSuperFan]

America is a disgrace and constantly cuasin mass genocides by destabelizating entire regions.
been doing that since WW2:facepalm :facepalm
Arent you british?

America will likely never catch up to all the evil shit britain has done.

[russwest0]

lol going there was and is stupid as hell.

that place is a desert wasteland. just leave it alone america quit trying to impose your will and flex your **** in every shitty country

[MavsSuperFan]

No failure except by Obamanation.

Bush attacked the terrorists and Obamallama pussified and retreated. Any results of that is on his increasingly hoary head.
Bush's ignorance of the shia/sunni conflict created a horrible situation.

An invasion of Iraq (illegal imo based on international law, but I dont really care about international law, it really only applies to weak 3rd world dictators) could have greatly benefited american foreign policy if executed correctly.

Bush Insisted on a democratic Iraq. That was his biggest mistake. because of the demographics of Iraq a democratic Iraq is going to be a SHia state. Thus strengthening Iran.

Bush should have gotten rid of Saddam and installed a more reasonable secular, sunni, pro american dictator. He should have kept in place the machinery of the Iraqi government (including the military) and simply co-opted it.

Edit: When you really think about it, its appalling how stupid Bush was. Who the **** dismantles a country's entire government and military and then tries to build one from scratch? :wtf: :facepalm :facepalm

We should have picked out guys that looked like they could be bought within the military and the baath party and offered them control of Iraq. They would have understood that we put them in power and been dependant on us.

[Nanners]

Bush Insisted on a democratic Iraq. That was his biggest mistake. because of the demographics of Iraq a democratic Iraq is going to be a SHia state. Thus strengthening Iran.

Bush should have gotten rid of Saddam and installed a more reasonable secular, sunni, pro american dictator. He should have kept in place the machinery of the Iraqi government (including the military) and simply co-opted it.


Bringing democracy to Iraq and "liberating the Iraqis" was a big part of the sales pitch for the war. The war would have had much less support if Bush had said they were going over there to install a pro-american dictator.

[MavsSuperFan]

Bringing democracy to Iraq and "liberating the Iraqis" was a big part of the sales pitch for the war. The war would have had much less support if Bush had said they were going over there to install a pro-american dictator.
Of course thats not how you advertise it.

Originally it was advertised as finding WMDs, and we all know that was bullshit now.

Its clear that even the Bush admin knew. Maybe not Bush himself, but people in the intelligence community knew.

A pro American dictator would have:
1. served our purposes
2. Secured access to a huge source of persian gulf oil
3. Denied that oil to russia and china
4. Isolated Iran
5. Saved hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives.
6. Prevented a lot of the Sunni/Shia violence.
7. Saved Trillions of our dollars
8. Saved thousands of american lives
9. Protected our current ME allies from potential attacks by Saddam
10. Brought Saddam to justice
11. Prevent Uday and Qusay from ever assuming power
12. Better the lives of all Iraqis (I mean odds are this guy is going to be better than Saddam, if he just stops the rape rooms its an improvement)
13. Prevented any possibility of WMD proliferation by Iraqi.
14. Increase world confidence in American foreign policy/military strength and planning.

When we defeated Imperial Japan did we just rip apart their whole government? No we kept the bureaucracy in place and built around it. Bush's childlike adherence to "justice" and "democracy" ruined the lives of tens of millions of Iraqis.

Democracy in Iraq would have resulted in horrible results for America. and IMO eventually crimes against humanity on the Sunnis. They were going to pay for all the shit Saddam did.

Now we are seeing that the Sunnis are raising up and won't accept a shia dominated Iraq without a fight. Extremist Sunnis are using violence and intimidation to win battles. Its sad and it didn't have to come to this.

[russwest0]

by the way this iraq shit is the main reason i supported ron paul in the election, but obviously the corporation ran media didn't.

he wasn't ***** footing around with like "we'll create a plan to get them out over a 10 year span" he was straightforward and said candidly that he'll get ALL of them out asap. these cowardly presidents just gladly let people risk their lives for.... nothing.

non interventionist foreign policy is the way to go. imagine if we spent all of that money on education and revamped that shitty failure of a system? the social engineers wouldn't like it but we'd have a lot more intelligent, cool, engaged, aware, and emotionally stable people in our country if we did. shit, maybe we could even get a bunch of these worthless bums off of the welfare system and then go ahead and abolish that like we should have done a long ass time ago.

oh and you know what else would be badass about not imposing our "freedom" on and flexing our **** in tons ofother countries? we wouldn't have a giant ****ing target on our back either.

