Hagel on the Iraq War

[rivergator]

Can't say I disagree:

As to the comment I made about the most dangerous foreign policy decision since Vietnam, that was about not just the surge, but the overall war of choice going into Iraq. That particular decision made on the surge, but more to the point, our war in Iraq, I think was the most fundamentally bad, dangerous decision since Vietnam.

[co_gator89]

And he's right, yet some people could not hate him more it seems, many of them his fellow Republicans. I heard Hannity on his awful radio show today just slamming this guy. One would think such a "patriotic Great American" would show a little more respect for a Vietnam vet. It will be great to have a SOD who has seen first hand how awful war is.

[Lawdog88]

His political view that we were engaging in a similar type of holding pattern in both Viet Nam and Iraq, is not a perfect comparison.

But the similarities are more than significant. The biggest difference to me, is that they were more or less announced as official policy in Iraq . . . eventually . . . but they were not during the Viet Nam conflict.

[neisgator]

That's putting it mildly, Law.

[Row6]

Home sick for much of the day, I watched almost all of this republican written melodrama which focused almost exclusively on gotcha attempts and very little on the serious questions of the day, on which his record as a senator is solid. Where his votes were out of the "mainstream" - should be a plus, given the history of the Senate which spent the Iraq war on it's knees - his reasonable answers where drowned out by his inquisitors insistence on a yes or no response. His deference and politeness to his formal colleagues was puzzling, especially after the first round. His coolness and continuing thoughtfulness was bad strategy for this theater but speaks well of his fitness for public service in a job demanding those qualities. We should want someone who isn't a knee jerk "patriot" like some of his attackers.

McCain: The guy who pumped up invading Iraq with assurances of quick victory and welcoming by it's people has the gall to insist on a yes or no answer on the surge, an event which took place 3 years after the "easy victory" he predicted and which cost over a thousand US lives. What an a*shole. Maybe he's right to assume we have such short memories.

Graham: Another poor imitation of a prosecutor, and with McCain still butt hurt that we aren't still spending US lives in Iraq in attempt to prove him right on the invasion, who nastily - and with an inability to look Hagel in the eye- tried to cut off any response, even though they were solid and reasonable, with the exception of "the Jewish lobby" quote which is a 3rd rail he should have stayed away from then and tried to yesterday. None of his questions were serious.

Cruz: Very amusing seeing little Teddie, head of the debating team, accusing Hagel of dishonoring the "blood and treasure left on foreign soils" by the US. Hagel was too polite to point out to our latest chickenhawk super patriot that some of that blood was his own.

Some of the republican questioners were polite and some were even serious - Blount and Sessions come to mind - but all in all this was another scary example of how unserious the Republican party has become. Bring in the clowns? Don't bother........

[DeanMeadGator]

And he's right, yet some people could not hate him more it seems, many of them his fellow Republicans. I heard Hannity on his awful radio show today just slamming this guy. One would think such a "patriotic Great American" would show a little more respect for a Vietnam vet. It will be great to have a SOD who has seen first hand how awful war is.

Hate is a description that badly mischaracterizes the reaction of some members of Congress. It appears that those who have genuine concerns are now "haters."

Having lost friends in 'Nam, I agree that it is good to have a prospective on what war is like.

However, I remember with crystal clear clarity that John McCain served and was tortured for 6 years at the Hanoi Hilton. I doubt that his questions are "hateful."

Debate and expression of opinions is now hate, but only if you disagree with the position taken by another. Is it any wonder that the country is divided and Congress accomplishes nothing other than impuning members of the other party.

I am aghast that members of both parties are so spiteful that they no longer engage in an honest debate, nor are they willing to.

[Lawdog88]

Whether the surge actually "worked" or not seems silly in comparison to the larger question of whether the Iraq invasion actually "worked" or not, for whatever amended and evolving purposes now attributed to that adventure.

The Viet Nam haunting that sticks in most folks' minds, is that we reached a point where we knew the military tactics we were using were not going to "win" the war . . . but we kept up the military facade that we could, and kept sending our guys and gals over for the sacrifice.

[Minister_of_Information]

The fighting part of Vietnam was won during Tet, when the VC were effectively annihilated and never again were a significant security threat for the remainder of the war (with the 'assistance' of some MAC-V covert programs...). The North Vietnamese victory was wholly political and occurred in the US (with a little 'help' from their 'friends'...). What happened on the ground in Vietnam was the gradual filling of the VC and US vacuum with the NVA, coming into the fruition of a couple of fairly conventional invasions (considering the logistic and strategic limitations imposed on the NVA by US air supremacy), the last of which succeeded with the absence of any countervailing US force. The RVN government and armed forces could never muster adequate popular support after Diem's regime was toppled, so would fall when the US prop was removed (unless that prop was openended). Ultimately the coup doomed South Vietnam though it took 12 years to come to fruition.

As for Iraq, it was not a mistake and had to be done. No it did not go perfectly but show me a war that has.

[Lawdog88]

All of that is historically correct.

And with U.S. public support of uncertain objectives flagging, and the will of our supposed SVN allies questionable, it is no surprise that we tired of "the tactics of war" we were employing and quit.

Early on we knew we were not going to invade Nam with sufficient force to roll up the countryside from stem to stern and oust the VC and later, the NVR. We just weren't going to commit to that kind of ground force, and we were not going to go nuclear for obvious reasons.

So, our toolbox was limited from the beginning to deal with a primitive insurgent force (who quickly realized it was not going to repeat a Dien Bien Phu-type victory, and re-concentrated its tactics to classical guerrilla warfare), who was sufficiently supplied by powerful surrogates to the North and Northwest, and who didn't mind creating massive staging areas in neighboring countries and crossing international borders at will, to smuggle war material to the South.

[Row6]

Both the Iraq war and the VN war were fools errands and a colossal waste of lives and dollars. The former has resulted in a chaotic and murderous situation who's benefit mostly accrues to Iran, while the latter only managed to postpone an jnevitable and less than horrible future at the cost of 50,000 US lives. That political leadership not only repeated the same cataclysmic mistake within a generation, and with little domestic repercussions - how do McCain and Graham keep getting elected? - is a testament to the necessity of more Chuck Hagels who will step out of "the mainstream" of American foreign policy, a totally discredited concept if there ever was one.

[HALLGATOR]

We would have won about the same thing in Vietnam in the long run as we did in Irag..................nothing.

[Minister_of_Information]

Those who prefer Saddam's regime to the current regime in Iraq either have forgotten or never knew just how destabilizing that regime was in terms of both regional security and US interests. The Baath Party was founded in a totalitarian militarist ideology that is only comparable to Nazism or imperial communism along the lines of Stalin. Minimizing the danger that regime represented over the long term is an exercise in wishful thinking. In addition, the entire concept of collective security was bankrupt unless Saddam was confronted.

[JohnC1908]

So many young men and women are died for no reason. That's tough for me to stomach. It hits home for me since most are right around my age.

[Lawdog88]

Those who prefer Saddam's regime to the current regime in Iraq either have forgotten or never knew just how destabilizing that regime was in terms of both regional security and US interests. The Baath Party was founded in a totalitarian militarist ideology that is only comparable to Nazism or imperial communism along the lines of Stalin. Minimizing the danger that regime represented over the long term is an exercise in wishful thinking. In addition, the entire concept of collective security was bankrupt unless Saddam was confronted.


All of that is true.

Some people question why it is that, when the trash needs taking out, we get to - ur, apparently have to - do it.

Are we really saying that our national interests are global, paramount, and supersede all other national interests . . . whenever we say so ?

[HALLGATOR]

Those who prefer Saddam's regime to the current regime in Iraq either have forgotten or never knew just how destabilizing that regime was in terms of both regional security and US interests. The Baath Party was founded in a totalitarian militarist ideology that is only comparable to Nazism or imperial communism along the lines of Stalin. Minimizing the danger that regime represented over the long term is an exercise in wishful thinking. In addition, the entire concept of collective security was bankrupt unless Saddam was confronted.

I haven't forgotten what it was like when Sadaam was in power. We got a lot of bluster from him after Desert Storm much like we get from North Korea now. If we wanted to wreck what was left of his military ability we could have accomplished that without an invasion. in addition If we were to use the criteria of how a despot(s) treats his/their people then we would be invading countries all of the time.

[Minister_of_Information]

Saddam was the standard bearer of successful defiance of the US as well as a major instigator of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. He actively fostered, advocated, and utilized terrorist tactics from the sanctuary of a nation state. His WMD aspirations were unchanged, and were seen as a pillar of legitimacy by the regime. In the wake of 9-11 all of this was clearly intolerable.

[AmericaFirst]

Saddam was the standard bearer of successful defiance of the US as well as a major instigator of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. He actively fostered, advocated, and utilized terrorist tactics from the sanctuary of a nation state. His WMD aspirations were unchanged, and were seen as a pillar of legitimacy by the regime. In the wake of 9-11 all of this was clearly intolerable.



Dude, we're talking an outright troops on the ground invasion here. No one, not anyone, should defend this war given such little (if anything) was gained from it.

[Minister_of_Information]

Dude, we're talking an outright troops on the ground invasion here. No one, not anyone, should defend this war given such little (if anything) was gained from it.

What was gained was essential and well worth the cost.

[AmericaFirst]

What was gained was essential and well worth the cost.



Agree to disagree. I don't believe Saddam was worth thousands of American lives and billions of taxpayer dollars, especially when no WMDs were found.

[Dreamliner]

Obviously Obama disagreed with Hagel on the Iraq War.

[Minister_of_Information]

Agree to disagree. I don't believe Saddam was worth thousands of American lives and billions of taxpayer dollars, especially when no WMDs were found.

The soundbite and the core strategic issues seldom intersect.

[Row6]

Those who prefer Saddam's regime to the current regime in Iraq either have forgotten or never knew just how destabilizing that regime was in terms of both regional security and US interests. The Baath Party was founded in a totalitarian militarist ideology that is only comparable to Nazism or imperial communism along the lines of Stalin. Minimizing the danger that regime represented over the long term is an exercise in wishful thinking. In addition, the entire concept of collective security was bankrupt unless Saddam was confronted.

I'm sure the Iranians agree with you on this and are happy we got rid of him. He was no more a threat to the US than many other pint sized dictators. Removing him had nothing to do with out strategic interests - though it did for Iran - not to mention the price we paid for this fiasco.

[gatorev12]

The soundbite and the core strategic issues seldom intersect.

Very true.

One of the biggest strategic issues in the Iraq War has gotten little to no airplay, but IMO, was one of the key factors in our involvement: troops in Saudi Arabia.

