Shouldn't we go back into Iraq

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Shouldn't we go back into Iraq

    I've been thinking about this.  Aren't we as a nation responsible for the situation in Iraq?  Some will blame W and company for going into the Middle East to begin with.  Others will blame Obama for not waving a magic wand and turning Iraq into a peaceful nation.


    But regardless of which President made mistakes, didn't we as a nation cause it?


    And if so, don't we have a responsibility to fix it?  Not sure what fixing it involves, but we caused the problem.  We broke it and then applied a halfassed patch that no one thought would hold.  The patch that we created couldn't fix the problem we created. 


    Of course the challenge is finding a realistic objective that doesn't end up causing WW III.  That whole area is a tinder box. 


    So maybe the solution is dividing up Iraq into 3 pieces. The Saudis, Iranians, Turks, and of couse the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq all have to be at the bargaining table.  But how do you negotiate with religious fanatics?  Christian fanatics are bad - but Islamic fanatics are impossible. 


    What a mess - and all in the name of increased profits for American Oil Companies - because none of that oil is coming to America.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Shouldn't we go back into Iraq

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

    What a mess - and all in the name of increased profits for American Oil Companies - because none of that oil is coming to America.


    .....no, we really didn't go to Iraq for oil...

    LOL... "Peak Oil" !!! 98% of progressive "expert oil scientists" in the early 2000s said the US would soon run out of oil, since there was no known technology breakthrough method to extract more oil !

    And we know scientists are always right....

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from steven11. Show steven11's posts

    Re: Shouldn't we go back into Iraq

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

    I've been thinking about this.  Aren't we as a nation responsible for the situation in Iraq?  Some will blame W and company for going into the Middle East to begin with.  Others will blame Obama for not waving a magic wand and turning Iraq into a peaceful nation.

     

    But regardless of which President made mistakes, didn't we as a nation cause it?

     

    And if so, don't we have a responsibility to fix it?  Not sure what fixing it involves, but we caused the problem.  We broke it and then applied a halfassed patch that no one thought would hold.  The patch that we created couldn't fix the problem we created. 

     

    Of course the challenge is finding a realistic objective that doesn't end up causing WW III.  That whole area is a tinder box. 

     

    So maybe the solution is dividing up Iraq into 3 pieces. The Saudis, Iranians, Turks, and of couse the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq all have to be at the bargaining table.  But how do you negotiate with religious fanatics?  Christian fanatics are bad - but Islamic fanatics are impossible. 

     

    What a mess - and all in the name of increased profits for American Oil Companies - because none of that oil is coming to America.




    You are right we did cause it, but under the leadership of Bush 43 and Dick.  I keep telling the board that nation building and spending foolishly is a liberal thing.  The first thing you need to realize is Iraq is never fixable.  It was best left under the supervision of Sadam.  I see some very "conservative" bloggers get caught up in going to Iraq because a republican administration wanted to go.  It cost lives and a huge drain on our economy.

    Get out and don't look behind.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Shouldn't we go back into Iraq

    No .... Mission Accomplished !

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Shouldn't we go back into Iraq

    In response to high-road's comment:

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

     

     


    I've been thinking about this.  Aren't we as a nation responsible for the situation in Iraq?  Some will blame W and company for going into the Middle East to begin with.  Others will blame Obama for not waving a magic wand and turning Iraq into a peaceful nation.
    But regardless of which President made mistakes, didn't we as a nation cause it?
    And if so, don't we have a responsibility to fix it?  Not sure what fixing it involves, but we caused the problem.  We broke it and then applied a halfassed patch that no one thought would hold.  The patch that we created couldn't fix the problem we created. 

    Of course the challenge is finding a realistic objective that doesn't end up causing WW III.  That whole area is a tinder box. 


    So maybe the solution is dividing up Iraq into 3 pieces. The Saudis, Iranians, Turks, and of couse the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq all have to be at the bargaining table.  But how do you negotiate with religious fanatics?  Christian fanatics are bad - but Islamic fanatics are impossible. 


    What a mess - and all in the name of increased profits for American Oil Companies - because none of that oil is coming to America.

     

    Your assumption is wrong: That we could somehow fix Iraq by using the same tactics that led to failure the first time around.

     

    Iraq cannot be fixed by an all out re-invasion by the US, it is not a military problem it is a political problem.

     

    It has to be sorted out internally, politically and by the three main parties involved... Suni, Shia and Kurd.

     

    We can support the Iraq military against ISIL to give the gov't some time to reach a 3 party solution but trying to fix something so complex as a shattered country is beyond the scope and capability of any military.

