[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Strategic blunder. >>>[/quote]OBAMA is a strategic blunder.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Strategic blunder. >>>[/quote]OBAMA is a strategic blunder.
[/quote]
But not for much longer.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
But…but…but…we all know that the reason the US went to war in Iraq was to get their oil and…and…and…we haven’t got it yet.
We can’t leave.[/quote]
Here is another perspective on why the US invaded Iraq and was so keen on throwing Kadaffi out.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
…CIA mercenaries(Blackwater aka ‘Xe Services’) will remain to ‘train’ the Iranians…ah I mean Iraqis and help the marines protect the embassies. We’ll see how that turns out. I’m guessing you fellas aren’t going anywhere.[/quote]
This…there will be troops there for many, many years to come.
Afghanistan to back Pakistan if wars with U.S.: Karzai
http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20111022/wl_nm/us_pakistan_afghanistan_usa
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Strategic blunder. Anyway, CIA mercenaries(Blackwater aka ‘Xe Services’) will remain to ‘train’ the Iranians…ah I mean Iraqis and help the marines protect the embassies. We’ll see how that turns out. I’m guessing you fellas aren’t going anywhere.[/quote]
What did you want to see?
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Strategic blunder. Anyway, CIA mercenaries(Blackwater aka ‘Xe Services’) will remain to ‘train’ the Iranians…ah I mean Iraqis and help the marines protect the embassies. We’ll see how that turns out. I’m guessing you fellas aren’t going anywhere.[/quote]
What did you want to see?[/quote]
I’d like to see the US confront Iranian forces in Iraq more aggressively.
EDIT: Sorry if that’s a little vague but it’s difficult to talk about what could’ve been done or should be done now that the war in Iraq has played out the way it has. There’s also the difference between what should be done and what we are ABLE to do politically and logistically.
I fully realise US has accrued massive debt and that they are overstretched and that we’re in a Chinese finger trap in the Af-Pak theatre. Obviously we need a cohesive global strategy against our enemies and we need to conserve and use to the best advantage all of our resources.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Strategic blunder. Anyway, CIA mercenaries(Blackwater aka ‘Xe Services’) will remain to ‘train’ the Iranians…ah I mean Iraqis and help the marines protect the embassies. We’ll see how that turns out. I’m guessing you fellas aren’t going anywhere.[/quote]
What did you want to see?[/quote]
I’d like to see the US confront Iranian forces in Iraq more aggressively.
EDIT: Sorry if that’s a little vague but it’s difficult to talk about what could’ve been done or should be done now that the war in Iraq has played out the way it has. There’s also the difference between what should be done and what we are ABLE to do politically and logistically.
I fully realise US has accrued massive debt and that they are overstretched and that we’re in a Chinese finger trap in the Af-Pak theatre. Obviously we need a cohesive global strategy against our enemies and we need to conserve and use to the best advantage all of our resources.[/quote]
lol…Now you are sounding like a “smart power” advocate. I can’t say I disagree with what you wrote, although I’m still not so sure why you jumped to “strategic blunder.”
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I’m still not so sure why you jumped to “strategic blunder.” [/quote]
Because there are two basic truths we need to accept. If we don’t secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and deprive Iran of nuclear weapons we’re all up shit creek. And ceding Iraq to Iran is not strategically in our interests.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I’m still not so sure why you jumped to “strategic blunder.” [/quote]
Because there are two basic truths we need to accept. If we don’t secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and deprive Iran of nuclear weapons we’re all up shit creek. And ceding Iraq to Iran is not strategically in our interests.[/quote]
And you think this is a step to the later? Fair enough.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:<<< And you think this is a step to the later? Fair enough. [/quote]Only a matter of time. And probably less than we think. After all the accusations of U.S. Plundering of Iraqi oil, Iran will wind up with it. One day it may occur to somebody that we either need to start living up to all the allegations of empire or adopt Ron Paul’s foreign engagement policy. I don’t like either option, but how many supervisory campaigns of nation building need to fail before we comprehend that they are almost certain to every time? Now our fallen troops did indeed die for what will eventually amount to nothing as Iraq will simply be annexed by Iran (or we go back for more babysitting) and the last state will be at least as bad and maybe worse than the first.
this
Or you could just make a good use of the superiority of (y)our civilization.
Think “soft power” and send them an army of whores. Bomb them with tons of customized pornography.
Wait a few years and they will be as doomed as we are, with a litteral Nanny State breast-feeding adult babies and promoting every paraphilia in existence.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I took your post as a slam against the US. In other words ridiculing America for going into Iraq because of:
-
Weapons of mass destruction
-
Hussein supposedly in on 9/11
The FACTS are we did it because of:
-
It was a continuation of the Gulf War started unilaterally by Iraq with the invasion of Kuwait and the threat to do the same to Saudi Arabia
-
Hussein being a belligerent thug who DID
a) support and harbor Islamist terrorists
b) radically disrupt and threaten world oil supplies
c) threaten to repeat his military transgressions
-
the attempted assassination of GHW Bush
-
Repeated, blatant treaty violations signed at the conclusion of combat in Gulf War
AND
- the worldwide consensus that WMD were present.
