The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-29-2014, 08:42 AM   #776
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
Meh. Anyone can.

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 24,655

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Sorry. I've played this "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" argument with you before. Not going there again. The general theme of the document lays out an argument for unilateral intervention as the leadership sees fit in any region deemed of "...critical national interest" or where there "may" be a threat in the future. The first statement was broad, as in "U.S. leadership is a prerequisite for effective international action." (Read that again and let that soak in. Pure Cheney.) The first outline of the Wolfowitz Doctrine was necessarily broad, to take in the whole world. Ensuing documents outlined how that Doctrine would apply to Iraq specifically as it moved into the neocon crosshairs as the test case for the Doctrine prior to Bush taking office. The string of rationalizing intervention held constant throughout, from Wolfowitz through to the Bush Doctrines.

The point of the original argument is that Clinton had nothing to do with it. This was hatched in the Right Wing think tanks of the neocons. Beavis' argument that Clinton "Would have done the same thing" is ludicrous.

Here's the post-Iraq world of the Right: We tricked you into believing us so that we could invade Iraq, and now we assign you culpability for falling for the tricks. Nice bit of logic there.
In other words, it was pretty similar to the Iraq Liberation Act, and many of the things BC said late in his term, but he of course is not responsible for laying any of the groundwork on Iraq because you have more pole in your mouth than Monica.

A **** ton of people were wrong about Iraq. Many were 'neocons.' Many were Democrats. If you can't admit to that simple fact, you're as faithfully dogmatic as anyone you criticize.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 09:52 AM   #777
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
"...had Brock not been available.."

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Trumpville (like Potterville, but stupider)
Posts: 70,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
In other words, it was pretty similar to the Iraq Liberation Act, and many of the things BC said late in his term, but he of course is not responsible for laying any of the groundwork on Iraq because you have more pole in your mouth than Monica.

A **** ton of people were wrong about Iraq. Many were 'neocons.' Many were Democrats. If you can't admit to that simple fact, you're as faithfully dogmatic as anyone you criticize.
Clinton was in office for eight years. Why didn't he invade Iraq?

Before, when I asked that question, you posted a picture of 911. So, in other words, the reason Bush invaded Iraq is because Saddam was responsible for 911? Or not? Or both? Dumbass.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 12:05 PM   #778
barryr
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 14,492

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Clinton was in office for eight years. Why didn't he invade Iraq?

Before, when I asked that question, you posted a picture of 911. So, in other words, the reason Bush invaded Iraq is because Saddam was responsible for 911? Or not? Or both? Dumbass.
Because normally when it comes to foreign affairs, democrats would rather talk big and have someone else actually do something. Every leading democrat before 2000 talked of the danger of Iraq and supporting regime change and even voted for it, but tune changed once action was taken and the polls told them what to say. The excuse the bozos liberals like to play is "oh, those poor democrats were misled and lied to." Well, who was lying and misleading them before 2000 when they thought Hussein was a threat? Oh, a then governor from Texas. Makes sense.
barryr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 12:32 PM   #779
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
**** L.A.!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 5,180
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Sorry. I've played this "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" argument with you before. Not going there again. The general theme of the document lays out an argument for unilateral intervention as the leadership sees fit in any region deemed of "...critical national interest" or where there "may" be a threat in the future. The first statement was broad, as in "U.S. leadership is a prerequisite for effective international action." (Read that again and let that soak in. Pure Cheney.) The first outline of the Wolfowitz Doctrine was necessarily broad, to take in the whole world. Ensuing documents outlined how that Doctrine would apply to Iraq specifically as it moved into the neocon crosshairs as the test case for the Doctrine prior to Bush taking office. The string of rationalizing intervention held constant throughout, from Wolfowitz through to the Bush Doctrines.

The point of the original argument is that Clinton had nothing to do with it. This was hatched in the Right Wing think tanks of the neocons. Beavis' argument that Clinton "Would have done the same thing" is ludicrous.

