Islamic Militants poised to take over Iraq

[barryr]

Liberals need a reminder. Apparently democrats were lying about Iraq too. But they supported it before they were against it or was it against it before they supported it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8

[Rigs11]

Originally Posted by barryr

Liberals need a reminder. Apparently democrats were lying about Iraq too. But they supported it before they were against it or was it against it before they supported it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8

they were fed crap intelligence by your daddy dubya.

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

History is how I know. The idea of America as some kind of global god of crisis management is one we have to thoroughly get rid of. If Vietnam didn't teach us that we can't fix everything we touch I don't know what will. I guess we'll just keep shoving our noses in everybody's business until the end of our brief span on the historical stage. America just can't seem to grasp the idea of blowback.

translation: "I'm copping out"

whatever, until you admit that BO bears much of the responsibility for what's going on in Iraq, we have nothing left to discuss.

The difference between you and me is I blame the presidency (the office whether GOP of Dem) for their failings. You, being a liberal, only blame the GOP and let BO the cockroach scurry away because he's your guy.

Sad, pathetic, garbage. Congrats on your failings.

[barryr]

Originally Posted by Rigs11

they were fed crap intelligence by your daddy dubya.

, nice try. Back in 1998, many democrats stated Hussein was a danger and Clinton was still president, but Bush lied to them. Nice logic. So they were lied to by Clinton? They were telling the truth, but then lied? Russia also lied as well as a handful of other countries stating the same thing? You liberals with your rewriting history when facts get in the way.

[barryr]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

translation: "I'm copping out"

whatever, until you admit that BO bears much of the responsibility for what's going on in Iraq, we have nothing left to discuss.

The difference between you and me is I blame the presidency (the office whether GOP of Dem) for their failings. You, being a liberal, only blame the GOP and let BO the cockroach scurry away because he's your guy.

Sad, pathetic, garbage. Congrats on your failings.

There isn't a liberal around here at least that finds fault with Obama other than not making more people government dependent.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by barryr

There isn't a liberal around here at least that finds fault with Obama other than not making more people government dependent.

Nice straw man / hasty generalization. Bravo.

Keep up the good work and you will meet your 50 a day quota.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

translation: "I'm copping out"

whatever, until you admit that BO bears much of the responsibility for what's going on in Iraq, we have nothing left to discuss.

The difference between you and me is I blame the presidency (the office whether GOP of Dem) for their failings. You, being a liberal, only blame the GOP and let BO the cockroach scurry away because he's your guy.

Sad, pathetic, garbage. Congrats on your failings.

You obviously have never read any of my posts regarding Obama and how I compare him to James Buchanan. As far as Iraq goes, he was handed a steaming bucket of **** by Bush and now the Conservatives are trashing him because he couldn't improve its smell.

[Johnykbr]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

BTW, what was the biggest blunder in our entire disaster in Iraq? It was when Bremer disbanded the Iraqi army instead of using them to restore order. And now, who does media give a platform to discuss intervention? Bremer. ****ing jaw-dropping.

You're quite right about this. But remember that the right wasn't thrilled with this decision either. I can kind of understand that they didn't want another Iraqi general to take over the country(the argument used then) but that would be substantially better than what is going on now.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

translation: "I'm copping out"

whatever, until you admit that BO bears much of the responsibility for what's going on in Iraq, we have nothing left to discuss.

The difference between you and me is I blame the presidency (the office whether GOP of Dem) for their failings. You, being a liberal, only blame the GOP and let BO the cockroach scurry away because he's your guy.

Sad, pathetic, garbage. Congrats on your failings.

Obama has blundered his way through foreign policy, but the Iraq debacle we have been witnessing, since the US entered Baghdad, is firmly rooted in the Bush administration's incompetency.

Just start with the disbanding of the Iraqi army and security forces and allowing those bitter professionals to go home with all their weapons.
Then add the de-Baathification of the government and replacement with a corrupt, Shia administration and you have the perfect storm of blunders.

