Maliki is the one that screwed the pooch for Iraq. He refused to let US troops stay unless they were subject to Iraqi law. You and Sen. McCain say Obama should have "negotiated harder" or maybe held his breath. And you're also ignoring what most US generals who served there post-Maliki have said: Iraq had a capable army that Maliki destroyed with cronyism, appointing "political generals" with no military experience who were corrupt and hollowed out the army until it was only a "checkpoint" army incapable of stopping ISIS.
Fortunately for the Afghans, they've learned from Iraq and at least have a shot at holding their own.
I don't expect to convince you of any of this, so please continue being wrong. At least you have lots of company here.
The fuckup-in-chief gave up 5 high ranking Taliban scumbag killers for bergdahl.
Then susan rice says he served with honor and distinction.
Now bergdahl is charged with desertion and misconduct before the enemy.
This administration cannot go one day without fucking up something, and helping the enemy.
2016 = GOP All The Wa
We started air strikes on ISIS in Tikrit to help the Iranian 'boots on the ground.' Maybe that'll get the nuke deal done?
There are no good options over there, no matter what your politics are. We never should have been there to begin with.
Ok you can keep on blaming 'Bush' that's fine. But I'm a bit surprised at our flying close air support for a nation that killed 1/3 of our KIA in Iraq. And to benefit their goal to control Iraq as they now do other significant territories in the Middle East. I'd disagree with your take that Iran is a lesser threat than ISIS. That's rather shocking. I know its all 'Bush's' fault but Mr O'bama said we were out of Iraq victory in tow. 'Mission Accomplished' redux? I guess only if your last name is 'Bush.' At least AQ "on the run" right?
At least Yemen continues to be a "model for fighting terrorism" and a "success story" in the Middle East correct?
-- Modified on 3/26/2015 7:03:38 AM
So I'm not sure if I support it or not. My comment simply was that sometimes we don't have a nice, clean choice available. And at this point we need to do what's needed to prop up Iraq.
As for Bush, you may not like it but it's indisputable that Iraq is something Bush "broke" and we are still paying the consequences. We'd all be much better off if that thug Saddam was still running things there. There is such a thing as a necessary evil.
some noble, some not. From Cuba, to Vietnam, to Nicaragua to (insert country of your choice), the population of those countries didn't decided to bomb, behead, and go medieval on us. So think about that the next time you are smoking a cigar, getting a manicure/pedicure, and fucking a chica, and all at the same time (lol).
As for Bush, you may not like it but it's indisputable that Iraq is something Bush "broke" and we are still paying the consequences. We'd all be much better off if that thug Saddam was still running things there. There is such a thing as a necessary evil.
And if you're saying you think I"m against going after ISIS you're quite wrong.
Also, I have never smoked a cigar (and Cohibas are available here in Jaco), while banging a chica. And I've never had a mani-pedi, ever.
What a droll idea.
My point was very simple. The U.S. has engaged other countries militarily both covertly and overtly, and did shit that some would say is just as bad as what we have done in certain countries in the Middle East. The fact of the matter is the religious and/or political elements of countries I mentioned earlier, and just about every other country we've engaged and "broke" in the past, didn't see the need to create a global jihad against us or the western world based on current or ancient shit.
Cigar (Cuba), Chicas (Nicaragua, or any South/Central American country), Mani/Pedi (Vietnam) was just me stereotyping.
Also, I have never smoked a cigar (and Cohibas are available here in Jaco), while banging a chica. And I've never had a mani-pedi, ever.
What a droll idea.
Because the drive to retake has stalled. They said it would take a "matter of days" to take Tikrit. That was several weeks ago. Their offensive has been stopped dead in its tracks. So we're assisting the Iranians. While we bash Israel and release sensitive info on its nuke program. How does that make sense?
Hindsight is always 20/20 on military affairs. Should Qadafi still be in charge of Libya? How about Mubarek in Egypt. And your guy O'bama still calls for Assad to go. Who fills THAT void? At least we have the success in Yemen to fall back on. To blame 'Bush' for what's going on in Syria, Libya, Yemen and what went on in Egypt is laughable.
How would you rate out foreign policy in the Middle East today? One word please. I choose disastrous. You?
