Montecresto
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,561
- Reaction score
- 5,507
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Militarily yes, politically no.
I didn't add anything. These people died because of a power hungry dictator. He invaded Iran. Years later he would invade Kuwait.
All the actions of a nut, who needed his second cervical vertebrae snapped.
And I can't believe we have people here who actually believe that the illegal Iraq war was won, first and a Bush success furthermore.
President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.
Syria Chlorine Attack Reports Raise Questions About Loopholes - World News
People Like YOU who supported the war in Iraq left that region as a vacuum for terrorists when they toppled Saddam. Even Secretary of Defense Cheney knew this would happen. Sad Vice President Cheney forgot that.
And you can try and justify all you want about Saddam being a tyrant but there are MANY tyrants the U.s. has left in power even now so don't even try that excuse with me son. North Korea, Africa, Iran, etc. You have no cards to play on that one son.
People Like YOU who supported the war in Iraq left that region as a vacuum for terrorists when they toppled Saddam. Even Secretary of Defense Cheney knew this would happen. Sad Vice President Cheney forgot that.
And you can try and justify all you want about Saddam being a tyrant but there are MANY tyrants the U.s. has left in power even now so don't even try that excuse with me son. North Korea, Africa, Iran, etc. You have no cards to play on that one son.
It's not that clean Pero. A war fought on lies and false pretence cannot be considered military victory.
Mehdi Nemmouche, the primary suspect in the Brussels Jewish Museum shooting of four people, including two Jews, last month, was a jihadist fighter for ISIS, the former al-Qaeda affiliate that is seeking to create the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, French President François Hollande on Thursday told a visiting delegation from Jewish human rights group The Simon Wiesenthal Center.
Rabbi Abraham Cooper, SWC dean, told The Algemeiner that Hollande confirmed the detail now being released from the prosecutor’s investigation into Nemmouche, connecting him to the violent jihadist group whose profile was raised this week after taking the Iraqi city of Mosul and large swaths of western Iraq.
The war was composed of distinct stages. The initial conflict ended quickly, our military is conventional and did its job superbly. The problems came from terrorists who flooded into the region as well as from sectarian militias.
We started utilizing those militias to fight each other or terrorists, and then got quite good at finding and killing these terror cells. We got so good the most wanted list had to be constantly updated to remove the killed or captured. Lessons learned in Afghanistan helped in Iraq and vice versa.
I think our two biggest mistakes where tying the justification of invasion to WMD's when we didn't need to, and removing the Baathists and therefore gutting the administrative structure of Iraq.
It's not that clean Pero. A war fought on lies and false pretence cannot be considered military victory.
This is that liberal defeatism thats the problem. What did Belgium and France do to these terrorists? Nothing, and yet they are attacking them.
Stop appeasing evil, it wont end well.
French President says ISIS soldier behind terror attack on Jewish museum » The Right Scoop -
For a military man it can. As a former military man I look back on it and see when we departed we left a very strong foundation for Miliki to build on. The internal threats were for the most part neutralized and what little remained, his police and army was more than capable to handle them. It isn't the U.S.'s fault that Miliki decided to tear that foundation down and to start suppressing the Sunni instead of incorporating them into the government and the economy of Iraq.
whether wars are right or wrong, for a military man history can decide long after I or we are gone. So as a military man, we did our job in Iraq. Others failed which the onus falls right on Miliki's shoulders.
Oh dear. You believe this Sunni/Shia thing is a recent riff. Saddam Hussein was a stabilising force between the two! Sorry Pero, but the Iraq war was/is a colossal failure, and to describe it in military success terms is nuts.
A recent poll shows 2/3 of Americans want nothing to do with Iraq. They just want more jobs and immigration addressed. So you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.I know that, they also asked for aid from Iran. Thats not a good thing-it increases the influence of our enemies and adversaries while diminishing our own. Its a bad strategic move but our chump president does not care.
Syrian Warplanes Strike in Western Iraq, Killing at Least 50 People
Second Consecutive Day of Airstrikes by Syria Is Aimed at Shoring Up Iraqi Armed Forces
BAGHDAD—Syrian warplanes carried out airstrikes in western Iraq, stepping up the military role of the U.S. adversary in helping Baghdad's Shiite-dominated government fight Sunni insurgents.
