RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ

RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Zonie63 -> RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ (10/30/2014 7:03:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy OK. I don't have a forgiving view of ISIS --- Really? Because your posts would indicate otherwise...your posts would indicate that whatever ISIS does is ultimately our fault. quote: Our hands, however, are not clean in this matter. No kidding. Something I've noted in my last several responses to you. But the one thing our torturing hands are clean of? Beheading. Does that really make that much of a difference in your eyes? Does it really matter if we shoot someone or bomb them from the air or put them to death by lethal injection? Just as long as we don't behead anyone, then that makes us morally superior? Not what I said...though that matters little to you. It seems that you've been trying to point out differences between "us" and "them" and implying that we have some kind of moral imperative (such as your earlier statement that "we do it only to terrorists while they do it to innocents"). Since that didn't hold up to scrutiny, now you're saying that there's one thing we haven't done that they have: Beheading. That you seem to think it's even a relevant point at all would suggest that you still think there's a difference between "us" and "them."

YouName -> RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ (10/30/2014 7:38:42 PM)
The Iraq War isn't lost, it's won. All applicable goals have been reached. Oil prices are plummeting due to rebels selling to any bidder. OPEC thus weakened. The middle east is in chaos. Huge amounts of wealth re-distributed to special interest groups within the defence industry. A total shakedown of the status quo in the region making new alliances possible. Expect a switch towards Iran, against Saudi Arabia in the next 20 years. Russias weakness generally exposed in the region. Chinas weakness generally exposed. Division of strong unitary states into minor, wartorn republics incapable of independent policy. Just imagine all the new laws that have been passed curtailing freedoms at no financial gain. Or the spread of emigration to Europe, burdening our welfarestates. Read the Brezhinski doctrine. It couldn't have gone better. It's all good IMO. Really don't see where anyone failed with anything.

cloudboy -> RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ (11/9/2014 6:33:58 AM)
I just read: My Captivity Theo Padnos, American Journalist, on Being Kidnapped, Tortured and Released in Syria http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/magazine/theo-padnos-american-journalist-on-being-kidnapped-tortured-and-released-in-syria.html?_r=0 ------ My takeaway was how little good will the USA built up in the Region after spending $1 Billion Dollars there. Large swaths of extremists "hate Americans." One Prison guard in the story said, "the US killed 1 million IRAQIs." Without getting into the numbers, we simply didn't win many friends besides the Kurds. Was interesting to see the Divide between the Nursra Front and ISIS was mainly about who would control the oil fields.

JeffBC -> RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ (11/9/2014 11:00:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies What he wanted to say was that his predecessor was a fucking idiot who left him up to his neck in shit Perhaps, but honestly I've got about as much use for the deluded liberals as I do for the deluded conservatives. We can only specualte what he "wanted" to say. But what he DID say was an utter and total lie... not out of line with the rest of his presidency. I'm always amused at how the liberals like to laugh at the conservatives for lapping up the propaganda and then go ahead and do exactly the same thing.

tj444 -> RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ (11/9/2014 3:14:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I just read: My Captivity Theo Padnos, American Journalist, on Being Kidnapped, Tortured and Released in Syria http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/magazine/theo-padnos-american-journalist-on-being-kidnapped-tortured-and-released-in-syria.html?_r=0 ------ My takeaway was how little good will the USA built up in the Region after spending $1 Billion Dollars there. Large swaths of extremists "hate Americans." One Prison guard in the story said, "the US killed 1 million IRAQIs." Without getting into the numbers, we simply didn't win many friends besides the Kurds. Was interesting to see the Divide between the Nursra Front and ISIS was mainly about who would control the oil fields. but the purpose of going into Iraq was never to "build good will".. and the US went in under a ruse, a lie, and dragged some of its allies in there with it.. when the lie was found out, the US lost a lot of "good will" among its allies and other countries too..

Aylee -> RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ (11/9/2014 3:28:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny FR A little off topic. Is there anyone else out there who thinks Saddam wanted people to think he had WMD? His military had been all but wiped out in Gulf War I and he had enemies on all sides. Especially in Iran. He didn't have many options for keeping them away except for the threat of something massive. Is it possible the fucked up intel was a way to call his bluff in order to take him out? Last month there were stories all over the place about the WMDs that were found in Iraq. One of the issues was that the stories were covered up and the soliders who WERE injured by them did not receive proper treatment.

Aylee -> RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ (11/9/2014 3:36:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy My main complaint about the right in the USA is how it trucks in bad information. The other problem with Americans is that they forget stuff too soon. Hence my inclination to remind everyone of what actually happened during the Iraq war. Loved your comment on the other thread about pacifying Americans by lacing the drinking water with Valium. Must say I did not riot in protest over the Iraq war. Maybe that was a mistake. Hillary, who voted for the war, is now criticizing Obama for its aftermath. Lacing the water with Valium, huh. I can see why you both of you would like that. It would create mass abortion and miscarriage of babies. THe only good baby is a dead baby! Ya know, you all are just not right.

Aylee -> RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ (11/9/2014 3:41:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy OK. I don't have a forgiving view of ISIS -- but what struck me about reading the NYT piece --- how that made me feel about them -- they have the same type of reasons to feel upset about us. Believe me I don't like or condone the snatching and torture of aid workers, journalists, and other Westerns for kidnap, torture, ransom, and murder. Our hands, however, are not clean in this matter. But mass executions of Christians, is okay, right? And enslavement of women? I thought so.

Politesub53 -> RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ (11/9/2014 4:03:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee But mass executions of Christians, is okay, right? And enslavement of women? I thought so. Are you saying your idea of dropping a nuke on the area would somehow not affect these same women and Christians ?

Aylee -> RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ (11/9/2014 7:12:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee But mass executions of Christians, is okay, right? And enslavement of women? I thought so. Are you saying your idea of dropping a nuke on the area would somehow not affect these same women and Christians ? Those who were still alive would be able to leave before the nukes as we leaflet areas first. But why would you care? THey are women and are just property that does not need concern or protection.

tweakabelle -> RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ (11/10/2014 5:03:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee But mass executions of Christians, is okay, right? And enslavement of women? I thought so. Are you saying your idea of dropping a nuke on the area would somehow not affect these same women and Christians ? Those who were still alive would be able to leave before the nukes as we leaflet areas first. But why would you care? THey are women and are just property that does not need concern or protection. It's astonishing that someone who is advocating dropping nukes on any area inhabited by humans is professing concern (albeit a highly selective concern) about innocent victims, no matter their gender creed or colour. I don't see how any one who nukes areas inhabited by civilians, with the enormous loss of innocent lives that would necessarily entail, is in any way morally superior or politically preferable to the Neanderthal bloodthirsty thugs of IS. I'm glad that I have never understood a mindset or ideology that advocates mass slaughter as means of liberation. Killing civilians doesn't free them from tyranny - it kills them.

Lucylastic -> RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ (11/10/2014 5:11:42 AM)
you are too kind Tweak way too kind.

Politesub53 -> RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ (11/10/2014 3:43:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee But mass executions of Christians, is okay, right? And enslavement of women? I thought so. Are you saying your idea of dropping a nuke on the area would somehow not affect these same women and Christians ? Those who were still alive would be able to leave before the nukes as we leaflet areas first. But why would you care? THey are women and are just property that does not need concern or protection. Yes yes Aylee. Keep spouting shit I have never said. You just make yourself into more of a liar day by day. As for the idea leafleting people in a war torn nation somehow enables them to out run nuclear fallout...... Youre a fucking joke.

Politesub53 -> RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ (11/10/2014 3:44:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic you are too kind Tweak way too kind. So am I..... [;)]

deathtothepixies -> RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ (11/10/2014 4:05:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YouName The Iraq War isn't lost, it's won. All applicable goals have been reached. Oil prices are plummeting due to rebels selling to any bidder. OPEC thus weakened. The middle east is in chaos. Huge amounts of wealth re-distributed to special interest groups within the defence industry. A total shakedown of the status quo in the region making new alliances possible. Expect a switch towards Iran, against Saudi Arabia in the next 20 years. Russias weakness generally exposed in the region. Chinas weakness generally exposed. Division of strong unitary states into minor, wartorn republics incapable of independent policy. Just imagine all the new laws that have been passed curtailing freedoms at no financial gain. Or the spread of emigration to Europe, burdening our welfarestates. Read the Brezhinski doctrine. It couldn't have gone better. It's all good IMO. Really don't see where anyone failed with anything. I can see one massive failure your post

