(08-24-2015 04:19 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-24-2015 05:33 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-24-2015 05:16 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  The biggest lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan is No more Nation building. If You Bomb it, leave it in the dust. They will eventually come around.

Unless you are prepared to exterminate the entire population of the area, you do not want to do that. What would result is a power vacuum that would entice the next warlord to set up shop and take over. Everyone thought Saddam was the epitome of evil that had to be removed at all costs. In hindsight, that was a mistake.

Everyone? Hardly.

but the media and bush said so....

kinda like the reason I created this thread.....

capiche?

the irony is burning your eyes while you weld.....

(08-24-2015 04:30 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-24-2015 04:19 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-24-2015 05:33 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-24-2015 05:16 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  The biggest lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan is No more Nation building. If You Bomb it, leave it in the dust. They will eventually come around.

Unless you are prepared to exterminate the entire population of the area, you do not want to do that. What would result is a power vacuum that would entice the next warlord to set up shop and take over. Everyone thought Saddam was the epitome of evil that had to be removed at all costs. In hindsight, that was a mistake.

Everyone? Hardly.

but the media and bush said so....

kinda like the reason I created this thread.....

capiche?

the irony is burning your eyes while you weld.....

The media??? They didn't write Powell's UN speech. Although they were duped by Cheney a time or three. Especially the NYT.

(08-24-2015 04:30 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-24-2015 04:19 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-24-2015 05:33 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-24-2015 05:16 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  The biggest lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan is No more Nation building. If You Bomb it, leave it in the dust. They will eventually come around.

Unless you are prepared to exterminate the entire population of the area, you do not want to do that. What would result is a power vacuum that would entice the next warlord to set up shop and take over. Everyone thought Saddam was the epitome of evil that had to be removed at all costs. In hindsight, that was a mistake.

Everyone? Hardly.

but the media and bush said so....

kinda like the reason I created this thread.....

capiche?

the irony is burning your eyes while you weld.....

To add to that, the dems in the legislature insisted that a bill authorizing Bush to use force in Iraq be put to a vote just so they could be on record as being hawks too - despite the fact that the votes were already done with another bill.

Our "intelligence" was bad. While Cheney is used as the boogey man for ginning up the war support via faulty info, that info was passed to them by Clinton who probably got it from Bush1. Not saying that this was a political game, more than likely the intelligence was gathered, analyzed and collated by those who work in gov't regardless of party affiliation. Not by appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president, but by career agency guys.

When the cold war boogey man goes away, you need to create new ones to justify the current level of expenditures and bureaucracy. Hint, the Dems and R's use largely the same playbook behind closed doors where it really matters.

(08-25-2015 03:21 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-24-2015 04:30 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-24-2015 04:19 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-24-2015 05:33 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-24-2015 05:16 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  The biggest lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan is No more Nation building. If You Bomb it, leave it in the dust. They will eventually come around.

Unless you are prepared to exterminate the entire population of the area, you do not want to do that. What would result is a power vacuum that would entice the next warlord to set up shop and take over. Everyone thought Saddam was the epitome of evil that had to be removed at all costs. In hindsight, that was a mistake.

Everyone? Hardly.

but the media and bush said so....

kinda like the reason I created this thread.....

capiche?

the irony is burning your eyes while you weld.....

To add to that, the dems in the legislature insisted that a bill authorizing Bush to use force in Iraq be put to a vote just so they could be on record as being hawks too - despite the fact that the votes were already done with another bill.

Our "intelligence" was bad. While Cheney is used as the boogey man for ginning up the war support via faulty info, that info was passed to them by Clinton who probably got it from Bush1. Not saying that this was a political game, more than likely the intelligence was gathered, analyzed and collated by those who work in gov't regardless of party affiliation. Not by appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president, but by career agency guys.

When the cold war boogey man goes away, you need to create new ones to justify the current level of expenditures and bureaucracy. Hint, the Dems and R's use largely the same playbook behind closed doors where it really matters.