Here's the post-Iraq world of the Right: We tricked you into believing us so that we could invade Iraq, and now we assign you culpability for falling for the tricks. Nice bit of logic there.
I see. So you claimed that the "neocons wrote a paper" (the Wolfowitz document) on their plan to "invade Iraq" (your exact words).

And that the paper stated the United States would "create a democracy in one of the ME countries they invaded" (your exact words), American invaders would be "greeted as liberators" (your exact words), and furthermore that "new democracy" would "stabilize the ME." (your exact words).

Then when you read the actual documents it says none of these things. Turns out all of your claims are just your personal interpretation of what the document actually does say.

And your response? Essentially, I'm being too picky and your personal interpretation is just as good.



Hey, you know what else the Wolfowitz document says? It says that Rohirrim of Orangemane doesn't have the balls to admit he was wrong.

What's that you say? You've read the entire document and it makes no mention anywhere of "Rohirrim", "Orangemane" or "balls" ?

Well that's my interpretation and it's just as good. You're just arguing angels dancing on the head of a pin.
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 12:58 PM   #780
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
**** L.A.!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 5,180
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gyldenlove View Post
The Iraq resolution in 2002 that funded and gave GWB the go ahead for war states directly:



This was a resolution passed trough both congress and the senate that states directly that Iraq was harboring Al Qaeda terrorrists, that it was funding terrorrists and that because of 9-11 Iraq was a target. We are talking the entire legislative branchs (263 republicans in both chambers voted for this resolution, only 9 abstained or voted against it) so I would say the republican party under GWB was pretty clear on a connection between 9-11 and Iraq.
Read carefully. It says no such thing.

Quote:
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
So the resolution says that al-Qaeda terrorists are only present in Iraq, not necessarily being "harbored"; that Iraq has been known to harbor "other" terrorists; and that terrorists and WMDs is bad, m'kay. That's all.

Once again, no statement here that Saddam was directly involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US, and anybody who got that out of this resolution is an idiot.

Last edited by The Lone Bolt; 06-29-2014 at 02:15 PM..
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 02:03 PM   #781
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 38,176
Default

Rho looking silly. That document never said what you said it does. Did you even read the thing or just watch Rachael Maddow?
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 06:39 PM   #782
UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
"No Fate"
 
UltimateHoboW/Shotgun's Avatar
 
"Come with me if you want to live."

Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SkyNet
Posts: 8,092

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barryr View Post
Because normally when it comes to foreign affairs, democrats would rather talk big and have someone else actually do something. Every leading democrat before 2000 talked of the danger of Iraq and supporting regime change and even voted for it, but tune changed once action was taken and the polls told them what to say. The excuse the bozos liberals like to play is "oh, those poor democrats were misled and lied to." Well, who was lying and misleading them before 2000 when they thought Hussein was a threat? Oh, a then governor from Texas. Makes sense.
That's true for EVERYTHING!
UltimateHoboW/Shotgun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 08:41 PM   #783
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 38,176
Default

Did Iraq pay and have terrorists = yes
Did Iraq invade other countries = yes
Did Iraq gas it's own people = yes
Did Iraq create the biggest environmental oil fires ever = yes
Did Iraq fire missiles at us planes in an act of war = yes
Did Iraq try and kill a former US President = yes
Did Iraq have a crazy leader who if he got WMD he might use them = yes

Seriously liberals get a clue. Saddam deserved what got as much as any country outside of Japan and Germany. Certainly more then Vietnam ever antagonized us. He makes communists look like pansies.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 07:57 AM   #784
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
"...had Brock not been available.."

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Trumpville (like Potterville, but stupider)
Posts: 70,926
Default

Ah, people have been having fun while I was hiking the top of the the Rocky Mountain National Park with my sons the last few days. Everybody should make the hike to Dream Lake, Emerald Lake and Alberta Falls. Absolutely fantastic, magnificent, majestic... breathing in the fresh, pine-scented air, watching the elk out on the tundra of the alpine meadows... I feel replenished.

