Mission F'in Accomplished

R35.........It's not that you're wrong all of the time, It's just that you have bad luck when you think.
 
Today Obama said, and I quote from the comments, aired and replayed by CNN (just now)... "Ultimately it's up to the Iraqis, as a sovereign nation, to solve their problems."

Thank you, kind sir, for setting the record straight.
And it was also up to the Ukrainians since 1991 to solve their problems, no need for CIA, Sect of State, NGOs, or whatever else might have been involved, and no need for Nuland, Biden or Kerry to have made trips over there since last fall.

In other words, it's up to "fill in the blank," as a sovereign nation (all the rest of the world), to solve their problems. The USA is not required. Not now, not yesterday, not tomorrow. Or... shall China come over here and solve our problems? France? Russia? England? Australia? Maybe we don't need their help so much, but hey, it might be in their best interests?!!

Shall I come over to your house and help your sort out your problems? It's in my best interests, and the best interests of the city of Austin, that someone come help you figure out how best to live. If not, then we all stand corrected. I'll pass it on to the US government the 'new' concept. We all have to figure out our problems for ourselves. And, even if someone believes it to be in their best interests, well, after all there is the Bill of Rights and respect in general for the SOVEREIGN rights of others.

Please note that to all elected and appointed officials. Finally.
 
In 1915 the Brits decided it would be a nice idea to mess the Turks' hair by stirring up their arab subjects to wage a war for independence. The Brits promised the arabs self rule and promised the zionists a national home in the area in return for their help. Since they were lying to both groups they did not think ahead about some possible bad consequences.

The Ottoman empire collapsed and the zionists and the arabs presented their bills for services rendered. The Brits looked down their noses and set up things in such a way that they could get the oil for themselves.

the arabs et al have been at each other since and most of the countries there have ethnic and religious divisions driven by hate of centuries and neither O or W can do squat about it or even appear to have been aware of it.

THis is the reason you have people like Assad and Hussein ruling with vicious cruelty to begin with. Nice guys finish dead in short order over there.

They can either sort it out themselves or kill each other off.

Most area specialists warned about this back in the early W days and his dad was aware of it, which is why he did not invade Iraq after running them out of Kuwait.
 
Huisache, that's a very accurate summation of the history in the region.

The major wrench in the conclusion, however, is the evolution/development of terrorism, globalization, and technology - a terrorism force multiplier. The "let them all kill themselves" strategy might have been perfectly reasonable in the 1950s, but 9-11 changed the paradigm.

I'm not so sure you can just let AQ run roughshod over northern Iraq and expect the oceans to protect our homeland.
 
It would be much cheaper to stop them at our borders, wouldn't it? We wouldn't run the risk of creating multiple terrorists for every one 1 kill either.

I'm not an isolationist but I also don't think our military can endure decades of perpetual war in the ME. At this point nothing has changed in 12 years of fighting. We've captured/killed a lot of muslim extremists but are there any few of them now than when we started in 2002?
 
ex2000: I am not sure I concluded anything but I agree with your suggestion. The Iranians are going to help out the gov of Iraq with the sunnis, who are likely to get hamstringed by the saudis and Turks. The Kurds are going to trash a lot of people as well,.

Guessing what is next is impossible in my opinion but the small world hypothesis you allude to is a fact. There is no sunni or shiite way to run an oilfield and that is all they have. The nuts can take over but they cannot successfully run anything but goat rapes and their people are going to be unruly,, as they were under the Turks.

Lots of arabs heading this way and as long as we have the open border ostriches in the beltway we have problems and the central american illiterates are the least of them.

Glad I don't have any kids
 
I'll have to go back and study the whole thing from scratch... when the Constitution was put into effect... just wondering why the Founders didn't outlaw government completely, back then.

I'd love to live in a country like Switzerland that hardly has a government to speak of. They have the strongest currency in the world, and no one will invade them or start a war with them. And they do not get into other people's wars. They have been neutral since 1815.

Why don't the rest of us follow that model and leave each other alone?? Neither Napoleon nor Hitler dared invade them.

I have visited the Swiss Capital at Bern. Went on a tour. They were not in session. Upstairs, in a circlular hall wrapping around the meeting hall below, is a small wooden door with an equally small plaque over the door. It reads "President." And that's all the pomp they have for that office.

It seems to work.
 
The Swiss were very complicit with the Nazis in WW II. If the American public had known more details of their complicity along with the ways they mistreated numerous interred Americans fliers, I think we would have occupied and demanded reparations from "neutral" Switzerland. We should have IMO, but the Cold War forced us to make peace with lots of folks that we should have prosecuted and punished for war crimes.
 
 
I wasn't old enough to remember that Paso. However, it is clear what Biden was saying in the interview right? It seems Biden/Obama were taking some clear credit in 2010 to me.
 
I was all for Afghanistan after 9/11 and my support for our troops is unwavering wherever they may be, but at the risk of sounding like a Monday morning QB, I was always skeptical of our involvement in Iraq. I know a lot of folks feel the same way.

What were the reasons for removing Saddam Hussein from power again?

Superficial reasons: The WMD threat to Iraq's neighbors (i.e. Israel), as well as their own people. Stabilize the region and minimize the breeding ground for terrorism. Human rights violations.

Underlying reason: Better access to and more control of oil production in the region.

Trillions of dollars and thousands of lives later and the situation is arguably worse, or if you're a glass half full kind of person, right back where we started. Why am I not surprised?
 
Did W make the decision to remove the troops? Was W consulted on that decision since you believe he was still CiC?
 
Bush did make the decision to remove the troops.

The agreement was entered into in 2008 setting the deadline and timetable for withdrawal.

I am not surprised that you don't know this.
 
that Iraq would descend into sectarian violence was predicted in 2003 (hell it was predicted in 1991 which is one reason why we did not topple Saddam then)

it was the natural consequence of the invasion

but let's blame Obama?

good grief this is stupid

rolleyes.gif
 
Paso, it certainly isn't as stupid as his victory speeches and his "Asia Pivot" malarky. Obama claimed the War on Terrorism was over. He asked Congress to repeal the authorization of force act against AQ.

He gets to claim all these victories in Afghanistan, UBL, and bringing the troops home, but has no accountability for any of the blunders that he learns about on CNN?

Predictions aren't inevitable. And AQ taking over Iraq was also never a prediction. On the contrary, destroying AQ has been the primary objective of Obama's national security policy. And he has failed and probably has lied about the progress in this mission.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top