I mean I guess there doesn't? Doing nothing is always an option, but doing nothing in this situation will lead to a bucketload more deaths. Not sure if that is what we are looking for (unless someone is an overpopulation freak)
i'm far from an expert here but i think doing nothing will lead to a lot of deaths and doing something, whatever we usually come up with, will lead to a lot of deaths. i'd normally choose nothing, however, i appreciate wallstreet's point that we had a lot to do with this current mess so we probably have some obligation to try and help.
there's a word for this kind of thing--> clusterfuck.
0
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
I mean I guess there doesn't? Doing nothing is always an option, but doing nothing in this situation will lead to a bucketload more deaths. Not sure if that is what we are looking for (unless someone is an overpopulation freak)
i'm far from an expert here but i think doing nothing will lead to a lot of deaths and doing something, whatever we usually come up with, will lead to a lot of deaths. i'd normally choose nothing, however, i appreciate wallstreet's point that we had a lot to do with this current mess so we probably have some obligation to try and help.
there's a word for this kind of thing--> clusterfuck.
I am not in support of war in the slightest, rather when we do something STUPID as Bush/Cheney did then we are on the hook for our actions.
Wall... Your words...
I think about the only thing that works in certain areas is a
non-religious iron fist that keeps ALL groups in check. I dont like that
solution but sometimes doing what is best for all trumps what might be
lost by a few.
Do you no longer think the only "solution" is a non-religious iron fist?
And I do like the use of the word "solution"... Your word smithing is admirable.
So how many Armored and Infantry Divisions would your solution require, be deployed in certain areas?
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
How so?
I am not in support of war in the slightest, rather when we do something STUPID as Bush/Cheney did then we are on the hook for our actions.
Wall... Your words...
I think about the only thing that works in certain areas is a
non-religious iron fist that keeps ALL groups in check. I dont like that
solution but sometimes doing what is best for all trumps what might be
lost by a few.
Do you no longer think the only "solution" is a non-religious iron fist?
And I do like the use of the word "solution"... Your word smithing is admirable.
So how many Armored and Infantry Divisions would your solution require, be deployed in certain areas?
I think about the only thing that works in certain areas is a
non-religious iron fist that keeps ALL groups in check. I dont like that
solution but sometimes doing what is best for all trumps what might be
lost by a few.
Do you no longer think the only "solution" is a non-religious iron fist?
And I do like the use of the word "solution"... Your word smithing is admirable.
So how many Armored and Infantry Divisions would your solution require, be deployed in certain areas?
I think you got it wrong..
I was referring to a dictator, not war.
Saddam was better for Iraq than what they have now.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Randisist:
Wall... Your words...
I think about the only thing that works in certain areas is a
non-religious iron fist that keeps ALL groups in check. I dont like that
solution but sometimes doing what is best for all trumps what might be
lost by a few.
Do you no longer think the only "solution" is a non-religious iron fist?
And I do like the use of the word "solution"... Your word smithing is admirable.
So how many Armored and Infantry Divisions would your solution require, be deployed in certain areas?
I think you got it wrong..
I was referring to a dictator, not war.
Saddam was better for Iraq than what they have now.
I completely disagree with this. Some people and situations are not suited for a democracy. I dont think it ever has or will stand a chance with the current religious groups in the same area.
It was not thought out, it was a massive mistake that will not improve. Look in the region, what country there with a similar religious division is surviving or thriving without a dictator?
Giving it a try was absurd, you cannot give it a try without a 20 year plan in place once you "give it a try".
It shows that we are full of ourselves to think our philosophy with regards to government would work there.
All this is very true and I agree---I was simply saying we got rid of their dictator---they had a chance---we stayed around for a bit to see if they wanted to try to give it a shot---they don't---need to get out---yes was a mistake---but we can be happy knowing they had a chance---yes---none of them have the mindset for it---20 year plan might be way too short!
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
I completely disagree with this. Some people and situations are not suited for a democracy. I dont think it ever has or will stand a chance with the current religious groups in the same area.
