sometimes I get this sense of deja vu....

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 7:27 am

...like, for instance, last night. I am simply amazed that a significant number of the Obama hate-on camp are standing up and demanding we return to the Iraq war zone. Wny again? As I put it on another board:
Obama got elected on the promise to get out of Iraq and get out in a year. He did so. Who was going to pay for us to hang around there at a $150 billion per year tab? Remember that deficit stuff? Remember the hit our treasury took with the Bush Tax Break for the Rich? Remember that revenues were down then, too? In short, there was ABSOLUTELY no good reason to stay there, and this current outcome is exactly what EVERYONE with a brain said would happen after Saddam and the Baath party were removed. What is astounding is to hear nitwits like McCain saying we should bring back Bush's old team (immediately, no less). What? The assclowns that inserted us into the region to the tune of a Trillion bucks, a few thousand dead and thousands more badly hurt? Is he kidding? I hope we do exactly NOTHING, and let these people sort their tribal alliances out by themselves. You are seeing the final stages of the castoff of old British national boundries. Stepping into that process, one better be aware that you'd be inserting the clueless US(demonstrated for decades) into all of the following: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran. I want no part of that for the US. We have far higher priorities at home if we wish to remain economically viable over the next 50 years.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 7:42 am

Confucius say - "Man who complains about political opportunism from one side of face while promoting it from other side of face wont see problem because view blocked from head stuck halfway up his rear end."

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 8:10 am

since when should US foreign policy, and ESPECIALLY putting military hardware, or God forbid, military men and women, into a war zone a ripe time for political opportunism? Is that how low the right has sunk?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:30 am

callmeslick wrote:since when should US foreign policy, and ESPECIALLY putting military hardware, or God forbid, military men and women, into a war zone a ripe time for political opportunism? Is that how low the right has sunk?

I reject the premise of your malformed question. Perhaps your view is too obscured.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 11:14 am

I commented to my wife about the whole Iraq thing, and here's what I said:

I think Iraq is going to go down in history as a massive failure, on many counts. By the time this is all said and done, I think we are going to have spent a whole lot of lives and money accomplishing basically nothing. I bet history will prove that we not only went into the war the wrong way, but we also came out of the war the wrong way.... So I think a truly non-partisan historian will have plenty of dirt on both sides.

Z.. · Post by **Z..** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 11:35 am

Even the best fighter knows when to throw in the towel once in awhile. A residual force would sit around, drive out, and occasionally take a few casualties--just adding to the long list. It's done, it's over, it failed. All this hoopla is about the people of America not realizing that the long war in Iraq did not honestly do all that much for us. You all expected something different? Like a Puerto Rico-ish territory in the Middle East?

There's not going to be an Arab-Disney or a Ruth Chris' steakhouse in Baghdad. If you expected anything else as an outcome, then you're an idiot.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:54 pm

I guess what Iraq needs is another brutal dictator. Good ol' democracy just isn't a good fit for them.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/what-the-fck ... s-in-iraq/

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:29 pm

I think slick forgets this is ultimately about oil and who spends the money from the sale of it. There is a main pipeline the goes up into Turkey that causes Turkey to want something done. And perhaps you forgot that Turkey is part of NATO and the Turks could call on NATO to give military aid. Hopefully you are all familiar with who else is part of NATO.

As a aside I see the Kurds have taken over Kirkuk, a major oil town, and seem to be better organized that the Iraqi's are.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:17 pm

snoopy wrote:I commented to my wife about the whole Iraq thing, and here's what I said:

I think Iraq is going to go down in history as a massive failure, on many counts. By the time this is all said and done, I think we are going to have spent a whole lot of lives and money accomplishing basically nothing. I bet history will prove that we not only went into the war the wrong way, but we also came out of the war the wrong way.... So I think a truly non-partisan historian will have plenty of dirt on both sides.

