Who's to Blame for the Mess in Iraq?

And that remains the liberal's "moral equivalent", doesn't it? By the same token, we'd have no right to influence others in obtaining and using nuclear weapons, since we were the only ones using them in a war also, right? So tell me. Who was it in the US that wasn't upset at seeing tens of thousands of men, women, and children gassed to death by Saddam's WMDs? I'd like to see that person who you're referring to!

 

Do you mind that we still maintain strategic military bases in Japan, Germany, Italy, and So. Korea? Do you think it's a coincidence that none of those countries returned to the brutal dictatorships of their previous governments BECAUSE we made a firm commitment and held to an important SOFA in order to make certain of that? We WON the war in Iraq! WE had the ability to determine the direction of their new government, just as we determined it in those other countries! THAT'S WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOU WIN A WAR!!! Maintaining military bases there WOULD HAVE PREVENTED any attempt by ISIS or anyone else to attempt to spread terrorism there, and we would have been in a perfect position to influence Iran, and make CERTAIN they didn't pursue their nuclear ambitions! But am I to suppose you like the current alternative better? Do you likewise believe that it's "pro-troops" to sit back and watch all the work they did to win that war be thrown away? How would YOU feel if your son, daughter or parent had been killed or maimed in one of those battles to win Iraq, and see it today? I'd be pissed off as hell, and would blame OBAMA ALONE for making the death of my family member TOTALLY MEANINGLESS!!!

 

Well pardon me for not realizing that our military in Japan and the other places you mention were in grave danger and dealing with radical and distorted religious beliefs. Send all the able bodied people in your family to volunteer to fight in a part of the world that will NEVER and has NEVER been improved by our policies...no one is stopping you

Why do those on the right completely and consistently ignore these details???

 

ISIS started under Obama after the redline betrayal of Arab spring where Obama took away a murderer's gun (WMD) instead of his freedom, Al Quacka started under Clinton, the Mujahideen started under Cotter Pin prior to the Soviet invasion hence us missing an Olympic Games, and Saddam and the Ayatollah came to power under Cotter Pin. "Liberal" mental illness would never admit those irrefutable facts.

 

No, you of all people should notice that all that happened was a name change.

And, no, Bush signed us out of Iraq. Iraq was free of us before Obama got there - free to accept or reject any of the various forms of "help" we might want to offer. Since then, congress has NOT been in favor of troops in Iraq.

Today, the Pentagon states that Sunni help is a requirement. We learned that during the "awakening" that allowed progress against AQI.

But, Bush turned his back on Sunnis. In fact, he picked Maliki to lead Iraq, whose primary credential was his work to get rid of Sunnis in government and the support of his Shiite militias. Maliki immediately began driving Sunnis out of government and supporting lethal attacks both by the Iraqi army and his militias. Bush had operational troops in Iraq and had NO answer. In fact, his response was to turn his back on Sunnis and to remove our troops.

I'm critical of Obama, too, but your argument on THIS point is partisan garbage.


Stop trying to be cute. You are dead wrong. And, that is NOT cute.

 

Yes, we determined the direction of Iraq. We chose Maliki, because he had been so effective in helping us eliminate Sunnis from government in our "deBaathification" program.

The catch is that there are 20M Sunnis in Iraq who did not like being disenfranchised and did not like the lethal assaults coming from the Maliki government troops and the Shiite militias. Who would?

The civil war in Iraq was on-going before and during the time when Bush signed our troops out of Iraq. Thus, you have no evidence that operational levels of troops in Iraq would have solved anything at all. Do you really think Bush should have used our military to defend Sunnis against Maliki? Do you think there was something else Bush failed to do when he had operational levels of troops in Iraq? If so, do tell, as I've never heard anyone suggest what it might be.

Yes, parents of troops who served in Iraq should be outraged. Our conquest of Iraq was the largest mistake in the history of the USA. In fact, almost zero thought was given to what we would do once owning that country. Our removal of almost all government employees (military, banking, economy, power, communications, transportation, etc.) left the nation crippled and open to horrendous abuse and ineffectiveness. Our disenfranchisement of Sunnis left a well educated and trained people who actually knew how to run the nation without representation or jobs and subjected to lethal assault from within the country. The fact that Sunnis are uninterested in the government of Iraq should be absolutely NO surprise - it should have been what was expected from the beginning. No people accepts disenfranchisement and lethal assault. Our own revolution was motivated by less.

The Pentagon says we need the Sunnis on our side as an absolute requirement. But, Bush turned his back on the "awakening" and nothing we've done since then has given Sunnis hope.

 

So what you're saying is that the buck never even got to the president who's screwing it up right now?

