The Totality of the Iraq War Failure is Stunning

[MidnightRider]

 

The Gulf War absolutely ended after 100 hours and I, like you, don't feel that this latest conflict was necessary.

 

Every Kuwaiti that I dealt with while over there was a flaming assh#ole who wanted nothing more than for us to hand their country back over to them and GTFO!

The ground war ended after 100 hours.

 

Did you expect them to want you to stick around and occupy their land?

 

Of course not but I also didn't expect to be treated like a flaming a#shole after giving them back their damned country. Hell, a lot of that treatment came during the buildup and we hadn't even kicked off yet. I have no love lost on ANYONE in that region of the world.

[Hooked on Huskers]

 

 

Third Iraq War (2014) was simply extended Gulf War I conflict. Gulf War I actually never ended. "To be continued ...."

 

And the only prize was Kuwait .... half the size of Massachusetts. Big victory.

Regarding your first line: no. Absolutely not. That implies that our invasion of Iraq in 2003 was in some way necessary.

 

Regarding your second line: Your perspective might differ if you were a Kuwaiti.

 

The Gulf War absolutely ended after 100 hours and I, like you, don't feel that this latest conflict was necessary.

 

Every Kuwaiti that I dealt with while over there was a flaming assh#ole who wanted nothing more than for us to hand their country back over to them and GTFO!

 

 

Face it, who cares about Kuwait government? Saddam is still in power or dead? ....... honestly I don't really care. Myself, no big deal if Iraq (Saddam) conquered Kuwait kingdom. Middle east countries kill each other anyway, guaranteed. I say no US interventions even before Gulf War I. Plus save trillions of dollars and thousands of our troops life. Bottom line, money talks, admit it!

 

Precious oil. Saddam vendor or rich King of Kuwait? I and my vehicle don't care about Iraqi gas or Kuwaiti gas or Saudi gas or Texass gas ..... the same formula, gas is gas.

[TGHusker]

The former administration responds:

Regarding Iraq, you can lead the camel to water but you can't force it to drink. After no WMD found, the administration believed that Iraq would have the will and desire to self rule and to embrace democracy. Richard Perle said in an interview that the reason we went to Iraq was the WMD not to nation build or promote democracy. He said not to blame the NeoCons. :

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Pat-Buchanan-Paul-Wolfowitz-neocons/2014/06/17/id/577619/

"He (speaking of Pat Buchanan's article blaming the neo-cons) misunderstood the reasons that some of us advocated it," Perle said. "We were not doing it to bring democracy to Iraq, we were not doing it as he has sometimes suggested on behalf of any other government. We believed the intelligence that was available at the time that the CIA and other intelligence organizations . . . that Saddam [Hussein] had weapons of mass destruction and there was a danger after 9/11 that he would share those weapons.

"That was the only reason for going into Iraq," Perle added. "The idea that this was some sort of crusade on behalf of democracy is simply wrong. After the failure to find the weapons of mass destruction that were believed to be there, people often as a kind of rationalization began to talk about the virtues of democracy. I agree about the virtues of democracy, but that was not the reason for going into Iraq, so for Pat Buchanan to claim that it was a mistake . . . seems to me to be rewriting the history."

Perle believes the "mistake in American policies that have brought us" to the current chaos in Iraq "is the way in which we departed in 2011."

 

 

Cheney's response and video

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Megan-Kelly-Saddam-wrong/2014/06/18/id/577948/

[Junior]

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/19/5822482/17-reasons-not-to-trust-dick-cheney-on-iraq

 

 

Former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz have an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal arguing that Barack Obama is insufficiently tough on Iraq, and was wrong to "abandon" the country. They also took to Fox News to announce they were starting a new organization, the Alliance for a Strong America, that will "advocate for the policies needed to restore American power and pre-eminence."

 

You might be tempted to take their opinions seriously. This would be a mistake. Here are seventeen reasons why.

[TGHusker]

A bigger point of view - spanning both time and space

 

 

 

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/18/5820822/does-america-even-have-a-middle-east-strategy

 

 

JR and Carl, I see you get info from Vox often. What is the story behind Vox? I didn't see a 'about' section. Why do you trust them as a news source? I don't know anything about them so I wanted to get your reference point on them. Thanks

[BigRedBuster]

A bigger point of view - spanning both time and space

 

 

 

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/18/5820822/does-america-even-have-a-middle-east-strategy

 

 

JR and Carl, I see you get info from Vox often. What is the story behind Vox? I didn't see a 'about' section. Why do you trust them as a news source? I don't know anything about them so I wanted to get your reference point on them. Thanks

I know you didn't ask me specifically but I use Vox a lot so I thought I would answer. I actually read Vox every day.

 

What I like about it is they actually try to point you in the direction to investigate the issue even more. If you read their articles, they will cross reference other sites or articles where they got the information. Their card stacks are very informational on certain issues. It is MUCH more than a fly by news head line that just tries to get a head line in before everyone else.

 

Now, I have found a few articles that I didn't necessarily agree with the conclusion the author was trying to make. But, at least the author included where he came up with his conclusions instead of just pulling something out of his azz while having it shoved up his azz by a political party.

 

It's a totally different feeling for me to read where it seems like the site is trying actually educate you on an issue instead of convince you of a way of thinking about the issue.

[TGHusker]

 

A bigger point of view - spanning both time and space

 

 

 

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/18/5820822/does-america-even-have-a-middle-east-strategy

 

 

JR and Carl, I see you get info from Vox often. What is the story behind Vox? I didn't see a 'about' section. Why do you trust them as a news source? I don't know anything about them so I wanted to get your reference point on them. Thanks

I know you didn't ask me specifically but I use Vox a lot so I thought I would answer. I actually read Vox every day.

