Iran wins
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
paullud
Veteran Expediter
You can't argue with results.
That's not results, it's opinion by a rookie liberal hack columnist. Iraq was left stabilized until Obama withdrew our troops and abandoned the situation leaving the Iraqi govt in an untenable position, unable to defend the gains accomplished and the status that was achieved by the Surge that ran the Iranian backed terrorists out of town. It's obvious that Obama is sympathetic to the Iranian mullahs and their goals for the region which include the takeover of a fractured, defenseless Iraq.
Ezra Klein is a liberal, but is neither a rookie nor a hack, and has several prestigious awards to prove it, and the respect of many very intelligent and knowledgeable people also.
The refusal [or inability] to find any redeeming features in anyone whose political ideologies conflict with one's own is the opposite of intelligent and knowledgeable, BTW.
As to Iraq, describing it as 'stable' prior to the American troop withdrawals is as deluded as the initial assumption that the US military could impose democracy in a country divided by as many deep loyalties as Iraq.
PS The timetable for troop withdrawal was negotiated by Bush in 2008, and even if Obama wanted to extend deployment, the Iraqis would not have agreed.
Barack Hussein Obama will be doing a lot of inexplicable things in his remaining time in office as he seeks to manufacture a palatable legacy. Obama's time would be well spent by embarking on an Apology Tour where he travels to all 50 states beseeching US citizens to forgive the colossal harm he has done. Actually, Obama isn't very welcome in many states. His name will draw hisses and cursing for the next 50 years.
Windsor
Veteran Expediter
Amazing reading some of these comments. The root of this countries problems don't start in the white house, they usually don't. Politicians don't control things, money greed and corruption controls things. It has its roots intertwined in every branch and every party of our government. And everyone else's government as well. They love that we all sit around arguing right or left or blue and red. They laugh at us while they get rich. We're just worker bees, the jokes on us. Wake up, seriously!
Windsor
Veteran Expediter
Your right, Obama should go apologize to the tax payers for the over 2 trillion dollars spent on the Iraq war or apologize to the families of the 4400 plus soldiers that have died looking for imaginary weapons of mass distraction......... oh never mind, that was that other crook!
Obama didn't get us into a war we can't win [much less 2 of them], sacrificing the lives of our best and brightest young men & women [and how many trillions of dollars?]. Bush did that, and why isn't he expected to apologize for the colossal harm?
For those who are oblivious to history or suffer from conveniently short memories, the Iraq war received congressional approval by favorable margins of 297-133 in the House and 77-23 in the Senate. Senators who voted FOR the Iraq war were (bold emphasis mine): Sens. Lincoln (D-AR), Feinstein (D-CA), Dodd (D-CT), Lieberman (D-CT), Biden (D-DE), Carper (D-DE), Nelson (D-FL), Cleland (D-GA), Miller (D-GA), Bayh (D-IN), Harkin (D-IA), Breaux (D-LA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Kerry (D-MA), Carnahan (D-MO), Baucus (D-MT), Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Torricelli (D-NJ), Clinton (D-NY), Schumer (D-NY), Edwards (D-NC), Dorgan (D-ND), Hollings (D-SC), Daschle (D-SD), Johnson (D-SD), Cantwell (D-WA), Rockefeller (D-WV), and Kohl (D-WI).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
There has been no such thing in recent history as a war the US could not win, and anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain stupid. On the other hand, the politicians running the war must have the will and determination to win - and that means employing our available means of overwhelming force resulting in total defeat of the enemy, its allies and supporters both civilian and military. Unconditional surrender must be the definition of victory as a result of a ruthless and determined effort such as the one we put forth in World War II. Unfortunately, we haven't seen this kind of resolve since then.
The US won the war in Iraq after finally employing a more aggressive strategy with the Surge. Obama abandoned the situation leaving an unprepared Iraq to defend themselves, thus the resulting foreign policy failure and chaotic situation in the Middle East. He is in the process of creating the scenario for WW III by enabling his cronies in Iran to develop nuclear weapons and ignoring the threats posed by Russia and China, but another POTUS will have to deal with the mess he leaves behind and will hopefully be able to clean it up before it gets out of hand. After time passes and events evolve, Barack Hussein Obama will likely be remembered as the worst president in American history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
There has been no such thing in recent history as a war the US could not win, and anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain stupid. On the other hand, the politicians running the war must have the will and determination to win - and that means employing our available means of overwhelming force resulting in total defeat of the enemy, its allies and supporters both civilian and military. Unconditional surrender must be the definition of victory as a result of a ruthless and determined effort such as the one we put forth in World War II. Unfortunately, we haven't seen this kind of resolve since then.
The US won the war in Iraq after finally employing a more aggressive strategy with the Surge. Obama abandoned the situation leaving an unprepared Iraq to defend themselves, thus the resulting foreign policy failure and chaotic situation in the Middle East. He is in the process of creating the scenario for WW III by enabling his cronies in Iran to develop nuclear weapons and ignoring the threats posed by Russia and China, but another POTUS will have to deal with the mess he leaves behind and will hopefully be able to clean it up before it gets out of hand. After time passes and events evolve, Barack Hussein Obama will likely be remembered as the worst president in American history.
For those who like to rewrite history, Bush lied. Congress and the Senate were misled, by Bush and Cheney and all the hawks who think war is wonderful.
