Explain Something To Me

[g5000]

What the fuck is the point of this thread other than "I hate Trump"?

The point is to ask why Trump's Chumps are supporting a cut-and-run, impeach Bush, Pelosi-loving, Democratic New York limousine liberal for President.

They have yet to explain.

1) Trump lies about his support for the invasion and attacks Clinton for supporting the invasion.

2) In 2007, Democrat Donald Trump called for Bush's impeachment. He was the picture of a raging "Bush lied, people died" liberal.

3) In 2007, limousine liberal Donald Trump (D-NY) opposed the surge. He demanded we cut-and-run.

 

[toomuchtime_]

What the fuck is the point of this thread other than "I hate Trump"?

The point is to ask why Trump's Chumps are supporting a cut-and-run, impeach Bush, Pelosi-loving, Democratic New York limousine liberal for President.

They have yet to explain.

1) Trump lies about his support for the invasion and attacks Clinton for supporting the invasion.

2) In 2007, Democrat Donald Trump called for Bush's impeachment. He was the picture of a raging "Bush lied, people died" liberal.

3) In 2007, limousine liberal Donald Trump (D-NY) opposed the surge. He demanded we cut-and-run.

So in effect you are agreeing there is no other purpose to this thread than to say "I hate Trump."

 

[Correll]

So what are you saying? Seen one Arab seen them all? There are huge differences among the various groups of Arabs and some are fighting to establish democracy without any outside help. Remember democracy in America and Europe was at first only limited to certain classes and races and religions and needed time to become universal.

Iraq is not "one arab". It is a nation that was argued, convincingly that was yearning for democracy and once we liberated it, the people would be grateful and quickly become a liberals modern western style democracy.


That was incorrect.


The tendency in the Arab World is a tyranny, and it is not our fault.

In fact, today, Iraq is a functioning democracy despite all of its problems.

It was supposed to be easy.


Because the Iraqi people yearned to breath free and would be grateful to us for freeing them from Saddam.


We should never try to do this again.

It certainly wasn't easy, but Bush's plan had not been to create a democracy. He had longed believed Saddam had to go and he had apparently believed that Saddam had some wmd's and was trying to develop nukes, but his original plan had been to convene a meeting of the leaders of the various factions and allow them to decide how to move forward. But the factions chose to fight each other rather than to work together and eventually democracy became the only viable alternative to chaos and war. At this point nearly all the factions agreed democracy was the only viable option they had. That's pretty much how democracy came to Europe, also.

Colin Powell had said in reference to Iraq, you break it, you own it. Once the US had committed to the war, it would have been irresponsible to have pulled out without setting Iraq on a firm course to a stable future. Bush, despite all his mistakes, acted responsibly in this respect. Clinton and Obama did not act responsibly in Iraq or Libya or Syria.

I heard a lot of talk well before the invasion about turning Iraq into a showcase for Western Style Democracy as a answer to the message of the Islamic extremists.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

It still has not been explained to me how Donald Trump's demands for impeachment and his demand we cut-and-run from Iraq any different from what Cindy Sheehan wanted?

Nor has it been explained to me how Trump can whine today about "the way we left Iraq" when he was one of the people who wanted to cut-and-run.

Nor has it been explained to me how Scott Walker and Ben Carson and Ted Cruz are the RINOs and how Donald Trump is a real conservative.

I think all Trump's Chumps can come up with is "B-b-b-but Clinton!' and "because Mexicans".

Still haven't figured it out yet eh? I'll give you a one word clue....... "Politics........."

He is just whining and venting which shuts down the brain and loosens the emotions. Some might call it childish.

 

[bendog]

Donald Trump now says that the "way we left Iraq" led to the rise of ISIS.

Yet, in 2007, when Trump was a registered Democrat, when President Bush was calling for a surge in Iraq, Donald Trump wanted to cut-and-run!


Trump: "Well, I think Bush is probably the worst president in the history of the United States, and I just don't understand how they could have lost that election."

"The rest of the world hates us."


Blitzer: How does the United States get out of this situation?

Trump: You know they get out? They get out! That's how they get out. Declare victory, and leave.



"Declare victory, and leave." Cut-and-run.



A lot of the same type of people today who support Trump are the type of people who supported the surge. They also strongly supported President Bush. And they especially hated cut-and-run Democrats like Donald Trump.



In 2008, Trump was demanding Bush be impeached! Trump liked and admired Nancy Pelosi back then, when the Right vehemently hated her.

Trump: "I was surprised that she (Nancy Pelosi) didn't do more in terms of Bush and going after Bush. It was almost -- it just seemed like she was going to really look to impeach Bush and get him out of office, which, personally, I think would have been a wonderful thing."

Blitzer: "Impeaching him?"

Trump: "Absolutely, for the war, for the war."

