Speculate with me about the Iraq war...

[kaz]

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)???

So if we hadn't had the civil war, would we have invented penicillin? Remember, penicillin didn't exist before the civil war

Would we have the brutal rise of ISIS???

You need to read up on Shiites and Sunnis so you understand the dynamics of the middle east better

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

Again, Shiites, Sunnis, do you grasp what that means?

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

What is the link to Hussein?

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

What is the link to Hussein

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

Yet you support Obama who continued their policies. Pathetic

 

[Rotagilla]

Our invasion and occupation of Iraq clearly (a) further destabilized an already explosive region and (b) emboldened Iran by taking out their most important military foe.

And gee, all it cost us was a couple of trillion dollars and the lives, limbs and minds of a few thousand of our brave young military.

Bargain.
.

What destabilization are you speaking of? What we are seeing today? Saddam was someway able to keep the other ME countries in check? Maybe I am wrong but the current humanitarian crisis didn't originate in Iraq or Iran. And what good was there to Iran and Iraq having a war every few years? All his neighbors were glad to see the butcher of Baghdad gone. He was a threat.

don't forget, the "butcher" was OUR butcher as long as he was killing iranians in the '80's...we gave him weapons and intel...but then he went after kuwait...which iraq had a historical claim to anyway...after one of our ambassadors said with a wink that we didn't intend to interfere in the mideast...saddam thought that was an "ok"

so then we spend billions fighting "for" kuwait.. not even a democracy...an emirate who doesn't have equal rights for women.

of course the reason the iranians hated us was because we installed the shah and supported HIS murderous regime for decades...then when the iranians were about to revolt he ran away to the u.s. to hide...which pissed off the iranians so they overran our embassy..

which goes back to why saddam was a murderer and a thug...but he was OUR murderer and thug and as long as he followed directions he was ok with us.

fuck the M.E....the jews believe we are "unclean", "goyim" and "shiksas" and the muzzies believe we're infidels...let them work it out on their own...may the best man win..

Yeppers, Saddam was not a good guy and it took awhile for us to realize it. Or more likely he was like our last few presidential elections, the best we had to choose from.

But look at the posts, and my reason for what I post, Saddam is gone 10 years and there are those who apparently are claiming, still, that he wasn't the butcher of Baghdad. That he didn't engage in wars with Iran. That he did't use WMD against the Kurds. That he didn't invade Kuwait and when he was kicked out caused an environmental disaster. Now they are portraying him as the sherriff of Baghdad ruler of the ME.

as long as we kept the shah in power, iran was stable and more or less predictable...as long as we kept saddam in power iraq was stable and more or less predictable...

that's part of the reason the whole region hates us...that and the zionists in our infiltrated gvt blind support for israel.

They loved us before 9/11, I would not have guessed.

what?
who?
I don't understand?

 

[nat4900]

The usual, half-brained cadre of right wingers are "blaming" 9-11 on Saddam..
One would hope that they don't breed.

 

[healthmyths]

The usual, half-brained cadre of right wingers are "blaming" 9-11 on Saddam..
One would hope that they don't breed.

It is interesting that the only people that seem to be concerned about what the NYT reported.."In five years 576,000 children starved BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports
People like you loved Saddam and wanted to see what would be over 1.2 million children starve all because of Saddam.
You loved to see Saddam and his sons torture thousands of people.
See the list of atrocities that you obviously would like to see continue by keeping Saddam as your dictator of choice!

As well as ensuring his absolute control inside Iraq, Saddam tried to make Iraq the dominant power of the region. In pursuit of these objectives he led Iraq into two wars of aggression against neighbors, the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait.

On June 27, 1993 Vice President Al Gore said, "But there's no question about the fact that he and his Baathist regime in Iraq rule by terror and atrocity, and they have intimidated the people of Iraq by imposing such suffering upon them to let him remain in power. He tortures people, kills people and so he has remained in power and that's unfortunate."

The searched thousands of ships bound for or departing Iraq as part of its Maritime Intercept Operations and the enforcement of U.N. economic sanctions.

The Baath Party was the only legal political party in Iraq. It pervaded all aspects of Iraqi life. Membership, was necessary for self advancement and conferred benefits from the regime.

