PDA

View Full Version : Back to war in Iraq


W*GS
08-08-2014, 09:52 AM
WTF?

How can we possibly fix the ****ed-up ME with more war?

Another Obama CF.

elsid13
08-08-2014, 12:09 PM
standing aside and watching the terror happening on the innocent isn't an acceptable answer. It suck but we need to do something.

ant1999e
08-08-2014, 01:41 PM
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

W*GS
08-08-2014, 03:48 PM
standing aside and watching the terror happening on the innocent isn't an acceptable answer. It suck but we need to do something.

Why?

We already expended thousands of Americans and endless billions in treasure on the original CF; why are we throwing more at a problem that isn't ours to solve?

W*GS
08-08-2014, 03:49 PM
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

We cannot be Globocop.

Meck77
08-08-2014, 04:20 PM
So can we all agree this is now Obama's war?

Israel at war
Russia at war with ukraine. Making moves in multiple countries quietly.
US at war in Afghanistan and now Iraq again.

Who's next? Chinese? North Korea?

W*GS
08-08-2014, 04:22 PM
So can we all agree this is now Obama's war?

This is the Muslim's war, and if the history of Christianity and its secular conflicts is any guide, we're up for centuries of this ****.

Meck77
08-08-2014, 04:24 PM
This is the Muslim's war, and if the history of Christianity and its secular conflicts is any guide, we're up for centuries of this ****.

No way it will last centuries. Within then next 10,20,30 years someone is going to pop a nuke off.

Holy land my ass. I agree. Pile of ****.

W*GS
08-08-2014, 04:28 PM
No way it will last centuries. Within then next 10,20,30 years someone is going to pop a nuke off.

Holy land my ass. I agree. Pile of ****.

The core problem are the Abrahamic religions and their insistence that only they have the Truth and everyone else is an infidel and worthy only of death.

peacepipe
08-08-2014, 06:21 PM
http://edge2.politicususa.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/bd140808fb.jpg

Meck77
08-08-2014, 06:23 PM
A closer look at Obama's buddies on the ground.

https://news.vice.com/video/the-islamic-state-part-1?utm_source=vicenewsfb

peacepipe
08-08-2014, 06:25 PM
A closer look at Obama's buddies on the ground.

https://news.vice.com/video/the-islamic-state-part-1?utm_source=vicenewsfb

I guess that's why they sending their thank you cards to GWB.

Meck77
08-08-2014, 06:30 PM
Part 2.

https://news.vice.com/video/the-islamic-state-part-2

Fedaykin
08-08-2014, 06:45 PM
3rd time's a charm, amirite?

SoCalBronco
08-08-2014, 08:16 PM
Why?

We already expended thousands of Americans and endless billions in treasure on the original CF; why are we throwing more at a problem that isn't ours to solve?

Because ISIS is a threat to our interests. A radical Islamic regime taking over vast resources of oil would increase terrorism worldwide and would completely upset stability in the region.

W*GS
08-08-2014, 08:20 PM
Because ISIS is a threat to our interests. A radical Islamic regime taking over vast resources of oil would increase terrorism worldwide and would completely upset stability in the region.

You already tried that line with Saddam; it was BS then and it's BS now.

Time for us to tell the ME to **** off (including Israel) and let them rot in their own bile and hatred. We can't fix their self-inflicted wounds.

Bronco Yoda
08-08-2014, 09:10 PM
So can we all agree this is now Obama's war?

Israel at war
Russia at war with ukraine. Making moves in multiple countries quietly.
US at war in Afghanistan and now Iraq again.

Who's next? Chinese? North Korea?

I keep saying this... it's time we bomb Canada.

...them and their free health care and clean air. WE CAN DO THIS!

Meck77
08-08-2014, 10:30 PM
I keep saying this... it's time we bomb Canada.

...them and their free health care and clean air. WE CAN DO THIS!

Better yet. Let's overthrow the mexican government. Bunch of corrupt mother ****ers. Kill all the drug lords, legalize dope in Mexico, create some real enterprise down there, and North America will be in great shape.

Oh and round up all the Americans who haven't paid taxes who are hiding out down there. ;D

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-09-2014, 12:12 AM
Because ISIS is a threat to our interests. A radical Islamic regime taking over vast resources of oil would increase terrorism worldwide and would completely upset stability in the region.

"Our" interests?

It's so easy for imperialist types to believe Iraq's oil "belongs" to us simply because we need or want it.

Reality check: The oil belongs to Iraq.

I keep seeing headlines, however accurate they may be, declaring that the U.S. is now the world's biggest oil producer.

Maybe we should focus our energies on finding the political will to divert that oil to supply our own domestic demand instead of selling it to the highest bidder on the global market.

elsid13
08-09-2014, 03:04 AM
Because ISIS is a threat to our interests. A radical Islamic regime taking over vast resources of oil would increase terrorism worldwide and would completely upset stability in the region.

Who cares about oil, ISIS is threat to core beliefs of western society and activity engage in genocide. They have also made clear they are going after us and our allies. To do nothing is cowardly if this was civil war in Iraq I would say stay out but this has morphed into something far worse and evil.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-09-2014, 05:18 AM
^

I'm sure Bush and Cheney would approve this message.

Arkie
08-09-2014, 06:13 AM
It begins with oil and ends with oil, and a lot of bull**** in between.

11/15/1999, Dick Cheney, CEO of Halliburton
"Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow."

09/18/2002, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
"We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons. His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons -- including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas. ... His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons—including anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox."

10/7/2002, George W. Bush, President
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

11/01/2002, George W. Bush, President
"The United States will lead a mighty coalition of freedom-loving nations and disarm Saddam Hussein. See, I can't imagine what was going through the mind of this enemy when they hit us. They probably thought the national religion was materialism, that we were so selfish and so self-absorbed that after 9/11/2001 this mighty nation would take a couple of steps back and file a lawsuit.

^Saddam blew up the WTC?

11/14/2002, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
"I'm glad you asked. It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil."

11/15/2002, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
"Five days or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last longer."

01/10/2003, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
"... something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question.”

03/16/2003, Dick Cheney, Vice President
"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . [in] weeks rather than months."

03 / 19 / 2003. Start of Iraq War

03/27/2003, Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary
"There’s a lot of money to pay for this ... the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”

03/30/2003, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
"We know where they are [Iraq's weapons of mass destruction]. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

05/01/2003, George W. Bush, President
"My fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

"Mission Accomplished."

05/09/2003, Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason."

09/14/2003, Dick Cheney, Vice President
"If we're successful in Iraq ... we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

09/17/2003, George W. Bush, President
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th."

06/28/2004, Dick Cheney, Vice President
"Two days ahead of schedule, the world witnessed the arrival of a free and sovereign Iraq."

06/29/2005, Dick Cheney, Vice President
"I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

03/18/2006, Dick Cheney, Vice President,
"Q: About a year ago, you said that the insurgency in Iraq was in its final throes. Do you still believe this? Cheney: Yes."

05/22/2006, George W. Bush, President
"We have now reached a turning point in the struggle between freedom and terror."

9/9/2008, Alan Greenspan, Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

barryr
08-09-2014, 08:22 AM
Meanwhile Obama gives Brazil millions to drill offshore so the U.S. can keep dependence of ME oil.

mhgaffney
08-09-2014, 08:59 AM
BLOWBACK! U.S. TRAINED ISLAMISTS WHO JOINED ISIS
Secret Jordan base was site of covert aid to insurgents targeting Assad
Published: 06/17/2014 at 10:16 AM

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/officials-u-s-trained-isis-at-secret-base-in-jordan/#SBee4WraIBwaLhbG.99

barryr
08-09-2014, 09:06 AM
BLOWBACK! U.S. TRAINED ISLAMISTS WHO JOINED ISIS
Secret Jordan base was site of covert aid to insurgents targeting Assad
Published: 06/17/2014 at 10:16 AM

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/officials-u-s-trained-isis-at-secret-base-in-jordan/#SBee4WraIBwaLhbG.99

I'm not surprised. This happens all the time yet we keep training people in the ME who later use it against us.

