Atheist Heroes?

[The Grand Nudger]

Our image is damaged now. The only difference is now the war has dragged out with the most dire of consequences. Even if it had gone to plan our image would of been a mountain of shit compared to that incident. 

You really think so?  Because our image wasn't a pile of shit the last time we invaded, and followed through on the plan.  With a legitimate military intervention there is -atr least the possibility-.  With assassination, there is not.  Even if you succeed, completely, at assassinating a foreign head of state....this only goes to show that you are an assassin. You really think that successfully deposing a tyrant in a brilliant military campaign that produced relatively few casualties on all sides would be worse for our image than assassinating the democratically elected leader of a foreign country in order to secure a better negotiating position for oil futures? Do you smoke rock?

The difference is that the covert operation had a higher chance of success and less chance coming back to us with a lower amount of bloodshed. We've done it alot and yes, sometimes its blown up in our faces but there were less variables and less chance of blowback especially given our previous experience and our advancement in the field. A coup was one of the best options from what I could see. As far as I know the majority of what we attempted was diplomatic and economic. I'm not an expert but then again I haven't seen an expert explain why other options weren't possible. I've looked, if I had found one I would of sat down for hours watching. As far as I know no article, video or news report exists that contains that. If there is it has been atrociously publicized. As a result I can only speculate why other methods weren't tried just like the rest of you. That should not be the case for a subject so vastly debated.

Again...you have a -very- short memory.  We've been treated to stories, for decades now, as to why those other options -didn't- work.  It's not a "what if" scenario, comparing possibilities.  

Look, you can tell me to the cows come home that we invaded them because they're evil but come on.

That's -not- why we invaded, I didn't tell you that it was, asshole....but it wouldn't be the worst of reasons, which is what I -did- tell you. 

Look at all the other countries who perpetrated similar acts, alot of them we actually installed the leader. Some of them would of been laughably easy to overthrow. Evil was not the reason. Our security and our strength was in question and because nothing like this had happened before we shat the bed. If it doesn't effect us its unfortunate, if it does its evil. I'm not saying that its not favorable thats the regime gets taken out but lets not get confused here. There were many other reasons that were more pressing to the national interest. If I were to accept evil was good enough reason to rush in then I would have to accept that as a good enough reason to rush in *alot* of places. How far do you think I would get pitching that?

-more of the above, lol.

Now that there's no room left for you to blame a military doctrine or it's supporters, you're playing the "what if" game where it doesn't apply. We didn't just -start- our involvement in Iraq the day we invaded. We have a long history. If you want to know why other options -didn't- work, not why they "might not", you need only look to the history of our involvement for the last 20 years or so. It's not a history of success, granted. But these things you're asking for exist...you're probably just too young to remember them - and that's no dig. The closest we -ever- got to achieving our ends in Iraq was the last invasion - but we did then what we did now, and balked at the end. We left Saddam in power, at a moment where he only retained that power by our grace. That was a mistake that some hoped to rectify, this was the goal that our pretext was meant to serve. I make no excuses or apologies for our pretext, for our fraud, but our misdeeds do not change the fact that Iraq was a failed state, to which we had committed, and had the means to at least -attempt- to fulfill our commitment. That the means available to us do not meet your lofty ideological standards of "what if" is hardly an issue I feel can be argued. I accept that they do not. However, I doubt that we have or had -any- means which would meet that standard, so it's a moot point, to me. I don't subscribe to the notion, that if one cannot do something in a manner pursuant to such an ideological standard, that one should not do what one -can- do.

Negotiation -did not- work. Sanctions -did not- work. Threats -did not- work. Even a brinking invasion, in case our ability was under doubt (which, by all accounts, it was, Saddam thought he stood a chance), -did not- work. You ask me why we didn't go with some other option....that's your answer, down here in the dirt, we did, but they -did not work-. Will this work, this time? It's not looking good, at present, but you'd have to have a very short view (which, obviously, you do) to call the final outcome, today. We're still working on it.