It's pretty much exactly Vietnam 2.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:38 pm

woodchip wrote:I think slick forgets this is ultimately about oil and who spends the money from the sale of it. There is a main pipeline the goes up into Turkey that causes Turkey to want something done

except that route is largely under control of the Kurds, and has been dwindling in production for decades. The main produce is in the south and the Shiites aren't giving that up, even if that entails Iran intervening(and they will, soon, mark my words).

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Jun 13, 2014 6:37 pm

Biden is about to get his wish....chop Iraq up.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:12 am

what Biden called for 10 years back wasn't all that radical. It was merely an acceptance of the fact you can't make a country by drawing lines around the perimeter. Joe recognized that there were long-standing ethnic, tribal and religious regions that the Brits disregarded.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:42 am

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... -map-syria

would be hilarious, were it not scary-true.....

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:16 pm

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninsca ... a_isnt.php

pretty well sums it up......

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:21 am

We get it. The guy who was against the surge gets credit for how well it worked. The guy who was against the enhanced interrogation of prisoners gets the credit for killing bin Laden when those tactics uncovered the trail to his hiding place.
That is politics at work, same ★■◆● different day.

He's your guy so you have to make sure the narrative is all on the oppositions failures instead of on the warnings your guy received and ignored that told him this ★■◆● storm was coming if he pulled out the way he intended.

It doesn't matter if the polls say we wanted out of that mess...it does not insulate him from the distinction that he knew this new mess would result. Only a complicit media can do that...and they will.
But those who pay attention to this stuff know he he owns the consequences of his decision to make the easy choice of following the political winds even if it isn't a fact that gets hammered into the daily discussion of the dumb masses.

There is no better strategic location on the planet that is currently tactically available to us than Iraq to deal with so many hostile factions that ultimately are extreme threats to our interests. Period. No other location comes close to having so many benefits.
And we have the 'justification' to inhabit that location. We squandered it. The chance to make lemonade out of lemons was traded for a few politicians re-election. Wow! What a fricken bargain!

Bush didn't have the political will to do it. Obama certainly doesn't have it and so Iran and an assortment of other hostiles, who do have the will, shall occupy that location instead, making future action on our part MUCH more costly in blood and money to pursue. You should do more than gloat, you should throw a party

for the next 3 years the threat of U.S. intervention is at an all time low. Free for all coming soon.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:22 am

Lets see here, slick gloats about all the war mongering McCain has offered over the years but has never had the power to do anything about it. Lets take a look at those people with a D after their name who could (and did) do something:

1) Kennedy: Could of kept Castro from ascendency but deserted the Bay of Pigs freedom fighters instead. Then JFK got the ball rolling by sending advisers to Vietnam for no other reason than something called the domino effect (which turns out to be bogus also)

2) Lyndon B Johnson: crafty dude who used the pretext of the Bay of Tonkin incident to go bawls deep into Vietnam, killing 50,000 of our troop for no other reason than a fairies dance called the Domino Effect

3)Jimmy Carter: What can I say. Afraid of rabbits and the Iranians knew it. Authorised a failed rescue attempt that crashed and burned in the Iranian Desert

4) Bill Clinton: Should of kept his pecker buried in Lewinski's mouth but chose to send troops to Somalia where he showed the world the image of a dead US soldier could make us tuck tail and runs. Then to show what a man he was, in response to the USS Cole and the Kobar Tower, Clinton said enough was enough and threw some of the bigger peccers he had his hand on into the Afghan Desert. Both of these manly exhibitions some argue, were what set the stage for Obama hitting the twin towers

So here we have slick in all his giggling piety, trying to paint the republicans as evil war mongers. Slick tacitly ignores weak presidents like Obama wind up causing more wars than they prevent. To wit:

"Obama announces 275 US troops WILL be sent to Iraq to protect American embassy in Baghdad days after saying they would not return"

So keep playing the court jester slick, I'm sure you find your humor invigorating.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:04 am

I even have an issue with the 275 to protect the embassy, but that is kind of predictable after the Bengazi 'quasi-scandal'. Personally, I would just evacuate them all, tell the Iraqis to get back to us when they sort their crap out and leave it at that. For 50 years, the US has been seen in the region as a complete ★■◆●-up, and deservedly so. We have no clue about the region, the religions, the tribal relationships, nothing.

