Speculate with me about the Iraq war...

[nat4900]

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

To keep unemployment down, to feed the military complex and to show the rest of the planet that we are a super-power; after all, whether we care to admit to it or not, we ARE neo-colonists.

 

[bedowin62]

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

To keep unemployment down, to feed the military complex and to show the rest of the planet that we are a super-power; after all, whether we care to admit to it or not, we ARE neo-colonists.

your opinon of what we are doesnt matter leftard; we wouldnt be there if they didnt want us there

 

[rdean]

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.

All that...and if we hadn't opposed Hitler just think...a world without Jews.

Um, Hitler was Muslim? The things you learn from right wingers.

 

[kaz]

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.

Your list showed that you are only holding W accountable, it mentioned nothing about the CURRENT President, so yeah you are completely one sided. The parties are the same, both of them are in everyone's shit that we don't need to be in. Your criticisms being completely one sided just says you're a Democrat in the eternal struggle between Tweedledum and Tweedledee

 

[kaz]

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

To keep unemployment down, to feed the military complex and to show the rest of the planet that we are a super-power; after all, whether we care to admit to it or not, we ARE neo-colonists.

your opinon of what we are doesnt matter leftard; we wouldnt be there if they didnt want us there

The "moderate" governments want us there to sell them weapons and prop them up. It's like the English saying to the French that we didn't want them here in the revolution, the people did, at least many of us, the (English) government didn't

 

[nat4900]

your opinon of what we are doesnt matter leftard; we wouldnt be there if they didnt want us there

Hey, moron, the question WAS asked and I responded....LOL

The governments of those countries where we have bases DO want us there so that they don't have to spend so much on their defense.....Conversely, the ordinary citizens of those countries want us the hell out of there.

 

[nat4900]

Your list showed that you are only holding W accountable, it mentioned nothing about the CURRENT President, so yeah you are completely one sided. The parties are the same, both of them are in everyone's shit that we don't need to be in. Your criticisms being completely one sided just says you're a Democrat in the eternal struggle between Tweedledum and Tweedledee

No, nitwit......I am subtly (which for most right wingers is an unknown quality) sharing the blame between the "bank robbers" who shoot up the bank's clerks (Cheney and Bush) and the get-away driver (Obama.) You judge the level of culpability

 

[Freewill]

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.

What? Iraq or Afghanistan? Those are really the only two that Bush got us into. The rest is all Obama.

 

[Freewill]

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.
.

Again you keep acting as if Iraq is falling apart because an outside source is attacking it. The government is still there and ISIS hasn't done much recently. But that is a never mind it isn't Iraq where the recent fighting started it is Libya and Syria. THOSE are the countries that are being destabilized with the help of Obama. Why do you blame the destabilization, that has caused Iraq to be attacked, on Iraq? It makes absolutely no sense.

 

[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.
.

Again you keep acting as if Iraq is falling apart because an outside source is attacking it. The government is still there and ISIS hasn't done much recently. But that is a never mind it isn't Iraq where the recent fighting started it is Libya and Syria. THOSE are the countries that are being destabilized with the help of Obama. Why do you blame the destabilization, that has caused Iraq to be attacked, on Iraq? It makes absolutely no sense.

Because Iran is fighting and fueling proxy battles for influence all over the region, unencumbered by its former most dangerous enemy.

It can pretty much act with impunity right now.
.

 

[nat4900]

What? Iraq or Afghanistan? Those are really the only two that Bush got us into. The rest is all Obama.

Someday, when you grow up, you'll better understand what the "domino-effect" implies.

 

[Freewill]

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.
.

Again you keep acting as if Iraq is falling apart because an outside source is attacking it. The government is still there and ISIS hasn't done much recently. But that is a never mind it isn't Iraq where the recent fighting started it is Libya and Syria. THOSE are the countries that are being destabilized with the help of Obama. Why do you blame the destabilization, that has caused Iraq to be attacked, on Iraq? It makes absolutely no sense.

Because Iran is fighting and fueling proxy battles for influence all over the region, unencumbered by its former most dangerous enemy.

It can pretty much act with impunity right now.
.

So you would have Iran/Iraq wars and that is better? Are you sure that Iran is involved in the fighting? If so could you provide a link stating as much? And if they are then that makes another point that should be bargained with the Iran deal. They already said they were going to build their military so maybe Obama is making yet another mistake.

 

[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.
.

Again you keep acting as if Iraq is falling apart because an outside source is attacking it. The government is still there and ISIS hasn't done much recently. But that is a never mind it isn't Iraq where the recent fighting started it is Libya and Syria. THOSE are the countries that are being destabilized with the help of Obama. Why do you blame the destabilization, that has caused Iraq to be attacked, on Iraq? It makes absolutely no sense.

Because Iran is fighting and fueling proxy battles for influence all over the region, unencumbered by its former most dangerous enemy.

It can pretty much act with impunity right now.
.

So you would have Iran/Iraq wars and that is better? Are you sure that Iran is involved in the fighting? If so could you provide a link stating as much? And if they are then that makes another point that should be bargained with the Iran deal. They already said they were going to build their military so maybe Obama is making yet another mistake.

Yes, I would definitely rather have Iran & Iraq going at each other than Iran exercising murder and influence all over the area, with an Iraq in pieces.

I really don't think I need to provide proof that Iran is acting all over. A few Google clicks will back me up just fine.
.

 

[Londoner]

The number one rule of the Iraq War is that the Bush administration cannot be blamed for manipulating pre-war intelligence to fit the policy of regime change, which was announced before 9/11.

