The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on April 27, 2015, 11:59:50 pm
-
http://www.newsmax.com/PrintTemplate.aspx/?nodeid=641101 (http://www.newsmax.com/PrintTemplate.aspx/?nodeid=641101)
Newsmax
Rand Paul: It Was a 'Mistake' to Overthrow Saddam Hussein
Monday, April 27, 2015 07:18 PM
By: Cathy Burke
Republican presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul says it was a big "mistake" to topple Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein – and that it may have made Iran "twice as strong as it was before the Iraq War."
Speaking to Orthodox Jews at the Torah Umesorah Hebrew Day School in Brooklyn, N.Y., Paul also said he doesn't support war with Iran over its nuclear bomb program, and blamed Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton for the turmoil in Libya after U.S. forces dumped Moammar Gadhafi, the New York Observer reports.
Paul also warns that any attempt to oust Syrian dictator Bashar Assad would only lead to the Islamic State's (ISIS) being "in charge of Damascus."
"Each time we topple a secular dictator, I think we wind up with chaos and radical Islam seems to rise," the libertarian-leaning Kentucky lawmaker told the conservative audience, the Observer reports.
"All the way back to the Iraq War, I think it was a mistake to topple Hussein," he said. "Hussein was the bulwark against Iran. The Sunnis didn't like the Shiites, now Iraq is a vassal state for Iran."
"I'm worried [Iran] is twice as strong as it was before the Iraq War."
Paul, who has been questioned about his support for Israel, attended the meeting in a bid to bolster his relationship with the Jewish community, The Hill reports.
"I think Israel is one of our best allies and best friends around the world. They're the only democracy in the Middle East, and I'm very supportive," he said.
But he contends that Clinton, as secretary of state, made a mess of things in the Middle East.
"Foreign policy has a spectrum," Paul said, the Observer reports. "Hillary's war in Libya is, was, and continues to be an utter disaster. Gadhafi wasn't a good guy, but he suppressed radical Islam. Now that Gadhafi is gone, the country is in civil war, the ambassador was killed, our embassy fled … the country is divided and a third of the country supports ISIS."
-
He is becoming increasingly difficult to credit him with a solid philosophy for our national security.
It was his Achilles Heel, with me. He is going backwards, not forwards, for credibility.
-
With which of his comments do you disagree, t_s?
-
It was a mistake to overthrow Saddam. That's why GHW Bush stopped short.
-
Pete Carroll: It Was a "Mistake" to Pass the Ball and Not Hand it to MarShawn Lynch.
Monday Morning quarterbacks have perfect completion records.
-
With which of his comments do you disagree, t_s?
I find that he is all across the map, on national security. He is inconsistent.
One day it is NOT okay to kill Americans overseas, but now it is.
-
The only mistake was not sticking to it 100%, putting in and supporting a favorable government, and truly kicking the a** of anyone who opposed us. We tried to be too politically correct (for lack of a better term) and the war was fought with lawyers looking over everyone's shoulders. It needed boldness but it needed to be done.
-
I find that he is all across the map, on national security. He is inconsistent.
One day it is NOT okay to kill Americans overseas, but now it is.
Perhaps he is, and I probably have some national security/foreign policy disagreements with him, too, but I was asking with which statements cited above - specifically - on Saddam Hussein do you disagree?
-
I admire Paul for saying what many Republicans think, but are afraid to express. That war was a $2 trillion mistake. We handed Iran a Sunni client state paid for by the US taxpayer.
If anything, the Monday morning quarterbacking is coming fro those who continue to try to justify that war by suggesting "if only" this or "if only" that. The truth is, the Iraq war cost the Republicans the congress in 2006 and was a big part of Dubya's unpopularity, which cost us the presidency in 2008.
It is only now that we are crawling out, and what are the Republicans doing? Beating the drums for war yet again, without thinking through who the real winners and losers will be if we become engaged.
I don't support OPapaDoc's policies, mostly because he projects weakness. But I am grateful for his resistance to jumping into some situations. His biggest mistakes were when he did get involved: Egypt and Libya.
Reagan was smart enough to see that the Middle East was a quagmire he wanted nothing to do with. I hope our next Republican president will as well. It is time we stopped the perpetual war. We have the resources domestically to become energy independent, so we no longer have an existential reason for taming the Middle East.
I say protect the homeland, let Muslims kill Muslims, and if anyone dares tread upon us, swiftly and unmercifully deal with them and then get the hell out.
-
Good post. Agree with much of it.
-
I admire Paul for saying what many Republicans think, but are afraid to express. That war was a $2 trillion mistake. We handed Iran a Sunni client state paid for by the US taxpayer.
If anything, the Monday morning quarterbacking is coming fro those who continue to try to justify that war by suggesting "if only" this or "if only" that. The truth is, the Iraq war cost the Republicans the congress in 2006 and was a big part of Dubya's unpopularity, which cost us the presidency in 2008.
It is only now that we are crawling out, and what are the Republicans doing? Beating the drums for war yet again, without thinking through who the real winners and losers will be if we become engaged.
I don't support OPapaDoc's policies, mostly because he projects weakness. But I am grateful for his resistance to jumping into some situations. His biggest mistakes were when he did get involved: Egypt and Libya.
Reagan was smart enough to see that the Middle East was a quagmire he wanted nothing to do with. I hope our next Republican president will as well. It is time we stopped the perpetual war. We have the resources domestically to become energy independent, so we no longer have an existential reason for taming the Middle East.
I say protect the homeland, let Muslims kill Muslims, and if anyone dares tread upon us, swiftly and unmercifully deal with them and then get the hell out.
:amen:
I'm so tired of war in the Middle East, let these barbarians fight it out among themselves without our help.
-
I admire Paul for saying what many Republicans think, but are afraid to express. That war was a $2 trillion mistake. We handed Iran a Sunni client state paid for by the US taxpayer.
If anything, the Monday morning quarterbacking is coming fro those who continue to try to justify that war by suggesting "if only" this or "if only" that. The truth is, the Iraq war cost the Republicans the congress in 2006 and was a big part of Dubya's unpopularity, which cost us the presidency in 2008.
It is only now that we are crawling out, and what are the Republicans doing? Beating the drums for war yet again, without thinking through who the real winners and losers will be if we become engaged.
I don't support OPapaDoc's policies, mostly because he projects weakness. But I am grateful for his resistance to jumping into some situations. His biggest mistakes were when he did get involved: Egypt and Libya.
Reagan was smart enough to see that the Middle East was a quagmire he wanted nothing to do with. I hope our next Republican president will as well. It is time we stopped the perpetual war. We have the resources domestically to become energy independent, so we no longer have an existential reason for taming the Middle East.
I say protect the homeland, let Muslims kill Muslims, and if anyone dares tread upon us, swiftly and unmercifully deal with them and then get the hell out.
:thumbsup3:
-
I admire Paul for saying what many Republicans think, but are afraid to express. That war was a $2 trillion mistake. We handed Iran a Sunni client state paid for by the US taxpayer.
If anything, the Monday morning quarterbacking is coming fro those who continue to try to justify that war by suggesting "if only" this or "if only" that. The truth is, the Iraq war cost the Republicans the congress in 2006 and was a big part of Dubya's unpopularity, which cost us the presidency in 2008.
It is only now that we are crawling out, and what are the Republicans doing? Beating the drums for war yet again, without thinking through who the real winners and losers will be if we become engaged.
I don't support OPapaDoc's policies, mostly because he projects weakness. But I am grateful for his resistance to jumping into some situations. His biggest mistakes were when he did get involved: Egypt and Libya.
Reagan was smart enough to see that the Middle East was a quagmire he wanted nothing to do with. I hope our next Republican president will as well. It is time we stopped the perpetual war. We have the resources domestically to become energy independent, so we no longer have an existential reason for taming the Middle East.
I say protect the homeland, let Muslims kill Muslims, and if anyone dares tread upon us, swiftly and unmercifully deal with them and then get the hell out.
I couldn't agree with you more. And to amplify on the point regarding war, this conservative, right wing, veteran, gun owning, potential domestic terrorist (per: DHS), is beyond tired of the US sending our sons and daughters to die for no good reason. I have said it to my liberal/moderate friends, I intensely dislike Obama, but I do agree with him not pulling the trigger on more military interventions.
-
The Sunnis didn't like the Shiites, now Iraq is a vassal state for Iran."
I agree with that part. For as long as the Mullah's remain in charge in Iran the Middle East will remain in turmoil!
-
I'm going to disagree with the majority here.
I still believe that it was the right decision to go into Iraq. There were mistakes along the way that prolonged the problems (causing the loss in 2006), but we had the country under control by 2008, and we had an ally in the ME.
The biggest problems were not the cost (war is expensive, and we had no rationing at home as in WWII), nor the loss of life (it was a very small number relative to any other war). The real problem was that the leftist media created a 'war weary' nation with their hostility toward Bush and our troops, when in reality, the only people in America who suffered because of the war were those of us who had sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters in harm's way.
The loss of Iraq in the hands of Barack HUSSEIN Obama was purely political and anti-American. If we had a patriot who followed Bush and any real journalists in the media, the memory of Iraq would be entirely different.
We would remember that we toppled a tyrant.
We would remember that Saddam was still at war with us in 2003.
We would remember that we killed thousands of terrorists during the conflict.
We would remember that we had an ally in the ME, however shaky.
True, the warring factions in the ME have thousands of years of history, but we DID create one stable country in the heart of the ME.
It is Obama who lost it.
-
He is becoming increasingly difficult to credit him with a solid philosophy for our national security.
It was his Achilles Heel, with me. He is going backwards, not forwards, for credibility.
Paul's a weather vane, the worst thing a politician can be.
-
All excellent points, m'lady. Which is why I had some reservation about massadvj's original post.
However I do agree with massadvj's larger point. I, too, would love to see a day when the US can extricate itself from the Middle East quagmire.
-
All excellent points, m'lady. Which is why I had some reservation about massadvj's original post.
However I do agree with massadvj's larger point. I, too, would love to see a day when the US can extricate itself from the Middle East quagmire.
No disagreement on that point other than in matters where our national security is at stake.
As long as the bad guys in the ME are targeting us ("Death to America") we're going to need to be involved there.
Not to be trite, but it is what it is. They hate us.
-
Guess all those scud missiles fired at Israel were just a little inconvenience. All those Saddam payments to terrorists attacking Israel....surely not a concern for Ron or Rand Paul.
As for those chemical weapons.......all those centrifuges were for pharmaceuticals, right!!!!
-
The only mistake was not sticking to it 100%, putting in and supporting a favorable government, and truly kicking the a** of anyone who opposed us. We tried to be too politically correct (for lack of a better term) and the war was fought with lawyers looking over everyone's shoulders. It needed boldness but it needed to be done.
I agree with both you and ML. The mistake wasn't the invasion and ultimate overthrow of Saddam, but the failure to follow through militarily. We didn't control the borders or secure the arms caches. We tossed the trained military aside as well as the government bureaucrats. We allowed Shiite firebrands to openly call for ;and perpetrate revolt.
As for the theory that toppling Saddam created ISIS, since both are (were) Sunnis, I doubt it. The mess we made in Syria plus our hurry to extricate ourselves from Iraq after the peace was finally secured were the primary causes of today's issues.
-
Was it needed? Yes, it was, though not for the reasons originally given. It could have waited a year or so though, allowing full focus on dealing with Afghanistan first. Still, the coalition was fragmenting and it was politically more expedient to strike while 9/11 was still a fresh sore in the world's mind.
We tossed the trained military aside ....
As for the theory that toppling Saddam created ISIS, since both are (were) Sunnis, I doubt it.
