"It made me sick to my stomach to have that thrown in our face, everything we fought for so blatantly taken away."
"This has been a gut punch to the morale of the Marine Corps and painful for a lot of families who are saying, ‘I thought my son died for a reason.'"
The link goes to the NYT, which balances blaming Obama with blaming Bush:
Some now blame President Obama for not pushing harder to keep some troops in Iraq to maintain the stability. Others express anger at George W. Bush for getting them into a war that they now view as dubious in purpose and even more doubtful in its accomplishments.The "some" and the "others."
Posts
146 comments:
Of course, CNN won't cover this because it's become the Christie News Network.
Obama explicitly campaigned on pivoting to Afghanistan and disengaging from Iraq. Every advantage lost in Iraq and every life lost in Afghanistan since his election is the consequence of the course he declared in utterly clear terms. There is no confusion here.
That's a heap of heartless, almost soulless non-caring by a whole bunch of people that constantly advertise themselves to be, above all, caring.
Maybe we need to reconsider where are our observation and sampling points when we determine who is and is not caring.
The Iraq war was a war of choice with no conceivable strategic advantage for the US. I blame Bush/Cheney and the neocons. They should apologize and then remove themselves from the public stage in perpetuity.
When withdrawing, it is natural to lose some gains. This is just an unfortunate reality.
The Korean war was a war of choice with no conceivable strategic advantage for the US. I blame Truman/Barkley and the neodems. They should apologize and then remove themselves from the public stage in perpetuity.
See how silly that statement is?
Neither Truman nor Bush knew the NEXT president would so stupid he would give up the whole country.
Yes we have been stuck in Korea for over 50 years (and South Korea is still among us), but sadly Obama cut and ran in Iraq and thus it will fall back into the terrorist camp.
No, I blame Obama/Biden for the loss of Iraq and Afghanistan. They should, well there is no way they can make up for what they have done short of seppuku and you know those two would never even accept the blame, much less the responsibility for what has happened.
Ths administration will not be able to lose all that was gained. The women will continue to ask how come they can't have a driver's license when American women can fly attack helicopters and C-130 gunships, etc.
The young men will continue to dress in levis and sneakers and listen to the top 40, etc.
Did you see the article about the "American-style" restaurant chain opening in Iran?
This is not trivial. In the long run it will take down the mullahs and ayatollahs, and it is because you were there.
"Did you see the article about the "American-style" restaurant chain opening in Iran?"
-- I remember reading that one of the clear turning points in the Americanization of the Middle East was when people selling pornography could do so openly without fear of crushing legal oppression.
The Democrats sold out our allies in South Vietnam, they sold out our allies in Iraq, they're selling out Israel, and they'll do the same in Afganistan.
But it's for the children.
"Matthew Sablan said...
When withdrawing, it is natural to lose some gains. This is just an unfortunate reality."
These Marines know that Matthew. But when and how you withdraw determines the kind of gains you lose. There's also the little question of why the withdrawal is done, and balancing the value of withdrawal against those "inevitable losses." Seems to me they are angry about a politically motivated, pointless and wretchedly managed withdrawal. The Marines are not in favor of a permanent occupation, I am sure.
They are also unhappy with the American public for not giving a shit about this.
The Democrats sold out our allies in South Vietnam, they sold out our allies in Iraq, they're selling out Israel, and they'll do the same in Afganistan.
But it's for the children.
I want to hear an actual sourced quote from a real live Marine blaming a CiC who left office almost five years ago.
I know a few Marines. Anger at Bush is not a common thread.
Democrats snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory? Say it ain't so! On the other theater of war-The Good War as per B. Hussein Obama the Democrats are doing a hell of job blowing that one as well. At least they are consistent. Since Korea they have managed to lose every war the US has been involved.
"Seems to me they are angry about a politically motivated, pointless and wretchedly managed withdrawal."
-- Rightly so; I'm just trying to say it's hard to blame this on anything but the withdrawal. If they stayed, we more than likely would not have lost anything so dramatically. The prime reason for the fall of Fallujah is that we withdrew. That's reality. It sucks, but we can't let it be mystified for us by blaming anything but the primary action: Withdrawal.
My brother is a Marine and an Iraqi war veteran. Neither he nor anyone he knows (I've asked) blames/d Bush before, during or after any phase of the Iraq war. They see it as they agreed to follow orders, they had a job to do and they did it to the best of their ability. It's not their job to question or whine about the CiC.
I would normally hesitate to offer an anonymous anecdote as virtually worthless to discussion--but if it's good enough for the NYT, it's good enough for me!
@ AReasonableMan
I know. You don't see any elephants in the room. It's hard to know a counterfactual. Yes, you don't see state sponsored nuclear terrorism/war sponsored by the man who gassed the Kurds. You do see a feeling among the Muslim public that tyrants can be overthrown by them, something not seen before.
It is also the reason why al Maliki's government is sucking up to Iran. Iran is now the biggest fish in the pond, and al Maliki is short on friends.
I blame the Iraqis. We gave them two chances to improve their lot. One time with the invasion and the second with the surge.
Each time they preferred al queda. So fuck 'em and let them enjoy life in the 7th century.
A side note. It was not only the Marines. The Army was there.
