Time is a funny thing

[Harry Dresden]

i never thought we should have gone in to begin with.....and i still dont think we should.....let the Muslim Countries take care of their own shit.....i worked with an Iranian guy who was born there but ended up here and was advised not to go back so he stayed here....anyhow he told me that this would happen as soon as America leaves because unless the Iraqi's have someone keeping them in line they wont make it.....he said they are cowards and wont defend themselves.....hey just saying what Hamid told me.....

 

[Plasmaball]

Not sure what kind of answer you are looking for. Apparently if the answer, or response, isn't in agreement with your assessment you are going to claim partisanship.

Apparently on both sides there is little room for disagreement or compromise. The left I have to say is the worse. Because it was GWB the left finds no reason for the war and it isn't just a difference in opinion if you disagree with a liberal they immediately accuse a person of either partisanship or out right lying. And lo to the person who says something and it is not proven correct later.

Iraq is turning into a real mess. I don't know what we can or could have done or even if we should have done something. But I am pretty sure doing nothing will result in disaster.

naturally you think the left is worse....shocking coming from you.
doing something resulted in this situation we are in now.
In the end your answer is " you dont know"m But the left is worse.

thanks for wasting peoples time

 

[The Rabbi]

We can sit around and blame Winston Churchill for drawing the boundaries of Iraq like he did. Or King Idris for corruption. But none of that is really germane.
What is germane is that Obama now has a situation he was instrumental in creating, a deafening verdict of failure of an earlier policy, and he is faced with a dilemma as to what to do. Arguing we shouldn't be there at all or shouldnt have gone in is pointless. We did. We pulled out. Now we're here. What is he going to do about it? What should he do about it?

 

[Plasmaball]

Were was the part about the 1998 resolution?

irrelevant since you know, we attacked them. Under Bush.

Yes, under Bush 41. With no significant change in policy for eight years of Clinton, then topped off with the 1998 resolution, making regime change in Iraq the official U.S. foreign policy stance.

As stated in my first post, there is plenty of blame to go around.

Yes and had Reagan not sent Rumsfeld. Saddam may not of had chemical weapons.

The neo-cons have been pushing for the invasion since the 90's.

 

[Plasmaball]

We can sit around and blame Winston Churchill for drawing the boundaries of Iraq like he did. Or King Idris for corruption. But none of that is really germane.
What is germane is that Obama now has a situation he was instrumental in creating, a deafening verdict of failure of an earlier policy, and he is faced with a dilemma as to what to do. Arguing we shouldn't be there at all or shouldnt have gone in is pointless. We did. We pulled out. Now we're here. What is he going to do about it? What should he do about it?

nothing, we should do nothing.....Which has already been stated

 

[HelenaHandbag]

irrelevant since you know, we attacked them. Under Bush.

Yes, under Bush 41. With no significant change in policy for eight years of Clinton, then topped off with the 1998 resolution, making regime change in Iraq the official U.S. foreign policy stance.

As stated in my first post, there is plenty of blame to go around.

Yes and had Reagan not sent Rumsfeld. Saddam may not of had chemical weapons.

The neo-cons have been pushing for the invasion since the 90's.

Yet Clinton not only left the framework for invasion in place (no fly zones, economic sanctions and the like), but added the 1998 resolution on top of it all.

Bill Clinton: Neoconservative.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

We can sit around and blame Winston Churchill for drawing the boundaries of Iraq like he did. Or King Idris for corruption. But none of that is really germane.
What is germane is that Obama now has a situation he was instrumental in creating, a deafening verdict of failure of an earlier policy, and he is faced with a dilemma as to what to do. Arguing we shouldn't be there at all or shouldnt have gone in is pointless. We did. We pulled out. Now we're here. What is he going to do about it? What should he do about it?

Bullshit.

Why do you RWs think the world was created the day Obama took office? Your side created this mess and all the Fox lies won't change that.

Not to mention that we can't go back now even if we want to. Or did you conveniently for that too?

 

[shart_attack]

i never thought we should have gone in to begin with.....and i still dont think we should.....let the Muslim Countries take care of their own shit.....i worked with an Iranian guy who was born there but ended up here and was advised not to go back so he stayed here....anyhow he told me that this would happen as soon as America leaves because unless the Iraqi's have someone keeping them in line they wont make it.....he said they are cowards and wont defend themselves.....hey just saying what Hamid told me.....

I think Hamid is correct: they are cowards who won't defend themselves.

I don't blame them, though.