[MavsSuperFan]

by the way this iraq shit is the main reason i supported ron paul in the election, but obviously the corporation ran media didn't.

he wasn't ***** footing around with like "we'll create a plan to get them out over a 10 year span" he was straightforward and said candidly that he'll get ALL of them out asap. these cowardly presidents just gladly let people risk their lives for.... nothing.

non interventionist foreign policy is the way to go. imagine if we spent all of that money on education and revamped that shitty failure of a system? the social engineers wouldn't like it but we'd have a lot more intelligent, cool, engaged, aware, and emotionally stable people in our country if we did. shit, maybe we could even get a bunch of these worthless bums off of the welfare system and then go ahead and abolish that like we should have done a long ass time ago.

oh and you know what else would be badass about not imposing our "freedom" on and flexing our **** in tons ofother countries? we wouldn't have a giant ****ing target on our back either.
Smart Intervention > Non-intervention>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stupid intervention

But I will agree with you that how the Iraqi invasion played out was one of the worst case scenarios.

If we had done it right, it could have solved a lot for the region and America.

[Patrick Chewing]

http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/msnbc/Components/ArtAndPhoto-Fronts/COVER/080501/g-cvr-080501-mission-10a.grid-6x2.jpg

Too late to blame him. Odumbo was warned not to reduce troops in Iraq.

[Marlo_Stanfield]

Arent you british?

America will likely never catch up to all the evil shit britain has done.
i

[Meticode]

Too late to blame him. Odumbo was warned not to reduce troops in Iraq.
Bring the troops home, let Iraq figure itself out.

[Patrick Chewing]

Bring the troops home, let Iraq figure itself out.

Which is fine with me too, but Odumbo doesn't know how to be President. This releasing of these Taliban guys is disgusting. Men died trying to capture these guys. Romney warned Obama what would happen if he reduced troop numbers too early, and now he's "considering" about taking action? No consistency. No backbone. Nothing but incompetence coming from this man.

[Marlo_Stanfield]

Which is fine with me too, but Odumbo doesn't know how to be President. This releasing of these Taliban guys is disgusting. Men died trying to capture these guys. Romney warned Obama what would happen if he reduced troop numbers too early, and now he's "considering" about taking action? No consistency. No backbone. Nothing but incompetence coming from this man.
this would have happened in ten years too as soon as the US would take the troops away.
and if they let them in the suicide bombings will keep killing innocent people.
whole war was a huge fail just like the country USA is a huge fail

[IamRAMBO24]

Back then, I was the only lone anti-war person when the majority of the population wanted to go to war. Everybody under the sun wanted to go to war, including many of you (I'm sure), so it's ridiculous to point fingers at the Democrats and say they should of known better. I was ridiculed and insulted for my radical views. I was in a state of depression for a while and didn't touch the internet.

Now I know my ideas are just far ahead of its time and those who disagree with me are just short sighted and will agree with me in the future.

[BasedTom]

No, that would be siding with the morally and objectively wrong side in back to back world wars.

[KevinNYC]

Back then, I was the only lone anti-war person when the majority of the population wanted to go to war.

:lol

[MavsSuperFan]

Too late to blame him. Odumbo was warned not to reduce troops in Iraq.
This is Bush's mess.

1. Invading Iraq was illegal under international law. (I will be honest this doesnt really matter to me, Nor does it matter to any other great power, eg. Russian invasion of South Ossetia and Crimea)

2. Much worse for me was how the Iraqi occupation was conducted.
I remember discussing the Iraq invasion with my dad (he is much more anti interventionist than me). We were both convinced that the US plan secretly was to install a pro american dictatorship. We thought the whole democracy and fair election angle was a smoke screen and that the real goal was to establish a pro american dictatorship.

Surprisingly in one of the stupidest foreign policy choices of the Bush Administration, they actually pushed for full elections.:facepalm

They made the same mistake in Palestine and gave Hamas legitimacy (against the counsel of almost everyone, including the Israelis).

