From the Washington Post:

#26
#26
MG1968 said:
Actually, you dodged the question, twice. Your original statement was that you WANT to see Americans killed by a WMD in a US city before the US commits it's full arsenal to destroy an enemy.

My point was simply to ask if you would really want that to happen, or if you were using hyperbole.
Click to expand...
I understand you better, now. I do not want the US to be attacked and I do not want Americans killed. However, if we are going to war, then i want to see evidence of both.
 
#27
#27
rjd970 said:
What's your beef with the transition? What should have been done different?
Click to expand...

1. We made no effort to have a transition - we cut ties

2. We made no real effort to get the sides together - no one wants to be a nation builder but we basically imposed our view into their Constitution. We should have been more forceful and helpful in moving the government to inclusion; including moving much sooner on Maliki (sp?)

3. We signaled to all that not only are we out completely but when that would occur and that we aren't coming back under virtually any circumstances.

Bottomline - we shouldn't have broken it in the first place but since we did we had an obligation to try to fix it a bit. Instead it was adios amigos and good luck with that.
 
#28
#28
rjd970 said:
I don't know. Nobody does is the point. I'm not sure there was a clean way to transition without prolonged, indefinite troop involvement. Nobody wants troops there anymore, but nobody wants a failed state either. It's lose/lose no matter what you do.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's that clean of an either or - indefinite troop involvement is overstating it and troop involvement doesn't mean at war with.

A small (5000?) contingent designed for tactical response when necessary but also for oversight and movement towards inclusive government could have done much to prevent the massive ISIS gains across the country.

Put another way - "boots on the ground" doesn't mean we are fully deployed into Iraq or involved in a ground war.

We have boots on the ground all around the globe but somehow doing it in Iraq is some huge issue.
 
#29
#29
rjd970 said:
The warhawks in DC and some on here seem to think we need to perpetually fight every battle for our allies in the middle east, until they become our enemies, then fight previous enemies who are now our friend.

Wash, rinse, repeat.
Click to expand...

The problem with your statement is this is from the Washington Post, one of the most liberal rags in the country.
 
#30
#30
McDad said:
PHP:

I did answer your question. Clearly, it isn't the answer you wanted. Knoxville was a target in WWII and during the cold war. I'm sure it still is to the soviets, chinese, etc. I doubt the guys in some islamo fascist country could even identify Knoxville on a map of the US.
Click to expand...
When I was in college at UT a few years after the 9/11 attack, I found out from a friend of mine whose father was a hospital director at Fort Sanders that on more than one occasion there were men that appeared to be middle eastern taking photos of the parking garage of the hospital. Security tried to establish contact on separate occasions but the men would take off. Nothing they did was illegal, but it was highly suspicious and reported to the FBI. Knoxville also has a few mosques, and one of them had ties to terrorist fundraising. That was actually confirmed by either TBI or the FBI a few years back.

I don't know if Knoxville will ever be hit, but it is a more likely and easier target to hit than Oak Ridge. I still fear someone getting a small plane and crashing it into Neyland on a game day. That would be impossible to stop and is something terrorists have looked at doing (not specifically Neyland, but sporting events in general).
 
#31
#31
volinbham said:
1. We made no effort to have a transition - we cut ties

2. We made no real effort to get the sides together - no one wants to be a nation builder but we basically imposed our view into their Constitution. We should have been more forceful and helpful in moving the government to inclusion; including moving much sooner on Maliki (sp?)

3. We signaled to all that not only are we out completely but when that would occur and that we aren't coming back under virtually any circumstances.

Bottomline - we shouldn't have broken it in the first place but since we did we had an obligation to try to fix it a bit. Instead it was adios amigos and good luck with that.
Click to expand...

1. What do you mean we "cut ties", "adios style"? The "mission accomplished" was 11 years ago. The Iraq government has had elections for the last 6 years. By December 2009 US deaths/month were at an all-time low. By August 2010 the last combat brigade left. The U.S. still has a limited presence there. Again, it isn't like we just left, we stuck around and made sure they at least had a functioning government of some sort.

I'm seeing a long transition. Obama finally pulled the last troops out, so now it is "no transition" on his watch? Short of indefinite and prolonged troop involvement, I don't know what else we could have done from a transition standpoint. And although mistakes were made, Bush gets some credit for at least trying to fix the mistake.

2. We imposed our view on their constitution, but didn't push enough for inclusion? So we should or shouldn't have interfered more? Besides, this went down under Bush's watch, laying equal blame for this under both administrations is disingenuous.

3. What signal? If you mean allowing ISIS to take a further foothold, that is a debate worth having.
 
Last edited:
#32
#32
volinbham said:
I don't think it's that clean of an either or - indefinite troop involvement is overstating it and troop involvement doesn't mean at war with.

A small (5000?) contingent designed for tactical response when necessary but also for oversight and movement towards inclusive government could have done much to prevent the massive ISIS gains across the country.


Put another way - "boots on the ground" doesn't mean we are fully deployed into Iraq or involved in a ground war.

We have boots on the ground all around the globe but somehow doing it in Iraq is some huge issue.
Click to expand...

For how long? If you can't answer that, it is indefinite, and its not overstating anything.

Whether it is 10 or 5000 troops, the public still views it as troops there to engage the enemy.

If Obama had not pulled the troops out, he would have been charged with not ending the war. Now that he has, it is he fouled up the "transition". I'm not an Obama supporter by any means, but I really think he is getting an unfair shake on this one. There is no way he could have done this without being called out one way or the other. All set up, by the way, by his predecessor who made the mistake to begin with.