US Blunders in Iraq:
De-Baathification and Disbanding
the Army

Early in the occupation of Iraq two key decisions were made that gravely
jeopardized US chances for success in Iraq: (1) the decision to bar from
government work Iraqis who ranked in the top four levels of Sadam’s Baath
Party or who held positions in the top three levels of each ministry; (2) the
decision to disband the Iraqi Army and replace it with a new army built
from scratch. These two fateful decisions were made against the advice of
military and CIA professionals and without consulting important members
of the President’s staff and cabinet. This article will first examine the de-
Baathification order and then take up the even more far reaching decision to
disband the Iraqi Army.
Both of these decisions fueled the insurgency by: (1) alienating hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis who could not support themselves or their families; (2)
by undermining the normal infrastructure necessary for social and economic
activity; (3) by ensuring that there was not sufficient security to carry on
normal life; and (4) by creating insurgents who were angry at the US, many
of whom had weapons and were trained to use them.
These two key decisions, however, were presaged by President Bush’s
decision in late April 2003 to remove Jay Garner and put Paul Bremer in
complete charge of Iraq. Garner had experience in Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War
and had been a career Army officer. In his preparations, he had worked
closely with military planners. Bremer, who had no experience in Iraq or in
military occupations, worked in the Pentagon for the first nine days of May,
and he arrived in Iraq on 12 May 2003.
http://pfiffner.gmu.edu/files/pdfs/A...Iraq%20PDF.pdf

[Johnykbr]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

You obviously have never read any of my posts regarding Obama and how I compare him to James Buchanan. As far as Iraq goes, he was handed a steaming bucket of **** by Bush and now the Conservatives are trashing him because he couldn't improve its smell.

We have a historical analogy for this though which is making a lot of people hypocritical. JFK started Vietnam and just played around over there then LBJ went full retard and blew the whole thing up, but say what you will, he at least knew enough that you either go full out or nothing at all. Then Nixon takes it and tries the same thing then sees nobody likes it and pulls out and thousands of people lose their lives over this. In my opinion, all three are responsible for the mess with Nixon being the most because his exit strategy was freaking awful.

Bush went into Iraq and while initially incredibly successful he went full retard for awhile as well and nothing was accomplished after the first few months. But the Surge happens and Iraq becomes a much better place, not nearly good enough of course but definitely better and trending up. Obama had only one thing to continue to do and he pulled a Nixon.

To be honest, I don't think Iraq was ever going to come out of this well but it sure as hell should have lasted longer than this.

Side note: WTF are the Kurds thinking? They could score some massive PR points here in an area that hates them and they are instead taking their ball and going home. Not to mention that ISIS will eventually go after them if they are successful. The Kurds are the only army disciplined enough to march south and give the Iraqi government time to reorganize. Then they are pretty much guaranteed to keep Mosul afterwards and get some brownie points with the Shiites and the rest of the world.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

[B]

Obama has blundered his way through foreign policy, but the Iraq debacle we have been witnessing, since the US entered Baghdad, is firmly rooted in the Bush administration's incompetency.

Just start with the disbanding of the Iraqi army and security forces and allowing those bitter professionals to go home with all their weapons.
Then add the de-Baathification of the government and replacement with a corrupt, Shia administration and you have the perfect storm of blunders.

Not to mention, Bush didn't consider it important to secure Saddam's armories. No doubt ISIS and ISIL are now using those weapons in their assault on Baghdad, just like insurgents used them for years to build IEDs and blow up our troops.

[Requiem]

Did someone say ISIS?

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Johnykbr

We have a historical analogy for this though which is making a lot of people hypocritical. JFK started Vietnam and just played around over there then LBJ went full retard and blew the whole thing up, but say what you will, he at least knew enough that you either go full out or nothing at all. Then Nixon takes it and tries the same thing then sees nobody likes it and pulls out and thousands of people lose their lives over this. In my opinion, all three are responsible for the mess with Nixon being the most because his exit strategy was freaking awful.

Bush went into Iraq and while initially incredibly successful he went full retard for awhile as well and nothing was accomplished after the first few months. But the Surge happens and Iraq becomes a much better place, not nearly good enough of course but definitely better and trending up. Obama had only one thing to continue to do and he pulled a Nixon.