See David Bellavia's "House to House" for the best personal account of fighting in Fallujah.
Somewhat Related:
Does Anyone Believe That the Current President Could Ever Push the Red Nuke Button, No Matter the Circumstances? For Instance, if North Korea Nuked San Francisco Would it Be a Strongly Worded Condemnation Where He Lets it Be Clear That Such Actions are Unacceptable? Are We at a Point Where Most Americans Would Not Want a Nuclear Response? Do Our Enemies Believe This? Has Deterrence Become Deference?
Betamax3000, Pushing the Big Red Button of Questions.
I don't know about the pornography. In some places maybe; in others it would be prudent to stay on the down low.
But hamburgers and coke (Coca-Cola, that is), Levis', and Brooks Bros. suits, that's the knell of doom for the medievalists.
Betamax began his "big red button of questions" with this claim:
"Somewhat Related."
Yes, in the same way that Julius Caesar and and Orange Julius are "somewhat related."
I Like Orange Julius. That is How the Month of July Got its Name.
Somewhat Related: The Month of March Got its Name From a College Basketball Tournament.
Yes, which means that the Syracuse Mascot is somewhat related to your dietary indulgences.
I wasn't in Fallujah, but I was in Haditha and we took some heavy casualties.
I don't know what anyone expected. We fought to install an Islamic Republic that didn't recognize the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. We did not instill the Rule of Law before allowing the Iraqis to rule themselves. We allowed Iran to infiltrate the country freely and establish a puppet government that we fought for.
Going to Iraq was brilliant IF the reason for going there was to threaten Iran. Going to Iraq was brilliant if the reason to go there was to install freedom and individual rights in the Islamic world. Going to Iraq was brilliant if we intended to be long term allies with a people who have a culture of education and morals. Going to Iraq was brilliant if we intended to win.
But we didn't.
AReasonableMan said...
The Iraq war was a war of choice with no conceivable strategic advantage for the US.
I disagree.
The general view of the troops, be they Marines or troopers, is that Once you pay for a piece of ground with your blood, you hate to give it up, knowing you may have to pay a second time.
If AQ grows in Fallujah, we may either need to buy the ground again, or turn it into a glassy crater.
PS: LarsPorsena said...
A side note. It was not only the Marines. The Army was there.
a Mech Bn from 2/2 Inf, plus two Abrams Bns from 7 Cav and 12 Cav.
plus some other supporting troops circling the city from 1 Cav Div.
"Some now blame... Others express"
Right up there with "there is a growing perception that..."
Who needs sources when you can just make it up.
Re: "turn it into a glassy crater."
The Big Red Button of Questions is Indeed Related.
Unreasonable Man: "The Iraq war was a war of choice with no conceivable strategic advantage for the US"
Because, ya know, having an ally equivalent to the the UK but centered smack dab in the center of the ME... no strategic advantage.
Beta,
" Are We at a Point Where Most Americans Would Not Want a Nuclear Response?"
My opinion as a troglodyte, is that the average American response, even it were just SF would be:
Those F__kers gotta pay full price...
"Does Anyone Believe That the Current President Could Ever Push the Red Nuke Button, No Matter the Circumstances?"
He might if the target was Texas.
Going to Iraq was illegal and a war crime. End of story. There was no "self-defense" justification as we were never at peril from Iraq, and there is no legal basis to attack a country to "bring democracy" (sic) to it. Under the UN Charter, to which we are signatories, even threatening war against another nation is illegal.
Every American and Iraqi who has died or been maimed there was murdered--killed (or wounded) for nothing, for the hubris and machinations of politicians and the war profiteers.
The Americans get to leave...those who lived; the Iraqis are left with a ruined, violent country, millions have been rendered homeless, and remnants of our radioactive weapons still pollute their land, such that birth defects and still-born births among the Iraqis have skyrocketed.
Any American soldier who is not angry at Bush is simply not paying attention.
Anyone who advocates (or wishes for) a nuclear "response" (sic)--what is meant is a "nuclear attack"--is insane.
"Under the UN Charter, to which we are signatories, even threatening war against another nation is illegal."
-- Iraq shot on our planes routinely. Every argument about "illegal war!" and "the UN!" falls at that simple reality.
After the first Gulf War, Iraq agreed to let us do certain things. They broke that agreement and shot at our people.
Any person that says stopping a country from shooting at you is illegal is silly. Should Bush have emphasized the fact our people were shot at more? Yeah, I guess in retrospect. I thought it was common knowledge Iraq had not ceased hostile military operations against us after the Gulf War, but, apparently, it is not.
"Iraq shot on our planes routinely."
We were flying over their air space, and the Clinton administration barraged them with missiles in the late 90s. We were always the aggressors toward Iraq.
In any event, shooting at American military jets flying over Iraqi airspace poses no peril to our nation.
Hey Robert, why'd you run from the Mein Kampf thread so fast that you forgot to take your ass.
Here again is the Nazi Party's platform:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/1708-ps.asp
Sure looks socialist to me...nationalizing industries, taking profits from corporations, national healthcare, and the so on.
Welch ein Arschloch Ihr seid. Schande.
When are we going to hold the Iraqi people responsible for their own past, present and future. How many more countries do we need to invade and stay in perpetuity?