Oh, and as far as Lone Bolt's crap, here's what even Wiki says:

The goal of regime change in Iraq remained the consistent position of PNAC throughout the Iraq disarmament crisis.[6][7]
Richard Perle, who later became a core member of PNAC, was involved in similar activities to those pursued by PNAC after its formal organization. For instance, in 1996 Perle composed a report that proposed regime changes in order to restructure power in the Middle East. The report was titled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm and called for removing Saddam Hussein from power, as well as other ideas to bring change to the region. The report was delivered to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.[8] Two years later, in 1998, Perle and other core members of the PNAC—Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Elliot Abrams, and John Bolton—"were among the signatories of a letter to President Clinton calling for the removal of Hussein."[8] Clinton did seek regime change in Iraq, and this position was sanctioned by the United Nations[citation needed]. These UN sanctions were considered ineffective by the neoconservative forces driving the PNAC.[9]
The PNAC core members followed up these early efforts with a letter to Republican members of the U.S. Congress Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott,[10] urging Congress to act. The PNAC also supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (H.R.4655), which President Clinton had signed into law.[11]
On January 16, 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Robert Zoellick drafted an open letter to President Bill Clinton, posted on its website, urging President Clinton to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political, and military power. The signers argue that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies, and oil resources in the region, if he succeeded in maintaining what they asserted was a stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. They also state: "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." They argue that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to U.S. interests.[12]
On November 16, 1998, citing Iraq's demand for the expulsion of UN weapons inspectors and the removal of Richard Butler as head of the inspections regime, Kristol called again for regime change in an editorial in his online magazine, The Weekly Standard: "... any sustained bombing and missile campaign against Iraq should be part of any overall political-military strategy aimed at removing Saddam from power."[13] Kristol states that Paul Wolfowitz and others believed that the goal was to create "a 'liberated zone' in southern Iraq that would provide a safe haven where opponents of Saddam could rally and organize a credible alternative to the present regime ... The liberated zone would have to be protected by U.S. military might, both from the air and, if necessary, on the ground."
In January 1999, the PNAC circulated a memo that criticized the December 1998 bombing of Iraq in Operation Desert Fox as ineffective, questioned the viability of Iraqi democratic opposition which the U.S. was supporting through the Iraq Liberation Act, and referred to any "containment" policy as an illusion.[14]


Here's treasury secretary Paul O'Neill on 60 Minutes stating that Bush was looking for a way to invade Iraq "8 months before 911." http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-sou...o-invade-iraq/

Here's Mother Jones with the timeline: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...q-war-timeline

So, here's Lone Bolt's case (let's say he's representing a defendant on trial for killing his wife):

The defendant spoke of killing wives in general for ten years writing a foundational document supporting the idea, again, in general, and defending his perceived right to engage in such unilateral and pre-emptive behavior. The defendant supported the killing of wives in general, and his in particular, and wrote policy statements proclaiming such. The defendant wrote a paper supporting the killing of his particular wife and sent one to the president and had another published in the press. The defendant urged the president to kill his wife for him.

And then, when the defendant's wife shows up dead, Lone Bolt presents his defense: "It was just a coincidence."





Oh, and here's one for Beavis: So, Clinton signing the Iraq Liberation Act meant he intended to invade Iraq or supported an Iraq invasion because the Act supported "regime change" in Iraq?

Obama just signed the same thing last year supporting "regime change" in Syria. Do you think we're going to invade Syria?

Read the Wiki entry above. Obviously, Clinton signed the Act in order to try and hold off the neocon dogs of war who were snapping at his heels. He continued the sanctions, the bombing and the policy of "Iraqi democratic opposition which the U.S. was supporting through the Iraq Liberation Act" but invasion? Wasn't going to happen and did not support it.

In the final analysis: Bush did it. He did it alone. He always intended to do it. He massively ****ed it up. He left the massive mess in the next president's lap and went off to paint pictures of himself in the shower. All those who voted for him are culpable. **** off!

Last edited by Rohirrim; 06-30-2014 at 08:07 AM..
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 08:11 AM   #785
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
Meh. Anyone can.