-- Modified on 3/26/2015 9:00:56 AM
What I meant re Tikrit is, I don't know why, after all this time, we just decided to start bombing. The Iraqi drive there stalled days ago. Some have speculated the timing is we made a deal with the Iraqis for them to have the Iranian advisors withdrawn so we wouldn't be seen as being on the same side. Which is dumb.
As for our "assisting the Iranians," sometimes even with an enemy your interests align. Are you seriously suggesting we should now stay out and let ISIS win?
As for bashing Israel, we're not. We've been bashing Netanyahu and deservedly so. But he is not Israel. Sometimes an ally is wrong, as in this case. And you know I believe Bibi behaved very badly on a number of levels. Given the number of apologies and corrections he's been issuing of late, he seems to agree. Even President Rivlin, a member of his own party who asked him to form a new government, took him to task.
As for the rest of the mid-east, it's a mess but not in all cases because of us. The Arab spring started on its own and would have turned out the way it had without us. The only place where I firmly agree Obama screwed up is in Syria, on a number of levels.
And who's blaming "Bush" for it? Not me. I blame him for Iraq only. You won't find a single thing I've written that blames him for the mess in the rest of the mid-east. With that comment you're really playing it fast and loose. Maybe just loose
What a goofy place.
and oil is back about fifty bucks a barrel, GO RAGHEADS!!!
and while Bush might have "broken" Iraq, as badly mismanaged ast the war and occupation was handled, things were well under control until your hero left the void that was filled by ISIS. What should really be the "there is no doubt" conclusion is that if we had left a decent sized force in Iraq, like we have in every other country that we have "broken" ISIS never would have become the force that they have become today. Obama owns this mess, not Bush.
Maliki is the one that screwed the pooch for Iraq. He refused to let US troops stay unless they were subject to Iraqi law. You and Sen. McCain say Obama should have "negotiated harder" or maybe held his breath. And you're also ignoring what most US generals who served there post-Maliki have said: Iraq had a capable army that Maliki destroyed with cronyism, appointing "political generals" with no military experience who were corrupt and hollowed out the army until it was only a "checkpoint" army incapable of stopping ISIS.
Fortunately for the Afghans, they've learned from Iraq and at least have a shot at holding their own.
I don't expect to convince you of any of this, so please continue being wrong. At least you have lots of company here.
That some two bit Iraqi PM got the better of the President of the USofA? How could that happen? Same way Iran is about to put one over on us. Just like the Muslim Brotherhood.
If only Assad had quit, Syria would be all cupcakes and candy canes right?
there was nothing anyone could have done about it, hence my comment about Obama holding his breath. I'm not sure what about that comment is so difficult to understand. McCain has asserted what you do but never really backed it up any better than you have.
Also, you have no clue what Iran will agree to re nukes (or if they'll actually agree to anything) but you talk as if we'd already lost.
As for the Muslim Brotherhood, they are all in jail and we are about to release more military aid to the Sisi government.
Your Assad comment is just laughable, at least if it's directed at me because as I've already stipulated, Obama blew it there totally. Seems like you can't even accept it when I agree with you. Another example why debates on this board can be such a waste of time.
Did you ever consider that's how he wanted it to appear? We already have lost with Iran. They have their money. Sanctions have been lifted and we'll never get our allies to reimpose them and O'bama will never to alone on new sanctions and oh news to you Iran has never ever adhered since 1979 to any interenational agreements especially with the IAEA and nuclear inspections. What did they do with the last UN agreement? Just toss the inspectors out and kill the cameras. You may trust them to adhere to a new international accord. I don't. Death to America! Indeed.
So you don't think O'bama "blowing it" in Syria via the 'Red Line' doesn't have any play on what Iran does? Do you really think they think O'Bama will enforce anything against anyone anywhere? I don't.
Only the most minimal sanctions have been lifted. The most biting ones remain in place and the Iranians know if there's no deal there will be even worse ones. To say "They have their money" is just blatantly wrong. They have a tiny fraction of it.
As for Syria, I told you Obama blew it with the "Red Line" statement and I don't doubt that encouraged adversaries around the world to question his toughness. I've said that but you seem to ignore that.
this time at least. They do "have their money." They got billions back frozen in US banks. Am I wrong? If not, and only the most minimal sanctions lifted, which isn't accurate, why would we want such a crappy deal? That makes zero sense. Wait for their economy to crumble then maybe we can replace Israel with a real quality ally.
the frozen billions they got back were minimal and what we got was substantial. Also, the major sanctions remain in place.
