U.S. Foreign Policy in regards to Iraq [Archive]

Sooner in Tampa

6/13/2014, 10:29 AM

Well, now that John Kerry has spoken...I expect things to settle down in Iraq

The Obama administration sent a message Friday to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as Al Qaeda-inspired militants took control of more cities on their march to Baghdad -- reportedly leaving a trail of decapitated government forces in their wake:

"Come together."

Secretary of State John Kerry delivered the administration's message, putting the onus on the Maliki government to "put sectarian differences aside and to come together in unity to begin to be more representative and inclusive."

olevetonahill

6/13/2014, 10:50 AM

heh, Iran wants to help us out there LOL

http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-alarmed-iraq-iran-open-shared-role-u-090305368.html

REDREX

6/13/2014, 11:56 AM

Obama is weak and in over his head

BoulderSooner79

6/13/2014, 01:28 PM

Obama is weak and in over his head

Easy answer, but there is no win here. You can debate the details of which loser strategy to take, but this was inevitable to day we decided to take out Saddam. We would literally have to stay there as cops forever to keep these religion nuts from killing each other. And I really don't see what that buys us in the long run other than getting some of our troops getting picked off for a lost cause. I find it humorous in a sad, ironic way that Iran is coming in to try to settle things down.

REDREX

6/13/2014, 03:50 PM

It is an easy and correct answer-----They know Obama will do nothing-------Just like with Putin in the Ukraine they will do whatever they want

BoulderSooner79

6/13/2014, 05:36 PM

It is an easy and correct answer-----They know Obama will do nothing-------Just like with Putin in the Ukraine they will do whatever they want

And he should do nothing. He could go back in with our troops and play cop until the next POTUS inherits this mess, but that would be the political thing to do. There is no way to know that the outcome of all this is even bad. It could be that Iraq is not a viable country due to all the rival factions that cannot peacefully coexist and trying to make it so is a waste of resources. I've read at least a dozen middle east expert opinions on this in the last few days and they all disagree on what should be done. I can't even tell what the goal is and as a manager, I know you can't reach a goal if it is not well defined. One thing that is obvious to me is that we can stay there until the sun burns out and it will not be long enough to get the Sunni and Shiites to stop fighting. (Well, I guess the sun going dark will do the trick, but not because we are there).

Obama may be weak and over his head, but I hope he doesn't try to do something stupid just because critics are saying that. If we were still in Iraq at full force, he'd be paying hell for not getting us out after all this time. So there is no route to win a popularity contest. We went in when we shouldn't and getting out was going to allow chaos whether we did it this decade of 100 years from now. The Sunni/Shiite thing goes back to 632A.D.

REDREX

6/13/2014, 06:13 PM

BoulderSooner79

6/13/2014, 06:42 PM

One of the biggest problems is that we do not understand all of the old problems between the diff groups---Iraq hates Iran because they are Persians not Arabs----These conflict go back 1000's of years----If they didn't have oil no one would care

We are in total agreement on that. And taking that a step further, I don't think it is even possible for Americans to understand because our cultures are so different. I read a lot to try to understand who all the groups and players are and their motivations, and I can sort of get that. But from an emotional point of view they come across as irrational to me - sometimes bordering on insane. We have no business trying to install and prop up a government there. The best that could happen is if some charismatic leader emerges that can unite the factions and I don't see our presence helping that happen - it could well be a hindrance.

diverdog

6/14/2014, 09:21 AM

It is an easy and correct answer-----They know Obama will do nothing-------Just like with Putin in the Ukraine they will do whatever they want

I have news for you. This all falls on the Bush Administration...even guys like Shep Smith are figuring this out. He left the next guy a huge **** sandwich.

http://us.cnn.com/2014/06/13/opinion/bergen-iraq-isis-bush/?iref=obinsite

olevetonahill

6/14/2014, 09:38 AM

I have news for you. This all falls on the Bush Administration...even guys like Shep Smith are figuring this out. He left the next guy a huge **** sandwich.

http://us.cnn.com/2014/06/13/opinion/bergen-iraq-isis-bush/?iref=obinsite

And Obammys solution to the Sh1t sammich is lather on More sh1t and a bit of mustard.

REDREX

6/14/2014, 09:46 AM

olevetonahill

6/14/2014, 09:50 AM

---I believe Hillary also voted for the war

as did Jane Kerry er I mean john.

SoonerProphet

6/14/2014, 01:00 PM

Was disastrous in 2003 and would even be more epically dumb to go back. Let the regional politics play out.

hawaii 5-0

6/14/2014, 01:04 PM

Yep, they all were shamed into believing the lies told to them by Cheney, Rummy et al. and voted for US intervention.