It was not thought out, it was a massive mistake that will not improve. Look in the region, what country there with a similar religious division is surviving or thriving without a dictator?
Giving it a try was absurd, you cannot give it a try without a 20 year plan in place once you "give it a try".
It shows that we are full of ourselves to think our philosophy with regards to government would work there.
All this is very true and I agree---I was simply saying we got rid of their dictator---they had a chance---we stayed around for a bit to see if they wanted to try to give it a shot---they don't---need to get out---yes was a mistake---but we can be happy knowing they had a chance---yes---none of them have the mindset for it---20 year plan might be way too short!
give democracy a chance = interfere with other people's problems with little to no chance of success in order to rack of a huge bill for taxpayers so government contractors can make a shitload of money.
Yes---the mindset is different there. I think we want it for them so bad that we don't realize it may be arrogant to think our way is best for them. Some people like (or are okay) living under dictatorship. Imagine in 1776 if a present-day power had come and alleviated us from an oppressive regime. We would have been gleeful and welcomed it and took full advantage. The difference is we were already striving towards this; they are not and have never been striving towards freedom. So, most of them may not see it as an opportunity at all.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
give democracy a chance = interfere with other people's problems with little to no chance of success in order to rack of a huge bill for taxpayers so government contractors can make a shitload of money.
Yes---the mindset is different there. I think we want it for them so bad that we don't realize it may be arrogant to think our way is best for them. Some people like (or are okay) living under dictatorship. Imagine in 1776 if a present-day power had come and alleviated us from an oppressive regime. We would have been gleeful and welcomed it and took full advantage. The difference is we were already striving towards this; they are not and have never been striving towards freedom. So, most of them may not see it as an opportunity at all.
i'm far from an expert here but i think doing nothing will lead to a lot of deaths and doing something, whatever we usually come up with, will lead to a lot of deaths. i'd normally choose nothing, however, i appreciate wallstreet's point that we had a lot to do with this current mess so we probably have some obligation to try and help.
there's a word for this kind of thing--> clusterfuck.
I agree. However, how long do you wait before you throw your hands up and bail? I mean some may be thankful for freedom, but they cannot stave off the radicals alone. Very, very sad if the answer is to choose the best vile dictator possible just to keep another set of radicals at bay.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
i'm far from an expert here but i think doing nothing will lead to a lot of deaths and doing something, whatever we usually come up with, will lead to a lot of deaths. i'd normally choose nothing, however, i appreciate wallstreet's point that we had a lot to do with this current mess so we probably have some obligation to try and help.
there's a word for this kind of thing--> clusterfuck.
I agree. However, how long do you wait before you throw your hands up and bail? I mean some may be thankful for freedom, but they cannot stave off the radicals alone. Very, very sad if the answer is to choose the best vile dictator possible just to keep another set of radicals at bay.
OK... You are correct, I read war and you meant dictator... You are not a war hawk...
But, I still won't vote for you if you run for President...
As to Saddam... That I can not endorse. Can't argue, but will not agree... Saddam was evil personified...
Oh he was no saint, I am no fan of a dictator, no way..but that tells you how I feel about religious fighting versus a dictator.
I think there is nothing worse than religious fighting, it is the deepest and darkest kind of anger. I would almost say anything else is better, even when the alternative stinks too.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Randisist:
OK... You are correct, I read war and you meant dictator... You are not a war hawk...
But, I still won't vote for you if you run for President...
As to Saddam... That I can not endorse. Can't argue, but will not agree... Saddam was evil personified...
Oh he was no saint, I am no fan of a dictator, no way..but that tells you how I feel about religious fighting versus a dictator.
I think there is nothing worse than religious fighting, it is the deepest and darkest kind of anger. I would almost say anything else is better, even when the alternative stinks too.
I am not in support of war in the slightest, rather when we do something STUPID as Bush/Cheney did then we are on the hook for our actions.
