Hmm, there are various thoughts on this, all begin with the stupity of the Bush invasion and “management” post-war. That critics too often know nothing of the reality of war, isn’t just reserved for managers, like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Rice, and all those who worked to leave Iraq with a failed military and government.
Chickenhawks here are still trying to get US into more wars. It is easier to tell the OTHER guy to go and risk death.
There’s a HUGE level of corruption in the Iraqi military. I can’t say the troops are to blame when they’re being asked to die for a corrupt government whose only purpose is to get more taxpayer dollars from the US to salt away for when Iraq collapses into its three parts: Kurdistan, Iran South and Saudi Southeast. The whole country is nothing but a shell game being run by the US to keep Saudi Arabia happy. The real war in the Middle East is between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran for dominance. There is no tradition in the Middle East of any government concern for the people of the area, as would have been necessary for any form of democracy. These countries were part of various empires, including the poisonous Ottoman Empire where corruption was so much a part of governance that the selling of public offices was common.
Curiously, NONE of the so-called ‘conservatives’ who frequent these boards, have ventured an opinion of what we should be doing in that part of the world.
They also kind of shy away from trying to defend the invasion of Iraq, except to express Hatred Of Obama for adhering to the agreement Bush signed to withdraw, taking the position that ‘Obama created ISIS’ with no mention of any effect of the invasion.
So Obama’s Defense Secretary makes a stupid insensitive comment but it’s George Bush’s fault. Lots of open minded liberals here!BTW, where’s WmConelly to chime in with, “foxnoiserushbushcheneyrightwingteaparty!!”
Republicans blaming Obama instead of Bush for the screwups in Iraq, is like blaming Obama instead of John Wilkes Booth for the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
“The US averages between 6 and 7 aerial strikes against ISIS on two fronts— Iraq and Syria— every day. Compared with 138 daily sorties against Serbia in 1999 and the 86 strike sorties against Afghanistan daily that forced the Taliban out of power. Obama needs to stop pussyfooting around and increase our aerial strikes. He appears to be biding his time until it’s the next Administration’s problem.”
OK, accepting your premise for the time being that we “had” to go into Iraq because of the “weapons of mass destruction” held by the Saddam regime, why did we stay? Why, after not finding anything, didn’t we just leave? President Obama was elected for many reasons, but one of the biggest issues was his vote against the invasion (unlike Hillary, who was swept up with the rest of the emotionally driven yes votes). Let’s be real, American voters were exhausted from the complete and utter senselessness of continuing the war. They voted to end it. That’s what Obama promised, and he has tried like the dickens to do just that. Once the fever broke, Americans saw the futility and stupidity of fighting in Iraq. And, paraphrasing Churchill, America can be counted on to do the right thing only after they have tried everything else first. We have no business being there. None. The regional powers need to work this problem out themselves. Let’s spend our hard earned money on nation building here at home. Why isn’t that the most reasonable course of action? What is our national interest in Iraq? Are we simply playing the loser’s gambit where you’ve lost so much already that you need to lose more to justify that the prior losses were not in vain, when the prior losses WERE, IN FACT, in vain? Losing strategies are almost always exacerbated when more losses are incurred for the sole purpose of “protecting” your prior losses.
“Again, you don’t like the answer, so you ask it daily. Knowing what we knew then, I’d go in. I do not think Bush “lied”. In hindsight, I wouldn’t have gone in.”-Except that ‘we’ knew then that Iraq did NOT have nucular weapons. Bush was briefed that this was the case.-‘I do not think Bush lied’
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” — GWB in the State of the Union speech, 2003.
Dtroutma almost 9 years ago
Hmm, there are various thoughts on this, all begin with the stupity of the Bush invasion and “management” post-war. That critics too often know nothing of the reality of war, isn’t just reserved for managers, like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Rice, and all those who worked to leave Iraq with a failed military and government.
Chickenhawks here are still trying to get US into more wars. It is easier to tell the OTHER guy to go and risk death.
Spyderred almost 9 years ago
There’s a HUGE level of corruption in the Iraqi military. I can’t say the troops are to blame when they’re being asked to die for a corrupt government whose only purpose is to get more taxpayer dollars from the US to salt away for when Iraq collapses into its three parts: Kurdistan, Iran South and Saudi Southeast. The whole country is nothing but a shell game being run by the US to keep Saudi Arabia happy. The real war in the Middle East is between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran for dominance. There is no tradition in the Middle East of any government concern for the people of the area, as would have been necessary for any form of democracy. These countries were part of various empires, including the poisonous Ottoman Empire where corruption was so much a part of governance that the selling of public offices was common.
braindead Premium Member almost 9 years ago
Curiously, NONE of the so-called ‘conservatives’ who frequent these boards, have ventured an opinion of what we should be doing in that part of the world.
They also kind of shy away from trying to defend the invasion of Iraq, except to express Hatred Of Obama for adhering to the agreement Bush signed to withdraw, taking the position that ‘Obama created ISIS’ with no mention of any effect of the invasion.
Curious.
manteo16nc almost 9 years ago
So Obama’s Defense Secretary makes a stupid insensitive comment but it’s George Bush’s fault. Lots of open minded liberals here!BTW, where’s WmConelly to chime in with, “foxnoiserushbushcheneyrightwingteaparty!!”
Dtroutma almost 9 years ago
Republicans blaming Obama instead of Bush for the screwups in Iraq, is like blaming Obama instead of John Wilkes Booth for the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
braindead Premium Member almost 9 years ago
“The US averages between 6 and 7 aerial strikes against ISIS on two fronts— Iraq and Syria— every day. Compared with 138 daily sorties against Serbia in 1999 and the 86 strike sorties against Afghanistan daily that forced the Taliban out of power. Obama needs to stop pussyfooting around and increase our aerial strikes. He appears to be biding his time until it’s the next Administration’s problem.”
Is a sortie the same thing as an aerial strike?
twclix almost 9 years ago
OK, accepting your premise for the time being that we “had” to go into Iraq because of the “weapons of mass destruction” held by the Saddam regime, why did we stay? Why, after not finding anything, didn’t we just leave? President Obama was elected for many reasons, but one of the biggest issues was his vote against the invasion (unlike Hillary, who was swept up with the rest of the emotionally driven yes votes). Let’s be real, American voters were exhausted from the complete and utter senselessness of continuing the war. They voted to end it. That’s what Obama promised, and he has tried like the dickens to do just that. Once the fever broke, Americans saw the futility and stupidity of fighting in Iraq. And, paraphrasing Churchill, America can be counted on to do the right thing only after they have tried everything else first. We have no business being there. None. The regional powers need to work this problem out themselves. Let’s spend our hard earned money on nation building here at home. Why isn’t that the most reasonable course of action? What is our national interest in Iraq? Are we simply playing the loser’s gambit where you’ve lost so much already that you need to lose more to justify that the prior losses were not in vain, when the prior losses WERE, IN FACT, in vain? Losing strategies are almost always exacerbated when more losses are incurred for the sole purpose of “protecting” your prior losses.
braindead Premium Member almost 9 years ago
“Again, you don’t like the answer, so you ask it daily. Knowing what we knew then, I’d go in. I do not think Bush “lied”. In hindsight, I wouldn’t have gone in.”-Except that ‘we’ knew then that Iraq did NOT have nucular weapons. Bush was briefed that this was the case.-‘I do not think Bush lied’
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” — GWB in the State of the Union speech, 2003.