Army officers were an important part of the government's network of informers. Suspicion that officers had ambitions other than the service of the President led to immediate execution. It was routine for Saddam to take pre-emptive action against those who he believed might conspire against him.

Human rights abuses under Saddam:

4000 prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib Prison in 1984.

3000 prisoners were executed at the Mahjar Prison between 1993 and 1998.

About 2500 prisoners were executed between 1997 and 1999 in a "prison cleansing" campaign.

122 male prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/ March 2000. A further 23 political prisoners were executed there in October 2001.

In October 2000, dozens of women accused of prostitution were beheaded without any judicial process. Some were accused for political reasons.

Women prisoners at Mahjar were routinely raped by their guards.

Methods of torture used in Iraqi jails include using electric drills to mutilate hands, pulling out fingernails, knife cuts, sexual attacks and 'official rape'.

Prisoners at the Qurtiyya Prison in Baghdad and elsewhere were kept in metal boxes the size of tea chests. If they did not confess they were left to die.

Saddam issued a series of decrees establishing severe penalties for criminal offences. These include amputation, branding, cutting off ears, and other forms of mutilation. Those found guilty of slandering the President could have their tongue removed.

Much of the recent controversy surrounding Abu Ghraib has made only vague reference to the prison's nightmarish past. Under Saddam Hussein, some thirty thousand people were executed there, and countless more were tortured and mutilated, returning to Iraqi society as visible evidence of the brutality of Baathist rule instead of being lost to the anonymity of mass graves.

Saddam's son Udayy maintained a private torture chamber known as the Red Room in a building on the banks of the Tigris disguised as an electricity installation. He ordered the Iraq football team to be caned on the soles of the feet for losing a World Cup match. He created a militia in 1994 which used swords to execute victims outside their own homes. He has personally executed dissidents, for instance in the Shia uprising at Basra which followed the Gulf War.

Members of Saddam's family were also subject to persecution. Some 40 of Saddam's relatives, including women and children, were killed.

The Fedayeen (Uday Hussein's militia) assassinated opposition figures, broke the backs of those accused of lying to the government and chopped off tongues, fingers, hands and heads. Sometimes victims were decapitated and the heads were delivered to their families.

On September 17, 2002 President George W. Bush wrote, "The great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom—and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise. In the twenty-first century, only nations that share a commitment to protecting basic human rights and guaranteeing political and economic freedom will be able to unleash the potential of their people and assure their future prosperity. People everywhere want to be able to speak freely; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children—male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society—and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages." While the President was not specifically referring to Iraq this September 2002 National Security Strategy report defined the foreign policy goals of the Bush Administration (sometimes called the Bush Doctrine). The National Security Strategy was updated in March 2006.

On March 11, 2003 ABC's Nightline reported that thousands of Marsh Arabs were murdered by Saddam Hussein. Marsh Arabs live in an area along the southern border of Iran and Iraq believed by many to be biblical site of the Garden of Eden. During the 1990's the wetlands were drained for two primary reasons. Draining of the wetlands allowed Saddam to seize political control over the region and it also gave improved access for oil exploration. ABC reported that since 1991 an estimated 100,000 Iraqi Marsh Arabs had become refugees in Iran. reported, "With the regime's feared security forces nowhere to be seen, Iraqis dared to cheer U.S. troops and attack the symbols of Saddam's rule. They danced in the streets, waving rifles, palm fronds and flags, and defaced posters of the longtime Iraqi president..."

In July of 2004, the Iraqi National Olympic Committee put on display torture devices which were used by Uday Hussein to punish soccer players who failed to perform to expectations. Journalists were shown medieval-style torture equipment, including an "iron maiden-like" casket with metal spikes fixed to the inside. Talip Mutan, an Olympic Committee official said, "There were torture camps of Uday Hussein where sportsmen and women had been murdered or tortured, beaten and left to rot. Your worst nightmares came true in those camps. Using an iron maiden, Uday used to punish not only athletes but also everyone who made him angry. Tortured people were kept in it for hours. When he was nearly dead, he would be brought out..." Also on display was a chain whip with steel barbs the size of a tennis ball attached to the end. Uday would also beat them with iron bars, tan the soles of their feet, and drag them on pavements until their backs became bloodied, then dunk them in sewage to ensure the wounds became infected.