Hey Robert, why'd you run from the Mein Kampf thread so fast that you forgot to take your ass.
"Liberalism is a disease of the mind that weakens and corrupts human beings."
Adolf Hitler, or conservative internet commenter?
Bill, republic of Texas wrote:
I blame the Iraqis. We gave them two chances to improve their lot. One time with the invasion and the second with the surge.
Each time they preferred al queda. So fuck 'em and let them enjoy life in the 7th century.
just.because Al Qaeda takes over an area doesn't mean that the people there prefer anything, any more than the Jews are to be blamed for being put into concentration cams by the nazis or Malala is to be blamed for getting shot in the face by the Taliban.
Al Qaeda inserted themselves into Iraq to fight us and foment an insurgency.
They then moved in after a power vacuum was created by is leaving and took over Fallujah.
But that's because we are the check to their advance.a no we're not there anymore.
If you create a vacuum the most ruthless people will step in to fill that vacuum.
What you're doing is blaming the victim.
Inga wrote:
When are we going to hold the Iraqi people responsible for their own past, present and future. How many more countries do we need to invade and stay in perpetuity?
However many we need to invade is how many.
And we should stay long enough so that the country can ultimately be responsible for their own past, present and future. Certainly if we've already committed to going there in the first place.
See how Bush kept talking about how it was wrong to withdraw with no preconditions? Well, we moved out and now AL Qaeda stepped in.
Meaning they couldn't yet hold themselves responsible for their past present and future. We pulled out too soon.
Don't pull out too soon if you've actually won. Withdraw on our terms, beneficial to us, not to Al Qaeda.
If we had a small number of forces or king with the legitimate govt could Al Qaeda have even taken Fallujah, let alone hold it?
Robert cook wrote:
We were flying over their air space, and the Clinton administration barraged them with missiles in the late 90s. We were always the aggressors toward Iraq.
no Robert, Iraq was the agressor. We had a. War. There were terms that Iraq needed to abide by to cease hostilities. And we then had close to ten years of them not doing that.
They were contained because they kept posing a threat because of their desire to arm themselves with WMD's.
If we are going to contain a country, why would you expect there wouldn't be no fly zones.
The UN wouldn't have need to pass a single resolution but for Iraq not complying. And they passed 15 resolutions.
South Africa had to disarm and there was none of this monkey business. And why? Because South Africa complied completely.
So the lesson is, if you are a beaten country and you don't want no fly zones, and are being contained, play ball and take your medicine.
garage:
Step into the discussion if you like, GM. Read my link and explain to me why that isn't a socialist platform?
And "liberalism' in his time meant classic liberalism...not the faux liberalism we see today.
Critical thinking isn't a crime, garage.
Give it a shot.
@RC,
There was no "self-defense" justification as we were never at peril from Iraq, and there is no legal basis to attack a country to "bring democracy" (sic) to it.
Sorry, RC, it ain't that easy. Iraq invaded Kuwait, our ally. We pushed them out of Kuwait & set up the no-fly zone & UN inspections as part of the peace treaty. Did Iraq obey the terms of the treaty? They did not. Casus Belli, completely legal & wrapped in a bow. I'm sorry if the current lefty discourse just doesn't want to see the facts on the ground in their hurry to paint the US as nasty imperialists, but there they are.
Anyone remember Hillary standing in front of the Senate during the AUMF debates telling President Bush that, while she supports the motion, in her view it wasn't needed because Hussein's violations of the ceasefire agreement were all we needed to justify further military action?
Good times.
Good times.
Liberalism is a disease of the mind that weakens and corrupts human beings."
No one said the NAZIs were liberals, we said they were Socialists. Hitler opposed liberalism because it attracted people he wanted as followers of socialism.
Read my link and explain to me why that isn't a socialist platform?
8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since the 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.
Self deport!
Note: You can hold that the invasion was a bad idea, and even argue that. Arguing that it was ILLEGAL, however, is going to be a much harder hill to climb.
No one said the NAZIs were liberals, we said they were Socialists
And it's an incredibly stupid claim. No serious person on the left or right is arguing that. Hitler tells us in Mein Kampf that he picked National Socialists in order to confuse members of the German Socialist, Marxist and Communist parties, or at least steal potential membership from them.
Gahrie: Hitler opposed classical liberalism because it advocates for individual rights and responsibilities, equality before the law, freedom of speech/press/religion, and less intrusive government.
I think he would see much to like in the modern faux liberalism we see today. Heck, he liked the US Democrats position on eugenics so much he adopted it for his country.
Really garage? Why do you skip all 24 other points in their platform? Sound too much like you agenda?
You are full of shit and weak-minded to boot: What you quote there only illustrates why they called themselves National Socialists....as opposed to the international socialists such as the Russian Communist party.
Your ignorance pollutes the air.
"Sorry, RC, it ain't that easy. Iraq invaded Kuwait, our ally."
Iraq was also our ally at the time. Our ambassador told Hussein we had no opinion on internal conflicts between nations in the region, which he took as our free pass for him to invade Kuwait.
After the invasion, we promulgated lies about Iraqi atrocities committed against Kuwaiti babies in order to foment war fever for a conflict that was none of our business, and Bush refused Hussein's offer of a peaceful resolution, (after claiming to give Hussein a chance to do so).