At no time ever? Or just when we are attacked? What exactly is your position on this in general and if, sya, an ally is in trouble? I mean I understand the pacifist and the isolationist. But what are you saying you are?
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
How so?
I am not in support of war in the slightest, rather when we do something STUPID as Bush/Cheney did then we are on the hook for our actions.
At no time ever? Or just when we are attacked? What exactly is your position on this in general and if, sya, an ally is in trouble? I mean I understand the pacifist and the isolationist. But what are you saying you are?
Oh he was no saint, I am no fan of a dictator, no way..but that tells you how I feel about religious fighting versus a dictator.
I think there is nothing worse than religious fighting, it is the deepest and darkest kind of anger. I would almost say anything else is better, even when the alternative stinks too.
The worst by far---can't even think of second place.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Oh he was no saint, I am no fan of a dictator, no way..but that tells you how I feel about religious fighting versus a dictator.
I think there is nothing worse than religious fighting, it is the deepest and darkest kind of anger. I would almost say anything else is better, even when the alternative stinks too.
The worst by far---can't even think of second place.
At no time ever? Or just when we are attacked? What exactly is your position on this in general and if, sya, an ally is in trouble? I mean I understand the pacifist and the isolationist. But what are you saying you are?
I've discussed this before, for sure I am not an isolationist. I know far too well that in history when we have acted this way it has been more often than not a VERY bad idea..and more costly than if we had been involved from the start.
My comments for sure are not about war, rather he took the comment I made out of context. But I guess I would say I would try to avoid and do other things if possible versus war. I am for sure against invasions, like we did both times in Iraq.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
At no time ever? Or just when we are attacked? What exactly is your position on this in general and if, sya, an ally is in trouble? I mean I understand the pacifist and the isolationist. But what are you saying you are?
I've discussed this before, for sure I am not an isolationist. I know far too well that in history when we have acted this way it has been more often than not a VERY bad idea..and more costly than if we had been involved from the start.
My comments for sure are not about war, rather he took the comment I made out of context. But I guess I would say I would try to avoid and do other things if possible versus war. I am for sure against invasions, like we did both times in Iraq.
I've discussed this before, for sure I am not an isolationist. I know far too well that in history when we have acted this way it has been more often than not a VERY bad idea..and more costly than if we had been involved from the start.
My comments for sure are not about war, rather he took the comment I made out of context. But I guess I would say I would try to avoid and do other things if possible versus war. I am for sure against invasions, like we did both times in Iraq.
Gotcha
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
I've discussed this before, for sure I am not an isolationist. I know far too well that in history when we have acted this way it has been more often than not a VERY bad idea..and more costly than if we had been involved from the start.
My comments for sure are not about war, rather he took the comment I made out of context. But I guess I would say I would try to avoid and do other things if possible versus war. I am for sure against invasions, like we did both times in Iraq.
But,what is Obama's endgame for the limited air strike in Iraq..?
President Obama will probably come up with one ...during his two-week vacation to Martha’s Vineyard starting Saturday..in between some golf and another fundraiser Monday...... for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Since we are now fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS)..we find ourselves on the same side as Bashar al-Assad of Syria..the man Obama said "must go " three years ago..
President Obama need's to tell the American people ....What exactly is his overall strategy of this military action in Iraq ?
0
We know Obama has a Golfgame ..
But,what is Obama's endgame for the limited air strike in Iraq..?
President Obama will probably come up with one ...during his two-week vacation to Martha’s Vineyard starting Saturday..in between some golf and another fundraiser Monday...... for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Since we are now fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS)..we find ourselves on the same side as Bashar al-Assad of Syria..the man Obama said "must go " three years ago..
President Obama need's to tell the American people ....What exactly is his overall strategy of this military action in Iraq ?
But,what is Obama's endgame for the limited air strike in Iraq..?
President Obama will probably come up with one ...during his two-week vacation to Martha’s Vineyard starting Saturday..in between some golf and another fundraiser Monday...... for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Since we are now fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS)..we find ourselves on the same side as Bashar al-Assad of Syria..the man Obama said "must go " three years ago..