With respect, ISIS is the dismissed trained military - or at least a solid core of it. If the military had been left mostly intact and under no misunderstanding about what would and would not be considered acceptable by the US, they'd have shrugged and mostly agreed as a coup by another means.
-
Was it needed? Yes, it was, though not for the reasons originally given. It could have waited a year or so though, allowing full focus on dealing with Afghanistan first. Still, the coalition was fragmenting and it was politically more expedient to strike while 9/11 was still a fresh sore in the world's mind.
With respect, ISIS is the dismissed trained military - or at least a solid core of it. If the military had been left mostly intact and under no misunderstanding about what would and would not be considered acceptable by the US, they'd have shrugged and mostly agreed as a coup by another means.
Timing was definitely a problem with respect to the ongoing Afghan operations. As an aside, in Vietnam units remained, while filling slots was generally done by individuals. In Iraq at least as I understand it, whole units came and went after 12 to 18 months. I prefer the former method for better operational continuity.
Dismissing the military left a huge void and they knew where all the weapons caches were. Trained military without income...bad scenario. Slow transitioning would have been far better as we simply didn't have enough troops to properly secure the country and its borders as well as prevent the Shia uprisings. The surge helped a lot, but by then the damage was done.
-
In Afghan, and in Iraq, the major mistake was George Bush. I'm sure you all remember the "winning the hearts and minds" mantra they kept pushing on us.
These were not 'wars' in the sense that we are going to blow the shit out of enemy, take the country with a reserve force, and then leave. That is what a war is.
No, we were supposed to 'make friends' with fanatic murderers who wanted nothing more than to kill us. Weird.
The Bush strategy on war was, "Yeah, we kind of want to have a war, but we don't want to really hurt anybody." This caused chaos, and a 20 year "military action".
Both of these wars could have been over in 2 years, max 5 years. But, the people in charge at the time didn't have the balls to do what it takes to fight a real war, and, I fear, in fact I know, they still don't.
just my pathetic 2cents.
-
Timing was definitely a problem with respect to the ongoing Afghan operations. As an aside, in Vietnam units remained, while filling slots was generally done by individuals. In Iraq at least as I understand it, whole units came and went after 12 to 18 months. I prefer the former method for better operational continuity.
Agreed. Not just for operational continuity reasons, though they are a hugely important aspect, but it allows the units to make use of familiarity with the residents if nation building is really what you intend (a different kettle of fish and a stinking one too!). Most of our troops in Afghanistan were "individually" rotated (actually more in pairs or 3s) for precisely that reason - it works, it makes life easier in the long run, and you always have a solid core of the unit that knows the area intimately, know the flash points and trap points and who are sort of trusted by the locals to behave (for want of a better term).
Dismissing the military left a huge void and they knew where all the weapons caches were. Trained military without income...bad scenario. Slow transitioning would have been far better as we simply didn't have enough troops to properly secure the country and its borders as well as prevent the Shia uprisings. The surge helped a lot, but by then the damage was done.
To continue the Monday morning quarterbacking :laugh: - the surge, had it happened when it was originally requested (I think in 2005?) would have had a long lasting (if not permanent) effect, but I can see why it was held off on. At some stage when you are creating a nation you've got to take the training wheels off and let them handle their own affairs.
-
Both of these wars could have been over in 2 years, max 5 years. But, the people in charge at the time didn't have the balls to do what it takes to fight a real war, and, I fear, in fact I know, they still don't.
just my pathetic 2cents.
No argument from me. "Hearts and minds" and the ridiculous ROE you guys suffered under .... gods, I could rant all day about that.
-
No argument from me. "Hearts and minds" and the ridiculous ROE you guys suffered under .... gods, I could rant all day about that.
Don't get me started!
-
In Afghan, and in Iraq, the major mistake was George Bush. I'm sure you all remember the "winning the hearts and minds" mantra they kept pushing on us.
These were not 'wars' in the sense that we are going to blow the shit out of enemy, take the country with a reserve force, and then leave. That is what a war is.
No, we were supposed to 'make friends' with fanatic murderers who wanted nothing more than to kill us. Weird.
The Bush strategy on war was, "Yeah, we kind of want to have a war, but we don't want to really hurt anybody." This caused chaos, and a 20 year "military action".
Both of these wars could have been over in 2 years, max 5 years. But, the people in charge at the time didn't have the balls to do what it takes to fight a real war, and, I fear, in fact I know, they still don't.
just my pathetic 2cents.
All the dead terrorists might disagree with you on that point..... :smokin:
That said, if these wars had been waged more aggressively, we would have won them sooner.
But we DID win them.
Until Obama came along.....
-
No argument from me. "Hearts and minds" and the ridiculous ROE you guys suffered under .... gods, I could rant all day about that.
Again, I'm going to be in the minority here, but I don't think the Petraeus plan was a bad one.
The Psyop plan in place was working. The relationship with the Iraqi people being built helped locate weapons and terrorists so that we could get rid of them. I know it isn't generally agreed upon, but this was an unconventional war, and had to be waged in an unconventional manner.
btw, American and coalition troops were trusted by the Iraqis. They did not trust their own troops.
Obviously for good reason......
-
The very big issue is avoided. Will American voters support a big enough military force, to defeat, occupy, pacify the Islamic world, or not?
To do so probably requires a draft, by the way. So while Powell argued for more troops, Rumsfeld did the two theaters, "on the cheap" in terms of headcounts. The "surges" were interesting names for trying to get the job done, without full scale occupation, pacification, de-islamization, etc.
In both Germany and Japan we stayed until the job was done in its entirety. We conducted individual de-nazification, in Germany. Went through roster of citizens.
WWII was the last major conflict which we won decisively and kept won. Why is beyond my pay grade.
I guess this "hearts and minds" theory comes from Vietnam. Interesting, but not decisive win for us.
I think the best long term results come from decisive victory, unconditional surrender, keeping your foot gently on their necks, until they demonstrate by actions no more attempts for war. That defines Germany and Japan today.
In the days following 9/11/2001 I believe a President could have reinstituted the draft, if he was advised to do so by the military. Even if not done, we should have had a public discussion.
-
No argument from me. "Hearts and minds" and the ridiculous ROE you guys suffered under .... gods, I could rant all day about that.
Yeah, that's when you take the military, the Department of State, and a fickle electorate, add a touch of unrealistic political goals, stir and serve. When we believe our military is an all-purpose foreign policy tool...we've already lost.
-
Excellent comments, all, and a good discussion. :patriot:
-
Impossible to prove I suppose, but had there been a cohesive Administration following GWB, we'd be touting Iraq as a successful - or at least, hopeful - use of our military. We had it in our hands to develop a base in Iraq of some "permanency" smack between Syria and Iran with the sensible Kurds and (yes) the Turks to the north. Saudi Arabia, to the south would be friendly flyover sand to Yemen/Somalia and we'd have had an immoveable naval fleet presence in the Persian Gulf. Stubborn democratic reform in Iraq would have had a life. Our intelligence in the region would be growing exponentially by the day.
Instead, because of Obama's political calculus, we have Assad entrenched, ISIS and massive relinquished territory, thousands of innocent dead and persecuted, Iraq again in disarray, Putin's navy in the Gulf, Iran is trading rugs for nukes with John Kerry, Israel is on its own for the most part, Yemen is training its own jihadists, and emboldened bad guys throughout the region. And don't forget Afghanistan and even Pakistan being bold and cocky.
We were there. Blood and treasure sunk and invested. What remained was a generational presence. Obama ensured the catastrophe.
(BTW... I could not agree more on the Rules of Engagement.)
-
Yeah, that's when you take the military, the Department of State, and a fickle electorate, add a touch of unrealistic political goals, stir and serve. When we believe our military is an all-purpose foreign policy tool...we've already lost.
Well - it can be a multi purpose tool. A hell of a lot of the good done and good will formed (and since squandered) in Iraq and Afghanistan did come down to the troops on the ground - the ordinary guys. Especially the US troops, if I'm going to be completely honest. They were damned amazing when they were permitted to be and deserve massive amounts of respect. The first two ingredients in your recipe do work well together. It's the other two that are toxic.
An electorate that doesn't have the sand to admit that people get hurt playing rough games, an approaching tight election .... I guess it was inevitable. Still bleep hurts though.
-
Impossible to prove I suppose, but had there been a cohesive Administration following GWB, we'd be touting Iraq as a successful - or at least, hopeful - use of our military. We had it in our hands to develop a base in Iraq of some "permanency" smack between Syria and Iran with the sensible Kurds and (yes) the Turks to the north. Saudi Arabia, to the south would be friendly flyover sand to Yemen/Somalia and we'd have had an immoveable naval fleet presence in the Persian Gulf. Stubborn democratic reform in Iraq would have had a life. Our intelligence in the region would be growing exponentially by the day.
Instead, because of Obama's political calculus, we have Assad entrenched, ISIS and massive relinquished territory, thousands of innocent dead and persecuted, Iraq again in disarray, Putin's navy in the Gulf, Iran is trading rugs for nukes with John Kerry, Israel is on its own for the most part, Yemen is training its own jihadists, and emboldened bad guys throughout the region. And don't forget Afghanistan and even Pakistan being bold and cocky.
We were there. Blood and treasure sunk and invested. What remained was a generational presence. Obama ensured the catastrophe.
(BTW... I could not agree more on the Rules of Engagement.)
goopo
-
Well - it can be a multi purpose tool. A hell of a lot of the good done and good will formed (and since squandered) in Iraq and Afghanistan did come down to the troops on the ground - the ordinary guys. Especially the US troops, if I'm going to be completely honest. They were damned amazing when they were permitted to be and deserve massive amounts of respect. The first two ingredients in your recipe do work well together. It's the other two that are toxic.
An electorate that doesn't have the sand to admit that people get hurt playing rough games, an approaching tight election .... I guess it was inevitable. Still bleep hurts though.
Thanks for that post, EC.
I agree completely.
Our troops were truly the good guys in Iraq, and they were respected.
-
Americans are a goodhearted people. And, historically wherever in the world the American soldier has gone he has brought good will and been greeted as a liberator. Except of course, in enemy territory — and sometimes, even there.
-
Well - it can be a multi purpose tool. A hell of a lot of the good done and good will formed (and since squandered) in Iraq and Afghanistan did come down to the troops on the ground - the ordinary guys. Especially the US troops, if I'm going to be completely honest. They were damned amazing when they were permitted to be and deserve massive amounts of respect. The first two ingredients in your recipe do work well together. It's the other two that are toxic.
An electorate that doesn't have the sand to admit that people get hurt playing rough games, an approaching tight election .... I guess it was inevitable. Still bleep hurts though.
The problem isn't that American troops (or others) can't be decent to the locals in a combat zone, but rather the attempts to mix it all together in some hybrid foreign policy machine featuring our military. We tried it in Vietnam and it simply didn't work. Our ROE even then was, at times, absurd. In Afghanistan it's been pathetic, and can be observed from reading military blogs.
Our military should be used to "break things and kill people" (author unknown). Just as with the Marshall Plan for Europe and our post victory efforts in Japan, we essentially waited until the military operations were over before beginning the nation building.
Winning the hearts and minds is a wonderful concept, but should never interfere with operational goals. Giving the military too many rules of engagement that include political and diplomatic objectives which frequently contradict or interfere with operations can and does prove disastrous.
I realize that I wouldn't begin to fit into today's military environment, but I also know what a lot of today's warriors think.
-
goopo
Thanks m'lady. (I hope ac sees this!)
-
Thanks m'lady. (I hope ac sees this!)
LOL. Duly noted, sir!