The rallying cry for jihadists the world over (and the central tenet of Al Qaeda) for nearly a decade after the first Gulf War was the "Great Satan" having troops in the "Holy Land." It was insulting that foreign troops were needed to protect the Holy Land...and jihadists were focused on two things: 1) destruction of the Saudi regime 2.) attacking America wherever possible.

The only reason the US had troops in Saudi Arabia, specifically, was the Saudi government's request following the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait...and the Saudi's understandable fear and distrust of Saddam.

Removing Saddam from power would allow us to withdraw our troops from Saudi Arabia and remove the rallying cry for jihadists. Which we did...after Saddam was toppled, most of the American troops were withdrawn and moved to other bases in the region.

[Row6]

Very true.

One of the biggest strategic issues in the Iraq War has gotten little to no airplay, but IMO, was one of the key factors in our involvement: troops in Saudi Arabia.

The rallying cry for jihadists the world over (and the central tenet of Al Qaeda) for nearly a decade after the first Gulf War was the "Great Satan" having troops in the "Holy Land." It was insulting that foreign troops were needed to protect the Holy Land...and jihadists were focused on two things: 1) destruction of the Saudi regime 2.) attacking America wherever possible.

The only reason the US had troops in Saudi Arabia, specifically, was the Saudi government's request following the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait...and the Saudi's understandable fear and distrust of Saddam.

Removing Saddam from power would allow us to withdraw our troops from Saudi Arabia and remove the rallying cry for jihadists. Which we did...after Saddam was toppled, most of the American troops were withdrawn and moved to other bases in the region.

Perhaps, but Sunni Saudi Arabia is now neighbored by a Shi'ite Iraq which is close to Shi'ite Iran, a sworn enemy. Saddam was a loose cannon, but his threat to us was nil, he was a hedge against growing Iranian power, and there were likely many different scenarios for defanging him or transitioning him out of power that didn't require "shock and awe". He thought he was our guy in the region - he was during the 80's - and called in the US ambassador before invading Kuwait when he thought he was given a green light.

[Lawdog88]

Saddam was our guy when we needed him, and somebody else's guy when we needed to topple him.

There are a lot of "those kind of guys" in the dustbin of our short history.

And so it goes.

[Minister_of_Information]

I'm sure the Iranians agree with you on this and are happy we got rid of him. He was no more a threat to the US than many other pint sized dictators. Removing him had nothing to do with out strategic interests - though it did for Iran - not to mention the price we paid for this fiasco.

This is false.

[gatorev12]

Perhaps, but Sunni Saudi Arabia is now neighbored by a Shi'ite Iraq which is close to Shi'ite Iran, a sworn enemy. Saddam was a loose cannon, but his threat to us was nil, he was a hedge against growing Iranian power, and there were likely many different scenarios for defanging him or transitioning him out of power that didn't require "shock and awe". He thought he was our guy in the region - he was during the 80's - and called in the US ambassador before invading Kuwait when he thought he was given a green light.

Saddam, as you said, was a loose cannon--and that wasn't a threat we took idly. We can argue what we should or shouldn't have known with respect to Iraq's WMDs--but it's safe to say that if the intelligence was right and Iraq had WMDs, then they were a threat to American interests given his unpredictability.

And the larger point about US military presence in Saudi Arabia is still valid/factual. The Saudis needed us there due to the threat Saddam posed to them--which in turn was a threat to us since the Saudi oil fields are such a vital geostrategic part of the world economy. Saddam may not have been a direct threat to us--but he certainly was a threat to the Saudis and their oilfields; and any threat to that does pose a threat to American geostrategic policy.

Our presence in Saudi Arabia was a rallying cry for jihadists and anti-American adversaries in the region (re: Iran). Removing the threat to the Saudi oilfields (Saddam) would allow us to move our bases to other friendly countries and remove that specific rallying point.

America hasn't become vastly popular in the Arab street since...but from a geopolitical viewpoint, the move was successful (probably the most successful angle of approaching it from--all the other angles are mixed at best, if not outright failure). The Saudi government has risen in stature/influence in the region and they are certainly friendly to American interests.

[gatorev12]

Saddam was our guy when we needed him, and somebody else's guy when we needed to topple him.

There are a lot of "those kind of guys" in the dustbin of our short history.

And so it goes.

In fairness though, that probably has as much (if not more) to do with Saddam's miscalculations as our own.

Up until Saddam invaded Kuwait, the US and Iraq had cordial, mutually beneficial arrangement: the US ignores his human rights record--while Saddam acts as a bulwark against Iranian expansion in the area; and Iraq in the process gets Western military equipment and other forms of aid. Not much different from what we did with Egypt from 1979-2010.

I don't think Saddam particularly liked us and we certainly didn't like him. Saddam's big mistake was overplaying his hand and invading Kuwait, figuring we needed Iraq more than we did the Kuwaitis.

Perhaps so--but the Kuwaitis were chummy with our even bigger allies, the Saudis--and with Saddam making his power move against Kuwait, neither the Saudis or the US trusted Saddam enough to let him get away with it.

The irony goes: Saddam had every right to be pissed at the Kuwaitis. A very large oil field was located on the border between the two countries (with the majority of the oil field being located in Iraq) and the Kuwaitis were taking more then their "fair share" as it were and tying the matter up in international courts without conceding anything to the Iraqis. Had Saddam asked the US to lean on the Kuwaitis to stop taking so much, we probably would have agreed.

[HALLGATOR]

What was gained was essential and well worth the cost.

Absolutely no way, my man. No way at all.

[Lawdog88]

In fairness though, that probably has as much (if not more) to do with Saddam's miscalculations as our own.

Up until Saddam invaded Kuwait, the US and Iraq had cordial, mutually beneficial arrangement: the US ignores his human rights record--while Saddam acts as a bulwark against Iranian expansion in the area; and Iraq in the process gets Western military equipment and other forms of aid. Not much different from what we did with Egypt from 1979-2010.

I don't think Saddam particularly liked us and we certainly didn't like him. Saddam's big mistake was overplaying his hand and invading Kuwait, figuring we needed Iraq more than we did the Kuwaitis.

Perhaps so--but the Kuwaitis were chummy with our even bigger allies, the Saudis--and with Saddam making his power move against Kuwait, neither the Saudis or the US trusted Saddam enough to let him get away with it.

The irony goes: Saddam had every right to be pissed at the Kuwaitis. A very large oil field was located on the border between the two countries (with the majority of the oil field being located in Iraq) and the Kuwaitis were taking more then their "fair share" as it were and tying the matter up in international courts without conceding anything to the Iraqis. Had Saddam asked the US to lean on the Kuwaitis to stop taking so much, we probably would have agreed.


Can't deny any of that.

Fact is, said cynically, once he was of no further use, he was expendable.

Said politely, once his aims differed from ours, he became a target for termination. Indeed, he played the wrong hand at the wrong time . . .

[ChartsandGrafs]

Saddam was the standard bearer of successful defiance of the US as well as a major instigator of the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

You mean, it wasn't necessarily the criminal Israeli-Zionist invasion of Palestinian lands and homes following WW2 that instigated the conflict, it was Saddam Hussein? What a brilliantly preposterous take on the history of that conflict.

[ChartsandGrafs]

What was gained was essential and well worth the cost.

Really? How many military-age sons did you send to Iraq? If you had, would it still have been worth the cost if they had returned home to you in wheelchairs and flag-draped coffins?

I highly doubt it.

[co_gator89]

Saddam is gone, but now Iraqis just get killed by all the car bombs instead. I highly doubt the families of all the people getting killed every week are singing our praises for "liberating" them. We lost ~1,500 more people in that rathole than we did on 9/11 and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and certainly wasn't going to be invading American cities anytime soon.

And all those lives and dollars for what? Well we certainly did Iran a favor.

[gatorev12]

Can't deny any of that.

Fact is, said cynically, once he was of no further use, he was expendable.

Said politely, once his aims differed from ours, he became a target for termination. Indeed, he played the wrong hand at the wrong time . . .

I think it's a bit more nuanced than that--once he put us in the position of having to choose between two groups of friends (our long-standing allies the Saudis--and to a lesser extent, the Kuwaitis vs our more recent arrangement with the Iraqis), he was going to end up on the losing side of that equation every time.

As it was though, we didn't target him for elimination after the end of the war. George HW Bush let him stay in power (though we could have doubtless pushed onwards to Baghdad and deposed him had we wanted to).

I think a better way of phrasing that is: once our geopolitical/strategic goals weren't allied, there was no reason to continue the keep the arrangement. Neither side could really be considered "friends"--and if Saddam was going to threaten our bread & butter (Saudi/Kuwaiti oilfields), then it was an easy choice for us to make.

[gatorev12]

You mean, it wasn't necessarily the criminal Israeli-Zionist invasion of Palestinian lands and homes following WW2 that instigated the conflict, it was Saddam Hussein? What a brilliantly preposterous take on the history of that conflict.

Equally preposterous to suggest the Jews somehow started their presence in Palestine right after WWII when it's pretty clear there was a Jewish claim to the area dating back centuries...and there was already an established Jewish presence in Palestine dating back to before WWII.

[Row6]

Saddam, as you said, was a loose cannon--and that wasn't a threat we took idly. We can argue what we should or shouldn't have known with respect to Iraq's WMDs--but it's safe to say that if the intelligence was right and Iraq had WMDs, then they were a threat to American interests given his unpredictability.

And the larger point about US military presence in Saudi Arabia is still valid/factual. The Saudis needed us there due to the threat Saddam posed to them--which in turn was a threat to us since the Saudi oil fields are such a vital geostrategic part of the world economy. Saddam may not have been a direct threat to us--but he certainly was a threat to the Saudis and their oilfields; and any threat to that does pose a threat to American geostrategic policy.

Our presence in Saudi Arabia was a rallying cry for jihadists and anti-American adversaries in the region (re: Iran). Removing the threat to the Saudi oilfields (Saddam) would allow us to move our bases to other friendly countries and remove that specific rallying point.

America hasn't become vastly popular in the Arab street since...but from a geopolitical viewpoint, the move was successful (probably the most successful angle of approaching it from--all the other angles are mixed at best, if not outright failure). The Saudi government has risen in stature/influence in the region and they are certainly friendly to American interests.

I suggest you read Florida's own Senator Graham's speech prior to the vote authorizing the war. He was the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at that time and had requested information from the CIA Director on the nature of the threat from Saddam. Besides for noting his lack of a delivery system for whatever WMD he might possess, the Director also stated that Saddam was very unlikely to use them unless attacked. One does not have to believe he had no WMDs to come to the same conclusion as Senator Graham: invading Iraq was an exceedingly bad idea. Time has proved him correct.