Blitzer: "Because of the conduct of the war."

Trump: "Well, he lied. He got us into the war with lies. And, I mean, look at the trouble Bill Clinton got into with something that was totally unimportant. And they tried to impeach him, which was nonsense. And, yet, Bush got us into this horrible war with lies, by lying, by saying they had weapons of mass destruction, by saying all sorts of things that turned out not to be true."


So here is what I need Trump's Chumps to explain to me: How were Donald Trump's demands for impeachment and his demand we cut-and-run from Iraq any different from what Cindy Sheehan wanted?

Explain to me how Trump can whine today about "the way we left Iraq" when he was one of the people who wanted to cut-and-run.


Now...I know your programmed response is, "B-b-b-b-but Clinton!", but spare us that crock of shit. It's a red herring handed to retards to chuck about when they can't explain Trump, and it doesn't answer the question.

Besides, not even Clinton called for Bush to be impeached. Only far left loons like Sheehan and Trump did.

So explain the difference between Trump and Sheehan. And explain Trump's whining about "the way we left Iraq" in the context of his demand we cut-and-run.

Ok, I'll bite since I don't think anyone else did. It's bait though (-:

Sheehen was sincere. Imo she was a bit demented, but given her loss, I can't blame her. Two Tone Donnie will say anything if he gets approval from a group he deems worthy of his suckage.

I admit I was literally horrified by W's entire misadventure, and while I figured the pull out would lead to more carnage, I didn't see an alternative. Those who sought an alternative were right.

 

[g5000]

What the fuck is the point of this thread other than "I hate Trump"?

The point is to ask why Trump's Chumps are supporting a cut-and-run, impeach Bush, Pelosi-loving, Democratic New York limousine liberal for President.

They have yet to explain.

1) Trump lies about his support for the invasion and attacks Clinton for supporting the invasion.

2) In 2007, Democrat Donald Trump called for Bush's impeachment. He was the picture of a raging "Bush lied, people died" liberal.

3) In 2007, limousine liberal Donald Trump (D-NY) opposed the surge. He demanded we cut-and-run.

So in effect you are agreeing there is no other purpose to this thread than to say "I hate Trump."

Nope. The purpose of this thread is to wake up Trump's Chumps to the fact he is a huckster and they are the marks. I am doing the same service as someone who points out to a psychic's clients that they are being taken for a ride, or anyone who falls for snake oil salesman.

And the marks always react the same way. Cries of outrage and anger toward the person trying to help them prevent being conned.

Nice try.

 

[BlindBoo]

There was a big difference between Iraq in 2007 and Iraq in 2011. 2006 had been the worst year of the war and the senior staff of the Pentagon offered little hope things would improve, so showing boldness and great strength of character, Bush began interviewing his generals asking the how they would overcome the difficulties in Iraq. Only Petraeus had a plan, and so Bush promoted him over the heads of more senior generals so he could take command in Iraq. By the time Petraeus reported to Congress on the progress he had made, some people were still thinking about how bad things had been in 2006 and the Democrats had already decided opposition to the war would be a major talking point in 2008, so success in Iraq would work against their political interests and failure in Iraq would work in their favor, as Hillary's bizarre outburst in the Senate clearly exemplifies.

By the time Obama took office, Iraq had been stabilized politically, had become a democracy in an astonishingly short time, the extremists had become nuisances rather than threats and Iraqi forces did nearly all the fighting that was necessary with US only providing support, but that support was critically importatnt; it prevented the largely Shi'ite government from persecuting the Sunni, it gave the Sunni confidence that if they continued to resist al Qaeda, the US would be right there to support them and it gave Iraq's PM assurance that if he resisted Iran's influence, the US would be right there to support him. The Pentagon advised Obama that to maintain these conditions 30,000 US troops would have to remain, but the Democrats had run on the promise that all US troops would be withdrawn from Iraq and as the 2012 elections drew closer, Obama decided that it was more important for him to be elected to a second term than for the peace in Iraq to be maintained of for al Qaeda to be held in check, so he announced that Iraq was now so stable and able to take care of all its issues, US troops were no longer needed there, knowing full well this wasn't true, and in that way Obama created ISIS.

So the fact that Trump was wrong in 2007 about the value of the surge has nothing to do with him being right about Obama creating ISIS by withdrawing US troops in 2011.

In the final 2 years of Bush II, we (the coalition) lost 1,200 people. It was hardly “stable” politically, militarily, or theologically. Had we kept the same number of troops there, they would still be getting picked off, captured, beheaded, etc…

In the meantime; nobody has come up with one good reason to spill a drop of American blood over there since 2003.

I was over there on active duty. I have no doubt in my military mind that we would have had to fight Hussein again, sooner or later. He wanted a fight, and he was going to get one.