We should learn from our mistake last time and stay out this time.

5-0

Skysooner

6/14/2014, 01:48 PM

This fight between the Shiites and Sunni has been going on for a thousand years. Keep us out of it. Going in does nothing to help our stability.

rock on sooner

6/14/2014, 08:20 PM

This fight between the Shiites and Sunni has been going on for a thousand years. Keep us out of it. Going in does nothing to help our stability.

Reasonable thought process...I'm a pretty easy going left of center
type feller but I think it'd be pretty good if we asked the Isrealis to
get as far a way as is good and duck down, so's we can allow Iraq,
Iran and Syria to become a source of silicone. Isn't that what happens
when sand meets RILLY high heat? Seriously, it appears that time hasn't
changed anything and never will. The West has been trying to help since
15 minutes after the Exodus and it hasn't accomplished diddly! A few parts
of this world refuse to be helped from the outside and, oil notwithstanding,
doesn't seem to be going anywhere, period. I'm open to suggestion, but
looks to me like it's handwashing, backturning and button pushing is the
order of the day. And, NO, my name is NOT John McCain....

yermom

6/14/2014, 08:30 PM

silicone:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/11/05/t1larg.silicone.implants.jpg

silicon:

http://www.panalytical.com/upload_mm/c/1/c/543_fullimage_RoHS%20Silicon%20455x255.jpg

either way, is that so bad?

diverdog

6/15/2014, 07:32 AM

---I believe Hillary also voted for the war

Hillary has nothing to do with this.

You guys bitch about Obama's foreign policy. Even his worst mistakes pale incomparrisson to the idiots who ran the war in Iraq. It was Bush who decided to disband the Iraqi military, it was Bush who set a path of deBaathification in Iraq, it was Bush who did not provide enough manpower to stabilize Iraq, it was Bush who backed the current Iraqi regime, it was Bush who failed to get a status of forces agreement with Iraq, it was Bush who created AQ in Iraq and ISIS because of his war in Iraq.

You guys also seem to forget the lies that were told to everyone....we would be greated as liberators, the war would pay for itself with Iraqi oil, and Iraq would be a democracy.

And Rex I will tell you that we would are not to far apart on Obama. I think he is a very weak president but I also think he was handed such a mess that it has made him look far worse than he is. No person who would have followed Bush would have faired much better on the foreign policy front. The situation in the Middle East is so bad there are no good options. I do not think even a guy like Richard Nixon could figure it out. Maybe the best move is to supply each side enough weapons and let them kill each other off. I also think Iran is about to reap what it has sown. Nothing would please me more than to see terrorism spill over into Iraq by Sunni fanatics.

olevetonahill

6/15/2014, 08:00 AM

DD it dont matter what happened 10 years, What matters is whats Happening Right now and this Baby is all Obammy's after almost 6 years.

olevetonahill

6/15/2014, 08:02 AM

Hey DD. I got a solution, Lets give every faction over there very limiter range Nukes. set em where if the try to smuggle em out or tamper with em they blow up.
Let THEM kill they selves off.

BoulderSooner79

6/15/2014, 10:09 AM

DD it dont matter what happened 10 years, What matters is whats Happening Right now and this Baby is all Obammy's after almost 6 years.

Vet, I don't think you even believe this. Iraq was Bush's private little war and no amount of military glue was going to hold it together forever. The fundamental underlying forces would have to change and that could not be accomplished by the US. Even w/o US intervention, Sadam would have eventually been overthrown. It would have taken a long time and the resulting chaos would have been different, but chaos none the less.

olevetonahill

6/15/2014, 10:38 AM

Vet, I don't think you even believe this. Iraq was Bush's private little war and no amount of military glue was going to hold it together forever. The fundamental underlying forces would have to change and that could not be accomplished by the US. Even w/o US intervention, Sadam would have eventually been overthrown. It would have taken a long time and the resulting chaos would have been different, but chaos none the less.
Think you missed my Point. This all on OBama now, after almost 6 years lets quit blaming the other side and either get the hell on out of that part of the world Or Fix the dayum place

Yall the same ones Blaming GW for 9-11 when the one who kept lettin him get away was Ole Slick willie and his cigar.

BoulderSooner79

6/15/2014, 01:02 PM

Think you missed my Point. This all on OBama now, after almost 6 years lets quit blaming the other side and either get the hell on out of that part of the world Or Fix the dayum place

Yall the same ones Blaming GW for 9-11 when the one who kept lettin him get away was Ole Slick willie and his cigar.

