Who in here would still have invaded Iraq in 2003? We know JD , LL and LustingGayAss would!

To answer the OP.

NO, we never should have invaded Iraq. It made no sense then and has led the nation to ruin.

To address the deflection.

We NEVER should have had troops there to begin with. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

The only thing I might add to the above comments would be:

Hindsight being 20/20, the Spring of 2003 invasion of and subsequent war with Iraq was the WORST American foreign policy mistake since the Vietnam War.

And quite frankly, there is not even a close second!

Knowing what you know now, was that invasion justified?

Yes or no? Originally Posted by bigtex

When it comes to foreign policy, you and the OP are amateurs and dilettantes. Look at the way you posed the question. A thoughtful student of foreign policy might say the 2003 invasion of Iraq was justified by A, B and C - but not on the basis of D, E and F. In a complicated world, you don't want to leave any room for complex answers. And it is clearly not a "yes or no" question. It would be hard to keep a good answer under 1,000 words. Demanding a "yes or no" answer is what lawyers do during cross-examination, not what a curious student of foreign policy does when he/she is interested in hearing a contrary viewpoint or analysis.

The bottom line in a situation like Iraq is this; whatever it is we want for them, freedom, independence, etc., is something they have to want for themselves. Us wanting it for them isn't enough. I don't even know that leaving troops behind would have solved the problems. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Another example of undercunt's endless penchant for superficial talking points. The schmuck never does anything more than scratch the surface on every issue. Most Iraqis DO want many of the same things we want. The question is what can we do if a group of violent Islamic thugs seeks to intimidate and deny the majority what they want? Not much if you failed to leave any troops behind.

IBJunior... Father's Day is just around the corner. Are you gonna make something special for your Booger Daddy?

When it comes to foreign policy, you and the OP are amateurs and dilettantes. Look at the way you posed the question. A thoughtful student of foreign policy might say the 2003 invasion of Iraq was justified by A, B and C - but not on the basis of D, E and F. In a complicated world, you don't want to leave any room for complex answers. And it is clearly not a "yes or no" question. It would be hard to keep a good answer under 1,000 words. Demanding a "yes or no" answer is what lawyers do during cross-examination, not what a curious student of foreign policy does when he/she is interested in hearing a contrary viewpoint or analysis. Originally Posted by lustylad

I think a question better posed is, "Knowing what he knows now would WTF's father use a condom?"

Let them fight a bloody Civil War and we can deal with the winner.

At one time the Middle East's oil was of huge importance to us....not so much now.

You do realize that all wars are basically fought over resources. Originally Posted by WTF

You are a blind, short-sighted dolt. In 2013 Iraq earned $90 billion in oil revenues. Yet you are stupidly sanguine at the prospect of resources of that magnitude falling into the hands of terrorist thugs worse than al queda who would use the money to wreak havoc around the globe including attacks on US soil. Yeah, let's just sit back, let ISIS win, and then deal with it. That's the ticket. That may work for you but it doesn't work for thinking Americans.

.

You are a blind, short-sighted dolt.

.....including attacks on US soil. Yeah, let's just sit back, let ISIS win, and then deal with it. That's the ticket. That may work for you but it doesn't work for thinking Americans. Originally Posted by lustylad

He'll be saying the same about Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin, and San Antonio.

We just won't have "see it" posted.

When it comes to foreign policy, you and the OP are amateurs and dilettantes. Look at the way you posed the question. A thoughtful student of foreign policy might say the 2003 invasion of Iraq was justified by A, B and C - but not on the basis of D, E and F. In a complicated world, you don't want to leave any room for complex answers. And it is clearly not a "yes or no" question. It would be hard to keep a good answer under 1,000 words. Demanding a "yes or no" answer is what lawyers do during cross-examination, not what a curious student of foreign policy does when he/she is interested in hearing a contrary viewpoint or analysis. Originally Posted by lustylad

+1

Lib-retards keep pretending that WMD was the only issue and that international fuel reserves aren't a strategic, national concern.