At every turn, our belligerence and desire to make war with Iraq has driven the ongoing conflict, (as has been true with Iran). We deposed him without UN approval, and without a self-defense basis, and it was thus illegal.
We are the aggressors toward Iraq.
Sorry Robert, but if you lose the war and there are terms you abide by the terms. Or those containing you view your actions belligerently.
It may have been unfair that Sadaam found himself trapped in a net. But if he was then its his own fault if he was wrapped so tightly he strangled himself.
And he could have ended containment relatively quickly or not have gotten the UN to pass resolution after resolution after resolution by simply complying.
Hey garage, what about these Nazi platform points? Sound familiar? Or are these OWS talking points? Hard to tell the difference isn't it.
----------------------------------
11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions.
Liver moron,
Those sound exactly like what the tea party wants!
If by the tea party you mean left wing socialists.
Liver moron,
Those sound exactly like what the tea party wants!
If by the tea party you mean left wing socialists.
Fen said...
Because, ya know, having an ally equivalent to the the UK but centered smack dab in the center of the ME... no strategic advantage.
How can someone write something this clueless?
France, a nation that helped birth our nation, is not an ally equivalent to the UK or the other anglophone countries Australia and Canada. What chance was there that Iraq would become one?
@RC,
We are the aggressors toward Iraq.
Kuwait & the hugely lopsided majority of the UN that voted in support of action against Iraq in the first Gulf War disagree with you, RC.
And that we aided Iraq with intelligence info during the Iraq/Iran War doesn't make them our "ally" any more than than sharing info on terrorist groups with Russia makes them our "ally".
ARM, FRance is more of an ally to us than Al Qaeda no?
If the UK is so close, why is Obama so rude towards them?
And let's assume that we can have allies that we are not that close with but we dont have an interest in waging war with?
Why aren't we at war with France? Why are we at war with Al Qaeda, or the Taliban?
Just as we are currently not at war with Turkey or Egypt (though Egypt has lately devolved to a problematic nation) so too Iraq.
ARM, what makes Iraq incapable of becoming an ally like Canada or Australia? Is there something inherent to being Arab that precludes them from desiring a western style democracy? Are they doomed to live under despots simply because they are Arabs?
Ah, that purple Fickle Finger of Fate.
Fen said...
"Because, ya know, having an ally equivalent to the the UK but centered smack dab in the center of the ME... no strategic advantage."
--------------------------
"How can someone write something this clueless?
France, a nation that helped birth our nation, is not an ally equivalent to the UK or the other anglophone countries Australia and Canada. What chance was there that Iraq would become one?"
1/10/14, 11:17 AM
----------------------
ARM, because it's Fen.
How can anyone in their right mind think that this Muslm nation surrounded by other Muslim nations will ever be our ally on the level of a UK? The only Muslim countries that are trying to stem the tide of radical Islam taking over their governments are marginally Egypt and then Turkey.
And in the case of Iraq, if enough Iraqis were not sympathetic to Al Queda they wouldn't have been able to get a foothold and then eventually take Fallujah.
"The Iraq war was a war of choice with no conceivable strategic advantage for the US."
Every war is a war of choice.
The strategic advantage for the US was to remove the Baathists and thus free us from having to provide an active defense of the Gulf States. It also prevented Saddam Hussein from interfering with our fight against Al Qaeda. Oh, and one other thing - regardless of what WMD was or was not present, the chances of Saddam ever acquiring WMD is now zero.
It took about 50 years for the UK to stop being an adversary and about 100 for them to become a "UK style ally".
I was in Ramadi post-surge and met a lot of good men and women trying to make their world a better place. They don't agree with AQI but opposition gets you beheaded. It's unfortunate we are abandoning them so some can get a "one up" on their domestic political rivals.
Inga wrote:
How can anyone in their right mind think that this Muslm (sic)nation surrounded by other Muslim nations will ever be our ally on the level of a UK?
And why is that, Inga? What explains Morocco and Tunisia?
And I notice Robert Cook is still avoiding responding to the Nazis as socialists discussion. Has garage bailed too?
Looks like Inga and UnreasonableMan are racists who believe the Iraqis are mere savages:
"There is some justice in one charge that is frequently leveled against the United States, and more generally against the West: Middle Easterners frequently complain that the West judges them by different and lower standards than it does Europeans and Americans, both in what is expected of them and what they may expect, in terms of their economic well-being and their political freedom. They assert that Western spokesmen repeatedly overlook or even defend actions and support rulers that they would not tolerate in their own countries.
...there is nevertheless a widespread [Western] perception that there are significant differences between the advanced Western world and the rest, notably the peoples of Islam, and that these latter are in some ways different, with the tacit assumption that they are inferior. The most flagrant violations of civil rights, political freedom, and even human decency are disregarded or glossed over, and crimes against humanity, which in a European or American country would evoke a storm of outrage, are seen as normal and even acceptable.
...The underlying assumption in all this is that these people are incapable of running a democratic society and have neither concern nor capacity for human decency."
- The Crisis of Islam, Bernard Lewis
Fen: Sure appears that way.
"Some" = everybody normal, including (secretly) the writer.
"Others" = the writer's editor and the managing editor and a guy the latter met in a latte bar last night who is doing much better with the new antipsychotics available now.
