We all know that bogus war was about oil.
So how many oil people were in that Whitehouse and got richer back then?
Just state the real truth followme.

 
 

His brother and most of the righties on the board would never admit that the bush admin did use torture

Talk about thugs running the White House....Don't look now but you got the Thug-in-Chief there now.

Maybe that is why obama has let isis run rampant, they are his own kind.

 
You're Welcome
2016 = GOP All The Way

BTW January  is my favorite month, What's yours?  

I'll get to that, but let me clear something up first.

I said the invasion of Iraq would go down as a failure. That's is George Bush's gig and it is to his detriment. He is responsible for allowing Americans to think the war would be very quick, which was fkin stupid, and, since he underestimated the insurgency, he didn't put enough troops in theatre which compounded the problem.

As Jeb pointed out today, the debathification was another very bad move, in hindsight. But many were saying it was a bad idea at the time as well. Those critics turned out to be correct.  

All that is said so I am on record saying I do not, and have never, only blamed Obama for the mess in Iraq, in general.

Ok...now, per Obama and Biden, both have said Iraq was stable and spoke very highly and confidently of the situation there.
So, if it was stable on their watch, and not stable now, still being on their watch, SOMETHING bad happened.

What was that something bad? It was Obama not leaving enough troops there residually.

Which leads to your valid question.

It is my belief that ISIS was a product of us leaving. Imo, there was NO way ISIS forms it's caliphate, at least in northwestern Iraq, with US forces in theatre. You take a big dog out of the yard and the chance someone comes on your property to cause havoc increases. It's just common sense.

In addition, telling the world date certain when we were leaving was also dumb. Never tell the enemy what you are going to do before you do it.

So, to answer your question, it would be a hybrid of your points 1 and 2. We would continue to train the Iraqi forces and be the backup for them and be their Air Force until sufficient progress was made for them to defend Iraq by themselves.  

Yes, that would take a very long time and no, that would not be "perpetual war." ISIS attacking that coalition would have been a suicide mission and you know that.  

Furthermore, as ISIS made its way east originally from Syria, Obama should have strafed the shit out of them when they were out in the open and highly vulnerable. That opportunity came and went and it was disastrous.

Since he chose to do jack shit at that key moment, he allowed its army to swell from an initial 5-10k, to estimates of 25k, possibly much higher. Remember that incredible screw up?

The benefit of that action would have been be multi-faced. The air campaign would have greatly reduced the size of their force, possibly annihilated it, but certainly would have quelled many to join up with it.  

That bombing mission, with ground force back up if necessary, would also have stopped ISIS from taking key Iraqi cities, were they are fueling their terror with huge sums of money by taking over several oil fields, thus creating the monster they are today.

You seem to think it was an "either/or" scenario and that is where I fundamentally disagree with your premise. It wouldn't have been. It would have been a "this" AND "that" formula for success.  

And yes, that part of the Iraq failure lies squarely at the feet of Mr. Obama.

-- Modified on 8/14/2015 1:21:39 AM

ya know something... as much as I despise the ignorant tool, you did manage to sidestep and deflect his question. Don't lower yourself to the level of Planet Stupid. Can you answer the question?

2016 = The Year of Voting Dangerously

Why would anyone rule out something that could save thousands of innocent American lives?

The thought of that is not only absurd but incredibly naive

Just remember it puts our own US military people in more danger and increases hate around the world.
How can we talk to Cuba or China about their human rights issues.
If this country is doing the same thing?
The logic you express does not make any sense.

 

“It is my belief that ISIS was a product of us leaving. Imo, there was NO way ISIS forms it's caliphate, at least in northwestern Iraq, with US forces in theatre. You take a big dog out of the yard and the chance someone comes on your property to cause havoc increases. It's just common sense.”  

        True in the 18th century. But we can put 10,000 troops into Iraq in ten days. ISIS has always known this. It is totally unrealistic to believe that ISIS would have just "given up" if we had left a residual force. We had nearly 60,000 troops in Afghanistan following the surge and the Taliban continued to operate.  
 
“So, to answer your question, it would be a hybrid of your points 1 and 2. We would continue to train the Iraqi forces and be the backup for them and be their Air Force until sufficient progress was made for them to defend Iraq by themselves.”

      Well, what do you mean “be the back up for them?” That was my question – do they  engage ISIS directly when the Iraqis run away?  A secondary rules of engagement question is – does the residual force patrol Iraq as did the surge forces? Or do they simply sit in the Green zone or Army base where it is safe? You have to answer these type of questions before you can conclude that a "residual force" would have made a difference.
 
“Yes, that would take a very long time and no, that would not be "perpetual war." ISIS attacking that coalition would have been a suicide mission and you know that.”  
 