The majority of Iraqis (i.e. everyone who's not under 11 years old) have lived their lives under a barbarically tyrannical regime.

I've little doubt that I, too, would be a bit of a coward if I'd grown up under the rule of Saddam Hussein and his sadistic children, and had never gotten a full night's rest because of the fear that they may have arrested me without reason in the middle of the night and had me beheaded in the town square.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What three issues do you consider "failures"? Bill Clinton told Americans that Saddam was developing WMD's. George Bush gave Saddam a year to comply with UN sanctions and 36% of democrat congress authorized boots on the ground and democrats undermined the Military mission for the next eight years. Saddam sent his air-force to Iran for safekeeping and the next thing you know Iran has nuclear capability. It doesn't take a fat assed "intelligence specialist" to conclude that Iraq sent it's WMD labs to Iran. Harry Truman downsized the US Military shortly after WW2 and was surprised that NK invaded SK. He sent Troops to Korea on an executive order so Korea was his baby. We lost 50,000 Troops in three years. We are in the same situation in Iraq only we have a president who is even dumber than the high school educated Truman.

Wow.

 

[shart_attack]

What three issues do you consider "failures"? Bill Clinton told Americans that Saddam was developing WMD's. George Bush gave Saddam a year to comply with UN sanctions and 36% of democrat congress authorized boots on the ground and democrats undermined the Military mission for the next eight years. Saddam sent his air-force to Iran for safekeeping and the next thing you know Iran has nuclear capability. It doesn't take a fat assed "intelligence specialist" to conclude that Iraq sent it's WMD labs to Iran. Harry Truman downsized the US Military shortly after WW2 and was surprised that NK invaded SK. He sent Troops to Korea on an executive order so Korea was his baby. We lost 50,000 Troops in three years. We are in the same situation in Iraq only we have a president who is even dumber than the high school educated Truman.

Yes. But why do some people who allege themselves to have more than a high-school education not know the difference between the possessive pronoun its and the contraction for the two words it is???

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama had no idea there was a war on in Iraq!

He only learned about it by reading the morning newspaper

 

[The T]

Obama had no idea there was a war on in Iraq!

He only learned about it by reading the morning newspaper

He KNOWS...he's feigning ignorance...Good LORD...He's the most powerful man in the FREE WORLD...(As he sells FREEDOM down the proverbial river)...and a good LIAR. But Malignant Narcissists, "Community Organizers" are like that.

 

[Plasmaball]

Yes, under Bush 41. With no significant change in policy for eight years of Clinton, then topped off with the 1998 resolution, making regime change in Iraq the official U.S. foreign policy stance.

As stated in my first post, there is plenty of blame to go around.

Yes and had Reagan not sent Rumsfeld. Saddam may not of had chemical weapons.

The neo-cons have been pushing for the invasion since the 90's.

Yet Clinton not only left the framework for invasion in place (no fly zones, economic sanctions and the like), but added the 1998 resolution on top of it all.

Bill Clinton: Neoconservative.

And had Bush sr not went to war the first time there would be no need for sanctions.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Time is a funny thing when you watch how people conduct themselves. We are on the cusp of another civil war in Iraq. We have a few things going on here. We have some who blame Obama for pulling out. We have people who think we never should have been there at all. We have people who are sitting back and saying " we told you so". The last group being the most interesting to me, seeing how i am one of those people.

In the lead up to the war we had the supporters arguing that Saddam needed to be removed because he was a bad man, who had weapons, killed some people,and was linked to terrorists. Well we all know what happened with those three issues, so we wont go over those failures.

The other side who was saying we shouldn't go in because a civil war would break out, Saddam was keeping the terrorists out of Iraq, and basically had a tin army that wasn't going anywhere.

So what do we have now? An I told you so. We told you Saddam was keeping the region rather stable. We told you he wasn't connected to the terrorists ( i mean look they are attacking Iraq now). We told you a civil war would break out, and now this is the second one in less than ten years.

Yet because people wanted to win short term victories we went in. The left folded like the french army in WWI. So the reality is you wanted Saddam Removed, and this is the consequences of those actions.

I personally blame the people who decided it was the patriotic thing to do and go to war, or state you were with the terrorists. Good job, you literally wasted 5000 or so American lives so you could stick it to the left and put a win in your column. Well you were and are wrong.

Oh and i know, its all obamas fault now, because he wanted the terrorists to come in and take over, because they are his pals.

