It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Today is 5 year anniversary of Iraq War

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 05:01 AM
link   
Today is the 5th year anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The invasion began ay 9:34PM EST on March 19, 2003. The U.K. codenamed it Operation Telic, and in Australia it was known by the name Operation Falconer.

Five years later, through both of Bush's administrations, it is still the number one topic being discussed by the presidential candidates.

The long term results have yet to be evaluated. How do we measure success in Iraq, anyway?




posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 05:53 AM
link   
It would be easier to measure success in the war if the people who started it would give a solid, consistent reason for why we started it. Without knowing the real reason for being there, it is very difficult to say if it is successful or not.

WMD's, Saddam's ties to Al Qeada, Iraq's ties to 9/11 have all been given as the reason for war and have all been proven wrong so it is kind of difficult to know what the real reason might be.

We did topple Saddam's regime at a cost of roughly 600,000 lives. It could cost the US over 2 Trillion dollars by the time it is all over, even though we were supposed to believe that it would pay for itself. It has contributed to huge spikes in the cost of oil and consequently food.

So, right now anyone who has an economy based off of the sale of oil probably sees the war as a huge success. I am not sure who else has benefited though.

Without any honest reasoning for being over there, I just don't see how it can be viewed as a success. Right now it looks ike it could very well be the downfall of America, causing our economic collapse. I don't see how an attack on our country by primarily Saudi citizens can justify us starting a war against Iraq that has done far more damage to the US than the WTC attacks did.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis

True, Iraq wasn't responsible for 9/11 (although I don't recall Bushco making that claim), and the ties to al Qaeda were not deep and strong ( although Saddam did turn a blind eye to the ricin training camps in NE Iraq ). WMD's are/were questionable, imo.

The cost to us in dollars is staggering. But what was the reason we did it, geopolitically? To set up camp on Iran's front step, imo. To establish a presence in that critical area of the ME because we are shortsighted in the area of energy.

I don't understand how you can blame the war for the current price of oil? The current prices are due to many reasons, including increased demand from China and India, oil fields reaching their depletion points, failure to build refineries here, speculation, weak dollar, building up reserves in anticipation of a conflict with Iran, etc., etc. But I admit the war doesn't help.

If we ever get off our butts and develop alternatives to crude, the mideast will plummet in importance. Off-topic, sorry.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


I think you are correct that we are there to set up camp in the ME, specifically on Iran's doorstep. The problem is that BushCo would never be honest enough to say that. If that is the real reason for being there, then we will continue to be lied to until eventually people quit asking.

I realize that oil would increase in price considering the new demands by India and China, but I think that if it weren't for the war the prices would be no where near what they are today. Oil was *I believe* 37 or so dollars a barrel before the war. Now it is 110'ish. Even if prices doubled due to the increase in demand, that would only be 74 dollars. I think that would be a more reasonable price, all things considered. One thing that stands out in my mind though, is that some economists were saying that the American economy wouldn't be able to stand up to $60/ barrel, much less the 110 that it is at now.

Obviously, this is all my opinion but I think that we are more or less on the same page.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 06:49 AM
link   
So this is the main threat today. No question about that!

That day, five years ago:
- My friend was in Iraq, as human shield. He survived, and one milk production factory and drinking water storage was not bombed in shock and awe. They succeeded, because others were ruined after 3 days, and Saddam thank them personally from their efforts.
- Make me, one soldier, to one great Anti-War protester.
- Make me loud critic to Christianity and continuing crusades.
- I decided that I am not going to step with my foot to US ground.
- I know that today, five years after, US is still going to fight over there.

Five years after, today:

- Oil is three times more expensive.
- Dollar has lost more than 30% from its value.
- US debt has grow to high stars above.
- 4000 US and maybe 600 000 Iraqis has lost their lives.
- USA has lost its power and is in great depression.
- Coalition of will is gone, and USA and UK are standing there, almost alone.

Today one female suicide bomber kill herself and two others: Sad fighting continues with blood of civilians...

The war has no end in sight, and great battles are still ahead. US forces are pinned down and capacity to protect their homeland is no more. If another war is coming, they have no power to prevent real catastrophes.

I am waiting to US citizens to wake up. I hope that their economy collapse and civil war and riots rises in D.C. Only winner in this war has been in war-industrial complex and banks behind them: Zionists and with NWO supporters.

Maybe Saddam was not perfect leader, but with two evils, he obviously was the god of light...

Shame on you USA.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
But what was the reason we did it, geopolitically? To set up camp on Iran's front step,


Yes. Hillary and Obama have both said that they'd not allow a permenant base in Iraq. So if that was a major reason for going in ... it will be lost if the dems are elected.

I DO believe that humanitarian reasons were in play with the American people. The gov't may have wanted a perm. base in that part of the world, but the American people were moved by pictures and information proving that Saddam was mass raping and mass murdering hundreds of thousands of people. The American people wanted to help stop that.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by JanusFIN
I hope that their economy collapse and civil war and riots rises in D.C.