Rohirrim
08-09-2014, 09:11 AM
I agree whole-heartedly with the idea of bombing the **** out of ISIS and keeping them from massacring unarmed people hiding in the hills. I put these ISIS guys right up there with Pol Pot and Idi Amin. They are psychopaths. They must be stopped. If they are allowed to establish their own base, or carve their own country out of Syria and Northern Iraq, they will, eventually, come after targets in the West. Nobody can deny this. If they pacify one area and gain security, they will start looking for new targets. Such is the nature of psychopaths.

However, it is the UN that should be bombing them, not the U.S. It is the Kurds and Iraq's military who should be taking the lead and the UN should be backing them up.That is supposed to be the scenario for a regional humanitarian disaster. Of course, the CIA's hand picked Iraqi leader, al Maliki, is a disaster, and incapable of doing anything not ordered by Tehran. We now know that behind the scenes, the Quds force from Iran was playing the CIA and Maliki was their hand picked man as well. Maliki's out of control partisanship has been one of the causes of the rise of ISIS. Again, well done CIA, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al! Like Powell said, "Break it and you own it."

The big question is covered in this take by Robert Naiman:

More than 100 Members of the House recently signed a bipartisan letter led by California Democrat Barbara Lee and Virginia Republican Scott Rigell insisting that the president come to Congress before using military force in Iraq.

The letter said [my emphasis]:

"As you consider options for U.S. intervention, we write to urge respect for the constitutional requirements for using force abroad. The Constitution vests in Congress the power and responsibility to authorize offensive military action abroad. The use of military force in Iraq is something the Congress should fully debate and authorize."

Administration officials should be asked why they ignored this letter. Signers of the letter (in particular) should be pressed to say whether they believe the Administration's current actions are Constitutional and legal, and if so, what they believe the Constitutional and legal limit of Administration military actions in Iraq without Congressional authorization is right now.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/obama-iraq-air-strikes_b_5662055.html

The truth is that Obama knew this situation was developing weeks ago, yet waited for a Congressional recess to act. He's done this before, as Naiman details in the article.

The real problem is that we have a dysfunctional Congress and a worthless media. The House is hopelessly mired in partisanship and can no longer be expected, or trusted, to act in the best interests of country over party, especially on the Right. And the media are totally bought out by corporate interests and will only report in a way that caters to stability and the status quo in service to the elites.

How do we trust the worst Congress we've ever had to reign in the power of the executive, when they can't be trusted to act without injecting rabid partisanship into everything they say and do? Who do you turn that job over to, Darrell Issa? How do we trust this media to do its job educating the demos when they've sold their souls to the corporate marketplace of infotainment? Many forget, one of the primary cheerleaders for driving us into Bush II's Iraqi adventure was the NY Times.

IMO, the failures of Congress and the media are complicit in allowing this executive overreach by both Bush and Obama, not to mention this era of judicial activism we're living in. They've both been rubberstamping this kind of muddying of the War Powers Act for decades. What's the solution? A constitutional convention and a complete overhaul of government, but that ain't gonna happen.

ant1999e
08-09-2014, 02:30 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/bsCZzpmbEcs?list=UUZaT_X_mc0BI-djXOlfhqWQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

orinjkrush
08-09-2014, 08:19 PM
at this point in our republic's life, our BIGGEST national security problem is the Republican-Democrat mafia, totally owned subidiary of the banksters.

ISIS, and the ME and the Ukraine can wait.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-10-2014, 04:31 AM
at this point in our republic's life, our BIGGEST national security problem is the Republican-Democrat mafia, totally owned subidiary of the banksters.

ISIS, and the ME and the Ukraine can wait.

Co-signed.

Arkie
08-10-2014, 07:17 AM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/bsCZzpmbEcs?list=UUZaT_X_mc0BI-djXOlfhqWQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Is the war on terror working? I wish. We've borrowed trillions from foreign countries to finance it. We've lost so many lives just to make the world a more dangerous place than it was 15 years ago.

Rohirrim
08-10-2014, 07:35 AM
Is the war on terror working? I wish. We've borrowed trillions from foreign countries to finance it. We've lost so many lives just to make the world a more dangerous place than it was 15 years ago.

The entire world, if the human race had any morality whatsoever, would band together to wipe these psychos out. They are burying women and children alive. They decapitate their prisoners and put their heads on spikes.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-10-2014, 08:07 AM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t1.0-9/1981869_742190832493825_2409434671730971333_n.jpg

Rohirrim
08-10-2014, 09:00 AM
"I think the best part of this job is to set in motion big changes of history - it's unbelievably exciting to be in a position to do that."
George W. Bush, 43rd president of the United States


"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
George H.W. Bush, 41st president of the United States, and Brent Scowcroft, National Security Advisor

"You break it, you own it."
Colin Powell, Secretary of State

Rohirrim
08-10-2014, 09:04 AM
BLOWBACK! U.S. TRAINED ISLAMISTS WHO JOINED ISIS
Secret Jordan base was site of covert aid to insurgents targeting Assad
Published: 06/17/2014 at 10:16 AM

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/officials-u-s-trained-isis-at-secret-base-in-jordan/#SBee4WraIBwaLhbG.99

WND (formerly WorldNetDaily or, as it was affectionately known to its fans, WingNutDaily or WhirledNutDaily) is an extremist conservative website founded by Joseph Farah in 1997 as a project of his Western Center for Journalism.[1] It espouses a fundamentalist Christian, creationist view of the world, and regularly engages in racist attacks against African-Americans. Its political leanings are right-wing, pro-"Christian right," and supposedly pro-United States, with strongly libertarian economic views. Its coverage provides multiple sides of the issues: the conservative viewpoint and the ultra-conservative viewpoint. It is far to the right of Fox News. (Wiki)

TailgateNut
08-10-2014, 09:27 AM
"Mission Accomplished" ---------------F-ing stupid Texan

Rohirrim
08-10-2014, 09:38 AM
The rise of Isis and its military successes has led to short-sighted euphoria in Sunni countries. People congratulate themselves that it is no longer only the Shia who are on the offensive. But in practice Isis's seizure of a leadership position in Syria and Iraq's communities will most likely prove to be a disaster for them. Isis is being used as a vanguard movement that will not allow itself to be easily displaced and, like the fascists in Italy and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, will seek to crush anybody who tries. The Sunnis have ceded a commanding role to a movement that sees itself as divinely inspired and whose agenda involves endless and unwinnable wars against apostates and heretics. Iraq and Syria can be divided up, but they cannot be divided up cleanly and peacefully because too many minorities, like the million or more Sunni in Baghdad, are on the wrong side of any conceivable dividing line. At best, Syria and Iraq face years of intermittent civil war; at worst, the division of these countries will be like the partition of India in 1947 when massacre and fear of massacre established new demographic frontiers.

The fall of Mosul and the Isis-led Sunni revolt marks the end of a distinct period in Iraqi history that began with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by the US and British invasion of March 2003. There was an attempt by the Iraqi opposition to the old regime and their foreign allies to create a new Iraq in which the three communities shared power in Baghdad. The experiment failed disastrously and it seems it will be impossible to resurrect it because the battle lines between Kurd, Sunni and Shia are now too stark and embittered. The balance of power inside Iraq is changing. So too are the de facto frontiers of the state, with an expanded and increasingly independent Kurdistan – the Kurds having opportunistically used the crisis to secure territories they have always claimed – and the Iraq-Syrian border having ceased to exist. The impact of these events is being felt across the Middle East as governments take on board that Isis, an al-Qai'da-type group of the greatest ferocity and religious bigotry, has been able to claim the creation of a Sunni caliphate spanning much of Iraq and Syria.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/crisis-in-the-middle-east-the-end-of-a-country-and-the-start-of-a-new-dark-age-9659379.html

He goes on to state that these ISIS psychos are actually the vanguard, the blitzkrieg, if you will, of the Saudi-backed Wahhabist movement whose goal is not just the takeover of Iraq, but the takeover of Islam itself and the creation of the caliphate. We may be basically watching the hatching of something akin to the fascist movements of the 1930s, but even more virulent, more murderous, and more primitive, and probably backed by Saudi wealth. We like to joke about WWIII on here, secure in the belief that whatever happens, it will stay over there. It's their problem, not ours. But, like the fascists of the 30s, the more these psychos win, the more they'll want. That may include Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Kurdistan, Turkey, etc. Certainly, eventually, Israel. Europe is heavily populated with Muslims. How many of them will sign up with ISIS? We already see Islamic fundamentalists from all over Central Asia flocking to their banner. Like this writer points out, these guys make Al Queda look quaint.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-10-2014, 11:02 AM
"Mission Accomplished" ---------------F-ing stupid Texan

Yep.

