RE: Iraq........ Mission unaccomplished. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Iraq........ Mission unaccomplished. (6/13/2014 11:49:14 PM)

So here's the question, regardless of who did what, who's at fault, etc., what now? The huge amount of money already spent in Iraq has been a complete waste. The almost $15 billion worth of arms we gave to Iraq is now essentially in the hands of the rebels. We were asked to leave the country, now we're being begged to come back. What do we do? I suspect it's a no win situation. If we go in, we'll face criticism for not minding our own business. If we stay out, we'll get the same for not helping with a problem we created. I think what's happening over there is disgusting, but I'm starting to feel like we should just stay the hell out of other people's fights.



TheHeretic -> RE: Iraq........ Mission unaccomplished. (6/14/2014 12:00:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Forget about individuals, they are irrelevant as long as ...



As long as trashing an individual doesn't fit coveniently with the hatred and prejudices you fill yourself with?




TheHeretic -> RE: Iraq........ Mission unaccomplished. (6/14/2014 12:03:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

So here's the question, regardless of who did what, who's at fault, etc., what now?



That's the $64,000 question, ain't it. The President is going to golf on it. I'll see how the question looks over coffee, and under sunlight.



DomKen -> RE: Iraq........ Mission unaccomplished. (6/14/2014 5:29:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

So here's the question, regardless of who did what, who's at fault, etc., what now?

Stay the hell out of it.
If ISIS wins make it clear to them if they misbehave they will be met with overwhelming force.

Also as panicked as certain folks are right now ISIS appears to only be a couple of thousand fighters. If the Iraqi army ever actually stands and fights it will easily defeat them.



DaddySatyr -> RE: Iraq........ Mission unaccomplished. (6/14/2014 6:37:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

So here's the question, regardless of who did what, who's at fault, etc., what now?



That's the $64,000 question, ain't it. The President is going to golf on it. I'll see how the question looks over coffee, and under sunlight.



Rich, you know - but I don't think ThirdWheel does - I am an unapologetic isolationist. I have been since before I gave my own precious blood to a conflict that we had no business being involved in (As a side note: the 22nd would have been his 35th birthday. If you're so inclined, please give a kind thought/prayer/whatever to Jaime).

I honestly think we need to stop being "the go-to guy" for all the world's ills. I am sick to death of allowing ourselves to be dragged into conflicts that are always a no-win situation for us (We're gonna be pissing someone off).

There may very well be conflicts where our interests are involved but in the current world climate, I believe they're few and far between and we need to recognize that not only is discretion the better part of valor but that sometimes, the best thing to do is to do nothing.







Screen captures still RULE! Ya feel me?



DesideriScuri -> RE: Iraq........ Mission unaccomplished. (6/14/2014 6:46:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
The level of insight into the Iraq situation being demonstrated by some nutsackers here is appalling. Their hatred of Obama is such that they cannot see the problem lies not with an individual but with US policy, its absurd bias and ridiculous goals.
Both the GOP and Democrats voted for the invasion of Iraq, the standout disaster in the series of disasters that comprise US policy in the region. Both Bush and Obama have found reasons to prosecute wars in the region. If there is any difference between the two parties, its that the Dems seem a little faster to realise their mistakes though they are just as hopeless as the GOP at correcting them.
Forget about individuals, they are irrelevant as long as US policy and strategic goals remain unchanged. What is needed is a complete revision of US policy towards the entire region. That is a complete revision starting with the 'security alliance' with Israel - surely the most insane, absurd strategic alliance in history - and everything else. Until this happens, we can look forward to more of the same, which in practice means more disasters to join the long list of disasters the US has visited upon the region.


I agree and disagree, Tweaks. I don't believe the US has to end it's security alliance with Israel. Maybe the only revision is to make it clear that if Israel is in the wrong (as determined by the US), we will either not support Israel in those endeavors, or actively oppose Israel in those endeavors (depending on the severity of the overstep). As far as the other countries in the Middle East, as long as they leave Israel alone, we should treat them as sovereigns (departure from the last few decades of ME foreign policy), allowed to self-determine.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Iraq........ Mission unaccomplished. (6/14/2014 6:55:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted
So here's the question, regardless of who did what, who's at fault, etc., what now?

Stay the hell out of it.
If ISIS wins make it clear to them if they misbehave they will be met with overwhelming force.


Doesn't that violate your "stay the hell out of it" choice?

quote:

Also as panicked as certain folks are right now ISIS appears to only be a couple of thousand fighters. If the Iraqi army ever actually stands and fights it will easily defeat them.


I agree with your idea to stay the hell out of it. That will force the Iraqi's to either stand up or accept their fate.