 

You are right it was just a name change, they are Al Quacka, there is no specific enemy with geographic location, any Muslim can participate in Jihad (which is not to be confused with Obama’s retardation, which will be linked to below), but the question was when the ISIS trouble started. And like with all things the trouble started with events that gave them recruiting posters. Like with the rise of Al Qaeda, our weakness in dealing with war played a part in the recruiting poster. Obama’s weakness dealing with a Shiite leaning user of WMD, who was murdering an oppressed Sunni majority, certainly would not win hearts and minds.

You have to remember, the partisans have repeatedly claimed that only Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11, and they have made a big deal about them not changing names and it being about a “specific enemy,” which can be seen here:

“The ‘war on terror‘ has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration's elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America's psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.
The damage these three words have done -- a classic self-inflicted wound -- is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against us in distant Afghan caves. The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.” (Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter‘s National Security Advisor) {bold emphasis mine}
Terrorized by 'War on Terror' - washingtonpost.com http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301613.html

I just reword it so it is accurate for Islam (See Boko Haram, the hash tag war):

“Rape is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the selective breeding of unarmed non-combatants.” (Zbigview Brznutski, Obama supporter)
(Terrorized by 'War on Rape' - Washingtonpurplethrobbingpost) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301613.html

Remember now, that is the guy who should know the enemy:

“How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen”
“Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html

“The President’s strategy is absolutely clear about the threat we face. Our enemy is not ‘terrorism’ because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not ‘terror’ because terror is a state of mind and as Americans we refuse to live in fear. Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenant of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.” (Remarks by Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan at CSIS)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...ecurity-and-counterterrorism-john-brennan-csi

Remember, I am dealing with “liberals” here, this is what they think:

“terrorism doesnt go away it is a means of conducting war. There is no such thing as a war on terrorism - there can be a war on countries we dont agree with but war on a particular type of war action is silly.” (evryman69)

“If terrorists are so faceless as you say how is it we know and have known who they are? How is it they have told us and continue to tell us who they are - these people have faces and they are playing by the rules of warfare - attack, kill or terrorize the opposition.” (evryman69)

You said, “In fact, almost zero thought was given to what we would do once owning that country.”

I wanted a formal declaration of war against any country we bombed, Senator Nelson responded to me that the authorization was “sufficient,” and there is nothing on earth anyone can say to convince me of that, then or now, because we needed all the trimmings that come with owning a country (like Iraq that authorized the attacks of 9/11 and was responsible for the two fatwas of war against us during Clinton), unconditional surrender and a peace treaty on our terms.

For Iraq the partisans who wanted us to believe Iraq had nothing to do with One Iraq, Two Iraq, Three Iraq!, wanted to continue the Sunni dominance of the Shia:

"Iran is proceeding now in ways that were unimaginable until we invaded Iraq and basically did what they said, which is provide the Shia with the ability to do what they haven't been able to do in 1200 years, gain a position of dominance over the Sunni." (Democrat, Sen. KERRY, Obama supporter, "CBS NEWS' FACE THE NATION," Sunday, July 6, 2008 )

We had to conquer Iraq, their partisan proxy attacked us on 9/11, their partisan Al Quacka recruiting poster, was all about this “protracted blockade” that had to end, had to END:

“In the case of Iraq, for the last 10 years the U.S. and Britain have been devastating the civilian society. Madeleine Albright's famous statement about how maybe half a million children have died, and it's a high price but we're willing to pay it, that doesn't sound too good among people who think that maybe it matters if half a million children are killed by the U.S. and Britain. And meanwhile [the sanctions are] strengthening Saddam Hussein.” (On the Attacks on New York and Washington, Noam Chomsky interviewed by David Barsamian, International Socialist Review, Issue 20, November-December, 2001)

"But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history." http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

Following that partisan position all Obama did was give Al Quacka (ISIS) another recruiting poster when he did not carry through with “serious consequences” in Syria.

It does not help the war when we cannot agree on facts and fight with a terrible resolve, Bush could only fight with the resolve of those behind him, he did not turn his back YOU did, and that lack of resolve is also illustrated in the perfect art of war book for the enemy’s recruiting posters:

“[59.14] They will not fight against you in a body save in fortified towns or from behind walls; their fighting between them is severe, you may think them as one body, and their hearts are disunited; that is because they are a people who have no sense.”

Yeah, a wall and a border patrol will protect us. {sound of laughter}

 

In answer to the thread question--------------Obama!!!!

 

The plan to take out Saddam and destabilize and isolate Syria was written by Bibi in 1996... Read it.. Its called Clean Break Strategy.

 

^^^^^ is the person who thinks women have more rights under Islamic law than they do in the USA.

So, everything she posts must be viewed with extreme skepticism.

