Dichotomy.

[The King]

Makes a large difference to me. Invasion we lose troops, attack our flyboys get to have some fun. IMO our troops need to be here not getting shot at overseas so Haliburton and others can make money.

What makes a difference to you is of absolutely no consequence to anyone else. Did our Libyan ambassador and his staff not also not need to be here not getting shot because your messiah's decision of what's best for for another country was naive and didn't turn out like he and his European cohorts foolishly expected?

[ELVIS]

So let them keep using wmd's? Is that your point?

dude, your shoe is gonna come untied again, just leave em like that!

god bless.

[talisman]

Haha, he just "Whatever"'d you Eric.

No shit. SMH.

[4eyedwillie]

Then why bother responding? You realize that just because a majority of people think one way doesn't always make them sheep, correct? Sometimes it's because they are right. By your train of logic you are a sheep if you voted for Obama in 2008 because he won. Everything you post sounds like a desperate grab for attention from someone who has little to no real world experience. How old are you?

Because I enjoy stirring the pot? It doesn't MAKE them right either.
And I'm 49 with lots of real world experience.

[talisman]

Because I enjoy stirring the pot? It doesn't MAKE them right either.
And I'm 49 with lots of real world experience.

Make up your mind. What do you do for a living?

[DON SVO]

Yep so what still not a reason to invade and get how many people killed? Our invasion did a HELL of alot more damage than the WMD's did.

Iraq, governmental-speaking, was already unstable at the point we invaded post-9/11. Iraq had been a hot bed since the Gulf War, Saddam was refusing our inspectors and UN inspectors based upon his possible nuclear program. Like Iran, we were sanctioning the piss out of them. However, Iraq was next door neighbors with Iran, who was known to not only be sympathetic to Al Qaeda but also helped fund them. Iraq was also suspected of aiding Iran in their nuclear program. With knowledge of Iraq's chemical weapon stockpile and their attempts to acquire yellow cake (which we intercepted), the basis for moving on Iraq was to be proactive. The last thing we needed was 3 large countries joining forces (agreeably join of being overthrown, i.e. Iran/Ahmadinnerjacket threatening to swallow up Iraq) and creating absolute uproar (infrastructure being crushed, countries devolving into hostile faction takeover, government bankruptcy ala Greece, petroleum disruption, etc).

[BradM]

Because I enjoy stirring the pot? It doesn't MAKE them right either.
And I'm 49 with lots of real world experience.

Holy shit! I would have sworn you couldn't be over 25.

[talisman]

Holy shit! I would have sworn you couldn't be over 25.

You gave him 6 more years than my most optimistic estimate.

[4eyedwillie]

You really need to do some research before you spout off missinformation.

Aftermath
Iran–Iraq War was extremely costly in lives and material, the deadliest war ever fought between developing countries. Both countries were devastated by the effect of the war. It cost Iran an estimated 1 million casualties, killed or wounded, and Iranians continue to suffer and die as a consequence of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. Iraqi casualties are estimated at 250,000–500,000 killed or wounded. Thousands of civilians died on both sides in air raids and ballistic missile attacks.

The financial loss was also enormous, at the time exceeding US$600 billion for each country ($1.2 trillion in total). But shortly after the war it turned out that the economic cost of war is more profound and long-lasting than the estimates right after the war suggested. Economic development was stalled and oil exports disrupted. These economic woes were of a more serious nature for Iraq that had to incur huge debts during the war as compared to the very small debt of Iran, as Iranians had used bloodier but economically cheaper tactics during the war, in effect substituting soldiers' lives for lack of financial funding during their defense. This put Saddam in a difficult position, particularly with his war-time allies, as by then Iraq was under more than $130 billion of international debt, excluding the interest in an after war economy with a slowed GDP growth. A large portion of this debt was loaned by Paris Club amounting to $21 billion, 85% of which had originated from seven countries of Japan, Russia, France, Germany, United States, Italy and United Kingdom. But the largest portion of $130 billion debt was to Iraq's former Arab backers of the war including the $67 billion loaned by Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and Jordan

Lots of pretty info but it has zero relevance to the discussion. I said than the WMD's did NOT the whole damn war.
We should have left them alone to do what they want to each other. As far as I'm concerned every last one of the towelheads can go to hell as long as it's not our fault.

[talisman]

Lots of pretty info but it has zero relevance to the discussion.

Sort of like what Bush has to do with a thread about Obama and Romney, genius?

[4eyedwillie]

[QUOTE=talisman;863789]Make up your mind. What do you do for a living?[/QUOTE
I own a shop.

[BradM]

You gave him 6 more years than my most optimistic estimate.

I was giving him the MTV age of 18-21 when Obama was elected. They brainwashed a lot of little punk asses with hope and change.

[4eyedwillie]

Iraq, governmental-speaking, was already unstable at the point we invaded post-9/11. Iraq had been a hot bed since the Gulf War, Saddam was refusing our inspectors and UN inspectors based upon his possible nuclear program. Like Iran, we were sanctioning the piss out of them. However, Iraq was next door neighbors with Iran, who was known to not only be sympathetic to Al Qaeda but also helped fund them. Iraq was also suspected of aiding Iran in their nuclear program. With knowledge of Iraq's chemical weapon stockpile and their attempts to acquire yellow cake (which we intercepted), the basis for moving on Iraq was to be proactive. The last thing we needed was 3 large countries joining forces (agreeably join of being overthrown, i.e. Iran/Ahmadinnerjacket threatening to swallow up Iraq) and creating absolute uproar (infrastructure being crushed, countries devolving into hostile faction takeover, government bankruptcy ala Greece, petroleum disruption, etc).

If Iran backed terroist why didn't we invade them if that was the reason?

[talisman]

I own a shop.

I doubt it. I haven't met a single small business owner that is pro-Obama, and I talk to shops all day long.

[Forever_frost]

You mean bushie gave to them?

No, I mean Barry did. They don't have decades long contracts. Obama has given them contracts every year he's been in office. Why? Because there isn't a company out there that can do what Haliburton can do for their price point. Now, care to explain why YOU think Obama gave them the no bid contracts?