Always glad to help the Times out.
"The only Muslim countries that are trying to stem the tide of radical Islam taking over their governments are marginally Egypt and then Turkey."
Kuwait, Jordan, Qatar ...
Sorry but those countries' governments are listed as countries that have a state religion and that is Islam.They are not secular governments. How are women treated in those countries?
Allofasudden, Inga cares about how the female savages are treated....
Getting back to cases, Mr. Obama pissed away progress paid for with American blood and treasure. All of us know it and I haven't heard anyone blame Mr. Bush.
I love how some here are trying to sell their desire to get troops back in Iraq or keep them forever in Afghanistan because.... The religion of peace, Islam, LOL. Changing hearts and minds and all that.
ARM wrote,"The Iraq war was a war of choice with no conceivable strategic advantage..."
AReasonableMan said...
Fen said...
Because, ya know, having an ally equivalent to the the UK but centered smack dab in the center of the ME... no strategic advantage.
How can someone write something this clueless?
Well you for one.
Iraq was strategically brilliant. Not only for the reason Fen expressed , but because whenever possible you make you enemies fight for their territory.Maybe you'd like to rephrase your first statement.
France, a nation that helped birth our nation, is not an ally equivalent to the UK or the other anglophone countries Australia and Canada. What chance was there that Iraq would become one?
That was never the goal. A collateral benefit was that democracies tend not war with each other.
The question you haven't asked yourself is; What would Iraq look like had we not intervened?
Inga: I love how some here are trying to sell their desire to get troops back in Iraq or keep them forever in Afghanistan because.... The religion of peace, Islam, LOL. Changing hearts and minds and all that.
Iraq, not Afganistan. "Reform their civilization before they destroy ours". It would have worked in Iraq too, but Obama and Hillary had to sell Iraq out so they could gain political traction in the primaries (Gates).
Inga,
Do you pay attention to your previous posts when you write subsequent ones?
"The only Muslim countries that are trying to stem the tide of radical Islam taking over their governments"
"Sorry but those countries' governments are listed as countries that have a state religion and that is Islam.They are not secular governments. How are women treated in those countries?"
Having a state religion of Islam is completely different from radical Islam being in charge of the government. You do realize that, don't you?
Robert Cook: We were flying over their air space
We were enforcing a no-fly zone, as authorized under United Nations Security Council Resolution 688.
Funny how your use of United Nations authority is situational.
Fen's Law. Robert Cook doesn't really care about the Rule of Law unless he can use it to attack America. Adjust your responses to him accordingly.
So Muslims are all violent (Islam, LOL) and incapable of democracy? They will never be more than barbarians?
People in Iraq lined up to vote, were mortared, cleared the wounded, and lined up again. I worked with men and women trying to improve their country knowing they risked their lives to do so.
Don't treat them like a punchline.
Of course they are not savages. But too many of their population, enough are sympathetic to Al Queda, Taliban and other various radicalized Islamic militants. There doesn't seem to be enough moderate Muslms to fight this surge of radical fundamentalism and it's not up to the US to keep fighting his fight FOR them.
I suck at links, a wounded vet meets an Iraqi cabbie.
http://twitchy.com/2014/01/10/he-had-to-struggle-to-keep-it-together-wounded-warrior-describes-moving-encounter-with-iraqi-cab-driver/
Most everyone I met had a story about a friend or relative killed by Saddam's Regime, and this was in al Anbar.
Monkey, Inga has a fake daughter who "served with" Marines, so her armchair opinion carries more weight than your firsthand experience.
And Semper Fi. 3D LAR BN 1st MARDIV. And you?
A 2013 Pew survey of Muslims worldwide found that extremism was widely rejected:
"Muslims around the world strongly reject violence in the name of Islam. Asked specifically about suicide bombing, clear majorities in most countries say such acts are rarely or never justified as a means of defending Islam from its enemies.
In most countries where the question was asked, roughly three-quarters or more Muslims reject suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilians. And in most countries, the prevailing view is that such acts are never justified as a means of defending Islam from its enemies."
In Iraq, the number was 91% for those who rejected suicide bombing.
Inga in 1933:
And there doesn't seem to be enough moderate Jews to fight this surge of radical socialism and it is not up to the US to fight this fight FOR them.
I'm sure the views of the 2014 Inga will lead to the same terrific results we experienced in the 1930s and 40s.
Interesting how the concept of preventative medicine is lost on a purported nurse.
This is what I recall seeing, makes me wonder how much our troops did was appreciated
As for my "fake" daughter. She is an FMF Corpsmen with the 1st MLG, presently in Camp Pendleton. She was in Afganistan from January 2012 to January 2013, at Camp Leatherneck, Helmund Province.
Fen you are a disgrace to the military.
Obama's surge in Afghanistan failed to achieve anything positive fir the USA, at the cost of thousands of American lives. He moved the resources away from Iraq, where we won to Afghanistan, where he lost. That was stupid, almost as stupid as "you can keep your insurance if you like your insurance".
And Fen, being a grunt or being a mother of a Corpsman makes NEITHER one of us a military strategist. We are two people expressing our opinions, yours holds no more weight than mine.
Monkeyboy has it right.
