Online Game Shows Consequences of War With Iran

[Something Amyss]

ok first we won the war, what going on now is called "clean up", or if you prefer restructuring.

What we are doing "now" is not really the issue. Afghanistan has been going on for a decade including a period where we virtually abandoned it ourselves despite having only partially routed the Taliban as was our objective. We then focused on a war of false pretenses, where we prematurely claimed "Mission Accomplished." We had assistance during difficult periods, including when we dropped our interest in Afghanistan because we wanted a newer shinier war. With blackwater! And hookers!

The us is now in the middle of a "guerrilla war" with insurgents despite the title this is not a war but a conflict.

A nice semantic difference, but what we are currently doing has little to do with the actual viability of support prior.

Finally is it being a "strawman" if its true?

No. Thankfully, you don't have to worry about it here.

I mean the guy spent the last 6 months saying that the econemy wasnt his fault because Bush left him a dogs dinner, yet its fact that in four years hes spent more then Bush did in eight.

1. [citation needed] regarding the spending.

2. You do understand that those don't actually form a correlation, right?

 

[ecoho]

ok first we won the war, what going on now is called "clean up", or if you prefer restructuring.

What we are doing "now" is not really the issue. Afghanistan has been going on for a decade including a period where we virtually abandoned it ourselves despite having only partially routed the Taliban as was our objective. We then focused on a war of false pretenses, where we prematurely claimed "Mission Accomplished." We had assistance during difficult periods, including when we dropped our interest in Afghanistan because we wanted a newer shinier war. With blackwater! And hookers!

The us is now in the middle of a "guerrilla war" with insurgents despite the title this is not a war but a conflict.

A nice semantic difference, but what we are currently doing has little to do with the actual viability of support prior.

Finally is it being a "strawman" if its true?

No. Thankfully, you don't have to worry about it here.

I mean the guy spent the last 6 months saying that the econemy wasnt his fault because Bush left him a dogs dinner, yet its fact that in four years hes spent more then Bush did in eight.

1. [citation needed] regarding the spending.

2. You do understand that those don't actually form a correlation, right?

we never stoped sending troops to Afghanistan even when we went to Iraq, we just sent our main force to deal with the bigger threat. Now i wont defend the reasons we went into Iraq no clue why we said he had WMDs if we werent going to secure them first(he had them the world knows it but the guy was smart enough to get rid of them when he thought people might see them not just their effects) but sadam needed to be removed if for nothing else then he was an evil man.

1. your right hes been doing it since he took office but i thought that would be in bad taste if i called it out.
2. please clearify your statment.

 

[Andrew_C]

The major State sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East isn't Iran but the US's "allies" Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

we just sent our main force to deal with the bigger threat. Now i wont defend the reasons we went into Iraq no clue why we said he had WMDs if we werent going to secure them first(he had them the world knows it but the guy was smart enough to get rid of them when he thought people might see them not just their effects) but sadam needed to be removed if for nothing else then he was an evil man.

The only things Saddam was a threat to were Bush's ego and his own people. The reason there were no WMD's to be found was because Iraq had already gotten rid of them long ago, IN COMPLIANCE WITH UN RESOLUTIONS AND US THREATS and overseen by UN weapons monitors. The WMD dossier that the US and UK used as an excuse for the invasion was a complete fabrication from beginning to end and Bush and Blair knew that when they sent us to war.

 

[ecoho]

The major State sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East isn't Iran but the US's "allies" Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

we just sent our main force to deal with the bigger threat. Now i wont defend the reasons we went into Iraq no clue why we said he had WMDs if we werent going to secure them first(he had them the world knows it but the guy was smart enough to get rid of them when he thought people might see them not just their effects) but sadam needed to be removed if for nothing else then he was an evil man.

The only things Saddam was a threat to were Bush's ego and his own people. The reason there were no WMD's to be found was because Iraq had already gotten rid of them long ago, IN COMPLIANCE WITH UN RESOLUTIONS AND US THREATS and overseen by UN weapons monitors. The WMD dossier that the US and UK used as an excuse for the invasion was a complete fabrication from beginning to end and Bush and Blair knew that when they sent us to war.

like i said dont defend their choice of reasons but the guy needed to be removed,(should have been done in the desert storm) he was a monster who killed millions and his sons were worse.

 

[Andrew_C]

like i said dont defend their choice of reasons but the guy needed to be removed,(should have been done in the desert storm) he was a monster who killed millions and his sons were worse.

Yeah, no argument there, but you make it sound like the WMD program was dismantled between the ultimatum and invasion, when it had already been effectively destroyed thanks to the diligent work of the UN weapons inspectors and the various intelligence services feeding them information.

 

[ecoho]

like i said dont defend their choice of reasons but the guy needed to be removed,(should have been done in the desert storm) he was a monster who killed millions and his sons were worse.

Yeah, no argument there, but you make it sound like the WMD program was dismantled between the ultimatum and invasion, when it had already been effectively destroyed thanks to the diligent work of the UN weapons inspectors and the various intelligence services feeding them information.

.......you mean the guys who couldnt do their work right till about 6 months prior to the US invation, as there were traces of WMD's that were from about that long ago found at sites all over Iraq. Seriously though i have no respect for the UN as a whole as they tend to do nothing but make things more complicated, waste money, and not pay their bills.

 

[Andrew_C]

like i said dont defend their choice of reasons but the guy needed to be removed,(should have been done in the desert storm) he was a monster who killed millions and his sons were worse.

Yeah, no argument there, but you make it sound like the WMD program was dismantled between the ultimatum and invasion, when it had already been effectively destroyed thanks to the diligent work of the UN weapons inspectors and the various intelligence services feeding them information.

.......you mean the guys who couldnt do their work right till about 6 months prior to the US invation, as there were traces of WMD's that were from about that long ago found at sites all over Iraq. Seriously though i have no respect for the UN as a whole as they tend to do nothing but make things more complicated, waste money, and not pay their bills.

You mean at the decommissioned WMD sites that the UN inspectors informed the allied forces of? Which it they should already have known about, as it was their intelligence services who identified them for the UN? The sites that the forces searched several times with a fine tooth comb before finally being shown a single centrifuge by one of the Iraqi scientists about a year after the invasion? Which they then declared as proof positive that Saddam had a fully functional WMD program after all?

 

[Something Amyss]

1. your right hes been doing it since he took office but i thought that would be in bad taste if i called it out.
2. please clearify your statment.

1. Still false.
2. Correlation does not equal causation. You are trying to pretend there is some sort of causal relation between the two.