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 24,655

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Obama just signed the same thing last year supporting "regime change" in Syria. Do you think we're going to invade Syria?
Obama absolutely wanted to intervene and aid the rebels to remove Assad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...964_story.html

Which would've been act of war in all but the most obtuse definitions. But after the fiasco the Middle East 'awakening' turned out to be, the public soured somewhat on long-distance interventionism, and Obama could no longer find much support, even within his own party.

Quote:
But, Van Hollen said, challenges remain with Democrats. He pointed to concern among many on the left about language in the resolution approved last week by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and pushed by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), describing U.S. policy as seeking to “change the momentum” of the Syria conflict and topple Assad. The intent was to give the Obama administration a broader hand in pursuing its military strategy in Syria.

“There are many of us who are very worried about the United States getting more entangled in the Syrian civil war,” said Van Hollen, who has co-sponsored an alternative resolution backing a more limited action.

Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.) wrote on his Facebook page Thursday that, despite a week of briefings from numerous top officials, including Rice, Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “I am still not convinced of the wisdom of a U.S. missile strike in Syria.” He added on Twitter: “Tally from constituents calling my office, emailing, and writing about Syria: 1135 opposed to U.S. action, 18 for.”
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 08:28 AM   #786
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 15,182

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Meanwhile.

As ISIL surges, could Lebanon be the next domino to fall?
Three bombings in five days have mounted fears that the sectarian tinderbox of Lebanon could erupt
June 30, 2014 7:00AM ET
Quote:

There has been speculation for some time now that the Sunni fighters of the IS might open a third front of their regional conquest in Lebanon, where its
Shia rival Hezbollah is based and wields considerable political and military influence. The increasing number of IS attacks on Shia strongholds might
help draw Hezbollah’s expeditionary forces back from Syria, where they fight alongside Bashar al-Assad's regime against a mainly Sunni rebellion
that includes the IS. Though the IS incursion in Iraq could hardly be described as a diversion, the rising threat of an extremist takeover has
forced Baghdad to recall some 30,000 Iraqi mercenaries who had been deployed to support the allied Syrian regime.
http://america.aljazeera.com/article...sil-fears.html
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 08:31 AM   #787
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
"...had Brock not been available.."

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Trumpville (like Potterville, but stupider)
Posts: 70,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Obama absolutely wanted to intervene and aid the rebels to remove Assad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...964_story.html

Which would've been act of war in all but the most obtuse definitions. But after the fiasco the Middle East 'awakening' turned out to be, the public soured somewhat on long-distance interventionism, and Obama could no longer find much support, even within his own party.
"Invade" being the operative word. Obama had no intention of invading Syria.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 08:32 AM   #788
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,817
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bombay View Post
Gasp! you mean that the Iraqis could possibly defend their own country!?
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 08:34 AM   #789
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
"...had Brock not been available.."

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Trumpville (like Potterville, but stupider)
Posts: 70,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
Meanwhile.

As ISIL surges, could Lebanon be the next domino to fall?
Three bombings in five days have mounted fears that the sectarian tinderbox of Lebanon could erupt
June 30, 2014 7:00AM ET

http://america.aljazeera.com/article...sil-fears.html
These guys are psychos. Even Al Queda has disowned them, that's how psycho they are. They just crucified 8 men in Syria for being "too moderate."
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 08:34 AM   #790
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
Meh. Anyone can.

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 24,655

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
"Invade" being the operative word. Obama had no intention of invading Syria.
Again, you're arguing to the wrong person that Plink and Run is ever the right strategy for the long term.

"You break it, Then Pretend Like you Don't Know who did it"

-Evil Colin Powell
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 08:37 AM   #791
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
"...had Brock not been available.."

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Trumpville (like Potterville, but stupider)
Posts: 70,926
Default

The entire political philosophy of the neocons has been discredited by historical reality. Too bad Fox News hasn't picked up on that.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 08:43 AM   #792
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
Meh. Anyone can.