I am an infantry veteran of the Battle for Ramadi, OIF 1, 2003-2004. (1-124th Infantry, FLARNG, attached first to the 3rd ACR and then to the 1st BDE, 1st ID)
I've seen my friends' blood washed out of Humvees with a hose, shades of Randall Jarrell's Ball Turret Gunner, in Ramadi. I cried when Ramadi "awakened."
A lot of good Iraqis risked their lives to make the country a better place. They stood up alongside us and against Al Qaeda, when push comes to shove. I'm beside myself when I think that we are abandoning them to Al Qaeda's assassins, torturers and rapists now.
But they took the measure of this President, who still has not retaliated against those who murdered an American ambassador and others, and who overran a consulate.
The President showed himself to be a pathetic weakling on Syria, and again with Iran, and has squandered all U.S. credibility in the region.
People will look at what happened to our allies in Fallujah and Ramadi, after their sheikh's and their families are murdered by Al Qaeda's thugs, and say, "see, you cannot trust the Americans. We will wait them out, and we will kill you after they leave."
Al Qaeda in Iraq was defeated. They could have remained so if not for Obama's weakness and fecklessness.
This is what Biden said about Iraq in 2010:
"This could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government,"
Notice how things deteriorated in the last 3 years of Obama. Pure genius, the worst enemy of America could not have fine it better.
Inga, in the first paragraph of the article
"...allied with Moktada al-Sadr, the radical anti-American Shiite cleric"
You may remember him. He was the war-lord who ran Fallujah.
You are an embarrassment and a disgrace to humanity.
God bless your daughter though. I'm glad the USMC provided her an escape from you.
Livermoron, you are certainly are a moron.' Nuff said.
And you liver moron, she's in the Navy, attached to the Marines. You obviously don't know what an FMF Corpsman is.
jr565 said...
Inga wrote:
When are we going to hold the Iraqi people responsible for their own past, present and future. How many more countries do we need to invade and stay in perpetuity?
However many we need to invade is how many.
=================
JR565, McCain, and other militarists still in love with the idea of invading and occupying a dozen Islamist countries...perhaps for decades! On very dubious grounds that we must occupy and control many nations - lest they become terrahist evildoer safehavens.
Public is sick of that. The trillions squandered on flawed militarist, neocon, and some lefty interventionist do-gooder strategy.
They did not love "Our Heroes"! They mostly were behind any group that was blowing up American Crusaders. They thought it imperialism in another wrapped package. They have no compelling urge to reform Islamic societies.
And to top matters off, America neither wanted to fund it's neocon imperialism with taxes like we raised for the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Vietnam...nor Draft cheaper "Heroes"...nor even do as past imperialists did and try to make imperialism largely self-funding. The Chinese and Iranians got a good share of the Iraqi oil contracts....
This is really an over and done period of time for most Americans - that want a change of course. The neocons are reviled. Efforts to bomb and invade Libya and Syria fullscale met with public rebellion. McCain and AIPAC and Netanyahu's drive to "surgically bomb Iran" and start a new major ME War failed to pass muster with US voters,
Any more libertarians out there, why so silent. Are you going to let the neocons direct the rhetoric here? What would Rand Paul have to say?
In most countries where the question was asked, roughly three-quarters or more Muslims reject suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilians.
Then why don't they do anything to end it?
"In most countries where the question was asked, roughly three-quarters or more Muslims reject suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilians."
-------------------------
"Then why don't they do anything to end it?"
1/10/14, 2:45 PM
----------------------------
Precisely.
Rusty said...
What would Iraq look like had we not intervened?
Al Queda-free, noticeably more peaceful and still an implacable enemy of Iran.
Nouri al-Maliki is not proving to be a significant upgrade over Saddam Hussein for either his people or the US.
I do not believe America will support another ME war or "temporary intervention in this wonderful Muslim land to free the noble people" - unless it is in America's vital interest.
Our interests are best served by getting independence from foreign energy, by ending immigration from violent Islamist countries, by vigilance on possible Enemies within that would use terror in the name of Allah.
I have a nephew that served in Ramadi. Signed up for artillery. Served 2 months doing that in Korea. Converted to door-to-door searches and raids in Iraq. Killed people, inc. a woman who ran a checkpoint. But the rest were baddies. Scraped up scraps of buddies into plastic bags after they were IED'd. Was injured in a car bombing. Discharged after a backpack bomb tossed from a rooftop gave him a serious concussion and 2 blown eardrums. Has a mild PTSD case. Now he thinks his time there did not advance the interests of the Iraqis and believes it is not America's job to go to such places - because the only messes we can fix are cleaning up the remains of our own dead and maimed...Thinks in any future military engagement that all Americans need "skin in the game" - a war tax on everything to pay for it, a Draft so the sons and daughters of the Elites have to risk their asses...and a law that Vets get hired for jobs when they return in preference to those that "acquired more useful job skills by avoiding places like Ramadi".
"Then why don't they do anything to end it?"
Just how is that different from asking why the Russians don't do something to end suicide bombings in Russia? You'll recall they recently had one.
ARM wrote: "The Iraq war was a war of choice with no conceivable strategic advantage for the US."
Five will get you ten that ARM was one of the dorks running around screeching, "Blood for oil. Blood for oil," back in the day.
hombre said...
