U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-20-2008, 06:01 PM
 
Location: The Planet Mars
2,150 posts, read 2,310,892 times
Reputation: 523

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
I think history already condemns the invasion. For sure, the idiotic mess that was Bremer's occupation is condemnable.

The two week blitzkrieg into Baghdad was a military marvel. Since then, it's been a mess and a failure.

Al Queda started leaving Iraq six months before the surge, which is the spot in time when the local Iraqi Sunni's turned on AQ. The Sunni's were appalled by the brutality of AQ, the rigidity of the AQ form of Islam, etc, and started killing the AQ fools and dropping the dime on AQ so that we'd kill them too, on behalf of the Sunni's. So the AQ dudes took a powder and left town.

I worked for the Army for 30 years and have nothing but the highest regard for our troops. But they've been sent on a terrible mission that never should have been. We could have gotten to Saddam somehow, but not sure we really tried all that hard. I'm convinced that Bush and Cheney came to office with the intent of getting Saddam, to finish the job of Gulf War-I and to get Saddam for trying to kill the Bush family when they visited Kuwait in 1993(?) when invited there by the Kuwaiti's to thank the Bush family for kicking Saddam's army out of Kuwait.

IMO, AQ and Iran are just laying low and waiting for us to leave, at which time they'll most likely return. The AQ dudes may not return since the Sunni dudes hate them, but AQ could still return, time will tell, and if we contain and kill AQ in Pakistan then they won't be back. But all they have to do is wait us out and once we're gone they will be able to do their mischief.

I'll be nicely surprised if the Iraqi's are able to run the country in any semblance of what we consider normal or successfully.

I think history will condemn the invasion, given that we did not first finish the job against AQ in Afghanistan. If we had done that, much of our death toll in Iraq may not have been so high. If we had put more troops into Iraq, as Gen Shinseki told them, we may have been able to keep the borders closed and kept out AQ and the Iranians. All around, the war in Iraq has been a flop, and we'll have to wait and see how the long term turns out.
Mike - good post!!!

Do you feel like the nation was misled into the war??? Or did Bush just make a stupid mistake?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-20-2008, 06:14 PM
 
1,315 posts, read 1,446,789 times
Reputation: 402
I think that within 10 years, Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq will have been widely recognized as a strategic blunder....

We should have focused on Al Queda in Afghanistan - and instead we put a small, inadequate force there - and sent the bulk of the force to Iraq to topple Saddam and to occupy the country - for many years to come...

Here is an article telling that we are FINALLY starting to get our priorities straight: Up to 30,000 new US troops in Afghanistan by summer | International | Reuters

We are sending 20,000 - 30,000 additional troops to battle the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan...

That is what we should have been doing for the past 5 years - not fighting a war against a country that posed no real threat to us...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2008, 06:24 PM
 
Location: Near Manito
19,521 posts, read 20,924,611 times
Reputation: 13858
Quote:
Originally Posted by HubbleRules View Post
I think that within 10 years, Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq will have been widely recognized as a strategic blunder....

We should have focused on Al Queda in Afghanistan - and instead we put a small, inadequate force there - and sent the bulk of the force to Iraq to topple Saddam and to occupy the country - for many years to come...

Here is an article telling that we are FINALLY starting to get our priorities straight: Up to 30,000 new US troops in Afghanistan by summer | International | Reuters

We are sending 20,000 - 30,000 additional troops to battle the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan...

That is what we should have been doing for the past 5 years - not fighting a war against a country that posed no real threat to us...
You better hope you're right, pal. So should Obama.

Keep in mind that Afghanistan was the graveyard of the Soviet army. It could well end up being Obama's Vietnam. In that case, will you be on this board condemning him for making a strategic blunder, as you condemn Bush?

Don't get me wrong. I want nothing more than for our forces to succeed in ending the Taliban's rule in Afghanistan, with as little loss of life on our side as possible.

I am simply pointing out that we may be entering yet another dark room, blindly, in committing large numbers of our troops to an area where we are neither welcomed nor liked, and about which we know next to nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2008, 06:34 PM
 
1,315 posts, read 1,446,789 times
Reputation: 402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf View Post
You better hope you're right, pal. So should Obama.

Keep in mind that Afghanistan was the graveyard of the Soviet army. It could well end up being Obama's Vietnam. In that case, will you be on this board condemning him for making a strategic blunder, as you condemn Bush?

Don't get me wrong. I want nothing more than for our forces to succeed in ending the Taliban's rule in Afghanistan, with as little loss of life on our side as possible.

I am simply pointing out that we may be entering yet another dark room, blindly, in committing large numbers of our troops to an area where we are neither welcomed nor liked, and about which we know next to nothing.
I think putting more forces into Afghanistan is a far far wiser decision than having them in Iraq..