Lib-retards keep pretending that WMD was the only issue and that international fuel reserves aren't a strategic, national concern. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Or let's examine a justification libtards like to use elsewhere - the humanitarian reason to intervene. Saddam was a despot who slaughtered ten of thousands of Iraqis. After we invaded, we didn't find WMDs but we sure as hell uncovered plenty of mass graves. And the libtards now say with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight - yeah, but the scale of killing is higher now so we were stupid not to have left Saddam alone because at least he kept a lid on the sectarian strife by killing people at a lower level. Uh-huh. So what level of killing or genocide is tolerable to us? How do we know when toppling a tyrant will lead to something better or something worse? And by the same token, why didn't we leave Qaddafi alone in Libya? Should we have stood by and let Qaddafi go into Benghazi and wipe out the opposition in 2011? Hillary and the libtards pushed that intervention on humanitarian grounds. Today Libya is a disaster in every way. Why did we intervene in Bosnia and Kosovo and not in Rwanda? I could go on but you can see how complicated the question becomes. And this is just one justification, albeit a favorite one used by libtards whenever they want us to intervene somewhere.

.

I think a question better posed is, "Knowing what he knows now would WTF's father use a condom?" Originally Posted by gnadfly

You want him to jizz in your mouth gnadfly? Is that wtf you are saying ?

So what you are saying is your Dad is into gay activities? I'm not.
Again, your reading comprehension and inability to draw logical conclusions fails you Moronic buffoon.
And anyone can play the cheap games you play.
You are still squirming in the trap you yourself set.

As far as invading Iraq, WTF's answer is the same as Saddam's.

Or let's tackle the justification that libtards like to use elsewhere - the humanitarian reason to intervene. We have no humanitarian reason to intervene in any country other than our own without having done a proper cost analysis. Is it worth it in other words. Iraq was a huge boondoggle that turns out not to be worth it. Bush miscalculated by any measure. Saddam was a despot who slaughtered ten of thousands of Iraqis. So, that is not our business. We used him when we saw fit. After we invaded, we didn't find WMDs but we sure as hell uncovered plenty of mass graves. Yea turns out that is a pretty darn difficult region to govern without a iron fist. And the libtards now say with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight - yeah, but the scale of killing is higher now so we were stupid not to have left Saddam alone because at least he kept a lid on the sectarian strife by killing people at a lower level. Uh-huh. So what level of killing is "tolerable" and how do we know when toppling a tyrant will lead to something better or something worse? That is wtf a leader is judged by , Bosnia was a Clinton success because it did not cost to much. That is wtf you so called conservatives can't seem to understand. A good fight is one you win a minimal costs. That was not the case in Iraq....had it been , we would not be having this discussion. The Bush admin fucked up in how they thought this war would go. You can not deny that and yet you do. And by the same token, why didn't we leave Qaddafi alone in Libya? We should have. It set a horrible example. He gave up his WMD program like we asked and we still toppled him. Other nations now should be scrambling to nuke up. Should we have stood by and let Qaddafi go into Benghazi and wipe out the opposition in the Fall of 2011? Yes. Hillary and the libtards pushed that intervention on humanitarian grounds. I ain't voting for that silly bitch. Lindsey Graham is not a libtard...he was at the forefront of that fuck up too. So quit your lying. Today Libya is a disaster in every way. Yes, agree. Just like Iraq. Bush should be held accountable for the Iraq fuck up and Obama for the one in Libya. Difference being , Obama had the good sense not to invade! Why did we intervene in Bosnia and not in Rwanda? Because if you can help another without having your own sons and daughters killed, then that is a cost analysis the American public can live with, evidently Rwanda does not come out to high on the easy side of that scale and Bosnia did. I could go on but you can see how complicated the question becomes and this is just one justification. That is a shitty justification.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

You need to think more in realpolitik

So what you are saying is your Dad is into gay activities? I'm not.
. Originally Posted by gnadfly

If you're not gay , how come you are asking about my Dad's condoms use, you stupid cocksucker?

Give it a rest.

It's what Obama elected.....which has done more harm that invading Iraq.

Give it a rest.

It's what Obama elected.....which has done more harm that invading Iraq. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Tell that to the Iraqis.