My only problem with Bush on that front is the inept way he prosecuted the war.

Actually, the war with Saddam was won quickly and relatively cheaply, but it was the aftermath of the war that was the problem. Once Saddam was gone, the US couldn't leave without Iraq collapsing into sectarian war which would have threatened the entire region, but no one knew what to do until Petraeus came along with his plan. His plan was both simple and brilliant. He recognized that stationing US troops in massive bases meant they could only respond to fighting among the factions after it broke out and would then have to retreat to their bases but stationing them among the Iraqi people would allow them to prevent fighting. It would require more manpower, hence the surge, and would produce higher US casualties at first, but would eventually mean US troops would only have to provide support instead of fighting.

The occupation was the problem. President Bush had to ask the UN for help. It was that very UN that forced the issue in 2007 by not renewing the Occupation Mandate. Forcing the SOFA that spells out the timetable for the US withdrawal. The ultimate topper for the strategic blunder of invading and occupying Iraq.

Was the invasion a strategic blunder or just a political blunder? I'm not sure. One could certainly say that the withdrawal of US troops by Obama was a strategic blunder if it hadn't been done for political purposes without regard to the consequences. I would say the strategic blunder was Bush41's when he left Saddam in power and gave the UN more responsibility for maintaining the sanctions and the containment of Iraq than the UN was competent to handle.

It was a strategic blunder in that it created more hostility towards the US. Something that Mr. Trump inflames with his "Take the Oil" Rhetoric. The Agreement to withdraw all our forces was signed and delivered by President Bush. Furthermore President Obama was not opposed to keeping a force in Iraq but the Iraqis themselves wanted us out. Something he proved when Iraq called for help. I thought he might pull a "Ford", but he put on his rescue ranger outfit and galloped to their aid.

Colin Powell and Sec. Rice proclaimed Saddam had not been able to rebuild his conventional army not had he been able to restart his WMD program. I think the UN effort was a success. They fully disarmed Iraq of all the weapons the Western Allies had delivered to him during his war with Iran.

 

[g5000]

Donald Trump now says that the "way we left Iraq" led to the rise of ISIS.

Yet, in 2007, when Trump was a registered Democrat, when President Bush was calling for a surge in Iraq, Donald Trump wanted to cut-and-run!


Trump: "Well, I think Bush is probably the worst president in the history of the United States, and I just don't understand how they could have lost that election."

"The rest of the world hates us."


Blitzer: How does the United States get out of this situation?

Trump: You know they get out? They get out! That's how they get out. Declare victory, and leave.



"Declare victory, and leave." Cut-and-run.



A lot of the same type of people today who support Trump are the type of people who supported the surge. They also strongly supported President Bush. And they especially hated cut-and-run Democrats like Donald Trump.



In 2008, Trump was demanding Bush be impeached! Trump liked and admired Nancy Pelosi back then, when the Right vehemently hated her.

Trump: "I was surprised that she (Nancy Pelosi) didn't do more in terms of Bush and going after Bush. It was almost -- it just seemed like she was going to really look to impeach Bush and get him out of office, which, personally, I think would have been a wonderful thing."

Blitzer: "Impeaching him?"

Trump: "Absolutely, for the war, for the war."

Blitzer: "Because of the conduct of the war."

Trump: "Well, he lied. He got us into the war with lies. And, I mean, look at the trouble Bill Clinton got into with something that was totally unimportant. And they tried to impeach him, which was nonsense. And, yet, Bush got us into this horrible war with lies, by lying, by saying they had weapons of mass destruction, by saying all sorts of things that turned out not to be true."


So here is what I need Trump's Chumps to explain to me: How were Donald Trump's demands for impeachment and his demand we cut-and-run from Iraq any different from what Cindy Sheehan wanted?

Explain to me how Trump can whine today about "the way we left Iraq" when he was one of the people who wanted to cut-and-run.


Now...I know your programmed response is, "B-b-b-b-but Clinton!", but spare us that crock of shit. It's a red herring handed to retards to chuck about when they can't explain Trump, and it doesn't answer the question.

Besides, not even Clinton called for Bush to be impeached. Only far left loons like Sheehan and Trump did.

So explain the difference between Trump and Sheehan. And explain Trump's whining about "the way we left Iraq" in the context of his demand we cut-and-run.

Ok, I'll bite since I don't think anyone else did. It's bait though (-:

Sheehen was sincere. Imo she was a bit demented, but given her loss, I can't blame her. Two Tone Donnie will say anything if he gets approval from a group he deems worthy of his suckage.

I admit I was literally horrified by W's entire misadventure, and while I figured the pull out would lead to more carnage, I didn't see an alternative. Those who sought an alternative were right.

Yes, the chief difference between Sheehan and Trump is that Sheehan was a gold star mother and Trump was a limousine liberal.