The dismantling of the Ba'ath Party meant that anyone who knew how to run the country was chased out. The dismantling of the military created a situation where Iraq's provisional government was entirely dependant on coalition forces for security. Although Iraqi forces had faired poorly against american forces, they are to this day still 100x better than iraq's current military

3. By choosing to make Iraq democratic, Bush effectively chose to transfer power the Shia. (60-65% of the population)

Obviously this was going to cause tension. Sunnis were used to dominating Iraq. Saddam was sunni. All of a sudden these people who were dominant in Iraq were at a disadvantage almost overnight. They of course formed militias and started to fight us. They were angry at us.

Ironically later they somewhat joined us to fight the Shia :lol

Shiites formed militias too, most notably Mahdi Army, who eventually the Sunnis joined us to fight.

Anyways the whole situation could have been avoided by maintaining Saddam's army and using it to suppress any shia aspirations. Its too late know of course, neither the Shiites or the Sunnis are going to accept second class status at this point without losing a war.

By the time Obama took over, the civil war was already a certainty. American forces could delay when the civil war took place, but could never have prevented it. There is no benefit for america to stay in Iraq. This civil war was going to happen eventually. It will decide whether Iraq is sunni or shia controlled.

Its an interesting question whether the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) winning or the Iraqi democratically elected government winning is better for American interests.

On the one hand, ISIS is a bunch of cartoonishly evil dudes. They kill and torture people and post on youtube, etc. Also they hate america and the west and are super fundamentalist. Eg. its illegal for woman in areas they control not to be in full burkas and they caught off hands for stealing.

On the other hand a shia government of Iraq is going to be pro Iran. (Iran is already sending support to Iraq to help them fight ISIS) ISIS and Iran hate each other for obvious reasons. And ISIS is also fighting Assad

[MavsSuperFan]

No, that would be siding with the morally and objectively wrong side in back to back world wars.
are you saying america should have supported the german side in WW1 and 2?

[MavsSuperFan]

[QUOTE=Marlo_Stanfield]i

[Lakers Legend#32]

Bush's sh!t sandwich, the gift that keeps on stinking.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Too late to blame him. Odumbo was warned not to reduce troops in Iraq.

You guys desperately want to erase Bush from history, don't you?

[step_back]

Yet here you are on a American basketball website, rocking a screen name of an American character from an American TV show. Your anti-American type are the worst. It's akin to hating your wife but you stay in the relationship anyway because you love the sex. Stick to your convictions if you believe them so strongly.

He's just a troll. Is the Iraq war a massive blunder? Yes it is but the U.S certainly isn't this monster he's making it out to be. Unfortunately since World War 2 America has made a huge amount of money from war. As do a lot of countries including mine. That being said America still sends the most money across seas in foreign aid and in times of crisis the U.S is often leading the way.

Germany was also a country that had a military industrial complex and it's also responsible for the worst crimes against humanity of all time. He's suffering from a short term memory.

[gigantes]

A german is going to hold America's foreign policy against us? :lol :roll:

Germans have no right to criticise the actions of other nations unless they start trying to create Lebensraum
why bother with lebensraum when you can maneuver other nations in to doing your cheap labor and manufacturing, supplying you resources, and polluting their territories partially on your behalf?

you're saying lebensraum is worse than that?

not a big deal to me, but i don't see why those of us who aren't quite americans cannot morally comment on this here clusterfluff.

[kNIOKAS]

He's just a troll. Is the Iraq war a massive blunder? Yes it is but the U.S certainly isn't this monster he's making it out to be. Unfortunately since World War 2 America has made a huge amount of money from war. As do a lot of countries including mine. That being said America still sends the most money across seas in foreign aid and in times of crisis the U.S is often leading the way.

Germany was also a country that had a military industrial complex and it's also responsible for the worst crimes against humanity of all time. He's suffering from a short term memory.
This does not make an argument. Aid does not work as intended in many cases, and even if so, in the long run it might be harmful for the development of the receiving country.

Giving away charity does not negate how and in whose expense the profit was made in the first place.

[Marlo_Stanfield]

A german is going to hold America's foreign policy against us?