DomKen -> RE: Iraq........ Mission unaccomplished. (6/14/2014 6:59:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted
So here's the question, regardless of who did what, who's at fault, etc., what now?

Stay the hell out of it.
If ISIS wins make it clear to them if they misbehave they will be met with overwhelming force.


Doesn't that violate your "stay the hell out of it" choice?

I meant if they attack us.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Iraq........ Mission unaccomplished. (6/14/2014 7:08:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
There may very well be conflicts where our interests are involved but in the current world climate, I believe they're few and far between and we need to recognize that not only is discretion the better part of valor but that sometimes, the best thing to do is to do nothing.


So as to not wait for this to happen...

Some dickweed: "How'd that work out for you with Hitler?!?"

Um, Hitler is dead. Lots of blood and treasure was used up. There's a price to be paid for freedom and liberty. Sometimes it's paid by deposing despots, and sometimes it's paid by preventing despots from coming into power. I'd prefer to react. At least up to that point, the people of the other countries have a chance to self-determine.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Iraq........ Mission unaccomplished. (6/14/2014 7:10:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I meant if they attack us.


Gotcha. "Misbehave" can have quite a broad definition.



mnottertail -> RE: Iraq........ Mission unaccomplished. (6/14/2014 7:15:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

So here's the question, regardless of who did what, who's at fault, etc., what now?



That's the $64,000 question, ain't it. The President is going to golf on it. I'll see how the question looks over coffee, and under sunlight.


He isn't going to bother to golf on it or wait your advice. He said, their problem.




TheHeretic -> RE: Iraq........ Mission unaccomplished. (6/14/2014 11:11:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


I honestly think we need to stop being "the go-to guy" for all the world's ills. I am sick to death of allowing ourselves to be dragged into conflicts that are always a no-win situation for us (We're gonna be pissing someone off).







I get it, Michael, I really do, but the day we crossed the border into Iraq (and I had immediate family in the columns) it became our problem. We broke the place. The desription I used back in the day was that we not only pushed those people off the bridge, we stocked the river with crocodiles.

Dumb move by Bush II? Oh you betcha, and he did it with the blessing of Congress. Iraq was not Bush's war, it was America's. President Obama's failure to get a SOFA to preserve and protect what we did finally accomplish there was America's failure too. You can ask Ron about me predicting that if we didn't get the ending right, we might find ourselves right back in the middle of it. He snarked then, he'll probably lie now. Maybe somebody will quote him if he responds.

The fuck-ups are still rolling. The second we knew the Iraqi forces were abandoning Mosul, the arms depots there should have been getting targeted to be blown the fuck up, hopefully with hundreds of the ISIS fighters starting their shopping spree inside.

The dumbass who started this thread thought he could have a Bush-bashing good time with it. It's tempting to chronicle the foolish failures of our current President in what is happening, but the price of those failures is too damn high.

The President is now saying Iraq has to solve it. Translation - "have a nice civil war."

Saying we should take an isolationist approach is great in theory. I'd like to take a debt free approach to my life, but that doesn't mean I can quit writing the mortgage checks.



Musicmystery -> RE: Iraq........ Mission unaccomplished. (6/14/2014 11:28:28 AM)

Good post, Rich.



cloudboy -> RE: Iraq........ Mission unaccomplished. (6/14/2014 3:13:14 PM)


Consistent with his posting -- criticizing Obama -- the Heretic never says what the US should do and how a better result could be obtained. I was laughing at a Republican in Congress saying -- "we need to do something about IRAQ" while also saying "we can't have boots on the ground" and therefore calling for "drone strikes to attack the Sunni Militias." WOW -- that's really working in Afghanistan, isn't it?

The Lieutenant General of Northern IRAQ was on NPR Thursday -- and he sort of said the IRAQIs just weren't committed enough to stabilizing their country -- and that the USA could not instill this trait in them.

It was a huge neo-con fallacy that regime change would ever work -- that a country with huge ethnic and religious divisions and no history of democracy could be transformed from a dictatorship into a Western-style state.

As for US troop withdrawals from IRAQ -- that was agreed to and signed into a treaty by GWB.

IRAN has now sent advisers into IRAQ to instruct the SHIA on fighting the Sunni militias.

The Worst Foreign Policy Mistake of my lifetime is now getting worse. It's very upsetting.



truckinslave -> RE: Iraq........ Mission unaccomplished. (6/14/2014 3:45:02 PM)

quote:

If ISIS wins make it clear to them if they misbehave they will be met with overwhelming force.


In a forum filled with hilarious hypocrisy, that stands out. 2 Qs:

1. Did Saddam "misbehave" (extra credit if you can say why trying to shoot down our fighter jets doesn't count).
2. Were you fer or agin when W invaded?



DaddySatyr -> RE: Iraq........ Mission unaccomplished. (6/14/2014 4:11:03 PM)


Well, another childish move ...