The idea of producing highly mixed results for Saudia Arabia does not begin to justify this colossal waste of US blood and treasure, though I know you have not said it does.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Equally preposterous to suggest the Jews somehow started their presence in Palestine right after WWII when it's pretty clear there was a Jewish claim to the area dating back centuries...and there was already an established Jewish presence in Palestine dating back to before WWII.

LOL. So because a relatively small number of Jews lived in Palestine prior to WW2, that alone gave millions of other Jews, mostly from Europe, the right to invade and colonize the area while forcing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their land and homes? Yeah, that makes about as much sense as tits on a bull.

European Jews had about as much claim to Palestine as I have to David Letterman's classic car collection.

[Row6]

In fairness though, that probably has as much (if not more) to do with Saddam's miscalculations as our own.

Up until Saddam invaded Kuwait, the US and Iraq had cordial, mutually beneficial arrangement: the US ignores his human rights record--while Saddam acts as a bulwark against Iranian expansion in the area; and Iraq in the process gets Western military equipment and other forms of aid. Not much different from what we did with Egypt from 1979-2010.

I don't think Saddam particularly liked us and we certainly didn't like him. Saddam's big mistake was overplaying his hand and invading Kuwait, figuring we needed Iraq more than we did the Kuwaitis.

Perhaps so--but the Kuwaitis were chummy with our even bigger allies, the Saudis--and with Saddam making his power move against Kuwait, neither the Saudis or the US trusted Saddam enough to let him get away with it.

The irony goes: Saddam had every right to be pissed at the Kuwaitis. A very large oil field was located on the border between the two countries (with the majority of the oil field being located in Iraq) and the Kuwaitis were taking more then their "fair share" as it were and tying the matter up in international courts without conceding anything to the Iraqis. Had Saddam asked the US to lean on the Kuwaitis to stop taking so much, we probably would have agreed.

Prior to invading Kuwait Saddam called in April Glaspie who was standing in for our ambassador to Iraq. He described to her his unhappiness with the Kuwaitis and while not clearly stating he would invade he described the situation as intolerable and the necessity of his reacting. Ms Glaspie replied - one assumes after checking with her superiors - that the US had no interest in the matter. The invasion occurred shortly thereafter, one again assumes with Saddam thinking he had a green light from his ally - the US.

Things went south based on that misunderstanding, which does not support the idea that he was some lunatic. Lunatics do not rise to power and survive for decades, calculating realists do. Not only did the man have very few cards as an international power, but he was capable of being manipulated by smart diplomacy, unfortunately a fact ignored by the drum beat war fever ginned up by a US administration deluded by a cowboy mentality.

[co_gator89]

Since we're on the topic, a quick lesson on war propaganda:

Iraq: Part I [Spoiler alert: It wasn't true.]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmfVs3WaE9Y

Iraq: Part II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt5RZ6ukbNc
Neither was that

[gatorev12]

I suggest you read Florida's own Senator Graham's speech prior to the vote authorizing the war. He was the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at that time and had requested information from the CIA Director on the nature of the threat from Saddam. Besides for noting his lack of a delivery system for whatever WMD he might possess, the Director also stated that Saddam was very unlikely to use them unless attacked. One does not have to belief he had none to come to the same conclusion as Senator Graham: invading Iraq was an exceedingly bad idea. Time has proved him correct.


Time has most certainly proven the Senator correct in many ways. He was correct in saying Saddam did not have a delivery system for WMDs--but that wasn't really the worry. A biological or chemical weapon does not need a bomb or rocket to disperse the agents. The fear was a smaller-scale attack that left no traces.

The idea of producing highly mixed results for Saudia Arabia does not begin to justify this colossal waste of US blood and treasure, though I know you have not said it does.


It wasn't just the Saudis we were benefiting, we stood to gain a lot by removing the rallying cry for jihadists--AND also benefit by the Saudis rising in prominence/stature by having them start to combat Iranian/Shi'a influence.

In that sense and that sense only, *some* of the geostrategic goals were successful.

But in many (arguably most) ways, I'm not disagreeing that it was a gigantic waste of lives and money. And I can absolutely understand why many people wouldn't be able to appreciate the big picture given the paltry returns in every other area.

[HALLGATOR]

It's over and done but I hope we don't get all gung ho about doing the same thing with Iran. That was one of the very reasons, which I was very vocal about on here, that I would not vote for McCain. I respected what he had went through in Vietnam, and like him in some ways, but didn't trust him in that area.

[AmericaFirst]

LOL. So because a relatively small number of Jews lived in Palestine prior to WW2, that alone gave millions of other Jews, mostly from Europe, the right to invade and colonize the area while forcing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their land and homes? Yeah, that makes about as much sense as tits on a bull.

European Jews had about as much claim to Palestine as I have to David Letterman's classic car collection.



I think that is what pissed the Arabs off more than anything. There was a Jewish presence in Palestine before the creation of Israel, but what claim do European Jews have on that land? None. If I was kicked out of my home in favor of someone else from some other continent? I would be pissed off too.

[AmericaFirst]

Since we're on the topic, a quick lesson on war propaganda:

Iraq: Part I [Spoiler alert: It wasn't true.]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmfVs3WaE9Y

Iraq: Part II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt5RZ6ukbNc
Neither was that



That top video with the Kuwaiti girl is about as believable as that father from the Sandy Hook attack that steps up to the mic laughing and then decides to suddenly go into grieving mode for the cameras. The government can't find people more believable for these hoaxes?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzjMd2tV8Iw

[co_gator89]

While our presence on the Arabian Peninsula was one of the primary sources of their hatred for us (and not our freedoms), the Iraq invasion was a recruiting gold mine for the jihadis. We could not have given them a better Christmas present.

[JerseyGator01]

Oh please, we give them lots of reasons to hate us. Iraq wast one of a very long list. But the media brainwashed masses only see it as Iraq and Vietnam.

[Row6]

Time has most certainly proven the Senator correct in many ways. He was correct in saying Saddam did not have a delivery system for WMDs--but that wasn't really the worry. A biological or chemical weapon does not need a bomb or rocket to disperse the agents. The fear was a smaller-scale attack that left no traces.



It wasn't just the Saudis we were benefiting, we stood to gain a lot by removing the rallying cry for jihadists--AND also benefit by the Saudis rising in prominence/stature by having them start to combat Iranian/Shi'a influence.

In that sense and that sense only, *some* of the geostrategic goals were successful.

But in many (arguably most) ways, I'm not disagreeing that it was a gigantic waste of lives and money. And I can absolutely understand why many people wouldn't be able to appreciate the big picture given the paltry returns in every other area.

Not to put too fine a point on it but Grahams position was butressed by the letter from the CIA Director, which he quoted in that speech and entered into the record. His assessment that Saddam would not use whatever weapons he had unless attacked was not only logical - Saddam was not suicidal - but critical information for decision makers which was ignored by most of them.

[Minister_of_Information]

You mean, it wasn't necessarily the criminal Israeli-Zionist invasion of Palestinian lands and homes following WW2 that instigated the conflict, it was Saddam Hussein? What a brilliantly preposterous take on the history of that conflict.

Saddam was paying $30k bounties to Palestinian suicide bombers, or about 10x what the Saudis paid. His regime trained Palestinian terrorists in Iraq and provided other kinds of support to them. In addition his rhetoric was as belligerent as it comes towards Israel, as he envisioned a pan-Arab coalition under his rule or leadership immediately annihilating the state of Israel as a first step to a renewed Arab world empire. In the meanwhile he called for unrelenting attacks on Israel by any means necessary, and explicitly rejected the possibility of any kind of diplomatic settlement of the conflict. So no, I don't think it's unfair to characterize him as a major instigator of the problem.

[CHFG8R]

Can't say I disagree:

Me either. Though I'd replace "since Vietnam" with "EVER." It's certainly up there with entering WWI as the biggest foreign policy mistake in the country's history.

[CHFG8R]

While our presence on the Arabian Peninsula was one of the primary sources of their hatred for us (and not our freedoms), the Iraq invasion was a recruiting gold mine for the jihadis. We could not have given them a better Christmas present.

Ask yourself this. Would OBL have had it any other way?

I think not. IMO, our reaction to 9/11, specifically the decision to go into Iraq, was exactly the reaction he had planned. Sad, really.

[Minister_of_Information]

Really? How many military-age sons did you send to Iraq? If you had, would it still have been worth the cost if they had returned home to you in wheelchairs and flag-draped coffins?

I highly doubt it.

Yes.

[Minister_of_Information]

LOL. So because a relatively small number of Jews lived in Palestine prior to WW2, that alone gave millions of other Jews, mostly from Europe, the right to invade and colonize the area while forcing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their land and homes? Yeah, that makes about as much sense as tits on a bull.

European Jews had about as much claim to Palestine as I have to David Letterman's classic car collection.

The Palestinians were not forced to leave.

[CHFG8R]

In fairness though, that probably has as much (if not more) to do with Saddam's miscalculations as our own.

Up until Saddam invaded Kuwait, the US and Iraq had cordial, mutually beneficial arrangement: the US ignores his human rights record--while Saddam acts as a bulwark against Iranian expansion in the area; and Iraq in the process gets Western military equipment and other forms of aid. Not much different from what we did with Egypt from 1979-2010.

I don't think Saddam particularly liked us and we certainly didn't like him. Saddam's big mistake was overplaying his hand and invading Kuwait, figuring we needed Iraq more than we did the Kuwaitis.

Perhaps so--but the Kuwaitis were chummy with our even bigger allies, the Saudis--and with Saddam making his power move against Kuwait, neither the Saudis or the US trusted Saddam enough to let him get away with it.

The irony goes: Saddam had every right to be pissed at the Kuwaitis. A very large oil field was located on the border between the two countries (with the majority of the oil field being located in Iraq) and the Kuwaitis were taking more then their "fair share" as it were and tying the matter up in international courts without conceding anything to the Iraqis. Had Saddam asked the US to lean on the Kuwaitis to stop taking so much, we probably would have agreed.

This addresses 1992 fine, but doesn't address 2002. He was neutered and was no threat. Back channel deals could have been presented that preserved his power and he wouldn't have done a thing to us. Saddam has always been about Saddam and that wasn't going to change.

I said it then and I'll say it again: The foreign policy equivelent of kicking over a fire-ant hill.

[Minister_of_Information]

This addresses 1992 fine, but doesn't address 2002. He was neutered and was no threat. Back channel deals could have been presented that preserved his power and he wouldn't have done a thing to us. Saddam has always been about Saddam and that wasn't going to change.

I said it then and I'll say it again: The foreign policy equivelent of kicking over a fire-ant hill.

Was Stalin always about Stalin?