:lol :roll:

Germans have no right to criticise the actions of other nations unless they start trying to create Lebensraum
Germany had their warmongering phase for 20 years from 1925-45
America is constantly causing genocides and destroys other nations since they were founded.
their first act as a nation was to wipe out all indians:roll: :roll: :facepalm

[RidonKs]

We should have picked out guys that looked like they could be bought within the military and the baath party and offered them control of Iraq. They would have understood that we put them in power and been dependant on us.

are you suggesting this would have been the best course of action for the bush administration to meet its stated goals? or that this would have been the best and most desired outcome in general, for the american population, for the iraqi population, for the people of the surrounding region, etc?

[MavsSuperFan]

Germany had their warmongering phase for 20 years from 1925-45
America is constantly causing genocides and destroys other nations since they were founded.
their first act as a nation was to wipe out all indians:roll: :roll: :facepalm
Umm check your history.
You guys wanted your Weltpolitik aka a "place in the sun"


"Weltpolitik" ("world policy") was the foreign policy adopted by Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany in 1890, which marked a decisive break with former Chancellor Otto von Bismarck's ' "Realpolitik." The aim of Weltpolitik was to transform Germany into a global power through aggressive diplomacy, the acquisition of overseas colonies, and the development of a large navy. The origins of the policy can be traced to a Reichstag debate on 6 December 1897 during which German Foreign Secretary Bernhard von Bulow stated, "[i]n one word: We wish to throw no one into the shade, but we demand our own place in the sun." ("Mit einem Worte: wir wollen niemand in den Schatten stellen, aber wir verlangen auch unseren Platz an der Sonne."[1])

You guys had actual african colonies. I assure you, you used violence to attain them.
http://tielens.free.fr/Numis/AfriGerman_fichiers/image002.jpg


why bother with lebensraum when you can maneuver other nations in to doing your cheap labor and manufacturing, supplying you resources, and polluting their territories partially on your behalf?

you're saying lebensraum is worse than that?

not a big deal to me, but i don't see why those of us who aren't quite americans cannot morally comment on this here clusterfluff.

:biggums: :biggums: :biggums: yeah its like a million times worse. Genocide and ethic cleansing are worse than predatory foreign/economic policy.

[Marlo_Stanfield]

why bother with lebensraum when you can maneuver other nations in to doing your cheap labor and manufacturing, supplying you resources, and polluting their territories partially on your behalf?

you're saying lebensraum is worse than that?

not a big deal to me, but i don't see why those of us who aren't quite americans cannot morally comment on this here clusterfluff.
someone gets it:applause: :applause:
and just because Germany had a 20 year shit period doesnt change the fact that America has been tormenting this planet since the day they were founded.
americans are just so stupid and patriotic.
even during normal NBA games there are commercials for the military, clips of NBA players saying how much they love the US military( and how they make live saver for them in the USA:roll: :roll: ) and we even have"hoops for troops"weekend:biggums: :biggums:
what kind of propaganda is this:lol

[Marlo_Stanfield]

Umm check your history.
You guys wanted your Weltpolitik aka a "place in the sun"



You guys had actual african colonies. I assure you, you used violence to attain them.
http://tielens.free.fr/Numis/AfriGerman_fichiers/image002.jpg



:biggums: :biggums: :biggums: yeah its like a million times worse. Genocide and ethic cleansing are worse than predatory foreign/economic policy.
no its not.
firstly, every big country had colonies.
secondly i dont even base my arguments on germany being better. i

[RidonKs]

Yet here you are on a American basketball website, rocking a screen name of an American character from an American TV show. Your anti-American type are the worst. It's akin to hating your wife but you stay in the relationship anyway because you love the sex. Stick to your convictions if you believe them so strongly.
this is a scary thing to say imo

you're asking for a conviction that is literally insane. if a person can only say thumbs up or thumbs down to an entire country, as intricate an entity as exists in the world, you're literally asking them to contradict themselves. and more importantly, you're asking for a country to implement extreme nationalist policies with no critical discussion examining them. that's the first step towards a totalitarian mindset in which anything can be justified on the grounds of "patriotism" and dissidents can be defamed as "traitors" and "anti-american" and unworthy of attention altogether the moment they object.

how much does hbo and basketball really have to do with american foreign policy in the middle east? a whole lot less than sex has to do with a relationship. the proper analogy isn't hating your wife but staying for the sex. it's continuing to sleep with a dominant drug kingpin because she's rich as fk and makes your life easy as fk but who you wish would settle down and retire and stop constantly puts your life at risk to expand an empire that's already got the market cornered.

from that angle, it kinda makes sense to say, hey babe, we have millions in the bank.... can't we stop making enemies at every turn?