cloudboy -> RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ (11/11/2014 9:41:11 PM)
Daniel Polger, a general who served in Afghanistan and IRAQ wrote a good piece in the NYT for Veterans Day. ---- AS a senior commander in Iraq and Afghanistan, I lost 80 soldiers. Despite their sacrifices, and those of thousands more, all we have to show for it are two failed wars. This fact eats at me every day, and Veterans Day is tougher than most. ------- He basically points out that US needs to avoid getting itself entangled in guerrilla wars where the enemy can disappear into the local population (Vietnam, Afghanistan, IRAQ) and stick to more conventional wars (Desert Storm.) He goes on to say, -------- Today we are hearing some, including those in uniform, argue for a robust ground offensive against the Islamic State in Iraq. Air attacks aren’t enough, we’re told. Our Kurdish and Iraqi Army allies are weak and incompetent. Only another surge can win the fight against this dire threat. Really? If insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, I think we’re there. As a veteran, and a general who learned hard lessons in two lost campaigns, I’d like to suggest an alternative. Maybe an incomplete and imperfect effort to contain the Islamic State is as good as it gets. Perhaps the best we can or should do is to keep it busy, “degrade” its forces, harry them or kill them, and seek the long game at the lowest possible cost. It’s not a solution that is likely to spawn a legend. But in the real world, it just may well give us something better than another defeat. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/opinion/the-truth-about-the-wars-in-iraq-and-afghanistan.html?ref=international&_r=1

Musicmystery -> RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ (11/12/2014 6:33:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny FR A little off topic. Is there anyone else out there who thinks Saddam wanted people to think he had WMD? His military had been all but wiped out in Gulf War I and he had enemies on all sides. Especially in Iran. He didn't have many options for keeping them away except for the threat of something massive. Is it possible the fucked up intel was a way to call his bluff in order to take him out? Last month there were stories all over the place about the WMDs that were found in Iraq. One of the issues was that the stories were covered up and the soliders who WERE injured by them did not receive proper treatment. Bullshit. Where are these "stories"?

MariaB -> RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ (11/12/2014 9:51:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy OK. I don't have a forgiving view of ISIS -- but what struck me about reading the NYT piece --- how that made me feel about them -- they have the same type of reasons to feel upset about us. Believe me I don't like or condone the snatching and torture of aid workers, journalists, and other Westerns for kidnap, torture, ransom, and murder. Our hands, however, are not clean in this matter. But mass executions of Christians, is okay, right? And enslavement of women? I thought so. No obviously not but then we have to ask, why America didn't take steps to help Rwanda where 800,000 died. Why didn't America step in and try and stop the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia where 1 million+ died? and why such little western interest in the Congo where 5.4 million Congolese have been killed, and an estimated 1,100 women brutally raped every single day? or Nixon's betrayal of Kurds, leading to genocide-100,000 deaths? USA is only an international policeman if it benefits them economically and politically.

cloudboy -> RE: Frontline: How the US lost IRAQ (11/30/2014 7:15:02 AM)
Thomas Friedman started an opinion piece with the following paragraph: DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Ever since the Arab awakening in late 2010, America has lurched from one policy response to another. We tried decapitation without invasion in Libya; it failed. We tried abdication in Syria; it failed. We tried democratization in Egypt, endorsing the election of the Muslim Brotherhood; it failed. We tried invasion, occupation, abdication and now re-intervention in Iraq and, although the jury is still out, only a fool would be optimistic. Chuck Hagel just stepped down. Does anyone feel that USA has learned any tough lessons from our foreign misadventures? Not sure anyone here has read WAR AND PEACE by Tolstoy, but the US actions abroad are all the polar opposite of the Russian General Kutusov and more closely mirror the stupid actions of Napoleon. (See Spark Notes below.) From Spark Notes: General Kutuzov The commander of the Russian forces against Napoleon, Kutuzov is old, fat, and one-eyed—hardly the archetypal image of military leadership. Yet Kutuzov is a brilliant strategist as well as a practiced philosopher of human nature, and Tolstoy’s respect for him is greater than for any other government functionary among the French or Russians—greater even than his respect for the somewhat oblivious Tsar Alexander. Kutuzov is humble and spiritual, in sharp contrast to the vain and self-absorbed Napoleon with his cold use of logic. After the Battle of Borodino, Kutuzov stops at a church procession and kneels in gratitude to a holy icon, demonstrating a humility of which Napoleon certainly would be incapable. Kutuzov is motivated by personal belief rather than the desire for acceptance, which makes his final fall from grace only a minor tragedy for him. Whereas Napoleon is always convinced of being absolutely right, Kutuzov is more realistic and wary about the state of things. He hesitates to declare a Russian victory at Borodino despite the obvious advantages of doing so, partly because the experiences of his long career have proved that reality is always more complex than one initially thinks. Such awareness of the mysteries of existence win Kutuzov our—and Tolstoy’s—approval

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 5 [6]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125