[CHFG8R]

It's over and done but I hope we don't get all gung ho about doing the same thing with Iran. That was one of the very reasons, which I was very vocal about on here, that I would not vote for McCain. I respected what he had went through in Vietnam, and like him in some ways, but didn't trust him in that area.

Hardly. We are now hopelessly entangled in that social and cultural cesspool of a region. The legacy of this will haunt us for the next 50 years, minimum.

[CHFG8R]

Was Stalin always about Stalin?

Absolutely. And he was Saddam's hero by all accounts, the blueprint if you will. But we never had Stalin by the balls the way we had Saddam post-1992 and, thus, were never able to present that kind of scenario to Stalin.

If put in a similar position (no fly zones over 2/3 of the country, ravaged military, ZERO ability to mount any kind of offensive attack), then sure, I think similar strategies would have worked with Stalin.

[Minister_of_Information]

Absolutely. And he was Saddam's hero by all accounts, the blueprint if you will. But we never had Stalin by the balls the way we had Saddam post-1992 and, thus, were never able to present that kind of scenario to Stalin.

If put in a similar position (no fly zones over 2/3 of the country, ravaged military, ZERO ability to mount any kind of offensive attack), then sure, I think similar strategies would have worked with Stalin.

I think you should undertake the study of Stalin with a bit more intensity.

Saddam was an inherently destabilizing figure, under those toothless "no fly zones" his regime trained and supported international terrorism and never gave up its aspiration for WMD, and he was not contained in fact he had effectively defeated containment circa 1998 (the cruise missiles we sent over there may as well have been flying white flags), he was the symbol par excellence of the impotence of both the UN and the US and the idea that clever brinksmanship and diplomacy could always paralyze and nullify the liberal regimes of the west. He could neither be reformed or contained, and like a slowly growing malignant tumor had to be removed now that the patient was aware that his life was at stake.

[CHFG8R]

I think you should undertake the study of Stalin with a bit more intensity.

Saddam was an inherently destabilizing figure, under those toothless "no fly zones" his regime trained and supported international terrorism and never gave up its aspiration for WMD, and he was not contained in fact he had effectively defeated containment circa 1998 (the cruise missiles we sent over there may as well have been flying white flags), he was the symbol par excellence of the impotence of both the UN and the US and the idea that clever brinksmanship and diplomacy could always paralyze and nullify the liberal regimes of the west. He could neither be reformed or contained, and like a slowly growing malignant tumor had to be removed now that the patient was aware that his life was at stake.


Good points all. But I still think it would have been worth a shot to at least offer him a chance to get on the right side of 9/11 (Jesus, even the f-ing Iranians were our "buddies" then). I think, his power preserved, he might have bitten. Hell, I might have used his "little shop of horrors" as a final destination for the worst of the worst that we captured.

As for Stalin, where am I wrong? I guess we could look at his attitudes toward the Allies pre 1941 (while he was carving up 1/2 of Poland) vs. post-Barbarossa. Certainly, with the Nazi knife to his balls, he was a lot more . . . ahem, plyable. And yet, as his troops mount up victory after victory, he becomes a lot less so, even confrontational by 1945.

[CHFG8R]

One last thing. We had build up a lot of, if you will, moral equity with the world after 9/11. Everyone, for the most part, backed us in Afganistan. Iraq was the classic overreach that tossed all of it out the window and represented the worst fears - real or not - of people in that region (and around the world) re. the USA and our motives.

In the end, I'm not sure the benefits you presented outweigh that loss of equity. At least not in my opinion. I believe we had a powerful thing going and squandered our opportunity to maximize it to the fullest.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

We would have won about the same thing in Vietnam in the long run as we did in Irag..................nothing.

I am not sure I would characterize what we did in Iraq as...nothing.

[fredsanford]

Those who prefer Saddam's regime to the current regime in Iraq either have forgotten or never knew just how destabilizing that regime was in terms of both regional security and US interests. The Baath Party was founded in a totalitarian militarist ideology that is only comparable to Nazism or imperial communism along the lines of Stalin. Minimizing the danger that regime represented over the long term is an exercise in wishful thinking. In addition, the entire concept of collective security was bankrupt unless Saddam was confronted.

Pure insanity.

For all of his bluster, Saddam was the area's sole secular strongman.

Taking him out allowed free reign for the dangerous Muslim extremists in the region.

[MichiGator2002]

Pure insanity.

For all of his bluster, Saddam was the area's sole secular strongman.

Taking him out allowed free reign for the dangerous Muslim extremists in the region.

Mubarak is feeling pretty damn secular as we look back from the perspective of Egypt under control of a slobbering radical Islamist. So "only", eh...

[Minister_of_Information]

Pure insanity.

For all of his bluster, Saddam was the area's sole secular strongman.

Taking him out allowed free reign for the dangerous Muslim extremists in the region.

Deep thoughts as usual, fred.

[HALLGATOR]

I am not sure I would characterize what we did in Iraq as...nothing.

Oh, no doubt we "did' something. What we really got out of it is the debatable part for me. I think we could have accomplished what we did without the loss of lives, not to mention the money, by other means.

[MichiGator2002]

We did something and then spent several years either not perfecting it or simply undoing it, depending on how you frame the question.

[Minister_of_Information]

Good points all. But I still think it would have been worth a shot to at least offer him a chance to get on the right side of 9/11 (Jesus, even the f-ing Iranians were our "buddies" then). I think, his power preserved, he might have bitten. Hell, I might have used his "little shop of horrors" as a final destination for the worst of the worst that we captured.

As for Stalin, where am I wrong? I guess we could look at his attitudes toward the Allies pre 1941 (while he was carving up 1/2 of Poland) vs. post-Barbarossa. Certainly, with the Nazi knife to his balls, he was a lot more . . . ahem, plyable. And yet, as his troops mount up victory after victory, he becomes a lot less so, even confrontational by 1945.

CHFG8R, regarding Stalin I would urge you to resist the temptation to rationalize him as a figure with a robust streak of reasonableness which could serve as a diplomatic handle, as though his acts in furtherance of the revolution were mere cynicism with only a patina of ideology. In fact Stalin was a committed communist revolutionary who very energetically forced through many draconian measures to implement the communist ideology regardless of the human cost. I think you probably already know that, though, but it is so tempting to hold that seminal fact about Stalin at arm's length. He didn't order the death of millions because he didn't believe in what he was doing and found it personally convenient. The extent to which Stalin seems more reasonable than, say, Hitler or perhaps even Mao (to a small degree and from certain angles) is rooted in apparently pragmatic steps such as the Nonaggression Pact with Hitler's Germany and subsequent partition of Poland, and in his subsequent stolid and ironically humanizing refusal to believe the Nazi invasion was imminent until it happened.

Of course these facts prove nothing of the kind, except that Stalin felt that the Soviet Union was not economically or militarily prepared to confront Germany at that time, and was more than willing to expand Soviet rule with a diplomatic accommodation. And of course an aversion to unwelcome facts is not at all unique to Stalin as an autocrat. His refusal to believe facts for which he has no answer is a human trait, but it is a human trait in an inhuman man, a man of steel, who much like Lenin had a tendency to liquidate those who represented facts with which he was averse. Indeed the subsequent mauling the Soviets took at the hands of the Wehrmacht over the next year proves that his sub-textual concerns about the prospects for the Soviet state in the face of a German invasion were well founded and more than simply personal. He refused to believe in that which he was powerless to prevent, especially in view of the possibility that a shift in his attitude along with open Soviet preparations could trigger the very war that absolutely had to be avoided or at least postponed. You can compare this tack to a cod caught up in a swimming pattern of a shark, prolonging the pattern in homes something changes before the jaws snap shut. Stalin may have identified himself personally with the Soviet Empire, but that is not to say that he became a kind of pasha living a deluded and opulent life like the Czars before him. In fact, like Hitler, he was an ascetic, and a man of the proletariat who was quick to cull whatever bourgeois indulgences crept up within his coterie.

Saddam's ideological sincerity too should not be doubted, though his state ambitions were no doubt likewise entangled with personal ego gratification. Yes, he thought he was the strong man that was supposed to stand up to the West -- or if necessary outmanuever them -- so that the Pan-Arab Empire could be reborn. And I don't think he ever accepted even internally that this ambition was futile or idle, and his actions bear this out I think. Like Stalin, ultimately Saddam's only currency and language was force. He lived by it, and he died by it.

[Minister_of_Information]

Iraq: The Failure of Containment and the Strategic Necessity of War (http://issuu.com/Minister_of_Information/docs/iraq_failure_of_containment_2/1)

Saddam's Delusions: A View From The Inside (http://issuu.com/Minister_of_Information/docs/saddam_s_delusion_s_a_view_from_the_inside/1)

Iraq Perspectives Project Report (http://issuu.com/Minister_of_Information/docs/ipp.pdf/1)

[fredsanford]

Deep thoughts as usual, fred.

Pithy truth beats wrong word salad every time.

[MichiGator2002]

Pithy truth beats wrong word salad every time.

Well, pithy something. I find liberal arguments turn to pith as a tool very quickly. Surely not a commentary on how well their detailed arguments would hold up to scrutiny.

[Minister_of_Information]

Pithy truth beats wrong word salad every time.

I've said this before, but it applies to you as well: your opprobrium is a sublime and subtle perfume.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Oh, no doubt we "did' something. What we really got out of it is the debatable part for me. I think we could have accomplished what we did without the loss of lives, not to mention the money, by other means.

I think this is a fair debate to undertake. One key accomplishment of the Iraqi war is something that is not widely discussed. Iraq was part of the original Caliphate, and as such is very sacred to Islam. Up until the Iraqi invasion, the Islamic extremists were waging asymmetrical warfare against the west in general and the USA in particular. And by most accounts, fairly successfully. They struck when they wanted and where they wanted. No particular country was responsible for any of these attacks.That made retaliation very problematical.

This meant we were faced with several choices, none good. One was to continue along the same trajectory of defense. This was largely unsatisfying, as we were fighting them on their terms. They were attacking civilians and we had few targets to attack. When they bombed the US Cole, who could we attack? Same with many, many attacks against US targets.

Another option was to try and smoke them out. Make them show themselves and force them to attack our military in a foreign country, rather than continue to suffer attacks against civilians on our own soil and against civilian targets. Make them fight us on our terms rather than on their terms. We knew we could win those conflicts.

I think the Iraq war was waged to accomplish a lot of things, and one of them was to force Islamic terrorists to defend an original member of the Caliphate. Thye were forced to show themselves. They had to wage a ground war against the full might of the US military. And in doing so, they got their collective asses kicked, especially after the Anbar Awakening allowed the USA forces to to team up with various Iraqi tribes to form a coalition against the terrorists.. And I think the Iraq war was largely successful in this regard.