That stupid f@&* was warned repeatedly by the smart people whom the Pentagon hires to study situations like these that his Iraq policy would end up creating more terrorists than it eliminated.

Oh well - I guess Dumbya's policies were a resounding success from the perspective of the usual war profiteers who were anxious to find a replacement for our cold war enemies.

What a clusterf@&*.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-10-2014, 11:09 AM
Thinking we can eliminate isis and similar groups through wars of attrition is just wishful thinking as long as we refuse to examine the policies that create these psychos.

You can only butcher so many people in your quest to steal their resources before they start getting pissed at you and retaliate.

Any child who understands the golden rule can grasp this.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-10-2014, 11:34 AM
Is the war on terror working? I wish. We've borrowed trillions from foreign countries to finance it. We've lost so many lives just to make the world a more dangerous place than it was 15 years ago.

Bingo.

And the more dangerous the world becomes, the more people like Bush and Cheney (and their sponsors) see dollar signs.

orangeatheist
08-10-2014, 06:42 PM
Holy land my ass. I agree. Pile of ****.

QFT

DenverBrit
08-10-2014, 07:53 PM
WND (formerly WorldNetDaily or, as it was affectionately known to its fans, WingNutDaily or WhirledNutDaily) is an extremist conservative website founded by Joseph Farah in 1997 as a project of his Western Center for Journalism.[1] It espouses a fundamentalist Christian, creationist view of the world, and regularly engages in racist attacks against African-Americans. Its political leanings are right-wing, pro-"Christian right," and supposedly pro-United States, with strongly libertarian economic views. Its coverage provides multiple sides of the issues: the conservative viewpoint and the ultra-conservative viewpoint. It is far to the right of Fox News. (Wiki)

Gaffney has no morals, any website will do if it spouts his brand of 'stupid.'

TonyR
08-11-2014, 09:07 AM
"I think the best part of this job is to set in motion big changes of history - it's unbelievably exciting to be in a position to do that."
George W. Bush, 43rd president of the United States


"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
George H.W. Bush, 41st president of the United States, and Brent Scowcroft, National Security Advisor

"You break it, you own it."
Colin Powell, Secretary of State

Yup. Father knows best.

Rohirrim
08-11-2014, 07:49 PM
Once again, U.S. adventurism creates blow back. The genesis of ISIS:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/11/world/middleeast/us-actions-in-iraq-fueled-rise-of-a-rebel.html

Meck77
08-11-2014, 08:01 PM
Part 3 of the series I've been posting from vice news. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/jOaBNbdUbcA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

cutthemdown
08-11-2014, 08:24 PM
"Our" interests?

It's so easy for imperialist types to believe Iraq's oil "belongs" to us simply because we need or want it.

Reality check: The oil belongs to Iraq.

I keep seeing headlines, however accurate they may be, declaring that the U.S. is now the world's biggest oil producer.

Maybe we should focus our energies on finding the political will to divert that oil to supply our own domestic demand instead of selling it to the highest bidder on the global market.


LOL we have a law against domestic oil being exported. Many think it should be lifted though. Our gas is only expensive because of all the tax on it. Maybe you should know the issue a little better before you focus your energy on a thread.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/why-the-u-s-needs-to-lift-the-ban-on-oil-exports-1403133535

cutthemdown
08-11-2014, 08:25 PM
Besides Obama isn't doing anything in Iraq. He will drop a few bombs and that's about it.

Rohirrim
08-11-2014, 08:34 PM
Besides Obama isn't doing anything in Iraq. He will drop a few bombs and that's about it.

http://bcove.me/f1n93eg4

The point of the video is, we're saving peoples' lives.

cutthemdown
08-11-2014, 10:01 PM
http://bcove.me/f1n93eg4

The point of the video is, we're saving peoples' lives.

What good is all our military hardware if we won't use it for good when we get a chance? Obama should intervene and end the Syrian war and take out Assad. If you are going to take out gaddaffi why not Assad? Because it's tougher? meh we could end that **** in a few months.

Then finish off ISIS as well. Obama could probably just do it Clinton style and get freaky with some missiles and high altitude bombing.

TonyR
08-12-2014, 05:52 AM
Obama should intervene and end the Syrian war and take out Assad. If you are going to take out gaddaffi why not Assad? Because it's tougher? meh we could end that **** in a few months.


There will of course be accusations that Obama is a hypocrite for intervening in Iraq but not Syria. That argument is simplistic and wrong. If the US is obliged to intervene militarily everywhere there is a humanitarian need, it would never stop intervening. Obama said as much in his speech. He is one of the few US leaders to understand the limits of American power. Moreover, the situation in Syria is far more complex. To have assisted one side would have meant breaching a nation’s sovereignty (no big deal) and potentially assisting the very Islamist forces that pose a security threat to the region and the West (a very big deal). The intervention in Iraq requires Obama to do neither of those things, so the calculus is completely different.http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2014/08/08/Obama-intervention-Iraq-is-not-Syria.aspx

Rohirrim
08-12-2014, 07:24 AM
What good is all our military hardware if we won't use it for good when we get a chance? Obama should intervene and end the Syrian war and take out Assad. If you are going to take out gaddaffi why not Assad? Because it's tougher? meh we could end that **** in a few months.

Then finish off ISIS as well. Obama could probably just do it Clinton style and get freaky with some missiles and high altitude bombing.

If you don't get the limits of American (or anybody's) military power by now, you never will. We were in Afghanistan for ten years. Have we fixed it? We spent thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq and it's more ****ed up than ever. Gee, maybe our thinking is wrong?

BroncoBeavis
08-12-2014, 07:30 AM
http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2014/08/08/Obama-intervention-Iraq-is-not-Syria.aspx

The missing meat in that straw argument being Libya. Where sovereignty and limits of American power were of apparently no concern.

Plus there was that whole episode where Obama wanted to intervene in Syria, but Congress and the Public had no stomach for it.

The correct answer is that we have obligations in Iraq (and now Libya) because of our prior involvement there. Our failure has always been taking things too lightly. Whether that was in invading Iraq, or in half-assedly abandoning it. Or in plinking Qaddafi from the sky, then letting Allah sort the rest out.

Foreign interventionism done right is hard work. Our failure is, and has always been failing to weigh the real cost to do it right, and then trying to pave it over on the cheap once we realize what we've done.

TonyR
08-12-2014, 07:31 AM
If you don't get the limits of American (or anybody's) military power by now, you never will.

It's going to be funny to watch posters like cutthemdown hate on Hillary during the campaign when in reality she's the perfect candidate for them when it comes to foreign policy. She's pretty much a neocon. Sullivan commented on this recently: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/08/10/the-empire-is-striking-back/

Smiling Assassin27
08-12-2014, 07:34 AM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Xh-0FbMcae8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

TonyR
08-12-2014, 07:36 AM
Foreign interventionism done right is hard work. Our failure is, and has always been failing to weigh the real cost to do it right, and then trying to pave it over on the cheap once we realize what we've done.

Well, yes. Destroying Iraq without any semblance of a plan for what to do next was pretty much one of the worst foreign policy moves this country has ever made.

Rohirrim
08-12-2014, 07:49 AM
Well, yes. Destroying Iraq without any semblance of a plan for what to do next was pretty much one of the worst foreign policy moves this country has ever made.

"I think the best part of this job is to set in motion big changes of history - it's unbelievably exciting to be in a position to do that."
George W. Bush, 43rd president of the United States

Beavis' boy. :oyvey:

BroncoBeavis
08-12-2014, 07:54 AM
Well, yes. Destroying Iraq without any semblance of a plan for what to do next was pretty much one of the worst foreign policy moves this country has ever made.

Yet the Libya 'plan' made the Iraq occupation plan look downright serious.

TonyR
08-12-2014, 08:42 AM
Yet the Libya 'plan' made the Iraq occupation plan look downright serious.

You're making a straight faced attempt here not only to compare the two, but to say that Libya was somehow worse?!?