As for the notion of us leaving a larger force there in 2009, because of the 'strategic' importance, no idea on the matter could be more idiotic. We had 100,000 plus and couldn't really get traction, and it was costing a HUGE amount of money. What ever happened to the worries over deficits and budgets? Where is the priority on getting this nation on track? One of the comments McCain made the other day was to the effect that we have to find folks, and fast, that understand how to win in a combat situation. I thought to myself, "well, they better act quick, because there aren't many WWII vets left, and that is the ONLY group with that experience".

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:40 pm

Will Robinson wrote:Biden is about to get his wish....chop Iraq up.

Take a look at the area right after WWI. It was originally called Mesopotamia, that was home to a bunch of warring nomadic tribes before the French and the British made up the borders, put people were they thought they should go and created a country called Iraq after the war. So maybe it should be chopped up all over again. It's a Western-created country anyway.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:07 pm

woodchip wrote:Both of these manly exhibitions some argue, were what set the stage for Obama hitting the twin towers

Freudian slip?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:32 pm

Top Gun wrote:
woodchip wrote:Both of these manly exhibitions some argue, were what set the stage for Obama hitting the twin towers
Freudian slip?

whatever reason, it was hilarious.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:57 pm

Top Gun wrote:
woodchip wrote:Both of these manly exhibitions some argue, were what set the stage for Obama hitting the twin towers
Freudian slip?

Yeah he hit it like he would a nickle truck stop hooker...whatever. You know I meant Osama. Nice to see this was all you could focus on tho.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 3:08 pm

callmeslick wrote:One of the comments McCain made the other day was to the effect that we have to find folks, and fast, that understand how to win in a combat situation. I thought to myself, "well, they better act quick, because there aren't many WWII vets left, and that is the ONLY group with that experience".

You just don't give a ★■◆● who you insult...do you?

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 3:20 pm

When Bush Sr. took office we were the strongest country on this planet, His foreign policy started this mess. When Clinton left office, we had a balanced budget and a lowering deficit. When Bush Jr. left office, we got this.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 3:31 pm

flip wrote:When Bush Sr. took office we were the strongest country on this planet, His foreign policy started this mess. When Clinton left office, we had a balanced budget and a lowering deficit. When Bush Jr. left office, we got this.

I think fundamentalist whacko islamists 'started' this mess. We just have a bad habit of running into and out of it for small reasons wearing big targets on our backs.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:09 pm

callmeslick wrote:

I thought to myself, "well, they better act quick, because there aren't many WWII vets left, and that is the ONLY group with that experience".

Get back to me when you and yours allow carpet bombing cities into the stone age, make napalm and willy pete legal, and willing to draft young men only to loose 1000's of them in one battle. We don't have any WW2 type soldiers left because you cut their balls off and tried to make social workers out of them.

vision · Post by **vision** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:46 pm

woodchip wrote:Get back to me when you and yours allow carpet bombing cities into the stone age... We don't have any WW2 type soldiers left because you cut their balls off...

Yes, because it is manly to kill innocent people indiscriminately.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:54 pm

vision wrote:
woodchip wrote:Get back to me when you and yours allow carpet bombing cities into the stone age... We don't have any WW2 type soldiers left because you cut their balls off...
Yes, because it is manly to kill innocent people indiscriminately.

Yea, doing it with drones semi indiscriminately is so much better.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 5:25 pm

woodchip wrote:
callmeslick wrote:

I thought to myself, "well, they better act quick, because there aren't many WWII vets left, and that is the ONLY group with that experience".
Get back to me when you and yours allow carpet bombing cities into the stone age, make napalm and willy pete legal, and willing to draft young men only to loose 1000's of them in one battle. We don't have any WW2 type soldiers left because you cut their balls off and tried to make social workers out of them.