It's like he was setup for failure, and then when he fails, everybody spears him for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#33
#33
rjd970 said:
For how long? If you can't answer that, it is indefinite, and its not overstating anything.

Whether it is 10 or 5000 troops, the public still views it as troops there to engage the enemy.

If Obama had not pulled the troops out, he would have been charged with not ending the war. Now that he has, it is he fouled up the "transition". I'm not an Obama supporter by any means, but I really think he is getting an unfair shake on this one. There is no way he could have done this without being called out one way or the other. All set up, by the way, by his predecessor who made the mistake to begin with.

It's like he was setup for failure, and then when he fails, everybody spears him for it.
Click to expand...

So, is your premise that we should never have done anything? That we should never have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan?
 
#34
#34
Sandvol said:
So, is your premise that we should never have done anything? That we should never have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan?
Click to expand...
No on Iraq but I felt Afg was justified. Should have put all or focus there, obliterated AQ and come home. World would be a whole lot different if that had happened
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#35
#35
utvolpj said:
No on Iraq but I felt Afg say justified. Should have put all or focus there, obliterated AQ and come home. World would be a whole lot different if that had happened
Click to expand...

Well, knowing what we know now about Pakistan's support of both the Taliban and Al Qaeda I'm not sure we could simply keep all the conflict limited to Afghanistan. I don't think we should have gotten involved in Iraq though. That was absolutely retarded.
 
#36
#36
davethevol said:
Well, knowing what we know now about Pakistan's support of both the Taliban and Al Qaeda I'm not sure we could simply keep all the conflict limited to Afghanistan. I don't think we should have gotten involved in Iraq though. That was absolutely retarded.
Click to expand...

Saudi Arabia before Pakistan IMO but no one would every have the guts to do it. I have my own personal conspiracy theory on that one
 
#37
#37
rjd970 said:
For how long? If you can't answer that, it is indefinite, and its not overstating anything.

Whether it is 10 or 5000 troops, the public still views it as troops there to engage the enemy.

If Obama had not pulled the troops out, he would have been charged with not ending the war. Now that he has, it is he fouled up the "transition". I'm not an Obama supporter by any means, but I really think he is getting an unfair shake on this one. There is no way he could have done this without being called out one way or the other. All set up, by the way, by his predecessor who made the mistake to begin with.

It's like he was setup for failure, and then when he fails, everybody spears him for it.
Click to expand...

I'll have to see if I can find some analyses to back up what I'm saying since I'm in-artful in explaining it.

I don't care about blaming anyone - I do care if strategic decisions are made primarily for political reasons.

Yes I understand the "indefinite" issue but it is not black and white that nothing could be accomplished without indefinite presence. What I meant by overstating is that a small contingent to ease the transition is not the same as an invasion and/or counter insurgent force.

Like I said, we have boots on the ground all over the place where we are not involved in combat but we are involved in stabilization and prevention.

Yes the mistake was going there and ousting Hussein - that doesn't mean that once that mistake was made other decisions we make don't have near-term and long-term consequences.

I can say unequivocally that the current POTUS had priority #1 of ending our involvement regardless of the consequences.
 
Last edited:
#38
#38
utvolpj said:
Saudi Arabia before Pakistan IMO but no one would every have the guts to do it. I have my own personal conspiracy theory on that one
Click to expand...

Put on the tin foil hat and let's hear it PJ. I'm sure your conspiracy theory is pretty accurate to mine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#39
#39
utvolpj said:
No on Iraq but I felt Afg was justified. Should have put all or focus there, obliterated AQ and come home. World would be a whole lot different if that had happened
Click to expand...

I can see that point of view. I supported Bush's decision at the time but in hindsight it was not nearly as strong as the decision to go after the Taliban. Claim's of Sadam's ties to terrorism weren't really founded. And, the WMD argument was really a red herring.
 
#40
#40
lawgator1 said:
Bush gets the blame for the original invasion, which created the power vacuum and the trigger for Suni v. Shiite. Obama gets the blame for increasing the vacuum by getting us out of the picture. What you need to realize is that the latter was inevitable, no matter who was POTUS, because at some point we'd have drawn down. We weren't going to stay there forever. This one really is Bush's fault.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. Everything is Bush's fault. Obama is not to blame for anything. Kudos.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#48
#48
Arclight said:
The WP is a Dem-lib rag.
Click to expand...

Its also the CIA's main mouthpiece in print journalism.

PCR: WaPo Is CIA's "Propaganda Service For The Military/Security/Pharma Complex" | ZeroHedge

The CIA wanted Nixon gone, because Nixon was threatening the military/security complex’s budget and power by making arms control agreements with the Soviets and by opening to China. The CIA was afraid to assassinate Nixon because of the suspicion it was under for assassinating President Kennedy and Senator Kennedy. So the CIA used the Washington Post to assassinate Nixon politically.

The entire history of the Washington Post is one of fake news. The latest fake news from the disinformation sheet claims that the Russian troop pullback is a “deliberate ruse to mislead the United States and other world powers” about Russia’s planned invasion of Ukraine. “Anonymous US intelligence sources” (the CIA) are cited as the source.
 
#49
#49
WOW... this is a very hot take.

If I were Putin and I wanted Ukraine, I would just take it. I would say, you Americans took Iraq and Libya. The Israelis stole Palestine. I’m taking Ukraine.
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top