President Obama need's to tell the American people ....What exactly is his overall strategy of this military action in Iraq ?
Where was this deep discussion when the whole thing started?
You cannot throw this on Obama as the MINUTE we invaded Iraq this path was carved out and for a 100% certainty we were going down this road.
When you oust a dictator and leave the religious groups to kill each other off, this is what happens.
So where was the discussion about this obviously overlooked IMPORTANT detail back then?
0
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
We know Obama has a Golfgame ..
But,what is Obama's endgame for the limited air strike in Iraq..?
President Obama will probably come up with one ...during his two-week vacation to Martha’s Vineyard starting Saturday..in between some golf and another fundraiser Monday...... for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Since we are now fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS)..we find ourselves on the same side as Bashar al-Assad of Syria..the man Obama said "must go " three years ago..
President Obama need's to tell the American people ....What exactly is his overall strategy of this military action in Iraq ?
Where was this deep discussion when the whole thing started?
You cannot throw this on Obama as the MINUTE we invaded Iraq this path was carved out and for a 100% certainty we were going down this road.
When you oust a dictator and leave the religious groups to kill each other off, this is what happens.
So where was the discussion about this obviously overlooked IMPORTANT detail back then?
I completely disagree with this. Some people and situations are not suited for a democracy. I dont think it ever has or will stand a chance with the current religious groups in the same area.
It was not thought out, it was a massive mistake that will not improve. Look in the region, what country there with a similar religious division is surviving or thriving without a dictator?
Giving it a try was absurd, you cannot give it a try without a 20 year plan in place once you "give it a try".
It shows that we are full of ourselves to think our philosophy with regards to government would work there.
We went into Iraq due to 17 UN Resolutions for SH to prove he disarmed via U.N inspections (which he resisted). The U.S. Congress authorized Bush to go into Iraq. Please knock off the argument that Bush went at it alone and we went into establish democracy. SH and his lovely kids needed to get whacked, plain and simple. The aftermath definitely didn't go to plan. I agree these people are not worthy of democracy and using Iraq as an example, I'd leave them all alone. That said, we double-down on Egypt & Libya, while neither were ideal situations with their dictators, they were better off than what's happened since. Obama did that after learning nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan. We can't fix these places. These people are not like us.
Now that we're invested, we're obligated to keep Iraq from becoming a genocidal/terrorist state due to blood and treasure already invested. We should be taking oil from them for payback and future security costs. Obama wanted to get out of Iraq and here we are, we can't stand by and watch innocent people get beheaded and starve on a mountaintop, abstaining is just not an option.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
I completely disagree with this. Some people and situations are not suited for a democracy. I dont think it ever has or will stand a chance with the current religious groups in the same area.
It was not thought out, it was a massive mistake that will not improve. Look in the region, what country there with a similar religious division is surviving or thriving without a dictator?
Giving it a try was absurd, you cannot give it a try without a 20 year plan in place once you "give it a try".
It shows that we are full of ourselves to think our philosophy with regards to government would work there.
We went into Iraq due to 17 UN Resolutions for SH to prove he disarmed via U.N inspections (which he resisted). The U.S. Congress authorized Bush to go into Iraq. Please knock off the argument that Bush went at it alone and we went into establish democracy. SH and his lovely kids needed to get whacked, plain and simple. The aftermath definitely didn't go to plan. I agree these people are not worthy of democracy and using Iraq as an example, I'd leave them all alone. That said, we double-down on Egypt & Libya, while neither were ideal situations with their dictators, they were better off than what's happened since. Obama did that after learning nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan. We can't fix these places. These people are not like us.
Now that we're invested, we're obligated to keep Iraq from becoming a genocidal/terrorist state due to blood and treasure already invested. We should be taking oil from them for payback and future security costs. Obama wanted to get out of Iraq and here we are, we can't stand by and watch innocent people get beheaded and starve on a mountaintop, abstaining is just not an option.