Yea the actual politicians on both sides were no better than the media when it came to rushing to war basically without asking questions. It appeared that the politicians didn't want to seem unpatriotic or something. And for the media it was job security. They seemed to report about a potential upcoming war with a gleam in their eyes. Reminded me of Don Henley's "Dirty Laundry" song.

I was unconvinced though.

Those are nice stories and all...but it seems to miss much of the back story. And because of this, Rummy, Cheney, et. al. will always be boogeyman in this whole charade as far as I'm concerned!

Quote:All of us knew it but couldn't prove it. Now we can prove it. Newly declassified documents published at the National Security Archive prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the Bush administration planned to topple Saddam Hussein and invade Iraq as early as January, 2001, and were making strategic plans and resource allocations as early as November, 2001.

New Documents Show Bush Administration Planned War In Iraq Well Before 9/11/2001

THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I: The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001

Quote:U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs Information Memo from Edward S. Walker, Jr. to Colin Powell, “Origins of the Iraq Regime Change Policy,” January 23, 2001.

Informs the secretary of state that the origin of the U.S.’s Iraq regime change policy is the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, and provides several quotes from Bill Clinton supporting concepts included in the act, but not a U.S. invasion.

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/doc03.pdf

Iran is getting a nuke, one way or the other. I would focus US foreign policy on dealing with a nuclear Iran--and with the nuclear Saudi (and probably UAE) that are almost certain to follow (if not precede).

(08-25-2015 04:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Those are nice stories and all...but it seems to miss much of the back story. And because of this, Rummy, Cheney, et. al. will always be boogeyman in this whole charade as far as I'm concerned!

Quote:All of us knew it but couldn't prove it. Now we can prove it. Newly declassified documents published at the National Security Archive prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the Bush administration planned to topple Saddam Hussein and invade Iraq as early as January, 2001, and were making strategic plans and resource allocations as early as November, 2001.

New Documents Show Bush Administration Planned War In Iraq Well Before 9/11/2001

THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I: The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001

Quote:U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs Information Memo from Edward S. Walker, Jr. to Colin Powell, “Origins of the Iraq Regime Change Policy,” January 23, 2001.

Informs the secretary of state that the origin of the U.S.’s Iraq regime change policy is the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, and provides several quotes from Bill Clinton supporting concepts included in the act, but not a U.S. invasion.

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/doc03.pdf

This reinforces my last post in this thread. Granted W was all in for an invasion while BC was not, both wanted Saddam out of there. The majority of the elected officials wanted Saddam out. This was a largely uniform desire across party lines. Too bad no one thought about the RAMIFICATIONS of taking out guys like Saddam - you know, the guy that kept the rest of the zealots in check. The jury is still out on whether toppling Mubarak was the right thing to do for Egypt, but we do know that meddling in Syria and thus crippling Assad has been a great boon to ISIS...

Bottom line is that we are not prepared to engage in brinksmanship in the Middle East. We shouldn't be meddling in the day to day operations of these countries anyways. Our presence over there has been nothing but a disaster that has done little more than upset everyone over there.

The best policy we could have ever had for the Middle East was to be a friend through commerce. Trading is one of the effective ways to build good working relationships and perhaps allies. The U.S. was all about being a nation that was all about "live and let live". You do your thing, we do ours, and so long as you don't meddle in our affairs we won't meddle in yours.

(08-26-2015 08:49 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-25-2015 04:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Those are nice stories and all...but it seems to miss much of the back story. And because of this, Rummy, Cheney, et. al. will always be boogeyman in this whole charade as far as I'm concerned!

Quote:All of us knew it but couldn't prove it. Now we can prove it. Newly declassified documents published at the National Security Archive prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the Bush administration planned to topple Saddam Hussein and invade Iraq as early as January, 2001, and were making strategic plans and resource allocations as early as November, 2001.

New Documents Show Bush Administration Planned War In Iraq Well Before 9/11/2001
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I: The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001

Quote:U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs Information Memo from Edward S. Walker, Jr. to Colin Powell, “Origins of the Iraq Regime Change Policy,” January 23, 2001.
Informs the secretary of state that the origin of the U.S.’s Iraq regime change policy is the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, and provides several quotes from Bill Clinton supporting concepts included in the act, but not a U.S. invasion.

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/doc03.pdf

This reinforces my last post in this thread. Granted W was all in for an invasion while BC was not, both wanted Saddam out of there. The majority of the elected officials wanted Saddam out. This was a largely uniform desire across party lines. Too bad no one thought about the RAMIFICATIONS of taking out guys like Saddam - you know, the guy that kept the rest of the zealots in check. The jury is still out on whether toppling Mubarak was the right thing to do for Egypt, but we do know that meddling in Syria and thus crippling Assad has been a great boon to ISIS...
Bottom line is that we are not prepared to engage in brinksmanship in the Middle East. We shouldn't be meddling in the day to day operations of these countries anyways. Our presence over there has been nothing but a disaster that has done little more than upset everyone over there.
The best policy we could have ever had for the Middle East was to be a friend through commerce. Trading is one of the effective ways to build good working relationships and perhaps allies. The U.S. was all about being a nation that was all about "live and let live". You do your thing, we do ours, and so long as you don't meddle in our affairs we won't meddle in yours.

First, to Tom's point, the referenced documents don't make the point he is attempting to make. We have plans to topple regimes all over the world, and they are revised constantly. I have seen many of them, and probably contributed in minor ways to several of them. The fact that the referenced memos came out early in the Bush administration would be more indicative of business as usual than anything else. That is not to say that the Bush administration was or was not looking for any excuse to topple Saddam. They may well have been, but these documents don't prove that they were.

Second, agree totally with Miko. The best relationships we ever enjoyed in the Middle East were when those relationships were essentially farmed out to the oil companies. Relationships based on commerce work best. We have no business trying to micromanage the region, and our attempts to do so have pretty much failed spectacularly. We have toppled, or assisted in toppling, or stood by and allowed to be toppled, the Shah in Iran, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam in Iraq, Mubarak in Egypt, Qadhafi in Libya, and almost Assad in Syria, and every one of those countries was at least arguably in better shape before the toppings, and most had better relations with the US than today. That's a pretty amazing record of failure.

Never fight a war you don't intend to win. Never draw a red line unless you know absolutely that you are 100% committed to enforcing it. Doing either of those communicates great weakness to those on the other side, and that's not what we need to be communicating. The vast majority of internal affairs of other countries are none of our business. The vast majority of weapons that we give our friends will end up in the hands of our enemies.

What should we do?
1) Get the hell out.
2) Stay the hell out.

The best result is probably an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq, a Sunni state including western Iraq and eastern Syria, and a Shia Mesopotamia. And that Shia state would very quickly become a satellite of Iran, which would spook the Saudis immensely. And that's the best result. So why are we exposing ourselves and our soldiers to try to manipulate the outcome?

(08-26-2015 08:49 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-25-2015 04:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Those are nice stories and all...but it seems to miss much of the back story. And because of this, Rummy, Cheney, et. al. will always be boogeyman in this whole charade as far as I'm concerned!

Quote:All of us knew it but couldn't prove it. Now we can prove it. Newly declassified documents published at the National Security Archive prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the Bush administration planned to topple Saddam Hussein and invade Iraq as early as January, 2001, and were making strategic plans and resource allocations as early as November, 2001.

New Documents Show Bush Administration Planned War In Iraq Well Before 9/11/2001

THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I: The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001

Quote:U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs Information Memo from Edward S. Walker, Jr. to Colin Powell, “Origins of the Iraq Regime Change Policy,” January 23, 2001.

Informs the secretary of state that the origin of the U.S.’s Iraq regime change policy is the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, and provides several quotes from Bill Clinton supporting concepts included in the act, but not a U.S. invasion.

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/doc03.pdf

This reinforces my last post in this thread. Granted W was all in for an invasion while BC was not, both wanted Saddam out of there. The majority of the elected officials wanted Saddam out. This was a largely uniform desire across party lines. Too bad no one thought about the RAMIFICATIONS of taking out guys like Saddam - you know, the guy that kept the rest of the zealots in check. The jury is still out on whether toppling Mubarak was the right thing to do for Egypt, but we do know that meddling in Syria and thus crippling Assad has been a great boon to ISIS...

Bottom line is that we are not prepared to engage in brinksmanship in the Middle East. We shouldn't be meddling in the day to day operations of these countries anyways. Our presence over there has been nothing but a disaster that has done little more than upset everyone over there.

The best policy we could have ever had for the Middle East was to be a friend through commerce. Trading is one of the effective ways to build good working relationships and perhaps allies. The U.S. was all about being a nation that was all about "live and let live". You do your thing, we do ours, and so long as you don't meddle in our affairs we won't meddle in yours.

(08-26-2015 10:19 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 08:49 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-25-2015 04:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Those are nice stories and all...but it seems to miss much of the back story. And because of this, Rummy, Cheney, et. al. will always be boogeyman in this whole charade as far as I'm concerned!

Quote:All of us knew it but couldn't prove it. Now we can prove it. Newly declassified documents published at the National Security Archive prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the Bush administration planned to topple Saddam Hussein and invade Iraq as early as January, 2001, and were making strategic plans and resource allocations as early as November, 2001.

New Documents Show Bush Administration Planned War In Iraq Well Before 9/11/2001

THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I: The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001

Quote:U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs Information Memo from Edward S. Walker, Jr. to Colin Powell, “Origins of the Iraq Regime Change Policy,” January 23, 2001.

Informs the secretary of state that the origin of the U.S.’s Iraq regime change policy is the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, and provides several quotes from Bill Clinton supporting concepts included in the act, but not a U.S. invasion.

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/doc03.pdf

This reinforces my last post in this thread. Granted W was all in for an invasion while BC was not, both wanted Saddam out of there. The majority of the elected officials wanted Saddam out. This was a largely uniform desire across party lines. Too bad no one thought about the RAMIFICATIONS of taking out guys like Saddam - you know, the guy that kept the rest of the zealots in check. The jury is still out on whether toppling Mubarak was the right thing to do for Egypt, but we do know that meddling in Syria and thus crippling Assad has been a great boon to ISIS...

Bottom line is that we are not prepared to engage in brinksmanship in the Middle East. We shouldn't be meddling in the day to day operations of these countries anyways. Our presence over there has been nothing but a disaster that has done little more than upset everyone over there.

The best policy we could have ever had for the Middle East was to be a friend through commerce. Trading is one of the effective ways to build good working relationships and perhaps allies. The U.S. was all about being a nation that was all about "live and let live". You do your thing, we do ours, and so long as you don't meddle in our affairs we won't meddle in yours.

Hey, I would love not to be interested in war, but war sometimes is interested in you. Even business dealing in the ME had a way of negatively influencing terrorist activites in the region.

Arm both parties. Get the popcorn and wait for the results. React to the winning party.

In a war where both parties hate the U.S. there will be no winners for us. Both are the bad guys and now will have less of them when the smoke clears.

(08-26-2015 04:09 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Arm both parties. Get the popcorn and wait for the results. React to the winning party.

In a war where both parties hate the U.S. there will be no winners for us. Both are the bad guys and now will have less of them when the smoke clears.

WWJD

(08-26-2015 09:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 04:09 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Arm both parties. Get the popcorn and wait for the results. React to the winning party.

In a war where both parties hate the U.S. there will be no winners for us. Both are the bad guys and now will have less of them when the smoke clears.

WWJD

I don't know. Why don't we ask him.

11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Jesus first coming was that of Savior. His second coming is that of Warrior. Don't misjudge Him as the all forgiving God. He is also the Judge that will condemn us to hell like judges on earth condemn us to prison. Read the Bible Miko, don't rely on your puny human intelligence. Hear what God says through the Bible. But if you don't want to, well, so be it.