[ChartsandGrafs]

The Palestinians were not forced to leave.

If that's what you believe, you're completely detached from any and all reality of what took place.

[jack]

The Iraq war was unfunded and damaged the U.S. economy with the deficits in later years. Politically it was a disaster not to mention the lives lost and other collateral damage to all sides.

[Minister_of_Information]

If that's what you believe, you're completely detached from any and all reality of what took place.

Then how does one explain 1.5 million Palestinian Arabs that are Israeli citizens and currently live in Israel.

[HALLGATOR]

I think this is a fair debate to undertake. One key accomplishment of the Iraqi war is something that is not widely discussed. Iraq was part of the original Caliphate, and as such is very sacred to Islam. Up until the Iraqi invasion, the Islamic extremists were waging asymmetrical warfare against the west in general and the USA in particular. And by most accounts, fairly successfully. They struck when they wanted and where they wanted. No particular country was responsible for any of these attacks.That made retaliation very problematical.

This meant we were faced with several choices, none good. One was to continue along the same trajectory of defense. This was largely unsatisfying, as we were fighting them on their terms. They were attacking civilians and we had few targets to attack. When they bombed the US Cole, who could we attack? Same with many, many attacks against US targets.

Another option was to try and smoke them out. Make them show themselves and force them to attack our military in a foreign country, rather than continue to suffer attacks against civilians on our own soil and against civilian targets. Make them fight us on our terms rather than on their terms. We knew we could win those conflicts.

I think the Iraq war was waged to accomplish a lot of things, and one of them was to force Islamic terrorists to defend an original member of the Caliphate. Thye were forced to show themselves. They had to wage a ground war against the full might of the US military. And in doing so, they got their collective asses kicked, especially after the Anbar Awakening allowed the USA forces to to team up with various Iraqi tribes to form a coalition against the terrorists.. And I think the Iraq war was largely successful in this regard.

Sorry, but I don't agree with your connection to reduced chance of attacks due to an invasion of Iraq. For every Jihadist we eliminated there is a good chance we created 3 more. I also don't agree with the "flypaper theory" that was espoused at the time and see it as just another justification for an unnecessary invasion. These terrorists were not then nor are they now grouped in any one area. We can see that by the countries the 9/11 hijackers originated from. Heck, 15 of them were from a country we are supposed to be friendly with. Add that to various countries where they are still operating and any claim to having reduced their numbers by an invasion of Iraq does not have a solid enough basis to be provable.

Here's the real bottom line to the invasion. We invaded under certain pretexts such as WMDs and Sadaam being an imminent threat to the region along with his support for terrorism. When the weapons were not found and we found out how fast his military crumbled it was necessary to run damage control. This was accomplished by coming up with any number of viable sounding alternative reasons we invaded. His giving money to those who attacked Israel would never have been enough in itself to sell the war to the American people. The ties to terrorism were lumped into the original reasons but once again this would not have been enough on its own unless there had been a clearly established link that he funded, or helped train, the 9/11 hijackers.

I believe we could make an equally strong claim that the downfall of Gadaffi lent nearly as strong a blow to terrorist since it was well documented there were training camps throughout Libya and he was providing funding for them. However compare the loss of lives and cost of defeating Gadaffi to what we it cost us to depose Sadaam and there is really no comparison.

Politicians by nature do what is necessary to cover their butts and this is not limited to either party.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Sorry, but I don't agree with your connection to reduced chance of attacks due to an invasion of Iraq. For every Jihadist we eliminated there is a good chance we created 3 more.

Lots of people thought that might happen in Iraq. Josh Marshall at TPM was a chief proponent of it at the time. There is not much evidence that it happened though

I also don't agree with the "flypaper theory" that was espoused at the time and see it as just another justification for an unnecessary invasion. These terrorists were not then nor are they now grouped in any one area. We can see that by the countries the 9/11 hijackers originated from. Heck, 15 of them were from a country we are supposed to be friendly with. Add that to various countries where they are still operating and any claim to having reduced their numbers by an invasion of Iraq does not have a solid enough basis to be provable.

Not being "from" a country is not the same thing as going to a country to try and defend it from westerners.

The terrorists that were killed in Iraq were from all parts of the Islamic world. Hence the "flypaper" strategy.

Here's the real bottom line to the invasion. We invaded under certain pretexts such as WMDs and Sadaam being an imminent threat to the region along with his support for terrorism.

WMDs was only one of many,many reasons given in the joint resolution to invade Iraq that Congress passed.

When the weapons were not found and we found out how fast his military crumbled it was necessary to run damage control. This was accomplished by coming up with any number of viable sounding alternative reasons we invaded.

Again, go back and review the joint resolution that passed in the fall of 2003, several months before the attacks. WMDs were most certainly NOT the only reason for the invasion codified there.

[HALLGATOR]

I respect the opinion of you and others who post on this but I've argued this thing too many times to have a change of heart on how I see it. As I said earlier it is in the past and no amount of discussion will ever bring any of our soldiers back nor will it restore any of the money we spent. I just hope that we are not so fast to mount an invasion of Iran although I do believe we have many in this country who would be in favor of it. I, however, am not one of those.

[Minister_of_Information]

There's a reason the historians wait about 50 years before they rewrite history into something more objective.

One other observation: the intuitive sense, or really hope, that the status quo hasn't killed us yet and therefore isn't likely to kill us in the future leads us to prefer complacency and inaction over foresight and prevention, and this is the precise attitude that prefigured 9-11. Hope is not a plan.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Then how does one explain 1.5 million Palestinian Arabs that are Israeli citizens and currently live in Israel.

A huge number of them are essentially dislocated and living as almost permanent refugees after having been forced out of their homes and villages to make way for Israeli settlements and security perimeters. They've been ethnically cleansed from many areas as well and pushed into smaller and smaller pockets surrounded by walls and armed guards.

You're free to spin it any way you, but the facts won't change. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forced off their land and out of their homes to make way for the State of Israel. Those who resisted were killed outright or put into camps.

[Minister_of_Information]

A huge number of them are essentially dislocated and living as almost permanent refugees after having been forced out of their homes and villages to make way for Israeli settlements and security perimeters. They've been ethnically cleansed from many areas as well and pushed into smaller and smaller pockets surrounded by walls and armed guards.

You're free to spin it any way you, but the facts won't change. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forced off their land and out of their homes to make way for the State of Israel. Those who resisted were killed outright or put into camps.

This is false.

[ChartsandGrafs]

There's a reason the historians wait about 50 years before they rewrite history into something more objective.

One other observation: the intuitive sense, or really hope, that the status quo hasn't killed us yet and therefore isn't likely to kill us in the future leads us to prefer complacency and inaction over foresight and prevention, and this is the precise attitude that prefigured 9-11. Hope is not a plan.

In other words, forgo the non-aggression principle and just make aggressive, "preventive" warfare the foundation of your foreign policy. Or something like that.

[Row6]

Some people still think the wrong side won the American civil war and that Viet Nam was a good idea, but thankfully they are now an irrelevant minority.

Fear is what sold the Iraq invasion, from Aluminum tubes to mushroom clouds to mobile labs in the desert. Like a beauty contestants homage to "world peace", way down at the end of the list of reasons was establishing democracy. That the fear campaign was not believed even by those selling it is proven by the almost total lack of effort to seal off weapons caches and the borders in the immediate aftermath of toppling Saddam. Putting aside the bold predictions for a short war followed by happy parades through Baghdad by fools like McCain, the end result has been supplanting Iran's biggest rival in the region with a nation now run by the very people who hid in Iran during their countries decade long trench warfare with their protectors.

Islamaphobia presents as an uncontrollable urge to invade countries whose specific location and character are unimportant to the afflicted. This debilitating disease leads to a disregard for cost or effect and usually ends in bankruptcy and death. Recommended treatment includes reading history, repeated cold showers, and administrations of slaps to the face by medical personnel as they exhort the patient to "wake the f*ck up! ".

[ChartsandGrafs]

This is false.

Actually, no, it's 100% correct and you have no argument to the contrary.

Like I said, you're obviously detached from reality. You're still trying to justify the Iraq war, after all.

[Minister_of_Information]

I'll just refer you to the history and leave it there.

[Minister_of_Information]

Some people still think the wrong side won the American civil war and that Viet Nam was a good idea, but thankfully they are now an irrelevant minority.

Fear is what sold the Iraq invasion, from Aluminum tubes to mushroom clouds to mobile labs in the desert. Like a beauty contestants homage to "world peace", way down at the end of the list of reasons was establishing democracy. That the fear campaign was not believed even by those selling it is proven by the almost total lack of effort to seal off weapons caches and the borders in the immediate aftermath of toppling Saddam. Putting aside the bold predictions for a short war followed by happy parades through Baghdad by fools like McCain, the end result has been supplanting Iran's biggest rival in the region with a nation now run by the very people who hid in Iran during their countries decade long trench warfare with their protectors.

Islamaphobia presents as an uncontrollable urge to invade countries whose specific location and character are unimportant to the afflicted. This debilitating disease leads to a disregard for cost or effect and usually ends in bankruptcy and death. Recommended treatment includes reading history, repeated cold showers, and administrations of slaps to the face by medical personnel as they exhort the patient to "wake the f*ck up! ".

If you ever uncover a therapy that forces a person to think logically and lucidly about the facts rather than to resort to hysterics, please promise me that you will first test it out on yourself.

[Row6]

If you ever uncover a therapy that forces a person to think logically and lucidly about the facts rather than to resort to hysterics, please promise me that you will first test it out on yourself.

Inexplicably, you confuse hysterics with total disdain.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I'll just refer you to the history and leave it there.

That's sort of your problem. An objective review of the real history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict blows all of your arguments right out of the water.

[Minister_of_Information]

That's sort of your problem. An objective review of the real history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict blows all of your arguments right out of the water.

What you've said is simply false. There is a reason that the Palestinian refugees are called just that.

[Minister_of_Information]

Inexplicably, you confuse hysterics with total disdain.

Right. The other side of the debate needs to be slapped by medical personnel while having "WAKE THE F-CK UP!" screamed at them. Nope, nothing hysterical there, pal.

[gatorev12]

Ask yourself this. Would OBL have had it any other way?

I think not. IMO, our reaction to 9/11, specifically the decision to go into Iraq, was exactly the reaction he had planned. Sad, really.

I've seen that train of thought popping up in recent years--but it's largely revisionist history.

I've no doubt Bin Laden and hard-core jihadists who share his ideology are 100% committed to anything that hurts or damages the US, but saying their goal the entire time was to "bankrupt America" is ascribing current realities with some magical foresight that Al Qaeda lacks.