"The Pentagon Orders ..."

First of all: the Pentagon ordered fuck-all. Generals issuing orders that don't come from C-I-C is called "a coup d'état".

Second of all: Why doesn't the "most transparent administration" own their bullshit?







Screen captures still RULE! Ya feel me?



truckinslave -> RE: Iraq........ Mission unaccomplished. (6/14/2014 4:17:35 PM)

I just pray these guys don't have a way to attack the fleet (Chicom missiles... whatever)



DomKen -> RE: Iraq........ Mission unaccomplished. (6/14/2014 4:36:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

If ISIS wins make it clear to them if they misbehave they will be met with overwhelming force.


In a forum filled with hilarious hypocrisy, that stands out. 2 Qs:

1. Did Saddam "misbehave" (extra credit if you can say why trying to shoot down our fighter jets doesn't count).

when he invaded Kuwait. and that should have been the end of his regime. Leaving him in charge was a mistake.

quote:

2. Were you fer or agin when W invaded?
against it. It was an oil grab that was poorly planned and executed.



cloudboy -> RE: Iraq........ Mission unaccomplished. (6/14/2014 5:56:23 PM)

According to Juan Cole, the US will probably end up backing IRAN in a 2nd IRAN-IRAQ war.

------

The Reagan administration in the United States largely backed Iraq from 1983, when Reagan dispatched then Searle CEO Donald Rumsfeld to shake Saddam’s hand. This, despite Iraq being the clear aggressor and despite Reagan’s full knowledge of Iraqi use of chemical weapons, about which George Schultz at the State Department loudly complained until he was shushed. Then, having his marching orders straight, Schultz had the US ambassador to the UN deep-six any UN Security Council resolution condemning Iraq for the chemical weapons deployment. The US navy fought an behind the scenes war against Iranian ships in the Persian Gulf, becoming a de facto appendage of the Baath military.

Just because the Reagan administration was so Machiavellian, it also gave some minor support Iran in the war. Reagan stole anti-tank and anti-aircraft weaponry from the Pentagon storehouses and illegally sold them to Khomeini despite Iran being on the US terrorism watch list. He then had Iran pressure the Shiite militiamen in Lebanon to release American hostages. Reagan sent the money received from Iran to death squads in Nicaragua fighting the people’s revolution there against a brutal American-installed dictatorship. This money was sent to Nicaragua in defiance of the Boland Amendment passed by Congress forbidding US monies to go there. Ollie North, whom you see prevaricating on Fox News these days, was a bag man for the operation.

They may as well have broken into the National Archives Nick Cage style, broken out the original copy of the constitution, and put it through a shredder several times in a row till small confetti pieces were all that were left.

It is unclear how many people Saddam’s bloody war killed off. A quarter of a million on each side seems plausible. So many young men were part of a “missing generation” that the Iranian regime had to let women into the workforce and universities in very large numbers despite its preference for them to remain home and secluded. In Iraq, there were many widows, and some were forced to become low-status second wives, or single heads of household, or, among Shiites, temporary wives. Iraq depleted its currency reserves in the war and went into debt with Kuwait among others, then in 1990 invaded and tried to annex Kuwait. Saddam dealt with his creditors the way organized crime might deal with its.

In the looming second Iran-Iraq War, the US will be de facto allied with Iran against the would-be al-Qaeda affiliate (ISIS was rejected by core al-Qaeda for viciously attacking other militant vigilante Sunni fundamentalists in turf wars in Syria). The position of the US is therefore 180 degrees away from what it was under Reagan.



cloudboy -> RE: Iraq........ Mission unaccomplished. (6/14/2014 9:45:22 PM)


Manning has weighed in on the IRAQ debacle. He's probably 100% right, too.

While the US military was upbeat in its public outlook on the 2010 Iraqi parliamentary elections, suggesting it had helped bring stability and democracy to the country, "those of us stationed there were acutely aware of a more complicated reality," Manning wrote.

"Military and diplomatic reports coming across my desk detailed a brutal crackdown against political dissidents by the Iraqi Ministry of Interior and federal police, on behalf of Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki. Detainees were often tortured, or even killed."

Manning, a former US Army intelligence analyst, said he was "shocked by our military's complicity in the corruption of that election. Yet these deeply troubling details flew under the American media's radar."

Criticizing the military's practice of embedding journalists, Manning charged that "the current limits on press freedom and excessive government secrecy make it impossible for Americans to grasp fully what is happening in the wars we finance."

Manning is serving out the prison sentence at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas and had requested a name change after court-martial proceedings revealed the soldier's emotional turmoil over sexual identity.

A US Army general denied clemency to Manning in April, upholding the 35-year sentence.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875