Do Iraq war supporters feel remorse?

I hope so. The Iraq War was probably the biggest military blunder in American history.

I hope so. The Iraq War was probably the biggest military blunder in American history.

Aljosa23

I hope so. The Iraq War was probably the biggest military blunder in American history.

Aljosa23

[QUOTE="playmynutz"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

I hope so. The Iraq War was probably the biggest military blunder in American history.

Ackad

I don't support war unless your homeland or a close allys homeland is being seriously threatened. The_Lipscomb

[QUOTE="The_Lipscomb"]I don't support war unless your homeland or a close allys homeland is being seriously threatened. andytisnt

I hope so. The Iraq War was probably the biggest military blunder in American history.

Aljosa23

Vietnam War=Iraq War.Ackad

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

I hope so. The Iraq War was probably the biggest military blunder in American history.

mmwmwmmwmwmm

No, most of them are delusional and brainwashed. They find some way to justify it. 

I hope so. The Iraq War was probably the biggest military blunder in American history.

Aljosa23

The war wasn't a military blunder. Iraq's military was defeated very quickly. The occupation and rebuilding of Iraq was the blunder.

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

I hope so. The Iraq War was probably the biggest military blunder in American history.

coasterguy65

The war wasn't a military blunder. Iraq's military was defeated very quickly. The occupation and rebuilding of Iraq was the blunder.

While I certainly don't think the war was necessary, nor was it handled correctly, I have to wonder how many more people would have died at the hands of Saddam. He killed countless numbers of his own people. Plus any of the terrorists who were being sheltered by his country, how many countless would they have killed. While war is never good I think in the long run it saved lives. No one can no for sure but I'd like to think some good came out of it. ferrari2001

Time will tell.

While I certainly don't think the war was necessary, nor was it handled correctly, I have to wonder how many more people would have died at the hands of Saddam. He killed countless numbers of his own people. Plus any of the terrorists who were being sheltered by his country, how many countless would they have killed. While war is never good I think in the long run it saved lives. No one can no for sure but I'd like to think some good came out of it. ferrari2001

Time will tell.

coolbeans90

Most peg the casualties within 1-200,000, which Saddam could easily have surpassed considering past events.

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

I hope so. The Iraq War was probably the biggest military blunder in American history.

playmynutz

Most peg the casualties within 1-200,000, which Saddam could easily have surpassed considering past events.

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Time will tell.

Rich3232

military action and regime changes won't help the region.  It's filled with outdated ideas, tribal customs in places like afghanistan, and far too much corruption.  They will either shape up on their own over time, or kill themselves off in the process

[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Time will tell.

wis3boi

military action and regime changes won't help the region.  It's filled with outdated ideas, tribal customs in places like afghanistan, and far too much corruption.  They will either shape up on their own over time, or kill themselves off in the process

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Most peg the casualties within 1-200,000, which Saddam could easily have surpassed considering past events.

kuraimen

If we had a Saddam, I hope someone would be able to.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Most peg the casualties within 1-200,000, which Saddam could easily have surpassed considering past events.

coolbeans90

If we had a Saddam, I hope someone would be able to.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Most peg the casualties within 1-200,000, which Saddam could easily have surpassed considering past events.

coolbeans90

If we had a Saddam, I hope someone would be able to.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Americans never cease to amaze me on how easily they justify their atrocities. "Let's murder a whole bunch of people because if we don't a fairy told me much more will get murdered". Most dangerous and disgusting thought process ever. Maybe someone should invade the US using the same premise.kuraimen

If we had a Saddam, I hope someone would be able to.