Just google Iranian sanctions for more.
"Billions? Minimal?" Ok
Not nearly enough to do much to pull Iran out of its desperate financial condition brought on by the sanctions that remain in place.
Quote:
On Aug. 13, Mr. Obama settled the matter in a conference call in which he ruled out the 10,000 troop option and a smaller 7,000 variant. The talks would proceed but the size of the force the United States might keep was shrunk: the new goal would be a continuous presence of about 3,500 troops, a rotating force of up to 1,500 and half a dozen F-16’s.
Also, you have no clue what Iran will agree to re nukes (or if they'll actually agree to anything) but you talk as if we'd already lost.
As for the Muslim Brotherhood, they are all in jail and we are about to release more military aid to the Sisi government.
Your Assad comment is just laughable, at least if it's directed at me because as I've already stipulated, Obama blew it there totally. Seems like you can't even accept it when I agree with you. Another example why debates on this board can be such a waste of time.
-- Modified on 3/26/2015 11:52:55 AM
Or just take out of context what you wanted?
-- Modified on 3/27/2015 4:04:24 PM
-
-- Modified on 3/27/2015 5:13:39 PM
If we'd of left 30,000 troops and air support in Iraq, ISIS never would have come about. Bush created the mess, Bush fixed it and O'bama claimed the war won. Mission Accomplished Redux? O'Bama owns it hook line and sinker.
Nicky, since you don't agree, why is Mr O'bama leaving 10,000 troops and air assets in Afghanistan?
We are leaving 10,000 troops in Afghanistan because the government there signed exactly the same kind of agreement with us the Iraqis refused to sign. And one big reason they did it was because the learned their lesson from the Iraqi's mistake. So did the Iraqis. They forced Maliki out and begged us to help them. If they'd done that to begin with ISIS would still be penned up in northern Syria
No they're signing it because we worked to get rid of Karzai. And if you really think that O'bama is so impotent to not be able to manage Malacki I guess I have to agree with you. Keep on defending him and blaming the PM of a dysfunctional govt that relies mainly on the US for its fiscal survival.
But we're impotent? Nice logic. As for Malacki (sp.) he was democratically elected and was the guy we had to deal with and he fucked it up. Who else were we supposed to deal with? What were we going to do to make him agree? You seem to suggest we should have cut off funding. That would have starved the Iraqi military and let to the same result. You really have no workable solution, do you?
As you well know Karzai was run out by the locals. Why didn't we treat Malacki as we did Mubarak and Mohammer? That worked out pretty well no?
"manage Malacki" short of ignoring, totally, Iraq's sovereignty? What would be the stick and/or carrot that would persuade him to do what we want?
The General would use the tactics of his Civil War cavalry commander, Gen. Judson Kilpatrick. He was known at "Kill-cavalry" for his reckless charges that killed thousands of his men. Gen. Sherman referred to him as "a hell of a damn fool."
On the positive side, Kilpatrick was known as a blatant whoremonger who frequently had hookers in his camp. So there's that.
or better yet make him an offer he couldn't refuse. Study a bit the negotiations over the clause Nicky says was so critical to our vacating Iraq. The bottom line is we didn't make an honest effort to negotiate it. They knew we didn't want it and we acted as such. Funny Matt how your idol who you often compare to Moses couldn't handle a tinhorn PM. Shocking.
-- Modified on 3/26/2015 6:58:41 PM
You don't think releasing Intel on Israels nuke program doesn't hurt Israel? Bashing its leader continually even after he's handed your ass to you in his 'devestating' election ass whipping? Can't we just move on? I guess not. As bad as Bibi may be, O'bama's gonna keep pounding him. Spying. Nuke program leaks. Funding his opposition. It's amateur hour foreign policy.
As for ISIS, no strawmen please. Who said we should ignore them? I'd of bombed them back to the Stone Age months ago. Months ago I guess they really weren't the JV?
One word. I'll wait.
And, on balance, I agree with you it was wrong. Yes, there was a Freedom of Information Act suit that required release, but that did not mean it had to be declassified. Below is a link to the best article I found on it, in Hot Air.
But as for Bibi, describing his win as a devastating ass whipping is hilarious. And Obama was far from alone in tut-tutting him for his statements, as I pointed out many in Israel have done, including in his own party. And you continue to ignore his own apologies to Israeli Arabs, and walking back his comments on the two-state issue.
