Who's to Blame for the Mess in Iraq?

I must have missed those mass executions in sports stadiums by Saddam. Can I have a link please?

 

Yep.

Our foreign policy establishment must be really stupid, 'cause they didn't stop Bush from doing that.

I swear to God, these clowns are really screwing up. They made several very bad mistakes lately.

And if they aren't mistakes......

Either way, it seems to me these people need to go. It seems to me they're showing us they're incapable of managing this world anymore.

 

Iraq was broken by two decades of war and sanctions... before Bush's war... No threat to anyone.

 

If that were the case, you would have some evidence.

But, the fact of the matter is that Bush found no way to combat ISIL or its predecessor without cooperation from Sunnis. And, he lost their support by putting Iraq in charge of a devout and militant sectarian, thus assuring the continuation of civil war.

Now, you want to suggest that Obama is responsible for the conditions there!! Yet, it was Bush who failed to find an answer against the terrorists embedded in Sunni lands when HE had significant troop strength and ability to carry out operations, it was Bush who put Maliki in charge (and found NO WAY to control him, so that argument of yours is garbage), and it was Bush who signed our troops out of Iraq.

Claiming Obama should have replaced the Bush SoFA is total nonsense. Bush had the history with Maliki. He had troops in Iraq. Once he signed our troops out with his SoFA, Maliki was totally free to get help from Iran (which he did) and to restrict our contribution (which he did). If there was any chance of keeping operational troops in Iraq it left with Bush, who ended that.

To top off your blame game, you fail to point to anything that Obama should be doing, while suggesting he has no interest there - when, in fact, we are significantly active in the region, including daily bombing missions as well as military aid and training.

I agree we have essentially no strategy that has a prayer of working. But, this notion that the situation in Iraq is of Obama's making is absolutely ridiculous. You don't have ANY argument for that.

So, state what we should be doing. And, if you say more troops, say who they will be supporting and how that will help Sunnis see a future wherein they have security and representation - as per the requirement stated by the Pentagon.

You don't know me, and your accusation that I don't listen to the Pentagon is false. And, in this matter it is YOU who have shown no interest in what the Pentagon is saying.

 

So, who made the last statement that the war in Iraq had ended? No one has claimed that Bush's statement wasn't premature. The fact at the time was that Iraq was fully occupied by coalition forces and the Iraqi Army was defeated. That cannot be denied by you or anyone else. Yes, there were mistakes made after defeat of the Iraqi forces folded.
Bush Admits Mistakes in Iraq, Defends Tactics
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/24/AR2006042400850.html
The Washington Post
Apr 24, 2006 - President Bush today said mistakes were made in planning for the Iraq ... large reconstruction projects soon after the invasion was completed.

Has Obama ever admitted that his premature decision to abandon Iraq and proclaim that he ended and won the war was an error? According to what I've heard, Obama said he corrected Bush's mistakes by ending the occupation of Iraq and took full responsibility as president for whatever happened thereon.

 

Read and learn...........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islami...Islamic_State_of_Iraq_.282006.E2.80.932013.29

 

NOPE. The goal was to remove Saddam. War over. What happened after is not the fault of USA.

 

Just as the signer of SOFA intended.

- - - Updated - - -

And we supported him at different times knowing all of this. The point is moot.

 

Obama never had a say in Iraq as president. Except to stay with the SOFA in place or leave our troops to the laws and jurisdiction of the new regime. Would be a disaster for our troops. You don't like our troops.

 

The current president did NOT negotiate the timetable for withdrawal. That was done by his immediate predecessor.

 

Iraq, Iran, Taliban. Conservatives can't seem to tell the difference.

 

Uh no. Saddam was just a step on the path to the ultimate goal of the destruction of Al Qaeda. Saddam would still be in power if he didn't die of natural causes had not Al Qaeda flattened the WTC. However once that happened Saddam, whether he was involved in 9/11 or not had to go. We needed the 50k troops sitting in Kuwait for Afghanistan and we could no more trust Saddam to not make another try at least for Kuwait once we were heavily involved in Afghanistan than you can trust the truth of the articles in your average supermarket tabloid.

 

How was removing saddam in the path to Al Qaeda? Must be reading them tabloids.

 

If you could read you'd already have the answer.

 

Do you actually know where Afghanistan is?

 

Can you actually ask a rational question?

 

ISIS is run by Saddam's deposed Baathist commanders. Understandably they're both extremely brutal and utterly pissed off so I'm not sure why anyone's particularly surprised by any of this. It wasn't hyperbole when sensible commentators noted that the Iraq war (crime) would open the gates of hell.

GW's too stupid to be held accountable for much beyond tying his shoelaces but the likes of Cheney isn't.

 

It would not be worth it as you seem to think that having military in Kuwait is a stepping stone to Afghanistan! Not only is it over 1000 miles away and the need to fly over Iran, the US also had bases on the northern border of Afghanistan prior to 2001.

 

OOps I asked the wrong question. It should have been did you pass reading comprehension at the fifth grade level. The troops in question were already in Kuwait, dude. to use them. In order to use them in Afghanistan we would first have to free them from guarding Kuwait against future incursions by Saddam Hussein. I thought that would have been obvious to anyone with a functioning brain.

 

So how is it different? Are you saying that if we had left a half million troops in Iraq that they wouldn't be able to guide the country into the same kind of strong democracy that Germany is today? The fact is that we could have done it with FAR fewer troops in Iraq, as all of Obama's military explained to the dimwitted Obama! And that's thanks to the huge technological advantage we have over ANY terrorist group and ANY potential totalitarian would-be ruler! Ten thousand troops with an Air Force base that could have wiped out ANY convoy advancing through a desert like ISIS with ONE JET in a heartbeat, AND kept peace in the nation at the same time! Terrorist groups like ISIS would have chosen far easier targets to invade, like Syria, Yemen, Qater, or the UAE! ISIS simply needed to control a state! It didn't matter where! And a weak, disinterested Iraq was low-hanging fruit! And you think that would be beyond our capabilities to manage, huh?

 

I don't read the garbage tabloids.

 

The troop numbers did not change from 2004 to 2007 so where did this 50,000 go? The total number of troops did not reach 50,000 until 2009

 

What troops where? We had 100k plus in Iraq until 2007 that included those 50k. Until Iraq was done those 50k were stuck there. The problem was Rumsfeld and the our ambassador to Iraq fumbled the ball early on and kept the troops tied up in Iraq for far too long. That's why you don't see troop numbers in Afghanistan increasing till after 2007 when the Iraqi surge began to wind down.

 

It's like this, folks....America has been screwing around with Iran and Iraq for over 60 years....we've backed and supported despots and dictators in both countries, and then act like butter wouldn't melt in our mouths when the crap hits the fan. Now, our venerable chickens have come home to roost, and we don't like it.

And it's all about the oil, people. Our military/industrial leadership via their political flunkies don't give two cents about the people in that region beyond how they serve the bottom line....which is to maintain a "stability" in the oil pricing/supplying game.

Oh, and for the record....NO, we are not fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. Neither Al Qaeda, ISIS or any similar group(s) has a standing army, air force, navy, or ICBM's comparable with the USA. So unless you have another major cluster f**k of security/defense breakdown like we had on 9/11/01, America is NOT going fall to fanatical Islamic extremist.

Get real, get educated people. Don't believe the hype.

 

"From", not "for". Political support. Continued military training and advisors. It's in the SFA. Read it.