To be honest, I don't think Iraq was ever going to come out of this well but it sure as hell should have lasted longer than this.

Side note: WTF are the Kurds thinking? They could score some massive PR points here in an area that hates them and they are instead taking their ball and going home. Not to mention that ISIS will eventually go after them if they are successful. The Kurds are the only army disciplined enough to march south and give the Iraqi government time to reorganize. Then they are pretty much guaranteed to keep Mosul afterwards and get some brownie points with the Shiites and the rest of the world.

Don't forget, the Iraqi PM and parliament ordered us out of the country. I don't think there was much wiggle room there.

I don't think the Kurds could give a **** what happens to the rest of Iraq. The Iraqis have treated them like **** for a hundred years. I really expect Obama to unleash drone and missile attacks on the ISIS positions within days.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Not to mention, Bush didn't consider it important to secure Saddam's armories. No doubt ISIS and ISIL are now using those weapons in their assault on Baghdad, just like insurgents used them for years to build IEDs and blow up our troops.

We had all better hope we get it right this time.

[Johnykbr]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Don't forget, the Iraqi PM and parliament ordered us out of the country. I don't think there was much wiggle room there.

I don't think the Kurds could give a **** what happens to the rest of Iraq. The Iraqis have treated them like **** for a hundred years. I really expect Obama to unleash drone and missile attacks on the ISIS positions within days.

They may have passed a referendum to get us out but I'm certain there were ways to tweak that which should have been done so that there was a rapid response force available.

As far as the Kurds, I don't buy that. Turkey, Iran, Syria, and the rest of Iraq have been very vocal about what they would do if an independent Kurdistan ever forms (which is inevitable if Iraq falls) and awhile they are pretty disciplined and powerful, they wouldn't survive that attack. The only thing I can see preventing them is if they think Turkey, Iran, and Syria will view it as an act of war or rebellion by sending their troops outside their autonomous region. With that single exception, I view this as they have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

[Johnykbr]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Not to mention, Bush didn't consider it important to secure Saddam's armories. No doubt ISIS and ISIL are now using those weapons in their assault on Baghdad, just like insurgents used them for years to build IEDs and blow up our troops.

That isn't necessarily true. 99 percent of his military stockpiles were in heavily Baathist or Sunni areas where it took awhile to get to in the invasion. The fact is not that they didn't bother to secure them but they weren't, and couldn't have been, fast enough to secure them.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Johnykbr

That isn't necessarily true. 99 percent of his military stockpiles were in heavily Baathist or Sunni areas where it took awhile to get to in the invasion. The fact is not that they didn't bother to secure them but they weren't, and couldn't have been, fast enough to secure them.

I remember seeing film of a column of U.S. tanks and personnel carriers parked along a road and in the background, Iraqi civilians had pickup trucks parked in front of an armory and were loading up weapons. The U.S. troops weren't ordered to stop it.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Johnykbr

They may have passed a referendum to get us out but I'm certain there were ways to tweak that which should have been done so that there was a rapid response force available.

As far as the Kurds, I don't buy that. Turkey, Iran, Syria, and the rest of Iraq have been very vocal about what they would do if an independent Kurdistan ever forms (which is inevitable if Iraq falls) and awhile they are pretty disciplined and powerful, they wouldn't survive that attack. The only thing I can see preventing them is if they think Turkey, Iran, and Syria will view it as an act of war or rebellion by sending their troops outside their autonomous region. With that single exception, I view this as they have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

The funny thing is that I think an independent Kurdistan allied with us would be one of the best things to happen for U.S. interests in the region. Of course, we can't rile an old ally like Turkey, but it would give a us great political leverage in the region, especially against the interests of Iran and Russia, (and China who is playing their own little dark game of string pulling behind the scenes).

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

[B]

Obama has blundered his way through foreign policy, but the Iraq debacle we have been witnessing, since the US entered Baghdad, is firmly rooted in the Bush administration's incompetency.

Just start with the disbanding of the Iraqi army and security forces and allowing those bitter professionals to go home with all their weapons.
Then add the de-Baathification of the government and replacement with a corrupt, Shia administration and you have the perfect storm of blunders.

