Printable View
Should have stayed the fuck out of it in the first place. All that money invested in training their police force and soldiers, and when the shit hit the fan those guys couldn't throw their uniforms off and run any faster.
They'd be better off still under daddy Saddam's rule.
Peasant Muslims killing each other , in the name of Allah ?
You know what went wrong in Iraq? It's the same thing that's gone wrong in any American military operation since World War II.
We're not in wars to WIN anymore....need proof?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk7scgN-37E
Whether we're dealing with nation states or not the object of war is to humble your opponent and beat them into submission....that is THE 1 GOAL of war. And if we're not in wars to win them then we damn sure shouldn't fight them.
W's guys didn't have the right gameplan for holding Iraq, Obama just didn't want to be bothered with either war and here's where we are now...the Democrats were focused on failure from the get go (FACT) and well I hope they are happy with what has occurred. People will always go back to the WMD's as being a red herring for the war in Iraq but at the end of the day when you go to war rightly or wrongly you need to go to WIN. There were plenty of other reasons to go to war with Iraq besides the WMDs and I've explained those reasons but again you go to war to WIN not to make friends.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_VHEts3fqk
Like Kurtz said, EXTERMINATE ALL THE BRUTES.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
More like three trillion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nameless
So you out-Saddam Saddam and slaughter millions of people in order to bring any survivors freedom?Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
Not a single American General since WW2 has had any idea how to properly fight a war. They should have left it to General Lyle who knows how to win these things.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerLike Kurtz said, EXTERMINATE ALL THE BRUTES.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
They don't have the ability to fix it though. It's unfixable by the west even if they wanted to try and they don't. They just want a western-friendly leader in Baghdad who does what they want, they don't care how many people the guy kills provided he does what they want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
When you look at the history of western intervention in the region what gives you the idea that we intervene to help the people who live there?
Speaking of WMDs
Sunni Extremists in Iraq Occupy Saddam Hussein's Chemical Weapons Facility - WSJ
and
Iraq crisis: Isis jihadists 'seize Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons stockpile' - live - Telegraph
Chemical weapons you say? In Iraq you say? Hmmm, funny that
And for interested parties the Generals don't lose wars for Super Powers, POLITICIANS DO
And I'm speaking directly about these chickenshits who turned tail and ran after the Supreme Court made it's decision on Florida's Presidential votes in 2000
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhZ2ZvS2t_E
But it's too much to ask for those assholes to be intellectually honest, I mean hell look at Global Cooling/Warming/Climate Change....their goal is to be Political winners not leaders
There is 1 thing the people in the Middle East respect, that is POWER the difference between the power of Saddam and the power of the United States is that our power should be used for justice, liberty, and to show the Iraqi people the way of civil governance is through the rule of law, laws invented by reason, and that not every single solitary issue should result in extremes of violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
Iraq has warring factions and yes it's difficult to see how we quell that, however to attempt to address the situation and in doing so place one group in a vulnerable situation and then just up and leave does nothing but create more resentment, doubt, and hostility and the can is kicked down the road for the next generation to solve. the problems get worse doing what we've done. If we do nothing they fight, if we go there they fight, but if our presence is strongest we hold sway over the sectarian groups and if this is the case we become nonviolent arbitrators and progress can be made. It's a long difficult process to attempt to civilize such a culture, but it could be done with the help and continued support of our allies.....but we got distracted, our allies got distracted, and Iraq is now alone in this from a Western perspective....all that Iraq has now is MORE sectarian factions ready to do battle and wanting revenge for the war.
The Iraq war at the beginning went awesome, but it devolved into what is tantamount to spraying water on a hornets' nest.....we've won no friends there. Our enemies are still our enemies, our allies in Iraq have been left helpless and will be more and more resentful of our deserting them in their time of need this is why if you have a war you WIN, you make certain you are the clear cut victor, you control then you leave or you keep a presence there for the foreseeable future just like we have in Germany, Italy, Japan, and South Korea.
I think the world needs to join hands in exterminating these extremist groups.
So I'm watching the football and eating my dinner and reading my New York Times and I almost choke on this :
BAGHDAD — Alarmed over the Sunni insurgent mayhem convulsing Iraq, the country’s political leaders are actively jockeying to replace Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, Iraqi officials said Thursday.
The political leaders have been encouraged by what they see as newfound American support for replacing Mr. Maliki with someone more acceptable to Iraq’s Sunnis and Kurds, as well as to the Shiite majority, the officials said........
Over the past two days the American ambassador, Robert S. Beecroft, along with Brett McGurk, the senior State Department official on Iraq and Iran, have met with Usama Nujaifi, the leader of the largest Sunni contingent, United For Reform, and with Ahmad Chalabi, one of the several potential Shiite candidates for prime minister, according to people close to each of those factions, as well as other political figures.
“Brett and the ambassador met with Mr. Nujaifi yesterday and they were open about this: they do not want Maliki to stay,” Nabil al-Khashab, the senior political adviser to Mr. Nujaifi, said Thursday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/20/wo...iraq.html?_r=0
Anybody know why this is amazing?
the Hawk of the Bush administration just had no clues how it was working; they had big insigns from some top military but prefered to listen to their very own twisted ideology and really thought that the "freedom" tag they'd give to people would mean goodies all along the way. They couldn't have been any more wrong and they are the fucknuts who did spark the problem. Not Obama. Sure, Obama didn't handle the situation any better but he got handed a large plate of poo and I am not sure that there was anything much better to do at this point. Stop blindly blaming the libs Lyle, look at both side of the medals and you'll see that the elephant started the mess the donkey couldn't stop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
Chemical weapons are not weapons of mass destruction. And these chemical weapons were put under UN seal and permanent inspection regime as part of the 1991 surrender treaty. They managed to remain under seal until now when the jihadis got their hands on them. Luckily Iraq's chemical weapons programme was so primitive they'll have been useless twenty years ago.
As usual right wing media outlets are out to spread disinformation and as usual the people who can be relied upon to fall for any bullshit they're offered eat it up.
Also, too. Obama isn't reponsible for there being no American troops in Iraq. Bush is. In the summer of 2008 Bush was presented with two options by the Iraqi government. All US troops out by the end of 2008 or all troops out by the end of 2011. Bush chose the least humiliating option and avoided being publicly humiliated at the handover by sending his VP to sustain the embarrassment.
http://cache1.asset-cache.net/gc/802...47iCczyg%3D%3D
What the GOP are blaming Obama for at the minute is failing to renegotiate an agreement that Bush signed up to and the Iraqis had zero interest in renegotiatiing. So as far as politicians losing wars go, the Iraq war was fought and lost including the surrender handover to the Iranians all on Bush's watch.
Look at the microphones in that photo and note the complete lack of western media coverage at that conference. The AP who wrote one article which papers didn't use and one photographer who took one photo that the western media also blacked out. The Arab and world press covered this strory with that photograph and headlines like "America's humiliation".