      That is not how terrorists operate. Of course they would not attack a US army base or the Green Zone. But they would attack US patrols and convoys and soon we would see captured American soldiers being beheaded or burned alive. Are you willing to send our boys to this fate after the Iraqis ran away?

       So the rules of engagement question is far more complex than you appreciate. I have no doubt we would kill ISIS if we did a search and destroy operation with a full army. But simply leaving a residual force there with “train and use the air force” rules of engagement there would not have made any difference other than to maybe slow their growth.  If your “be the back up” means they go out and fight when the Iraqis run away, I might agree with you that this would be effective but I and President Obama are not willing to pay the cost

part of homeland security in “ticking bomb” type of cases. Here is how you do it. Congress or the president by executive order authorizes a procedure where the CIA is permitted to apply for a warrant to torture before the FISA or similar court. The standard to get the warrant is very high – clear danger of a substantial and imminent harm -not a threat-  to American citizens and the warrant comes with specific limitations as to what can be done and the duration of the torture. The torture must be filmed with a neutral observer and a doctor must be present.

      That is not what the Bush admin did. They tortured in secret and without limitations except for the phony Yoo legal opinion.  There was no neutral observer. They went on fishing expeditions –“this guy was Osama’s cat sitter- he must know something . Put him on the rack” –  just to get info on Osama rather than because there was any kind of ticking bomb.  They did film some of the torture but of course destroyed the tapes because they knew what happen if the tapes became public.  

       And then of course the Bush admin LIED  about whether they had tortured anybody. Look at the habeas corpus cases where Gitmo detainees were released bc the only evidence the government had was obtained by torture. In many cases, the gov DID NOT EVEN CONTEST that torture was used.

At least Jeb is honest about using torture – not like his brother

If you want actionable intelligence, you do that by getting a voluntary statement. I could probably get someone, to admit to being the second shooter at that AME Church in Charleston, SC, if I use the the right techniques, buts that's a worthless confession.

but refuses to tell us which one, the Honda Administration would not obtain a warrant to torture him because “torture  has been proven in most cases to lead to inaccurate information?”

        How about we torture him and, if he gives us the wrong location, we come back and torture him again until he gives us the right one?

       Of course, your assertion that “torture  has been proven in most cases to lead to inaccurate information” is pure speculation. There have been absolutely ZERO peer reviewed studies on this and there never will be bc we torture in secret and we can’t always tell whether the info obtained was reliable or not. In the Gitmo habeas corpus cases the gov –both Bush and Obama administrations – refused to litigate exactly what they did when the detainee alleged torture.

       But my assumption is that, depending on the degree of torture used, torture does “work” in some degree of cases and in the ticking bomb case where the defendant admits to planting the bomb, or in other similar cases where a neutral third party issues a warrant, it would be insane to allow the bomb to explode without taking a shot at torture.

 
        Nothing personal, Honda, but I’m going to vote for Donald Trump instead of you because he has a little more real world sense.

Have you been peeking over my shoulder in class today? lol

I am saying they would have been smart enough not to attack a defensive postion held by the U.S. in western Iraq. No way they would have done that.

And if per chance they were that stupid, they would have been decimated, right there, right then.

Insurgencies/terrorist tactics are a bitch to deal with inner city, house to house. But out in the wide open? Piece of cake.  

You are underestimating just how big a blunder it was when Obama chose not to bomb them back to the Stone Age when they travelled from Syria into Iraq.  

We could have cut their supply line easily and there army would have either been eliminated then or it would have disbanded due to lack of food, water, cover, et

The problem isn't that "torture" doesn't work.

The problem is...is that it does.

Any student of history, or anyone that understands the human condition just a little, knows this to be true.

We can scream and cry and gnash our teeth wishing and hoping it wasn't, but the facts show it does for some.

The Senate Intelligence Committee did not find a single iota of evidence that the CIA torture of detainee's helped. If you think torture is the end all, be all, just give me 10 minutes or so, using the standard waterboard technique, I would have most of the righties here squealing that they were actually closeted communists.........lol

 


-- Modified on 8/14/2015 2:22:50 PM

There are thousands of ways of inflicting severe pain on a subject; no one has tried them all.  Each subject’s pain tolerance is different – do you really think a Wall Street banker could resist torture as successfully as a hardened terrorist?

        And there is the problem of not knowing whether the subject actually has the information you seek.  The Bush admin went on fishing expeditions- they never knew whether the subject actually had the information they sought. If the subject under torture does not actually have the information and blurts out incorrect information to stop the pain , does that mean the torture was “ineffective” ?