[GimmeThat]

if I was retarded enough to think that we should have a legitimate conversation with North Korea.

What makes you think I wouldn't be retarded enough to think of the same when it comes to Iraq?

[MavsSuperFan]

are you suggesting this would have been the best course of action for the bush administration to meet its stated goals? or that this would have been the best and most desired outcome in general, for the american population, for the iraqi population, for the people of the surrounding region, etc?
IMO yes it would have accomplished what should have been the bush administration's goals. I never thought that democracy in Iraq should have been an american goal.

Eg. To get rid of Saddam (a truly evil tyrant) and to gain access to Iraq's oil for the benefit of both Iraqi's and America. We would pay market prices for the oil. We would offer the same oil/security deals to them as we do with our other allies in the region.

Also it would further isolate Iran. Although we now know that there werent Nukes in Iraq and that the admin hyped up the threat despite what they knew, a pro american dictator in Iraq would totally eliminate the nuclear proliferation threat. Eg. No one is concerned the Saudis are developing nukes.



that this would have been the best and most desired outcome in general, for the american population, for the iraqi population, for the people of the surrounding region, etc?

IMO a pro American dictator would have benefited everyone.

Lets be real the majority of the Middle East is already run by a bunch of pro American dictators. A pro American Dictator in Iraq would not have jarred any of its neighbours other than Iran and Syria (whom it is in america's best interest to jar). In fact it would have made our Sunni allies in the rich oil states extremely happy. Saddam scared them cause he was a violent sociopath and he invaded Kuwait. A pro American dictator would have just been another sunni leader in the region. Odds are they would develop good relations.

Sunnis in Iraq would have benefited by having a moderate, secular, Sunni in charge. Obviously he would be corrupt (we would be constantly bribing him through legal loopholes), but we would try to select someone non-crazy. Eg a Mubarak.

Shiites and Kurds would benefit because the guy we chose would be less violent than Saddam. We would also pressure Sunnis to open up economic opportunities to them.

America benefits because of all the money we will save compared to building Iraq from the ground up into a democracy. Also had we maintained Saddam's military and co-opted it (bribing the generals) we could have lessened the need for American troops and had a much better Iraqi military. This military is experienced in how to crush Shia aspirations. I suspect they would have prevented the raise of militias better than we could. Middle eastern armies suck at fighting other armies but are great at crush internal rebellions.

The Ba'ath party ruled Iraq for decades. Compared to how the current Iraqi democratically elected government is doing, they were amazing rulers (this is despite our sanctions, which we would obviously lift if they were a pro American dictatorship). It was a mistake to get rid of all the bureaucrats that were experienced in running Iraq. We should have bribed them to our side.

Democracy on the surface looks great. But in Iraq it was always going to lead to a civil war. Sunnis are a minority in Iraq. they would lose any national election. Why if you're a sunni man would you accept living under Shia rule without a fight? Why if you're a shia man would you accept living under Sunni rule without a fight? Democracy in Iraq = civil war.

[longhornfan1234]

Nope... Post WWI negotiations and LBJ sending us to Vietnam.

[RidonKs]

Your just reaffirming my intended point. There's a grey area. I was responding to his comments I've seen in more threads than just this one that the US is a "complete failure" and "the worst country ever", etc.

Interesting extrapolations though.
ah, i misunderstood then

[Marlo_Stanfield]

this is a scary thing to say imo

you're asking for a conviction that is literally insane. if a person can only say thumbs up or thumbs down to an entire country, as intricate an entity as exists in the world, you're literally asking them to contradict themselves. and more importantly, you're asking for a country to implement extreme nationalist policies with no critical discussion examining them. that's the first step towards a totalitarian mindset in which anything can be justified on the grounds of "patriotism" and dissidents can be defamed as "traitors" and "anti-american" and unworthy of attention altogether the moment they object.