Whether the US could 'win' a war depends upon the objectives, and by the objectives enumerated at the time, the US could not win, for there were no "weapons of mass destruction" there to find. Nor did we impose stability, or peace, or an Iraqi military capable of continuing the challenge once the deadline negotiated by Bush was reached. Obama had no choice - Iraq wanted the US out. That Iraq was unprepared to defend itself is something Bush's 'expert' advisers should have anticipated, but failed miserably to obtain accurate information about ahead of the decision to let them do it on their own. The arrogance of believing we could "shock and awe" the country of multiple tribal clashes and sectarian violence, with wholly unknown internal alliances and enmities into a cohesive functioning democracy was staggering.
That is all at the feet of Bush, not Obama. And what did it cost, in dollars? In lives?
If winning the war means bombing it into the Stone Age, then footing the cost to rebuild it, while the everyday violence continues unabated, [and we have American children & senior citizens going hungry because we "can't afford" to feed them], then sure - we won.
Whether the US could 'win' a war depends upon the objectives, and by the objectives enumerated at the time, the US could not win, for there were no "weapons of mass destruction" there to find. Nor did we impose stability, or peace, or an Iraqi military capable of continuing the challenge once the deadline negotiated by Bush was reached. Obama had no choice - Iraq wanted the US out. That Iraq was unprepared to defend itself is something Bush's 'expert' advisers should have anticipated, but failed miserably to obtain accurate information about ahead of the decision to let them do it on their own. The arrogance of believing we could "shock and awe" the country of multiple tribal clashes and sectarian violence, with wholly unknown internal alliances and enmities into a cohesive functioning democracy was staggering.
That is all at the feet of Bush, not Obama. And what did it cost, in dollars? In lives?
If winning the war means bombing it into the Stone Age, then footing the cost to rebuild it, while the everyday violence continues unabated, [and we have American children & senior citizens going hungry because we "can't afford" to feed them], then sure - we won.
Windsor
Veteran Expediter
Those democrats you listed along with the United nations were lied to right to there faces and in turn 4,488 American soldiers, one of whom was a friend of mine are dead. Most colossal lie in US history, and Bush and his administration got away with it Scott free. Now while Americans morn the lose of there loved ones bush gets to live out his days playing cowboy at the "ranch".
Not to mention leaving this country in the worst financial shape since the great depression. But I don't think he should have been impeached for lying about wmd's, only if he lied about a
. I'm not going to sit on here and be an Obama cheerleader but to say he's the worst president in US history is seriously a joke.
This "blame Bush for everything" argument has no substance and lost its credibility a long time ago. Those senators listed who voted for the Iraq war were fully informed by the same intelligence sources used by the Bush administration, especially those who sat on the Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees. If they had the slightest doubts about the action being proposed they could have voted against the measure; they did not. They, along with their Republican colleagues in the Senate made their decision based on what they believed to be the best information available at the time.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/17...iraq-debate-is-still-contaminated-with-myths/
As for "colossal lies" told to the American people, you have selectively ignored LBJ during the Viet Nam era and must be blind to the lies that have been and are being told on a regular basis by Barack Hussein Obama and members of his administration. The damage he is doing to our economy, our society and our standing in the world community is a work in progress that can hopefully be reversed. If it's not the consequences could be disastrous; one example is his complicity in allowing Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, another is his creation of a socialized health care system. He is in the process of becoming the worst president in American history, and as the consequences of his actions emerge over time his lowly status will be confirmed.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/17...iraq-debate-is-still-contaminated-with-myths/
As for "colossal lies" told to the American people, you have selectively ignored LBJ during the Viet Nam era and must be blind to the lies that have been and are being told on a regular basis by Barack Hussein Obama and members of his administration. The damage he is doing to our economy, our society and our standing in the world community is a work in progress that can hopefully be reversed. If it's not the consequences could be disastrous; one example is his complicity in allowing Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, another is his creation of a socialized health care system. He is in the process of becoming the worst president in American history, and as the consequences of his actions emerge over time his lowly status will be confirmed.
Please, let's agree to keep our disagreements to today's issues.
LBJ and Nixon both did enough damage to the country at the time. We were so close to armed revolution because of both of them.
From the article linked: "It turns out the Bush administration officials were wrong on many of those particulars and should have been less certain about how they were reading the intelligence, but there is no compelling evidence that they knew they were reading the intelligence incorrectly, which is what is logically required to prove the charge of "lying" rather than being "mistaken."
No, not really. The fact that their interpretations were presented as stone cold fact, when it was nothing more than belief, is all that's logically required to prove the charge of lying. When you say, "This is true, because I believe it really really badly," you're lying.
Of course, "I belive this to be true therefore it is true" is the bread and butter tactic of Christian evangelism, so it's not surprising that Bush (and his minions, because, you know, got to use "minions" whenever possible) was so comfortable doing it.
The simple Occam's Razor fact is, we went to war in Iraq because "Saddam Hussein tried to kill my daddy," and everything else is a lie of deflection.
No, not really. The fact that their interpretations were presented as stone cold fact, when it was nothing more than belief, is all that's logically required to prove the charge of lying. When you say, "This is true, because I believe it really really badly," you're lying.
Of course, "I belive this to be true therefore it is true" is the bread and butter tactic of Christian evangelism, so it's not surprising that Bush (and his minions, because, you know, got to use "minions" whenever possible) was so comfortable doing it.
The simple Occam's Razor fact is, we went to war in Iraq because "Saddam Hussein tried to kill my daddy," and everything else is a lie of deflection.
Last edited: