TGHusker Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 This is one of many stories about the situation in Iraq. It probably is just a matter of time in which the Iraq (where too many gave their lives) will fall into the hands of terrorists. So the failure of nation building is starting to become all too apparent to me: Kick out one dictator and if you don't 'buy' the country for a long term (occupy and rebuild from the ground up), you create a vacuum only for another dictator to take over. Bush of course is at fault # 1. Afgan should have been our only target after 9/11. When Iraq falls, Bush will be judged all the harder. I have a hard time judging where the Obama admin sits in terms of blame for the current situation. 1. NO Blame: Americans were tired of Iraq and wanted us out. Obama got us out. 2. Part Blame: In our getting out, did we do it too soon without the Iraq being able to defend what was 'gained' via the war? 3. NO Blame: Or should we just say that once we left, it was on Iraq leaders to be prepared regardless. 4. Part Blame: The terrorists are associated with those in Syria trying to overthrow that govt. Does our support of the rebels in Syria strengthen them to move also in Iraq? 5. No Blame: It is all Bush's fault and Obama's team is trying to clean up the mess inflamed across the region by the Bush nation building blunder http://news.yahoo.com/u-watches-iraq-speeds-toward-094500826.html;_ylt=AwrBEiJOiJhT3VgA4I3QtDMD Link to comment
knapplc Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 "Who's to blame" is the wrong question. "What can best be done to fix it" or "Is it our responsibility to fix" or "Do the people living there even want what we would consider a fix" are more appropriate questions. 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted June 11, 2014 Author Share Posted June 11, 2014 "Who's to blame" is the wrong question. "What can best be done to fix it" or "Is it our responsibility to fix" or "Do the people living there even want what we would consider a fix" are more appropriate questions. I'll go with that - as far as going forward. I'm thinking of in a historical sense as we look back. Link to comment
Hooked on Huskers Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 CNN Headlines: "500,000 Flee in Iraq" http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t1 Vietnam = Iraq = Afghanistan. Never learned. However greedy military corporates and stockholders are big time winners. I say stay out ....... let them kill each other off. Some religion. Join America First Committee (non-interventionist). My hero was Charles Lindbergh. Link to comment
killer cacti Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 You just can't fight people that feel they have nothing to lose. It never works, unless you drop an H bomb like we did in Japan, but we'll never do that again. Link to comment
knapplc Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 "Who's to blame" is the wrong question. "What can best be done to fix it" or "Is it our responsibility to fix" or "Do the people living there even want what we would consider a fix" are more appropriate questions. I'll go with that - as far as going forward. I'm thinking of in a historical sense as we look back. Interestingly, the only other war to span more than one presidency (decided via election - ignoring Wilson/Truman) was the Vietnam war. That was started by Johnson and finished by Nixon. After America left, North Vietnam crushed the south and united the country. History remembers Vietnam not as belonging to Nixon or Johnson, but as a huge mistake. Bush caused the war, Johnson dramatically escalated the war. Nixon & Obama were left to clean up disastrous messes, and did so as best they could. There was never a right way to end Vietnam or Iraq - we never should have been in either place, and the end was messy. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted June 11, 2014 Author Share Posted June 11, 2014 "Who's to blame" is the wrong question. "What can best be done to fix it" or "Is it our responsibility to fix" or "Do the people living there even want what we would consider a fix" are more appropriate questions. I'll go with that - as far as going forward. I'm thinking of in a historical sense as we look back. Interestingly, the only other war to span more than one presidency (decided via election - ignoring Wilson/Truman) was the Vietnam war. That was started by Johnson and finished by Nixon. After America left, North Vietnam crushed the south and united the country. History remembers Vietnam not as belonging to Nixon or Johnson, but as a huge mistake. Bush caused the war, Johnson dramatically escalated the war. Nixon & Obama were left to clean up disastrous messes, and did so as best they could. There was never a right way to end Vietnam or Iraq - we never should have been in either place, and the end was messy. very good point. Vietnam - actually include JFK presidency in which advisers were 1st sent in. Makes one think what would JFK had done long term in Vietnam. While his VP escalated the war, JFK may not have been so quick as he himself had fought in a war -- I'l agree with you - can't place any blame on Obama on this one (ok pick yourself up off of the floor). It is very hard to place a rattlesnake back into the jar - from which it never should have been let out of. Link to comment
MidnightRider Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 America is so awesome at nation building. I can't wait to see how that bastion of democracy, Afghanistan finally turns out. What a slap in the face to all the men that died in '04 in that sh#thole Fallujah. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Obviously, Bush was the one that got us in that war so I fail to see how Obama can be blamed for too much here. I really don't care how we leave because after this amount of time, either they are going to stand on their own or they aren't. I fail to see how it could be any worse than when Saddam and sons were there. Something about torturing and gassing their own citizens while threatening and attacking their neighbors doesn't make me think I will ever long for the days of them being back. Time to move on and forget about that place. If terrorists groups form there, we will take care of them when and if they do something to us. What will be interesting is if (and I don't want this to obviously happen) America is attacked by a terrorist group from within Iraq. Is "Iraq" so politicized now that no politician will be willing to go in and take care of them? Link to comment
strigori Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 AT this point, the internal issues of Iraq, can be just that. We never should have been there. Nation Building is a colossally idiotic activity. The culture divide is too great, the West should have kept out of these first century cultures until they want to evolve. All they are now is first century cultures with twentieth century weapons. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted June 11, 2014 Author Share Posted June 11, 2014 AT this point, the internal issues of Iraq, can be just that. We never should have been there. Nation Building is a colossally idiotic activity. The culture divide is too great, the West should have kept out of these first century cultures until they want to evolve. All they are now is first century cultures with twentieth century weapons. Got that right. Let's hope they don't get the nuke. Link to comment
wildman Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 "Who's to blame" is the wrong question. "What can best be done to fix it" or "Is it our responsibility to fix" or "Do the people living there even want what we would consider a fix" are more appropriate questions. I'll go with that - as far as going forward. I'm thinking of in a historical sense as we look back. Interestingly, the only other war to span more than one presidency (decided via election - ignoring Wilson/Truman) was the Vietnam war. That was started by Johnson and finished by Nixon. After America left, North Vietnam crushed the south and united the country. History remembers Vietnam not as belonging to Nixon or Johnson, but as a huge mistake. Bush caused the war, Johnson dramatically escalated the war. Nixon & Obama were left to clean up disastrous messes, and did so as best they could. There was never a right way to end Vietnam or Iraq - we never should have been in either place, and the end was messy. I've served 2 deployments in Iraq. I'm always curious on why people say or think we shouldn't of been there. So I'm curious to hear your reason. If you don't mind sharing. Link to comment
Landlord Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 The culture divide is too great, the West should have kept out of these first century cultures until they want to evolve. All they are now is first century cultures with twentieth century weapons. Spoken like a true god damn American. Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 I've served 2 deployments in Iraq. I'm always curious on why people say or think we shouldn't of been there. So I'm curious to hear your reason. If you don't mind sharing. Because we launched a unilateral attack under false pretenses that was in no way worth the loss of US lives (not to mention the personal costs borne by those who survived and the enormous fiscal costs). Thank you for your service but I'm sorry that our leaders sent you there. Link to comment
Recommended Posts