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.
That is true. When you don't go all out to "win," you end up coming back or leaving a disaster. When you come back in a half A$$%d way, you do both.
Nobody in America was ready to go "all out to win." Nobody was willing to go to the extent the US went during WWII, nobody was willing to state up front that war would have to continue, American blood would have to be spent, and America would have to go into continued debt to China for two or three more decades for the sake of Iraq.
This is a conflict that has gone on in that area for 1400 years. Do you really think an "all out" effort by the US was going to end it?
ISIS is running around Iraq and Syria, killing, raping and destroying churches without much resistance from America, whose stupid invasion of Iraq and subsequent removal of Saddam enabled their bloody rampage - 'Mission Accomplished'?
Obama did not have a effective exit plan except to pull out and Obama still refused to address the ISA threat.
GW had things under control when he handed over the keys to the office to Barry.
Clinton did not offer no measureable contribution to the exit plan either. she never established relationship with the Iraq, like Condi Rice did.
Nobody in America was ready to go "all out to win." Nobody was willing to go to the extent the US went during WWII, nobody was willing to state up front that war would have to continue, American blood would have to be spent, and America would have to go into continued debt to China for two or three more decades for the sake of Iraq.
This is a conflict that has gone on in that area for 1400 years. Do you really think an "all out" effort by the US was going to end it?
Back in the early 90s, I saw three different "Iraq after Saddam" intelligence analyses at the Pentagon that predicted precisely what has happened. That was a lesson learned from the aftermath of Tito's death in Yugoslavia. Unless another Tito/Saddam-style ruthless strongman was installed, this result was inevitable--and the US is not of a consistent political will to be such a ruthless strongman, despite all the online chest-thumping that goes on in C-D forums.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,373,658 times
Reputation: 40736
[quote=Ralph_Kirk;40274878]Nobody in America was ready to go "all out to win." Nobody was willing to go to the extent the US went during WWII, nobody was willing to state up front that war would have to continue, American blood would have to be spent, and America would have to go into continued debt to China for two or three more decades for the sake of Iraq.
Win what? There was nothing to win.
We should only go to war for the sake of America, no other country.
isis is running around iraq and syria, killing, raping and destroying churches without much resistance from america, whose stupid invasion of iraq and subsequent removal of saddam enabled their bloody rampage - 'mission accomplished'?
Look at the source of this story. That says it all. It says PROPAGANDA!
"Mission Accomplished" referred to the Ships Mission, and not the entire mission of the war. Any other interpretation is pure stupidity. Having been a Navy man myself, I know that's what it meant.
Finally, when Bush left office, the Iraq war had been won. It was Barack Obama that failed to keep troops their (as was the plan) to ensure a continuing peace, and Bush warned about pulling our troops out too early. Those are the facts.
Finally, when Bush left office, the Iraq war had been won.
Nope. The war is won when we can stand a 19-year-old with a rifle anywhere uncontested. If he's still ducking enemy fire, that's not a won war. Iraq was never "won."
Quote:
It was Barack Obama that failed to keep troops their (as was the plan) to ensure a continuing peace, and Bush warned about pulling our troops out too early. Those are the facts.
It was never anyone's plan to keep a fighting force in place in Iraq. The plan was to keep trainers and advisors in country more-or-less indefinitely, but even that required an acceptable SOFA. The al Maliki government had not intention of allowing even those trainers and advisors, because his intention from the start was to replace the US-trained Sunni commanders with Shiite political hacks. The SOFA he insisted on was deliberately unacceptable to the US--and would have been unacceptable to any president.
ISIS is running around Iraq and Syria, killing, raping and destroying churches without much resistance from America, whose stupid invasion of Iraq and subsequent removal of Saddam enabled their bloody rampage - 'Mission Accomplished'?
If Obama had a credible exit plan and have a stay behind force this would not of happen. Clinton and Obama has had a blind eye to this national Security problem. Poor Kerry has to make Chicken soup out of Chicken "s----".
Bush left Iraq pretty stable with a Government that was more or less stable for the region. At this point I wish we fire Obama and call up Bush and Cheey to fix Obama's mess.
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.
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.
Propaganda