how much does hbo and basketball really have to do with american foreign policy in the middle east? a whole lot less than sex has to do with a relationship. the proper analogy isn't hating your wife but staying for the sex. it's continuing to sleep with a dominant drug kingpin because she's rich as fk and makes your life easy as fk but who you wish would settle down and retire and stop constantly puts your life at risk to expand an empire that's already got the market cornered.

from that angle, it kinda makes sense to say, hey babe, we have millions in the bank.... can't we stop making enemies at every turn?
i dont hate all Americans or the country as it is.
i just think the American politics and government are the worst in world history and for more than 150 years at that.
just my opinion.
i could give thousand examples of why thats the case but right now watching WC

[dunksby]

Iraq is not gonna fall, whether it's fortunate or not, rebellion in this part of the world has become a normal occurrence. Kurds have already dealt a few blows to them and with Iraqis arming their own volunteer forces to deal with the insurrection this will be over.

[MavsSuperFan]

i dont hate all Americans or the country as it is.
i just think the American politics and government are the worst in world history and for more than 150 years at that.
just my opinion.
i could give thousand examples of why thats the case but right now watching WC
You legitimately think that the US foreign policy is more evil than Nazi Germany or the German Empire?

[MavsSuperFan]

[QUOTE=Marlo_Stanfield]no its not.
firstly, every big country had colonies.
secondly i dont even base my arguments on germany being better. i

[Im Still Ballin]

Who cares man. Just rip one AYE.

[BasedTom]

are you saying america should have supported the german side in WW1 and 2?
Yes. Moreso for WWI than WWII.

In WWI, the USA had very little business getting involved in European affairs (and up to that point, there was a conscious effort to not get involved). However, the responsible choice would have been to take the side of the Central Powers, as Austria-Hungary had a legitimate reason to declare war on Serbia. There's a complex web of alliances, but the USA was always playing both sides and profiting from the war until they eventually jumped in at the end.

In WW2, the USA sided with Stalin. 'Nuff said. Even Patton realised that the Soviets were the true villain in the struggle, and he lobbied for war to be declared against them. At least from what I've seen, education in the US is entirely centered on how evil the fascists were for targeting the Jews (when it was in reality more than just the Jews, but multiple groups considered to be enemies of the state). The Soviets destroyed, pillaged, and raped indiscriminately. East Germany, in fact much of Eastern Europe as a whole, has been permanently scarred because of them. The USSR was not the "lesser of two evils" because the same way that the Third Reich is famous for sending jews to horrible labour camps (and by the way, the USA had detainment camps as well), the communists continued to commit similar atrocities for decades. Mao and Stalin are believed to have more blood on their hands than Hitler.

It's also worth noting that without the insanely harsh treaties imposed on the Central Powers (Versailles, Trianon, Sykes-Picot) then it is likely that Adolf Hitler is nothing more than a starving artist on the streets of Austria. Diplomacy as a whole was a mess for that period, and the USA might have been better off staying out of it and building their empire in the western hemisphere and Pacific. Even if it meant letting Europe fall to the Central Powers.

[BasedTom]

Yes, the german plan to kill, deport, or enslave the Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, and other Slavic populations, whom they considered inferior, and to repopulate the land with Germanic people was more evil than anything america has ever done.

Also what germany did to jewish people.


Way to excuse german imperialism :applause: And you deny that your a nationalist :roll:

I wonder how many war crimes german soldiers committed to acquire its colonies.
The great Otto von Bismark was against typical worldwide colonialism, yet he was a visionary ahead of his time. The masses saw colonies as a necessity- France and Britain had them, the Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese all had Golden Ages in which their empires had colonies around the world. Kaiser Wilhelm II lacked the talent and intelligence that Bismarck did.

Adolf Hitler had a positive opinion of the Polish people, at least while J

[Marlo_Stanfield]