Accurate information about Kurdish extermination and starting wars (Iran) adding up to the order of hundreds of thousands of deaths? A little hard to fabricate. Additionally, there is a bit of a difference between the guys the U.S. overthrew in democratically elected gov'ts and Saddam. The former was done in a regrettable, Machiavellian approach to minimizing Soviet/perceived communist influence (legitimately fvcked up). The latter was the removal of a psychopath with a tendency to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Moving on, Obama, unlike Saddam, hasn't killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people and would be difficult to argue as "worse", even if leaving plenty to desire from a humanitarian standpoint (see: drone strikes). Finally, Saddam did not mind his own business.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

If we had a Saddam, I hope someone would be able to.

coolbeans90

Accurate information about Kurdish extermination and starting wars (Iran) adding up to the order of hundreds of thousands of deaths? A little hard to fabricate. Additionally, there is a bit of a difference between the guys the U.S. overthrew in democratically elected gov'ts and Saddam. The former was done in a regrettable, Machiavellian approach to minimizing Soviet/perceived communist influence (legitimately fvcked up). The latter was the removal of a psychopath with a tendency to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Moving on, Obama, unlike Saddam, hasn't killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people and would be difficult to argue as "worse", even if leaving plenty to desire from a humanitarian standpoint (see: drone strikes). Finally, Saddam did not mind his own business.

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="Rich3232"] Iraq is getting more and more destabilized since we've left. Not a good prognosis. Rich3232

military action and regime changes won't help the region.  It's filled with outdated ideas, tribal customs in places like afghanistan, and far too much corruption.  They will either shape up on their own over time, or kill themselves off in the process

if we had to go at all, we should have done it more like libya, or what france did in mali....roll in, wipe up the sh!t, and leave

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

If we had a Saddam, I hope someone would be able to.

coolbeans90

Accurate information about Kurdish extermination and starting wars (Iran) adding up to the order of hundreds of thousands of deaths? A little hard to fabricate. Additionally, there is a bit of a difference between the guys the U.S. overthrew in democratically elected gov'ts and Saddam. The former was done in a regrettable, Machiavellian approach to minimizing Soviet/perceived communist influence (legitimately fvcked up). The latter was the removal of a psychopath with a tendency to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Moving on, Obama, unlike Saddam, hasn't killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people and would be difficult to argue as "worse", even if leaving plenty to desire from a humanitarian standpoint (see: drone strikes). Finally, Saddam did not mind his own business.

:|  A) The US overthrew the democratically elected president of Iran and put the Shah in power.. The US supported Pinochet who killed thousands..

B) Saddam was supported even when he attacked the kurds (with weapons made from the materials the US gave him) was still supported by the United States..

  Call me a cynic, but the US's government policy rarely ever has any priority in "saving people"..  Some of the worse genocides such as Rwanda or Darfur was ignored by the top powers including the United States..  And the US has supported numerous dictators in which they harmed their own people.

I don't really think anyone outside of the Bush administration supports the war as of now.  And back then it was only supported because of falsified intelligence and war/fear mongering perpetrated by the Bush administration...

I'd have to meet someone who actually knows what they're talking about and still support the war to answer that question. Even most military personnel will flat out say we stayed too long.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] For many outside your country you have someone like Saddam or even worse. That's the problem of trying to make those decisions from a completely different culture and perspective while pretending your media is giving the accurate information. The same bs excuses were used to support military regimes in south america and even to overthrow and murder a democratically elected leader like Allende. When the Chileans jumped to the streets outraged Kissinger told Nixon that he didn't understand why people were unhappy. What arrogance to pretend to know what's better to others and try to implement it by force. Enough of that sh1t. I bet you wouldn't feel the same if a foreign country invades you and try to tell you what's good for you destroying your country on the process. The US has fvcked up enough already deal with your own business.sSubZerOo

Accurate information about Kurdish extermination and starting wars (Iran) adding up to the order of hundreds of thousands of deaths? A little hard to fabricate. Additionally, there is a bit of a difference between the guys the U.S. overthrew in democratically elected gov'ts and Saddam. The former was done in a regrettable, Machiavellian approach to minimizing Soviet/perceived communist influence (legitimately fvcked up). The latter was the removal of a psychopath with a tendency to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Moving on, Obama, unlike Saddam, hasn't killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people and would be difficult to argue as "worse", even if leaving plenty to desire from a humanitarian standpoint (see: drone strikes). Finally, Saddam did not mind his own business.