And, OK, you never said we should ignore ISIS but you criticize us for being stuck on the same side as the Iranians. If we should have "bombed them back into the stone age months ago" you fail to say what you'd do differently. They are not a conventional army and have changed their tactics to avoid precisely the kind of strikes you so glibly assume would be so easy.
You tend to make things seem simpler than they are. The world isn't black and white but shades of gray.
As for the Israeli intel release, did the article you read note how our NATO allies info was redacted? Israel's wasn't? And after all these years, why release it now? Funny how we release what we want, when we want and how we want isn't it? Will we ever see O'Bama's college grades? I digress.
Yes, I'd of bombed them back to the stone age. Not the pin pricks we're doing now. B52's, B1 and B2's, cruise missiles. I'd kick the shit out of them and anyone near them. They haven't had to pay a price and until they and the Iranians have to pay a price for the shit they pull they'll continue to pull the shit they do.
I'd cut off their ability to sell Iraqi oil. I'd cut off their access to any and all banking activities. As for the Iranians, I'd sanction the shit out of them which was working until we gave up that game and now are going to do a deal noone can see in print until its signed sealed and delivered. Transparency? Who needs it?
At least we keep bashing our staunchest ally in the world Israel. Funny how Bibi is excoriated for lying (allegedly) to win an election but O'bama never gets called out on any of his lies which allowed him to get elected. Twice. Lets start with his opposition to gay marriage. Funny how he "evolved" after he got elected huh?
But your "bomb them back into the stone age" plan is worse than counter productive because it would kill tens of thousands of innocent people. That would really bring the sane ones into our camp, right? I hope you're not one of those "let's turn the whole region into a glass parking lot" types. If so, we have nothing more to discuss.
As for Iranian sanctions, the very tough ones are still in place and are the only reason they're at the bargaining table and may actually do a deal. So how about we wait until we know what the deal is (unlike your pal, Bibi) before we dump all over it. There's a real chance no deal will get done because the Iranians are gaming the whole thing. In that case, more sanctions are appropriate and would be supported by everyone, me included.
And, yes, there may come a day when we have to bomb their nuke problem to the extent possible. And I might support that, too. Just not yet.
PS: I was troubled by a story yesterday suggesting the Iranians won't put general principles to paper at this point. To me that's unacceptable and smacks of their gaming the talks. One of the big problems in the mid-east is the so-called "mentality of the bazaar" that characterizes their haggling
Not only won't they put 'general principles' to paper, they won't disclose where their program is now exactly. And they will continue to get to work on centerfuges in their secret basement type development facility. And I'd disagree the toughest sanctions are in place. Were you aware that their ballistic missile program isn't on the table either? In addition to nuclear 'power' why do they need a ballistic missile program I wonder? Shocking I know but maybe just maybe theyre for delivering nukes?
The reason they're at the table is they know how desperate O'bama is for a deal and they're going to get what they want regardless. This deal is not only a horrible deal, it'll set off an arms race in the Middle East. You don't think the Saudi's won't get them from their pawns in Pakistan? I do. And where do Japan and So Korea go seeing our desire to let nukes run wild? They'll be next I'd wager. Japan's constitution be damned or changed. Iran sees no downside to this deal. No deal they keep doing what their doing the only risk being Israel. They get the deal they keep developing and when ready to finalize the weapons program, they kick out the inspectors and do it.
No I'm not for nuking them. But we're flying a fraction of the sorties we flew in either Gulf War and there are few civilians in Tikrit these days anyways. I'd level it. Period. And does it bother you how many Iranian soldiers there are in Iraq at all?
-- Modified on 3/26/2015 4:35:19 PM
And, yes, tougher sanctions are possible if the deal fails but what's in place now is what brought them to the table. And you're wrong that they've gotten "their money" back. That's just a flat-out mis-statement on your part. They got a very small amount back and the major sanctions are still in place. You could look it up.
Also, it's not just that Obama is "desperate for a deal." There are, after, the other powers involved. So why did you trust all of their intelligence services re Saddam's WMDs but not on Iranian nukes?
As for the rest, you seem to have quite a crystal ball at hand to predict what's going to happen. I'd say your scenario is a stretch.
You may be right about bombing Tikrit, but what about Mosul? It's many times larger and full of innocent people being abused by ISIS. The same strategy would kill many of them and turn Iraqis against us even further.