Put it this way: the war didn't bankrupt America, per se. It was costly, sure--but the reason our economy is in the toilet and what caused it to crash in the first place was a major economic recession largely due to sub-prime mortgage lending--none of which had to do with Al Qaeda.

[Row6]

Right. The other side of the debate needs to be slapped by medical personnel while having "WAKE THE F-CK UP!" screamed at them. Nope, nothing hysterical there, pal.

Extreme measures may be required for those rare cases (which, like schizophrenia, does not really qualify as "the other side") of total delusion.

[Minister_of_Information]

Extreme measures may be required for those rare cases (which, like schizophrenia, does not really qualify as "the other side") of total delusion.

Careful, your authoritarian slip is showing.

[ChartsandGrafs]

What you've said is simply false. There is a reason that the Palestinian refugees are called just that.

Let me guess. Because they voluntarily gave up their homes, land, and villages to make way for the Zionist apartheid State of Israel out of sympathy for the Holocaust, which they had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with?

LOL.

[Minister_of_Information]

Let me guess. Because they voluntarily gave up their homes, land, and villages to make way for the Zionist apartheid State of Israel out of sympathy for the Holocaust, which they had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with?

LOL.

Feel free to imagine whatever you like -- you do it anyway.

[CHFG8R]

I've seen that train of thought popping up in recent years--but it's largely revisionist history.

I've no doubt Bin Laden and hard-core jihadists who share his ideology are 100% committed to anything that hurts or damages the US, but saying their goal the entire time was to "bankrupt America" is ascribing current realities with some magical foresight that Al Qaeda lacks.

Put it this way: the war didn't bankrupt America, per se. It was costly, sure--but the reason our economy is in the toilet and what caused it to crash in the first place was a major economic recession largely due to sub-prime mortgage lending--none of which had to do with Al Qaeda.

Their goal was to draw us into a deeper commitment/war in that region. Much has yet to play out, but I'd say he certainly succeeded in that aspect. We are inextricably tied to that region now in ways we never were before. It's why Bush I didn't press beyond the border.

[CHFG8R]

\

Islamaphobia presents as an uncontrollable urge to invade countries whose specific location and character are unimportant to the afflicted. This debilitating disease leads to a disregard for cost or effect and usually ends in bankruptcy and death. Recommended treatment includes reading history, repeated cold showers, and administrations of slaps to the face by medical personnel as they exhort the patient to "wake the f*ck up! ".

Not really that. Try oil. The need to control it, to have bases nearby to act if something were to interrupt the flow of it. This is the reasoning behind it all. Everything else is rationalization.

[Row6]

Not really that. Try oil. The need to control it, to have bases nearby to act if something were to interrupt the flow of it. This is the reasoning behind it all. Everything else is rationalization.

I was responding to other posters raising the spector of a renewed caliphate. I agree that had nothing to do with Bush administration policy.

[Minister_of_Information]

Row, why don't you explain Ba'ath pan-Arab national socialist ideology and its historical connections to and sympathy with the Nazi regime.

[Row6]

Row, why don't you explain Ba'ath pan-Arab national socialist ideology and its historical connections to and sympathy with the Nazi regime.

No thanks. how many Panzer divisions do they have?

[Minister_of_Information]

No thanks. how many Panzer divisions do they have?

None in Iraq.

[gatorev12]

Their goal was to draw us into a deeper commitment/war in that region. Much has yet to play out, but I'd say he certainly succeeded in that aspect. We are inextricably tied to that region now in ways we never were before. It's why Bush I didn't press beyond the border.

Al Qaeda's goal was to defeat the US, and either overthrow the corrupt and authoritarian rulers in the Middle East and usher in a pan-Islamic caliphate--or set the stage for it to occur. Lofty ambitions, to be sure, but ones that will never be realized.

For one, the jihadists have never quite managed to defeat the US militarily in the way they defeated the Soviets. From a military perspective, Al Qaeda has been defeated in almost every sense of the word. Top and middle-tier leaders have been killed or captured--and any engagement jihadists attempt quickly results in their swift demise.

From a strategic perspective, their ideology has largely been defeated as well. There has been change in the Middle East political arena--and Islamic extremism has been rejected. Though there still remains a lot of questions about the direction of countries such as Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, etc--one thing is for certain: there's no movement by any of the political forces in those countries towards a pan-Islamist caliphate.

[Minister_of_Information]

gatorev, that sounds dangerously close to advocating the neoconservative point of view.

Which I endorse.

[gatorev12]

gatorev, that sounds dangerously close to advocating the neoconservative point of view.

Which I endorse.

There are parts of it I do endorse...and from certain angles, one can certainly see sound strategy (even victory) involved too.

But the high human cost has dampened my enthusiasm of the overall affair. I never deployed to Iraq and didn't know anyone who passed away there--but many of my former colleagues did deploy and did witness close friends and colleagues go down. Talking with other veterans and hearing those stories makes me question if there weren't other ways of achieving the same thing.

Because it's certainly undoubted that there were numerous failures along the way and many strategic mistakes.

[Minister_of_Information]

The neoconservative project is a fundamentally antitotalitarian project which is naturally going to arouse my sympathy as a patriot, so I tend to cut it some slack. It never promised anyone a rose garden, but it was hoped that getting rid of totalitarian regimes when and where possible would gradually improve the world, and I find that line of reasoning to be sound. Yes there are costs, and they are terrible, but I can't find an alternative that leads to a more desirable outcome. Either we believe our founding creed or we do not, and either we are willing to confront evil, or we are not. Saddam's regime was going to continue indefinitely without intervention, and his removal was justified by every standard save Chomsky's many times over. I'm fairly certain that the average Iraqi prefers the uncertain future they are faced with now over their totalitarian -- even dystopian -- past. Note that gratitude towards or sympathy with the US is not required.

[co_gator89]

So you're ok with the notion of American blood being spilt so Mrs. Mohammed can vote? Because I'm not. Neoconservatism is dangerous and thankfully it's adherents have been discredited over the last decade.

“America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom.” -John Quincy Adams

[HALLGATOR]

The neoconservative project is a fundamentally antitotalitarian project which is naturally going to arouse my sympathy as a patriot, so I tend to cut it some slack. It never promised anyone a rose garden, but it was hoped that getting rid of totalitarian regimes when and where possible would gradually improve the world, and I find that line of reasoning to be sound. Yes there are costs, and they are terrible, but I can't find an alternative that leads to a more desirable outcome. Either we believe our founding creed or we do not, and either we are willing to confront evil, or we are not. Saddam's regime was going to continue indefinitely without intervention, and his removal was justified by every standard save Chomsky's many times over. I'm fairly certain that the average Iraqi prefers the uncertain future they are faced with now over their totalitarian -- even dystopian -- past. Note that gratitude towards or sympathy with the US is not required.

You don't have to answer this question but I can't help but wonder if you have a son or sons old enough to be killed in one of these wars. If you say you do then I will agree you have a perspective on it but if you don't then I will add it is hard to understand what you don't have in this regard.

[vertigo0923]

i tend to agree with john q. adam's position, posted above. and up til last monday i certainly did have a son serving. it's over for me. no more fear and sleepless nights while he's in afghanistan. or talking to a tearful wife, who's just missing him, but lives two hours earlier in a different time zone (cali). if you have a son, or a spouse, or brother....old enough, or one that has served in the past, and who's departures caused you much panic, and i'm sure it sucked worse for them, anyhow, you will find yourself 'anti war' unless 'attacked'. end of story.

[Minister_of_Information]

So you're ok with the notion of American blood being spilt so Mrs. Mohammed can vote? Because I'm not. Neoconservatism is dangerous and thankfully it's adherents have been discredited over the last decade.

“America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom.” -John Quincy Adams

Totalitarian regimes are cankers, blights on the human spirit that hold future wars inside them like pus. Given your avatar I'd expect you to appreciate that.

[ChartsandGrafs]

The neoconservative project is a fundamentally antitotalitarian project which is naturally going to arouse my sympathy as a patriot, so I tend to cut it some slack. It never promised anyone a rose garden, but it was hoped that getting rid of totalitarian regimes when and where possible would gradually improve the world, and I find that line of reasoning to be sound.

You mean, this was merely the justification given to the public for the neoconservative agenda in the Middle East. Spreading fake "freedom" and non-existent "democracy" is always the cover story used for these types of military adventures, and like many Americans, you swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

What I find interesting about you is, as far as government justifications for gun control are concerned, you are 100% B.S. resistant. You can cut through that nonsense like a laser through hot garbage. But when it comes to government justifications for empire building and aggressive warfare abroad, you seem completely paralyzed and incapable of critical, independent thought. You believe whatever they tell you without question.

How does that work?

[gatorev12]

i tend to agree with john q. adam's position, posted above. and up til last monday i certainly did have a son serving. it's over for me. no more fear and sleepless nights while he's in afghanistan. or talking to a tearful wife, who's just missing him, but lives two hours earlier in a different time zone (cali). if you have a son, or a spouse, or brother....old enough, or one that has served in the past, and who's departures caused you much panic, and i'm sure it sucked worse for them, anyhow, you will find yourself 'anti war' unless 'attacked'. end of story.

Well vert, you're, of course, entitled to your own opinion (moreso than most even given your sacrifices--and yes, those on the home front-the family and friends-serve just as much as those in the military) and I certainly won't speak ill of it.

But while there are many things I question from time to time about the tactical and strategic goals we've employed in current and past wars, I'm enough of a humanist to want our country to stand up for the ideals upon which we were founded. It's impractical and impossible to expect us to do so in every occasion and everywhere--but it's a worthwhile pursuit in many (if not most) instances. I don't claim to speak for all veterans and/or current military personnel, but it's certainly been my anecdotal experience to say that many in the military feel very similar.

France and the UK are both countries we could emulate a bit better in that regard--they're both certainly very active diplomatically and militarily in various regions around the world, but pick and choose their battles and the extent of their involvement a bit better than we do.

[Minister_of_Information]

You don't have to answer this question but I can't help but wonder if you have a son or sons old enough to be killed in one of these wars. If you say you do then I will agree you have a perspective on it but if you don't then I will add it is hard to understand what you don't have in this regard.

No I do not have children of any age. Feel free to use that information in any way you see fit.

I have some news for you all. Every single one of us is going to die. And that right soon. Death is not the worst thing that can happen to a person. And I think that most people, when they are pushed into a personal awareness of their own mortality, are at least capable of courage.

I do not will that anyone's sons die, but nor do I believe that devotion to principle is the source of all misery and suffering on earth. I do not know who made war, but war exists and it isn't going anywhere anytime soon. And until it does go we are going to have to make choices and strategize about the future. And that will entail placing sons and daughters in harm's way.