-
aligncare wrote above:
[[ However I do agree with massadvj's larger point. I, too, would love to see a day when the US can extricate itself from the Middle East quagmire. ]]
There are only two methods by which the US can "extricate itself" from the Middle East:
1. Reduce the entire portion of the planet to glass using nuclear weapons
2. Build a "great wall" around it as if it were as radioactive as Chernobyl.
As the saying goes:
"You may not be interested in islam. But islam is interested in YOU."
(apologies to Vladimir Lenin)
-
truth_seeker asks, in a thoughtful post:
[[ The very big issue is avoided. Will American voters support a big enough military force, to defeat, occupy, pacify the Islamic world, or not? ]]
Simple answer:
No.
Not even after this nation suffers a nuclear attack from islam.
It's just not going to happen.
I wish I could be more optimistic.
But again, the answer to your fundamental question is..... no.
-
aligncare wrote above:
[[ However I do agree with massadvj's larger point. I, too, would love to see a day when the US can extricate itself from the Middle East quagmire. ]]
There are only two methods by which the US can "extricate itself" from the Middle East:
1. Reduce the entire portion of the planet to glass using nuclear weapons
2. Build a "great wall" around it as if it were as radioactive as Chernobyl.
As the saying goes:
"You may not be interested in islam. But islam is interested in YOU."
(apologies to Vladimir Lenin)
Well said and entirely true! :patriot:
-
Impossible to prove I suppose, but had there been a cohesive Administration following GWB, we'd be touting Iraq as a successful - or at least, hopeful - use of our military. We had it in our hands to develop a base in Iraq of some "permanency" smack between Syria and Iran with the sensible Kurds and (yes) the Turks to the north. Saudi Arabia, to the south would be friendly flyover sand to Yemen/Somalia and we'd have had an immoveable naval fleet presence in the Persian Gulf. Stubborn democratic reform in Iraq would have had a life. Our intelligence in the region would be growing exponentially by the day.
Instead, because of Obama's political calculus, we have Assad entrenched, ISIS and massive relinquished territory, thousands of innocent dead and persecuted, Iraq again in disarray, Putin's navy in the Gulf, Iran is trading rugs for nukes with John Kerry, Israel is on its own for the most part, Yemen is training its own jihadists, and emboldened bad guys throughout the region. And don't forget Afghanistan and even Pakistan being bold and cocky.
We were there. Blood and treasure sunk and invested. What remained was a generational presence. Obama ensured the catastrophe.
(BTW... I could not agree more on the Rules of Engagement.)
:beer:
-
I've read all the comments on this thread. Agreed with many, disagreed with quite a few.
I guess we can now, almost 14 years later, deem overthrowing Saddam a costly mistake, and be critical of the entire war effort.
I can however, clearly remember what the country felt like in the time immediately after the attacks on 9/11, and for quite a number of years after them.
We wanted to blow s#it up and $#%#$ up some turban-wearing people.
So we went out and did it, then we lost the stomach for the fight.
GWB told us exactly what to expect, but when the passion and patriotic fervor died, and those little American flags we all clipped to our car windows frayed and faded, we allowed politicians to politicize the war, and we lost.
"Americans are asking, "What is expected of us?"
I ask you to live your lives and hug your children. I know many citizens have fears tonight, and I ask you to be calm and resolute, even in the face of a continuing threat.
I ask you to uphold the values of America and remember why so many have come here.
We're in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them. No one should be singled out for unfair treatment or unkind words because of their ethnic background or religious faith.
I ask you to continue to support the victims of this tragedy with your contributions. Those who want to give can go to a central source of information, Libertyunites.org, to find the names of groups providing direct help in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia. The thousands of FBI agents who are now at work in this investigation may need your cooperation, and I ask you to give it. I ask for your patience with the delays and inconveniences that may accompany tighter security and for your patience in what will be a long struggle." - President George W. Bush, September 21, 2001
The long war GWB warned us about is still raging, but we lost the stomach for it,
We don't want to bleed on foreign soil anymore, and I get that.
The problem is that the long war war will be fought, and if not on foreign soil, we will bleed here.
-
Luis wrote:
The long war GWB warned us about is still raging, but we lost the stomach for it,
We don't want to bleed on foreign soil anymore, and I get that.
The problem is that the long war war will be fought, and if not on foreign soil, we will bleed here.
Indeed!
-
The problem is that the long war war will be fought, and if not on foreign soil, we will bleed here.
While I do not doubt this, doesn't it make more sense to fight it strategically rather than just lashing out at whoever seems convenient at the moment?
For example, who exactly is our enemy? ISIS? Fine. We help Iran immeasurably by wiping out ISIS and probably facilitate a Sunni caliphate in the Middle East.
Iran? Well then, we help ISIS.
Both? Do we have the capability to fight two enemies who are fighting each other? Who fills the vacuum when it is over? And why would we want to, when they are doing the job for us?
It seems to me we should keep our powder dry, reinforce our defenses, closely monitor the situation and possibly act covertly to keep these two forces of evil killing each other for as long as possible. Instead, OPapaDoc is trying to turn Iran into an ally, a monumental mistake our children will pay dearly for.
Just wanting to kill Muslims is a kneejerk reaction that the media exploits to get our gander up for wars that do not end, to make sustainable a military industrial complex with an insatiable appetite for revenue. It all needs to be rethought.
People Like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who continue to embrace the neocon world view, are in complete denial IMHO.
-
For example, who exactly is our enemy?
The answer to that is really simple Victor. Our enemy is, and always has been, the Mullah regime in Iran! No one here, or anywhere else, seems to want to deal with that fact but until they are dealt with NOTHING much is going to change in that region!
I am well aware of the fact that my continuing to bring that up makes me somewhat unpopular but so be it!
-
The problem is that the long war war will be fought, and if not on foreign soil, we will bleed here.
While I do not doubt this, doesn't it make more sense to fight it strategically rather than just lashing out at whoever seems convenient at the moment?
For example, who exactly is our enemy? ISIS? Fine. We help Iran immeasurably by wiping out ISIS and probably facilitate a Sunni caliphate in the Middle East.
Iran? Well then, we help ISIS.
Both? Do we have the capability to fight two enemies who are fighting each other? Who fills the vacuum when it is over? And why would we want to, when they are doing the job for us?
It seems to me we should keep our powder dry, reinforce our defenses, closely monitor the situation and possibly act covertly to keep these two forces of evil killing each other for as long as possible. Instead, OPapaDoc is trying to turn Iran into an ally, a monumental mistake our children will pay dearly for.
Just wanting to kill Muslims is a kneejerk reaction that the media exploits to get our gander up for wars that do not end, to make sustainable a military industrial complex with an insatiable appetite for revenue. It all needs to be rethought.
People Like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who continue to embrace the neocon world view, are in complete denial IMHO.
I don't consider wanting to go blow up Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11 any more of a knee jerk reaction than I see wanting to kill Japanese in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor a knee jerk reaction.
In your original post, or rather the one that caught my eye, you commented on the invasion on Iraq, calling it a waste of resources and politically costly.
My comments were about that specific war, not ISIS. We can discuss ISIS if you'd like, but that's a different subject.
In the aftermath of 9/11 the nation wanted war, not because we as a nation are a bunch of knee jerking neocons, but because our people had been massacred right in front of our eyes, and we knew, instinctively knew, that the ONE thing we could NOT do was nothing.
Had GWB made the "keep the powder dry and watch closely" argument as a reaction to the attacks of 9/11 he would have lost his re-election bid to a hawkish Democrat, if not been outright forced to resign.
The political costs of wars is great, but only if you lose them.
The Democrats politicized an invasion they themselves authorized in order to gain political power here. They voted to authorize the Iraqi invasion, then used the Iraqi invasion as a sledge hammer against Bush and the GOP. We let the do that.
The critique on the Iraqi war is not so much grounded on neocons or the "military industrial complex", but rather on the fact that we did not "win" the war.
So in effect, we lost the war twice. Once abroad and once here.
Understanding that, I have to ask myself if the question is whether the war, as a war, was a wasted effort because we didn't "win", or whether those critical of the war set the standard for what constituted "winning" the war so high that they were unattainable, and whether they did that for their own political purposes and gains.
One last thing... the cost of the war.
The US spent nearly $5 trillion on bailouts for failed financial institutions, and slightly less that that for the war.
That's a lot of money.
Of the two, I can justify the war cost more than the costs of the bailouts.
-
The answer to that is really simple Victor. Our enemy is the Mullah regime in Iran! No one here, or anywhere else, seems to want to deal with that fact but until they are dealt with NOTHING much is going to change in that region!
I am well aware of the fact that my continuing to bring that up makes me somewhat unpopular but so be it!
You'll get no argument from me.
-
mass wrote above:
[[ For example, who exactly is our enemy? ]]
I'm surprised at you, mass.
If you don't know who "the enemy" is by now, you're NEVER going to know.
I sense that perhaps you do know, but that you're posing the question rhetorically.
-
All the dead terrorists might disagree with you on that point..... :smokin:
That said, if these wars had been waged more aggressively, we would have won them sooner.
But we DID win them.
Until Obama came along.....
The dead terrorists are not the point, m'lady. In the past 14 years we've killed somewhere around 50,000 terrorists, total. More than that if you count them blowing themselves up as a a win. It's like taking a bucket of water out of the ocean then claiming the ocean levels are dropping. Terrorists are 10 a penny.
What needs to be done is to get rid of the recruiting tool of the terrorists.
While bigun makes a solid point that Iran is a huge problem, and I'm not going to diminish their threat or his very valid concerns, ALL Islamic terrorist organisations are Wahabbi school. The same school promulgated world wide by the House of Saud.
-
You'll get no argument from me.
Nor me.
-
The dead terrorists are not the point, m'lady. In the past 14 years we've killed somewhere around 50,000 terrorists, total. More than that if you count them blowing themselves up as a a win. It's like taking a bucket of water out of the ocean then claiming the ocean levels are dropping. Terrorists are 10 a penny.
What needs to be done is to get rid of the recruiting tool of the terrorists.
While bigun makes a solid point that Iran is a huge problem, and I'm not going to diminish their threat or his very valid concerns, ALL Islamic terrorist organisations are Wahabbi school. The same school promulgated world wide by the House of Saud.
When and if the Mullahs in Iran are ever effectively dealt with the rest of the Wahabist will fall in line rather easily IMHO.
-
The dead terrorists are not the point, m'lady. In the past 14 years we've killed somewhere around 50,000 terrorists, total. More than that if you count them blowing themselves up as a a win. It's like taking a bucket of water out of the ocean then claiming the ocean levels are dropping. Terrorists are 10 a penny.
What needs to be done is to get rid of the recruiting tool of the terrorists.
While bigun makes a solid point that Iran is a huge problem, and I'm not going to diminish their threat or his very valid concerns, ALL Islamic terrorist organisations are Wahabbi school. The same school promulgated world wide by the House of Saud.
The House of Saud.
You are right EC - killing terrorists is a futile venture, more will always pop up. But who will fight the Saudis? I don't see our country doing that with either a Democrat or Republican administration - and there lies the crux of the problem.
Why can't we use our own energy resources and stop our dependence on foreign sources? It's the money, always the money. That is why I don't favor us engaging in any more war over there until we attack the root of the problem.
-
As long as the bad guys in the ME are targeting us ("Death to America") we're going to need to be involved there.
What does our involvement there do to help protect us here? Acts of terror can be carried out with very few people. There is no logical connection between our wars there and our safety here.
-
The very big issue is avoided. Will American voters support a big enough military force, to defeat, occupy, pacify the Islamic world, or not?
I think anybody that would consider our military to be in need of growth is outside of the realm of reason. You can't defeat and pacify this type of extremism with military force. Our involvement makes their extremists feel more justified and helps them grow in number.
