Iraq

[El Kabong]

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

[Beanflicker]

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.

[Kirkland Laing]

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.

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.

[El Kabong]

Like Kurtz said, EXTERMINATE ALL THE BRUTES.

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.

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.

[Beanflicker]

I think the world needs to join hands in exterminating these extremist groups.

[Kirkland Laing]

I think the world needs to join hands in exterminating these extremist groups.

We join hands with the guys who finance them instead.

[Kirkland Laing]

Megyn Kelly Confronts Dick Cheney: 'You Got It Wrong' On Iraq (VIDEO)



Former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz have an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal arguing that Barack Obama is insufficiently tough on Iraq, and was wrong to "abandon" the country. They also took to Fox News to announce they were starting a new organization, the Alliance for a Strong America, that will "advocate for the policies needed to restore American power and pre-eminence."
You might be tempted to take their opinions seriously. This would be a mistake. Here are seventeen reasons why.
1) "[9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack."
- Dick Cheney, December 9, 2001.
Atta did not meet with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. Cheney knew this claim was unsubstantiated but made it publicly anyway. Also Czechoslovakia was not a country in April 2001.
2) "The issue is that [Saddam] has chemical weapons."
- Dick Cheney, March 24, 2002.
No he did not.
3) "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
- Dick Cheney, August 25, 2002.
Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction then.
4) "Another argument holds that opposing Saddam Hussein would cause even greater troubles in that part of the world, and interfere with the larger war against terror. I believe the opposite is true."
- Dick Cheney, August 25, 2002.
The Iraq War was a catastrophe that caused even greater troubles, including hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of refugees, in that part of the world. It also harmed the war on terror.
5) "We do know, with absolute certainty, that [Saddam] is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon."
- Dick Cheney, September 8, 2002.
Not only was this false, especially the "absolute certainty" part, Cheney likely knew it to be false at the time he said it; the intelligence community was in fact divided about the state of Iraq's nuclear program.
6) "[Saddam] now is trying, through his illicit procurement network, to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium to make the bombs…Specifically aluminum tubes."
- Dick Cheney, September 8, 2002.
The tubes were for rockets. Department of Energy analysts raised doubts more than a year before Cheney made these claims about the likelihood the tubes were for enrichment.
7) "We know that [Saddam Hussein] has re-energized, if you will, his efforts to acquire a nuclear weapon."
- Dick Cheney, September 9, 2002.
The Iraq Survey Group concluded after a thorough investigation that "Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."
"We now have irrefutable evidence that [Saddam] has once again set up and reconstituted his program to take uranium, to enrich it to sufficiently high grade, so that it will function as the base material as a nuclear weapon. And there's no doubt about the fact that the level of effort has escalated in recent months."
- Dick Cheney, September 20, 2002.
Cheney knew there was not "irrefutable evidence," as the intelligence community was divided. And reality subsequently refuted the claim entirely.
9) "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."
- Dick Cheney, March 16, 2003.
We were not greeted as liberators.
10) "[Saddam] also had an established relationship with al Qaeda — providing training to al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases and conventional bombs."
- Dick Cheney, October 17, 2013.
A 2006 Senate intelligence committee report concluded, "Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'eda training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq."
11) "In Iraq, a ruthless dictator cultivated weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. He gave support to terrorists, had an established relationship with al Qaeda, and his regime is no more."
- Dick Cheney, November 7, 2003.
There was no such relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

[Kirkland Laing]

12) "We haven't really had the time yet to pore through all those records in Baghdad. We'll find ample evidence confirming the link, that is the connection if you will between al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services. They have worked together on a number of occasions."
- Dick Cheney, January 9, 2004.
Again, there was no such relationship between al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services.
13) "We know, for example, that prior to our going in that [Saddam] had spent time and effort acquiring mobile biological weapons labs, and we're quite confident he did, in fact, have such a program. We've found a couple of semi trailers at this point which we believe were, in fact, part of that program. I would deem that conclusive evidence, if you will, that he did, in fact, have programs for weapons of mass destruction."
- Dick Cheney, January 22, 2004.
A British investigation concluded those "mobile biological weapons labs" were nothing of the sort. The Iraq Survey group report states, "ISG has found no evidence to support the view that the trailers were used, or intended to be used, for the production of [biological warfare] agents."
14) "It’s clearly established in terms of training, provision of bomb-making experts, training of people with respect to chemical and biological warfare capabilities, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Iraq for training and so forth."
- Dick Cheney, June 4, 2004.
Again, not only was that not true, but the DIA and others in the intelligence community questioned it before the war began.
15) "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."
- Dick Cheney, June 20, 2005.
Anti-Iraqi government insurgency persists nine years later.
16) "I don’t think that [the war in Iraq] damaged our reputation around the world."
- Dick Cheney, August 30, 2011.
The Iraq war drastically damaged our reputation around the world.
17) "The biggest threat we face is the possibility of terrorist groups like al Qaeda equipped with weapons of mass destruction, with nukes, bugs or gas. That was the threat after 9/11 and when we took down Saddam Hussein we eliminated Iraq as a potential source of that."
- Dick Cheney, October 28, 2013.

[Kirkland Laing]

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?

[Nameless]

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.

[El Kabong]

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.

The elephant started the mess eh?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc

Hmmmm.....well certainly you've got me there

[Nameless]

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.

The elephant started the mess eh?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc

Hmmmm.....well certainly you've got me there

Who attacked Iraq first? Ain't it Bush SR? And then, who officially put the Us Army in Iraq? Ain't that Bush Jr? Though Bill asked to do something, he's not the one who did officially send the army first (or second shall I say).
Also, Clinton didn't want things to be done the way the Hawks of the Neo-Cons think-thank wanted it; they were the only silly idiots thinking it would be over in over 3 weeks. And they are the one who invented the WMD scheme in order to reate a reason to attack. Even Wolfowitz who was one of the top 3 hawks did admit it afterward, that it was all a lie but " a bureaucratic reason upon which all could agree to attack". Talk about a bunch of fuckin filthy liars focusing on the profit of their very own friends with no regard for the life of others:
USATODAY.com - Wolfowitz comments revive doubts over Iraq's WMD

Perpetually Wrong Paul Wolfowitz Is Still Convinced He Knows What Would Have Happened in Iraq If We Hadn’t Invaded | Vanity Fair

[El Kabong]

You're right, you're right...We've GOT to give Democrats a pass but please continue on hating both George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush simply because they are Republicans and all Republicans are evil. Those Progressive Liberals ALWAYS have everyone's best interests at heart and even if they fail (which they ALWAYS DO) their good intentions are what truly matters.


You can't be this wishy washy with Allies, you CAN'T it is fucking idiotic. You don't want war then don't go in, but once you're in a war fucking be in it to WIN! You just can't be so fucking half assed with people who need our help, their lives are in danger due to our being there regardless of what got us to that point so either we own up to our word and help or we head home and try to block out shit like this.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlGoILUv4S0


But hey you know Go Team Obama!

[Kirkland Laing]

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

So you out-Saddam Saddam and slaughter millions of people in order to bring any survivors freedom?