We are fighting Islamic Terrorism - remember???? We need to keep our eye on the ball - not get side-tracked in some tremendously costly sideshow... like Iraq.

There WAS NO Al Queda in Iraq until AFTER we invaded it... there was no threat to us in Iraq until AFTER we invaded it. That is NOT the military's fault. That is the fault of the President who actively pushed for the war with all his might and who prosecuted the effort with far too few troops to begin wth.

The Taliban are active supporters of Al Queda and need to be confronted - and defeated - and we will get far, far more international troops and support for our mission there than we ever got in Iraq.

And YES, if Obama makes the same tragic decisions about how to fight a war as Bush has and continues to make in Iraq and Afghanistan - then I will DEFINITELY criticize him....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2008, 07:01 PM
 
20,923 posts, read 39,228,361 times
Reputation: 19219
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbob View Post
Mike - good post!!! Do you feel like the nation was misled into the war??? Or did Bush just make a stupid mistake?
I think Bush and Cheney wanted to go into Iraq from the start, and I've seen an occasional piece in the WaPo saying the planning for invasion of Iraq began as soon as Bush took office. When 9-11 happened it slowed them down a bit - maybe.

The intelligence was so minimal and the run-up to the invasion was so relentless that it had to be orchestrated from the very start. Relentless in the sense that nothing Saddam said or did had any effect on slowing down the start of the war. I sat there at my desk in the Pentagon, in Army HQs, and saw the steady build up, the deaf ear to Saddam's statements and one day the realization came through loud and clear: we're going in, no matter what.

They had tiny, thin bits and pieces of intelligence which were trumped up to huge levels; mountains out of molehill. Seems the "yellowcake" story was so easy to debunk AFTER the invasion, why wasn't it debunked before?

I remember watching Bush on TV about a year or so after the invasion. He no longer mentioned the WMD thing but switched the topic completely to say that we were there to spread democracy to the middle east. I about dropped out of my chair on that, he COMPLETELY changed the premise for the war, and I knew then that this was a true and total fiasco. To me, that was the "impeachable moment" in this whole disaster. It was that minute that I knew I'd been lied to. IMO they lied to us, no one could be THAT stupid or incompetent, though I could be wrong about that, Bush really IS an idiot. But not the CIA, NSA, NSC, NRO, FBI, all four military services, foreign intelligence services. We were LIED to. Period. Just like the Vietnam war was all a lie, starting with the Gulf of Tonkin attack (that NEVER happened) and the subsequent Tonkin Resolution that was our "policy" for going into Vietnam. All a lie. All of it came out eventually, I believe in the Pentagon Papers, which got published ONLY because someone stole them from someone's safe and gave them to the NY Times. Lies. Lies. All lies.

Bush changed the whole premise in a matter-of-fact way that was nothing but the big lie method; don't announce a huge change of plans, just glibly mention it as if it's trivial, as if everyone understands it and has been in on it from the start. It's not trivial to a quarter million or more dead Iraqi's and their families.

Some day, after I'm long dead, when today's 20-year-old folks are old and gray, they will see the fully declassified info made public, and we will see what a horses-ass mess Bush and his crowd have made of our nation and the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2008, 07:59 PM
 
Location: The Planet Mars
2,150 posts, read 2,310,892 times
Reputation: 523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
I think Bush and Cheney wanted to go into Iraq from the start, and I've seen an occasional piece in the WaPo saying the planning for invasion of Iraq began as soon as Bush took office. When 9-11 happened it slowed them down a bit - maybe.

The intelligence was so minimal and the run-up to the invasion was so relentless that it had to be orchestrated from the very start. Relentless in the sense that nothing Saddam said or did had any effect on slowing down the start of the war. I sat there at my desk in the Pentagon, in Army HQs, and saw the steady build up, the deaf ear to Saddam's statements and one day the realization came through loud and clear: we're going in, no matter what.

They had tiny, thin bits and pieces of intelligence which were trumped up to huge levels; mountains out of molehill. Seems the "yellowcake" story was so easy to debunk AFTER the invasion, why wasn't it debunked before?

I remember watching Bush on TV about a year or so after the invasion. He no longer mentioned the WMD thing but switched the topic completely to say that we were there to spread democracy to the middle east. I about dropped out of my chair on that, he COMPLETELY changed the premise for the war, and I knew then that this was a true and total fiasco. To me, that was the "impeachable moment" in this whole disaster. It was that minute that I knew I'd been lied to. IMO they lied to us, no one could be THAT stupid or incompetent, though I could be wrong about that, Bush really IS an idiot. But not the CIA, NSA, NSC, NRO, FBI, all four military services, foreign intelligence services. We were LIED to. Period. Just like the Vietnam war was all a lie, starting with the Gulf of Tonkin attack (that NEVER happened) and the subsequent Tonkin Resolution that was our "policy" for going into Vietnam. All a lie. All of it came out eventually, I believe in the Pentagon Papers, which got published ONLY because someone stole them from someone's safe and gave them to the NY Times. Lies. Lies. All lies.