As for Iranian soldiers in Iraq, I don't want any of them there. And we were successful in getting many removed as the price for bombing Tikrit. But, in the end, we don't control the situation and the bottom line is, it's better for us if the Iraqis succeed and any help we can give them will lessen Iran's influence.
That icbm's aren't part of the deal? If their intent isn't to make nukes, why do they need them? And no I don't trust in inspectors to do what's best. But in all fairness with no baseline/full initial disclosure how can they accurately survey the program?
As for Mosul, it's irrelevant. They can't even take Tikrit. Where are the Iranian AF F-4's anyways?
By the way, who are these "other powers" you speak of? The Russians?
if they have no nukes to put on an ICBM it's not good for much. And if you "don't trust in inspectors" what's the point of any deal at all? In fact, the inspectors in Iraq had Hussein's nuke program totally bottled up.
Mosul is hardly irrelevant. Tikrit will be taken and Iraq has vowed to retake Mosul. So they will try and no doubt we will help, so the bombing tactics are important and will need to minimize civilian casualties and collateral damage.
As for Iranian F4s, how is that remotely relevant? That's 60s technology in no way able to offer a meaningful asset to the fight. Even Iraq's Su-25s are of more help. And do you really want to add Iranian air assets of any kind to Iraqi air space? I thought we both wanted Iranian involvement minimized?
As for the other powers, you know who they are I'm sure. And I don't doubt you'll try to debunk their seriousness to get a meaningful deal. So what else is new?
Anyway, I hope we're done here.
I was being sarcastic to make a point about the F4's. I don't trust the Iranians. I can't believe you do? The iraqi's can't take Mosul even with Iranian help as Tikrit indicates. They still haven't even entered Tikrit have they? Mosul is a whole different kettle of fish. Could be worse than Fallujah. Unles Isis walks from Mosul, doubtful, Mosul won't fall without US infantry. And that won't happen. and someone told us not only had we won in Iraq, the Iraqi Army was ready to stand alone. Guess not Huh?
I don't want to repeat that here so I assume you'll refer to that.
And you're wrong to say the Iraqis "haven't even entered Tikrit." They control the entire city with the exception of one of Saddam's former palaces.
As for Mosul, Tikrit is a good warm up. I see Mosul as a great chance to bottle up and destroy a lot is ISIS nuts.
And do you really want me to repeat myself regarding how Maliki destroyed the Iraqi army from within
... including Karl Koecher, the only Soviet mole known to have penetrated the CIA. What did we get in return? We got Natan Sharansky, a Soviet dissident of no strategic value to us along with three minor league spies.
Sharansky never even came to the U.S. He immigrated to Israel where he's been a hindrance to peace with the Arabs ever since.
Obama traded for Bergdahl because he wanted to get back an American soldier being held by the enemy. Reagan traded for Sharansky because he was cowed by the Israel lobby.
Yet Republicans conveniently have amnesia when it comes to Reagan and keep jerking off to his memory.
Bowe Bergdahl was the last American POW in Afghanistan. Some morons keep repeating the mantra "For God and Country" yet ignore an equally important saying: "Leave no man behind."
Natan Sharansky was alleged to have been an American spy facing the death penalty in the Soviet Union for treason. Whether this is true or not, I don't know. Jimmy Carter of course denied he was a US spy.
But the Bergdahl white house ceremony and proclamation that he "served with honor and distinction"? Really?
Hes a traitor. Right up your alley?
Bergdahl was an imprisoned American soldier who is innocent until proven guilty (are you familiar with that principle?). We could not judge his case until we got him back. It was our obligation to get him back, just like any other POW.
That said, you can disagree with the terms of the swap, but not with a legitimate effort to return him here alive for an investigation.
You should just hope that if you should be arrested for something here, you will find the same protection under the law. Remove that protection for one person and you weaken it for all. Just like eroding the First Amendment or any other part of the Constitution, perhaps the most perfect document ever created.
...All the OP and his ilk need is the Second Amendment. The rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights will be repealed when the GOP wins the White House in 2016.
Can you please clarify this for me? Why aren't he and his "Ilk" allowed an opinion? He must be a racist for questioning our crumbling foreign policy right?
-- Modified on 3/26/2015 7:05:28 AM
It is alleged that bergdahl intentionally walked off the base and was seeking the taliban.
It is also alleged that he gave the enemy information.