The number two rule of the Iraq War is that the Bush administration cannot be blamed for their colossal failure to anticipate the resulting civil war or the complications of securing long term stability.

The number three rule of the Iraq War is that the Bush administration cannot be blamed for failing to accurately represent the cost of this war, which was actively hidden in off-budget emergency spending measures along with being grafted on to non-war budgets (to keep the size of their financial mistake as mysterious as the WMDs).

The number four rule of the Iraq War is that Reagan cannot be blamed for financing and giving weapons to Hussein or selling weapons to Iran or supporting the Mujahideen (early Al Qaeda) in Afghanistan or increasing our funding to the freedom-hating Saudi Royals tenfold. In short, Reagan cannot be blamed for fueling the very terrorism which came back to bite us.

The number five rule of the Iraq War is that we must never tell the talk radio lemmings about the actual geopolitical reasons for the war, which reasons were spelled out very clearly by the war's architects (Chaney, Bolton, 'Wolfie', etc) in their 1997 policy paper for the PNAC (Project for a New American Century).

The number six rule of the Iraq War is that we should never talk about how the war created a terminal power vacuum, which not only made Iran stronger but predictably gave rise to groups like ISIS, who are, in the absence of a string Iraqi state, fighting to control the region. (The reality is that the war wasn't as Bush predicted - "mission accomplished" - but has consigned the USA to a terminal, bankrupting occupation. And we must never question the generation of new terrorists that will be inspired by the long term presence of American troops in the region. Nor can we even think of the failed prediction that we would be greeted as liberators.)

The number seven rule of the Iraq War is that we must never question or investigate the culture of no bid contracts where companies like Halliburton were allowed to bill the taxpayer whatever they wanted, with no real oversight, or anyone asking why they charged $20/per liter of bottled water on top of shipping/handling costs. Indeed, we must never question the ruthless profiteering at the taxpayer's expense or the devastating effect this war had on the economy.

Finally, we must never blame Bush for anything, including direct actions (and their consequences) undertaken on his watch. Repeat after me: it's all Obama's fault.

 

[kaz]

Your list showed that you are only holding W accountable, it mentioned nothing about the CURRENT President, so yeah you are completely one sided. The parties are the same, both of them are in everyone's shit that we don't need to be in. Your criticisms being completely one sided just says you're a Democrat in the eternal struggle between Tweedledum and Tweedledee

No, nitwit......I am subtly (which for most right wingers is an unknown quality) sharing the blame between the "bank robbers" who shoot up the bank's clerks (Cheney and Bush) and the get-away driver (Obama.) You judge the level of culpability

With Cheney and Bush you forgot the Democratic party leadership. They are all culpable. You Republicans are so biased, you only see one side. Typical right winger

 

[paulitician]

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.

Good points. We simply handed the power to Shiites aligned with Iran. Nothing good has come of the Iraq War. We only created bloody chaos over there. And it cost American Taxpayers untold $Billions. Along with the loss of a lot of good kids for nothing.

 

[Freewill]

What? Iraq or Afghanistan? Those are really the only two that Bush got us into. The rest is all Obama.

Someday, when you grow up, you'll better understand what the "domino-effect" implies.

Oh for crying out loud are you another persona of Jake the fake? No one but him could be such a big waste of bandwidth.

 

[Freewill]

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.

Good points. We simply handed the power to Shiites aligned with Iran. Nothing good has come of the Iraq War. We only created bloody chaos over there. And it cost American Taxpayers untold $Billions. Along with the loss of a lot of good kids for nothing.

THIS TROUBLE STARTED OUTSIDE OF IRAQ, OUTSIDE. THIS IS ALL OBAMA.

 

[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.

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.
.

Again you keep acting as if Iraq is falling apart because an outside source is attacking it. The government is still there and ISIS hasn't done much recently. But that is a never mind it isn't Iraq where the recent fighting started it is Libya and Syria. THOSE are the countries that are being destabilized with the help of Obama. Why do you blame the destabilization, that has caused Iraq to be attacked, on Iraq? It makes absolutely no sense.

Because Iran is fighting and fueling proxy battles for influence all over the region, unencumbered by its former most dangerous enemy.

It can pretty much act with impunity right now.
.

So you would have Iran/Iraq wars and that is better? Are you sure that Iran is involved in the fighting? If so could you provide a link stating as much? And if they are then that makes another point that should be bargained with the Iran deal. They already said they were going to build their military so maybe Obama is making yet another mistake.

Yes, I would definitely rather have Iran & Iraq going at each other than Iran exercising murder and influence all over the area, with an Iraq in pieces.

I really don't think I need to provide proof that Iran is acting all over. A few Google clicks will back me up just fine.
.

Of course we know they are sponsoring terrorism they have always sponsored terrorism and have said they won't stop. Saddam sponsored terrorism (not 9/11 directly). BOTH countries were a problem, now all we need to deal with is one and we are taking the best deal they will give us and you are attacking with strawmen.

 

[rdean]

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.

Your list showed that you are only holding W accountable, it mentioned nothing about the CURRENT President, so yeah you are completely one sided. The parties are the same, both of them are in everyone's shit that we don't need to be in. Your criticisms being completely one sided just says you're a Democrat in the eternal struggle between Tweedledum and Tweedledee

It's like you wreck a car. Then you sell the wreck to your neighbor. Then, in your mind, because he now owns the wreck, the wreck must have been his fault.