OBama did get the hell out and that's what all the flack is about now. As a wise man here once said - pay attention! (or ever how you say it :) ) I think some folks here are following the unwritten rule of this forum that 1) don't say anything positive about Obama or 2) if someone does, make sure there is an anti-Obama follow-up.

olevetonahill

6/15/2014, 02:30 PM

OBama did get the hell out and that's what all the flack is about now. As a wise man here once said - pay attention! (or ever how you say it :) ) I think some folks here are following the unwritten rule of this forum that 1) don't say anything positive about Obama or 2) if someone does, make sure there is an anti-Obama follow-up.

You can say the same thing about W .

Jacie

6/15/2014, 04:49 PM

BoulderSooner79

6/15/2014, 08:57 PM

Strange to think that U.S. interests now coincide with those of Iran and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Iran has 500 troops there trying to shore up the Iraqi defense forces while Assad's troops have already been battling ISIS.

It is bizarre, but strange bedfellows have dotted history. Iran is in no way the good guys, but they are at least *grown ups*. Meaning that they want to be a legitimate government of their country and can be dealt with in conventional ways. They know our military can knock them out of control and that means something to them. It means nothing to terrorist like ISIS. In reference to Assad, that's a tough one. The US shouldn't be supporting a harsh dictator like Assad, but arming the resistance is pretty dicey because it includes groups like ISIS.

Sooner in Tampa

6/16/2014, 06:55 AM

It is bizarre, but strange bedfellows have dotted history. Iran is in no way the good guys, but they are at least *grown ups*. Meaning that they want to be a legitimate government of their country and can be dealt with in conventional ways. They know our military can knock them out of control and that means something to them. It means nothing to terrorist like ISIS. In reference to Assad, that's a tough one. The US shouldn't be supporting a harsh dictator like Assad, but arming the resistance is pretty dicey because it includes groups like ISIS.
Make no mistake about it...Iran cares because of Maliki...and the religious slant...This is not about being a white knight, this is about protecting Iran and a puppet they have with Maliki

8timechamps

6/16/2014, 04:46 PM

I have news for you. This all falls on the Bush Administration...even guys like Shep Smith are figuring this out. He left the next guy a huge **** sandwich.

http://us.cnn.com/2014/06/13/opinion/bergen-iraq-isis-bush/?iref=obinsite

This falls on both administrations. Bush for getting us involved, and Obama for doing nothing in Syria. There is plenty of blame to go around on this one.

8timechamps

6/16/2014, 04:48 PM

Make no mistake about it...Iran cares because of Maliki...and the religious slant...This is not about being a white knight, this is about protecting Iran and a puppet they have with Maliki

Absolutely. The last thing Iran cares about is helping us or their neighbor. They are doing what the US would do if radical muslim forces invaded Canada....except we actually care about the people of Canada. They want to stop this to keep Maliki in power, keep US troops out and perhaps most importantly, keep this mess out of their yard.

okie52

6/16/2014, 05:18 PM

This falls on both administrations. Bush for getting us involved, and Obama for doing nothing in Syria. There is plenty of blame to go around on this one.

What was Obama supposed to do in Syria?

rock on sooner

6/16/2014, 08:26 PM

What was Obama supposed to do in Syria?

This is a good question...seems as though no matter what he does/
thinks/says it's wrong on someone's count. Buncha crap comin' from
both sides. McCain says one thing then says another...Graham the
same way...Feinsten takes him to task, Pelosi, too. I've been around
a while and I've never seen a prez get busted from both sides like him.

Personally, my thoughts are to confirm what's right, do it and say to all
"f*** off, what I did was right! Now the big thing is to figure out just what
is gonna werk...and, again, my thoughts are to get the good guys on alert
and let 'em know what's comin' and let the Sunnis, Shia, Kurds, Al Qeada,
Taliban come together in one spot and create glass...seems as though nothing
but violence clicks with them,,,and this religion is one of peace?! Yeah, yeah,
I know it rilly isn't right but just how much longer are we gonna lose our finest?
Somebody answer that freakin' question....puh-leeze...!

BoulderSooner79

6/16/2014, 08:53 PM

What was Obama supposed to do in Syria?

That one has me stumped and - I'll replace "Obama" with "US" and ask the same question. Arm the insurgents of which many have terrorist roots including Al Qaeda? Help Assad against the terrorists and thus back a tyrant that will gas his own people? Maybe bomb both sides to show how tough we are is the answer.

olevetonahill

6/16/2014, 09:53 PM

SCOUT

6/16/2014, 10:17 PM

I am sure what I am going to say is incredibly naive and a terrible idea....but I am going to say it anyway. If this ISIS group is the worst of the worst and hell bent of carving out some ancient country for themselves, should we be opposed to that? Is getting as many of those nutbags in a single place as possible not a net positive for us? I recognize that every inch they gain causes additional risk, but we are particularly adept at fighting nation states. Why not let them organize into our sweet spot?