If saying that makes me the bad guy, I am willing to be the bad guy.

[gatorev12]

What I find interesting about you is, as far as government justifications for gun control are concerned, you are 100% B.S. resistant. You can cut through that nonsense like a laser through hot garbage. But when it comes to government justifications for empire building and aggressive warfare abroad, you seem completely paralyzed and incapable of critical, independent thought. You believe whatever they tell you without question.

How does that work?

...as if you're capable of any critical, independent thought involving any narrative involving a massive, world-wide conspiracy involving a multitude of dastardly, super-human villains--most of which involve the Disney Corporation and their elite cartoon assassins/super-agents.

[Minister_of_Information]

You mean, this was merely the justification given to the public for the neoconservative agenda in the Middle East. Spreading fake "freedom" and non-existent "democracy" is always the cover story used for these types of military adventures, and like many Americans, you swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

What I find interesting about you is, as far as government justifications for gun control are concerned, you are 100% B.S. resistant. You can cut through that nonsense like a laser through hot garbage. But when it comes to government justifications for empire building and aggressive warfare abroad, you seem completely paralyzed and incapable of critical, independent thought. You believe whatever they tell you without question.

How does that work?

You seem to have difficulty accepting the necessity of the modern state, at least for the time being. I'm not saying that it can't be changed, eventually, but until it does we must deal in reality.

[ChartsandGrafs]

You seem to have difficulty accepting the necessity of the modern state, at least for the time being. I'm not saying that it can't be changed, eventually, but until it does we must deal in reality.

What reality is that? The one in which the same government that lies to you about their reasons for gun control and other highly questionable domestic policies is all of a sudden truthful about their foreign policies?

"Yeah, we want to tyrannically restrict your access to firearms so you have no ability to resist a tyrannical government here at home, but we're fighting that war in the Middle East to protect people from tyranny. You believe us, don't you? Of course you do."

Seriously, what kind of mental gymnastics do you have to perform to make this obviously ridiculous narrative believable?

[Minister_of_Information]

We fight wars because they serve our interests, and yes sometimes that includes wars of liberation and prevention.

[HALLGATOR]

No I do not have children of any age. Feel free to use that information in any way you see fit.

I have some news for you all. Every single one of us is going to die. And that right soon. Death is not the worst thing that can happen to a person. And I think that most people, when they are pushed into a personal awareness of their own mortality, are at least capable of courage.

I do not will that anyone's sons die, but nor do I believe that devotion to principle is the source of all misery and suffering on earth. I do not know who made war, but war exists and it isn't going anywhere anytime soon. And until it does go we are going to have to make choices and strategize about the future. And that will entail placing sons and daughters in harm's way.

If saying that makes me the bad guy, I am willing to be the bad guy.


It's quite easy to treat death as a philosophical endeavor when we are sitting behind a keyboard. However death is really real and no amount of poetic waxing takes anything away from that. I also believe it is quite easy to sit behind a keyboard and talk about death when the death is not our own. Sending others into situations where they may forfeit their lives is the greatest responsibility our elected officials have in my opinion. All too often I find them extremely wanting in that regard and I also find those who love to push them in that direction wanting as well.

You can have devotion to principal and still not be ready to jump into the closest military conflict because it looks good on paper or someone says there is good cause for it. That war exists is a given. That we all too often are ready to bring it into existence is also a given. Personally I believe we should expend as much or more effort in avoiding war as we do in embracing it.

[gatorev12]

Seriously, what kind of mental gymnastics do you have to perform to make this obviously ridiculous narrative believable?

I'm sure you could give us all some pointers on the mental process needed to ignore facts, reason, and any semblance of logic in 90% of the ridiculous posts you troll away with.

For someone so wedded to the idea of "asking questions"--you seem completely unwilling to answer any questions directed at you or your utterly ridiculous narratives. ie: if you can't defend your own arguments, you're obviously haven't put much thought into questioning your own narrative and accept it on blind faith.

So really, me calling you a troll is actually a compliment since I'm assuming you're doing this for entertainment or other attention-seeking purposes and not actually believing any of the ridiculousness you espouse.

[vertigo0923]

It's quite easy to treat death as a philosophical endeavor when we are sitting behind a keyboard. However death is really real and no amount of poetic waxing takes anything away from that. I also believe it is quite easy to sit behind a keyboard and talk about death when the death is not our own. Sending others into situations where they may forfeit their lives is the greatest responsibility our elected officials have in my opinion. All too often I find them extremely wanting in that regard and I also find those who love to push them in that direction wanting as well.

You can have devotion to principal and still not be ready to jump into the closest military conflict because it looks good on paper or someone says there is good cause for it. That war exists is a given. That we all too often are ready to bring it into existence is also a given. Personally I believe we should expend as much or more effort in avoiding war as we do in embracing it.


this.

[ChartsandGrafs]

We fight wars because they serve our interests, and yes sometimes that includes wars of liberation and prevention.

Correction: We fight wars because it serves the interests of the ruling oligarchy and their banks and corporations. Liberation and prevention have absolutely nothing to do with it, either.

Don't take it from me, though. Here's a link to Smedley Butler's War is a Racket. Read and learn:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.pdf

[ChartsandGrafs]

I'm sure you could give us all some pointers on the mental process needed to ignore facts, reason, and any semblance of logic in 90% of the ridiculous posts you troll away with.

For someone so wedded to the idea of "asking questions"--you seem completely unwilling to answer any questions directed at you or your utterly ridiculous narratives. ie: if you can't defend your own arguments, you're obviously haven't put much thought into questioning your own narrative and accept it on blind faith.

So really, me calling you a troll is actually a compliment since I'm assuming you're doing this for entertainment or other attention-seeking purposes and not actually believing any of the ridiculousness you espouse.

When did you become such a victim?

[AmericaFirst]

gatorev, that sounds dangerously close to advocating the neoconservative point of view.

Which I endorse.



So you endorse the policy of being Israel's slave and fighting nonstop wars around the world at all times?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

[AmericaFirst]

We fight wars because they serve our interests, and yes sometimes that includes wars of liberation and prevention.




No, we don't.

[AmericaFirst]

Feel free to imagine whatever you like -- you do it anyway.



You endorse ethnic cleansing? Do you see these policies in the USA? Israel is a terrorist state with absolutely despicable racial laws in place against the Palestinians.


http://imeu.net/news/article0021536.shtml



Institutionalized discrimination
There are more than 30 laws that discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel. directly or indirectly, based solely on their ethnicity, rendering them second or third class citizens in their own homeland.

93% of the land in Israel is owned either by the state or by quasi-governmental agencies, such as the Jewish National Fund, that discriminate against non-Jews. Palestinian citizens of Israel face significant legal obstacles in gaining access to this land for agriculture, residence, or commercial development.

More than seventy Palestinian villages and communities in Israel, some of which pre-date the establishment of the state, are unrecognized by the government, receive no services, and are not even listed on official maps. Many other towns with a majority Palestinian population lack basic services and receive significantly less government funding than do majority-Jewish towns.

Since Israel's founding in 1948, more than 600 Jewish municipalities have been established, while not a single new Arab town or community has been recognized by the state.

Israeli government resources are disproportionately directed to Jews and not to Arabs, one factor in causing the Palestinians of Israel to suffer the lowest living standards in Israeli society by all socio-economic indicators.

Government funding for Arab schools is far below that of Jewish schools. According to data published in 2004, the government provides three times as much funding to Jewish students than it does to Arab students.

According to the 2009 US State Department International Religious Freedom Report, “Many of the national and municipal policies in Jerusalem were designed to limit or diminish the non-Jewish population of Jerusalem.”

In the Spring of 2011, Jerusalem city councilman Yakir Segev stated: “We will not allow residents of the eastern [occupied Palestinian] part of the city to build as much as they need... At the end of the day, however politically incorrect it may be to say, we will also look at the demographic situation in Jerusalem to make sure that in another 20 years we don't wake up in an Arab city.”

The Nationality and Entry into Israel Law prevents Palestinians from the occupied territories who are married to Palestinian citizens of Israel from gaining residency or citizenship status. The law forces thousands of Palestinian citizens of Israel to either leave Israel or live apart from their families.

[AmericaFirst]

Row, why don't you explain Ba'ath pan-Arab national socialist ideology and its historical connections to and sympathy with the Nazi regime.



Ironic that you mention the Nazis given that Israel is one of the few remaining countries in the world that carries out ethnic cleansing aka Nazi ideology.

[Row6]

It's quite easy to treat death as a philosophical endeavor when we are sitting behind a keyboard. However death is really real and no amount of poetic waxing takes anything away from that. I also believe it is quite easy to sit behind a keyboard and talk about death when the death is not our own. Sending others into situations where they may forfeit their lives is the greatest responsibility our elected officials have in my opinion. All too often I find them extremely wanting in that regard and I also find those who love to push them in that direction wanting as well.

You can have devotion to principal and still not be ready to jump into the closest military conflict because it looks good on paper or someone says there is good cause for it. That war exists is a given. That we all too often are ready to bring it into existence is also a given. Personally I believe we should expend as much or more effort in avoiding war as we do in embracing it.

With vertigo, I second your post, and add that Hagel is driven by the same opinion.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I respect the opinion of you and others who post on this but I've argued this thing too many times to have a change of heart on how I see it. As I said earlier it is in the past and no amount of discussion will ever bring any of our soldiers back nor will it restore any of the money we spent. I just hope that we are not so fast to mount an invasion of Iran although I do believe we have many in this country who would be in favor of it. I, however, am not one of those.

Fair enough

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

If you ever uncover a therapy that forces a person to think logically and lucidly about the facts rather than to resort to hysterics, please promise me that you will first test it out on yourself.

:laugh:

unpossible!

[co_gator89]

We fight wars because they serve our interests, and yes sometimes that includes wars of liberation and prevention.

And unprovoked wars of aggression too?

[co_gator89]

Another suicide bombing. More dead Iraqis.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2013-02/03/c_132148267.htm

So do Iraqis prefer to be killed by terrorists or Saddam?

[Row6]

Most Iraqis say they are worse off than prior to the war. Baghdad has been rated the worst city in the world to live in.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Iraqbetterworseoff.png?mobile=wp

[Minister_of_Information]

So you endorse the policy of being Israel's slave and fighting nonstop wars around the world at all times?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

I endorse the annihilation of all Palestinian terrorist organizations.

[Minister_of_Information]

And unprovoked wars of aggression too?

I wonder what facile line of 'reasoning' allows you to characterize the Iraq war as "unprovoked."

[Minister_of_Information]

Another suicide bombing. More dead Iraqis.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2013-02/03/c_132148267.htm

So do Iraqis prefer to be killed by terrorists or Saddam?