On March 24, 2006 U.S. Joint Forces Command published the "Iraqi Perspectives Project: A View of Operation Iraqi Freedom from Saddam's Senior Leadership." This unclassified report defined the nature of Saddam's regime by stating, "His atrocities differ from those of Hitler and Stalin only in scale, not intent." Inside Iraq societal relations broke down as neighbor no longer trusted neighbor and citizens feared denunciation even by their own family. "In a meeting of Baath Party officials one of Saddam's thugs singled out for special praise to Saddam a man who had executed his own brother for blaspheming the regime."

Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

And of course YOU loved to see all those terrible tortures, murdering done by Saddam because you are just as evil!

 

[nat4900]

Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

And of course YOU loved to see all those terrible tortures, murdering done by Saddam because you are just as evil!

After that Lllloooooooonnnnngggg "cut-n-paste"....did you ever, ever wonder why your baby-Bush didn't invade North Korea????
I mean there's starving children in NK......there tons of WMDs in NK.....who the heck knows how much torture goes on in NK...........
HOWEVER, NK has not a drop of oil, n'est-ce-pas?

 

[CowboyTed]

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.

Yes, it is important to note that drones did not really come into their own until fairly late in the game, Bush did not have a lot of time or the strategic vision to use them effectively instead of flesh and blood soldiers.

View attachment 49716

Obama has use drone strikes far more effectively... He is no boy scout, he want certain Militants taken out... He did that with far less civilan casualties...

If this was a GOP President record you would be having a parade...


View attachment 49717
Again his hit to miss is far higher...
The problem here is Obama is a far better war president than Bush... He is a lot smarter, taking a lot less risk with US military lives and killing a lot less Civilians...

The laugh is that Obama has lifted sections of the Powell doctrine (not all of it) and used it... Libya for example, The people want a change in government, all he did is take out the anti aircraft and provided intelligence and some training.
Yes, Libya is struggling, but all changing countries suffer this. The big thing it is not US baby... There is no ISIS, the civil war has been actually been put on hold to fight ISIS.
Two Main Libyan Militias Are Maintaining a Truce to Battle Islamic State

And guess what we will be helping them there too....

What I am amazed about is how little the Right knows about the Middle East... They don't really see past the brown people thing... They think they are all muslims and all muslims are the same. They don't know the damage they caused the region supporting every crook in the region.
In westpoint they teach you to know your enemy, the right know jackshit... Read Robert Fisk book on the region and comeback...

oh..well....the "bureau of investigative journalism" .... LMAO

Former Washington Post publisher Philip Graham "believing that the function of the press was more often than not to mobilize consent for the policies of the government, was one of the architects of what became a widespread practice: the use and manipulation of journalists by the CIA"

As terrible as it is to live in a nation where the press in known to be controlled by the government, at least one has the advantage of knowing the bias is present, and to adjust for it. In the United States of America, we are taught from birth that our press is free from such government meddling. This is an insideous lie about the very nature of the news institution in this country. One that allows the government to lie to us while denying the very fact of the lie itself.

operation mockingbird.

You have not address the point at all... Just tried to critise the soucre which is :
"Based at City University London, the Bureau works in collaboration with other groups to get its investigations published and distributed. Since its foundation the Bureau has worked with BBC File On Four, BBC Panorama, BBC Newsnight, Channel 4 Dispatches, Channel 4 News, al Jazeera English, the Independent, the Financial Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Sunday Times, Le Monde, Mediapart, the Guardian, the Observer and the Daily Mirror"

"S
ince it launched the Bureau has secured almost 50 front-page stories and has produced a number of award-winning web, radio and TV reports.

These include winning the Amnesty International Digital Awards two years running, firstly for our investigation into the Iraq War Logs and latterly for our work on Deaths in Police Custody.

In 2011 the Bureau won the Thomson Reuters reporting Europe Award for a BBC 4 radio programme on Europe’s Missing Millions, and the investigation into drone warfare was shortlisted for the Foreign Press Association Awards.