BroncoBeavis
08-12-2014, 09:07 AM
You're making a straight faced attempt here not only to compare the two, but to say that Libya was somehow worse?!?

Worse than if we had kept 15-20k stationed in Iraq? Absolutely.

Plus the wages on Libya are just starting to come home. We're a decade past plinking Saddam. I have a feeling Europe, just a hop across the pond, is going to regret our Libya adventure for a generation or more.

Rohirrim
08-12-2014, 10:46 AM
Yeah. It would have been better if Obama had only convinced the country that Libya was hoarding weapons of mass destruction. LOL

TonyR
08-12-2014, 11:42 AM
I must be misunderstanding you, Beavis. Or you me. Or both. Because there's no possible way one can say Libya is "worse" than Iraq using any objective measurment. Money spent, American deaths and injuries, non-American deaths and injuries, damage caused, chaos caused, fuel given to the jihad, etc. It's just not remotely close on any of these measures.

nyuk nyuk
08-12-2014, 12:01 PM
It's going to be funny to watch posters like cutthemdown hate on Hillary during the campaign when in reality she's the perfect candidate for them when it comes to foreign policy. She's pretty much a neocon. Sullivan commented on this recently: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/08/10/the-empire-is-striking-back/

US foreign is a bipartisan affair. When it backfires, Democrats try to claim it was a Republican-only enterprise.

nyuk nyuk
08-12-2014, 12:01 PM
Yeah. It would have been better if Obama had only convinced the country that Libya was hoarding weapons of mass destruction. LOL

So you're saying it's OK to bump off a government you don't like as long as you don't use a justification you see as invalid?

I'm sorry I thought it was about bumping off foreign governments at all.

BroncoBeavis
08-12-2014, 12:23 PM
I must be misunderstanding you, Beavis. Or you me. Or both. Because there's no possible way one can say Libya is "worse" than Iraq using any objective measurment. Money spent, American deaths and injuries, non-American deaths and injuries, damage caused, chaos caused, fuel given to the jihad, etc. It's just not remotely close on any of these measures.

Simply put.

Invading Iraq to remove a dictator was a mistake.
Abandoning Iraq was a bigger mistake.

Launching strikes in Libya to remove a dictator was a mistake.
Abandoning Libya to whatever fate Al Qaeda had in mind for it was a bigger mistake.

I'm not saying Libya IS worse than Iraq, though someday that math might change. I am saying Libya IS worse than Iraq would be had we done the right thing and stuck around.

We keep piling mistake on top of mistake. And then pointing back to the original one saying "Well if not for that mistake..."

One, you can say "lesson learned", but that doesn't absolve you from the accountability for that mistake. You still need to do your best to fix it. Even if you didn't like it in the first place.

And Two, even more important, don't heckle the mistakes of the past while recommitting them in the present. If you want the benefit of lecturing from hindsight on Iraq, at least act like you know what it actually taught us.

BroncoBeavis
08-12-2014, 12:26 PM
So you're saying it's OK to bump off a government you don't like as long as you don't use a justification you see as invalid?

I'm sorry I thought it was about bumping off foreign governments at all.

Naked partisan cheerleading. That's the only coherent message to draw.

Rohirrim
08-12-2014, 12:29 PM
So you're saying it's OK to bump off a government you don't like as long as you don't use a justification you see as invalid?

I'm sorry I thought it was about bumping off foreign governments at all.

You mean "invalid" as in no weapons of mass destruction were found? Nice to see a Right Winger admit that the Bush/Cheney fiasco was conducted for reasons that were completely invalid. And here I thought we were going to get a "mushroom cloud?" What happened to that?

Also, as far as I can remember about Libya, Gaddafi was headed for Benghazi with an army and promised to massacre thousands of Libyans when the French hit him first from the air. Isn't that what happened? Then, other countries, including the U.S., joined in. How did this morph into Obama unilaterally invading Libya? I don't remember us putting boots on the ground either, although maybe we should have, given the loss of that ambassador and others.

Rohirrim
08-12-2014, 12:31 PM
Simply put.

Invading Iraq to remove a dictator was a mistake.
Abandoning Iraq was a bigger mistake.

Launching strikes in Libya to remove a dictator was a mistake.
Abandoning Libya to whatever fate Al Qaeda had in mind for it was a bigger mistake.

I'm not saying Libya IS worse than Iraq, though someday that math might change. I am saying Libya IS worse than Iraq would be had we done the right thing and stuck around.

We keep piling mistake on top of mistake. And then pointing back to the original one saying "Well if not for that mistake..."

One, you can say "lesson learned", but that doesn't absolve you from the accountability for that mistake. You still need to do your best to fix it. Even if you didn't like it in the first place.

And Two, even more important, don't heckle the mistakes of the past while recommitting them in the present. If you want the benefit of lecturing from hindsight on Iraq, at least act like you know what it actually taught us.

So, Bush made a mistake in invading Iraq, but Obama should have kept American troops in Iraq indefinitely to cure the initial mistake? Boy! I'd love to see the logic charted out on that one. Uh, didn't we try that in Vietnam?

nyuk nyuk
08-12-2014, 12:32 PM
People don't seem to get that be it Iraq or Libya or Syria, it's all part of the BIPARTISAN plan to remove regimes formerly friendly to the USSR before another super power arises.

BroncoBeavis
08-12-2014, 12:39 PM
Also, as far as I can remember about Libya, Gaddafi was headed for Benghazi with an army and promised to massacre thousands of Libyans when the French hit him first from the air. Isn't that what happened? Then, other countries, including the U.S., joined in. How did this morph into Obama unilaterally invading Libya? I don't remember us putting boots on the ground either, although maybe we should have, given the loss of that ambassador and others.

No. We coordinated the whole attack between France, the UK and ourselves, We even sent cruise missiles in against Libyan air defense on day 1. As for the "bad things are gonna happen" argument, that's pretty much an assumed constant in any of these situations.

Rohirrim
08-12-2014, 01:22 PM
People don't seem to get that be it Iraq or Libya or Syria, it's all part of the BIPARTISAN plan to remove regimes formerly friendly to the USSR before another super power arises.

The USSR died in 1991.

W*GS
08-12-2014, 01:56 PM
The USSR died in 1991.

His Bircherite fearmongering is still going strong.

nyuk nyuk
08-12-2014, 04:13 PM
The USSR died in 1991.

And?

nyuk nyuk
08-12-2014, 04:14 PM
His Bircherite fearmongering is still going strong.

Noting that the USSR was indeed a threat is not being "Bircherite."

W*GS
08-12-2014, 06:19 PM
Noting that the USSR was indeed a threat is not being "Bircherite."

Thinking that the USSR will reanimate and give you yet another reason to be fearful is not just Bircherite, but deluded.

No, Putin isn't Stalin II.

TailgateNut
08-12-2014, 07:16 PM
If you don't get the limits of American (or anybody's) military power by now, you never will. We were in Afghanistan for ten years. Have we fixed it? We spent thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq and it's more ****ed up than ever. Gee, maybe our thinking is wrong?


Omit the "IF". Cutt is a clueless coward who advocates for any and all military action as long as he doesn't have to break a sweat or shed blood by getting personally involved.

TailgateNut
08-12-2014, 07:20 PM
US foreign is a bipartisan affair. When it backfires, Democrats try to claim it was a Republican-only enterprise.

Your Boy Bush started this BS in the ME as his unfunded and un-funded "Ultimate Revenge Tour". ....and now we get to deal with the after effects of cluster****. Say what you will........this is on him and Cheney (the devil child).

Meck77
08-12-2014, 08:08 PM
Your Boy Bush started this BS in the ME as his unfunded and un-funded "Ultimate Revenge Tour". ....and now we get to deal with the after effects of cluster****. Say what you will........this is on him and Cheney (the devil child).

Funny how we American's blame ourselves for creating the holy war that has lasted for centuries.

Seems to me we've spent untold billions and lost a lot of men defending Israel. And for what in return? This is what it's really all about.

peacepipe
08-12-2014, 08:25 PM
Funny how we American's blame ourselves for creating the holy war that has lasted for centuries.

Easier for me to blame our alliance with Israel.

Speak for yourself. Our alliance with isreal is not what destabilized the ME.

Invading Iraq on the other hand...