Five will get you ten that ARM was one of the dorks running around screeching, "Blood for oil. Blood for oil," back in the day.
When will dummies like you accept that your war was a strategic disaster? Show some humility and admit your mistake. Grow a pair and grow up. No sane person thinks that the Iraq war was a sensible use of US military power.
Dear Lydia - The people doing the Muslim bombings in Russia are not Russians, they are Chechens.
And America has an unfortunate track record of supporting the "noble Chechen freedom lovers" since Clinton's days.
Inga wrote:
When are we going to hold the Iraqi people responsible for their own past, present and future. How many more countries do we need to invade and stay in perpetuity?
Just two. I nominate Iran and Saudi Arabia. We can carpet bomb them to submission and then pay for the bombs with our new oil.
"Then why don't they do anything to end it?"
I don' t know. Maybe because the average shopkeeper doesn't have an AK47 or RPG lying around the house? Just a thought.
ARM, If you don't recognize a strategic advantage from a having a democratic Iraq as an ally and buffer to Iran you should remove yourself from this stage.
I know you are an ideologue but try not to be silly about it.
The people doing the Muslim bombings in Russia are not Russians, they are Chechens.
"The suspected involvement of converts to Islam in Russian suicide bombings points to the growing reach of jihadists far beyond the Muslim provinces of Chechnya and Dagestan, where insurgency and separatism have simmered for two decades."
Al Queda-free, noticeably more peaceful and still an implacable enemy of Iran.
Saddam was training AlQueda operative on the use of missiles and explosives.
Nouri al-Maliki is not proving to be a significant upgrade over Saddam Hussein for either his people or the US.
So. He's gassing Kurds and randomly murdering Iraqi citizens in his torture chambers?
"Blogger AReasonableMan said...
The Iraq war was a war of choice with no conceivable strategic advantage for the US. I blame Bush/Cheney and the neocons. They should apologize and then remove themselves from the public stage in perpetuity."
I didn't read the whole thread. I've been working today examining recruits to he military that ARM is so contemptuous of. Japan convinced itself that the US would not respond to Pearl Harbor. They would sting us hard and we would stay away and let them have the west Pacific.
Does anyone think Obama would responded the way Roosevelt did ? Does anyone think that the present day Democrats would respond the way 1941 Democrats did ?
After all, what "conceivable strategic advantage for the US" did the Philippines have ?
"Then why don't they do anything to end it?"
Maybe we could ask the residents of our own inner cities how they brought an end to gang violence. We could use that as a model.
Blogger Steve said...
ARM, If you don't recognize a strategic advantage from a having a democratic Iraq as an ally and buffer to Iran you should remove yourself from this stage.
You are a complete fucking idiot if you believe this is an accurate description of our current reality.
Under Saddam, Iraq initiated one of the most bitter wars in recent history against Iran. Now, Iraq and Iran are allied via their shared majority Shia religion.
You were wrong. Men with balls admit when they are wrong. Why are you still shaking the pom-poms and yelling yeah team Iraq War? It's a largely empty stadium at this point. The game is over and your team lost. Dumbest war ever.
Michael K said...
I didn't read the whole thread. I've been working today examining recruits to he military that ARM is so contemptuous of.
You are not the only one who has worked with the US military here. I hold the Republican civilian leadership in contempt for their arrogant stupidity. I respect our military.
For ARM, the ME is not about LNG term goals, just domestic partisan wins.
For ARM it is always "Go team Blue!"
And to hell with people living under the Boot of the State (unless it is the Democratic Party Boot)
Rusty said...
Saddam was training AlQueda operative on the use of missiles and explosives.
Delusional nonsense. Even the neocons don't believe shit like this.
"Then why don't they do anything to end it?"
----------------------
"Maybe we could ask the residents of our own inner cities how they brought an end to gang violence. We could use that as a model."
----------------------
1/10/14, 3:58 PM
So in that vein of thought CWJ, perhaps Canada should invade the US and "police" and "protect" us from ourselves. Changing hearts and minds, eh?
It is painful to listen one more time to the tired, ridiculous arguments being trotted out to support the Iraq war. Accept that it was a complete strategic failure and move on. Mistakes were made.
ARM, it's almost as if history rewrites itself!
ARM wrote -
"The game is over and your team lost."
We all lost (including Iraq) when we left the Iraqis to twist in the wind. Get over yourself and put your own pom-poms down.
JSF said...
For ARM it is always "Go team Blue!"
The Republican leadership should take full responsibility for shredding their credibility on the use of military force. It's not like they weren't warned. The American people aren't fooled. The king has no clothes.
CWJ, but you're still shaking team Bush/ Cheney Rummie's Pompoms, all these years later, even after we know what we know now.
CWJ said...
We all lost (including Iraq).
Well you started out right. You should go back and read just how arrogant the war supporters were before the start of the Iraq war and then compare that rhetoric to the current dismal reality. Just a little humility is all I ask. Is that too much?
Republicans don't seem to be able to take their own advice and make people responsible for themselves. They want to end unemployment and food assistance for fellow Americans while spending trillions in the ME, spreading western values, which are soundly rejected by the populations of these countries.
Inga,
Go ahead. Point out the post where I shake Bush and Cheney's pom-poms.