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 24,655

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
The entire political philosophy of the neocons has been discredited by historical reality. Too bad Fox News hasn't picked up on that.
How do you know? You must watch Fox News more than me.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 09:06 AM   #793
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
"...had Brock not been available.."

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Trumpville (like Potterville, but stupider)
Posts: 70,926
Default

A pretty good wrap-up of the current situation:

We can spend the next few years beating ourselves up and debating the proposition that George W. Bush saved Iraq and Barack Obama lost it. Or we can get real and try to sort out what we can do now to protect U.S. interests in a region that's melting down.

Iraq was never the U.S.'s to win. That point -- along with lowered expectations and focused goals -- must be the basis of any new approach to the region.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t3
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 09:12 AM   #794
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
"...had Brock not been available.."

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Trumpville (like Potterville, but stupider)
Posts: 70,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
How do you know? You must watch Fox News more than me.
I scan their web site. No time to just sit and watch things. Reading goes much quicker than watching. But it's easy with Fox. They have one, main, overriding theme: Blame everything on Obama.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 09:34 AM   #795
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 29,624
Default

A good read: No, President Obama Did Not Break the Middle East

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...e-east/373202/
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 09:56 AM   #796
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
"...had Brock not been available.."

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Trumpville (like Potterville, but stupider)
Posts: 70,926
Default

Excellent update from NPR with longtime New Yorker/NY Times ME journalist, Dexter Filkins (the guy says "you know" waaaaay too much):

GROSS: What do you think are the odds that what's happening in Iraq and Syria is going to kind of blend together into a big regional war that will encompass other countries as well?

Filkins: Well, it's kind of already happened, you know? If you just take the Syrian Civil War - I mean it looks like the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s, really. It's like everybody's in. So who's supporting the Assad government? The Iranians and the Russians. Who's supporting the rebels? Well, you've got the Saudis. You have the Qataris. You have the Turks. You have the United States. You have Britain. So that Syrian war has basically become internationalized, but I think what the invasion, I think, of Iraq by Isis has done is it's essentially - or it threatens to kind of merge those two wars because you basically now have ISIS on both sides of the border. And you have - actually have ISIS in other countries as well. They carried out a huge car bombing in Lebanon in February - a huge car bomb near the headquarters of Hezbollah, who of course is also fighting in Syria. So that's three countries running, you know, from East to West, all linked together, all basically being pulled into the same war - Iraq, Syria and Lebanon - with all their neighbors involved. You know, this war is already spread. I mean if you look at just the refugee crisis, which is extraordinary, you know, I think the third or fourth largest city in Jordan is the big refugee camp up on the border. That's not a really sturdy monarchy. It's causing a lot of problems in Jordan. I think something close to 25 percent of the population in Lebanon is now refugees from Syria. Lebanon is a fragile, tiny place. It's just not going to last. So the whole region's getting pulled into this thing. But it basically starts, I think, with Syria.

This journalist has been in the area for many years and spoken with all of the major players. The further total repudiation of the neocon agenda by history continues. Obama's WH also gets very poor reviews here for its conduct.

Read or listen here:
http://www.npr.org/2014/06/25/325503...es-of-iraq-war
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 10:18 AM   #797
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
"...had Brock not been available.."

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Trumpville (like Potterville, but stupider)
Posts: 70,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
A good read: No, President Obama Did Not Break the Middle East

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...e-east/373202/
I like his final analysis: It was Saddam who was ultimately responsible for the destruction of Iraq. That's true.

The question is, could Obama have left a force in Iraq to act as the go-between for Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis? It's probably true that without the U.S., there was no vehicle of communication between these factions. Like the Filkins report above states, it's unclear what Maliki wanted. The Iranians were trying to encourage Maliki to force the Americans out. Some of the Iraqi generals secretly wanted some form of American force to stay. Obama was getting a lot of political pressure at home to pull out completely. Either way, the Right Wing megaphone was going to blast him, so that was a no-win.

The Filkins interview is very instructive as to what we can expect next. The region is unraveling. Now what?
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 10:31 AM   #798
gyldenlove
Ring of Famer
 
gyldenlove's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Nćstved, DK
Posts: 12,163

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Spencer Larsen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
Read carefully. It says no such thing.