But their political aims were identical: Cut-and-run, and impeach Bush.

]

Hey, where do I register as a Republican?

 

[bendog]

I doubt Trump cared much about the troops or wanted W impeached. I hope Sheehen found some peace. There's a kid at my gym who wants to go to West Point. God save him. It absolutely kills me to see my kid's view of the military. She doesn't disrespect them so much as she just thinks they are fools.

We need one of the dems who served and is now in congress to be running. All the gop has it Tom with Cotton in his ears.

 

[Flash]

Donald Trump now says that the "way we left Iraq" led to the rise of ISIS.

Yet, in 2007, when Trump was a registered Democrat, when President Bush was calling for a surge in Iraq, Donald Trump wanted to cut-and-run!


Trump: "Well, I think Bush is probably the worst president in the history of the United States, and I just don't understand how they could have lost that election."

"The rest of the world hates us."


Blitzer: How does the United States get out of this situation?

Trump: You know they get out? They get out! That's how they get out. Declare victory, and leave.



"Declare victory, and leave." Cut-and-run.



A lot of the same type of people today who support Trump are the type of people who supported the surge. They also strongly supported President Bush. And they especially hated cut-and-run Democrats like Donald Trump.



In 2008, Trump was demanding Bush be impeached! Trump liked and admired Nancy Pelosi back then, when the Right vehemently hated her.

Trump: "I was surprised that she (Nancy Pelosi) didn't do more in terms of Bush and going after Bush. It was almost -- it just seemed like she was going to really look to impeach Bush and get him out of office, which, personally, I think would have been a wonderful thing."

Blitzer: "Impeaching him?"

Trump: "Absolutely, for the war, for the war."

Blitzer: "Because of the conduct of the war."

Trump: "Well, he lied. He got us into the war with lies. And, I mean, look at the trouble Bill Clinton got into with something that was totally unimportant. And they tried to impeach him, which was nonsense. And, yet, Bush got us into this horrible war with lies, by lying, by saying they had weapons of mass destruction, by saying all sorts of things that turned out not to be true."


So here is what I need Trump's Chumps to explain to me: How were Donald Trump's demands for impeachment and his demand we cut-and-run from Iraq any different from what Cindy Sheehan wanted?

Explain to me how Trump can whine today about "the way we left Iraq" when he was one of the people who wanted to cut-and-run.


Now...I know your programmed response is, "B-b-b-b-but Clinton!", but spare us that crock of shit. It's a red herring handed to retards to chuck about when they can't explain Trump, and it doesn't answer the question.

Besides, not even Clinton called for Bush to be impeached. Only far left loons like Sheehan and Trump did.

So explain the difference between Trump and Sheehan. And explain Trump's whining about "the way we left Iraq" in the context of his demand we cut-and-run.

It is easy to explain. You can think that it was the wrong thing for Crooked Hillary to vote for the invasion of Iraq and also understand how Crooked Hillary and this jackass Obama screwed everything up. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Ringel05]

It still has not been explained to me how Donald Trump's demands for impeachment and his demand we cut-and-run from Iraq any different from what Cindy Sheehan wanted?

Nor has it been explained to me how Trump can whine today about "the way we left Iraq" when he was one of the people who wanted to cut-and-run.

Nor has it been explained to me how Scott Walker and Ben Carson and Ted Cruz are the RINOs and how Donald Trump is a real conservative.

I think all Trump's Chumps can come up with is "B-b-b-but Clinton!' and "because Mexicans".

Still haven't figured it out yet eh? I'll give you a one word clue....... "Politics........."

He is just whining and venting which shuts down the brain and loosens the emotions. Some might call it childish.

There's a lot of that going on........ on both sides.......

 

[MaryL]

Trump is talking out of both sides of his mouth here. First of all, (if you believe Trump), he says he never supported the war, and that the Bush Admin is responsible for destabilizing the area. But, then he goes on to say the way Obama pulled American troops out of Iraq caused ISIS. So, in effect, Trump is really being mealy mouthed and conflicted about who did what to cause this, to begin with. (Being near the 15th anniversary of 9/11/01, I blame BUSH for invading Iraq, it was a ruse to deflect criticism he let Saudi Arabia get away for it's involvement in the 9/11 attacks.)

 

[FA_Q2]

Donald Trump now says that the "way we left Iraq" led to the rise of ISIS.

Yet, in 2007, when Trump was a registered Democrat, when President Bush was calling for a surge in Iraq, Donald Trump wanted to cut-and-run!


Trump: "Well, I think Bush is probably the worst president in the history of the United States, and I just don't understand how they could have lost that election."

"The rest of the world hates us."


Blitzer: How does the United States get out of this situation?

Trump: You know they get out? They get out! That's how they get out. Declare victory, and leave.



