Mission F'in Accomplished

So the reason we went to Iraq was not to find WMD but to get involved in the Shia-Sunni dispute in Iraq, a dispute that had been settled by Saddam and has only boiled over because we went there in the first place?

And thus, we should continue to spend money and lives to fix this 3 trillion dollar mess that we have created.

This is the policy that you consider a good idea?
 
Paso, since I posted before your post, not sure if you are referring to my post (on Blair) or something else.

My post on Blair was to ridicule him.

As of today I am out of sorts with both major political parties. Gong back decades, maybe back to 1945.

Also I'm beginning to get tired talking about it. After reading Stephen Cohen (Prof at NY University, taught at Princeton, PhD from Columbia) assessment on our relations toward Russia, I'm about ready to go to the moon.

Worst of all, the public is so divided. Living on a planet where everything is a matter of opinion, and nothing is obvious, is frustrating. Water is wet. Part of the time. Is that the only thing everyone can agree on as being obvious? I keep thinking... if political power did not exist, we'd be in pretty good shape. Also think tanks began after the Second War and have ballooned to about 6,500 world wide.

Those people have nothing to do but influence policy (most of them I mean). So I no longer know who is in control of world affairs or upon what basis. The play of the game is spin and manipulation of perceptions. The ability to do that has grown more and more powerful through the media. And... I feel we no longer have an independent press. I don't trust even FoxNews staff to diligently pursue a subject with an open mind.

I'm put off by the Tea Party now as well. That leaves... nothing. I hope Tech can rally for extra runs in the top of the 9th... Happy Father's Day to all. (TCU won)
 
It was a response to stuff above it. I think we are in agreement on Iraq. I am not an isolationist, but I have had my fill of nation building particularly in the Middle East. Blair needs to be ridiculed.
 
paso
so your excuse is this was Bush's SOFA and there fore BO gets a pass?
Really? That is your excuse?
Has BO at anytime ever undone anything Bush did?

Oh because it was an agreement between sovereign nations you say so BO could not change anything?
is that it?
 
It is pretty pathetic that Dems are still trying to blame current messes on Bush. Its no wonder they fail so often. Successful people take responsibility for their decisions. Losers make excuses and shift blame.
 
Sunni militants are dying in Iraq. Shiite militants are dying in Iraq. ISIL militants are dying in Iraq. According to some reports, soon Iranians will die in Iraq.

But guess what!! Americans are NOT dying in Iraq.

No wonder the GOP is staging a temper tantrum. Gosh, with all the dying in Iraq, Americans are getting left out.

Obama's foreign policy is a failure. We need to impeach Obama so we can send in the Marines. Then the Iraqis will stop killing each other and start killing Americans.

For real? Let me reiterate, for the first time in the 21st century, Americans are NOT dying in Iraq.

We did not lose the Iraqi war. WE WON.

Three cheers for Obama.

Three jeers for the Viagra Warriors of the GOP.
 
paso
maybe before you get all giddy thinking this does not impact up you should read what many senior military leaders hae said
OR maybe you should pay attention to what Mike Morell (google him) said on CBS's This Morning to Charlie Rose

"“I do not believe that it is in the interests of the United States to work with Iran,” Morell said. He then gave voice to the obscenely 20th Century notion that there is an ongoing struggle between Iran and a variety of Middle East powers for regional hegemony, and the U.S. would only aid in Tehran’s quest to secure hegemonic status by working with them to secure Iraq.

After spreading blame for the current crisis around to everyone from the Bush administration to the al-Maliki regime, Morell ominously conceded that the time for finger pointing is ending.

When asked what ISIS’s goals are, Morell was blunt:

“One is to set up that caliphate and, it’s not just in Iraq and in Syria,” he warned. The former CIA chief noted that The Levant, or greater Syria, includes territories in modern day Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel.

“Their second goal then is to use that as a safe haven to attack the United States,” Morell added"
 
I do not think Iraq marks our downfall or the beginning of it. It just shows the limits of American power. This should be a valuable lesson to the adults although you would have thought Vietnam taught that expensive lesson, but maybe Iraq is a refresher course.

The Link
 
So, it was mentioned on the Sunday morning talkshows that Biden advocated for a plan to breakup Iraq along sectarian lines in the early days of the conclusion of the Iraq war. Would that have been a better plan?

Already it appears things are quickly returning to normal in the ISIS controlled areas. Citizens are returning with the promise of cheap food and gas. Evidently they think ISIS is able to run things better than the Maliki government which is astonishing at first glance.
 