The strikes on Tuesday came as the Pentagon announced that the first 130 members of a potential 300 U.S. military advisers were in place in Baghdad to start assessing and improving the Iraqi army's ability to counter the gains of rebels led by the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham.
Syrian Warplanes Strike Western Iraq, Killing at Least 50 People - WSJ
And the escalation continues. Under Obama our geopolitical adversaries fill the power vacuum.
Are you saying that the U.S. military should have stayed in perpetuity ?Perhaps in your view. I can only view in terms of the situation on the ground when we, the U.S. military departed.
Some good points. That said amongst the terror groups, maybe we should provide supplies-to the losing side. Leave them fighting each other, its good for us, and I dont care about them.Civilians are another matter.
Thanks OBAMA!!!1!!!!!!!!!
Seriously? Can you make just one post without blaming Obama for things he has no bearing on? I'd sure as hell hate to be your dentist when you have a toothache.
Is peace at any cost worth it?
Im very much partisan and even more so pro American-but to cling to a dream that peace in the middle east is something achievable after centuries of conflicts because YOU want to feel good about its possibility is naive. Peace alone at the expense of millions killed in the ME isn't really a true peace. Peace at all costs is ridiculous.
Some good points. That said amongst the terror groups, maybe we should provide supplies-to the losing side. Leave them fighting each other, its good for us, and I dont care about them.Civilians are another matter.
Worked great when Reagan militarized Iraq and Iran at the same time and they fought it out didn't it? /sarcasm
No--he can't.
Continued problem with the Loyal Opposition is they speak with two wings--elite/NEO and tea/ISO.
He's been speaking of the power vacuum Obama has left--
maybe he shpould focus on the vacuum left when Saddam was ken out -
All I can say is there is one heck of a mess in Iraq. The Shia government we installed has the backing of Iran, our enemy or adversary as we try to prevent them from getting nukes. The Shia government we installed has the backing of Syria and Assad, the same Assad we are attempting to overthrow or get rid of. The Shia government has our support. The Sunni Rebels are getting financial support from the Saudis, Kuwait and Qatar, our allies.
Does anybody have a scorecard or a program with all the names on it so I can keep it straight as to whom is involved and which side they are on?
That sounds like a plan I would support.
Perhaps in your view. I can only view in terms of the situation on the ground when we, the U.S. military departed. What happened after that is out of the control of the U.S. military. Even out of control of President Obama and the politicians in the United States. We left Miliki basically a country at peace and a foundation he could continue to build on. If he had continued along that path I can guarantee you what you see happening today would not be. ISIS was not formed until April of 2013, the actions of Miliki help lead to that formation along with the war in Syria.
But the really sad part in all of this is that back in 1990 if our Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie had told Saddam not to invade Kuwait, none of this would have happened:
transcript (the one published in The New York Times on 23 September 1990) has Glaspie saying:
“ But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 1960s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi (Chedli Klibi, Secretary General of the Arab League) or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. ”
When these purported transcripts were made public, Glaspie was accused of having given tacit approval for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which took place on August 2, 1990. It was argued that Glaspie's statements that "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts" and that "the Kuwait issue is not associated with America" were interpreted by Saddam as giving free rein to handle his disputes with Kuwait as he saw fit. It was also argued that Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait had he been given an explicit warning that such an invasion would be met with force by the United States.[2][3] Journalist Edward Mortimer wrote in the New York Review of Books in November 1990:
“ It seems far more likely that Saddam Hussein went ahead with the invasion because he believed the US would not react with anything more than verbal condemnation. That was an inference he could well have drawn from his meeting with US Ambassador April Glaspie on July 25, and from statements by State Department officials in Washington at the same time publicly disavowing any US security commitments to Kuwait, but also from the success of both the Reagan and the Bush administrations in heading off attempts by the US Senate to impose sanctions on Iraq for previous breaches of international law.
Its a crap sandwich. But frankly thats the normal state of the ME. Obama almost armed those Sunni rebels as the FSA.
When it comes to the whole power vacuum, maybe he'd consider listening to what this guy had to say in 1994 in the post Gulf War era when asked if we should have taken down saddam and taken over Baghdad.
So US Conservative... anything you have to say to Cheney here?
A recent poll shows 2/3 of Americans want nothing to do with Iraq. They just want more jobs and immigration addressed. So you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?