Speculate with me about the Iraq war...

[nat4900]

I know, I know that asking folks to speculate is always a risky business.....But give it a try....

Have we NOT had the invasion in Iraq:

Would we have the current fear of Iran with the potential nukes? (bear in mind that prior to 2001, Iran had zero centrifuges)???

Would we have the brutal rise of ISIS???

Would we have the civil war in Syria and the tragedy of hundred of thousands of refugees???

Would we have the plight of Jordan and Lebanon???

Would we have the messes that now exist in Egypt and Libya???

If you care to honestly speculate, then think of the tragedy that was the Cheney-Bush administration.

 

[jwoodie]

Why don't YOU "honestLy speculate" by answering your own questions?

 

[MaryL]

We would have been better off IF Saddam Hussein was in power now. This is fact: Early 1990 (BEFORE THE GULF WAR), I saw in a local Burlington Northern marshalling yard, the build up of military equipment obviously meant for the mideast (desert tan camouflage paint instead of the standard NATO Olive drab).I came from a military family, I notice little things like that. There were preparations for a war BEFORE Saddam invaded Kuwait.We were Iraq's ally during the Iraq-Iran war 80' to 88, Saddam was seen as a bolster against Iranian extremists and their aggression. We allowed Saddam to invade Kuwait, instead of pull our many strings and stop it behind the curtain. But now we have a tiger by the tail.

 

[occupied]

Hindsight tells us that Bush/Cheney were going to have their Iraq war even if the 9/11 attacks had not occurred. The things they used to scare people into supporting it might have been different but there is no question it would have happened. A more realistic thought experiment would be: What would have happened to the middle-east had the 2000 election went the other way? Only then could you have a believable scenario where the Iraq war did not happen.

 

[gipper]

Military interventions always have negative consequences. No doubt Bush holds much responsibility for the current problems. However, so does Obama who intervened in Syria, Egypt, and Libya. Your failure to recognize this, means you are a typical left wing partisan...blind to reality

 

[rdean]

Why don't YOU "honestLy speculate" by answering your own questions?

But you have to admit, Bush Sr. stopped at the Iraqi border after after driving back Saddam. That pretty much preserved the Middle East status quo. The invasion by Bush Jr. was a first order magnitude fuck up of the worst kind. It's not like it's a secret or hard to miss.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Military interventions always have negative consequences. No doubt Bush holds much responsibility for the current problems. However, so does Obama who intervened in Syria, Egypt, and Libya. Your failure to recognize this, means you are a typical left wing partisan...blind to reality

Certainly Obama was a fool for involving us in thousands year old religious nonsense in a bunch of desert wastelands. But whatever he's added to the avalanche, it was Dubya that set it off in the first place.

 

[MaryL]

We trusted in Saddam and his regime. Now, after we killed him and destabilized the area, we are going to trust a country that took our embassy workers hostage, makes public proclamations of death to America, threatens to destroy Israel and fund Muslim suicide terrorist, and wants nuclear weapons? Americans aren't making very good decisions lately.

 

[occupied]

Military interventions always have negative consequences. No doubt Bush holds much responsibility for the current problems. However, so does Obama who intervened in Syria, Egypt, and Libya. Your failure to recognize this, means you are a typical left wing partisan...blind to reality

Certainly Obama was a fool for involving us in thousands year old religious nonsense in a bunch of desert wastelands. But whatever he's added to the avalanche, it was Dubya that set it off in the first place.

Our pentagon in it's usual overly-optimistic way had every confidence we could ride that tiger all the way to a pacified mid-east colony that would welcome their new American overlords. What hubris those people had.

 

[Rozman]

I know, I know that asking folks to speculate is always a risky business.....But give it a try....

Have we NOT had the invasion in Iraq:

Would we have the current fear of Iran with the potential nukes? (bear in mind that prior to 2001, Iran had zero centrifuges)???

Would we have the brutal rise of ISIS???

Would we have the civil war in Syria and the tragedy of hundred of thousands of refugees???