And in 2012 the Bureau and its journalists were shortlisted in four categories at the first Press Gazette British Journalism Awards, which emphasise journalism in the public interest. Chris Woods was nominated for Investigation of the year for his work on drone warfare; Nick Mathiason was short-listed for the Business journalist of the year award for his work on the financial lobby. The Bureau itself was nominated for the Innovation of the Year award. And Emma Slater’s raft of work ensured that she won the New journalist of the year award.

In 2013 the Bureau’s drones team won the coveted Martha Gellhorn prize for journalism.

In 2014 the Bureau’s Tom Warren won the British Journalism Award for the best new reporter, and the Bureau’s investigation into Joint Enterprise won the Bar Council’s Legal Reporting Award."


You are an embarrasmment, Have you got any actual evidence or are you just a fool

 

[Rotagilla]

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.

Yes, it is important to note that drones did not really come into their own until fairly late in the game, Bush did not have a lot of time or the strategic vision to use them effectively instead of flesh and blood soldiers.

View attachment 49716

Obama has use drone strikes far more effectively... He is no boy scout, he want certain Militants taken out... He did that with far less civilan casualties...

If this was a GOP President record you would be having a parade...


View attachment 49717
Again his hit to miss is far higher...
The problem here is Obama is a far better war president than Bush... He is a lot smarter, taking a lot less risk with US military lives and killing a lot less Civilians...

The laugh is that Obama has lifted sections of the Powell doctrine (not all of it) and used it... Libya for example, The people want a change in government, all he did is take out the anti aircraft and provided intelligence and some training.
Yes, Libya is struggling, but all changing countries suffer this. The big thing it is not US baby... There is no ISIS, the civil war has been actually been put on hold to fight ISIS.
Two Main Libyan Militias Are Maintaining a Truce to Battle Islamic State

And guess what we will be helping them there too....

What I am amazed about is how little the Right knows about the Middle East... They don't really see past the brown people thing... They think they are all muslims and all muslims are the same. They don't know the damage they caused the region supporting every crook in the region.
In westpoint they teach you to know your enemy, the right know jackshit... Read Robert Fisk book on the region and comeback...

oh..well....the "bureau of investigative journalism" .... LMAO

Former Washington Post publisher Philip Graham "believing that the function of the press was more often than not to mobilize consent for the policies of the government, was one of the architects of what became a widespread practice: the use and manipulation of journalists by the CIA"

As terrible as it is to live in a nation where the press in known to be controlled by the government, at least one has the advantage of knowing the bias is present, and to adjust for it. In the United States of America, we are taught from birth that our press is free from such government meddling. This is an insideous lie about the very nature of the news institution in this country. One that allows the government to lie to us while denying the very fact of the lie itself.

operation mockingbird.

You have not address the point at all... Just tried to critise the soucre which is :
"Based at City University London, the Bureau works in collaboration with other groups to get its investigations published and distributed. Since its foundation the Bureau has worked with BBC File On Four, BBC Panorama, BBC Newsnight, Channel 4 Dispatches, Channel 4 News, al Jazeera English, the Independent, the Financial Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Sunday Times, Le Monde, Mediapart, the Guardian, the Observer and the Daily Mirror"

"S
ince it launched the Bureau has secured almost 50 front-page stories and has produced a number of award-winning web, radio and TV reports.

These include winning the Amnesty International Digital Awards two years running, firstly for our investigation into the Iraq War Logs and latterly for our work on Deaths in Police Custody.

In 2011 the Bureau won the Thomson Reuters reporting Europe Award for a BBC 4 radio programme on Europe’s Missing Millions, and the investigation into drone warfare was shortlisted for the Foreign Press Association Awards.

And in 2012 the Bureau and its journalists were shortlisted in four categories at the first Press Gazette British Journalism Awards, which emphasise journalism in the public interest. Chris Woods was nominated for Investigation of the year for his work on drone warfare; Nick Mathiason was short-listed for the Business journalist of the year award for his work on the financial lobby. The Bureau itself was nominated for the Innovation of the Year award. And Emma Slater’s raft of work ensured that she won the New journalist of the year award.

In 2013 the Bureau’s drones team won the coveted Martha Gellhorn prize for journalism.

In 2014 the Bureau’s Tom Warren won the British Journalism Award for the best new reporter, and the Bureau’s investigation into Joint Enterprise won the Bar Council’s Legal Reporting Award."