What did you think would happen if we ousted Saddam? That Iraq would grasp hold of democracy and live happily ever after?
What country in that region has a democracy with the religious differences that exist like this?
I dont even care much about the UN resolutions, as they were not OUR direct issue...we INVADED Iraq, we did not assist the UN or do sanctions and pressure him out..we invaded. It was our decision and with the decision should have come the obvious observation that when a dictator is removed and you have two religious groups ready to pounce and wipe the other off the planet that you better have a plan in place to deal with this.
The Bush argument is 100% legit, it was his call, his cabinet, his intel, his military leaders..the reasons we went in and all the analysis came from him..not from Obama.
And yeah as I mentioned above, this probably will never get better as it stands and can only get worse unless another dictator is put in OR we go in and force the two groups to co-exist..but that cannot happen as we are not willing to cover the costs and suffer the loss of life that will come to our soldiers in doing so.
0
Killer,
What did you think would happen if we ousted Saddam? That Iraq would grasp hold of democracy and live happily ever after?
What country in that region has a democracy with the religious differences that exist like this?
I dont even care much about the UN resolutions, as they were not OUR direct issue...we INVADED Iraq, we did not assist the UN or do sanctions and pressure him out..we invaded. It was our decision and with the decision should have come the obvious observation that when a dictator is removed and you have two religious groups ready to pounce and wipe the other off the planet that you better have a plan in place to deal with this.
The Bush argument is 100% legit, it was his call, his cabinet, his intel, his military leaders..the reasons we went in and all the analysis came from him..not from Obama.
And yeah as I mentioned above, this probably will never get better as it stands and can only get worse unless another dictator is put in OR we go in and force the two groups to co-exist..but that cannot happen as we are not willing to cover the costs and suffer the loss of life that will come to our soldiers in doing so.
But all of these Leftists just 'knew' it would be exactly like this. They felt no sympathy for the people there, could care less if SH allowed inspectors in, could care less if WMDs were used---they knew but still backed it in congress, not once but twice. Bush made sure they got to okay it twice so he could make sure. No telling what they would've said if we hadn't gone in and SH had been storing WMDs and used them. They would've yelled Bush should've done something.
Same with BHO now. Glad to claim victory and pull out. Take credit for win. When it doesn't look good---Bush got is in this mess. Won't take blame for loss for sure!
Pull out---won't go back---their problem. Now we go back. No boots on ground. But recon is on ground. Very hypocritical.
0
Nicely said.
But all of these Leftists just 'knew' it would be exactly like this. They felt no sympathy for the people there, could care less if SH allowed inspectors in, could care less if WMDs were used---they knew but still backed it in congress, not once but twice. Bush made sure they got to okay it twice so he could make sure. No telling what they would've said if we hadn't gone in and SH had been storing WMDs and used them. They would've yelled Bush should've done something.
Same with BHO now. Glad to claim victory and pull out. Take credit for win. When it doesn't look good---Bush got is in this mess. Won't take blame for loss for sure!
Pull out---won't go back---their problem. Now we go back. No boots on ground. But recon is on ground. Very hypocritical.
What was the exit strategy? How about just leave? Nope can't do that because that would make us look bad. We are obligated to help them? Really? Why not just say that we did them a favor and got rid of SH and if try couldn't take advantage of that---maybe they deserve the government they get? If we aren't careful this will be way prolonged.
0
What was the exit strategy? How about just leave? Nope can't do that because that would make us look bad. We are obligated to help them? Really? Why not just say that we did them a favor and got rid of SH and if try couldn't take advantage of that---maybe they deserve the government they get? If we aren't careful this will be way prolonged.
Where was this deep discussion when the whole thing started?
You cannot throw this on Obama as the MINUTE we invaded Iraq this path was carved out and for a 100% certainty we were going down this road.
When you oust a dictator and leave the religious groups to kill each other off, this is what happens.
So where was the discussion about this obviously overlooked IMPORTANT detail back then?