Would we have the plight of Jordan and Lebanon???

Would we have the messes that now exist in Egypt and Libya???

If you care to honestly speculate, then think of the tragedy that was the Cheney-Bush administration.

I will pass....
We have been down this rabbit hole 100,000 times already.
Will watch the Mets instead.

But you have a good time with it...

 

[gipper]

Military interventions always have negative consequences. No doubt Bush holds much responsibility for the current problems. However, so does Obama who intervened in Syria, Egypt, and Libya. Your failure to recognize this, means you are a typical left wing partisan...blind to reality

Certainly Obama was a fool for involving us in thousands year old religious nonsense in a bunch of desert wastelands. But whatever he's added to the avalanche, it was Dubya that set it off in the first place.

No.

Obama did not have to overthrow Qaddafi leading to Benghazi and thousands fleeing across the Med Sea to Italy. He did not have to support ISIS in it's efforts to overthrow Assad, resulting in terrible human suffering.

Why is it some people can only see the wrongs committed by the political party they oppose and ignore the wrongs by the party they approve of? Partisanship apparently makes some people dumb.

 

[occupied]

We trusted in Saddam and his regime. Now, after we killed him and destabilized the area, we are going to trust a country that took our embassy workers hostage, makes public proclamations of death to America, threatens to destroy Israel and fund Muslim suicide terrorist, and wants nuclear weapons? Americans aren't making very good decisions lately.

We are not trusting Iran to live up to their end of the bargain, that's why there will be inspections and verification before the sanctions get lifted. Your picture of Iran is outdated. A lot of things have changed since the anti-government protests a few years ago, they still have a long way to go but there has been significant movement in the right direction in both domestic and international policy.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Military interventions always have negative consequences. No doubt Bush holds much responsibility for the current problems. However, so does Obama who intervened in Syria, Egypt, and Libya. Your failure to recognize this, means you are a typical left wing partisan...blind to reality

Certainly Obama was a fool for involving us in thousands year old religious nonsense in a bunch of desert wastelands. But whatever he's added to the avalanche, it was Dubya that set it off in the first place.

Our pentagon in it's usual overly-optimistic way had every confidence we could ride that tiger all the way to a pacified mid-east colony that would welcome their new American overlords. What hubris those people had.

It's the Pentagon's job to think that way though. They're tasked with having a contingency plan for everything and a plan to make it work. The Bush administration is to blame for ordering them to wage a war purely for political benefit. And for managing the Pentagon according to how the political winds were blowing.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Military interventions always have negative consequences. No doubt Bush holds much responsibility for the current problems. However, so does Obama who intervened in Syria, Egypt, and Libya. Your failure to recognize this, means you are a typical left wing partisan...blind to reality

Certainly Obama was a fool for involving us in thousands year old religious nonsense in a bunch of desert wastelands. But whatever he's added to the avalanche, it was Dubya that set it off in the first place.

No.

Obama did not have to overthrow Qaddafi leading to Benghazi and thousands fleeing across the Med Sea to Italy. He did not have to support ISIS in it's efforts to overthrow Assad, resulting in terrible human suffering.

Why is it some people can only see the wrongs committed by the political party they oppose and ignore the wrongs by the party they approve of? Partisanship apparently makes some people dumb.

You're right Obama fucked those things up. But you'll never convince me there's any comparison between how he handled those situations and the absolute disaster that Bush unleashed on the world.

 

[gipper]

Military interventions always have negative consequences. No doubt Bush holds much responsibility for the current problems. However, so does Obama who intervened in Syria, Egypt, and Libya. Your failure to recognize this, means you are a typical left wing partisan...blind to reality

Certainly Obama was a fool for involving us in thousands year old religious nonsense in a bunch of desert wastelands. But whatever he's added to the avalanche, it was Dubya that set it off in the first place.

No.