You know, I have to agree with woodchip here, the reason WWII was won was because this type of behavior was allowed. Really if you look at any "stable" nation in the middle east, Saddam's Iraq prior to any foreign military intervention being a prime example, you will notice that these nations are only "stable" when the majority of the population is living under a constant real threat of their entire village being gassed if any of them speak negatively about the government or leadership. Basically if you want to win a military conflict, especially in the middle east, then you need to indiscriminately burn civilian villages to the ground frequently or it simply won't stick with the tribal mentality they have. Politically and morally this is simply not an option for the west, which is why we can't break the middle eastern extremists who have no such reservations.

So yeah, the only way we can win a conflict for good in the middle east is to be demonstrably worse than the people we would call terrorists or extremists. You know, just like how we were during WWII, when we indiscriminately bombed civilian cities, even going as far as using nuclear weapons on them.

We can break any military we want, but to win a war you need to break a nation, not just a military.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 5:56 pm

Wow, I really do need some reading comprehension help, because I could have sworn the wording used was “combat situation” not “war”.

I doubt the US is in any position to win the "war" for Iraq.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 6:48 pm

Krom wrote:So yeah, the only way we can win a conflict for good in the middle east is to be demonstrably worse than the people we would call terrorists or extremists. You know, just like how we were during WWII, when we indiscriminately bombed civilian cities, even going as far as using nuclear weapons on them.

We can break any military we want, but to win a war you need to break a nation, not just a military.

We no longer have a nation to defeat anyway, we have people who are dispered in other nations who hate us for what we are and what we've done in the past. We can no longer be indiscriminate mass destroyers to kill our enemies. It's a different world now.

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:WHOEVER FIGHTS MONSTERS SHOULD SEE TO IT THAT, IN THE PROCESS, HE DOES NOT BECOME A MONSTER.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:21 pm

Spidey wrote:Wow, I really do need some reading comprehension help, because I could have sworn the wording used was “combat situation” not “war”.

I doubt the US is in any position to win the "war" for Iraq.

Yeah, but we already know how to win a combat situation, which is why we can wreck any other military we want. I doubt we fought many loosing "combat situations" in Iraq or Afghanistan, but we still lost the wars (although we are so good at "combat situations" that everybody else lost too). Thinking we can achieve anything in the middle east or anywhere else just by winning all "combat situations" is retarded. Even if we kept winning every battle and kept the troops there for decades, all it is likely to do is cost a lot of money and lives. The extremists and terrorists would probably love it, because they wouldn't even have to come to America anymore to kill Americans.

Iraq is falling apart, and it is going to get worse before it gets better (if it ever gets better). This is the obvious outcome of our actions, repeating the same actions over again will produce exactly the same result over and over again. If you didn't see it coming when the war was started, you were blind. It was a waste of time, it will always be a waste of time and McCain is insane for even suggesting it again.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 10:56 pm

Sure, anyone with knowledge of the middle east could have predicted an insurgence or two after the fall of Sodamninsane, but anyone that says they could have predicted the Iraqi armed forces would have evaporated at the first real test is full of it. (★■◆●)

Sure I would accept a prediction of them falling in defeat…but there wasn’t even a fight.

I was watching an interview with one of the soldiers that left the front line…when asked why he left, he made some lame excuse about running out of ammo…well when you run out of ammo…you fall back to your supply lines…you don’t take off your uniform and walk away.

Sure, you can blame Bush for the mess…but there is no way those cowards don’t get some as well. Same thing can be said for the looting that took place after the invasion...there was just no excuse for that.

vision · Post by **vision** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:48 pm

Will Robinson wrote:
vision wrote:
woodchip wrote:Get back to me when you and yours allow carpet bombing cities into the stone age... We don't have any WW2 type soldiers left because you cut their balls off...
Yes, because it is manly to kill innocent people indiscriminately.
Yea, doing it with drones semi indiscriminately is so much better.