Agreed,, like Obama did in Libya with dictator Moammar Gadhafi...Now we have Islamic terrorist the Misrata militia fighting the anti-Islamic terrorist the Zintan militia...
Obama should have listened to President Bush ( instead of a Valerie Jarrett ).. when he predicted that a prematurely,hasty, or sudden US troop pullout in Iraq would lead to increased chaos ,bloodshed and eventual terrorist victories... and that coalition troops would be forced to return to Iraq one day, and confront an enemy that is even more dangerous. ... looks like he was right and knew what he was talking about ..
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Where was this deep discussion when the whole thing started?
You cannot throw this on Obama as the MINUTE we invaded Iraq this path was carved out and for a 100% certainty we were going down this road.
When you oust a dictator and leave the religious groups to kill each other off, this is what happens.
So where was the discussion about this obviously overlooked IMPORTANT detail back then?
Agreed,, like Obama did in Libya with dictator Moammar Gadhafi...Now we have Islamic terrorist the Misrata militia fighting the anti-Islamic terrorist the Zintan militia...
Obama should have listened to President Bush ( instead of a Valerie Jarrett ).. when he predicted that a prematurely,hasty, or sudden US troop pullout in Iraq would lead to increased chaos ,bloodshed and eventual terrorist victories... and that coalition troops would be forced to return to Iraq one day, and confront an enemy that is even more dangerous. ... looks like he was right and knew what he was talking about ..
As far as sanctions on Iraq... ... throughout the Clinton administration, Saddam violated the surrender terms and the U.N. sanctions. In Oct. 1998 Saddam permanently kicked out the U.N. inspectors.
When President Bush came into office..the sanctions against Saddam's regime that were in place since the first Gulf War were a mess and in tatters ..in fact sanctions on Iraq were tighter than ever two years after Bush took office and UN inspectors were back in the Iraq..
0
As far as sanctions on Iraq... ... throughout the Clinton administration, Saddam violated the surrender terms and the U.N. sanctions. In Oct. 1998 Saddam permanently kicked out the U.N. inspectors.
When President Bush came into office..the sanctions against Saddam's regime that were in place since the first Gulf War were a mess and in tatters ..in fact sanctions on Iraq were tighter than ever two years after Bush took office and UN inspectors were back in the Iraq..
We went into Iraq due to 17 UN Resolutions for SH to prove he disarmed via U.N inspections (which he resisted). The U.S. Congress authorized Bush to go into Iraq.
Stop blaming congress for falling for one of the greatest lies ever sold.
After Congress approved the war resolution, Hussein allowed United Nations weapons inspectors to come to Iraq due to the threat of U.S. military action.
Come January, February and March of 2003, days before the war, the weapons inspectors and nuclear experts were reporting back to the United Nations that they weren’t finding any weapons.
Bush didn't give a damn and went to war anyway...
0
Quote Originally Posted by Killer_B:
We went into Iraq due to 17 UN Resolutions for SH to prove he disarmed via U.N inspections (which he resisted). The U.S. Congress authorized Bush to go into Iraq.
Stop blaming congress for falling for one of the greatest lies ever sold.
After Congress approved the war resolution, Hussein allowed United Nations weapons inspectors to come to Iraq due to the threat of U.S. military action.
Come January, February and March of 2003, days before the war, the weapons inspectors and nuclear experts were reporting back to the United Nations that they weren’t finding any weapons.
The bottom line, as Wall, Kap, etc. have said many times is that democracy in Iraq is impossible. There has never been a religious theocracy able to sustain a democracy and it is impossible to separate religion from politics in the Middle East. Look at history...did you know the world's first democracy was also the first government that was not religious based?
Now, I supported removing SH and still do. The bottom line is that everyone at State knew that Bush's statement about bringing democracy to the region was completely false because all intelligence had pointed to that impossibility.
So answer me...knowing that we only brought a measure of stability with our presence, what did all of those troops post SH die for?
If you can answer that intelligently, you are smarter than me because I sure as he!! don't know.
