Thread: Welcome to our Post-Constitutional America.

Originally Posted by dex71

Saddam killed FAR more Iraqi citizens than we could have in 3 wars. Those mass graves weren't filling themselves.

One of his more productive days:
Halabja poison gas attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No telling how many more Iraqi's would be dead by now if we didn't go in. Sure, we were sold a pile of shit, but good did come out of it.

Do you think the average Iraqi has a better quality of life (personal safety, religious killings, access to healthcare, clean water, etc.) now vs then?

I'm not defending Saddam but this isn't the Marshall Plan in effect right now. We just replaced bad with a different kind of bad and pissed a lot of people off in the process.

Mission accomplished!

Originally Posted by Gumby

Trigger,
Please clarify your statements. On one post your comments indicate that you understand that the military offers a great deal for young people who need a job with good pay and benefits so most who join are in it for the money. But then when you ask Laz to break it down by hourly, you seem to be saying that it's not a good paying job. If it not a good paying job then it seems to me that there must be some idealism going on. Please clarify. Also you have said that your family has some military folks in it. Do you know if they joined for the job opportunities or because of some sense of service?

Personally, I work with these guys every day and I see more in it for the job. You can spot the idealistic ones pretty easily. We usually nickname them something like Captain America. That's not to discredit anyone's service though. My two airmen that report to me are great guys who work hard. But there is no doubt of why they joined.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk

It was Laz who made that statement about what it came to hourly, not me.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Break that down hourly...

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

It was Laz who made that statement about what it came to hourly, not me.

My mistake.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk

If we wanted to provide humanitarian aid to the people of Iraq then we would have sent food, medicine, and help with infastructure. Instead we sent the military bombed their cities, killed their people, and ignited a civil war in an otherwise stable country that was no threat to the US. Saddam was being a good boy and cooperating with the UN but our government didn't care because our military industrial complex needed another war to sustain itself and that is really all there is to it. Iraq was a farce and Afghanistan was a half baked idea sold to the public because we were shocked and angry.

Originally Posted by SourceSkills

If we wanted to provide humanitarian aid to the people of Iraq then we would have sent food, medicine, and help with infastructure. Instead we sent the military bombed their cities, killed their people, and ignited a civil war in an otherwise stable country that was no threat to the US. Saddam was being a good boy and cooperating with the UN but our government didn't care because our military industrial complex needed another war to sustain itself and that is really all there is to it. Iraq was a farce and Afghanistan was a half baked idea sold to the public because we were shocked and angry.

What color is the sky in your World? You need to go back and do some reading. Your version of history doesn't even resemble what happened.
We went in with U.N. approval because Saddam WASN'T cooperating with U.N. inspectors.
This is the Utopia (in your mind only) we interrupted:



And Yes Trigger.....without a doubt Iraq is a better place for its average citizen. How many Kurds were gassed yesterday? How many were picked up by the secret police yesterday? How many mass graves were filled yesterday?

Saddam started the killing on DAY 1 of his reign, and didn't stop until WE stopped him. For Christ's sake, his kids were feeding people to lions for entertainment.

For Source.....This is the day Saddam took power. This is your hero being a "good boy":


He brought so much peace and stability to his country, his people tried him as a murderer and hung him like a sausage the first chance they had.

Again, I'm not defending Saddam. Chemical attacks don't take place daily but religious and retribution killings and bombings do. It's not black and white. Given the choice, I'm sure the average Iraqi would rather have the less free life they had before than now.

If you didn't oppose the regime, there was little to fear. Again, I'm not saying it was all roses then but what we have now is chaos and misery. I think what was learned is that change like this has to be organic with perhaps a little outside help.


Iraq, 10 years on: Did invasion bring 'hope and progress' to millions as Bush vowed? - World News

Originally Posted by Hocus Pocus

I'm sorry but this is ass-backwards. If you didn't oppose the regime there was little to fear? How does that sound? So because I FEAR for my life I don't oppose the regime, therefore, I have little to fear?!? Think this through.

They sleep a lot easier now than they did before.

Dex is spot on, they hung his ass with no shame, rightfully so. The world doesn't need people who kill their own, that's the bottom line.

I'm not against Saddam being deposed. It's the manner in which it happened and it's residual effects that I oppose/opposed.

He deserved to to die, no doubt.

I should clarify. This is a perfect example of where a targeted drone strike would be useful. And you keep targeting those in power after him until they agree to sit at the table and agree to terms. Embargoes don't work. Threat of assassination does.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

I'm not against Saddam being deposed. It's the manner in which it happened and it's residual effects that I oppose/opposed.

He deserved to to die, no doubt.

I should clarify. This is a perfect example of where a targeted drone strike would be useful. And you keep targeting those in power after him until they agree to sit at the table and agree to terms. Embargoes don't work. Threat of assassination does.

So we do a drone strike and the next Saddam in the party comes to power? Nah. What we did was a much better idea than that.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=123738

'Nuff said.

Dex, agree with your comment a few pages back. I probably don't give enough credit to the younger generation. I take a small portion of our culture (scripted reality MTV shows) and often slap that stereotype onto every teenager and assume most are now valuing loud boisterous personalities that have no depth (Jersey Shore) over people of character and conviction (those who serve).

To get things back on topic:

Is there anyone here that agrees with police checkpoints? I would really like to discuss an argument that doesn't reinforce my strong views against them.