:|  A) The US overthrew the democratically elected president of Iran and put the Shah in power.. The US supported Pinochet who killed thousands..

B) Saddam was supported even when he attacked the kurds (with weapons made from the materials the US gave him) was still supported by the United States..

  Call me a cynic, but the US's government policy rarely ever has any priority in "saving people"..  Some of the worse genocides such as Rwanda or Darfur was ignored by the top powers including the United States..  And the US has supported numerous dictators in which they harmed their own people.

A. I am aware of this and implicitly acknowledged such in my previous post. Do you even read, sub?

B. He was subsequently invaded twice.

You are quite correct that the U.S. in the past has done some clearly terrible things. During the cold war, the U.S. placed weakening the Soviets above all else, pretty much regardless of consequences. However, weakening Russian influence hasn't been a critical factor since the Cold War.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] For many outside your country you have someone like Saddam or even worse. That's the problem of trying to make those decisions from a completely different culture and perspective while pretending your media is giving the accurate information. The same bs excuses were used to support military regimes in south america and even to overthrow and murder a democratically elected leader like Allende. When the Chileans jumped to the streets outraged Kissinger told Nixon that he didn't understand why people were unhappy. What arrogance to pretend to know what's better to others and try to implement it by force. Enough of that sh1t. I bet you wouldn't feel the same if a foreign country invades you and try to tell you what's good for you destroying your country on the process. The US has fvcked up enough already deal with your own business.kuraimen

Accurate information about Kurdish extermination and starting wars (Iran) adding up to the order of hundreds of thousands of deaths? A little hard to fabricate. Additionally, there is a bit of a difference between the guys the U.S. overthrew in democratically elected gov'ts and Saddam. The former was done in a regrettable, Machiavellian approach to minimizing Soviet/perceived communist influence (legitimately fvcked up). The latter was the removal of a psychopath with a tendency to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Moving on, Obama, unlike Saddam, hasn't killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people and would be difficult to argue as "worse", even if leaving plenty to desire from a humanitarian standpoint (see: drone strikes). Finally, Saddam did not mind his own business.

And if your premises were correct, you'd be perfectly justified.

[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]

military action and regime changes won't help the region.  It's filled with outdated ideas, tribal customs in places like afghanistan, and far too much corruption.  They will either shape up on their own over time, or kill themselves off in the process

wis3boi

if we had to go at all, we should have done it more like libya, or what france did in mali....roll in, wipe up the sh!t, and leave

Yeah, just leave a place in a state of civil war.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

If we had a Saddam, I hope someone would be able to.

coolbeans90

Accurate information about Kurdish extermination and starting wars (Iran) adding up to the order of hundreds of thousands of deaths? A little hard to fabricate. Additionally, there is a bit of a difference between the guys the U.S. overthrew in democratically elected gov'ts and Saddam. The former was done in a regrettable, Machiavellian approach to minimizing Soviet/perceived communist influence (legitimately fvcked up). The latter was the removal of a psychopath with a tendency to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Moving on, Obama, unlike Saddam, hasn't killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people and would be difficult to argue as "worse", even if leaving plenty to desire from a humanitarian standpoint (see: drone strikes). Finally, Saddam did not mind his own business.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] For many outside your country you have someone like Saddam or even worse. That's the problem of trying to make those decisions from a completely different culture and perspective while pretending your media is giving the accurate information. The same bs excuses were used to support military regimes in south america and even to overthrow and murder a democratically elected leader like Allende. When the Chileans jumped to the streets outraged Kissinger told Nixon that he didn't understand why people were unhappy. What arrogance to pretend to know what's better to others and try to implement it by force. Enough of that sh1t. I bet you wouldn't feel the same if a foreign country invades you and try to tell you what's good for you destroying your country on the process. The US has fvcked up enough already deal with your own business.thebest31406