Bush changed the whole premise in a matter-of-fact way that was nothing but the big lie method; don't announce a huge change of plans, just glibly mention it as if it's trivial, as if everyone understands it and has been in on it from the start. It's not trivial to a quarter million or more dead Iraqi's and their families.

Some day, after I'm long dead, when today's 20-year-old folks are old and gray, they will see the fully declassified info made public, and we will see what a horses-ass mess Bush and his crowd have made of our nation and the world.
Thanks for your insider look at how things developed... It only confirms what I, and many others, suspected but could never prove... that we were lied to in order to go to war - which had NOTHING to do with 9/11 - but which was decided upon long before then...

I also was quite angered and amazed when suddenly the main premise for the war changed overnight. No more did you hear Bush, Cheny, Rummy talk about WMDs.... Nope - it's almost like from the novel 1984 - they never HAD gone in for WMDs - they had gone in from the beginning to liberate the Iraqi people!!!! My God - how STUPID do they think we are???

Do you remember the press conference when Bush was getting grilled about WMDs - and he joking looks under his notes and said 'Nope - no WMDs here', then looks somewhere else 'Nope - none here either' - and he's smirking all the while??? Does he think it's a joke about the premise for well over 4,000 US dead, well over 100,000 (proabably a LOT more) Iraqis dead, and tens of thousands of US troops gravely injured - many with lifelong disabling brain injuries???

I don't remember when - but sometime after the 'we went in to liberate' scenario - they came up with the 'we want to fight Al Queda over there so we don't have to fight them here'... What??? Al Queda wasn't even in Iraq when we invaded...

I think the big winners in this mess are a) Iran - we took our eye off their nuclear program and let them continue full speed - to where they will probably have one or more nukes within a year, and they were easily able to side with the Shia's and provoke instability in Iraq, and b) the Talliban in Afghanistan - where our troops were always on the short side of the stick when it came to resources to do the job - and where we should have put our full focus from the beginning...

I hope Obama keeps to his plan to pull out of Iraq, and to firm up the INTERNATIONAL committment to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2008, 12:40 AM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
22,387 posts, read 27,605,794 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by HubbleRules View Post
There WAS NO Al Queda in Iraq until AFTER we invaded it...
Of course al Qaeda was in Iraq BEFORE we invaded it.
Ansal Al Islam was in Iraq years before the '03 invasion
Abbu Abass and Abu Nidal were also in Iraq.

And check this out:
Positive test for terror toxins in Iraq - THEFRONT - MSNBC.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2008, 12:58 AM
 
Location: Michigan
12,715 posts, read 11,620,122 times
Reputation: 4141
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbob View Post
But how long do you think it will take before historians put Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney in the same category as Robert McNamara for the tens of thousands of Americans he wasted in Vietnam??
Who knows. I don't trust the so-called "verdict of history" anyway. It's a Marxist idea. History ought to depict FDR and Truman and Churchill as homicidal terror-mongers and imperialists, and a lot worse than any of the men you mentioned, but it doesn't.

There are mentally sharp people who can see Bush as the crackpot he is now, and there will be some people who will whitewash his crimes in the future. History is never really "settled."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2008, 01:04 AM
 
Location: Michigan
12,715 posts, read 11,620,122 times
Reputation: 4141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
Of course al Qaeda was in Iraq BEFORE we invaded it.
Ansal Al Islam was in Iraq years before the '03 invasion
Abbu Abass and Abu Nidal were also in Iraq.
Ansal al Islam operated in "friendly" Iraqi Kurdistan and had zero to do with Saddam. Abu Nidal had already died in 2002. He and Abbas were primarily an Israeli problem, not a U.S. problem anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2008, 02:44 AM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
22,387 posts, read 27,605,794 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by djacques View Post
Ansal al Islam operated in "friendly" Iraqi Kurdistan and had zero to do with Saddam. Abu Nidal had already died in 2002. He and Abbas were primarily an Israeli problem, not a U.S. problem anyway.
Amazing how some people try to deny the obvious (that Iraq, a country which supported, harbored and funded terrorism and terrorists had members of al Qaeda in their country).
I listed only three... there were many more. And don't forget Zarqawi... he was injured in Afghanistan and treated in a hospital in Baghdad!

Or maybe you're right... there were absolutely no terrorists in Iraq who belonged to al Qaeda.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top