"Declare victory, and leave." Cut-and-run.



A lot of the same type of people today who support Trump are the type of people who supported the surge. They also strongly supported President Bush. And they especially hated cut-and-run Democrats like Donald Trump.



In 2008, Trump was demanding Bush be impeached! Trump liked and admired Nancy Pelosi back then, when the Right vehemently hated her.

Trump: "I was surprised that she (Nancy Pelosi) didn't do more in terms of Bush and going after Bush. It was almost -- it just seemed like she was going to really look to impeach Bush and get him out of office, which, personally, I think would have been a wonderful thing."

Blitzer: "Impeaching him?"

Trump: "Absolutely, for the war, for the war."

Blitzer: "Because of the conduct of the war."

Trump: "Well, he lied. He got us into the war with lies. And, I mean, look at the trouble Bill Clinton got into with something that was totally unimportant. And they tried to impeach him, which was nonsense. And, yet, Bush got us into this horrible war with lies, by lying, by saying they had weapons of mass destruction, by saying all sorts of things that turned out not to be true."


So here is what I need Trump's Chumps to explain to me: How were Donald Trump's demands for impeachment and his demand we cut-and-run from Iraq any different from what Cindy Sheehan wanted?

Explain to me how Trump can whine today about "the way we left Iraq" when he was one of the people who wanted to cut-and-run.


Now...I know your programmed response is, "B-b-b-b-but Clinton!", but spare us that crock of shit. It's a red herring handed to retards to chuck about when they can't explain Trump, and it doesn't answer the question.

Besides, not even Clinton called for Bush to be impeached. Only far left loons like Sheehan and Trump did.

So explain the difference between Trump and Sheehan. And explain Trump's whining about "the way we left Iraq" in the context of his demand we cut-and-run.

To me, The answer is so simple it's easy to miss. He is playing politics just like any politician does. Name the politician who hasn't spoke out of both sides of their mouth. How many flip flops has Hellary or BO made? It's what politicians do. Don't over think it.

Yes, he is a politician now. However, he was not a politician then, when those things were said.

When investigating what his actual positions are rather than what is political gamesmanship it only makes sense that he is lying now for points but telling the truth then when there was nothing to gain or lose with his statements.

Trump is a democrat that was able to take the republican nomination.

 

[FA_Q2]

Explain to me how Scott Walker and Ben Carson and Ted Cruz are the RINOs and how Donald Trump is a real conservative so we can all have a huge fucking belly laugh.

Who are you voting for, which perfect canidate do you see on the ballot? Explain that to me.

No. Trump has no core value beyond Trump. That is different from anyone, no matter what side of the aisle they are on ... consistently.

Bullshit. Hillary has no 'core' as do most of the shit politicians that we elect today. They say whatever they think is going to get them elected.

 

[FA_Q2]

What the fuck is the point of this thread other than "I hate Trump"?

The point is to ask why Trump's Chumps are supporting a cut-and-run, impeach Bush, Pelosi-loving, Democratic New York limousine liberal for President.

They have yet to explain.

1) Trump lies about his support for the invasion and attacks Clinton for supporting the invasion.

2) In 2007, Democrat Donald Trump called for Bush's impeachment. He was the picture of a raging "Bush lied, people died" liberal.

3) In 2007, limousine liberal Donald Trump (D-NY) opposed the surge. He demanded we cut-and-run.

So in effect you are agreeing there is no other purpose to this thread than to say "I hate Trump."

Nope. The purpose of this thread is to wake up Trump's Chumps to the fact he is a huckster and they are the marks. I am doing the same service as someone who points out to a psychic's clients that they are being taken for a ride, or anyone who falls for snake oil salesman.

And the marks always react the same way. Cries of outrage and anger toward the person trying to help them prevent being conned.

Nice try.

A few have. You, OTOH, have ignored anyone that comes in here with a reasonable and thought out response.

In your own moniker, you are swallowing your own piss here even if I agree with your premise. I expect more from you G.

 

[FA_Q2]

Trump wanted to cut-and-run in 2007. The very kind of thing you and Trump now say "created ISIS".

How Trump can whine today about "the way we left Iraq" and how can he whine about the cutting and running which "created ISIS" when he was one of the people who wanted to cut-and-run?

There was a big difference between Iraq in 2007 and Iraq in 2011. 2006 had been the worst year of the war and the senior staff of the Pentagon offered little hope things would improve, so showing boldness and great strength of character, Bush began interviewing his generals asking the how they would overcome the difficulties in Iraq. Only Petraeus had a plan, and so Bush promoted him over the heads of more senior generals so he could take command in Iraq. By the time Petraeus reported to Congress on the progress he had made, some people were still thinking about how bad things had been in 2006 and the Democrats had already decided opposition to the war would be a major talking point in 2008, so success in Iraq would work against their political interests and failure in Iraq would work in their favor, as Hillary's bizarre outburst in the Senate clearly exemplifies.