Meck77
08-12-2014, 08:32 PM
Speak for yourself. Our alliance with isreal is not what destabilized the ME.

Invading Iraq on the other hand...

Israel was blowing the whistle on Iraq. . I'm talking gulf war I. Israel convinced the US that if they got involved it could create a world war. We sent Patriots in to defend Israel from the scuds. Maybe you were too young to remember. Not sure how old you are.

peacepipe
08-12-2014, 09:09 PM
Israel was blowing the whistle on Iraq. . I'm talking gulf war I. Israel convinced the US that if they got involved it could create a world war. We sent Patriots in to defend Israel from the scuds. Maybe you were too young to remember. Not sure how old you are.

So it wasn't because Iraq invaded Kuwait?

TailgateNut
08-12-2014, 10:45 PM
Funny how we American's blame ourselves for creating the holy war that has lasted for centuries.

Seems to me we've spent untold billions and lost a lot of men defending Israel. And for what in return? This is what it's really all about.

I didn't say that we created the Holy war in the ME, nor did I say I agreed with our policies of feeding untold gazillions to Israel (because I do not agree with that BAD HABIT). I do however blame Dumb**** and the Evil Bastard for sticking their noses into that ****hole full of religious nutcases ( not that we don't have enough in our own country) known to most as the ME.

cutthemdown
08-12-2014, 11:45 PM
If you don't get the limits of American (or anybody's) military power by now, you never will. We were in Afghanistan for ten years. Have we fixed it? We spent thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq and it's more ****ed up than ever. Gee, maybe our thinking is wrong?

We have tried the isolationist thing before and it turned out even worst. Also what is going on in Iraq is because of Obama's policies in the Mideast.

Letting Egypt fall is one thing, but he actually helped it along saying Mubarek had to go. Once that happened the military let him go. That snowballed into Libya where the UN, France, with help from America decided Mubarak had to go as well.

Then he sets it off in Syria saying Assad you are next......but it doesn't work out. Now look at how many are dead? He pulls out of Iraq leaving a huge void in security. So what happens? Syria spills into Iraq and now the whole region ****ed up big time.

Then he doesn't really do much about Israel until they invade. Now it's too late for any type of deal making. It's time to kill now.

This guy can't leave fast enough. Sometimes by intervening it's better for the world. IMO in Iraq the big mistake was disbanding the iraqi army. Had Bush not done that reconstruction would have been smoother. In any event Obama didn't try hard enough to get an agreement to stay.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-13-2014, 03:19 AM
"I think the best part of this job is to set in motion big changes of history - it's unbelievably exciting to be in a position to do that."
George W. Bush, 43rd president of the United States

Beavis' boy. :oyvey:

Yep (which is why no one should take anything Beavis or his ultra-right buddies have to say about Iraq seriously.)

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-13-2014, 03:46 AM
Just came across this headline on the web:

Congressional Leaders Back Iraq Airstrikes

Since when does Congress "back" anything Obama does?

Just goes to show who really runs this country (hint: neither Congress nor Obama.)

TonyR
08-13-2014, 06:30 AM
lol @ cutthemdown. Iraq is Obama's fault. He didn't try hard enough. Good stuff.

cutthemdown
08-13-2014, 11:27 AM
lol @ cutthemdown. Iraq is Obama's fault. He didn't try hard enough. Good stuff.

He said once it was his decision to not leave troops, then when **** hit the fan he said it was Iraqs choice. Had we left a security force, had he handled Syria better, then ISIS would not be taking over swaths of Iraq and destablizing the whole region.

W*GS
08-13-2014, 11:38 AM
He said once it was his decision to not leave troops, then when **** hit the fan he said it was Iraqs choice. Had we left a security force, had he handled Syria better, then ISIS would not be taking over swaths of Iraq and destablizing the whole region.

And the US president is commander-in-chief of the world and when the other guy in the elevator sharts, it's the president's fault.

In your reality, the president's balls must be cantaloupe-sized.

Rohirrim
08-13-2014, 11:48 AM
He said once it was his decision to not leave troops, then when **** hit the fan he said it was Iraqs choice. Had we left a security force, had he handled Syria better, then ISIS would not be taking over swaths of Iraq and destablizing the whole region.

The Right Wing practices collective amnesia. Listening to them, you wouldn't even know that Dubya/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Perle etc. etc. etc ever existed.

If Obama had left 30,000 or 50,000 troops in Iraq would it have made a difference? Sure. But what difference? Nobody can answer that. Would ISIS have arisen? Probably, given that much of their force originated out of Syria. Would they have entered Iraq? Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows, maybe they would have just turned their craziness on American positions and, instead of Iraqi and Kurdish dead, we'd be talking about more Americans killed? Maybe we could have played Fallujah all over again? Yesterday, an Afghanistan infiltrator killed a two star general in Kabul. If Americans were still in Iraq would they be the targets of suicide attacks? Sure.

The Right Wingers are giving each other hards-ons about how Obama ****ed up while conveniently ignoring that if the GIANT ****-up that started this whole mess (carried out by their leader with their eager encouragement) had not occurred, we wouldn't be in that ****hole and it would not be our problem.

So, no, I am not for "isolationism." I'm just opposed to an Imperial America and military adventurism that not only does our country no good, but dumps money into the pockets of the military/industrial complex and its privatized, mercenary attachments.

Oh, and I'd love to hear your plan on Syria. We gave weapons to the most moderate forces we could find and now ISIS is running around with some of those weapons, having in some cases bought them from rebels. Here's the rule: When you choose to go into Crazyland, expect crazy **** to happen. Democracy only appeals to people who believe in reason. You can't export it to crazy people and hope that they'll suddenly become rational.

cutthemdown
08-14-2014, 02:01 AM
We sent some light arms to Syria but nothing big from what I have read or heard. The whole reason Hilliary and Obama are feuding right now is Hilliary said him not arming the moderate Syrian rebels was a huge blunder. She said he operates on the idea let's not make a big mistake. Implying Obama does nothing.

So ISIS is powerful because they aren't moderate, and did get armed. But it wasn't by the USA. ISIS actually makes money selling oil and electricity to people in Syria. They probably get weapons through the Saudis. I doubt ISIS is using anything but maybe some expertise from training by former moderate Syrian rebels that flipped to ISIS because they pay so much better.

No doubt ISIS only is gaining power because Obama didn't handle Iraq right (should have left troops) or Syria right (should have either finished assad himself or given more then light arms to the more moderate rebels.

cutthemdown
08-14-2014, 02:11 AM
I'm in agreement we can't have our troops fight to oust Assad, but we can crush ISIS is Obama wants to. First any oil fields they are in control of have to be made inoperable. Any electricity generation they have in Syria you need to take out.

Then we probably need troops back into Iraq to work with the Iraqi army and push them back into Syria.

elsid13
08-14-2014, 02:49 AM
I'm in agreement we can't have our troops fight to oust Assad, but we can crush ISIS is Obama wants to. First any oil fields they are in control of have to be made inoperable. Any electricity generation they have in Syria you need to take out.

Then we probably need troops back into Iraq to work with the Iraqi army and push them back into Syria.

Destroying those facilities doesn't hurt ISIS, it hurts and piss off the local population, which in turn strength ISIS position.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-14-2014, 02:56 AM
Destroying those facilities doesn't hurt ISIS, it hurts and piss off the local population, which in turn strength ISIS position.

You have to chuckle at the idea of a BushCo cheerleader like cutthemdown thinking he's qualified to advise re: the military response to Iraq.

Too funny. :D

cutthemdown
08-14-2014, 10:32 AM
Destroying those facilities doesn't hurt ISIS, it hurts and piss off the local population, which in turn strength ISIS position.

You have to cut off the money. They actually sell the electricity back to the same govt they are fighting.

cutthemdown
08-14-2014, 10:34 AM
You have to chuckle at the idea of a BushCo cheerleader like cutthemdown thinking he's qualified to advise re: the military response to Iraq.

Too funny. :D

You don't even know the laws of our country so why argue with you?

cutthemdown
08-14-2014, 10:36 AM
Destroying those facilities doesn't hurt ISIS, it hurts and piss off the local population, which in turn strength ISIS position.