BoulderSooner79

6/16/2014, 11:21 PM

Give that whole ****ing Part of the world the Slim Treatment, .
http://antiwar.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/4050083521_a1df74eab2-300x199.jpg

Amen. Or just wait them out until they run out of oil and they have nothing to offer to anyone. It's happening faster then they would like anyone to know.

Curly Bill

6/16/2014, 11:41 PM

olevetonahill

6/17/2014, 07:40 AM

Is this not Muslims killing Muslims over there? I know there are different sects, blah, blah, blah, but Muslims killing Muslims doesn't sound like that bad
an idea to me. I wouldn't lift a finger to get involved in any way, shape, or form.

Obammy musta heard ya, Ya numbskull . He sent in the Troops just to pizs you off!

http://news.yahoo.com/us-forces-move-iraq-security-mission-061003894.html

okie52

6/17/2014, 08:20 AM

This is a good question...seems as though no matter what he does/
thinks/says it's wrong on someone's count. Buncha crap comin' from
both sides. McCain says one thing then says another...Graham the
same way...Feinsten takes him to task, Pelosi, too. I've been around
a while and I've never seen a prez get busted from both sides like him.

Personally, my thoughts are to confirm what's right, do it and say to all
"f*** off, what I did was right! Now the big thing is to figure out just what
is gonna werk...and, again, my thoughts are to get the good guys on alert
and let 'em know what's comin' and let the Sunnis, Shia, Kurds, Al Qeada,
Taliban come together in one spot and create glass...seems as though nothing
but violence clicks with them,,,and this religion is one of peace?! Yeah, yeah,
I know it rilly isn't right but just how much longer are we gonna lose our finest?
Somebody answer that freakin' question....puh-leeze...!

IMO, McCain hasn't seen a war we shouldn't be in.

I'm hoping we greatly scale down our interventionist policies of the last 70 years and placing boots on the ground should be an option we use only in response to being attacked or facing an imminent attack.

okie52

6/17/2014, 08:26 AM

That one has me stumped and - I'll replace "Obama" with "US" and ask the same question. Arm the insurgents of which many have terrorist roots including Al Qaeda? Help Assad against the terrorists and thus back a tyrant that will gas his own people? Maybe bomb both sides to show how tough we are is the answer.

Sometimes staying out of war is the best solution. Seems like we always have to have our hand in it somehow.

I'm for maintaining excellent intelligence on other countries but I'm not for always trying to tilt events in our favor...it seems like that often backfires on us. But I'll admit I would be a novice on foreign affairs if it were left to me.

TAFBSooner

6/18/2014, 09:10 AM

IMO, McCain hasn't seen a war we shouldn't be in.

I'm hoping we greatly scale down our interventionist policies of the last 70 years and placing boots on the ground should be an option we use only in response to being attacked or facing an imminent attack.

I agree, but i would make it the last 97 years.

okie52

6/18/2014, 09:20 AM

I agree, but i would make it the last 97 years.

We weren't trying to get into WWII even though FDR was agitating the axis. The Japs took care of that issue with the public.

TAFBSooner

6/18/2014, 01:14 PM

We weren't trying to get into WWII even though FDR was agitating the axis. The Japs took care of that issue with the public.

I was talking about the earlier interventionist president, Woodrow Wilson. WWII was (mostly) not our choice, but it wouldn't have happened without WWI, which was our choice to intervene. Then you have to talk about who is the "us" behind the politicians making those decisions, the bankers or the overall population.

Some would argue for 1898 as the point we took to the dark side, but the web of events from WWI to Mosul is very clear.

okie52

6/18/2014, 03:08 PM

I was talking about the earlier interventionist president, Woodrow Wilson. WWII was (mostly) not our choice, but it wouldn't have happened without WWI, which was our choice to intervene. Then you have to talk about who is the "us" behind the politicians making those decisions, the bankers or the overall population.

Some would argue for 1898 as the point we took to the dark side, but the web of events from WWI to Mosul is very clear.

It was our choice in WWI but the Luisitania and the Zimmerman letter pushed us into that war....really dumn on the Germans part. Yep the Armistice and reparations were far too harsh on the germans and the french and brits really had no stomach for enforcing armament restrictions on Germany nor the reoccupation of the Rhineland. Had that been done Hitler would have been stopped in his tracks.

The Spanish American War certainly with hindsight was American Imperialism...in spite of whatever cover the "Maine" gave for it.

