Aerion Brightflame Posted July 6, 2016 Report Share Posted July 6, 2016 Today marks the release of the Chilcot Inquiry, a 7 year investigation by a British peer into the British involvement into the Iraq war and what went wrong. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36721645- Brief summary of the findings http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-36714717- Live updates Essentially it marks what most of us already knew - We went in underprepared for a threat that was never confirmed to exist for reasons we really really shouldn't have without a plan as to what to do once there, and it lead to far more deaths than were needed. It's a shame that the paper overlooks at least one notable political assassination of a dissenting voice that I know of, and hopefully Blair gets charged as a war criminal now since he pushed the war for stupid, stupid reasons. Do discuss, and discuss the Iraq war in general from an American PoV not just the British one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cr47t Posted July 8, 2016 Report Share Posted July 8, 2016 When we went in and destabilized the place it caused a lot more terrorist activity over there. If we didn't, Saddam would probably still be in power with an iron fist or something. Lose-lose situation to me unless we could have done something more to keep the place stable after the war... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted July 8, 2016 Report Share Posted July 8, 2016 When we went in and destabilized the place it caused a lot more terrorist activity over there. If we didn't, Saddam would probably still be in power with an iron fist or something. Lose-lose situation to me unless we could have done something more to keep the place stable after the war...How is that a bad thing? Saddam keeping Daesh types down was good for us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vla1ne Posted July 8, 2016 Report Share Posted July 8, 2016 How is that a bad thing? Saddam keeping Daesh types down was good for usi think he meant lose-lose as in both outcomes were kind of shitty, sure, saddam was the lesser of the two, but he was still a bad ruler. on the other hand, i was too young to fully think through the complications at the time, but if the me from today had existed back then, even without knowing what i know about the progress of said wars, i believe i would have been against going into there, for many, if any reasons. the entire place was a house of razor sharp cards holding multiple bombs inside, the best we could have done, from a military standpoint would have been to leave it be until we gained more intelligence on the subject and could act with speed, solid purpose and utmost efficiency. but what's done is done, so while i'm of the opinion that we bomb all life from orbit, I would gladly endorse just leaving. yes, it will hurt in the short term, but if we send funds to the nations we support, and allow the groups within the places that we don't support to establish themselves as a nation, for better or worse, we can establish a proper enemy, and actually do more, to more effect in the long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted July 8, 2016 Report Share Posted July 8, 2016 Yeah, but we chose the worse evil. We really need to stop butting into other nations The UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before all peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resortThis however really bothers me and this is kinda why I don't want any more hawks in office Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(GigaDrillBreaker) Posted July 8, 2016 Report Share Posted July 8, 2016 How is that a bad thing? Saddam keeping Daesh types down was good for usI mean he also was oppressing innocent people so The decision was made recklessly, but that doesn't mean it is correct to leave a tyrant in power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted July 8, 2016 Report Share Posted July 8, 2016 I mean he also was oppressing innocent people so The decision was made recklessly, but that doesn't mean it is correct to leave a tyrant in power.So? Who appointed us to clean up every guy who was misbehaving? Is Iraq any better now? Is Daesh oppressing anyone less? The only different is Daesh is buggering us on top of them now We went in and made a bad situation worse. Democracy isn't for everyone mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Posted July 8, 2016 Report Share Posted July 8, 2016 The U.S. needs to keep it's funking nose out of foreign affairs for a while. We had no evidence, spent trillions of dollars, lost lives, and accomplished nothing. If Saddam was still in power, he probably would've been killed by his own people sooner or later and they would've decided where there country's government would allocate to. Effectively--albeit over the course of terrible actions--balancing and stabilizing themselves without the U.S. having to give up so many soldiers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted July 8, 2016 Report Share Posted July 8, 2016 Seriously this ^^ We have so many problems IN the US to fix first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Posted July 8, 2016 Report Share Posted July 8, 2016 I think Tupac said it best. "We got money for wars but can't feed the poor". Seriously, even our soldiers are homeless. I don't suggest we abandon our allies, but I definitely think we need to prioritize us first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.