So the resolution says that al-Qaeda terrorists are only present in Iraq, not necessarily being "harbored"; that Iraq has been known to harbor "other" terrorists; and that terrorists and WMDs is bad, m'kay. That's all.

Once again, no statement here that Saddam was directly involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US, and anybody who got that out of this resolution is an idiot.
Wow, how do those stretch-marks feel? I haven't seen anyone contort like that since Cirque du soleil. From a perspective of pure semantics you may be right, but that resolution clearly links Iraq and Al-Qaeda and 9-11. If the presence of Al-Qaeda in Iraq is used as a reason for invasion it must logically follow that just asking Saddam to hand over Al-Qaeda would not have worked, so therefore the implication is clear that Saddam was harboring Al-Qaeda.
gyldenlove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 11:17 AM   #799
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 29,624
Default

Quote:
Isaac Chotiner: I just wanted to start by asking you about a tweet of yours I saw yesterday. I will read it: “What if everything that has happened in Iraq since 2003 is just preamble to the main event?” Can you just talk a little bit more about that?

Thomas E. Ricks: The background of that thought is that there consistently has been a failure of imagination in the American approach to Iraq. It's all encompassed by the testimony given by Paul Wolfowitz down at the Pentagon during the runup to the war, in which he was asked a question about occupation or something like that and he said something like, "Hard to imagine that we’d need more troops for occupation than we did for invasion. Hard to imagine that Saddam would be doing X, Y, Z." And that failure of imagination haunts me and makes me think, as we consider the situation today, that we should step back and use our imaginations about different scenarios. I was also thinking there about a failure of my own imagination. After the surge I thought we should keep a small residual force of US Troops in Iraq, maybe 10,000 or 15,000. And I think my failure of imagination was that I didn’t see a scenario like this in which we have an Iraqi government we don’t like being attacked by a force we don’t like. If we had troops in Iraq now, I think we’d be in a horrible position of using them on behalf of Maliki in a way we don’t want to.

IC: Let me just ask you about that because, as you know, one of the critiques of the administration has been that if we had this force there, this could have all been prevented.

TR: That’s nonsense. If we had the force there, what we’d be doing now is facing this question: Do we retreat ignominiously and get the troops out of the country, or do we use them in a way—or do we find ourselves forced to use them—in a way we don’t want to, supporting Maliki without reservation? Or do they just sit there inside their camp gates and everybody mocks the Americans for doing nothing? So I think by not having troops on the ground there it greatly simplified the issues for the United States and actually gave the United States more leverage rather than less, because clearly Obama does not simply want to act on Maliki’s behalf. I think Obama sees Maliki more at fault here than he does the Sunnis.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...bad-can-it-get

The whole thing is worth a read.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2014, 11:39 AM   #800
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
"...had Brock not been available.."

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Trumpville (like Potterville, but stupider)
Posts: 70,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
Good read. I have Ricks' book Fiasco, which detailed just how big of a ****-up Bush and his neocons were. I love this line: I think there was a national panic after 9/11 that was encouraged by people like President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and I don’t see any of that now. I don’t sense a panicky atmosphere, I sense a very sober atmosphere. I’ve been really strck by in many ways how quiet the debate has been this time with the exception of these kids who are like babies who make a big mess—these guys like Cheney and Wolfowitz who make a big mess and then yell at their fathers for not cleaning it up faster.

The problem is that in the end he points out the danger of Iran's intervention in this mess. He should read the NPR Filkin's interview. Filkins has stated that one of the heads of Iran's Revolutionary Guard went into Syria and saved the situation for Assad, and is now in Baghdad, saving the situation for Maliki, and by extension, Iran. Iran is directly managing Iraq's military response to ISIS, it appears.

Basically, Bush and his neocon amateurs tumbled, stumbled and bumbled their way through Iraq and gave a great victory to Iran.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:37 PM.


Denver Broncos