How can all the BO supporters forget the military leaders advocated leaving behind counter terrorism forces to prevent this exact thing.

anyone thing Bush would not have listened? BO ONCE again allowed politics to trump common sense.
Even BO's former CIA guy says this is a danger to our national interests
 
paso
what in your mind is the ad hominem?
that BO's military didn't plead for counter terrorism forces to be left?
or the opinion/ question of what Bush would have done?
 
Nothing is Obama's responsibility. Nothing. What part of the Obama Sheep Doctrine don't you understand?
 
The decision to invade Iraq in 2003 and the manner in which the occupation was handled has consequences.

These are the consequences.
 
Paso
biggrin.gif

and true
 
This seemed the most likely result from the beginning of Bush's war. We have to leave eventually, don't we?
Did you want to annex the country as the 51st state?
What did you think was going to happen when we pulled out?
Defeating Iragi army, easy.
Deposing Saddam, easy.
Nation building a democracy in the middle east in our image, hard. Unlikely to ever happen there.
 
Paso...I'm sorry man, but you're digging yourself a bigger hole. You don't even know what ad hominem means (or maybe your reading comprehension is terrible) if you're referring to middle-school and the subject it's modifying.

You also completely skip over the double standard I pointed out in your LBJ/Bush construct and continue to skip over Obama's promises on AQ. Do you believe he has upheld his promise on AQ?

What was the status of MEK and AQI and ISIS when Obama took over in 2008? What is their status now? I was in Iraq in 2004 when they had democratic elections and freakin' AQ weren't running around Mosul/Tikrit/Anbar like in a Fast & Furious movie.

Afghanistan3_zpsb17d1f9d.gif


You lame blame on neo-cons and point to Vietnam as a lesson on the "limits of American power." That's a great line to type in from a computer. I'm not sure people appreciate the power of CBR weapons. I hope that's a lesson we never learn the hard way.
 
texex-

I'm trying to understand where you are going with the Obama vs. Bush casualty comparison. Are you claiming that AQ/ISIS were in Iraq from the beginning? Like the WMD, the evidence shown is that AQ were the enemy of Sadam too. Though it took no time for the Iraq military to fall, it took a few years for these terrorist orgs to setup shop and the longer they got away from Saddam and the greater control we gave to the Iraqi's the more insurgency we experienced. al-Maliki took office in 2006. Doesn't it make sense that the Sunni's would eventually grow disheartened with him over time?

Are you advocating that we should never had handed over control to the Iraqi's?

I don't think there is any difference between Bush and Obama post-Sadam. Though Maliki was installed by Bush (5/20/2006) I'm not sure Obama would have done anything different. Both supported the surge and had goals to exit Iraq. Bush may have reneged on the exit but do you think he had any more influence of Maliki than Obama?
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Iraq government deny the U.S. request to leave troops in place, a base there, etc.?
They did not want us to maintain a permanent presence there. Are you blaming this on Obama?
We had to leave sooner or later, and to me, the result was going to be inevitable, what we are seeing happen right now.
Our military mission, through valiant and heroic effort, was achievable, our political mission, though, was ill-conceived and ill-defined, and unachievable, just like in Vietnam.
How long did Vietnam hold out after we left, four months? Something like that.
 
Yep, Iraq is one giant clustf*ck right now. It feels weird that Iran wants to partner with us and Saudi Arabia is pissed off and their constituents fund ISIS. Suddenly, the political world has turned upside down.
 
It would seem to me that we're spending way too much time trying to decide "it's Bush's fault" or "it's Obama's fault." At some point, there's a realization that negative fallout is going to occur and it really doesn't matter who we blame. We have the situation we have, and we need to figure out the best option moving forward.

Yes... Bush's decisions started and put us on this path. Yes... Obama's withdrawal timeline was essentially the same to what Bush initially intended. But think about this scenario:

1. Company CEO puts company in bad situation
2. New CEO is brought in to fix the problem, and institutes an existing exit strategy
3. Situation deteriorates more than expected as plan is unfurled, and consequences of initial decision are worsened
4. CEO makes decisions that either do not address the issue, do not help the issue, or make the issue worse

Has the CEO failed in his job? Is he accountable? Should he put policies in place that attempt to address the changed situation on the ground?

If your answers to the above are "no", then you're lying to yourself and have become so partisan that you're willing to absolve a sitting president of responsibilities in a way you would never knowingly do in any other context. Kind of like... oh, I don't know... when the president commits acts with a White House intern that would have gotten him fired from every corporation in America if it became public, and your response was "hey, big deal! Why are we investigating this?"
 
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