No argument here, Iraq Invasion was a complete and utter cluster. But I still hold BO responsible for much of the debacle in Iraq because his lack of diplomacy in Syria and his escapist mentality in Iraq.

Diplomacy is the key word here. This is why I find Obama baffling. He's so loved by the international community yet he's so lousy at diplomacy and bringing adversaries together (that's what diplomacy is, see the UK and Ireland and IRA). You bring apposing parties together and at the very least, keep them talking instead of fighting.

Is that too much to ask, seriously?

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

The funny thing is that I think an independent Kurdistan allied with us would be one of the best things to happen for U.S. interests in the region. Of course, we can't rile an old ally like Turkey, but it would give a us great political leverage in the region, especially against the interests of Iran and Russia, (and China who is playing their own little dark game of string pulling behind the scenes).

Yep, and I say again, this requires much diplomacy because Turkey (late 20th century from a historical perspective) has been a key US ally in the Asia Minor (for lack of a better geographical discription, my apologies). That being said, Turkey is backsliding into Islamic Fundamentalism and if they continue on this path, I see no reason to keep dissing the Kurds.

Again, diplomacy. If I was BO and/or his State Department I'd bring Turkey to the table and say basically "hey, you are seriously jeopardizing US/Turkey relations with your Islamic/militant policies. We want to remain close with Turkey, we value you as an ally in a very unstable area. That being said, we simply refuse to ignore some recent developments in your country. If you don't want to be 'reasonable' about fighting Islamic extremist/terrorist you will force our hand to help the Kurds develop into their own nation. They have been calling out to us for 40 years to help them and we have ignored their pleas because we have respected your position on this issue. Please, let's talk about where your country is going and where we (the USA) see issues/problems."

That's how diplomacy works. Negotiate, listen, advise, respect, negotiate in good faith.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

No argument here, Iraq Invasion was a complete and utter cluster. But I still hold BO responsible for much of the debacle in Iraq because his lack of diplomacy in Syria and his escapist mentality in Iraq.

Diplomacy is the key word here. This is why I find Obama baffling. He's so loved by the international community yet he's so lousy at diplomacy and bringing adversaries together (that's what diplomacy is, see the UK and Ireland and IRA). You bring apposing parties together and at the very least, keep them talking instead of fighting.

Is that too much to ask, seriously?

Absolutely, and I agree his lack of diplomacy skills is puzzling.

A good scripted orator, but not good at forming a diplomatic foreign policy.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by pricejj

Also, since Obama is now ordering troops back into Iraq does that mean the Socialist Progressives here support the US being back involved in the war in Iraq? Or are you guys still against it? Just wondering, because your opinions (like Obama's and Hillary's) flip on a daily basis.

Hillary voted for the war in Iraq, voted to expand it, then says she made a mistake and really was against it. Now I'm sure she's for it. Incompetent liars.

The hyprocrisy of the Socialist Left knows no bounds.

Neo libs like Billary are not socialists. Not really on the left either.

Neo libs and neo cons are both far right.

Trickle down is not socialism -- unless you are talking about welfare for bankers and corporations.

There is no true opposition party in the US.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

The funny thing is that I think an independent Kurdistan allied with us would be one of the best things to happen for U.S. interests in the region. Of course, we can't rile an old ally like Turkey, but it would give a us great political leverage in the region, especially against the interests of Iran and Russia, (and China who is playing their own little dark game of string pulling behind the scenes).

No state in the region wants an independent Kurdistan. Even if the US supported such an idea -- it has no chance without the support of Iran, Iraq and Turkey.

The Kurds are the cast off people of the region. A true tragedy.

[cutthemdown]

I agree with the theory Bush blew it by disbanding the Iraqi Army. Not sure what that means now but no way our troops should have been doing all the security getting blown up for a decade. Our troops should be to kick ass not man checkpoints like sitting ducks.

[cutthemdown]

Gaff is 100% right. A kurdish state is a not going to happen. Turkey and Iran will not stand for it. America doesn't have the pull right now in the region to get anything big done.