 

Then you're admitting that Obama's own statement was a total lie, aren't you? Or did you forget these words:
Obama in 2011: ‘We’re Leaving Behind A Stable And Self-Reliant Iraq’
The fact is that the necessary stability in the overthrow of a government could NEVER be achieved in the short term when left without the guidance and security of the US, just as we gave to Japan, Germany, Italy, and So. Korea! The thousands who gave their lives to achieve victory there were too unimportant for Obama to care about, and it was more important for him to lose Iraq so that Bush and the Republicans would not be proven both successful and correct in the decision to get involved in a war that Obama never wanted!

 

Yes we did! WHILE WE WERE THERE!!! And had we remained, we could have easily influenced Maliki to work toward an inclusive government as we had planned! Once Obama showed him that we had no interest in their country any longer, Maliki felt he had the freedom to revert to the only roots his sect had ever known! Don't you believe that there were factions remaining in Japan after WWII that wished to return rule to their emperor? In Germany and Italy to their old fascist rule? How is it that THOSE countries didn't slide back into their own former governments after a short time as Iraq did? The ONLY difference was that WE MAINTAINED OUR MILTARY, OUR SECURITY, AND OUR GUIDANCE for the many years that it took to make certain that the democracies we put in place were able to firmly take hold!

 

Hopeful talk.. Would you have him trash both idiot Dubya and Netanyahu right out of the gate?

Everybody that knows the history of Iraq, anything at all about the oil business or the Middle East knew before the war that it would be an unmitigated disaster.

 

Saddam Hussein.




​

 

No, it was NOT hopeful talk, IT WAS A FACT!!! All the violence and terrorist attacks in Iraq were down to an almost non-existent level when GW Bush left office! The Iraqi people rushed to vote in the first democratic election they had ever known! They no longer feared the brutal dictatorship of Saddam, and were beginning to see the value of creating a free and vibrant economy, with the vast oil reserves the nation has! Had we remained their to continue guiding them and helping to keep them safe from terrorism, that nation would have thrived and been an example to every other middle east theocracy! And you act as if Obama did anything BUT trash GW Bush throughout his presidency! EVERYTHING that went wrong was Bush's fault according to Obama, Harry Reid and others who called him a loser and a liar, and libs like yourself who hated him since he twice defeated your own liberal heroes couldn't stand it! And Obama CONTINUES to insult and denigrate Netanyahu to this day, and is pissed off as hell that Bibi won another overwhelming victory in the Israeli election, despite the illegal efforts Obama made to interfere in it and get his opponent elected! And finally, the fact that the Iraq effort was a huge success before Obama screwed it up is all the proof needed to disqualify the ignorance of those like you on the left who swore it could ONLY be a disaster! The fact is that it would NEVER have turned into one if Romney or even McCain had won the election instead of an ignorant political and military novice like Obama! Sure, it was his fault, but we have idiot liberal voters to thank for it as well! And the blood of the tens of thousands of innocents who have been brutally murdered by ISIS is on YOUR hands as well as Obama's!!

 

I posted a list of suicide bombings and attacks on civilians from 2003 thru 2011.. You chose to ignore it.

I am a conservative... I just know about Iraq and the Oil business and the consequences of abandoning the dual containment policy rather than taking instructions from Bibi and the PNAC neocons.

 

Where on earth did you get this "fact"! There were bombings nearly every day. Many bombings stopped being reported because there were so many.

 

Who's to Blame for the Mess in Iraq? Everyone, it all started when the British and French drew the national boundary lines carving up the old Ottoman Empire and branched out from there.

 

Under Bush we had operational levels of troop in Iraq while Maliki was in office, using his military against Sunnis, eliminating Sunnis from government, and supporting the lethal attacks by his militias against Sunnis.

Bush found no answer to that and chose to sign operational troops out of Iraq.

 

No, there were significant differences with the post war axis. Japan's emperor was their God, and the people followed Him when He directed them. Your guess that we needed significant military power in japan is not supportable.

European nations had a strong pre-war heritage that included western style government that is absent in Iraq.

The notion that democracy comes when there is one or two votes for national leadership is nonsense. We did little more than instantiate a new one party system.

 

FYI, Iraq is an independent country. Not part of the USA.

 

And you offered nothing to show that date is wrong. And I agree, 2006.

 

Didn't you tell me a couple days ago, there's no oil in Syria? Your map says other.

 

Omg, are you serious? Do some research. This was covered in the media extensively.

He offered something like 3000 troops and toddled off to Vegas for a fund raiser and golf, IIRC. He wasn't interested and couldn't be bothered a bout it.

An effective, customary, and appropriate number of residual troops would have been 10,000.