BoulderSooner79

6/18/2014, 03:56 PM

There was no choice about going into Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. I do wonder if we could have gone in directly attacking Al Qaeda camps and not the Afghan government. We could have said we're coming in to get Bin Laden and his followers and if you lift as much as a pea shooter in resistance, we're taking you out. Probably wouldn't have made any difference with that Omar Mullah guy as their leader, but he sure did go into hiding quickly.

Even though we were more than justified in Afghanistan, it still presents a bunch of problems of trying to extricate ourselves. We're like elephants stepping into the tar pit over there.

okie52

6/18/2014, 03:59 PM

BoulderSooner79

6/18/2014, 04:33 PM

I say we worry too much about collateral damage and how to gracefully exit. Destroy everything that can help their economy or military. Scorched earth and assure them we will be back if necessary.

The problem with that approach is that the "them" are gone. We leave scorched earth for a bunch of peasant farmers. That's why I hated to see us take out the Afghan infrastructure that we would of course, pay to rebuild. We only wanted Bin Laden and his group and just dethrone Omar Mullah. The rest of the Taliban didn't care about Al Qaeda and they could have been the ones to keep the lights on and the water running. Just a pipe dream, I know.

8timechamps

6/18/2014, 05:31 PM

What was Obama supposed to do in Syria?

I'm not privy to the intel he has/had, but it wasn't exactly a secret that ISIS was forming a major force and actively recruiting anyone that would join. It's also been pretty public that ISIS is arguably the most threatening terrorist organization in the world (including Al Queda). Never mind the fact that we had an opportunity to put a major dent in their capacity, Obama actually went public with the infamous "red line" comment. Then proceeded to do nothing.

If someone wants to defend his actions (or in-actions as it were), I'd love to hear the other side. However, if anyone doesn't see how that is connected with current events, then you're just not doing enough research.

Edit: My original point was that there is enough blame and fingerprints on this situation to go around to both administrations. I am NOT a proponent of getting involved there again. I fought in Iraq, I lost brothers in Iraq, I have no interest in losing another American soldier there.

Jacie

6/18/2014, 10:03 PM

8timechamps

6/18/2014, 10:12 PM

Once more ya'll shot a quiver full of arrows and completely missed the target.

The U.S. government is not concerned with terrorists (certain specific individuals excepted), ISIS, Maliki or anything else.

The elephant in the room is called oil.

You are exactly right, but I assumed (i know, I know) by now everyone has been able to connect the dots: the unrest brought on by ISIS, thus endangering the oil fields was common knowledge. If there were no oil there, we wouldn't be anywhere near Iraq. I do think keeping tabs on a soon-to-be Nuclear Weaponized Iran plays a little role in this too.

okie52

6/19/2014, 09:46 AM

okie52

6/19/2014, 09:48 AM

The problem with that approach is that the "them" are gone. We leave scorched earth for a bunch of peasant farmers. That's why I hated to see us take out the Afghan infrastructure that we would of course, pay to rebuild. We only wanted Bin Laden and his group and just dethrone Omar Mullah. The rest of the Taliban didn't care about Al Qaeda and they could have been the ones to keep the lights on and the water running. Just a pipe dream, I know.

We leave a scorched earth for the Taliban or whoever else wants to return to take control. We also don't expend exorbitant amounts of money or lose thousands of lives fighting for "hearts and souls" that will never support us anyway.

Leave them nothing.

okie52

6/19/2014, 09:56 AM

I'm not privy to the intel he has/had, but it wasn't exactly a secret that ISIS was forming a major force and actively recruiting anyone that would join. It's also been pretty public that ISIS is arguably the most threatening terrorist organization in the world (including Al Queda). Never mind the fact that we had an opportunity to put a major dent in their capacity, Obama actually went public with the infamous "red line" comment. Then proceeded to do nothing.

If someone wants to defend his actions (or in-actions as it were), I'd love to hear the other side. However, if anyone doesn't see how that is connected with current events, then you're just not doing enough research.

Edit: My original point was that there is enough blame and fingerprints on this situation to go around to both administrations. I am NOT a proponent of getting involved there again. I fought in Iraq, I lost brothers in Iraq, I have no interest in losing another American soldier there.

I still think Bush carries the brunt of Iraq on his shoulders. He got us in there and we certainly didn't have to be there. Bush also signed the agreement in 2008 with the Iraqis for our departure and Obama basically just followed that agreement.

I do find it funny, however, that Biden in 2010 called the US troops exit from Iraq one of the Obama admistrations greatest achievements and they were more than willing to take credit for ending the war...now that it has blown up in their face it has once again become Bush's war.

Sorry you lost friends in Iraq and thanks for your service. I had a son that served in Iraq, too. I never thought the war was worth him going but it was his choice and fortunately he came back safe and sound. He was on an outpost near Kirkuk which I guess is now in Kurdish hands.