So just let them keep making tons of money and buying weapons? That is what hurts the local population. Go ahead an cheer for Obamas hands off plan while millions of kids get butchered.

It makes how liberals pretend to care about the Palestinians reveal itself as purely anti Israeli BS.

TonyR
08-14-2014, 11:24 AM
It almost seems as if James Fallows is directly speaking to the likes of cutthemdown and their oversimplified, myopic, perspective lacking takes on foreign policy matters:

The easiest and least useful stance when it comes to foreign policy is: Situation X is terrible, we have to do something. Or its cousin: Situation X is terrible, you should have done something. Pointing out terribleness around the world is not even half of the necessary thought-work in foreign policy. The harder and more important part—what constitutes actual statesmanship—is considering exactly which “something” you would do; and why that exact something would make conditions better rather than worse; and what Pandora’s box you might be opening; and how the results of your something will look a year from now, or a decade, when the terribleness of this moment has passed.

E.g.: Yeah, we should have “done something” in Syria to prevent the rise of ISIS. But the U.S. did a hell of a lot of somethings in Iraq over the past decade, with a lot more leverage that it could possibly have had in Syria. And the result of the somethings in Iraq was … ? A long story in the NYT tells us that the current leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the caliph himself, drew his political formation from America’s own efforts to “do something” in Iraq... http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/two-ways-of-looking-at-the-hillary-clinton-interview/375906/?single_page=true

cutthemdown
08-14-2014, 11:30 AM
Sounds to me like he is talking about Obamacare. :)

cutthemdown
08-14-2014, 11:41 AM
Whatever mistakes have been made you can't let ISIS keep control of oil producing areas in IRAQ. That is the real goal.....MONEY! it's always about money and control.

Even if our approach is going to be no troops, no big money, we have to thwart ISIS from gaining more oil revenue.

Rohirrim
08-14-2014, 12:49 PM
It almost seems as if James Fallows is directly speaking to the likes of cutthemdown and their oversimplified, myopic, perspective lacking takes on foreign policy matters:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/two-ways-of-looking-at-the-hillary-clinton-interview/375906/?single_page=true

Sounds like Hillary will be the champion of the center Right, status quo party, all right. How about this? First, we stop flooding the world with weapons? We are the worlds' number one arms supplier. Second, we only support Israel insofar as they operate based on humane principles of international conduct? Third, we dismantle our own military/industrial complex and take down the paranoia a few notches (as Jimmy Carter pointed out yesterday, we're the ones who have invaded 30 countries since WWII. Nobody else comes close). The existence of this complex perpetuates nothing but endless war. It can't survive without it. Fourth, we marshal all our forces to become energy independent, and help the world become energy independent, and start confronting, and isolating the Saudis who are supporting psycho Wahhabists like ISIS, and others in Pakistan and elsewhere?

Maybe what's going on in Ferguson, MO is a microcosm of the greater personality of Superpower? Going into every foreign political engagement armed to the teeth leads to armed conflict. Sooner or later, something goes off. Threaten, threaten and threaten, and sooner or later, somebody takes you up on it. What kind of foreign policy is that?

Rohirrim
08-14-2014, 01:30 PM
Maliki agrees to step down:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/14/maliki-stands-down_n_5679590.html?1408047012

TailgateNut
08-14-2014, 04:03 PM
I'm in agreement we can't have our troops fight to oust Assad, but we can crush ISIS is Obama wants to. First any oil fields they are in control of have to be made inoperable. Any electricity generation they have in Syria you need to take out.

Then we probably need troops back into Iraq to work with the Iraqi army and push them back into Syria.


How about you go to Iraq.....you are always one of the first to advocate for war and feet on the ground......back up your balsy BS. You say you care about vets......go cover their blind side.....

Requiem
08-14-2014, 04:24 PM
Trillions of dollars -- all for nothing.

Arkie
08-14-2014, 04:56 PM
How about you go to Iraq.....you are always one of the first to advocate for war and feet on the ground......back up your balsy BS. You say you care about vets......go cover their blind side.....

Chickenhawks should go to the front lines. They owe more to this country than 18 year old kids who didn't get anything yet.

TailgateNut
08-14-2014, 05:01 PM
Chickenhawks should go to the front lines. They owe more to this country than 18 year old kids who didn't get anything yet.

A-friggin-men, especially the ones' like Cutt, he's been beating the war drum since he's become a member.....never served a day, but always one of the first to want our kids to go fight.....then he justifies it by saying that he blows his trumpet for the troops and vets........how brave of him:spit: Most of the vets I know including myself would tell him to blow it out of his ass.

elsid13
08-14-2014, 05:33 PM
So just let them keep making tons of money and buying weapons? That is what hurts the local population. Go ahead an cheer for Obamas hands off plan while millions of kids get butchered.

It makes how liberals pretend to care about the Palestinians reveal itself as purely anti Israeli BS.

No, we provide Planning,Air Support and C3ISR so the Kurds and the Iraq forces can seize those assets. You also have Treasury and State working on the ME states provide the banking transaction to seize the funds that ISIS is using. Also force Turkey and Saudi to close the borders to prevent the arms from crossing into western Iraq.

DenverBrit
08-14-2014, 07:24 PM
So just let them keep making tons of money and buying weapons? That is what hurts the local population. Go ahead an cheer for Obamas hands off plan while millions of kids get butchered.

It makes how liberals pretend to care about the Palestinians reveal itself as purely anti Israeli BS.

This is typical of your posts.

Ludicrous, over the top statements with a heavy dose of partisan ignorance.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-14-2014, 08:11 PM
A-friggin-men, especially the ones' like Cutt, he's been beating the war drum since he's become a member.....never served a day, but always one of the first to want our kids to go fight.....then he justifies it by saying that he blows his trumpet for the troops and vets........how brave of him:spit: Most of the vets I know including myself would tell him to blow it out of his ass.

Co-signed.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-14-2014, 08:14 PM
Trillions of dollars -- all for nothing.

Unless you're a member of that small circle of vultures into whose coffers those trillions disappeared (read: Bush's base.)

cutthemdown
08-14-2014, 08:43 PM
A-friggin-men, especially the ones' like Cutt, he's been beating the war drum since he's become a member.....never served a day, but always one of the first to want our kids to go fight.....then he justifies it by saying that he blows his trumpet for the troops and vets........how brave of him:spit: Most of the vets I know including myself would tell him to blow it out of his ass.

Dude it's a war saxophone!

TailgateNut
08-14-2014, 08:56 PM
Dude it's a war saxophone!


Do you actually think I'm amused by your idiotic takes and responses? You're a disgrace. I know your kind.......start a fight in a bar and then run and hide under the table when the **** hits the fan.......call yourself patriotic but have never served your country and never do anything which doesn't reward you in one fashion or another....disgusting spineless worm....

cutthemdown
08-14-2014, 09:11 PM
Do you actually think I'm amused by your idiotic takes and responses? You're a disgrace. I know your kind.......start a fight in a bar and then run and hide under the table when the **** hits the fan.......call yourself patriotic but have never served your country and never do anything which doesn't reward you in one fashion or another....disgusting spineless worm....

Made you look, so endeth the joke.

cutthemdown
08-14-2014, 09:11 PM
I was going to play the war drum but the school didn't have any left when I was in 6th grade.

TonyR
08-15-2014, 10:10 AM
Now that I’ve tried to make and defend the case for our current intervention against ISIS, I want to also expand on my reasons for skepticism about the kind of intervention that a number of hawks (including the next Democratic nominee for president, it would seem) believe would have made the current war unnecessary — that is, the kind of military support for Syria’s more moderate/liberal/secular rebels that, it’s argued, would have prevented more radical groups from getting traction in that conflict, and thus forestalled the rise of ISIS to its current bad eminence.

