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.
Originally posted by jsobecky
But what was the reason we did it, geopolitically? To set up camp on Iran's front step,
Originally posted by JanusFIN
I hope that their economy collapse and civil war and riots rises in D.C.
Maybe Saddam was not perfect leader, but with two evils, he obviously was the god of light...
Shame on you USA.
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.
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.
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...
I don't understand how you can blame the war for the current price of oil?
To establish a presence in that critical area of the ME because we are shortsighted in the area of energy.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Karlhungis
by killing 600,000 more people.
Originally posted by JanusFIN
Ron Paul was USA:s last hope,
Originally posted by kosmicjack
[That is such a pollyanna, pie-in-the-sky answer -
Originally posted by neformore
He did business with Donald Rumsfeld.
Shame on you USA...shame shame....
Originally posted by jsobecky
How do we measure success in Iraq, anyway?
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.
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.