Nice.
The American people want freedom for Iraqis. They want peace and good health and education and freedom. THAT is why most Americans were moved to help the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam and his regime. (not the government - but the people) But you want death and destruction for Americans. Nice.



Maybe Saddam was not perfect leader, but with two evils, he obviously was the god of light...

That's vile.

'Saddam was not a perfect leader'?? He was VILE. He mass raped. He mass murdered. He stole billions of $$ from Iraqis to build his palaces all the while the Iraqis died from lack of medicine. He used WMD on the Kurds - murdering them by the tens of thousands. Your statement that he 'was not a perfect leader' is BEYOND disgusting.


Shame on you USA.

Shame on YOU. Shame, shame, shame.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



I don't think that the American people who wanted to help stop the murder of hundreds of thousands of people really wanted to stop it by killing 600,000 more people. I think that Americans were manipulated into supporting the war by the media and the government which is why so many people feel betrayed now.

Also, I am not holding my breath on Hillary or Obama being able to fulfill their promise of a complete withdrawal. Even if they really do want it, I will guess that there will be some excuse (congressional or otherwise) for it to be delayed. As we type this, Bush is trying to tie their hands with treaties and ensure that they really can't make the choice to pull out. We'll see what happens though.

Sorry for drifting off topic.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 



Originally posted by Karlhungis
Oil was *I believe* 37 or so dollars a barrel before the war. Now it is 110'ish. Even if prices doubled due to the increase in demand, that would only be 74 dollars. I think that would be a more reasonable price, all things considered. One thing that stands out in my mind though, is that some economists were saying that the American economy wouldn't be able to stand up to $60/ barrel, much less the 110 that it is at now.

Obviously, this is all my opinion but I think that we are more or less on the same page.

In January, 2001, crude was $28.46/barrel Today, as you mentioned, it is over $110/bbl.

We (US) can weather a short-term spike, but we cannot sustain it without some drastic economic changes.

What's on tap today: protests in DC, and BuschCo will remember the date by giving a speech. He will say that it was worth it.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
I DO believe that humanitarian reasons were in play with the American people. The gov't may have wanted a perm. base in that part of the world, but the American people were moved by pictures and information proving that Saddam was mass raping and mass murdering hundreds of thousands of people. The American people wanted to help stop that.

Yes, and I think that if the war had been presented along those lines, acceptance would have been longer lasting.

One more thing: I have seen casualty figures from 500,000 to 900,000. What data backs those figures?



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Ron Paul was USA:s last hope, and you miss it, you screw it badly. Your MSM do that mostly, not you who supported him, and voted for him. But was your votes ever counted? I think not.

I support him loudly for over 6 months, still does, but I dont see any other way out anymore... McCain - Hillary is just more wars: There is only Win-Win for Illuminati and NWO. Thats very sad, but true.

After Ron Paul there is only economical collapse, and civil war what can rescue many people in other parts of the world, and you too. US Hegemony after Soviet collapse has not been good for millions of people, and ignorance and greed of US has grow badly after this polar change.

Yes, I hope from my deep heart a regime change in USA. I hope that you guys fight your country back, and I will support you every way I can. If it takes casualties, you have to count your promised casualties in showdown with Iran, and North Korea, and Venezuela, and many more places in the balance. Then we join the fight against EU and against our regimes.

I didnt believe you at all, Ive lost that after 911, still finding and hearing some voices from Truth movement after that. Alex Jones and others like him keep the fire burning... But that was before I find Ron Paul, and his supporters. He show that there really are many who I can respect and stand with, whole Europe listen his words and believe him.

Now its up to you, when you have find each others too.

I just say to you: Long live the revolution!



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Karlhungis
True, Iraq wasn't responsible for 9/11 (although I don't recall Bushco making that claim...


Yes, Bush did, several times but people just didn't buy it and he caught a lot of blow-back from reporters. The evidence was so non-existent, his handlers probably told him to stop repeating his little mantra. He was just trying to convince himself anyway.


I don't understand how you can blame the war for the current price of oil?


You answer your own question in the paragraph preceding it:


To establish a presence in that critical area of the ME because we are shortsighted in the area of energy.


Wars are almost always about resources or religion, in this case oil. ME instability will always drive up the price of oil.

With the exception of the economic fallout, this war has hardly personally effected my life or the lives of the majority of citizens. Has there ever been a war that was wrapped up so neatly at home? The administration doesn't even want flag-draped coffins shown on T.V. The body count for armed forces is around 4000. The cost in Iraqi lives is almost immeasurable.

I feel the Bush regime has purposely reigned in the effects and discussion of this war at home in order to ensure its unchallenged and unending pursuit.

The only brightside to our current economic instability is that it is finally making people wake up to the superficial $ cost of this war as they don't seem to care about the human cost.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by JanusFIN
I hope that their economy collapse and civil war and riots rises in D.C.

The American people want freedom for Iraqis. They want peace and good health and education and freedom.