Obama did not have to overthrow Qaddafi leading to Benghazi and thousands fleeing across the Med Sea to Italy. He did not have to support ISIS in it's efforts to overthrow Assad, resulting in terrible human suffering.

Why is it some people can only see the wrongs committed by the political party they oppose and ignore the wrongs by the party they approve of? Partisanship apparently makes some people dumb.

You're right Obama fucked those things up. But you'll never convince me there's any comparison between how he handled those situations and the absolute disaster that Bush unleashed on the world.

There is no doubt bush was a disaster, but so is Obama.

And then there is this...
During the George W Bush administration, the US conducted around 50 drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists. The Obama administration, however, has ordered around 500 strikes, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which tracks the use of drones by the US military and CIA.
Deadly US drone programme still controversial - FT.com

 

[nat4900]

Why don't YOU "honestLy speculate" by answering your own questions?

You could have just as well stated, "I'm too dense to answer any such questions and, by the way, Obama is a socialist..."

We always look for "consistency" from morons.

 

[occupied]

Military interventions always have negative consequences. No doubt Bush holds much responsibility for the current problems. However, so does Obama who intervened in Syria, Egypt, and Libya. Your failure to recognize this, means you are a typical left wing partisan...blind to reality

Certainly Obama was a fool for involving us in thousands year old religious nonsense in a bunch of desert wastelands. But whatever he's added to the avalanche, it was Dubya that set it off in the first place.

Our pentagon in it's usual overly-optimistic way had every confidence we could ride that tiger all the way to a pacified mid-east colony that would welcome their new American overlords. What hubris those people had.

It's the Pentagon's job to think that way though. They're tasked with having a contingency plan for everything and a plan to make it work. The Bush administration is to blame for ordering them to wage a war purely for political benefit. And for managing the Pentagon according to how the political winds were blowing.

I believe it to be the other way around, the pentagon handled him, through Cheney to get the war they really wanted, an indefinite but lengthy occupation. During the fog of war there are infinite opportunities to make tons of cash. If you follow the money, look at who got richer, then it was the MIC that wanted that war and convinced Bushco to sell it.

 

[nat4900]

I will pass....
We have been down this rabbit hole 100,000 times already.
Will watch the Mets instead.

But you have a good time with it...

"I THINK, therefore I AM..."

 

[TheOldSchool]

Military interventions always have negative consequences. No doubt Bush holds much responsibility for the current problems. However, so does Obama who intervened in Syria, Egypt, and Libya. Your failure to recognize this, means you are a typical left wing partisan...blind to reality

Certainly Obama was a fool for involving us in thousands year old religious nonsense in a bunch of desert wastelands. But whatever he's added to the avalanche, it was Dubya that set it off in the first place.

No.

Obama did not have to overthrow Qaddafi leading to Benghazi and thousands fleeing across the Med Sea to Italy. He did not have to support ISIS in it's efforts to overthrow Assad, resulting in terrible human suffering.

Why is it some people can only see the wrongs committed by the political party they oppose and ignore the wrongs by the party they approve of? Partisanship apparently makes some people dumb.

You're right Obama fucked those things up. But you'll never convince me there's any comparison between how he handled those situations and the absolute disaster that Bush unleashed on the world.

There is no doubt bush was a disaster, but so is Obama.

And then there is this...
During the George W Bush administration, the US conducted around 50 drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists. The Obama administration, however, has ordered around 500 strikes, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which tracks the use of drones by the US military and CIA.
Deadly US drone programme still controversial - FT.com

I'll never be as angry about drone strikes as I was about Bush sending our brave soldiers to die by the thousands for nothing in the sand on the complete other side of the planet. I'm all for improving drone technology.

 

[nat4900]

Why is it some people can only see the wrongs committed by the political party they oppose and ignore the wrongs by the party they approve of? Partisanship apparently makes some people dumb.

That is very, very unfair.....Many of us on the left are thoroughly pissed at Obama for many of his decisions......Obama's "crime" is accessory to a much more serious crime......and you know who set that mess in motion.