BTW, you also completely misunderstood the point of my previous post which you attempted to mock.
Politico column on this issue:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/iraq-barack-obama-george-bush-101996.html
Inga said...
Republicans don't seem to be able to take their own advice and make people responsible for themselves.
If this were the middle ages Cheney and Rumsfeld would currently be hanging in the town square as a warning to all future advisers to the king.
Irrational Man: should take full responsibility for shredding their credibility on the use of military force. It's not like they weren't warned. The American people aren't fooled. The king has no clothes.
Proof that the Left has no shame - after ObamaCare, anyone who supported it would STFU and sit down
Irrational Man: should take full responsibility for shredding their credibility on the use of military force. It's not like they weren't warned. The American people aren't fooled. The king has no clothes.
Proof that the Left has no shame - after ObamaCare, anyone who supported it would STFU and sit down
Accept that it was a complete strategic failure and move on
Sure, as soon as you and your kind admit it was working until Obama threw Iraq under the bus.
Thanks for the link, exhelodrvr1. Very good article, especially the last paragraph dealing with real-world complexities:
Another U.S. official, grappling with the criticism of supplying Maliki with weapons, warned that if Washington doesn’t do it, a less savory country will. “As for leverage, [if] we hold up a [weapons] system, the Iraqis go elsewhere—no Apaches, they buy 24 Russian Mi-28s,” he said. “Do we want Iraq to have Russian air-to-ground missiles, where we have no insight into the targeting? … It’s not a zero-sum world here. I wish it were.”
I had supported the war ONLY because I believed Bush when he said that Saddam had amassed "the greatest arsenal of WMD."
If I had known that was not the case, I would not have supported the war.
And if Congress had known what a paper tiger the Saddam regime really was, they would not have authorized the war.
All the postwar justifications for the war amount to a kind of moving of the goalposts, none of which would have been necessary if a) we had actually found the WMD, and b) we would not have been blindsided by a ruthless insurgency which neither the Bush Administration nor the Pentagon had planned for.
I am surprised that liberal guys on this blog, Inga and Reasonable Man completely ignore obama's failure in Afghanistan. After all, did Obama make a strategic mistake by diverting our resources from Iraq to Afghanistan?
And Also, what's up with biden's pronoun cements that Obama achieved great things in Iraq, that that the Iraqi government is stable? Was he stupid, or did he dimply forget that Obama would screw up Iraq policy so badly?
AReasonableMan said...
Rusty said...
Saddam was training AlQueda operative on the use of missiles and explosives.
Delusional nonsense. Even the neocons don't believe shit like this.
Translated Iraqi documents confirm that Saddam was using his military bases to train AlQeda. If memory serves I got that from SWJ who got from their AP feed.
sinz52 said...
I had supported the war ONLY because I believed Bush when he said that Saddam had amassed "the greatest arsenal of WMD."
If I had known that was not the case, I would not have supported the war.
If you had read the House Resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam, you'd realize that we intervened because Saddam was amassing the materials to build WMDs. Given his past behavior it was reasonable to assume that he would that he would continue his weapons programs.
Saddam had amassed "the greatest arsenal of WMD."
Why did you put that in quotes when it was never said?
Here, let the NYTs help you: "some say it was the greatest arsenal of WMD ever"
See how easy that was?
Saddam had amassed "the greatest arsenal of WMD."
Why did you put that in quotes when it was never said?
Here, let the NYTs help you: "some say it was the greatest arsenal of WMD ever"
See how easy that was?
In 2009, Al Qaeda was vanquished and humiliated in Iraq, having soundly blown their war for the Iraqi people.
The strategic disaster came later. When Obama was elected and then reelected.
Inga wrote:
How can anyone in their right mind think that this Muslm nation surrounded by other Muslim nations will ever be our ally on the level of a UK? The only Muslim countries that are trying to stem the tide of radical Islam taking over their governments are marginally Egypt and then Turkey.
Then how about an ally on the level of Egypt (until recently of course). Or Abu Dhabi.
Places that we are joy at war with because they are trying to get nukes or using chemical weapons.
Because even if you want to limit the pool to ME countries not all of them are as bad as others.
Has Inga addressed her racism towards Arabs yet?
Have garage or Cook addressed the socialist/progressive platform of the "right wing" Nazi party yet?
Why do they run from their own arguments?
Because Livermoron in their lives it is Party over everything. The narrative must be maintained even at the cost of objective facts.
ARM says, "You are a complete fucking idiot if you believe this is an accurate description of our current reality."
Careful, mom might restrict your blogging privileges if you keep taking like that. I know that your reasoning skills are limited but never said that was our current reality. That was the goal, until Obama turned his back on Iraq, and the middle east, for partisan political purposes (or cowardice). I am breaking Prof. Althouse's number one rule, "Don't feed the trolls" so I'll just leave you alone from now one.
And yes, I know that this post violates the "initial engagement and then call them a troll" rule as well.
Steve, it might just be YOU who is sitting under that bridge. What makes you think that voicing an opinion opposite to the majority is being a troll? That's poor reasoning.
* PLEASE STAND BY *
Inga just lectured somewhat about poor reasoning.
Service will be restored as promptly as possible.
In the meantime, please shelter in place.
Post a Comment