     

    Yes, we broke it ... and yes we own it .... but repeating the same mistakes as the previous adminstration to try and fix it is folly .... Einstein's definition of insanity.

     

    Some wingnut fvckups are so bad they are beyond this country's ability to fix.



    I never used the term military and I specifically said bargaining table.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Shouldn't we go back into Iraq

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:



    I've been thinking about this.  Aren't we as a nation responsible for the situation in Iraq?  Some will blame W and company for going into the Middle East to begin with.  Others will blame Obama for not waving a magic wand and turning Iraq into a peaceful nation.


    But regardless of which President made mistakes, didn't we as a nation cause it?


    And if so, don't we have a responsibility to fix it?  Not sure what fixing it involves, but we caused the problem.  We broke it and then applied a halfassed patch that no one thought would hold.  The patch that we created couldn't fix the problem we created. 


    Of course the challenge is finding a realistic objective that doesn't end up causing WW III.  That whole area is a tinder box. 


    So maybe the solution is dividing up Iraq into 3 pieces. The Saudis, Iranians, Turks, and of couse the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq all have to be at the bargaining table.  But how do you negotiate with religious fanatics?  Christian fanatics are bad - but Islamic fanatics are impossible. 


    What a mess - and all in the name of increased profits for American Oil Companies - because none of that oil is coming to America.




    What makes anyone - much less us - think we can even "fix it" in the first place...??



    We're horrible at this nation-building stuff.  The Dems are terrible at it, and the Repubs are even worse.  Short-term humanitarian work?  Just barely.  Anything more is a recipe for disaster.


    We pretty much destroy everything we touch, and we cause more damage doing the 'right thing' than if we had just bombed the bejesus out of them.


    $2 trillion and counting.  It costs a whole lot of money to show how badly we can mess up another country.


     

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Shouldn't we go back into Iraq

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:



    I've been thinking about this.  Aren't we as a nation responsible for the situation in Iraq?  Some will blame W and company for going into the Middle East to begin with.  Others will blame Obama for not waving a magic wand and turning Iraq into a peaceful nation.

     

    But regardless of which President made mistakes, didn't we as a nation cause it?

     

    And if so, don't we have a responsibility to fix it?  Not sure what fixing it involves, but we caused the problem.  We broke it and then applied a halfassed patch that no one thought would hold.  The patch that we created couldn't fix the problem we created. 

     

    Of course the challenge is finding a realistic objective that doesn't end up causing WW III.  That whole area is a tinder box. 

     

    So maybe the solution is dividing up Iraq into 3 pieces. The Saudis, Iranians, Turks, and of couse the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq all have to be at the bargaining table.  But how do you negotiate with religious fanatics?  Christian fanatics are bad - but Islamic fanatics are impossible. 

     

    What a mess - and all in the name of increased profits for American Oil Companies - because none of that oil is coming to America.




    What makes anyone - much less us - think we can even "fix it" in the first place...??



    We're horrible at this nation-building stuff.  The Dems are terrible at it, and the Repubs are even worse.  Short-term humanitarian work?  Just barely.  Anything more is a recipe for disaster.

     

    We pretty much destroy everything we touch, and we cause more damage doing the 'right thing' than if we had just bombed the bejesus out of them.

     

    $2 trillion and counting.  It costs a whole lot of money to show how badly we can mess up another country.

     

     



    Because we should have to pay for our bad decisions.  Because we shouldn't be allowed to topple governments for no reason, make a mess of it and then walk away.  We've been doing it for 60 years.  Look at the Congo - totally our fault (for the righties out there, we toppled the democratically elected Government and installed a brutal dictator who used to sell the food aid received from the UN in order to build mansions in Europe).

    Central American is a similar issue.  We had a policy of political destabilization in Central America.  We supported dictators who brutalized the people and pocketed money instead of trying to develop the country.  60 years later and we are still acting like the world is ours to do with what we want.  It is so bad in central America that parents are sending thier young children to the US unaccompanied.  How bad do things have to be that you send you children off with strangers in search of a better life?

    But lets not focus on that stuff.  Lets focus on how religion (Christianinty)  is somehow under attack because gays are getting married and poor people have to work on Thanksgiving.  The War on Christianity campaign seems to be thought up by the same people who are saying the Government is going to take your guns away.

    And  W didn't say we had to invade Iraq because they had WMDs.  W said we had to topple W because Iraq had WMDs and Saddam was a threat to use them against us here in the US, at least that was the implication.  We had to prevent Saddam from launching a 9/11-like attack but with nukes against the US.

    But even if Saddam had WMDs, he was never a threat to use them against the US.  He might use them against Iran or maybe Israel, but not against the US.