As for the current policy, Kap is right and probably more than he realizes. There is a feeling of guilt that exists at State and has for years regarding the Kurds. We essentially abandoned them for Turkey many many times (remember we did nothing when Iraq slaughtered them). Now, I'm not sure if the current bombing is more for the Kurds or anti-ISIS (I am assuming the latter), but let's not forget that ISIS, while not as funded as Al Qaeda and thus, does not have the ability to 'go international' is actually stronger on the ground than Al Qaeda ever was. Thus, they present as a dangerous enemy.
The air strikes are a good thing to help to reduce their power. But the moment we commit to ground troops, as I described above, we are sending our young men on a death sentence to simply create the perception of democracy while we are present. In other words, we are killing our young men for someone else's government, and that, my friends, is not acceptable.
0
Actually, pretty good stuff in this thread.
The bottom line, as Wall, Kap, etc. have said many times is that democracy in Iraq is impossible. There has never been a religious theocracy able to sustain a democracy and it is impossible to separate religion from politics in the Middle East. Look at history...did you know the world's first democracy was also the first government that was not religious based?
Now, I supported removing SH and still do. The bottom line is that everyone at State knew that Bush's statement about bringing democracy to the region was completely false because all intelligence had pointed to that impossibility.
So answer me...knowing that we only brought a measure of stability with our presence, what did all of those troops post SH die for?
If you can answer that intelligently, you are smarter than me because I sure as he!! don't know.
As for the current policy, Kap is right and probably more than he realizes. There is a feeling of guilt that exists at State and has for years regarding the Kurds. We essentially abandoned them for Turkey many many times (remember we did nothing when Iraq slaughtered them). Now, I'm not sure if the current bombing is more for the Kurds or anti-ISIS (I am assuming the latter), but let's not forget that ISIS, while not as funded as Al Qaeda and thus, does not have the ability to 'go international' is actually stronger on the ground than Al Qaeda ever was. Thus, they present as a dangerous enemy.
The air strikes are a good thing to help to reduce their power. But the moment we commit to ground troops, as I described above, we are sending our young men on a death sentence to simply create the perception of democracy while we are present. In other words, we are killing our young men for someone else's government, and that, my friends, is not acceptable.
Agreed,, like Obama did in Libya with dictator Moammar Gadhafi...Now we have Islamic terrorist the Misrata militia fighting the anti-Islamic terrorist the Zintan militia...
Obama should have listened to President Bush ( instead of a Valerie Jarrett ).. when he predicted that a prematurely,hasty, or sudden US troop pullout in Iraq would lead to increased chaos ,bloodshed and eventual terrorist victories... and that coalition troops would be forced to return to Iraq one day, and confront an enemy that is even more dangerous. ... looks like he was right and knew what he was talking about ..
Of course Bush was right. But BHO couldn't accept that. Had to try to show he knew better.
As for SH, he kept trying to pretend he was a big player and wanted everyone to think he had WMDs. The problem is if you keep threatening, sooner or later you get called on it. He got called on it finally.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
Agreed,, like Obama did in Libya with dictator Moammar Gadhafi...Now we have Islamic terrorist the Misrata militia fighting the anti-Islamic terrorist the Zintan militia...
Obama should have listened to President Bush ( instead of a Valerie Jarrett ).. when he predicted that a prematurely,hasty, or sudden US troop pullout in Iraq would lead to increased chaos ,bloodshed and eventual terrorist victories... and that coalition troops would be forced to return to Iraq one day, and confront an enemy that is even more dangerous. ... looks like he was right and knew what he was talking about ..
Of course Bush was right. But BHO couldn't accept that. Had to try to show he knew better.
As for SH, he kept trying to pretend he was a big player and wanted everyone to think he had WMDs. The problem is if you keep threatening, sooner or later you get called on it. He got called on it finally.
Your word smithing is admirable. 
You are correct, I read war and you meant dictator... You are not a war hawk... 
Hot Forum Topics