You are an embarrasmment, Have you got any actual evidence or are you just a fool

operation mockingbird type activities speak for themselves...There's nothing to add. You can say "nuh uh" all you want. It's real...

 

[Two Thumbs]

Would we have the current fear of Iran with the potential nukes? (bear in mind that prior to 2001, Iran had zero centrifuges)??? Yes of course. For them to be along this far they had to be well into the building stage.

Would we have the brutal rise of ISIS??? Probably or AQ would have remained the dominant force

Would we have the civil war in Syria and the tragedy of hundred of thousands of refugees??? Not really related. Obama has done his best to destabilize the area, that much is clear.

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

Would we have the messes that now exist in Egypt and Libya??? yes, those clearly fall on obamas shoulders.

If you care to honestly speculate, then think of the tragedy that was the Cheney-Bush administration. It wasn't, but you aren't here to speculate, you here b/c you think everything was their fault b/c tv told you so

 

[healthmyths]

Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

And of course YOU loved to see all those terrible tortures, murdering done by Saddam because you are just as evil!

After that Lllloooooooonnnnngggg "cut-n-paste"....did you ever, ever wonder why your baby-Bush didn't invade North Korea????
I mean there's starving children in NK......there tons of WMDs in NK.....who the heck knows how much torture goes on in NK...........
HOWEVER, NK has not a drop of oil, n'est-ce-pas?

صحيح
The big reason there was no "Liberation of North Korea" is by leaving 30,000 troops in S Korea, NORTH KOREA knows better then to do any invading of
South Korea! Remember the Korean war is NOT over. It is a truce. But by leaving 30,000 troops in S Korea this allowed S. Korea to flourish to grow economically.
BUT we still have troops there PLUS there were never any idiots like these idiots that helped encourage the N. Koreans to continue the fight!
Idiots like these that made statements that were used to encourage the terrorists. Then these same idiots pushed to remove us troops from Iraq thus leaving the vacuum for their buddies the ISIS terrorists!
These below idiotic statements were music to the terrorists as it helped immensely to recruit more!

The idiocy of calling our troops terrorists, cold blooded killers, as these traitors did which I'm sure you think these idiots were right in helping recruit terrorists!

There were no such idiots after the Korean war. Too many people knew you don't encourage the bad guys except today we have idiots like you !
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
NOTE: Do you not believe the terrorists LOVED to hear our troops were cold blooded killers???

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

then Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

 

[Freewill]

What destabilization are you speaking of? What we are seeing today? Saddam was someway able to keep the other ME countries in check? Maybe I am wrong but the current humanitarian crisis didn't originate in Iraq or Iran. And what good was there to Iran and Iraq having a war every few years? All his neighbors were glad to see the butcher of Baghdad gone. He was a threat.

don't forget, the "butcher" was OUR butcher as long as he was killing iranians in the '80's...we gave him weapons and intel...but then he went after kuwait...which iraq had a historical claim to anyway...after one of our ambassadors said with a wink that we didn't intend to interfere in the mideast...saddam thought that was an "ok"

so then we spend billions fighting "for" kuwait.. not even a democracy...an emirate who doesn't have equal rights for women.

of course the reason the iranians hated us was because we installed the shah and supported HIS murderous regime for decades...then when the iranians were about to revolt he ran away to the u.s. to hide...which pissed off the iranians so they overran our embassy..

which goes back to why saddam was a murderer and a thug...but he was OUR murderer and thug and as long as he followed directions he was ok with us.

fuck the M.E....the jews believe we are "unclean", "goyim" and "shiksas" and the muzzies believe we're infidels...let them work it out on their own...may the best man win..

Yeppers, Saddam was not a good guy and it took awhile for us to realize it. Or more likely he was like our last few presidential elections, the best we had to choose from.

But look at the posts, and my reason for what I post, Saddam is gone 10 years and there are those who apparently are claiming, still, that he wasn't the butcher of Baghdad. That he didn't engage in wars with Iran. That he did't use WMD against the Kurds. That he didn't invade Kuwait and when he was kicked out caused an environmental disaster. Now they are portraying him as the sherriff of Baghdad ruler of the ME.

as long as we kept the shah in power, iran was stable and more or less predictable...as long as we kept saddam in power iraq was stable and more or less predictable...

that's part of the reason the whole region hates us...that and the zionists in our infiltrated gvt blind support for israel.