    There hasn't been a foreign policy move as stupid as invading Iraq since Austria-Hungary thought invading the Balkans was a good idea.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Shouldn't we go back into Iraq

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

    What a mess - and all in the name of increased profits for American Oil Companies - because none of that oil is coming to America.



    Seriously? Yikes....

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Shouldn't we go back into Iraq

    It was best left under the supervision of Sadam.

    That's not what Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levin, Madeline Albright, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry were saying before 9/11. Do you disagree with them?

     

    No .... Mission Accomplished !

    Exactly, by 2009 the region was largely at peace. It only required a strong hand to maintain it.

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Shouldn't we go back into Iraq

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    It was best left under the supervision of Sadam.

    That's not what Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levin, Madeline Albright, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry were saying before 9/11. Do you disagree with them?

     

    No .... Mission Accomplished !

    Exactly, by 2009 the region was largely at peace. It only required a strong hand to maintain it.

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.




    OH - please.  We went in not because Saddam had WMDs but because we were told that a) he had WMDs and b) he was a threat to use against Americans in the US.  W and Co. used the emotion resulting from 9/11 and lies about WMDs to con the nation into supporting an invasion of Iraq.

    France was largely at peace until June 6, 1944.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from MOSSAD-CIA-M16-GIP. Show MOSSAD-CIA-M16-GIP's posts

    Re: Shouldn't we go back into Iraq

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

    What a mess - and all in the name of increased profits for American Oil Companies - because none of that oil is coming to America.


    .....no, we really didn't go to Iraq for oil...



    that's right. the american war on arab nations hurts the american oil industry as it cuts of customers and business partners. we went to Iraq at the request of the Israel Lobby and neo-cons. just as naomi klein, professor meirsheimer, and professor walt explained in their books. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: Shouldn't we go back into Iraq

    WOW...who's the thin skinned poster that deleted the middle of this thread? Too many facts for you?

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: Shouldn't we go back into Iraq

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    I can guess, but it won't do any good.

     

     I don't think it had to do with being thin skinned.... 



    Then what?

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Shouldn't we go back into Iraq

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to newman09's comment:

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    I can guess, but it won't do any good.

     I don't think it had to do with being thin skinned.... 



    Then what?



     

    Purely for the sake of the annoyance, I'd guess. The internet just brings out the best in people... 



    Bingo!

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: Shouldn't we go back into Iraq

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to newman09's comment:

     


    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    []


    I can guess, but it won't do any good.


     I don't think it had to do with being thin skinned.... 


    []

    Then what?


     



     

     

    Well, there was your post, my post disagreeing with yours, and other various opinions....so I don't see how any one person could be thin-skinned about the lot of them.

     

    So I'd guess they were removed purely for the sake of the annoyance. It's happened many times before. The internet just brings out the best in people... 



    I understand the report abuse button is needed, I wish there was a way to see who did it. I think that would hinder some of this nonsense. I would love to see it removed all together. 

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Shouldn't we go back into Iraq

    In response to newman09's comment:

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to newman09's comment:

     

     

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    []

     

    I can guess, but it won't do any good.

     

     I don't think it had to do with being thin skinned.... 

     

    []

    Then what?

     

     



     

     

    Well, there was your post, my post disagreeing with yours, and other various opinions....so I don't see how any one person could be thin-skinned about the lot of them.

     

    So I'd guess they were removed purely for the sake of the annoyance. It's happened many times before. The internet just brings out the best in people... 



    I understand the report abuse button is needed, I wish there was a way to see who did it. I think that would hinder some of this nonsense. I would love to see it removed all together. 



    I'm with you. Either show the culprit or remove it completely. Cowardly way out reporting posts. 

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Shouldn't we go back into Iraq

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

    I've been thinking about this.  Aren't we as a nation responsible for the situation in Iraq?  Some will blame W and company for going into the Middle East to begin with.  Others will blame Obama for not waving a magic wand and turning Iraq into a peaceful nation.

     

    But regardless of which President made mistakes, didn't we as a nation cause it?

     

    And if so, don't we have a responsibility to fix it?  Not sure what fixing it involves, but we caused the problem.  We broke it and then applied a halfassed patch that no one thought would hold.  The patch that we created couldn't fix the problem we created. 

     

    Of course the challenge is finding a realistic objective that doesn't end up causing WW III.  That whole area is a tinder box. 

     

    So maybe the solution is dividing up Iraq into 3 pieces. The Saudis, Iranians, Turks, and of couse the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq all have to be at the bargaining table.  But how do you negotiate with religious fanatics?  Christian fanatics are bad - but Islamic fanatics are impossible. 