Jacie

6/19/2014, 01:09 PM

How much oil did the US get from Iraq, Libya, Syria or Egypt?

Irrelevant.

What happens there affects the world market and if you don't understand that the world market affects you on a daily basis, well, I suppose ignorance is bliss.

okie52

6/19/2014, 01:33 PM

Irrelevant.

What happens there affects the world market and if you don't understand that the world market affects you on a daily basis, well, I suppose ignorance is bliss.

Gee, so the Middle East has oil? Well that's news to me and I've only been in the oil business for over 40 years. So the plan was to overthrow two oil exporting regimes in Iraq and Libya to "stabilize oil prices"? Egypt and Syria don't have oil so what was our plan there?

8timechamps

6/20/2014, 07:24 PM

I still think Bush carries the brunt of Iraq on his shoulders. He got us in there and we certainly didn't have to be there. Bush also signed the agreement in 2008 with the Iraqis for our departure and Obama basically just followed that agreement.

I do find it funny, however, that Biden in 2010 called the US troops exit from Iraq one of the Obama admistrations greatest achievements and they were more than willing to take credit for ending the war...now that it has blown up in their face it has once again become Bush's war.

Sorry you lost friends in Iraq and thanks for your service. I had a son that served in Iraq, too. I never thought the war was worth him going but it was his choice and fortunately he came back safe and sound. He was on an outpost near Kirkuk which I guess is now in Kurdish hands.

Yes, Bush shoulders the majority of this mess. Had we never gone in, we wouldn't be talking about this (well, at least not in the same situation). I never gave it a second thought (when I was there), that's just how we (your son included) are trained. Having become a father since my time in the middle east, I would hate my sons ever having to go to war, but like you, I would respect their decision to do so (if they ever have to...which I hope never happens).

olevetonahill

6/20/2014, 07:54 PM

Yes, Bush shoulders the majority of this mess. Had we never gone in, we wouldn't be talking about this (well, at least not in the same situation). I never gave it a second thought (when I was there), that's just how we (your son included) are trained. Having become a father since my time in the middle east, I would hate my sons ever having to go to war, but like you, I would respect their decision to do so (if they ever have to...which I hope never happens).

Actually the Whole dayum country needs to tote the blame for Iraq. Every dayum one of us was so Pissed and ready to whoop some *** ANY aszz after 9-11 it dint Matter, Sadass was a convenient target.

Even the Uber Libs voted to go in, Dont put this On Bush and Cheney Exclusively. We wanted some ones Head and we got it!
Deny it if you want but you know its the ****in truth.

BoulderSooner79

6/20/2014, 09:54 PM

Actually the Whole dayum country needs to tote the blame for Iraq. Every dayum one of us was so Pissed and ready to whoop some *** ANY aszz after 9-11 it dint Matter, Sadass was a convenient target.

Even the Uber Libs voted to go in, Dont put this On Bush and Cheney Exclusively. We wanted some ones Head and we got it!
Deny it if you want but you know its the ****in truth.

I'll deny that one, Vet. I was vehemently against the Iraq thing from the beginning. Nothing has changed my mind in the years that have passed. And I was really *pissed* we took that detour when the real enemy in Afghanistan scurried into the hills and Pakistan and we hadn't gotten to them yet. And sadly, I believe you are correct about many Americans just wanting to kick someones azz and they didn't care who, as long as it was in the middle east. Pretty shallow, emotional thinking that allowed Cheney/Bush to use that whole WMD lie. People wanted to believe.

I was too old to sign up, but I thought about what I might do. I was ready to jump in line after 9/11 and go get Bin Laden and his cohorts. But if I had been reassigned to Iraq, I would have probably deserted. I know as a soldier you're not allowed to make those calls, so I would have been a lousy soldier. I felt bad for any of our guys that might have felt as I did.

olevetonahill

6/20/2014, 10:02 PM

I'll deny that one, Vet. I was vehemently against the Iraq thing from the beginning. Nothing has changed my mind in the years that have passed. And I was really *pissed* we took that detour when the real enemy in Afghanistan scurried into the hills and Pakistan and we hadn't gotten to them yet. And sadly, I believe you are correct about many Americans just wanting to kick someones azz and they didn't care who, as long as it was in the middle east. Pretty shallow, emotional thinking that allowed Cheney/Bush to use that whole WMD lie. People wanted to believe.

I was too old to sign up, but I thought about what I might do. I was ready to jump in line after 9/11 and go get Bin Laden and his cohorts. But if I had been reassigned to Iraq, I would have probably deserted. I know as a soldier you're not allowed to make those calls, so I would have been a lousy soldier. I felt bad for any of our guys that might have felt as I did.