[/quote]
keep telling yourself that.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MaliMedved wrote:
keep telling yourself that.
[/quote]
You’re welcome to concoct a theory that differs from the facts. Go get 'em, tiger, and then make your presentation right here on PWI. We’ll be waiting.
[/quote]
We danced this dance already, man.
The facts are following:
Saddam had no desire of going to Saudi Arabia, there was no buildup of his troops on the border, and there are satellite photos to prove this. And since when it’s justifiable to start a new war because an old one ended?
There was no connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam (9/11 commission)
There was no world wide consensus that WMDs are there, and definitely no consensus about war.
There was, however, a huge campaign to convince everybody that there were WMD. And it was total bullshit. And people calling Bush administration out for it, were punished (like Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson)
Saddam probably would not kill 150 000 of his people, which died in this war so far. So him being, you know, bad doesn’t count for much. Bad people rule nations all over the world.
Btw, even in the US, most people now believe it was a mistake to go there. Not that it matters.
Just because you didn’t see this on FOX news, doesn’t make it false. If you find the time, read up where the big networks get their info from in times of war - it’s called (drum roll) wedging. US Media (always!) alines with the government and feeds people propaganda - any war, against any country, ever.
But hell, I don’t even pretend to think you’ll change your mind.
[quote]MaliMedved wrote:
We danced this dance already, man.
The facts are following:
Saddam had no desire of going to Saudi Arabia, there was no buildup of his troops on the border, and there are satellite photos to prove this.
[/quote]
Actually the Saudis requested US forces because Sadam had amassed 80,000 troops in Kuwait - which last time I looked borders Saudi Arabia and is only 300 miles from Riyadh and Bahrain(both of which were attacked by Sadam with hundreds of Scud missiles in the conflict.) Picture attached of the dispositions of Iraqi units in Kuwait.
What’s this about ‘satellite photos?’ BTW?
What about Iran? How would we ever get forces into Iran if we did not control the Persian Gulf and the port of Basra?
So what? Why would a ‘world wide consensus’ on either be a prerequisite?
Sure.
Many Kurds in particular would dispute that. The ones still alive that is.
I come from things from a different angle. I like to know things like ‘WHO is actually killing these people?’ And ‘who is trying to stop these people from getting killed?’ Subtleties I realise.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MaliMedved wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]MaliMedved wrote:
keep telling yourself that.
[/quote]
You’re welcome to concoct a theory that differs from the facts. Go get 'em, tiger, and then make your presentation right here on PWI. We’ll be waiting.
[/quote]
We danced this dance already, man.
The facts are following:
Saddam had no desire of going to Saudi Arabia, there was no buildup of his troops on the border, and there are satellite photos to prove this. And since when it’s justifiable to start a new war because an old one ended?
There was no connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam (9/11 commission)
There was no world wide consensus that WMDs are there, and definitely no consensus about war.
There was, however, a huge campaign to convince everybody that there were WMD. And it was total bullshit. And people calling Bush administration out for it, were punished (like Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson)
Saddam probably would not kill 150 000 of his people, which died in this war so far. So him being, you know, bad doesn’t count for much. Bad people rule nations all over the world.
Btw, even in the US, most people now believe it was a mistake to go there. Not that it matters.
Just because you didn’t see this on FOX news, doesn’t make it false. If you find the time, read up where the big networks get their info from in times of war - it’s called (drum roll) wedging. US Media (always!) alines with the government and feeds people propaganda - any war, against any country, ever.
But hell, I don’t even pretend to think you’ll change your mind.[/quote]
Of course you’re not going to change my mind. Your left wing fantasy think-tank talking points are Swiss cheese. I don’t change my mind for Swiss cheese revisionist history. Why would I?
BTW, professor, there was no Fox News during the Gulf War. The fact that you thought there was indicates I’m dealing with another youngster who wasn’t around back then and has formed their perspective based on revised history.
And you ignored virtually all of the points I raised earlier.
You’re dumber than a box of rocks to state Saddam had no designs on Saudi. The fact that he hadn’t amassed troops on the border YET is of little value in analyzing the situation.[/quote]
Right. 'Cause my post said that there were FOX news back then.
As somebody was quick to point out, around here background isn’t worth jack. But just for the record - I lived through a few wars, a coup d’ etat and an assassination of my prime minister. Also graduating journalism this month as the top student in my school.
But yeah, I didn’t watch on TV, so who am I to talk?