-
(http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n151/hagemangroup/annasiriyah20ew.jpg) (http://s111.photobucket.com/user/hagemangroup/media/annasiriyah20ew.jpg.html)
How could anybody say liberating Iraq was a mistake?
Obama walked away from the SOF (Status of Forces) Agreement. under the guise of protecting our troops. He stopped all negotiations once Iraqi officials demanded that American soldiers be subject to Sharia and for possible war crimes.
Iraq relented to no avail. Nobody answered the 3AM phone call.
-
Impossible to prove I suppose, but had there been a cohesive Administration following GWB, we'd be touting Iraq as a successful - or at least, hopeful - use of our military. We had it in our hands to develop a base in Iraq of some "permanency" smack between Syria and Iran with the sensible Kurds and (yes) the Turks to the north. Saudi Arabia, to the south would be friendly flyover sand to Yemen/Somalia and we'd have had an immoveable naval fleet presence in the Persian Gulf. Stubborn democratic reform in Iraq would have had a life. Our intelligence in the region would be growing exponentially by the day.
Instead, because of Obama's political calculus, we have Assad entrenched, ISIS and massive relinquished territory, thousands of innocent dead and persecuted, Iraq again in disarray, Putin's navy in the Gulf, Iran is trading rugs for nukes with John Kerry, Israel is on its own for the most part, Yemen is training its own jihadists, and emboldened bad guys throughout the region. And don't forget Afghanistan and even Pakistan being bold and cocky.
We were there. Blood and treasure sunk and invested. What remained was a generational presence. Obama ensured the catastrophe.
(BTW... I could not agree more on the Rules of Engagement.)
The problem with the "peace" we created in Iraq is its shaky existence was completely dependent on our occupation of the area. It's not real peace if you need tanks and airstrikes readily available to maintain it. We can't permanently occupy the Middle East.
-
(http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n151/hagemangroup/annasiriyah20ew.jpg) (http://s111.photobucket.com/user/hagemangroup/media/annasiriyah20ew.jpg.html)
How could anybody say liberating Iraq was a mistake?
Obama walked away from the SOF (Status of Forces) Agreement. under the guise of protecting our troops. He stopped all negotiations once Iraqi officials demanded that American soldiers be subject to Sharia and for possible war crimes.
Iraq relented to no avail. Nobody answered the 3AM phone call.
We don't have the resources to liberate every disadvantaged person on Earth. There is a laundry list of horrible leaders that commit wrongdoing on innocent people, some of which we trade heavily with. Are we morally obligated to stop them too?
-
We don't have the resources to liberate every disadvantaged person on Earth. There is a laundry list of horrible leaders that commit wrongdoing on innocent people, some of which we trade heavily with. Are we morally obligated to stop them too?
Nope. That's your call as a country.
However, I do think if you start something you are morally obliged to finish it.
-
We don't have the resources to liberate every disadvantaged person on Earth. There is a laundry list of horrible leaders that commit wrongdoing on innocent people, some of which we trade heavily with. Are we morally obligated to stop them too?
That little girl in in the photo is a grown woman today, perhaps with children of her own. However, in all likelihood, she is dead today.
We liberated those people. We won them their freedom and Barack Obama stole it away from them.
Makes me want to puke.
-
Nope. That's your call as a country.
However, I do think if you start something you are morally obliged to finish it.
How should we have finished it? How could we have finished it? Everybody likes to imply we just didn't try hard enough, as if we were getting calls from Washington telling us to ease up on the terrorists. We leveled countless buildings and killed tens of thousands of people. If we knew where they were we were working out the best way to destroy them. I'd like somebody to explain to me in detail the steps that should have been taken to defeat extremism and create lasting peace in the Middle East.
-
The problem with the "peace" we created in Iraq is its shaky existence was completely dependent on our occupation of the area. It's not real peace if you need tanks and airstrikes readily available to maintain it. We can't permanently occupy the Middle East.
We defeated Germany and Japan militarily, then sat on them for decades to be sure they stayed defeated.
We had a draft, too. The occupation to subdue the Germans, became the first line of defense in the Cold War with the USSR.
-
We defeated Germany and Japan militarily, then sat on them for decades to be sure they stayed defeated.
We had a draft, too. The occupation to subdue the Germans, became the first line of defense in the Cold War with the USSR.
The Nazis and Japanese wore uniforms that made it really easy to distinguish them from the millions of people that live in those countries. There isn't a bunch of military bases and airfields we can destroy to cripple them. There isn't infrastructure churning out guns and death machines. These are desperate people using desperate means to carry out their extremism, and no amount of killing is going to correct the problem. People try to draw lines between our struggle in the Middle East and World War 2 constantly, but the truth of the matter is this is nothing like World War 2. What worked then doesn't necessarily work now.
-
The way to victory is to smother the practice of their so-called religion.
Destroy ALL mosques. Execute all religious leaders. Gentrify the MFs.
They don't deserve Islam if they are going to practice the 14th century version in the 21st century.
We won't eradicate the violence. But we sure will temper it for a few generations at least.
-
The way to victory is to smother the practice of their so-called religion.
Destroy ALL mosques. Execute all religious leaders. Gentrify the MFs.
They don't deserve Islam if they are going to practice the 14th century version in the 21st century.
We won't eradicate the violence. But we sure will temper it for a few generations at least.
Destroying mosques and killing religious leaders would spark Islamic outrage all over the world. This is exactly how you do the opposite of tempering extremism.
-
What does our involvement there do to help protect us here? Acts of terror can be carried out with very few people. There is no logical connection between our wars there and our safety here.
That's kind of like saying that there is no connection between bars and drunk drivers.
-
That's kind of like saying that there is no connection between bars and drunk drivers.
When as few as 1 person can commit an act of terror there is no way to exert force on other regions of the world to protect yourself from that. There are billions of Muslims in the world. Killing a handful of extremists in the Middle East is not going to do anything but possibly increase your chances of being a target.
-
Sorry about the source. It's the only place I could find this.
A Grand Strategy of Transformation (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1077054/posts)
-
When as few as 1 person can commit an act of terror there is no way to exert force on other regions of the world to protect yourself from that. There are billions of Muslims in the world. Killing a handful of extremists in the Middle East is not going to do anything but possibly increase your chances of being a target.
You have one pertinent fact wrong.
We are already the target. Doing nothing will simply make us easier targets.
-
The way to victory is to smother the practice of their so-called religion.
Destroy ALL mosques. Execute all religious leaders. Gentrify the MFs.
They don't deserve Islam if they are going to practice the 14th century version in the 21st century.
We won't eradicate the violence. But we sure will temper it for a few generations at least.
Not at all necessary! But we must make it plain to them that we have had enough and will not tolerate any more of this Jihad crap! The Marines dealt with this once before and it took the jihadis 200 years to forget that lesson!
-
You have one pertinent fact wrong.
We are already the target. Doing nothing will simply make us easier targets.
We're not the only target, and the more important fact is that wars in the Middle East won't protect us from terrorism. Doing nothing will not make us easier or more difficult targets.
-
When as few as 1 person can commit an act of terror there is no way to exert force on other regions of the world to protect yourself from that. There are billions of Muslims in the world. Killing a handful of extremists in the Middle East is not going to do anything but possibly increase your chances of being a target.
P.S. There aren't "billions of Muslims in the world", there are @1.5 billion Muslims in the world.
-
We're not the only target, and the more important fact is that wars in the Middle East won't protect us from terrorism. Doing nothing will not make us easier or more difficult targets.
In the eyes of Islamic radicalism, we are what stands between them and world domination.
-
Destroying mosques and killing religious leaders would spark Islamic outrage all over the world. This is exactly how you do the opposite of tempering extremism.
BFD, Dexter.
They NEED to be outraged. Outraged at their militant minority for putting their religion and lives at risk.
They'll be outraged alright. For about a week. Then, they'll be begging forgiveness and for mercy.
-
Sorry about the source. It's the only place I could find this.
A Grand Strategy of Transformation (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1077054/posts)
Thank you for that Luis. Some fine people commenting there also... Some of the comments were quite prescient.
-
BFD, Dexter.
They NEED to be outraged. Outraged at their militant minority for putting their religion and lives at risk.
They'll be outrages alright. For about a week. Then, they'll be begging forgiveness.
Every Muslim in the world needs to understand that if an act of terror gets carried out at the Vatican, we will blow Mecca into the 10th century.
-
P.S. There aren't "billions of Muslims in the world", there are @1.5 billion Muslims in the world.
Oh, forgive me for overestimating the size of their club.
Around 500,000 Iraqis have been killed in the Iraq war, most of whom were not terrorists. That is roughly 0.03% of those 1.5 billion. How many years do you reckon it will take to get the job done?
-
In the eyes of Islamic radicalism, we are what stands between them and world domination.
Well they're sure doing a piss poor job of stopping us, their mortal enemy. It almost seems like they completely lack the ability to do so. You also ignored the most important part of what I said again.
-
Reasonable points, all.
I can add nothing of substance here, except to say the president's job may be the most demanding on earth and should have gone to someone deserving of the honor. Someone capable of living up to the duty imposed by the office.
Obama was never that someone, never a man of substance. He chose to wing it and play golf instead.
America is poorer in so may ways for that 2008 and 2012 vote.
-
BFD, Dexter.
They NEED to be outraged. Outraged at their militant minority for putting their religion and lives at risk.
They'll be outraged alright. For about a week. Then, they'll be begging forgiveness and for mercy.
They won't get outraged at their militant minority. Their militant minority will say "Look! See? We told you they were trying to destroy our way of life! We must stop them before Islam is completely destroyed." and more people than ever will join them.
-
The Nazis and Japanese wore uniforms that made it really easy to distinguish them from the millions of people that live in those countries. There isn't a bunch of military bases and airfields we can destroy to cripple them. There isn't infrastructure churning out guns and death machines. These are desperate people using desperate means to carry out their extremism, and no amount of killing is going to correct the problem. People try to draw lines between our struggle in the Middle East and World War 2 constantly, but the truth of the matter is this is nothing like World War 2. What worked then doesn't necessarily work now.
You keep saying the two wars are not the same. I say our response has been different, but otherwise they are similar. Our response is an unwillingness to kill civilians muslims. Our response has been lack of resolve to have plenty of troops available.
Take the Japanese. They committed atrocities in China that shocked the world. In the battle of Okinawa, the largest allied loss of life was from Kamikaze attacks on the ships standing offshore.
The Japanese were Terrorists with a capital T. Our response was a willingness to kill civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The results have been different; WWII a permanent and total victory, whereas the half-measure against Islamic terrorists are losing ground.
During WWII the US population stood at 160 million, and of that 16 million served in uniforms. During the immediate aftermath of hostilities in Germany, a program of de-nazification was followed. Every person was scrutinized, for those who might have Nazi sympathies.
We didn't sit back and say "they don't wear uniforms, so it is too hard to do."
In contrast, the US have tried to wage war against Islamic terror by half-measures. The total manpower levels require sending our troops back to multiple deployments. We wear them out, because there are not enough of them.
I do get where you come from. I could see how a troop these days could become disillusioned, when crappy politicians hold the military back from total victory.
I have a niece and her husband, that both served in the war on terror. Multiple deployments. I told him about my understanding of WWII troops. My niece's husband said he didn't think his generation could do that; they weren't that good.
Today failure in the war on terror is viewed as an acceptable outcome, since people don't imagine the consequences. Partly because so few have a connection to the war or the consequences.
In WWII we rationed rubber, gasoline, etc. We had blackouts, and the draft. The West coast feared attack, with justification.