By the time Obama took office, Iraq had been stabilized politically, had become a democracy in an astonishingly short time, the extremists had become nuisances rather than threats and Iraqi forces did nearly all the fighting that was necessary with US only providing support, but that support was critically importatnt; it prevented the largely Shi'ite government from persecuting the Sunni, it gave the Sunni confidence that if they continued to resist al Qaeda, the US would be right there to support them and it gave Iraq's PM assurance that if he resisted Iran's influence, the US would be right there to support him. The Pentagon advised Obama that to maintain these conditions 30,000 US troops would have to remain, but the Democrats had run on the promise that all US troops would be withdrawn from Iraq and as the 2012 elections drew closer, Obama decided that it was more important for him to be elected to a second term than for the peace in Iraq to be maintained of for al Qaeda to be held in check, so he announced that Iraq was now so stable and able to take care of all its issues, US troops were no longer needed there, knowing full well this wasn't true, and in that way Obama created ISIS.

So the fact that Trump was wrong in 2007 about the value of the surge has nothing to do with him being right about Obama creating ISIS by withdrawing US troops in 2011.

In the final 2 years of Bush II, we (the coalition) lost 1,200 people. It was hardly “stable” politically, militarily, or theologically. Had we kept the same number of troops there, they would still be getting picked off, captured, beheaded, etc…

In the meantime; nobody has come up with one good reason to spill a drop of American blood over there since 2003.

I was over there on active duty. I have no doubt in my military mind that we would have had to fight Hussein again, sooner or later. He wanted a fight, and he was going to get one.

My only problem with Bush on that front is the inept way he prosecuted the war.

Actually, the war with Saddam was won quickly and relatively cheaply, but it was the aftermath of the war that was the problem. Once Saddam was gone, the US couldn't leave without Iraq collapsing into sectarian war which would have threatened the entire region, but no one knew what to do until Petraeus came along with his plan. His plan was both simple and brilliant. He recognized that stationing US troops in massive bases meant they could only respond to fighting among the factions after it broke out and would then have to retreat to their bases but stationing them among the Iraqi people would allow them to prevent fighting. It would require more manpower, hence the surge, and would produce higher US casualties at first, but would eventually mean US troops would only have to provide support instead of fighting.

Just “more US casualties”….for WMDs that didn’t exist.

No, to stabilize the region but you already knew that.

In the final 2 years of Bush II, we (the coalition) lost 1,200 people. It was hardly “stable” politically, militarily, or theologically. Had we kept the same number of troops there, they would still be getting picked off, captured, beheaded, etc…

In the meantime; nobody has come up with one good reason to spill a drop of American blood over there since 2003.

Then what you are saying is that Obama is a liar because with Hillary standing at his side he claimed he was withdrawing the troops because things were so good in Iraq US troops were no longer needed.

It was 3-4 years later in the first place.
In the 2nd place, there was no longer a threat of Iraq using WMDs…

As you may recall, that was the lie we were told to go in there to start with.

The biggest lie was the untold truth. The lie of omission.

I said before the invasion that it was going to be at least a ten year grind. But Bush knew he couldn't sell a ten year war that would carry over into the next Administration. So he made it sound like we would all be home by Christmas, like so many other assholes at the top in the past.

Remember how McCain was virulently attacked for saying we might have to occupy for 50 years? He was telling the truth, and the American people didn't like to hear the truth at all.

There was no lie of omission, just incredible naivete. Bush and his advisers had assumed that once Saddam was gone, the Iraqi people would rush to convene and organize a new government, but they had grossly underestimated the the extent t which Saddam had terrorized the Iraqi people and the depth of the animosity that existed between the Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurds. It was this animosity among these factions that should have been expected but wasn't that Petraeus' plan put under control and allowed Iraq to become a relatively, for that part of the world, peaceful nation and a functioning democracy. So while there were many mistakes along the way, ultimately the war was a success until Obama destroyed to assure his reelection in 2012.

So all we had to do is remain there, continue to lose dozens of soldiers each month, to be able to call it a “success” and pay $3.00+ a gallon for gasoline as we were doing during the war.

Man, I’d hate to see what losing was like…

You do see what losing is like - a war torn region that is causing violence all over the world and destabilizing neighboring regions.

That is what happens when you do not finish what you start.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Iraq is not "one arab". It is a nation that was argued, convincingly that was yearning for democracy and once we liberated it, the people would be grateful and quickly become a liberals modern western style democracy.


That was incorrect.


The tendency in the Arab World is a tyranny, and it is not our fault.

In fact, today, Iraq is a functioning democracy despite all of its problems.

It was supposed to be easy.