They loved us before 9/11, I would not have guessed.

what?
who?
I don't understand?

Quite right.

 

[gipper]

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.

Our invasion and occupation of Iraq clearly (a) further destabilized an already explosive region and (b) emboldened Iran by taking out their most important military foe.

And gee, all it cost us was a couple of trillion dollars and the lives, limbs and minds of a few thousand of our brave young military.

Bargain.
.

What destabilization are you speaking of? What we are seeing today? Saddam was someway able to keep the other ME countries in check? Maybe I am wrong but the current humanitarian crisis didn't originate in Iraq or Iran. And what good was there to Iran and Iraq having a war every few years? All his neighbors were glad to see the butcher of Baghdad gone. He was a threat.

Iraq has essentially disintegrated with Saddam's demise and is now occupied by any number of terrorist groups and largely under control of Iran, Iran-backed influencers, or both.

Iraq & Syria have essentially become a borderless, lawless version of the Wild West.

Millions are fleeing the chaos and butchery, creating a massive problem for Europeans.

It doesn't appear that anything is going to either stop or slow this down any time soon.
.

All the result of constant US gov interventions.

One would think our leaders would learn, but they have their reasons.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

Our invasion and occupation of Iraq clearly (a) further destabilized an already explosive region and (b) emboldened Iran by taking out their most important military foe.

And gee, all it cost us was a couple of trillion dollars and the lives, limbs and minds of a few thousand of our brave young military.

Bargain.
.

What destabilization are you speaking of? What we are seeing today? Saddam was someway able to keep the other ME countries in check? Maybe I am wrong but the current humanitarian crisis didn't originate in Iraq or Iran. And what good was there to Iran and Iraq having a war every few years? All his neighbors were glad to see the butcher of Baghdad gone. He was a threat.

Iraq has essentially disintegrated with Saddam's demise and is now occupied by any number of terrorist groups and largely under control of Iran, Iran-backed influencers, or both.

Iraq & Syria have essentially become a borderless, lawless version of the Wild West.

Millions are fleeing the chaos and butchery, creating a massive problem for Europeans.

It doesn't appear that anything is going to either stop or slow this down any time soon.
.

All the result of constant US gov interventions.

One would think our leaders would learn, but they have their reasons.

Yep. We fan the flames, at great cost, and then wonder why the fire is out of control. It's inexplicable.
.

 

[gipper]

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.

Our invasion and occupation of Iraq clearly (a) further destabilized an already explosive region and (b) emboldened Iran by taking out their most important military foe.

And gee, all it cost us was a couple of trillion dollars and the lives, limbs and minds of a few thousand of our brave young military.

Bargain.
.

What destabilization are you speaking of? What we are seeing today? Saddam was someway able to keep the other ME countries in check? Maybe I am wrong but the current humanitarian crisis didn't originate in Iraq or Iran. And what good was there to Iran and Iraq having a war every few years? All his neighbors were glad to see the butcher of Baghdad gone. He was a threat.

Iraq has essentially disintegrated with Saddam's demise and is now occupied by any number of terrorist groups and largely under control of Iran, Iran-backed influencers, or both.

Iraq & Syria have essentially become a borderless, lawless version of the Wild West.

Millions are fleeing the chaos and butchery, creating a massive problem for Europeans.

It doesn't appear that anything is going to either stop or slow this down any time soon.
.

All the result of constant US gov interventions.

One would think our leaders would learn, but they have their reasons.

Yep. We fan the flames, at great cost, and then wonder why the fire is out of control. It's inexplicable.
.

I tend to think our leaders want war. The CIA, military industrial complex, and our political leaders know war is the health of the state...and they love the wealth they steal.

 

[Mac1958]

Our invasion and occupation of Iraq clearly (a) further destabilized an already explosive region and (b) emboldened Iran by taking out their most important military foe.

And gee, all it cost us was a couple of trillion dollars and the lives, limbs and minds of a few thousand of our brave young military.

Bargain.
.