You legitimately think that the US foreign policy is more evil than Nazi Germany or the German Empire?
yes. WAY worse
because they do that constantly since the USA were founded.
Nazi Germany lasted 12 years.
USA government is constantly causing havoc all around the world since 200 years.
not only by commiting war crime after war crime but also making sure capitalism keeps small countries small and just suppress countries with capitalism.
how exactly that works is to much to describe on a basketball forum.:coleman:
so in short, Germany had a TERRIBL period for25 years in a time were Europe was on the verge of wars the entire time anyways.
the USA have been evil from the start and are more evil than ever today.
just one example: Ghadafi has made Libya one of the richest countries in Africa, gave women equal rights, made all women go to school, made giant projects for farmers along the rivers and spread the wealth equally for all people. kind of a socialist and it WORKED.
yes he was a dictator and yes he committed crimes but not much worse than most other countries do. but he looked out for his people and gave them the best available life circumstances. Since he was a socialist and it worked and he openly didnt like the USA the USA couldn't accept that and the CIA actively started the uproars in the north African countries. ( Libya being full of oil was important too of course)
then they bombed Libya and helped the rebels win. now Libya is FUKKED,totally FUKKED and didn't have a stable government since the uproars.
now look at Syria. why doesnt the USA attack Syria or help the rebels there?? Syria has a totally selfish Dictotor, who didnt look out for his people at all and who now is responsible for 150000 people dying during the civil war.
Why wont the USA help the people of Syria?? against a dictator much more brutal and devastating than Ghadafi??
i tell you why. because they dont benefit from it and he is no socialist.
USA in a nutshell.
and there are COUNTLESS examples of things like that in the history of the USA

[RidonKs]

i disagree with a lot of that mavs, but i think the roots of the disagreement are here


Democracy on the surface looks great. But in Iraq it was always going to lead to a civil war.
democracy is a conceptual ideal. my feeling is that it should be treated as an end in itself, in the same way freedom and justice are understood. you do your best to to live up to it in a world fraught with pragmatic constraints. ignoring reality for idealism is a recipe for disaster. so i'm right there with you in that regard.

where we diverge is what that pragmatic reality actually is. you look all over the world right now, and right back through the history books, you see the constant battle that marginalized people have been waging to affirm their right to determine their own fate. it's almost certainly true that more people have died defending their own freedom and autonomy, at the same time external force attempts to constrain it, than for any other reason be it ideology or religion or whatever.

there's a reason for that. the best way to pacify a large group of people under your control is by offering them just enough material well being to keep them content. this is the idea of the happy slave; at the same time, you say "dont worry about this that or the other, we'll take care of the important stuff...". the unstated terms of that agreement are "...primarily in our own interests".

that's why consumerism is currently, imo, the greatest threat to democracy. it's easier to be passive when your material well being is taken care of.

yet in spite of all that, people continue to struggle. even the so called spoiled brats in developed countries like ours who seemingly have everything they need; food, shelter, and all the rest. they're fed up with a political system that doesn't work for them, with renting their labour to giant institutions that at any given moment can just cut them loose. i believe that's because it's just plainly in our bones to demand liberty and autonomy and free association and ownership of our work. and for the same reason, the anti-war movement of the developed world understands very well that long subjugated people in africa and eurasia and south america desire the same thing. and won't stop fighting for it.

this is all to say that installing another military dictatorship in iraq would be merely kicking the can down the road, delaying an inevitable movement for independence that's just flatly guaranteed to be messy and violent, whether through social revolution or civil war or whatever, so we don't have to deal with it now. i think that's a bad idea.



this is all very theoretical, but if you think it through and consider it on your own personal level and then extrapolate to a consideration of all the people of the region, most of whom probably aren't very different from you or me or each other, it's quite plausible.

i'll end with a quote from kant that is relevant and well worth reading, and that i think holds a lot of truth. it's in response to assertions about colonial subjects of the tmie that we still hear today, usually concerning the arab region and iraqis in particular; that they aren't ready for democracy.

[QUOTE]If one accepts this assumption, freedom will never be achieved; for one can not arrive at the maturity for freedom without having already acquired it; one must be free to learn how to make use of one

[RidonKs]

i dont hate all Americans or the country as it is.
i just think the American politics and government are the worst in world history and for more than 150 years at that.
just my opinion.
i could give thousand examples of why thats the case but right now watching WC
you're misinformed then. you think american politics are worse than colonial english or french imperialism that virtually destroyed the southern world from india all the way over to morocco and that had working people driven into the dirt? what about nazi germany or soviet russia, both of which were powerful tyrannies with an explicitly totalitarian drive. try living in any of the hundreds of petty but murderous dictatorships that have risen and fallen all over the world in the time span you're talking about.

it's good to be critical but it's also important to be rational. american politics may seem more filthy and perverse than any other society's, but that's not a factor of the degree to which that's so, it's a factor of the power and influence it has around the world.