     

    What a mess - and all in the name of increased profits for American Oil Companies - because none of that oil is coming to America.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Let's see, we did break the iron handed control that Sadddam had on the tribes, so we do owe it to the vast majority of Iraqi's to try and fix it.

    The 3 state Baker option was pushed by Baker and also endorsed by Biden back in 2008.  I conceptually like it.

    I disagree, this wasn't an oil issue.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Shouldn't we go back into Iraq

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

    I've been thinking about this.  Aren't we as a nation responsible for the situation in Iraq?  Some will blame W and company for going into the Middle East to begin with.  Others will blame Obama for not waving a magic wand and turning Iraq into a peaceful nation.

     

    But regardless of which President made mistakes, didn't we as a nation cause it?

     

    And if so, don't we have a responsibility to fix it?  Not sure what fixing it involves, but we caused the problem.  We broke it and then applied a halfassed patch that no one thought would hold.  The patch that we created couldn't fix the problem we created. 

     

    Of course the challenge is finding a realistic objective that doesn't end up causing WW III.  That whole area is a tinder box. 

     

    So maybe the solution is dividing up Iraq into 3 pieces. The Saudis, Iranians, Turks, and of couse the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq all have to be at the bargaining table.  But how do you negotiate with religious fanatics?  Christian fanatics are bad - but Islamic fanatics are impossible. 

     

    What a mess - and all in the name of increased profits for American Oil Companies - because none of that oil is coming to America.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Let's see, we did break the iron handed control that Sadddam had on the tribes, so we do owe it to the vast majority of Iraqi's to try and fix it.

    The 3 state Baker option was pushed by Baker and also endorsed by Biden back in 2008.  I conceptually like it.

    I disagree, this wasn't an oil issue.



    It wasn't an oil issue?  Then what was it REALLY about?  There was no real concern of Iraq doing something against the US.  Saddam had never taken an overt aggressive action towards the US.  They were a threat to Israel and to Iran - Not the US.

    They had positioned Iraq so that the oil embargo would never be lifted as long as Saddam was in power.  In order to get the oil pumping from Iraq, Saddam had to go.

    The reason the French weren't part of the coalition and the Russians would not fully support our war was because we would recognize oil contracts the Iraqis had made with Russia and France.  All oil contracts after Saddam was ousted with null and void.  If oil wasn't a primary target, then why would be not recognize the pre-war contracts?

    If oil is not a concern, then why are we doing anything in the middle east?  Everything we do in the middle east is because of oil.

    Other than oil, we have no interests in the Middle East.  And it's really US Oil Companies in the middle east that is the interest.

    Don't agree that it was about oil?  Really?  The first thing we did in Iraq was to secure the oil fields.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Shouldn't we go back into Iraq

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    Any time a conspiracy theory is put forth, the first questions one should ask is: how logically could this benefit the conspirator and did it in fact benefit the conspirator in that way?

     

    Are the oil field currently secure in our hands? How much oil are we taking from Iraq for ourselves? Is Iraq selling us oil at below world-market prices? Did invading Iraq lower the price of oil?

     

    Presumably, we could have seized the oil and waved our members at anyone who had a problem with it. What exact benefit did we get from this supposed conspiracy to get us into Iraq for oil?  I don't think it's any saner than truther nonsense claiming that Iraq attacked us on 9/11 to get us into the middle east.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Even before Bush started talking about WMDs, he was talking about bringing democracy to the middle east. When some intelligence developed regarding possible WMDs in Iraq, he jumped all over it. It was his ticket into Iraq. That's why the intelligence was presented as a slam-dunk, rather than as dubious evidence that should perhaps be further investigated before rushing off.

     

    He and his advisers were stupid or naive enough to think that somehow, knocking out a long-term tyrant in a region full of people who hate each other, disbanding the army and, not guarding the infrastructure would result in a people who never had a democracy suddenly deciding to lovingly create one in our image. Well, we know what happened next.

     

    It was a misguided ego trip that created an intractable mess. It was no conspiracy to lie to us to get us to go in for oil.



    Bush wanted to invade Iraq because of Democracy?  He wanted to save Iraq from Saddam?  Really?  Does Cheney, wolfiwitz, and company really strike you as people who wanted to bring Democracy to Iraq?  Not Saudi Arabia.  Not Yemen.  Not Brunei.  Not Libya.  But Iraq - a country with some of the largest known oil reserves and who could not sell their oil.

    "Make the world safe for Democracy", "Remember the Maine" are the same as "spread decomcracy to the ME", "9/11 we will never forget".  They are reasons for going to war.  They are rallying cries to get the masses bought in to going to war.

    There is always an economic reason for war-  Always.  All the other rhetoric is for coming up with some way to sell it to the people who are related to the people who will be dying.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share