What destabilization are you speaking of? What we are seeing today? Saddam was someway able to keep the other ME countries in check? Maybe I am wrong but the current humanitarian crisis didn't originate in Iraq or Iran. And what good was there to Iran and Iraq having a war every few years? All his neighbors were glad to see the butcher of Baghdad gone. He was a threat.

Iraq has essentially disintegrated with Saddam's demise and is now occupied by any number of terrorist groups and largely under control of Iran, Iran-backed influencers, or both.

Iraq & Syria have essentially become a borderless, lawless version of the Wild West.

Millions are fleeing the chaos and butchery, creating a massive problem for Europeans.

It doesn't appear that anything is going to either stop or slow this down any time soon.
.

All the result of constant US gov interventions.

One would think our leaders would learn, but they have their reasons.

Yep. We fan the flames, at great cost, and then wonder why the fire is out of control. It's inexplicable.
.

I tend to think our leaders want war. The CIA, military industrial complex, and our political leaders know war is the health of the state...and they love the wealth they steal.

Eisenhower warned us....
.

 

[gipper]

What destabilization are you speaking of? What we are seeing today? Saddam was someway able to keep the other ME countries in check? Maybe I am wrong but the current humanitarian crisis didn't originate in Iraq or Iran. And what good was there to Iran and Iraq having a war every few years? All his neighbors were glad to see the butcher of Baghdad gone. He was a threat.

Iraq has essentially disintegrated with Saddam's demise and is now occupied by any number of terrorist groups and largely under control of Iran, Iran-backed influencers, or both.

Iraq & Syria have essentially become a borderless, lawless version of the Wild West.

Millions are fleeing the chaos and butchery, creating a massive problem for Europeans.

It doesn't appear that anything is going to either stop or slow this down any time soon.
.

All the result of constant US gov interventions.

One would think our leaders would learn, but they have their reasons.

Yep. We fan the flames, at great cost, and then wonder why the fire is out of control. It's inexplicable.
.

I tend to think our leaders want war. The CIA, military industrial complex, and our political leaders know war is the health of the state...and they love the wealth they steal.

Eisenhower warned us....
.

He did but unfortunately, he did nothing to stop it and must have known they were behind JFK's assassination.

 

[kaz]

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)???

So if we hadn't had the civil war, would we have invented penicillin? Remember, penicillin didn't exist before the civil war

Would we have the brutal rise of ISIS???

You need to read up on Shiites and Sunnis so you understand the dynamics of the middle east better

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

Again, Shiites, Sunnis, do you grasp what that means?

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

What is the link to Hussein?

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

What is the link to Hussein

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

Yet you support Obama who continued their policies. Pathetic

So you got nothing, huh nat? You never do

 

[kaz]

The Middle East bane and "blessing" is their darn oil fileds.

Why did we install the Shah in Iran?.........................................................OIL
Why did we really defend Kuwait?............................................................OIL
Why do we lie to ourselves about the "loyalty" of Saudi Arabia?.............OIL

You say that like you know what's going on, then you blindly support Democrats who do that hand in hand with Republicans. Obama continued W's policies, Holmes. When you develop some integrity, maybe those of us who are sincere in getting out of the middle east will get somewhere

 

[gipper]

The Middle East bane and "blessing" is their darn oil fileds.
Why did we install the Shah in Iran?.........................................................OIL
Why did we really defend Kuwait?............................................................OIL
Why do we lie to ourselves about the "loyalty" of Saudi Arabia?.............OIL

You say that like you know what's going on, then you blindly support Democrats who do that hand in hand with Republicans. Obama continued W's policies, Holmes. When you develop some integrity, maybe those of us who are sincere in getting out of the middle east will get somewhere

It is terribly ignorant for any American to think BO is much better than W or vice versa...yet these foolish partisans seem to never learn that both men have nearly identical foreign policy.

 

[nat4900]

I don't think that in any of my posts on this thread, I stated that Obama is blameless for the mess we find ourselves in; however, only an idiot would not conclude that Cheney-Bush placed on in the predicament and that Obama has (at worst) not been able to fully disengage us from the quagmire.

 

[healthmyths]

why are there 170,000 US troops in Asia/Europe 70 years after WWII?