      So you can’t measure whether “torture” works, whether you are an expert on enhanced interrogations or a P & R Board poster. The best you can do is question the effectiveness of procedures you have observed.

       And whether torture “works” is pretty much beside the point as a homeland security tool.  We spend zillions of airport security screening but bad guys still get thru with weapons. Do we stop? In the ticking bomb case, this is a tool we should use regardless of whether it only works some of the time.

      Finally, as to the legality under US law, that is why we set up a warrant procedure and create a privilege to torture with a warrant. It is a crime to shoot someone but we create a privilege for law enforcement to do that under certain circumstances.

        As to international law who cares? We violate international law with every drone strike that kills an innocent person

In an earlier post, you state torture doesn't work MOST of the time. I would even argue that, but,let's say you are correct,with that assessment.

By implication, if it doesn't work most of the time, therefore it means it DOES work SOME of the time.

Look, heads of CIA and NSA under both Dems and R's say it works. Leon Panetta has stated, and I have linked her several times, that enhanced interrogation methods aided in capturing bin Laden.

Alan Dershowitz has documented numerous times where "torture" has worked.

In world war 2 he points out that many in the French Resistance gave up their plans, friends and family to the Nazis.

Captured Nazi U boat commanders were tortured by the British Navy and gave up valuable info.

I am sure many give up false info, and some are so psyched up or so hardened that they do not provide accurate or any info at times, but you can NEVER make a blanket statement of what ALL would do.

Look how effective good cop, bad cop tactics are.  

Can you imagine thinking you were going to die and NO ONE giving up info in that case?

Utterly preposterous, by historical example and by common sense, of how different people will react to different persuasive methods.

Glad we cleared that up.

Unfortunately ISIS has learned a thing or two about how we dress and treat prisoners at Gitmo and so have incorporated our techniques into their captured prisoner program, except for the beheadings of course. Sen. McCain who knows more about torture than any of us has spoken vehemently against the CIA torture program.

.......probably 24hrs or so but eventually ALL righties here would start squealing that they were closeted Communists.  Happy now....lol

-- Modified on 8/14/2015 3:20:29 PM

"Furthermore, as ISIS made its way east originally from Syria, Obama should have strafed the shit out of them when they were out in the open and highly vulnerable. That opportunity came and went and it was disastrous."

Out in the open?  I think not!  

Or did you start seeing red as soon as mentioned torture should be one tool available to Homeland Security?

 
      I posted that torture is a LAST RESORT REMEDY available only in a “ticking bomb” type of case where the government is able to meet very high standards in order to get a warrant to torture.

How in the world do you go from that to “if you think torture is the be all and all….”?

    And why are you focusing on the Gitmo detainees, none of whom were even suspected of having ticking bomb knowledge, and whether that "helped"

E.I. isn't punitive, it's an info gathering technique.

I needed to explain this to you???

This:

"When Georgie went into Iraq, our guys would drive into towns and grab EVERY male and haul them off to prison and torture them."

my sub-thread.  

      Obviously Bush did not grab every male in Baghdad and send them to the torture chambers. It is true, however, that a large number of the 700 or detainees sent to Gitmo did nothing to justify their detention. Many of these poor guys were sold to US forces by Afghan war lords for bounties and to get rid of rivals. If the warlord said the guy was a terrorist, that was good enough for transfer to Gitmo.  

        Notwithstanding Cheney’s claim that the Gitmo held the “worst of the worst,” the Bush admin itself released some 500 of the detainees after it became apparent they had been framed.  

        The detainees released on habeas corpus – a different group- usually had some degree of evidence against them. But bc the evidence was obtained by torture, it was not admissible in court and these guys were released.

       None of the persons held at Gitmo would qualify for a warrant for torture under the standard I set forth in my subthread

He cannot provide a creditable or reliable source for 99.99% of what he posts.
It is all made up. Fiction, pure fiction, and lies.

He is an obama boy and despite what he says he is a huge hillary fan.  

 

Thank you

The author, laila al-arian is a radical islamist "reporter" for al-jazeera and is pro-terrorist. You cannot get anything less creditable than what you posted.

 
No doubt she is your kind of gal.

 
You're Welcome
For God and Country
2016 = GOP All The Way

END OF MESSAGE

Your exact words:

“So, to answer your question, it would be a hybrid of your points 1 and 2. We would continue to train the Iraqi forces and be the backup for them and be their Air Force until sufficient progress was made for them to defend Iraq by themselves. “  
 

       We know training didn’t work.  We know air strikes had limited effect. So time for Jack’s “back up.”

Would we be attacking now? Yes, that would work. Is that what you mean?

 
Can you give me the courtesy of a answer