I did not say he is guilty but did say he is charged with, desertion and misbehavior before the enemy.
He is being given all his rights under the military system.
I have no problem getting him back, however, the price was way, way too high.
There was no negotiation with the taliban. The taliban told obama who they wanted and obama caved to them. In a few months those five will be back on the job as terrorists and potentially killing Americans.
Also that afternoon in the rose garden, obama with bergdahl’s parents……give me a break.
And susan rice telling everyone the he served with honor and distinction without knowing the facts herself. Well at least she did not blame it on a video.
Thank you
2015 = 2
Reasonable person.
Thank you
2015 = 28
Susan Rice Called him a "hero." Must be so, right? Where IS that movie maker btw? When does his trial start? And Nicky at least the Iranians are now combing through intelligence files we left behind. Let the fun begin!
-- Modified on 3/26/2015 7:07:45 AM
So was the Rose Garden thing. I am not a knee-jerk supporter of Obama and in many cases his Administration is tone deaf. Same thing after Benghazi. Not that I excuse the Republicans' complete politicization of it.
But your continual blaming 'Bush' for everything (almost) in the middle east is intellectually bankrupt.
I blamed him for Iraq and only Iraq. Please find one post where I've blamed him for anything else in that region. So if you want to see "intellectually bankrupt" find a nearby mirror.
-- Modified on 3/26/2015 12:57:06 PM
But isn't Iraq what many blame for all the evils going on? You did say if Saddam were still in charge.................................
The statement you made was about what you claimed was MY position blaming Bush for everything. I never did that and apparently you now it because now you've changed the question.
Shame on your, General.
I don't think I said you blamed Bush for 'everything.' However you do seem to blame him for everything relative to Iraq don't you? I don't live in the past generally other than to study it. Do you think leaving Iraq void of US military support a,wise move?
You know I've already given you an answer above.
I guess I missed it. Still looking for intellectually bankrupt in my mirror dammit can't find that either.
the first signs of early-onset Alzheimer's?
you can go back to 1979 with Carter mishandling the Iranian Hostage Crises that set the tone for all this Middle East bullshit.
For example, the CIA under President Truman (not exactly considered a Carter-like weakling) overthrew the democratically elected president of Iran, Mohammad Mosadegh because he wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil business. We installed the Shah, who ruled by fear and torture until 1979. So we laid the groundwork for a lot of Iranians hating us and welcoming the Ayatollahs, though most regret it now.
And while we're laying blame for "Middle East bullshit," how about Saint Reagan sending hundreds of Marines to Beirut where they were killed by a truck bomb? Ronnie then turned tail and pulled out all the Marines. Understandably, the Arabs took this as a sign of weakness.
The only President who got his mid-east policy right was the first President Bush in 1991. And he was smart enough not to be baited into going all the way to Baghdad.
The strongman we installed in Iran who paralleled our interest for decades who was a despotic leader for sure was a huge mistake (perhaps) but deposing one who murdered a million, started a war that killed a million and for decades didn't mirror our interests but kept his people under his rule of terror, should have been let alone? The issue in Iraq wasn't so much deposing Saddam but clearly how the aftermath was bungled. Thank Paul Bremer.
With Iran racing towards nukes today, if Saddam were still there, do you think he'd be sitting idly by? I don't. Do you?
You are also partly right. But let me clarify. Overthrowing Mossadgh was wrong and was clearly an attempt by the US and Britain to protect our oil interests. There's no doubt the Shah was a lousy ruler, but during the Cold War we tended to support any despot who made the right noises vs. the USSR. In this case the result was the Ayatollahs and the situation we have today. What about that is a good outcome?
You are right that the aftermath of the Iraq war was bungled. But we should never have been there to begin with. You are forgetting that the entire basis for going in there was mostly a lie re Saddam's nuclear program. Remember Rice's "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud?" Remember the yellowcake that never existed?
It was not our job to overthrow him no matter how ugly he was. And if we really wanted to justify it, how come Saddam's war crimes were never used but lies about a nonexistent nuke program were? Answer: because we wouldn't have been able to get the UN to support us or have a "Coalition of the Willing," as puny as that was compared to what Bush, Sr. put together. Oh, and guess who were the biggest beneficiaries of Saddam's fall have been? Your buddies, the Ayatollahs.
So, yes, all in all, you are seriously confused.