Ima say Less than 30 out of a 100 Didnt want to go in an kick his asz. Im not sayin YOU personally Im saying this country as a whole The Majority wanted to get it done.

And I shouldnt have said " Every One " of us But stated a Majority of us.

BoulderSooner79

6/20/2014, 10:34 PM

Ima say Less than 30 out of a 100 Didnt want to go in an kick his asz. Im not sayin YOU personally Im saying this country as a whole The Majority wanted to get it done.

And I shouldnt have said " Every One " of us But stated a Majority of us.

Yeah, I shouldn't have taken that as everyone (i.e. me). It was a very emotional time for me as I just couldn't understand why people were accepting this BS. It seemed so flimsy and unrelated to clear enemy we had in our sights. In my nearly 60 years, it's the only time I wasn't proud of this country. And I'm no naive fool. I know we don't always wear the white hat. Our CIA has done plenty of subversive sh*t and we've supported tyrants when it seemed advantageous at the time. But this Iraq thing was way over the top for me and seeing this mess fall apart now just recalls those raw emotions.

TAFBSooner

6/23/2014, 01:34 PM

For what it's worth:

"Before the invasion in March 2003, polls showed 47-60% of the US public supported an invasion, dependent on U.N. approval." The link cites multiple polls over time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_popular_opinion_on_invasion_of_Iraq#Janua ry_2003

Vet nailed it for the House. The "more deliberative body" was even more gung ho.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Passage_of_the_full_resolution

As for yours truly, among all the other reasons put forth not to invade Iraq, most of which have come to pass, I was angry because we took scarce resources out of Afghanistan before finishing our business with the folks that actually attacked us.

FaninAma

6/25/2014, 02:28 PM

Stay the F* out of the Middle East. Develop our own energy resources and let the damn Arabs drink their oil for all I care.

olevetonahill

6/25/2014, 02:42 PM

Stay the F* out of the Middle East. Develop our own energy resources and let the damn Arabs drink their oil for all I care.

Yup

BoulderSooner79

6/25/2014, 03:31 PM

Stay the F* out of the Middle East. Develop our own energy resources and let the damn Arabs drink their oil for all I care.

What he said!

And I don't think those 300 advisers will make a d*mn bit of difference. We've been training their troops for a decade and they just drop their weapons and run. It's not from lack of training, it's because they aren't committed to the cause - some are sympathetic to the other side. I fear some of those 300 troops will return in body bags.

SoonerProphet

6/25/2014, 03:47 PM

olevetonahill

6/25/2014, 04:07 PM

rock on sooner

6/25/2014, 04:32 PM

Actually the Whole dayum country needs to tote the blame for Iraq. Every dayum one of us was so Pissed and ready to whoop some *** ANY aszz after 9-11 it dint Matter, Sadass was a convenient target.

Even the Uber Libs voted to go in, Dont put this On Bush and Cheney Exclusively. We wanted some ones Head and we got it!
Deny it if you want but you know its the ****in truth.

While it is certainly true that a bunch on both sides voted to go to war
with Iraq, it was after considerable untrue info about WMD's was put
out front. You have to consider who put that info out there!

In Dec. 2001, bin Laden was cornered at Tora Bora by about a 100
special ops, there were 800 Rangers and 1200 Marines PLUS the 10th
Mountain Division available to seal the Paki border and encircle the cave
complex where UBL was. The CIC didn't give the go ahead, instead relying
on warlords to close the deal. Why the CIC didn't can be traced to a desire
to go after Saddam Hussein, mostly because of the attempt on Bush the Elder's
life, under the pretext of WMD. Bush the Younger has been quoted saying
that Hussein did it and wanted an excuse to go in and get him. Cheney, Rumsfeld
and Wolfowitz whispered in Bush the Younger's ear enough that we got Iraq and
all the crap that has followed.

Given those facts, had we got UBL in December of 2001 then there is every reason
to believe this current mess wouldn't exist in its present form. (For the record, I
believe that some other thing would have caused Hussein's overthrow, but I don't
know what that would be). Jus sayin...

FaninAma

6/25/2014, 04:47 PM

What puzzles me about this current "crisis" in the beltway way is how the f*ck bolton, cheney, wolfowitz, or any of these other advocates for this charlie foxtrot can still be called experts. They should be laughed out of news studios, or worse.

Yep. Exactly why I will not vote for an establishment Republican. I have a high school friend whose only son was killed in the first weeks of the last war in Iraq. How does anybody from the f'ing DC establishment look that man in the eye and tell him his son's sacrifice was worth it?

8timechamps

6/25/2014, 05:00 PM

What he said!