(08-27-2015 03:49 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 09:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 04:09 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Arm both parties. Get the popcorn and wait for the results. React to the winning party.

In a war where both parties hate the U.S. there will be no winners for us. Both are the bad guys and now will have less of them when the smoke clears.

WWJD

I don't know. Why don't we ask him.

11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Jesus first coming was that of Savior. His second coming is that of Warrior. Don't misjudge Him as the all forgiving God. He is also the Judge that will condemn us to hell like judges on earth condemn us to prison. Read the Bible Miko, don't rely on your puny human intelligence. Hear what God says through the Bible. But if you don't want to, well, so be it.

So, what you're saying is that Jesus would arm both sides to the teeth, sit back and watch what happens next?

No. I'm saying that Jesus will be up in arms in his second coming. He'll be here to judge and fight the anti-Christ. So he's not averse to war.


Look, it's fine that you think you're smarter than the average bear and I won't even argue that point with you. I'll just agree to disagree with you. Debating the Bible is a futile exercise with you and You can now have the last word. See how agreeable I am.

Fact of the matter is we've intervened so much in the area as it is, we are left in a lose-lose situation. Either we keep intervening and making things worse or try to combat things in a "mowing the grass" kind of way, where we always have to fight some new uprising from that area. Not ideal, in any case.

Heck, I'd be surprised if the parties fighting there now know who they're fighting. Kurds against Isis, Syrians against Isis and rebels, Iraquis against Isis, Turkey against Isis and Kurds. Just. Let. Them. Fight. until they get tired. Which will probably never happen as they've been doing it for centuries.

I say go in when the smoke clears.

(08-28-2015 12:07 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Heck, I'd be surprised if the parties fighting there now know who they're fighting. Kurds against Isis, Syrians against Isis and rebels, Iraquis against Isis, Turkey against Isis and Kurds. Just. Let. Them. Fight. until they get tired. Which will probably never happen as they've been doing it for centuries.

I say go in when the smoke clears.

My brother and I will fight my cousin, my cousin and I will fight the world.

(08-26-2015 09:20 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 04:09 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Arm both parties. Get the popcorn and wait for the results. React to the winning party.

In a war where both parties hate the U.S. there will be no winners for us. Both are the bad guys and now will have less of them when the smoke clears.

WWJD

Miko, I found another little tidbit that might answer your question.

3 I have commanded My sanctified ones; I have also called My mighty ones for My anger-- Those who rejoice in My exaltation." 4 The noise of a multitude in the mountains, Like that of many people! A tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together! The Lord of hosts musters The army for battle. 5 They come from a far country, From the end of heaven-- The Lord and His weapons of indignation, To destroy the whole land. 6 Wail, for the day of the Lord is at hand! It will come as destruction from the Almighty. 7 Therefore all hands will be limp, Every man's heart will melt, 8 And they will be afraid. Pangs and sorrows will take hold of them; They will be in pain as a woman in childbirth; They will be amazed at one another; Their faces will be like flames. 9 Behold, the day of the Lord comes, Cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger, To lay the land desolate; And He will destroy its sinners from it. 10 For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not give their light; The sun will be darkened in its going forth, And the moon will not cause its light to shine. 11 "I will punish the world for its evil, And the wicked for their iniquity; I will halt the arrogance of the proud, And will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible. 12 I will make a mortal more rare than fine gold, A man more than the golden wedge of Ophir. 13 Therefore I will shake the heavens, And the earth will move out of her place, In the wrath of the Lord of hosts And in the day of His fierce anger. 14 It shall be as the hunted gazelle, And as a sheep that no man takes up; Every man will turn to his own people, And everyone will flee to his own land. 15 Everyone who is found will be thrust through, And everyone who is captured will fall by the sword. 16 Their children also will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; Their houses will be plundered And their wives ravished. 17 "Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, Who will not regard silver; And as for gold, they will not delight in it. 18 Also their bows will dash the young men to pieces, And they will have no pity on the fruit of the womb; Their eye will not spare children. 19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, The beauty of the Chaldeans' pride, Will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.