I won't debate with you the merits on the Iraqi Invasion. In the rearview mirror, there aren't any. It was a stupid decision in hindsight. THAT said, in the context of 911, with EVERY western intelligence service saying he had WMD (WHERE ARE the 10,000 litres of anthrax the UN documented he had in the 1990's that were never destroyed?) from the UN to the Russians to the Germans to the CIA to the UK to the Israelis its somewhat understandable. But never mind that.
I really want to know. IF Saddam were still there and the Iranians were well on their way to nukes, what would he be doing? Baking cookies?
I don't deal well with 'what ifs' but in this case I'll make an exception since you seem to live in 'what ifs.'
BTW I fucked a hot hot hot porn star today I've been seeing for years. Ads as 39 figured she was early to mid 40's. Told me today she's over 50. I was floored. Really.
Your assignment is to go back over this thread and see how many questions and assertions I made that you selectively failed to answer.
That said, I'm happy to answer your question and was not evading, just ran out of breath.
I have no idea exactly what we'd be doing if Saddam actually did start up a nuclear program but I'm sure we'd be working as we have re Iran and N. Korea to make sure he couldn't have one. Which is exactly what we did do when he was there, and successfully, I might add. And as for North Korea, they tried their first nuclear test in 2006 when "guess who" was President. I guess they weren't too intimidated by him, were they. In fact, it came after the Iraqi invasion and many felt they sped up their nuclear program because they didn't want to be next.
As for the anthrax, nice red herring but since no one's found those 10,000 liters of it, maybe it never existed either. I guess it's just possible EVERY western intelligence service was wrong? Impossible!
As for the porn star I'll now check your reviews and see who she is. I hope you didn't make "granny porn" with her! LOL!
the intelligence agencies were wrong. Clearly duh they were. And what if they hadn't been? In the context of the time, I understand the decision but of course as we all now know, it wasn't the right move. In fact it was a horrible move. But unlike you and I, presidents don't have that luxury. Unless you're O'bama and you just do nothing and watch the world burn. As for the Anthrax, if it truly didn't exist, then the UN lied? You don't really see a motive there do you? Even Hans Blix agreed they had it.
Yes, NK blew their first wad under W. And who tried to strike the first deal with them? We all know. It really doesn't matter. NK will fail at some point and that capacity for nuclear mischief will go away. Iran's a different story as we all know with its vast reservoirs of oil. Why again do they need nuclear power? I forget. Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world I don't think any of us want them to have nukes but this deal will let them do so. The sad thing is Israel has been so demonized by O'bama they have nothing to lose by attempting to take out their facilities and at least set them back a few years. O'bama would probably enjoy being able to attack them anew for destorying world peace and all.
If I missed any of your questions it wasn't intentional. Watching hoops, working on a college paper and trying to keep you honest. BTW GaG be damned for Iran's benefit I pray oil stays at about $45 a barrel. For VZ's benefit as well. Fuck them too.
Disagree inicky, the Army knew he was a Taliban sympathizer at the time he left his post. The military is embarrassed by the whole incident and not telling us everything. The father speaks in Arabic to him from the White House lawn.
Fine innocent till proven guilty ... but they knew he was a deserter and traitor to United States. Do you really think the top brass at the White House wasn't being kept up to date on all this?
The Prez is trying to clear out Gitmo, I don't believe they give two shits about Bergdahl
At first I thought it said "obama adm.... keeps making enemies". I was going to say, Isn't that thew idea. The U.S. is/has always made enemies. But it doesn't say that. Unless you see it the religious way. And then Satan is the lord of the planet and helps the enemy or himself... actually, again I was thinking Satan making enemies of himself. Whatever.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer%27s%20Corner/america_is_absolutely_a_satanic_.ht
remember guys were killed searching for him. talk to the parents, loved ones about this traitor
Bergdahl. Fuck him. Should have left him behind.
-- Modified on 3/26/2015 7:04:28 AM
ransom to be paid. But of course this administration won't negotiate with terrorists, unless it's to get a Taliban loving deserter back home
As pointed out earlier, this is all about clearing out Gitmo. Legacy. Keeping promises. Just like proclaiming "victory" in Iraq and hauling ass. When do we bail on S Korea?
Given to them by two Republican Presidents:
Taliban: Ronald Reagan
Granting Iraq to Iran and making them a force in the Middle-East was done by, George W, Bush
Your next BS prlease