Because the Iraqi people yearned to breath free and would be grateful to us for freeing them from Saddam.


We should never try to do this again.

It certainly wasn't easy, but Bush's plan had not been to create a democracy. He had longed believed Saddam had to go and he had apparently believed that Saddam had some wmd's and was trying to develop nukes, but his original plan had been to convene a meeting of the leaders of the various factions and allow them to decide how to move forward. But the factions chose to fight each other rather than to work together and eventually democracy became the only viable alternative to chaos and war. At this point nearly all the factions agreed democracy was the only viable option they had. That's pretty much how democracy came to Europe, also.

Colin Powell had said in reference to Iraq, you break it, you own it. Once the US had committed to the war, it would have been irresponsible to have pulled out without setting Iraq on a firm course to a stable future. Bush, despite all his mistakes, acted responsibly in this respect. Clinton and Obama did not act responsibly in Iraq or Libya or Syria.

I heard a lot of talk well before the invasion about turning Iraq into a showcase for Western Style Democracy as a answer to the message of the Islamic extremists.

If you go back and look it up, you will find most of that talk came from the Clinton administration, especially from Gore, who was quite hawkish on Iraq while Bush was much less hawkish.

Listen to Gore threatening to use military force against Iraq while he was still VP because he saw Saddam's weapons as a "grave threat".



and


"US Vice-President Al Gore has told Iraqi opposition politicians that the United States remains committed to the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein.

Meeting a delegation from the Iraqi National Congress (INC), he also reiterated the administration's view that the Iraqi leader should be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity."

BBC News | AMERICAS | Gore: Saddam must go

It was only after 911 when Bush decided that leaving the mess his father had created in Iraq by allowing the UN to take charge of the sanctions and containment of Saddam, that he decided that for its own protection and the protection of allies in the region, the US must take charge of the situation and make sure Saddam could not further destabilize the region. Even then, he didn't call for the overthrow of he government, just strict enforcement of sanctions and inspections and an end of he corruption that had engulfed those parts of the UN that dealt with Iraq. It was only as Saddam hedged and stalled with the support of France and Germany that Bush finally decided Saddam must go, but even then he had no plans to make Iraq a democracy. What you're complaining about is what the Democrats wanted to do.

 

[toomuchtime_]

What the fuck is the point of this thread other than "I hate Trump"?

The point is to ask why Trump's Chumps are supporting a cut-and-run, impeach Bush, Pelosi-loving, Democratic New York limousine liberal for President.

They have yet to explain.

1) Trump lies about his support for the invasion and attacks Clinton for supporting the invasion.

2) In 2007, Democrat Donald Trump called for Bush's impeachment. He was the picture of a raging "Bush lied, people died" liberal.

3) In 2007, limousine liberal Donald Trump (D-NY) opposed the surge. He demanded we cut-and-run.

So in effect you are agreeing there is no other purpose to this thread than to say "I hate Trump."

Nope. The purpose of this thread is to wake up Trump's Chumps to the fact he is a huckster and they are the marks. I am doing the same service as someone who points out to a psychic's clients that they are being taken for a ride, or anyone who falls for snake oil salesman.

And the marks always react the same way. Cries of outrage and anger toward the person trying to help them prevent being conned.

Nice try.

lol Once again your post contradicts what you intended to say.

 

[SwimExpert]

In fact, today, Iraq is a functioning democracy despite all of its problems.

It was supposed to be easy.


Because the Iraqi people yearned to breath free and would be grateful to us for freeing them from Saddam.


We should never try to do this again.

It certainly wasn't easy, but Bush's plan had not been to create a democracy. He had longed believed Saddam had to go and he had apparently believed that Saddam had some wmd's and was trying to develop nukes, but his original plan had been to convene a meeting of the leaders of the various factions and allow them to decide how to move forward. But the factions chose to fight each other rather than to work together and eventually democracy became the only viable alternative to chaos and war. At this point nearly all the factions agreed democracy was the only viable option they had. That's pretty much how democracy came to Europe, also.

Colin Powell had said in reference to Iraq, you break it, you own it. Once the US had committed to the war, it would have been irresponsible to have pulled out without setting Iraq on a firm course to a stable future. Bush, despite all his mistakes, acted responsibly in this respect. Clinton and Obama did not act responsibly in Iraq or Libya or Syria.

I heard a lot of talk well before the invasion about turning Iraq into a showcase for Western Style Democracy as a answer to the message of the Islamic extremists.

If you go back and look it up, you will find most of that talk came from the Clinton administration, especially from Gore, who was quite hawkish on Iraq while Bush was much less hawkish.

Listen to Gore threatening to use military force against Iraq while he was still VP because he saw Saddam's weapons as a "grave threat".



and


"US Vice-President Al Gore has told Iraqi opposition politicians that the United States remains committed to the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein.