Which, indeed, such support might have done — possibly, theoretically, in the best of all possible worlds. But as we’ve seen in Iraq lately, American armaments in the hands of putative allies and clients have a way of finding their way out of those hands fairly easily, and into the service of causes they’re intended to oppose. And historically, injecting armaments into ongoing civil wars in an effort to influence their outcome has a mixed track record at best... Read the rest here: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/13/syria-and-the-risks-of-intervention/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=3

Rohirrim
08-15-2014, 10:26 AM
The linked article is pretty interesting too:

The paper charts how individual donors in the Gulf encouraged the founding of armed groups, helped to shape the ideological and at times extremist agendas of rebel brigades, and contributed to the fracturing of the military opposition. From the early days of the Syrian uprising, Kuwait-based donors—including one group currently under U.S. sanction for terrorist financing—began to pressure Syrians to take up arms. The new brigades often adopted the ideological outlook of their donors. As the war dragged on and the civilian death toll rose, the path toward extremism became self-reinforcing. Today, there is evidence that Kuwaiti donors have backed rebels who have committed atrocities and who are either directly linked to al Qaeda or cooperate with its affiliated brigades on the ground.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/12/06-private-gulf-financing-syria-extremist-rebels-sectarian-conflict-dickinson

Rohirrim
08-15-2014, 10:32 AM
Read the rest here: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/13/syria-and-the-risks-of-intervention/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=3

I don't see how the McCains and Hillarys of the world can hope to make the argument that arming insurgents is a way to control the outcome in Syria, Iraq, or anywhere else. We've had plenty of experience with this kind of action for many years and it has NEVER turned out the way we wanted. It's like the old Einstein quote of doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-15-2014, 11:10 AM
Sounds like Hillary has no scruples about using Iraq as a political football as she eyes the '16 nomination.

LOL @ her bullsh*t suggestion that there was some moderate force or other in Syria that could have been mobilized against ISIS. What a ****ing joke.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-15-2014, 11:53 AM
I don't see how the McCains and Hillarys of the world can hope to make the argument that arming insurgents is a way to control the outcome in Syria, Iraq, or anywhere else. We've had plenty of experience with this kind of action for many years and it has NEVER turned out the way we wanted. It's like the old Einstein quote of doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

These adventures never turn out the way we (the people) want them to, but for the vultures who profit from war, these things always go exactly as planned. These sociopaths couldn't care less about any of the nominal political or moral objectives - they just want the gravy train to keep running as long as possible.

Bronco Yoda
08-15-2014, 12:00 PM
These adventures never turn out the way we (the people) want them to, but for the vultures who profit from war, these things always go exactly as planned. These sociopaths couldn't care less about any of the nominal political or moral objectives - they just want the gravy train to keep running as long as possible.

Sadly this is so very true

Rohirrim
08-19-2014, 05:06 PM
ISIS beheads American journalist:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/19/world/meast/isis-james-foley/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I didn't watch.

nyuk nyuk
08-22-2014, 05:48 PM
ISIS beheads American journalist:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/19/world/meast/isis-james-foley/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I didn't watch.

Just another day at the mosque. It's OK to look. It's a peaceful religion.

Arkie
08-22-2014, 06:03 PM
All abuse of religion is evil. See Christianity in the Dark Ages.

nyuk nyuk
08-22-2014, 06:04 PM
All abuse of religion is evil. See Christianity in the Dark Ages.

There's a difference between abusing religion and a religion calling for abuse.

See Islam.

barryr
08-22-2014, 06:18 PM
All abuse of religion is evil. See Christianity in the Dark Ages.

Try the here and now and see which religion is doing that. Hint, it's not Christians.

TailgateNut
08-22-2014, 06:23 PM
There's a difference between abusing religion and a religion calling for abuse.

See Islam.

So what do you call the christians who are pedophiles and those who ignore sexual abuse of children by their own? See the Vatican

TailgateNut
08-22-2014, 06:24 PM
Try the here and now and see which religion is doing that. Hint, it's not Christians.

Wrong...see above.....this is in the "here and now"....Christians

barryr
08-22-2014, 06:26 PM
There's a difference between abusing religion and a religion calling for abuse.

See Islam.

It's been very clear that those that criticize all religions do so because they can hide from having to single out Islam.Bottom line they are chickens hit, too scared to mention Islam, so just paint them all the same. Funny, if one tried to do that with race, they'd be considered a bigot.

barryr
08-22-2014, 06:42 PM
Oh ISIS may be in America already, but eh, let's worry more about Christians and talk radio as the enemy.

nyuk nyuk
08-23-2014, 11:15 AM
Oh ISIS may be in America already, but eh, let's worry more about Christians and talk radio as the enemy.

They don't go after Muslims this way because if nothing else, they know if they do, they're at high risk of having their throats slit.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-23-2014, 12:15 PM
Oh ISIS may be in America already, but eh, let's worry more about Christians and talk radio as the enemy.

Poor frightened widdle barry - scary brown people behind every bush. :D

TailgateNut
08-23-2014, 12:18 PM
Poor frightened widdle barry - scary brown people behind every bush. :D


Freedom Fries and Patriot Act.......blah blah blah..........they like to start wars but are afraid of their own ****ing shadow.

Rohirrim
08-23-2014, 12:30 PM
Oh ISIS may be in America already, but eh, let's worry more about Christians and talk radio as the enemy.

http://cdn.historycommons.org/images/events/b027_bush_mission_accomplished_2050081722-7750.jpg

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-23-2014, 12:34 PM
Freedom Fries and Patriot Act.......blah blah blah..........they like to start wars but are afraid of their own ****ing shadow.

Yep.

Talk about your unbelievable ironies...

ISIS is a Frankenstein monster created by barry's hero, the Mad Cowboy, and ditto tools like barryr defended and cheered the "creative process" every step of the way!

Interestingly, a report by the Pentagon's Defense Science Board, commissioned by Donald Rumsfeld, predicted in no uncertain terms that Dim Son's Iraq misadventure would create more terrorists than it would eliminate.

Barryr and these other right-wing half-wits don't want to lie in the bed they've made.

nyuk nyuk
08-23-2014, 01:03 PM
Freedom Fries and Patriot Act.......blah blah blah..........they like to start wars but are afraid of their own ****ing shadow.

Yeah like how they started the Vietnam war and ****.

:~ohyah!:

nyuk nyuk
08-23-2014, 01:03 PM
ISIS is a Frankenstein monster created by barry's hero, the Mad Cowboy, and ditto tools like barryr defended and cheered the "creative process" every step of the way!

Prove it.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-23-2014, 09:04 PM
Prove it.

Only a mental midget like you still needs proof at this stage of the game.

If you could read, you'd see how the Defense Science Board warned Rumsfeld of this exact scenario.

But cheerleaders like you were too busy shaking their 'W' pom poms to listen.

nyuk nyuk
08-24-2014, 01:46 PM
Only a mental midget like you still needs proof at this stage of the game.

If you could read, you'd see how the Defense Science Board warned Rumsfeld of this exact scenario.

But cheerleaders like you were too busy shaking their 'W' pom poms to listen.

Yes, I learned that in college: Call the professor a "mental midget" when they ask you to properly source your paper.

Who needs sources when you have an internet peacock strut, after all? I mean, if an arrogant outburst isn't evidence enough, then by GOD, what is?

What was I thinking?

Rascal
08-24-2014, 04:17 PM
Really wish we would/had take(n) the approach of China and use our economics to develop Africa and basically get our oil for free without this middle east crap.

Or better yet, use all the money we are spending over there to develop our nation and come up with alternative energy.

I thought Obama would fix Bush's mess-ups, but instead his approach (don't do stupid stuff) is making things worse.

Can we have at least a decent president?

TonyR
08-25-2014, 04:14 PM
[F]or those who know the intricacies of Catholic moral teaching, Francis’s openness to military intervention in Iraq makes perfect sense. For 1500 years, the Church has promoted the teaching of St. Augustine: that there can be no true peace without justice. This ancient teaching has crystallized into the Church’s modern day just war principle, which holds that nations only ought to enter into military campaigns against unjust aggressors as a last resort and only in limited scope and circumstances.

Under that paradigm, does the current situation in Iraq merit such a military response? Pope Francis isn’t ruling it out. Now contrary to the absurd claim by Vox’s Max Fisher, Pope Francis isn’t calling for the tenth crusade against the Middle Eastern people. Instead, he’s proposing a clear-eyed response to a critical crisis.http://time.com/3148584/pope-promotes-peace-not-pacifism-in-iraq/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+time%2Fideas+%28TIME+Ideas%29

Rohirrim
08-25-2014, 04:22 PM
Really wish we would/had take(n) the approach of China and use our economics to develop Africa and basically get our oil for free without this middle east crap.