Bring back the comfy totalitarian terror and torture!

[Minister_of_Information]

No, we don't.

Yes, we do.

[gatorev12]

Ironic that you mention the Nazis given that Israel is one of the few remaining countries in the world that carries out ethnic cleansing aka Nazi ideology.

What a despicable lie.

If you want evidence of what ethic cleansing done by the Nazis looks like, look up pictures of Auschwitz, Bergen, and the others.

The Israelis may not like the Palestinians, but they damn sure aren't starving them to death and/or murdering them by the tens of thousands each day.

To even equate the two is despicable, but that's typical of your posting style.

[gatorev12]

When did you become such a victim?

We're all victims in that "everyone in this room is now dumber" for having listened to anything you said.

Forgive me Billy Madison quote--the opportunity was just too good to pass up.

[AmericaFirst]

I endorse the annihilation of all Palestinian terrorist organizations.



As I endorse the annihilation of the Zionist regime. No peace can be accomplished until they get thrown out of power.

[AmericaFirst]

What a despicable lie.

If you want evidence of what ethic cleansing done by the Nazis looks like, look up pictures of Auschwitz, Bergen, and the others.

The Israelis may not like the Palestinians, but they damn sure aren't starving them to death and/or murdering them by the tens of thousands each day.

To even equate the two is despicable, but that's typical of your posting style.



It's called reading comprehension and while you're at it, learn the definition of ethnic cleansing. It's not the same as genocide. The Israeli policy towards the Palestinians is Nazi policy towards the Jews leading up to World War II IE: taking away all of their rights, not accepting their citizenship, and not giving them the same educational opportunities.

Ethnic cleansing (compare Serbo-Croatian etničko čišćenje[1]) is the process or policy of eliminating unwanted ethnic or religious groups by deportation, forcible displacement, mass murder, or by threats of such acts, with the intent of creating a territory inhabited by people of a homogeneous or pure ethnicity, religion, culture, and history. Ethnic cleansing usually involves attempts to remove physical and cultural evidence of the targeted group in the territory through the destruction of homes, social centers, farms, and infrastructure, and by the desecration of monuments, cemeteries, and places of worship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing

According to The Institute For Middle East Understanding, that is what they're doing right now.

http://imeu.net/news/article0021536.shtml

I hope the Palestinians keep fighting them until they are liberated from this oppression. How ANY American can support such despicable policy towards an entire group of people is beyond me.

Palestinians fighting for land they lost and freedom = "Terrorism"

The real terrorists are the Zionist regime.

[Minister_of_Information]

There is an interesting thread of antisemitism on the left, sometimes even among leftist Jews.

[AmericaFirst]

There is an interesting thread of antisemitism on the left, sometimes even among leftist Jews.



Jews that don't support Israel don't support them for two reasons.

1. They're more loyal to their home country as they should be. Many American Jews have never been to Israel. Why should Israel be significant to them?
2. They realize the Palestinians are being wrongfully persecuted and Jews of all people should know what that is like. As it is, Zionism uses (despicably) past persecution of Jews to justify their radical policies towards the Palestinians.



Disagree that there's "anti-semitism" on the left but if there's anti-semitism on the left, there's a boatload of Islamaphobia among the neoconservatives.

[gatorev12]

According to The Institute For Middle East Understanding, that is what they're doing right now.


Imagine that...a Palestinian advocacy group advocating for Palestinian rights with sensationalist and misleading headlines.

Palestinians fighting for land they lost and freedom = "Terrorism"


Yup. Because the Palestinian terrorists don't distinguish between civilian and military targets. They pretty much are cool with the idea of killing any Jew they can. Killing civilians to advance a political cause is the very definition of terrorism.

Perhaps you can attempt to explain why Arab governments adopted their own "ethnic cleansing" towards the Jews from 1947 onwards. There used to be thousands of Jews in countries like Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Egypt...all were expelled following the creation of Israel.

...should they be compensated for the land that was taken from them too? For the "ethnic cleansing" that forced them to leave their homes and business?

[ChartsandGrafs]

There is an interesting thread of antisemitism on the left, sometimes even among leftist Jews.

There's also an interesting thread of Nazism on the right, sometimes even among non-Jewish neocon cheerleaders.

[ChartsandGrafs]

What a despicable lie.

If you want evidence of what ethic cleansing done by the Nazis looks like, look up pictures of Auschwitz, Bergen, and the others.

The Israelis may not like the Palestinians, but they damn sure aren't starving them to death and/or murdering them by the tens of thousands each day.

To even equate the two is despicable, but that's typical of your posting style.

LOLOLOLOL!

It's only ethnic cleansing if it involves concentration camps?

LOLOLOLOL!

[CHFG8R]

Correction: We fight wars because it serves the interests of the ruling oligarchy and their banks and corporations. Liberation and prevention have absolutely nothing to do with it, either.

Don't take it from me, though. Here's a link to Smedley Butler's War is a Racket. Read and learn:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.pdf

Aren't these pretty much the same. I'm not as deep into this as you, but I do believe there is far to much power wielded by these entities. I don't deny that, at some point, the Rothchilds, etc. created this system with their own interests in mind. But at this point I just see it more as a machine than a roundtable of dastardly villians. And the machine must be fed. And the machine eats money.

Lastly, I have zero doubt that the top executives at Goldman, Chase, Exxon, Shell, etc. have more loyalty to their Corporations and their profits than they do to the United States, the Constitution, etc. Hell, they are so big - with deep, imbedded bureaucrasies - they might as well be countries.

[CHFG8R]

As I endorse the annihilation of the Zionist regime. No peace can be accomplished until they get thrown out of power.

I endourse the annihilation of the entire region, for what it's worth. Hate them all. Wish this country would figure out a way - stop using their oil - to just give them all our backs for eternity. Most worthless, unredeemable region, culture and people on the planet earth.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Aren't these pretty much the same. I'm not as deep into this as you, but I do believe there is far to much power wielded by these entities. I don't deny that, at some point, the Rothchilds, etc. created this system with their own interests in mind. But at this point I just see it more as a machine than a roundtable of dastardly villians. And the machine must be fed. And the machine eats money.

Lastly, I have zero doubt that the top executives at Goldman, Chase, Exxon, Shell, etc. have more loyalty to their Corporations and their profits than they do to the United States, the Constitution, etc. Hell, they are so big - with deep, imbedded bureaucrasies - they might as well be countries.

Yes, the machine must be fed, but you also have to consider why the machine was created in the first place. It didn't just happen by accident. One doesn't build a battering ram without having the idea to knock a few doors down.

In other words, there's more than just a lust for profit at stake in war, there's hegemonic control as well.

[Minister_of_Information]

There's also an interesting thread of Nazism on the right, sometimes even among non-Jewish neocon cheerleaders.

He called me a Nazi. So much for my arguments!

[gatorev12]

He called me a Nazi. So much for my arguments!

I'm surprised he didn't use "LOLOLOL" repeatedly like the master internetz genius he is.

a credit to internet trolls the world over

[ChartsandGrafs]

He called me a Nazi. So much for my arguments!

Is that what you call 'em? I was thinking more along the lines of "meaningless platitudes":

"We fight wars because they serve 'our' interests!"

"We're over there fight tyranny!"

"We're liberating people!"

Not up to your usual, thoughtful standard.

[Minister_of_Information]

Is that what you call 'em? I was thinking more along the lines of "meaningless platitudes":

"We fight wars because they serve 'our' interests!"

"We're over there fight tyranny!"

"We're liberating people!"

Not up to your usual, thoughtful standard.

Yep. That's what I call 'em.

[CHFG8R]

Yes, the machine must be fed, but you also have to consider why the machine was created in the first place. It didn't just happen by accident. One doesn't build a battering ram without having the idea to knock a few doors down.

In other words, there's more than just a lust for profit at stake in war, there's hegemonic control as well.

So, who are these people? I think the system is more a prisoner of its own intertia than a handfull of Snerdly Whiplashes plotting the domination of the world. I don't doubt there are those who might like the idea of, say, a world government based on the current Chinese model, but it isn't as easy as throwing a switch or making some phone calls. There are still major obstacles in the way of folks like that. Goldman/Exxon could care less whether it's the US model or the Chinese model or something in between so long as the system continues to work for them. And they are well positioned to make sure it does either way.

[ChartsandGrafs]

So, who are these people?

It's hard to know who the real power players are at any one time, as there are numerous ways to hide wealth and power behind trusts, tax-exempt foundations, front companies, and shell corporations, but this is a good start in understanding who's carrying out the agenda of the ruling oligarchs at the NGO/think tank/corporate level, though:

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/03/naming-names-your-real-government.html

I think the system is more a prisoner of its own intertia than a handfull of Snerdly Whiplashes plotting the domination of the world. I don't doubt there are those who might like the idea of, say, a world government based on the current Chinese model, but it isn't as easy as throwing a switch or making some phone calls.

Nobody ever suggested it was easy to do away with national sovereignty in favor of world government, but it's still happening in incremental steps. And the agenda for global governance isn't a formal conspiracy, it's an ideological conspiracy. Internationalists simply don't believe in borders, national identities, and international competition amongst nation-states.

There are still major obstacles in the way of folks like that. Goldman/Exxon could care less whether it's the US model or the Chinese model or something in between so long as the system continues to work for them. And they are well positioned to make sure it does either way.

Yes, and the best way to make sure the system continues to work for the ruling class is take total global control of it via a supranational, unelected world government. It's too difficult to monopolize markets without first monopolizing government, and that is their goal, on a world scale.

[AmericaFirst]

I endourse the annihilation of the entire region, for what it's worth. Hate them all. Wish this country would figure out a way - stop using their oil - to just give them all our backs for eternity. Most worthless, unredeemable region, culture and people on the planet earth.



We agree on that. The Middle East is no place for the United States, a country of many religions. Religion rules in the Middle East from a governing standpoint. We don't need to have even one base in that part of the world.

[vertigo0923]

With vertigo, I second your post, and add that Hagel is driven by the same opinion.

i definitely agree that's probably the way Hagel sees it, being as he was enlisted, and that does carry a lot of weight with me. he understands, he really gets it.

[Row6]

i definitely agree that's probably the way Hagel sees it, being as he was enlisted, and that does carry a lot of weight with me. he understands, he really gets it.

And unlike his Neo-con critics like McCain and Graham, who sought his apologee for not being willing to sacrifice more troops in an effort to prove them right, he is able to face a mistake and learn from it.

[fredsanford]

Thank goodness the pubs in congress were able to point out what a dangerous lunatic they allowed to be part of their caucus for decades.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

He called me a Nazi. So much for my arguments!

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/185/nickcage.jpeg