Bullshit words? Or just the crazy logic of the West.

#1
We were always told by leading Western Statesmen that attacking rouge country's would ultimately keep the West safe.

World trade centre deaths ..... 2753 dead confirmed.

Iraqi Invasion of 2004. American military deaths ..... 4487 and wounded 32226.

The reality ...... The West did indeed remain safe after 9/11, but obviously not all it's citizens did.

Care to comment Mr ex president Bush?

Link ..... The Hindu : News / International : U.S. military operations in Iraq end

And this is just one typical example of one military operation regarding the United States.

So the question is ..... Were these pure bullshit words for purposes of going to war? Or is it just the crazy logic of the West:?
 
#2
This is evidence that Western military ideology is Clearly not worth it regarding the sorting out of the sandbox nations.
 

napier

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
#3
Rouge countries? USSR? China? N. Korea?
 
#7
What have you got against rouge countries, these days they're mostly harmless although if those Russians decide they want a few ipods we could be in trouble.
 
#10
4,487 dead and 32,226 wounded Americans alone.

These figures are the equivalent of several major terrorist attacks on home soil.

And consider the fact that this cost over 1 Trillion U.S dollars to fund. (yes, One Trillion U.S Dollars)

I wonder what these monkeys who planed and went on to insist that this happen are thinking off right now of their Jack Ass master plan :?

Regarding it as some sort of victory i suppose.

Fucking Nob ends!
 
#11
4,487 dead and 32,226 wounded Americans alone.

These figures are the equivalent of several major terrorist attacks on home soil.

And consider the fact that this cost over 1 Trillion U.S dollars to fund. (yes, One Trillion U.S Dollars)

I wonder what these monkeys who planed and went on to insist that this happen are thinking off right now of their Jack Ass master plan :?

Regarding it as some sort of victory i suppose.

Fucking Nob ends!


By your logic, the Yanks going after the nips over Pearl Harbour was stupid too, after all, only 2,600 killed on that day, but they had 106,000 killed giving the nips a good shoeing in retaliation.

And $1 trillion? Sounds like a big number, but lets ut that in a bit of perspective as the US GDP is $15 Trillion per annum and their defence budget is $660 Billion per annum.
 
#12
By your logic, the Yanks going after the nips over Pearl Harbour was stupid too, after all, only 2,600 killed on that day, but they had 106,000 killed giving the nips a good shoeing in retaliation.

And $1 trillion? Sounds like a big number, but lets ut that in a bit of perspective as the US GDP is $15 Trillion per annum and their defence budget is $660 Billion per annum.
So going by your logic of comparison then, The 8 year Iraqi invasion and occupation was remarkable good value for money, both in terms of finance and human life:?

I call it a classic definition of pure madness on a grand scale.
 

napier

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
#13
Do you know what? No-one on this site gives a fuck. Many of us have served in Iraq/Afghanistan/Balkans/NI/wherever and we know its all bollocks, but we don't need some single issue twat coming on here and bumping their metaphorical gums. So be a good boy/girl/whatever and take it to the Guardian website
 
#14
You assume the logic is honest - i.e. you believe the "we're fighting wars abroad to preserve security at home" argument is genuinely what was in the minds of the people who took the decision for war.

This is the problem with wars of choice - they're usually the product of a fantasy in a politician's head. I have no idea what on earth was going on in Bush's mind, or Blair's for that matter. I don't think they will ever presume to tell us, assuming they can even still make it clear to themselves.

The whole thing was, to quote Malcolm Tucker, a Fucktastrophe.
 
#15
So going by your logic of comparison then, The 8 year Iraqi invasion and occupation was remarkable good value for money, both in terms of finance and human life:?

I call it a classic definition of pure madness on a grand scale.
On the contrary, it shows the illogic of the simple numbers killed / cost argument that you introduced. When is it your turn to borrow the brain cell? Sheesh! Don't tell me you've lost it already!
 
#16
We were always told by leading Western Statesmen that attacking rouge country's would ultimately keep the West safe.

World trade centre deaths ..... 2753 dead confirmed.

Iraqi Invasion of 2004. American military deaths ..... 4487 and wounded 32226.

The reality ...... The West did indeed remain safe after 9/11, but obviously not all it's citizens did.

Care to comment Mr ex president Bush?

Link ..... The Hindu : News / International : U.S. military operations in Iraq end

And this is just one typical example of one military operation regarding the United States.

So the question is ..... Were these pure bullshit words for purposes of going to war? Or is it just the crazy logic of the West:?
Fuck knows what i was doing there in 2003 then.
 
#18
Preservation of US security was hardly the reason for Iraq. Personally I just think that George Jnr wanted to finish Daddy's work without understanding why Daddy didn't invade Iraq in the first place but that is by-the-by.

Regime change in Iraq certainly killed more people than the original regime would have done. It probably didn't make the US any more friends than it already had and has created a powderkeg of multi-faction power-struggles but it has relieved uncertainty. We now know that Iraq has no WMD and that it cannot direct aggression towards Israel.

The fact is that the security of Israel was possibly the prime motivator behind any aggression towards Iraq. It's also, probably, why there is no such, similar, aggression towards Iran. Because there is no guarantee that any new regime would be more disposed towards the West and Israel than the current one, in fact any aggression is more than likely to unite Iran behind its current regime.

What would be more interesting though would be to discover if Bush would have gone it alone had Blair not been such a willing accomplice? I rather suspect that Bush would not have been able to go it alone and certainly needed Blair's help in the UN. Blair, being Blair gave him all the support he needed, one suspects, not for the UK to gain but for Blair's personal gain.
 

Latest Threads

Top