Or better yet, use all the money we are spending over there to develop our nation and come up with alternative energy.

I thought Obama would fix Bush's mess-ups, but instead his approach (don't do stupid stuff) is making things worse.

Can we have at least a decent president?

If Congress refuses to do anything, I don't know what difference it would make.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-25-2014, 09:06 PM
Yes, I learned that in college: Call the professor a "mental midget" when they ask you to properly source your paper.

Who needs sources when you have an internet peacock strut, after all? I mean, if an arrogant outburst isn't evidence enough, then by GOD, what is?

What was I thinking?

You're lacking even the most basic information re: the history of ISIS.

I suggest you do your homework before you open your yap and embarrass yourself here.

ant1999e
08-25-2014, 11:18 PM
Gen. Martin Dempsey said Sunday that once he determines the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria militants in Iraq have become a direct threat to the U.S. homeland, he will recommend the U.S. military move directly against the group in Syria.

But the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that right now, he still believes the insurgent group is still more a regional threat and is not plotting or planning attacks against either the U.S. or Europe...
So far, the Obama administration has restricted its military action against the militants to specific operations within Iraq, but concerns have increased as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) extended its reach, taking control of a swath of land stretching from Syria across the border and deep into western and northern Iraq.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gen-dempsey-pentagon-will-move-against-isis-if-necessary/

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-28-2014, 11:54 PM
The Iraq War was a Smashing Success

[Make no mistake about it: by any vaguely human measure, the situation in Iraq is a US-made disaster of historic proportions. Millions dead or wounded, millions more displaced, and all overseen by a kleptocratic government more interested in grinding old enemies into the dust than governing...and of course, yes, a seemingly endless cycle of violence that claims new victims every day.

The beginning of this week saw bombs ring out all over Iraq, leaving 212 dead and 184 wounded. Three bombs exploded in a commercial district in Kirkuk, killing 31. A suicide bomber charged the gate of a security building in Baghdad, killing eleven. A Sunni mosque in Diyala was attacked, leaving 60 dead. A car bombing in Karbala killed 12. Another car bomb killed 11 people in Hilla. The butcher's bill goes on, and on, and on.
US military operations in Iraq, directed against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), are escalating by the day. Since the second week in August, the US has carried out some 100 air strikes in Iraq, has deployed about 1,000 troops back into the country, and is tickling the outside edges of bombing targets in Syria.

The question of whether to expand this ongoing war, however, is not likely to be put to a vote in congress any time soon; a roomful of Democratic congressional aides made it abundantly clear that the last thing their bosses want is to be forced to make a public vote on further military action in Iraq. Such a vote, they claim, is far too sticky a wicket to wrangle in an election year.

Same as it ever was.

Yet consider this: the news site Vox ran a story at the beginning of August under the headline, "The US Bombing Its Own Guns Perfectly Sums Up America's Total Failure in Iraq." The article refers to the US air campaign against ISIS, which is flush with US weapons of war obtained from the collapsed Iraqi military. The article reads:

The absurdity runs deep: America is using American military equipment to bomb other pieces of American military equipment halfway around the world. The reason the American military equipment got there in the first place was because, in 2003, the US had to use its military to rebuild the Iraqi army, which it just finished destroying with the American military.

The American weapons the US gave the Iraqi army totally failed at making Iraq secure and have become tools of terror used by an offshoot of al-Qaeda to terrorize the Iraqis that the US supposedly liberated a decade ago. And so now the US has to use American weaponry to destroy the American weaponry it gave Iraqis to make Iraqis safer, in order to make Iraqis safer.

It keeps going: the US is intervening on behalf of Iraqi Kurds, our ally, because their military has old Russian-made weapons, whereas ISIS, which is America's enemy, has higher-quality American weapons. "[Kurdish forces] are literally outgunned by an ISIS that is fighting with hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. military equipment seized from the Iraqi Army who abandoned it," Ali Khedery, a former American official in Iraq, told the New York Times.
So now we're bombing the guns that we didn't mean to give ISIS because we didn't give guns to their enemies because then ISIS might get guns.

It makes you want to tear your teeth out, right? The Marines use a phrase - "Charlie Foxtrot" - which is shorthand for "cluster f-k," being a series of disasters leading to total catastrophe. The United States' involvement in Iraq, dating back to 1990 but wildly exacerbated since March of 2003, has been a pluperfect Charlie Foxtrot from the jump, and gets worse with every passing year.

Right?

Well, it depends on who you ask.

Ask the "defense" industry, the makers and sellers of all these weapons, and they'll tell you this Iraq debacle is the greatest thing to happen since Vietnam. Twenty-four years of war since 1990, all those missiles and bombs dropped, all those bullets fired, all those armored vehicles blown up that needed to be replaced, all of which come with a price tag to be paid out of the taxpayers' pockets. Not everyone gets a payday that lasts a quarter of a century. The "defense" industry got one, again, and it is ongoing, and expanding.

The United States is bombing weapons the "defense" industry already got paid for with ordnance they will get paid for.

Think about it this way: In the same fashion that most people think the Iraq war was a disaster, the same majority now see George W. Bush as the worst president in modern American history. By the metrics of those who delivered him to the Oval Office, however, George W. Bush was the most successful president in the history of the country. Everything he was sent to do by those who paid his freight - gut the Treasury, break the government, establish permanent war, and make his friends rich - he accomplished to perfection.
So it is with Iraq. You think it's a disaster, I think it's a disaster, and by any vaguely human measure, it is a disaster...but for a few people, the ones who pay that political freight and count coins according to how many bombs and bullets get used, the specter of ongoing war and fear and death and weaponized mayhem makes what is happening in Iraq the equivalent of Christmas in August, a smashing success, and a fantastic return on their investment.

- William Rivers Pitt

Rohirrim
08-30-2014, 08:30 AM
The Iraq War was a Smashing Success



- William Rivers Pitt

Think about it this way: In the same fashion that most people think the Iraq war was a disaster, the same majority now see George W. Bush as the worst president in modern American history. By the metrics of those who delivered him to the Oval Office, however, George W. Bush was the most successful president in the history of the country. Everything he was sent to do by those who paid his freight - gut the Treasury, break the government, establish permanent war, and make his friends rich - he accomplished to perfection.
So it is with Iraq. You think it's a disaster, I think it's a disaster, and by any vaguely human measure, it is a disaster...but for a few people, the ones who pay that political freight and count coins according to how many bombs and bullets get used, the specter of ongoing war and fear and death and weaponized mayhem makes what is happening in Iraq the equivalent of Christmas in August, a smashing success, and a fantastic return on their investment.

Bingo!

And not only that, a lot of those weapons came, not just from the Iraqi military (many of whom are now leading ISIS units), but from our "allies" in the surrounding Arab states who are now reselling them to the newly oil-rich ISIS. Everybody is making some money. Success!

There's nothing funny about this, but if there was, it would be this: Jon Stewart came up with the solution - Stop flooding the region with American weapons! Of course, this is never going to happen. Why? Because the military/industrial complex is one of the totalitarian factors running this country. I refer you, once again, to Alice in Wonderland... ;D

cutthemdown
08-30-2014, 12:13 PM
Obama needed to leave troops there to help Iraq along and stay stable. We all told you this would happen if he pulled out. Bush had Iraq moving in the right direction, Obama blew it and ran away like a bitch.

DenverBrit
08-30-2014, 12:24 PM
Obama needed to leave troops there to help Iraq along and stay stable. We all told you this would happen if he pulled out. Bush had Iraq moving in the right direction, Obama blew it and ran away like a b****.

:spit:

Rohirrim
08-30-2014, 12:53 PM
Obama needed to leave troops there to help Iraq along and stay stable. We all told you this would happen if he pulled out. Bush had Iraq moving in the right direction, Obama blew it and ran away like a b****.

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/2705453/stooges-o.gif

TailgateNut
08-30-2014, 01:14 PM
Obama needed to leave troops there to help Iraq along and stay stable. We all told you this would happen if he pulled out. Bush had Iraq moving in the right direction, Obama blew it and ran away like a b****.


When are you going to realize you are the laughing stock of the mane with your idiotic opinions

DenverBrit
08-30-2014, 01:22 PM
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/2705453/stooges-o.gif

Which one is Rumsfeld again?