Meeting a delegation from the Iraqi National Congress (INC), he also reiterated the administration's view that the Iraqi leader should be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity."

BBC News | AMERICAS | Gore: Saddam must go

It was only after 911 when Bush decided that leaving the mess his father had created in Iraq by allowing the UN to take charge of the sanctions and containment of Saddam, that he decided that for its own protection and the protection of allies in the region, the US must take charge of the situation and make sure Saddam could not further destabilize the region. Even then, he didn't call for the overthrow of he government, just strict enforcement of sanctions and inspections and an end of he corruption that had engulfed those parts of the UN that dealt with Iraq. It was only as Saddam hedged and stalled with the support of France and Germany that Bush finally decided Saddam must go, but even then he had no plans to make Iraq a democracy. What you're complaining about is what the Democrats wanted to do.

Man, and I thought it was bad when liberals play the "It's Bush's fault" card. You're playing the Gore card.

 

[toomuchtime_]

In the final 2 years of Bush II, we (the coalition) lost 1,200 people. It was hardly “stable” politically, militarily, or theologically. Had we kept the same number of troops there, they would still be getting picked off, captured, beheaded, etc…

In the meantime; nobody has come up with one good reason to spill a drop of American blood over there since 2003.

I was over there on active duty. I have no doubt in my military mind that we would have had to fight Hussein again, sooner or later. He wanted a fight, and he was going to get one.

My only problem with Bush on that front is the inept way he prosecuted the war.

Actually, the war with Saddam was won quickly and relatively cheaply, but it was the aftermath of the war that was the problem. Once Saddam was gone, the US couldn't leave without Iraq collapsing into sectarian war which would have threatened the entire region, but no one knew what to do until Petraeus came along with his plan. His plan was both simple and brilliant. He recognized that stationing US troops in massive bases meant they could only respond to fighting among the factions after it broke out and would then have to retreat to their bases but stationing them among the Iraqi people would allow them to prevent fighting. It would require more manpower, hence the surge, and would produce higher US casualties at first, but would eventually mean US troops would only have to provide support instead of fighting.

The occupation was the problem. President Bush had to ask the UN for help. It was that very UN that forced the issue in 2007 by not renewing the Occupation Mandate. Forcing the SOFA that spells out the timetable for the US withdrawal. The ultimate topper for the strategic blunder of invading and occupying Iraq.

Was the invasion a strategic blunder or just a political blunder? I'm not sure. One could certainly say that the withdrawal of US troops by Obama was a strategic blunder if it hadn't been done for political purposes without regard to the consequences. I would say the strategic blunder was Bush41's when he left Saddam in power and gave the UN more responsibility for maintaining the sanctions and the containment of Iraq than the UN was competent to handle.

It was a strategic blunder in that it created more hostility towards the US. Something that Mr. Trump inflames with his "Take the Oil" Rhetoric. The Agreement to withdraw all our forces was signed and delivered by President Bush. Furthermore President Obama was not opposed to keeping a force in Iraq but the Iraqis themselves wanted us out. Something he proved when Iraq called for help. I thought he might pull a "Ford", but he put on his rescue ranger outfit and galloped to their aid.

Colin Powell and Sec. Rice proclaimed Saddam had not been able to rebuild his conventional army not had he been able to restart his WMD program. I think the UN effort was a success. They fully disarmed Iraq of all the weapons the Western Allies had delivered to him during his war with Iran.

You've got a whole smorgasbord of complaints here so let's take them one at a time.

First, there is no evidence that this "hostility" you believe the war caused did any harm to the US.

Trump made the take the oil statement when talking about ISIS and he is quite right that if ISIS had not been able to secure the revenues from those oil fields for so long it wouldn't have had the financial muscle to spread as far as it did. It is worth notion that much of the US effort in Syria and Iraq against ISIS is to deny it those revenues in order to "starve" it. Logically, Trump's statement makes sense, although it may have been impractical.

Obama has sent thousands of US soldiers back to Iraq under the same status of forces agreement that existed when he withdrew them so it is nonsense to suggest he couldn't have left them there at the time. It is worth noting that when he withdrew them he said that Iraq no longer needed US help not that he was powerless to leave the troops there. Iraq asked Obama to bomb ISIS, not to send US troops back, but by then the Iraqi military had become such a mess after the US left that Obama pressured Iraq to accept our soldiers and turn over to the US a major role in reforming the Iraqi army. It was only after the disaster he had created in Iraq became impossible to ignore that he and Clinton started falsely claiming he had been powerless to leave troops there.

After the war, everyone knew that Saddam didn't have wmd, but before the war, listen to what Al Gore had to say about what a grave threat Saddam's weapons were and issue an implied threat the US would use force if Saddam didn't cooperate with inspections, pretty much what Bush said later.