Again, no one on this board approves of drones. However, it's worth pointing out the subtle difference between drone strikes and leveling a city. At least we are heading in a better direction.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 7:39 am

Spidey wrote:
callmeslick wrote:One of the comments McCain made the other day was to the effect that we have to find folks, and fast, that understand how to win in a combat situation. I thought to myself, "well, they better act quick, because there aren't many WWII vets left, and that is the ONLY group with that experience".
You just don't give a **** who you insult...do you?

sorry, just telling it like it is. We've lost or tied every war since 1945, and facts is facts. Much of this is because we started to get involved in situations where we had little to gain, little knowledge of the geography, culture or nature of our opposition, and most important, lack of national will to fight the wars. Can we stop, now, because that model has cost us dearly.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:03 am

Yea whatever, only problem is McCain didn’t say “war” you had to twist what he said in order to make your pointless point.

McCain said “win in a combat situation” and the fact is, we have plenty of vets that have “that” experience, and those are the ones I felt you insulted.

As for wars…our soldiers don’t lose wars…our politicians do, and we did win the first Golf war…remember that one.

Facts....lol

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:10 am

as pointed out, we haven't, at the end of the day, 'won' in any combat situations. You can't limit it to a good day or week on the battlefield. Combat situations are larger-scale than that.

Bottom line, not one of you has shown or even suggested how:
1. Iraq was ever a 'success' after we invaded
2. Why we should expect any good to come of current involvement.
3. What business we have there.

Frankly, I feel worst of all for the men and women that got sent to Iraq in the 2003-2009 period. What exactly did they fight, die and get maimed for?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:34 am

callmeslick wrote:as pointed out, we haven't, at the end of the day, 'won' in any combat situations. You can't limit it to a good day or week on the battlefield. Combat situations are larger-scale than that.

Bottom line, not one of you has shown or even suggested how:
1. Iraq was ever a 'success' after we invaded

I think the Obama administration has already taken credit for the success.

the smartest guy in the room wrote:“I am very optimistic about Iraq.
I think it’s gonna be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re gonna see 90,000 American troops come marchin’ home by the end of the summer.
You’re gonna see a stable government in Iraq that is actually movin’ toward a representative government.
I’ve been there 17 times now. I go about every two months, three months.
I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society.
It’s impressed me. I’ve been impressed, how they have been deciding to use the political process, rather than guns, to settle their differences.”

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:54 am

Is Obama trying to have a Hillary "Snipper Fire" moment? Perhaps I'm reading the wiki link wrong but I only see where Obama went to Iraq 1 time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pr ... onal_trips

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 10:00 am

callmeslick wrote:as pointed out, we haven't, at the end of the day, 'won' in any combat situations. You can't limit it to a good day or week on the battlefield. Combat situations are larger-scale than that.

Bottom line, not one of you has shown or even suggested how:
1. Iraq was ever a 'success' after we invaded
2. Why we should expect any good to come of current involvement.
3. What business we have there.

Frankly, I feel worst of all for the men and women that got sent to Iraq in the 2003-2009 period. What exactly did they fight, die and get maimed for?

1. I think that's because it wasn't. But... I also think that we (as a nation) failed to ignore sunk costs and acknowledge a responsibility to the Iraqi people. Once we were there, and once we had done all of this fighting there, and once we had started to try to sell them on democracy we should have stuck around to finish helping them the right way.
2. I tend to say it's over and done now... we're not going to get true commitment to doing it right now any more than we did before.
3. Well, that's it's own discussion. If we could turn back the clock, we should have finished out the gulf war correctly... But sunk costs are exactly that, so from here forward, now that we're gone, I tend to say we have no business going back.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 10:39 am

woodchip wrote:Is Obama trying to have a Hillary "Snipper Fire" moment? Perhaps I'm reading the wiki link wrong but I only see where Obama went to Iraq 1 time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pr ... onal_trips

No, Biden is the smartest guy in the room, according to Biden anyway. Obama made him the 'czar of Iraq policy' or some silly thing like that.