Dude, at this point don't be wasting your time worrying about a civil war in Iraq. If you want to worry, worry about one here.

 

[whitehall]

merica

Can we get the freaking poster to argue about his post in more than one word? Grade school kids do better than that.

sure when you do more than puke up partisan talking points, which is all you ever do. Which i assume is your attempt at being a radio type personality, because they do it so well, so why cant you right?

Don't ever join a debating team.

 

[The T]

Time is a funny thing when you watch how people conduct themselves. We are on the cusp of another civil war in Iraq. We have a few things going on here. We have some who blame Obama for pulling out. We have people who think we never should have been there at all. We have people who are sitting back and saying " we told you so". The last group being the most interesting to me, seeing how i am one of those people.

In the lead up to the war we had the supporters arguing that Saddam needed to be removed because he was a bad man, who had weapons, killed some people,and was linked to terrorists. Well we all know what happened with those three issues, so we wont go over those failures.

The other side who was saying we shouldn't go in because a civil war would break out, Saddam was keeping the terrorists out of Iraq, and basically had a tin army that wasn't going anywhere.

So what do we have now? An I told you so. We told you Saddam was keeping the region rather stable. We told you he wasn't connected to the terrorists ( i mean look they are attacking Iraq now). We told you a civil war would break out, and now this is the second one in less than ten years.

Yet because people wanted to win short term victories we went in. The left folded like the french army in WWI. So the reality is you wanted Saddam Removed, and this is the consequences of those actions.

I personally blame the people who decided it was the patriotic thing to do and go to war, or state you were with the terrorists. Good job, you literally wasted 5000 or so American lives so you could stick it to the left and put a win in your column. Well you were and are wrong.

Oh and i know, its all obamas fault now, because he wanted the terrorists to come in and take over, because they are his pals.

Dude, at this point don't be wasting your time worrying about a civil war in Iraq. If you want to worry, worry about one here.

And the Leftists have already launched a WAR against this Republic...against Liberty.

PlasmaDORK...is a partisan frothing at the crotch idiot.

 

[The T]

And that "Brotherhood" was granted access to the Whitehouse...especially during the "Muslim Spring" (EGYPT)...and Obama's bolstering them? Isn't it odd now that the new regime in Egypt has and IS Killing them off as CRIMINALS?

 

[Contumacious]

Time is a funny thing when you watch how people conduct themselves. We are on the cusp of another civil war in Iraq. We have a few things going on here. We have some who blame Obama for pulling out. We have people who think we never should have been there at all. We have people who are sitting back and saying " we told you so". The last group being the most interesting to me, seeing how i am one of those people. .

Back to Iraq? You Bet!

By Daniel McAdams


"As usual, the interventionists who run the US foreign policy establishment are drawing all the wrong conclusions from the news that the former “al-Qaeda in Iraq” (now “al-Qaeda in Iraq and Syria”) has set up shop in the notorious Fallujah. Sen. John McCain and his sidekick, Sen. Lindsey Graham, issued a joint statement over the weekend which unsurprisingly blamed the whole development on President Obama’s decision to withdraw US forces form Iraq in 2011.

There are two things wrong with this analysis. First, the phenomenon of al-Qaeda in Iraq was created by the invasion that the two Senators championed. Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before 2003, as we all know. So if anyone is responsible for al-Qaeda in Iraq it is McCain, Graham, and the coterie of cakewalk neo-conservatives who pushed for the war. Secondly, as the Moon of Alabama blog so deftly points out, the whole “power vacuum” argument is a reality vacuum — making no sense:

It was the U.S. attack on Iraq that set off the sectarian war in Iraq and beyond. It was the removal of Saddam Hussein that changed the balance between Saudi Sunnism and Iranian Shiaism which then motivated the Saudis to unleash the Jihadist forces. It was not a ‘power vacuum’ that created the strife that continues today and will continue in the future. It was the insertion of U.S. forces into the Middle East that led to overpressure and the current explosions.

McCain and Graham and the neocons want to have it both ways"

.

 

[tinydancer]

Good OP though you rarely start one and this one makes you think back to those days. I was almost frantic over Iraq. Losing it on a day today because at the best of times if one knows history Iraq has barely held a fragile peace.

Formed by an idealistic but flawed League of Nations, Iraq was doomed to her fate as we are witnessing today.

Fools proclaim Bush.

They know not this jewel of history, the heart of mankind, Mesopotamia. This is the land so foolishly divided up by men who knew not of the region or its history.

I don't know what you want Plas here.