It flows from the top. GW Bush started strong after 9/11/2001 but gradually fell away from intelligent, total commitment to victory. He listened to Rumsfeld say he could do it with fewer troops, for example--but that was wrong.
GW Bush could have said on 9/12/2001 that we were starting the draft up, because we were going to defeat Islamic terrorism.
-
We threaded the needle, paid enormously in doing so, and Obama frittered it away. Arrogantly. Ignorantly. And it was, he believed, politically expedient. He sang for the choir.
We will experience another calamity. My being and my soul is certain of that. I pray it is "survivable". Our only chance of turning things back - now or then - is to mean...everything...we...say. When the host state/country gets the message, we will have a chance. Not until then.
“We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” President George W. Bush
We failed when it mattered the most.
-
You keep saying the two wars are not the same. I say our response has been different, but otherwise they are similar. Our response is an unwillingness to kill civilians muslims. Our response has been lack of resolve to have plenty of troops available.
We've killed far more civilians than anything. We don't have an unwillingness to kill civilians when we know we can also kill terrorists. We have the most powerful and robust military on the planet by an incredible margin. I think there was plenty of troops and firepower available.
Take the Japanese. They committed atrocities in China that shocked the world. In the battle of Okinawa, the largest allied loss of life was from Kamikaze attacks on the ships standing offshore.
The Japanese were Terrorists with a capital T. Our response was a willingness to kill civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The results have been different; WWII a permanent and total victory, whereas the half-measure against Islamic terrorists are losing ground.
The difference is in World War 2 we knew that if we could just stop Hitler and the emperor of Japan their governments and the threat they represent would disappear. There is no big boss in the Islamic world that we can stop/kill to end extremism. In World War 2 we were fighting governments and their military. In Iraq we are fighting an idea not represented by either of those things. There is no simple way to end the problem.
-
(http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n151/hagemangroup/annasiriyah20ew.jpg) (http://s111.photobucket.com/user/hagemangroup/media/annasiriyah20ew.jpg.html)
How could anybody say liberating Iraq was a mistake?
Obama walked away from the SOF (Status of Forces) Agreement. under the guise of protecting our troops. He stopped all negotiations once Iraqi officials demanded that American soldiers be subject to Sharia and for possible war crimes.
Iraq relented to no avail. Nobody answered the 3AM phone call.
Needs to be said again....
Thanks, DC!
-
What does our involvement there do to help protect us here? Acts of terror can be carried out with very few people. There is no logical connection between our wars there and our safety here.
No 'logical' connection between an ideology that wants us destroyed and the need to protect ourselves from it.
If we just leave the bad guys alone, they'll leave us alone......
Right....... **nononono*
-
Oh, forgive me for overestimating the size of their club.
Around 500,000 Iraqis have been killed in the Iraq war, most of whom were not terrorists. That is roughly 0.03% of those 1.5 billion. How many years do you reckon it will take to get the job done?
You're conveniently ignoring the fact that those Iraqis were killed by the same terrorists that you say we should ignore.
You can't be bothered by Iraqi deaths while at the same time you say we should ignore those who kill them.
Are you bothered by all the women and young girls being raped and tortured, the crucifixions and beheadings of Christian Iraqis at the hands of those who were emboldened by Obama's negligence? How do you defend ignoring that kind of brutality that is the direct result of the peacenik punk in the WH who chose politics over decency?
-
No 'logical' connection between an ideology that wants us destroyed and the need to protect ourselves from it.
If we just leave the bad guys alone, they'll leave us alone......
Right....... **nononono*
You seem to be under the false impression that we have a reliable way to protect ourselves from terrorism. Doing nothing is better than wasting a lot of lives and money doing something that doesn't work.
-
You're conveniently ignoring the fact that those Iraqis were killed by the same terrorists that you say we should ignore.
You can't be bothered by Iraqi deaths while at the same time you say we should ignore those who kill them.
Are you bothered by all the women and young girls being raped and tortured, the crucifixions and beheadings of Christian Iraqis at the hands of those who were emboldened by Obama's negligence? How do you defend ignoring that kind of brutality that is the direct result of the peacenik punk in the WH who chose politics over decency?
You don't actually believe terrorists killed most of those civilians, do you? I'm bothered by many things that happen in the world, but I like to keep my expectations inside reality.
-
You don't actually believe terrorists killed most of those civilians, do you? I'm bothered by many things that happen in the world, but I like to keep my expectations inside reality.
Well, I don't agree with John F. Kerry and Dick Durbin that our own forces were terrorists.......... do you?
Who do you think killed them? Who do you think bombed markets, hospitals and schools? Our troops??
Who do you think were the bad guys in Iraq? Our troops??
Who do you think wantonly killed civilians? Our troops??
I think it's time for you to say what you really think, Dex, and stop all this implication. Tell us what you really think about our troops and what they've done....
-
Well, I don't agree with John F. Kerry and Dick Durbin that our own forces were terrorists.......... do you?
No, I don't, but I do think they are seen that way by a lot of people living in the Middle East.
Who do you think killed them? Who do you think bombed markets, hospitals and schools? Our troops??
I think most of them were collateral damage caused by our misguided attempts to do the right thing.
Who do you think were the bad guys in Iraq? Our troops??
I'm a relativist. I'll probably get a lot of flak for this, but I don't feel there are bad guys. I think the extremists are ignorant people that believe they are doing the right thing. That doesn't mean what they're doing isn't bad, just that they are too ignorant/misguided to realize it. If you grew up in the Middle East and all of the adults in your life told you the United States was bad and all you ever saw was their occupation of the country you live in there is a good chance you wouldn't like the United States either. In the end it is all about perspective. I think most human violence comes from an inability to understand each other.
I think it's time for you to say what you really think, Dex, and stop all this implication. Tell us what you really think about our troops and what they've done....
I think you need to stop lumping my brothers and sisters in with the criminal political system that sent them there. Soldiers are not responsible for anything that has happened. They are heroes for stepping up and filling an important role.
-
I've got to go and give a final. When I come back, I'll deal with the liberal tripe in the above post....
-
I've got to go and give a final. When I come back, I'll deal with the liberal tripe in the above post....
I see you're already getting your dismissive labels prepped.
-
I'm going to disagree with the majority here.
I still believe that it was the right decision to go into Iraq. There were mistakes along the way that prolonged the problems (causing the loss in 2006), but we had the country under control by 2008, and we had an ally in the ME.
The biggest problems were not the cost (war is expensive, and we had no rationing at home as in WWII), nor the loss of life (it was a very small number relative to any other war). The real problem was that the leftist media created a 'war weary' nation with their hostility toward Bush and our troops, when in reality, the only people in America who suffered because of the war were those of us who had sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters in harm's way.
The loss of Iraq in the hands of Barack HUSSEIN Obama was purely political and anti-American. If we had a patriot who followed Bush and any real journalists in the media, the memory of Iraq would be entirely different.
We would remember that we toppled a tyrant.
We would remember that Saddam was still at war with us in 2003.
We would remember that we killed thousands of terrorists during the conflict.
We would remember that we had an ally in the ME, however shaky.
True, the warring factions in the ME have thousands of years of history, but we DID create one stable country in the heart of the ME.
It is Obama who lost it.
No disagreement from me. Too easy we forget what led up to the night of Shock & Awe. Any one here remember the beheadings in the soccer field? The gays being tossed from the tops of buildings? That wasn't Al Queda. That wasn't ISIS. That WAS Saddam.
-
No disagreement from me. Too easy we forget what led up to the night of Shock & Awe. Any one here remember the beheadings in the soccer field? The gays being tossed from the tops of buildings? That wasn't Al Queda. That wasn't ISIS. That WAS Saddam.
Saddam harbored terrorists. One was a member of the group that hijacked the ship Achille Lauro in 1985, and murdered a wheelchair bound elderly Jewish man, Leon Klinghoffer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achille_Lauro_hijacking
-
Oh, forgive me for overestimating the size of their club.
Around 500,000 Iraqis have been killed in the Iraq war, most of whom were not terrorists. That is roughly 0.03% of those 1.5 billion. How many years do you reckon it will take to get the job done?
That's a textbook example of the Straw Man logical fallacy.
We don't need to kill 1.5 billion Muslims to win the war any more than we needed to kill all Germans, Japanese and Italians to win WWII.
Not killing all Italians may have been an error in judgement however...
:smokin:
-
That's a textbook example of the Straw Man logical fallacy.
We don't need to kill 1.5 billion Muslims to win the war any more than we needed to kill all Germans, Japanese and Italians to win WWII.
Not killing all Italians may have been an error in judgement however...
:smokin:
Well we apparently need to kill a whole lot more to win, right? We weren't thorough enough according to many. Are you going to address the main point I made earlier?
-
The way to victory is to smother the practice of their so-called religion.
Destroy ALL mosques. Execute all religious leaders. Gentrify the MFs.
They don't deserve Islam if they are going to practice the 14th century version in the 21st century.
We won't eradicate the violence. But we sure will temper it for a few generations at least.
We knocked off Hussein and put all those boots on the ground for a couple of reasons. One was simple... if you're going to go to war in a specific region, you may as well knock out the guy with the biggest Army first, so you don't have to spend time looking over your shoulder to see what he's doing, and once Hussein was gone, the other, more complicated reason, to send a clear signal to every player in the region that there were 100,000+ battle-hardened American troops ready to strike anywhere in a matter of days, if not hours if needed.
We should have kept a heavy presence there and tried impacting their culture by our just being there. The way to beat this enemy is to force a Renaissance on them. That's what the Arab Spring was all about, but the other radical Muslim player in the world stage chose to not help those trying to modernize Islamic countries.
We tired of waging war after a few years against an enemy that's used to thinking in terms of wars spanning centuries.
If we don't think along those terms as well, we are bound to be conquered.
-
Well we apparently need to kill a whole lot more to win, right? We weren't thorough enough according to many. Are you going to address the main point I made earlier?
Every "point" you've made basically boils down to this: the best way to stop a bully from beating on you is to try and ignore the beating and the hope that his arms get tired.
Not worth addressing.
-
Not worth addressing.
How convenient.
-
If we don't think along those terms as well, we are bound to be conquered.
So we need to think more like them. Hmm, okay.
-
Some people are to stupid to argue with!
One of them has been posting on this thread!
-
Some people are to stupid to argue with!
One of them has been posting on this thread!
A wonderful contribution to the content of the thread as always. Thank you Bigun; I can always count on you.
-
So we need to think more like them. Hmm, okay.
Jus bellum iustum
-
Calm down.
You were there - what do you think was done correctly? Ignore politics, ignore what we know now, AT THE TIME what worked and what did not?
Edit - sorry Luis, that was for Dex, not you.
-
So we need to think more like them. Hmm, okay.
That is such a pantload.
Call me when we start beheading groups of Muslims for being Muslims.
-
Calm down.
You were there - what do you think was done correctly? Ignore politics, ignore what we know now, AT THE TIME what worked and what did not?
Edit - sorry Luis, that was for Dex, not you.
We have some serious image issues in the Middle East, and that's not hard to understand considering we are a foreign military occupying their living space. It's hard to make friends when typically people are either scared of you or they want to kill you (or both). All they really see is the barrels of our guns and the devastation our bombs leave behind. They don't understand the nuances of the situation and what we are trying to accomplish. When you really think about the situation from their perspective it is not hard to understand how groups like ISIS manage to keep recruiting new people. I really don't see a way to reconcile the situation through military force. There are just too many Muslims and it's too hard to find and target only the bad ones. The harder we push the more they will hate us and the more they hate us the more powerful extremism becomes.