 

What I like about it is they actually try to point you in the direction to investigate the issue even more. If you read their articles, they will cross reference other sites or articles where they got the information. Their card stacks are very informational on certain issues. It is MUCH more than a fly by news head line that just tries to get a head line in before everyone else.

 

Now, I have found a few articles that I didn't necessarily agree with the conclusion the author was trying to make. But, at least the author included where he came up with his conclusions instead of just pulling something out of his azz while having it shoved up his azz by a political party.

 

It's a totally different feeling for me to read where it seems like the site is trying actually educate you on an issue instead of convince you of a way of thinking about the issue.

 

Good info and thanks. We've heard the phrase "Fair and Balanced" - are they? Do they represent right and left and moderate or do they lean one way? Is there a particular group/person behind them? I see the "presented by GE" So it appears to be a GE company??

 

 

Edit: I just found out that Ezra Klein is behind Vox

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/04/journalism-and-democracy

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

A bigger point of view - spanning both time and space

 

 

 

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/18/5820822/does-america-even-have-a-middle-east-strategy

 

 

JR and Carl, I see you get info from Vox often. What is the story behind Vox? I didn't see a 'about' section. Why do you trust them as a news source? I don't know anything about them so I wanted to get your reference point on them. Thanks

I know you didn't ask me specifically but I use Vox a lot so I thought I would answer. I actually read Vox every day.

 

What I like about it is they actually try to point you in the direction to investigate the issue even more. If you read their articles, they will cross reference other sites or articles where they got the information. Their card stacks are very informational on certain issues. It is MUCH more than a fly by news head line that just tries to get a head line in before everyone else.

 

Now, I have found a few articles that I didn't necessarily agree with the conclusion the author was trying to make. But, at least the author included where he came up with his conclusions instead of just pulling something out of his azz while having it shoved up his azz by a political party.

 

It's a totally different feeling for me to read where it seems like the site is trying actually educate you on an issue instead of convince you of a way of thinking about the issue.

 

Good info and thanks. We've heard the phrase "Fair and Balanced" - are they? Do they represent right and left and moderate or do they lean one way? Is there a particular group/person behind them? I see the "presented by GE" So it appears to be a GE company??

 

 

Edit: I just found out that Ezra Klein is behind Vox

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/04/journalism-and-democracy

 

I know absolutely nothing about Mr. Klein other than listening to his videos on this site and reading the article you linked.

I am slowly becoming a fan of his though.

 

 

 

 

Now....I'm sure someone is going to come in with claims he is some russian commy terrorist or something and ruin my entire view.

[carlfense]

What emerges from Obama’s remarks is a portrait of cold-blood realism. He thinks our invasion was reckless. He thinks we gave too many lives and spent too much money. He sees ISIS as a threat to regional stability, our oil supply, and our security from terrorism. He’s willing to use force, but only to the extent necessary to quash that threat. Beyond that, he’ll leave the restoration of Iraq to Iraqis. And if that means replacing Maliki, Obama won’t shed any tears.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/06/barack_obama_sending_300_military_advisers_to_iraq_the_president_s_comments.html

[carlfense]

 

 

 

A bigger point of view - spanning both time and space

 

 

 

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/18/5820822/does-america-even-have-a-middle-east-strategy

 

 

JR and Carl, I see you get info from Vox often. What is the story behind Vox? I didn't see a 'about' section. Why do you trust them as a news source? I don't know anything about them so I wanted to get your reference point on them. Thanks

I know you didn't ask me specifically but I use Vox a lot so I thought I would answer. I actually read Vox every day.

 

What I like about it is they actually try to point you in the direction to investigate the issue even more. If you read their articles, they will cross reference other sites or articles where they got the information. Their card stacks are very informational on certain issues. It is MUCH more than a fly by news head line that just tries to get a head line in before everyone else.

 

Now, I have found a few articles that I didn't necessarily agree with the conclusion the author was trying to make. But, at least the author included where he came up with his conclusions instead of just pulling something out of his azz while having it shoved up his azz by a political party.

 

It's a totally different feeling for me to read where it seems like the site is trying actually educate you on an issue instead of convince you of a way of thinking about the issue.

 

Good info and thanks. We've heard the phrase "Fair and Balanced" - are they? Do they represent right and left and moderate or do they lean one way? Is there a particular group/person behind them? I see the "presented by GE" So it appears to be a GE company??

 

 

Edit: I just found out that Ezra Klein is behind Vox

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/04/journalism-and-democracy

 

I know absolutely nothing about Mr. Klein other than listening to his videos on this site and reading the article you linked.

I am slowly becoming a fan of his though.

 

 

 

 

Now....I'm sure someone is going to come in with claims he is some russian commy terrorist or something and ruin my entire view.

 

He is a journ-o-lister.

[walksalone]

U.S. policy needs to stop worrying about "building democracies". If we invade a country, it should be for a damn good reason, and not play patty cake with them, but punch them in the throat. And trying to fight a war while looking like the "good guy" is a quick way to lose that fight.

 

Afganistan: We should have gone in there and not worried about liberating or rebuilding that hole.

 

Iraq: We had no dog in that fight from the git go. He would have eventually done something dumb enough to warrant a visit from those pud pullin pansies with the blue helmets. Oh, and a sidenote, those "war for oil" douchebags can shut the f*ck up because I'm still waiting for gas prices to go down, eat a richard clowns...

[HUSKER FREAK]

We for the most part go into these wars as well as past wars post WWII to make sure that it doesn't escalate or even come close to the point to where it will become another WW or a Tyrant trying to take over multiple countries. Learn from past experiences, will not always be easy or perfect, but it is inevitable.