That is such a pollyanna, pie-in-the-sky answer - it's almost straight out of a propaganda play book. I'm not sure how you can say that when we have done nothing to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure and social fabric that we destroyed. Hell, we can barely achieve those goals in our own society that we actually give a damn about.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 





The only bright side to our current economic instability is that it is finally making people wake up to the superficial $ cost of this war as they don't seem to care about the human cost.


That is true. God forbid any more puppies die though. I can't imagine the fallout if that were to happen. It amazes me that over half a million people have died and it didn't seem to generate half of the outcry that one puppy did. Seems skewed.

I guess the hierarchy is:
1. Money
2. Puppies
3. People



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:43 AM
link   
I think how you measure success depends on who you are.

If you are a war contractor company earning billions on no bid contracts with no end in sight to the gravy train, then yes Iraq is a success. And if elected, John McCain will continue with that success.

If you are an Iraqi, success would be being able to go to the market and surviving the trip doesn't even enter your mind.

Success would be being able to take a hot shower in the morning and taking it for granted.

Success would be when the power goes out, it is something the children find amusing because it rarely happens.

Success would be Iraqis dying of natural causes, instead of being shot up buy trigger happy contractors.

Success in Iraq will be when our troops leave and they have a government that takes care of it's people. If our troops have to stay until this is achieved then it will probably take the 100 years that McCain talked about.

My question is will it be worth it? What ever it is that we gain from this war, will it be worth the 600,000 Iraqis killed? Will it be worth the 4,000 soldiers killed? Will it be worth the trillions of dollars and a ruined economy? All for what? Because of some terrorists? Was it for oil? Was it for a strategic military location? Give me a break. The terrorists don't need to pull another 9/11 to bring this country down. We are doing enough damage to ourselves.

[edit on 3/19/2008 by Hal9000]

[edit on 3/19/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
'Saddam was not a perfect leader'?? He was VILE. He mass raped. He mass murdered. He stole billions of $$ from Iraqis to build his palaces all the while the Iraqis died from lack of medicine. He used WMD on the Kurds - murdering them by the tens of thousands. Your statement that he 'was not a perfect leader' is BEYOND disgusting.


He did business with Donald Rumsfeld.

Shame on you USA...shame shame....



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   
The Decider is sound-biting right now during remarks on the five year "anniversary" and he is once again juxtaposing Iran and 9/11 as reasons why we need to "stay the course" in Iraq. "Noble, necessary and just" - that is how Bush describes the battle in Iraq. He is an idiot. He really thinks that he can just keep repeating the same tripe over and over again and it will be true.

edit: We are 71/2 years into a forgotten war in Afghanistan that actually is relative to 9/11. Not to mention there has been a Taliban resurgence. The Decider doesn't want to talk about that though.

[edit on 19/3/08 by kosmicjack]



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karlhungis
by killing 600,000 more people.

That number has been debunked.


Originally posted by JanusFIN
Ron Paul was USA:s last hope,

I, too, liked many things he said. But I don't think he's 'the last hope'.


Originally posted by kosmicjack
[That is such a pollyanna, pie-in-the-sky answer -

No, it's the truth. Americans weren't sold on the war until they started to hear about Saddams rape rooms and the mass killings over there. Americans (me included) didn't want to go until we heard about Saddam gassing the Kurds and the hundreds of thousands of tortured and murdered Iraqis.


Originally posted by neformore
He did business with Donald Rumsfeld.
Shame on you USA...shame shame....

Yes .. and France and Russia .... Shame on those who did business with him .. right up until he was overthrown.

But I hold to my original statement - to the person who wants Americans to die in the streets in a civil war and for America to go broke - SHAME on him. As i said - Americans, for the most part, didn't want to go to war until they heard about Saddam the Butcher and most Americans agreed to go over there to HELP people ...



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Well I can not worry anymore about the Iraqi people, sorry for them that are still struggling.

But in the last 5 years American has gotten in economical troubles and we the American people are seeing the results in our pockets and everyday lives.

Sorry to say It wasn't worth it.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
How do we measure success in Iraq, anyway?

Such a question is a horrible misnomer. It's on par with asking --
- How many of the wrong questions on your exam were close to correct?
- How does one gauge the favorable attributes of the mortgage crisis?
- How many correct votes were among the fraudulent votes?

There is no "success" to be had, only degrees of failure that might range from the seemingly less-terrible recoverable to the increasingly likely catastrophic.


Unless, of course, one's perception of success is a an economy in tatters, increased global insecurity, and a ravaged world-wide perception of the United States.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by jsobecky
How do we measure success in Iraq, anyway?

There is no "success" to be had, only degrees of failure that might range from the seemingly less-terrible recoverable to the increasingly likely catastrophic.



Actually, the question was intended to invoke thought and retrospection.

I was hoping that someone would answer along these lines:

"Success means meeting one's goals. What were our goals in Iraq, anyway?"

Then we could discuss why goals have/have not been met.




Originally posted by mister.old.school
Unless, of course, one's perception of success is a an economy in tatters, increased global insecurity, and a ravaged world-wide perception of the United States.

Please, with the sensationalism. The economy I'll give you (to a point). The other two are merely your opinions, and how you wish the world would be.




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join