I think the Middle East will modernize and its culture will adapt accordingly. You can already see it happening with women slowly gaining legitimacy in society. A lot of these people are living in what we see as the third world. They don't have the internet, easily accessible education or a plethora of other conveniences we take for granted. I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to live in the 21st century when their lifestyles are not in the 21st century. With time they will learn and grow just like we and everybody else did, but their progress is being hindered by our military bombing the region for over a decade now. Diplomacy and patience is the only thing that will help.
-
No, I don't, but I do think they are seen that way by a lot of people living in the Middle East.
I think most of them were collateral damage caused by our misguided attempts to do the right thing.
I'm a relativist. I'll probably get a lot of flak for this, but I don't feel there are bad guys. I think the extremists are ignorant people that believe they are doing the right thing. That doesn't mean what they're doing isn't bad, just that they are too ignorant/misguided to realize it. If you grew up in the Middle East and all of the adults in your life told you the United States was bad and all you ever saw was their occupation of the country you live in there is a good chance you wouldn't like the United States either. In the end it is all about perspective. I think most human violence comes from an inability to understand each other.
I think you need to stop lumping my brothers and sisters in with the criminal political system that sent them there. Soldiers are not responsible for anything that has happened. They are heroes for stepping up and filling an important role.
All right............ I came back to address your drivel, but I see that many others have already done so.
Let me just say this, which I have concluded from your amoral postings (in case you don't understand the term, you don't differentiate between good and evil, determining good and bad only by ones 'intent' with no moral absolutes to guide you).
You have indicted our troops and blamed them for 500,000 Iraqi deaths. That is a LIE. (I do believe in moral absolutes).
You have claimed a moral equivalency between vicious beheaders and honorable men and women in US uniforms. That is a FALSE equivalency.
And you have misinterpreted (deliberately, I'm sure) my accusations directed at YOU and smeared them across our troops.
And let me just say this, for the record. I am very suspicious of your claims that you served in Iraq in the US military. I'm not saying that there aren't liberal peaceniks who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. I just don't trust anyone who comes on a Republican/Conservative forum spouting the anarchist drivel you spout completely inconsistent with your claims of service.
I could be wrong.
But I don't think I am.
-
All right............ I came back to address your drivel, but I see that many others have already done so.
Thank you for the insulting and unnecessary opener.
You have indicted our troops and blamed them for 500,000 Iraqi deaths. That is a LIE. (I do believe in moral absolutes).
If you read what I said you would see that I actually said the troops are not to blame for anything. The troops volunteer to serve the country and have to honor that commitment no matter how misguided their government is.
And you have misinterpreted (deliberately, I'm sure) my accusations directed at YOU and smeared them across our troops.
No, you assumed that my criticisms of the actions of our government extended to the troops, and they don't. You tried to make me sound like I don't support our troops when in reality I don't support our government. The two are not mutually exclusive.
And let me just say this, for the record. I am very suspicious of your claims that you served in Iraq in the US military. I'm not saying that there aren't liberal peaceniks who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. I just don't trust anyone who comes on a Republican/Conservative forum spouting the anarchist drivel you spout completely inconsistent with your claims of service.
Going to Iraq and seeing what war really is shaped my opinions into what you perceive as liberalism. I think people like you don't understand the gravity of what it means to go to war when you wantonly suggest we fight never ending fights in the Middle East. Soldiers are heroes for offering the service that they do, but war should always be an absolute last resort because of what our soldiers have to go through. Do you have any idea what it is like to take a human life? Do you know the terror of being in a life or death struggle? Have you ever seen the anguish on the faces of the people that loved the person you killed? I know we are wasting our time over there, and sometimes I have to struggle to remain civil when people are so consumed by ignorance and fear that they can't see it, when people like you would have my brothers and sisters witness more atrocities for nothing and then question MY patriotism when I stand against it. I think it's you that doesn't support the troops, not me.
I could be wrong.
But I don't think I am.
I imagine this is common for you.
-
Going to Iraq and seeing what war really is shaped my opinions into what you perceive as liberalism. I think people like you don't understand the gravity of what it means to go to war when you wantonly suggest we fight never ending fights in the Middle East. Soldiers are heroes for offering the service that they do, but war should always be an absolute last resort because of what our soldiers have to go through. Do you have any idea what it is like to take a human life? Do you know the terror of being in a life or death struggle? Have you ever seen the anguish on the faces of the people that loved the person you killed? I know we are wasting our time over there, and sometimes I have to struggle to remain civil when people are so consumed by ignorance and fear that they can't see it, when people like you would have my brothers and sisters witness more atrocities for nothing and then question MY patriotism when I stand against it. I think it's you that doesn't support the troops, not me.
Do you know that my son was awarded a Bronze Star during his second deployment to one of the most hazardous parts of Baghdad? We have an incredibly close relationship, and I know almost every detail of the hell he went through defending this country. Calling me ignorant and saying I don't support the troops may make you feel better, but it makes you even more the fool.
He came back changed, but he didn't come back hating America, and he certainly didn't compare his honorable service with the beheading and mutilation of innocent people. There is NO moral equivalence between our troops and terrorism. (And you still haven't addressed the crucifixion and sexual abuse of Christians by these poor schleps you defend as merely "ignorant.")
You can disagree with our involvement in Iraq, as many here have done, but your accusations against our troops and what they did in Iraq, and refusal to recognize the pure evil of the enemy, will always remain for me, inexcusable and unforgiveable.
You can respond if you wish with more drivel and whining, but I'm going to take the advice of others, and end this (worthless) conversation.
-
Do you know that my son was awarded a Bronze Star during his second deployment to one of the most hazardous parts of Baghdad? We have an incredibly close relationship, and I know almost every detail of the hell he went through defending this country. Calling me ignorant may make you feel better, but it makes you even more the fool.
Having children that served does not qualify you to understand what it's like to go to war. It also doesn't make you any less ignorant to the situation (obviously).
He came back changed, but he didn't come back hating America, and he certainly didn't compare his honorable service with the beheading and mutilation of innocent people. There is NO moral equivalence between our troops and terrorism. (And you still haven't addressed the crucifixion and sexual abuse of Christians by these poor schleps you defend as merely "ignorant.")
You can disagree with our involvement in Iraq, as many here have done, but your accusations against our troops and what they did in Iraq, and refusal to recognize the pure evil of the enemy, will always remain for me, inexcusable and unforgiveable.
You can respond if you wish with more drivel and whining, but I'm going to take the advice of others, and end this (worthless) conversation.
If you honestly took what I said to mean that our soldiers are no better than violent extremists then I am confident that I do not possess the ability to make you see reason.
-
Having children that served does not qualify you to understand what it's like to go to war. It also doesn't make you any less ignorant to the situation (obviously).
An utterly foolish, ignorant, thoughtless statement.
(My long-time, military Mom friend, mystery-ak will be fascinated to find out that she isn't qualified to understand what it's like to go to war since it was only her husband and son who served....... and that she, as a result, is ignorant).
If you honestly took what I said to mean that our soldiers are no better than violent extremists then I am confident that I do not possess the ability to make you see reason.
Equally foolish. Dexter doesn't read what he writes.
Others do.
-
Dexter doesn't read what he writes.
Others do.
Dexter understands what he writes.
Musiclady doesn't.
-
We have some serious image issues in the Middle East, and that's not hard to understand considering we are a foreign military occupying their living space. It's hard to make friends when typically people are either scared of you or they want to kill you (or both). All they really see is the barrels of our guns and the devastation our bombs leave behind. They don't understand the nuances of the situation and what we are trying to accomplish. When you really think about the situation from their perspective it is not hard to understand how groups like ISIS manage to keep recruiting new people. I really don't see a way to reconcile the situation through military force. There are just too many Muslims and it's too hard to find and target only the bad ones. The harder we push the more they will hate us and the more they hate us the more powerful extremism becomes.
I think the Middle East will modernize and its culture will adapt accordingly. You can already see it happening with women slowly gaining legitimacy in society. A lot of these people are living in what we see as the third world. They don't have the internet, easily accessible education or a plethora of other conveniences we take for granted. I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to live in the 21st century when their lifestyles are not in the 21st century. With time they will learn and grow just like we and everybody else did, but their progress is being hindered by our military bombing the region for over a decade now. Diplomacy and patience is the only thing that will help.
You seem to be missing the logical timeframe. FIRST you decisively defeat the enemy.
ONLY after the enemy is defeated, should you be concerned with hearts, minds, nation building, etc.
We have been effectively been playing whack-a-mole with too few troops from 9/12/2001 and going between "shock and awe" to partial occupation and pacification, to disbanding their military, to getting surprised by insurgents thought to not exist, to "Surge," to withdrawal by an announced deadline, etc.
But never the FIRST STEP of decisive victory. We simply did not have enough troops to control the situation and occupy. This has been a "trial and error" approach from day one.
Along comes Petraeus and it looks too good to be true. A genius with a PhD. to save us from adequately staffing for decisive victory. He knows how to "surge" and win hearts and minds. And that will spare us doing the FIRST STEP of decisive victory.
Dexter says war with these people is too hard. Dexter I don't blame you for feeling the government is at fault. That you and your fellow troops are cannon fodder.
That is not unlike Vietnam, when guys came home to angry civilian protests, and the war was left without completion.
Since WWII we have spent much of our nation's treasury on weapons of war, but have not waged wars to successful conclusions.
If the war is waged for a quick, decisive victory, it minimizes loss of life. People on both sides can grasp that. If the enemy can't grasp it yet, too bad.
Increasingly I think our dependence on costly, powerful weapons has left us with a deficit in other areas. Intelligence, propaganda, etc. But mostly we have had a lack of leadership, to take the actions for decisive victory. That is the key element.
-
An utterly foolish, ignorant, thoughtless statement.
(My long-time, military Mom friend, mystery-ak will be fascinated to find out that she isn't qualified to understand what it's like to go to war since it was only her husband and son who served....... and that she, as a result, is ignorant).
Equally foolish. Dexter doesn't read what he writes.
Others do.
rut roh!
There are just too many Muslims and it's too hard to find and target only the bad ones.
TOO HARD!....please tell me what branch and rank you are...I need to talk to your 1sgt!
-
rut roh!
TOO HARD!....please tell me what branch and rank you are...I need to talk to your 1sgt!
:beer:
-
You seem to be missing the logical timeframe. FIRST you decisively defeat the enemy.
ONLY after the enemy is defeated, should you be concerned with hearts, minds, nation building, etc.
We have been effectively been playing whack-a-mole with too few troops from 9/12/2001 and going between "shock and awe" to partial occupation and pacification, to disbanding their military, to getting surprised by insurgents thought to not exist, to "Surge," to withdrawal by an announced deadline, etc.
But never the FIRST STEP of decisive victory. We simply did not have enough troops to control the situation and occupy. This has been a "trial and error" approach from day one.
Along comes Petraeus and it looks too good to be true. A genius with a PhD. to save us from adequately staffing for decisive victory. He knows how to "surge" and win hearts and minds. And that will spare us doing the FIRST STEP of decisive victory.
Dexter says war with these people is too hard. Dexter I don't blame you for feeling the government is at fault. That you and your fellow troops are cannon fodder.
That is not unlike Vietnam, when guys came home to angry civilian protests, and the war was left without completion.
Since WWII we have spent much of our nation's treasury on weapons of war, but have not waged wars to successful conclusions.
If the war is waged for a quick, decisive victory, it minimizes loss of life. People on both sides can grasp that. If the enemy can't grasp it yet, too bad.
Increasingly I think our dependence on costly, powerful weapons has left us with a deficit in other areas. Intelligence, propaganda, etc. But mostly we have had a lack of leadership, to take the actions for decisive victory. That is the key element.
Actually, by the end of Petraeus' surge we had Iraq under control. You may not like the idea of 'winning hearts and minds' (many don't), but it was actually working in Iraq.