Accurate information about Kurdish extermination and starting wars (Iran) adding up to the order of hundreds of thousands of deaths? A little hard to fabricate. Additionally, there is a bit of a difference between the guys the U.S. overthrew in democratically elected gov'ts and Saddam. The former was done in a regrettable, Machiavellian approach to minimizing Soviet/perceived communist influence (legitimately fvcked up). The latter was the removal of a psychopath with a tendency to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Moving on, Obama, unlike Saddam, hasn't killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people and would be difficult to argue as "worse", even if leaving plenty to desire from a humanitarian standpoint (see: drone strikes). Finally, Saddam did not mind his own business.

Something about two invasions and sanctions afterwards.

"You do know that the US supported Saddam during and after he gassed his people."

This is not entirely accurate. US relations with Saddam Hussein took a negative turn when it was revealed the the US was selling weapons to Iran. Hussein viewed this a stab in the back, as Iraq was at war with Iran, with what he felt was a US alliance.

US relations with Iraq were cool but cordial until the gassing of the Kurds occurred, deteriorating rapidly afterwords. Hussein was still counterbalancing Iran in the region, so diplomacy was given a polished public appearance, but nearly all western governments, including the US, considered Hussein a pariah. US military support was also limited during this timeline, before being eliminated prior to the Gulf War.

you mean do Republicans feel remorse? ha, neverlamprey263

When people try to say supporters of the war should feel remorse that almost makes me laugh. The vast, vast majority of dead people in Iraq were killed by insurgents either outright or by accident when they were aiming at US troops (a family driving over an IED meant for military forces, for example). We have killed locals accidently too but it doesnt come close to insurgent fatalities.

A lot of people say we were lied to by Bush and there were zero weapons of mass destruction. The problem with that is people like to confuse faulty intelligence with flat out lies. That is the problem with Intel collection; there will always be holes in it and you can check multiple sources and still get something that is faulty. Dont even get me started on the claims we only went there to steal oil.

Not to mention we actually did find some yellowcake in Iraq; the media played that down because it didnt match up their anti-Bush crusade. In case people havent noticed, when Bush was in office troop death tolls were plastered almost everywhere, with the constant reminder of how Soldiers are dying in Bushs war. When Obama took office we were lucky to hear about it over Lindsay Lohan and Kim Kardashians shenanigans.

The source for most of your information about Iraq is the media and the Internet. My source for the information was actually being present for the invasion in 2003 and doing two more tours before we pulled out. When we invaded the locals were literally running up to us cheering, something you wouldnt expect people to be doing during an invasion. People were starving while Saddam Hussein had gold-plated AK-47s in his palaces (no that isnt exclusive to Call of Duty).

In addition to that, I have personally assisted in the building of schools and power plants. I was present for their first elections post-Saddam. I gave out hundreds of dollars worth of toys and candy to local children. Those things arent newsworthy, so other than the elections you dont hear about it. We could have done better over there and things are breaking down with us gone. But it could have been worse.

When people try to say supporters of the war should feel remorse that almost makes me laugh. The vast, vast majority of dead people in Iraq were killed by insurgents either outright or by accident when they were aiming at US troops (a family driving over an IED meant for military forces, for example). We have killed locals accidently too 

ad1x2

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Accurate information about Kurdish extermination and starting wars (Iran) adding up to the order of hundreds of thousands of deaths? A little hard to fabricate. Additionally, there is a bit of a difference between the guys the U.S. overthrew in democratically elected gov'ts and Saddam. The former was done in a regrettable, Machiavellian approach to minimizing Soviet/perceived communist influence (legitimately fvcked up). The latter was the removal of a psychopath with a tendency to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Moving on, Obama, unlike Saddam, hasn't killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people and would be difficult to argue as "worse", even if leaving plenty to desire from a humanitarian standpoint (see: drone strikes). Finally, Saddam did not mind his own business.

coolbeans90

And if your premises were correct, you'd be perfectly justified.