And I don't think those 300 advisers will make a d*mn bit of difference. We've been training their troops for a decade and they just drop their weapons and run. It's not from lack of training, it's because they aren't committed to the cause - some are sympathetic to the other side. I fear some of those 300 troops will return in body bags.

There's a pretty good chance that the majority of those 300 are forward observers/special forces sent for two reasons:

1. Coordinate groups in the rural areas of the country.
2. Identify targets for future air strikes.

Like you said, we've been training their troops for a decade, no need to send 300 troops to continue that mission.

BoulderSooner79

6/25/2014, 05:06 PM

What puzzles me about this current "crisis" in the beltway way is how the f*ck bolton, cheney, wolfowitz, or any of these other advocates for this charlie foxtrot can still be called experts. They should be laughed out of news studios, or worse.

It happened! Cheney went to the warm, welcoming womb of Fox news and got drilled by the interviewer for just that reason. It was incredible entertainment value just to see him get hammered like that, although I do wonder how much longer that women doing the interview will be employed at Fox.

At least Bush is smart enough to remain in his painting studio and stay out of it.

BoulderSooner79

6/25/2014, 06:26 PM

There's a pretty good chance that the majority of those 300 are forward observers/special forces sent for two reasons:

1. Coordinate groups in the rural areas of the country.
2. Identify targets for future air strikes.

Like you said, we've been training their troops for a decade, no need to send 300 troops to continue that mission.

Yes, I've read about who they are and why they are there - just speaking in generic terms. I'm sure we'll try to keep them from harms way, but the place is very chaotic so that's a tall order. I imagine they would be high value targets for ISIS to kill and then post videos of the deed. I sure hope that doesn't happen and not because of how good/bad it may reflect on Obama or any other politician.

rock on sooner

6/25/2014, 07:10 PM

What he said!

And I don't think those 300 advisers will make a d*mn bit of difference. We've been training their troops for a decade and they just drop their weapons and run. It's not from lack of training, it's because they aren't committed to the cause - some are sympathetic to the other side. I fear some of those 300 troops will return in body bags.

Umm, I just want to point out that Ike put 300 advisors in VietNam in 1958.
It seems as though that is SOP, I dunno. We all know where Nam went. It
seems to me that this approach is SOP. A bunch of this is knee jerk with only
a little thought...I don't want any of our guys/gals there...absolutely NONE...
It aint mission creep, it is what the freakin world wants us to do until it screws
them up. I HAVE SAID THIS SO MUCH THAT IT HURTS...WE ARE DAMNED IF
WE DO AND DAMNED IF WE DONT!!!!!!. Any of you smart fellers got a better
idea er suggestion? Jus askin???

hawaii 5-0

6/25/2014, 09:12 PM

FaninAma

6/25/2014, 09:49 PM

When's the last time the Saudis got involved?

All they do is sit back and watch the fireworks around them.

I'm no expert on the Middle East but I understand there's a lot of Muslim groups that haven't gotten along for hundreds of years.

A Christian United States should have no dog in the fight.

I'm OK with aiding Israel if they get very involved. But even then, up to a point.

5-0

Anybody who f****s with Israel is just asking for annihilation. I am pretty sure they have nuclear armed submarines cruising around the Middle East waterways as well as the other oceans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

You might destroy Israel but they will get even.

SoonerProphet

6/25/2014, 09:58 PM

The Saudis are the primary movers behind these Sunni proxies. They are the ones who have funneled arms and cash to the jihadis. It is only a matter of time before this blows up in their face.

BoulderSooner79

6/25/2014, 10:18 PM

It's true the Saudis are mainly Sunni, but they are no fans of ISIS/Al Qaeda. Bin Laden's ultimate goal was to overthrow the Saudi royalty and install an Islamic Taliban-like group with, surprise!, Bin Laden as leader. Bin Laden didn't really give a sh*t about the US, we were just a common enemy to unite the faithful and we became that by helping to keep the Saudi royal family in power.

SoonerProphet

6/26/2014, 06:27 AM

Sure, the royals want to keep that **** out of the country, but externally their fingerprints are all over the rise of these Salafist groups the last 25 years or so.

TAFBSooner

6/26/2014, 01:39 PM

Anybody who f****s with Israel is just asking for annihilation. I am pretty sure they have nuclear armed submarines cruising around the Middle East waterways as well as the other oceans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

You might destroy Israel but they will get even.

Interesting article.

I'm curious, do you think Israel has subs in other oceans just to keep them out of the reach of the Arab countries, or as a deterrent to some other countries (and if so, which)?

I liked the bit about welding "Never Again" on their first bomb. Whether true or not it's a great story.