Also........... more than 58, 000 deaths in Vietnam. About 4000 in Iraq (before Obama took office).
Hardly "cannon fodder."
But I do agree that we should have fought harder and won more quickly than we did. Toppling Saddam happened fast and worked well. IMO, keeping that kind of intense war going would have worked far better.
But what do I know? I'm 'ignorant' according to the 'expert' here. :patriot:
-
m'lady - I'll back dex up to this extent. You really don't know what it's like. Not because you haven't heard about it (you have and you keep your eyes and ears open). Not because you are not smart and empathic (you are, most definitely). Not because you don't want to (you do). It's simply not possible.
Your son (bless him and salute him) may be the most gifted speaker on the planet and as close to you as your own heart, but I'll tell you now - whatever he told you is edited. The boring crap gets edited out. Some of the multifarious grossness' that is daily life just never gets mentioned. Some of the sheer terror moments can't be conveyed.
It's better that way. :beer:
-
m'lady - I'll back dex up to this extent. You really don't know what it's like. Not because you haven't heard about it (you have and you keep your eyes and ears open). Not because you are not smart and empathic (you are, most definitely). Not because you don't want to (you do). It's simply not possible.
Your son (bless him and salute him) may be the most gifted speaker on the planet and as close to you as your own heart, but I'll tell you now - whatever he told you is edited. The boring crap gets edited out. Some of the multifarious grossness' that is daily life just never gets mentioned. Some of the sheer terror moments can't be conveyed.
It's better that way. :beer:
Which is why the guys who have been there tend not to talk about their experiences much unless they are in the company of others who have also been there. There really isn't anyone else who can fully understand it.
-
m'lady - I'll back dex up to this extent. You really don't know what it's like. Not because you haven't heard about it (you have and you keep your eyes and ears open). Not because you are not smart and empathic (you are, most definitely). Not because you don't want to (you do). It's simply not possible.
Your son (bless him and salute him) may be the most gifted speaker on the planet and as close to you as your own heart, but I'll tell you now - whatever he told you is edited. The boring crap gets edited out. Some of the multifarious grossness' that is daily life just never gets mentioned. Some of the sheer terror moments can't be conveyed.
It's better that way. :beer:
OBVIOUSLY I understand all that, EC. (As you said, I'm not stupid. ^-^)
It's just that Dex was trying to paint me as an ignorant fool because I have vastly different political views than he.
You know as well as I do that (assuming he's telling the truth and did serve....BIG assumption, IMO because lots of people make things up on the internet), the vast majority of our American troops didn't come back pacifists and apologists for terrorists. IF he did serve, Dex DID.
He's the anomaly. Not the rest of the troops.
And his point that there are no "bad guys" has NOTHING to do with any service he MAY have given to America. It's an entirely different subject that stems from his liberalism, not his supposed military service.
There are legitimate reasons to believe we shouldn't have gone into Iraq.
Dex hasn't cited a single one.
Only drivel.
-
OBVIOUSLY I understand all that, EC. (As you said, I'm not stupid. ^-^)
It's just that Dex was trying to paint me as an ignorant fool because I have vastly different political views than he.
You know as well as I do that (assuming he's telling the truth and did serve....BIG assumption, IMO because lots of people make things up on the internet), the vast majority of our American troops didn't come back pacifists and apologists for terrorists. IF he did serve, Dex DID.
He's the anomaly. Not the rest of the troops.
And his point that there are no "bad guys" has NOTHING to do with any service he MAY have given to America. It's an entirely different subject that stems from his liberalism, not his supposed military service.
There are legitimate reasons to believe we shouldn't have gone into Iraq.
Dex hasn't cited a single one.
Only drivel.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
-
It's just that Dex was trying to paint me as an ignorant fool because I have vastly different political views than he.
I should aspire to be more like you who never makes judgement calls based on political views.
-
I should aspire to be more like you who never makes judgement calls based on political views.
Ah....... but I am what I claim to be..... a Conservative.
And I never, EVER whine when someone identifies me as such.
I would venture to say that practically everyone on this forum says disparaging things about liberals.
Especially those who won't call terrorists "bad.'
-
Ah....... but I am what I claim to be..... a Conservative.
And I never, EVER whine when someone identifies me as such.
You're possibly the most hostile person on this forum and you're trying to make me sound like a jerk for calling you ignorant. Give me a break, seriously.
-
You're possibly the most hostile person on this forum and you're trying to make me sound like a jerk for calling you ignorant. Give me a break, seriously.
Hostile only to liberals who don't think terrorists are 'bad.'
Not to anyone else. :patriot:
-
Also........... more than 58, 000 deaths in Vietnam. About 4000 in Iraq (before Obama took office).
Hardly "cannon fodder."
The idea that Iraq is so very different, that nobody else can imagine it, defies logic. Okinawa ALONE yielded over 12,500 American dead in just 82 days during WWII. The greatest cause of deaths, was Kamikaze suicide planes crashing into ships standing off the island's coast.
My Dad was injured on the 45th day of combat in Okinawa and shipped to Honolulu. He almost lost part of his hand. He drove an amphibious tank. He never ever spoke with his children about combat. He only spoke about his pride in being a Marine.
His USMC unit was commanded by an Lt. General named Pedro del Valle, an Hispanic from Puerto Rico, the first Hispanic to reach 3 stars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_del_Valle
I'm convinced Dex served. Perhaps he could shed a bit more light. Just MOS, rank, duty stations, years of service leaves it pretty anonymous.
-
You're possibly the most hostile person on this forum and you're trying to make me sound like a jerk for calling you ignorant. Give me a break, seriously.
Hostile? Present and accounted for.
-
I'm convinced Dex served. Perhaps he could shed a bit more light. Just MOS, rank, duty stations, years of service leaves it pretty anonymous.
If I was lying I could easily lie about all of that. Anybody that doesn't believe me is free to do so. I don't feel like my military service should be in question over my political views.
-
If I was lying I could easily lie about all of that. Anybody that doesn't believe me is free to do so. I don't feel like my military service should be in question over my political views.
I'll start. US Army Jan. 1969-Dec. 70 trained at Fort Ord, CA and Ft. Benjamin Harrison, IN, permanent duty station, Heilbronn Germany. MOS Military Personnel Specialist SP5 no combat no hostilities. Co-chair of enlisted study panel of race problems in the Army in Germany. Got out 1 month early to return to college.
Now you.
-
The idea that Iraq is so very different, that nobody else can imagine it, defies logic. Okinawa ALONE yielded over 12,500 American dead in just 82 days during WWII. The greatest cause of deaths, was Kamikaze suicide planes crashing into ships standing off the island's coast.
My Dad was injured on the 45th day of combat in Okinawa and shipped to Honolulu. He almost lost part of his hand. He drove an amphibious tank. He never ever spoke with his children about combat. He only spoke about his pride in being a Marine.
His USMC unit was commanded by an Lt. General named Pedro del Valle, an Hispanic from Puerto Rico, the first Hispanic to reach 3 stars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_del_Valle
I'm convinced Dex served. Perhaps he could shed a bit more light. Just MOS, rank, duty stations, years of service leaves it pretty anonymous.
Your Dad was a true hero (is he still alive?). And his pride in being a Marine, in spite of the horror he saw and went through is a testament to what our troops SHOULD be.
I just ran across some of my Dad's photos from Germany. He didn't see any combat (he was a dentist!), but he went through Germany in 1945 and took photos of the results of our bombing in a number of cities there. I understand the concept of waging a real war as we did in both Japan and Germany, and why many think we didn't do enough destruction in Iraq.
I, however, do NOT understand how anyone can blame US troops for 500,000 Iraqi deaths, while refusing to call terrorists bad.
FWIW, whether or not Dex served is really not really relevant to me (I did say I could be wrong, and I just might be). What he's saying now IS relevant. The fact that he's claiming his service gives him a right to damn the entire mission and blame Bush for killing a half a million Iraqis is what bugs me. And the fact that he doesn't recognize pure EVIL...... especially when he claims to have been there....... is disingenuous at best.
-
I'll start. US Army Jan. 1969-Dec. 70 trained at Fort Ord, CA and Ft. Benjamin Harrison, IN, permanent duty station, Heilbronn Germany. MOS Military Personnel Specialist SP5 no combat no hostilities. Co-chair of enlisted study panel of race problems in the Army in Germany. Got out 1 month early to return to college.
Now you.
I did 5 years from 2007 to 2012. I went to basic at Fort Jackson and then did AIT at Fort Gordon. My MOS was 25F for about 3 months until they told me my MOS was getting phased out and that I would have to start my classes over as a 25N. I was deployed twice, once to Afghanistan and once to Iraq. During my Iraq deployment I was injured and medically discharged. I was an e-4.
-
I did 5 years from 2007 to 2012. I went to basic at Fort Jackson and then did AIT at Fort Gordon. My MOS was 25F for about 3 months until they told me my MOS was getting phased out and that I would have to start my classes over as a 25N. I was deployed twice, once to Afghanistan and once to Iraq. During my Iraq deployment I was injured and medically discharged. I was an e-4.
My son did basic at Fort Jackson too in 2001....nice, but old base.
-
I, however, do NOT understand how anyone can blame US troops for 500,000 Iraqi deaths, while refusing to call terrorists bad.
I can't figure out if your misunderstanding is deliberate or not.
-
Which is why the guys who have been there tend not to talk about their experiences much unless they are in the company of others who have also been there. There really isn't anyone else who can fully understand it.
Truth! :beer:
Even then ....
Two of the people I immensely admire on here were in Vietnam. We sort of get each other, but sometimes we still need a translator! Different place, different time.
-
I can't figure out if your misunderstanding is deliberate or not.
I can't figure out if your saying something, then denying you said it is deliberate or not. (Remember that stuff about the terrorists not being responsible for most of the 500,000 deaths and that they weren't really bad? And that our troops did it..... though under the orders of the big, bad US government).
I can understand, however, how having a punk like Obama as a CinC (if you served when you said you did.....as you admitted, you could lie about that too)...... would turn you against the American government, the military, the war, and life in general......
No wonder you're a pacifist if you think war is what Obama thinks war is.
(And you're still avoiding saying what you think about Christian's being tortured, raped, crucified and beheaded by those 'not that bad' guys who just believe what their folks taught them to believe, just like we do here).
-
(And you're still avoiding saying what you think about Christian's being tortured, raped, crucified and beheaded by those 'not that bad' guys who just believe what their folks taught them to believe, just like we do here).
I care about Christians being killed just as much as I care about Muslims being killed. The suffering of innocent people is a tragedy regardless of their religion. I don't think people are born bad, meaning at some point the bad must have been put in them. Their world view is flawed and that flaw allows them to do what they do. What these people are doing is horrible, and if there was actually a way to stop extremism I would completely support it.
-
I care about Christians being killed just as much as I care about Muslims being killed. The suffering of innocent people is a tragedy regardless of their religion. I don't think people are born bad, meaning at some point the bad must have been put in them. Their world view is flawed and that flaw allows them to do what they do. What these people are doing is horrible, and if there was actually a way to stop extremism I would completely support it.
There is DEFINITELY a way to stop it and you definitely do not support it!
-
I care about Christians being killed just as much as I care about Muslims being killed. The suffering of innocent people is a tragedy regardless of their religion. I don't think people are born bad, meaning at some point the bad must have been put in them. Their world view is flawed and that flaw allows them to do what they do. What these people are doing is horrible, and if there was actually a way to stop extremism I would completely support it.
I just came back here to say I'm sorry, Dex.
While your accusations and argumentation make me crazy, I have no right to treat you badly. I'm sure you must really believe the stuff you post, so I'm going to leave you alone.