[Dresta]

Yes. Moreso for WWI than WWII.

In WWI, the USA had very little business getting involved in European affairs (and up to that point, there was a conscious effort to not get involved). However, the responsible choice would have been to take the side of the Central Powers, as Austria-Hungary had a legitimate reason to declare war on Serbia. There's a complex web of alliances, but the USA was always playing both sides and profiting from the war until they eventually jumped in at the end.

In WW2, the USA sided with Stalin. 'Nuff said. Even Patton realised that the Soviets were the true villain in the struggle, and he lobbied for war to be declared against them. At least from what I've seen, education in the US is entirely centered on how evil the fascists were for targeting the Jews (when it was in reality more than just the Jews, but multiple groups considered to be enemies of the state). The Soviets destroyed, pillaged, and raped indiscriminately. East Germany, in fact much of Eastern Europe as a whole, has been permanently scarred because of them. The USSR was not the "lesser of two evils" because the same way that the Third Reich is famous for sending jews to horrible labour camps (and by the way, the USA had detainment camps as well), the communists continued to commit similar atrocities for decades. Mao and Stalin are believed to have more blood on their hands than Hitler.

It's also worth noting that without the insanely harsh treaties imposed on the Central Powers (Versailles, Trianon, Sykes-Picot) then it is likely that Adolf Hitler is nothing more than a starving artist on the streets of Austria. Diplomacy as a whole was a mess for that period, and the USA might have been better off staying out of it and building their empire in the western hemisphere and Pacific. Even if it meant letting Europe fall to the Central Powers.
:facepalm

This man cannot be serious.

[BasedTom]

:facepalm

This man cannot be serious.
So do you want to discuss this, Mr.Marx?

:facepalm

[Marlo_Stanfield]

So do you want to discuss this, Mr.Marx?

:facepalm
Stalin was a sociopath like Hitler but Mao was much better.
40 Million chinese died because he underestimated the time China would need to become a industrial nation. he thought they would only need a few years but he was wrong. he didnt commit genocide, their was just a huge hunger catastrophe. he never planned that.
but thats another story:coleman:

[BasedTom]

Stalin was a sociopath like Hitler but Mao was much better.
40 Million chinese died because he underestimated the time China would need to become a industrial nation. he thought they would only need a few years but he was wrong. he didnt commit genocide, their was just a huge hunger catastrophe. he never planned that.
but thats another story:coleman:
This is a much more useful response. I appreciate it.

However I do not accept the belief that Chairman Mao has clean hands. But very few leaders, especially ones of the great importance that Mao has to his country, do.

[gigantes]

:biggums: :biggums: :biggums: yeah its like a million times worse. Genocide and ethic cleansing are worse than predatory foreign/economic policy.
okay, mister decider of global morality.

can i just refer to you in future whenever i need international policies scored and compared? as always-- idea is to invalidate someone's opinion if they're on the wrong 'team'.

[DonDadda59]

We got those weapons of mass destruction off the Iraqi streets doe. And we liberated the Iraqi people.

All in all, I'd say it wasn't a complete waste of time, money, and lives :applause:

[Joshumitsu]

i dont hate all Americans or the country as it is.
i just think the American politics and government are the worst in world history and for more than 150 years at that.
just my opinion.
i could give thousand examples of why thats the case but right now watching WC

Lol, for serious, bro? This is the most peaceful time in human history. Period.

Sure US foreign policy sucks but it's not some black-white thing like you're trying to make it out to be. It's a double edged sword that has benefited humanity more than it has hurt it.

Again, it's not perfect but would you rather a legitimate empire that colonizes everything (ex. the Brits) in charge? Or maybe some totalitarian dictator like Hitler/Mussolini/Stalin?

Because the US government does not even compare.

[Dresta]

So do you want to discuss this, Mr.Marx?

:facepalm
Well, i honestly was surprised anyone could be as stupid as you appear to be as to suggest that nazi Germany (and Franco and Mussolini's fascists) were the morally superior side in ww2 and its build-up. The US shouldn't have got involved at all with WW1, and most certainly chose the correct side when it came to WW2 (in fact, their hand was somewhat forced if you remember). You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.