If need be, I'll put you on ignore, because I really can't deal with the Kumbaya, peacenik, Rodney King things you say, and I'm pretty sure you must be a decent, albeit misguided IMO, guy who doesn't need a patriotic war-monger like me razzing him.
Peace.
-
There is DEFINITELY a way to stop it and you definitely do not support it!
I'm sure I won't convince you otherwise so I won't try.
-
I just came back here to say I'm sorry, Dex.
While your accusations and argumentation make me crazy, I have no right to treat you badly. I'm sure you must really believe the stuff you post, so I'm going to leave you alone.
If need be, I'll put you on ignore, because I really can't deal with the Kumbaya, peacenik, Rodney King things you say, and I'm pretty sure you must be a decent, albeit misguided IMO, guy who doesn't need a patriotic war-monger like me razzing him.
Peace.
No harm done Musiclady. Hopefully we can coexist without the ignore feature.
-
I did 5 years from 2007 to 2012. I went to basic at Fort Jackson and then did AIT at Fort Gordon. My MOS was 25F for about 3 months until they told me my MOS was getting phased out and that I would have to start my classes over as a 25N. I was deployed twice, once to Afghanistan and once to Iraq. During my Iraq deployment I was injured and medically discharged. I was an e-4.
Thanks for your service.
-
Thanks for your service.
Yes, thank you to all who served. I am always grateful and humbled. :patriot:
For us who reside somewhere along the right side of the political spectrum, and for the future of our country, we had better accept many of our individual differences while uniting in the broader similarities. This is something the Left is far, far better at than we are. Dexter, m'lady... I suspect you share many similarities but perhaps from different perspectives. We each have to draw a line and I hope you find that you are on the same side of it. As for me, I am glad you are here in this forum.
It is a new day.
-
Having re-read the thread after actually getting some sleep .... :laugh:
Dex, I see the problem.
You were not there when it was working well. The difference between that time and the time you were there is like day and night. We'd stop and talk to the locals while on patrol, and patrols happened constantly, none of this confined to base crap. They were happy to talk back - endlessly curious about our lives compared to theirs. Hell, they usually started the conversations! Totally different to how it was before the withdrawal (or betrayal, as some Kurds call it).
-
Yes, thank you to all who served. I am always grateful and humbled. :patriot:
For us who reside somewhere along the right side of the political spectrum, and for the future of our country, we had better accept many of our individual differences while uniting in the broader similarities. This is something the Left is far, far better at than we are. Dexter, m'lady... I suspect you share many similarities but perhaps from different perspectives. We each have to draw a line and I hope you find that you are on the same side of it. As for me, I am glad you are here in this forum.
It is a new day.
What an outstanding post Lando. :patriot:
While I disagree on many levels with Dex's position on this thread, I respect him for presenting a perspective many Americans share, and doing so in a professional way. And most of the responses to him were on-point and non-personal. We are at our best not when we are agreeing with each other, but when we are disagreeing and doing so with substance, not vitriol. :beer:
-
MAC... :beer:
-
Yes, thank you to all who served. I am always grateful and humbled. :patriot:
For us who reside somewhere along the right side of the political spectrum, and for the future of our country, we had better accept many of our individual differences while uniting in the broader similarities. This is something the Left is far, far better at than we are. Dexter, m'lady... I suspect you share many similarities but perhaps from different perspectives. We each have to draw a line and I hope you find that you are on the same side of it. As for me, I am glad you are here in this forum.
It is a new day.
While I fondly recall wearing psychedelic bellbottoms and a fringed leather vest 45 years ago, I never fell into the hippie mentality.
Every time Dex posts on anything anti-war related, I hear the sweet, gentle tones of Scott McKenzie warbling....
If you're going to San Francisco
Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair
If you're going to San Francisco
You're gonna meet some gentle people there…
If I don't put him on ignore, I'll just click on this link and feel all warm and fuzzy inside whenever he says he wants to COEXIST. :laugh:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bch1_Ep5M1s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bch1_Ep5M1s)
-
What an outstanding post Lando. :patriot:
While I disagree on many levels with Dex's position on this thread, I respect him for presenting a perspective many Americans share, and doing so in a professional way. And most of the responses to him were on-point and non-personal. We are at our best not when we are agreeing with each other, but when we are disagreeing and doing so with substance, not vitriol. :beer:
Hear, hear! :beer:
-
Kudos to all here who've conducted themselves in the true spirit of The Briefing Room.
This is another example of how political forums should conduct themselves. :beer:
-
While I fondly recall wearing psychedelic bellbottoms and a fringed leather vest 45 years ago, I never fell into the hippie mentality.
Every time Dex posts on anything anti-war related, I hear the sweet, gentle tones of Scott McKenzie warbling....
If you're going to San Francisco
Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair
If you're going to San Francisco
You're gonna meet some gentle people there…
If I don't put him on ignore, I'll just click on this link and feel all warm and fuzzy inside whenever he says he wants to COEXIST. :laugh:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bch1_Ep5M1s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bch1_Ep5M1s)
I like how you always spot and point out my ironic word choice. You're a perceptive person. :laugh:
-
I like how you always spot and point out my ironic word choice. You're a perceptive person. :laugh:
I knew you used that word just to tweak me, Dex.
I thought I'd make the most of it. ^-^
btw, did you listen to the song? It's sweet and peaceful, just like you wish the world would be................ but isn't.
Cause some people really are evil, and not just misguided........ and somebody needs to stop them from brutalizing innocent people.
Fortunately, the US military is one of the most honorable, if not THE most honorable institutions in the history of the world, and even though some people don't realize it, some times we DO need to intervene and stop the progression of that evil throughout the world.
Isolationism will lead to the death and destruction of many, many innocent people.
That's why I'm not going to vote for Rand Paul in the primary. He seems too skittish to keep us safe.
And he's dead wrong about Iraq. NO mistake.
-
I knew you used that word just to tweak me, Dex.
I thought I'd make the most of it. ^-^
btw, did you listen to the song? It's sweet and peaceful, just like you wish the world would be................ but isn't.
Cause some people really are evil, and not just misguided........ and somebody needs to stop them from brutalizing innocent people.
Fortunately, the US military is one of the most honorable, if not THE most honorable institutions in the history of the world, and even though some people don't realize it, some times we DO need to intervene and stop the progression of that evil throughout the world.
Isolationism will lead to the death and destruction of many, many innocent people.
That's why I'm not going to vote for Rand Paul in the primary. He seems too skittish to keep us safe.
And he's dead wrong about Iraq. NO mistake.
I will always strive to make the world as good as we wish it could be. We decide our own limitations.
-
I will always strive to make the world as good as we wish it could be. We decide our own limitations.
Funny.... but that's what the soldiers who are proud to have served in Iraq and Afghanistan know that they have done.
They have made the world a better place by protecting America and getting rid of some really evil people.
I'm sorry you're not proud of what you have done to make the world better by serving in the US military in a noble mission.
-
Funny.... but that's what the soldiers who are proud to have served in Iraq and Afghanistan know that they have done.
They have made the world a better place by protecting America and getting rid of some really evil people.
I'm sorry you're not proud of what you have done to make the world better by serving in the US military in a noble mission.
The frustration Dex must feel is that the sacrifice of American blood and treasure ended up being nothing but simply outscoring your opponent for a quarter or half. A rally.
The wrench in the gears was Barack Hussein Obama. For no other Democrat president would have abandoned Iraq or assisted in re-writing the Islamic world map.
THAT makes Dex and many of us mad as hell, because we interpret that as meaning all those who paid the ultimate price, did so in vain.
And I'm not some anti-war hippie of the 60's. I'm all for killing the hell out of them.
And m'lady, while I'm one of your biggest fans, with no malice intended whatsoever...I'm afraid that if the question was raised to those killed and wounded in combat over there, they'd feel betrayed that their deaths were made insignificant with the stroke of a pen.
-
The frustration Dex must feel is that the sacrifice of American blood and treasure ended up being nothing but simply outscoring your opponent for a quarter or half. A rally.
The wrench in the gears was Barack Hussein Obama. For no other Democrat president would have abandoned Iraq or assisted in re-writing the Islamic world map.
THAT makes Dex and many of us mad as hell, because we interpret that as meaning all those who paid the ultimate price, did so in vain.
And I'm not some anti-war hippie of the 60's. I'm all for killing the hell out of them.
Trust me, I know that it was Hussein who deliberately destroyed what was accomplished in Iraq.
And it makes me furious as well because, even though Dex diminished the anguish of having a child in a war, it was horrific for us while our son was deployed............ twice. Voluntarily. And it's unbearable to realize that his sacrifice (and ours) was squandered by the punk in the WH.
But my point is, just as I am proud of every one of our troops who served because their mission WAS noble, I think Dex should be proud of his service as well. I don't know how you get there with a traitor like Obama as CinC, but he needs to get there. He needs to remember why he signed up in the first place and remember that what he did was a good thing, in spite of Obama's despicable destruction of the successful mission after the fact.
It's one thing to think it may have not been the right decision in retrospect. It's quite another to use the language Dex has used to diminish the importance of what was done, and belittle those who still think it was the right thing as somehow being 'ignorant.'
-
And it makes me furious as well because, even though Dex diminished the anguish of having a child in a war, it was horrific for us while our son was deployed............ twice. Voluntarily. And it's unbearable to realize that his sacrifice (and ours) was squandered by the punk in the WH.
It wasn't my intention to diminish what you went through as a parent. I'm sure it was difficult and painful.
But my point is, just as I am proud of every one of our troops who served because their mission WAS noble, I think Dex should be proud of his service as well. I don't know how you get there with a traitor like Obama as CinC, but he needs to get there. He needs to remember why he signed up in the first place and remember that what he did was a good thing, in spite of Obama's despicable destruction of the successful mission after the fact.
I am proud of my military service. I know it might not seem that way, but it's the truth. I can be proud of my service and not approve of what our government has done at the same time.
It's one thing to think it may have not been the right decision in retrospect. It's quite another to use the language Dex has used to diminish the importance of what was done, and belittle those who still think it was the right thing as somehow being 'ignorant.'
If war taught me anything it is that violence is almost never a good solution. I have no problem admitting that I was far from the biggest bad ass in the room. Whatever other soldiers have that allows them to kill without thought, I don't have it. Whatever allows them to see what they see and not question the mission and whether or not any of it was necessary, I don't have it. I'm sure a better soldier would have done his duty without ever questioning the mission. I don't believe the things I did made the world a better place. I'm absolutely ashamed of some of the things I did. I lie to my own family about what happened while I was deployed. If that means I've disgraced myself or the uniform I wore then so be it.
-
It wasn't my intention to diminish what you went through as a parent. I'm sure it was difficult and painful.
I am proud of my military service. I know it might not seem that way, but it's the truth. I can be proud of my service and not approve of what our government has done at the same time.
If war taught me anything it is that violence is almost never a good solution. I have no problem admitting that I was far from the biggest bad ass in the room. Whatever other soldiers have that allows them to kill without thought, I don't have it. Whatever allows them to see what they see and not question the mission and whether or not any of it was necessary, I don't have it. I'm sure a better soldier would have done his duty without ever questioning the mission. I don't believe the things I did made the world a better place. I'm absolutely ashamed of some of the things I did. I lie to my own family about what happened while I was deployed. If that means I've disgraced myself or the uniform I wore then so be it.
Thank you very much for your service, Dex. You have my utmost respect.
Not only for serving, but the manner in which you communicate and conduct yourself. :beer:
-
Thank you very much for your service, Dex. You have my utmost respect.
Not only for serving, but the manner in which you communicate and conduct yourself. :beer:
Indeed!