|
Post by jdredd on Sept 3, 2010 12:50:04 GMT -5
"The problem with this war, I think, for many Americans, is that the premise on which we justified going to war turned out not to be valid," Gates told US soldiers and reporters during an unannounced visit Wednesday to Camp Ramadi in Iraq. "Even if the outcome is a good one from the standpoint of the United States, it'll always be clouded by how it began". Wow, that's a cold shot at his old boss. Actually your just stuck on that point when, in fact, that isn't so much of a shot at his old boss (Bush) as it is at numerous intellegence agencies involving multiple countries of which Bush had to base his information upon. Don't forget, even the majority of Congress was supportive of the initial invasion (base upon the same data). Also, don't forget all the Democrats who have been recorded declaring that we need to prevent the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq AND those speeches were BEFORE Bush was president! Yes, the intelligence agencies have been made the scapegoat of the whole affair, and the politicians have been able to whitewash themselves. Whatever, it's all just what will be written in the history books, which of course has always been bullshit. But I will go to my grave believing that the Bush administration was totally aware that Saddam had no WMDs (the Democrats were their usual gullible selves), for what it's worth. Which is nothing, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Sept 3, 2010 22:48:54 GMT -5
Yes, the intelligence agencies have been made the scapegoat of the whole affair, and the politicians have been able to whitewash themselves. Whatever, it's all just what will be written in the history books, which of course has always been bullshit. But I will go to my grave believing that the Bush administration was totally aware that Saddam had no WMDs (the Democrats were their usual gullible selves), for what it's worth. Which is nothing, of course. You can say they are the scapegoats of the whole affair if you want. Explain why so many people of different political beliefs, agendas, etc. all believed in the same thing? IMO, I believe that had Al Gore been elected we still would have had an 80% chance that we STILL would have invaded Iraq for the SAME reason(s). As stated before, many Democrats were raising the bar for action against Saddam Hussien prior to the attack on 9/11 and, in fact, prior to Bush being elected! There is little need to discuss how the war WOULD HAVE been handled under Al Gore after the initial invasion as there is absolutely no way to tell. The issue that "W" invaded Iraq for his father's revenge makes less sense than Obama's location of birth debate! "W's" revenge would be to leave Iraq alone and prove his father a failure when Saddam Hussien attacked another again!
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 4, 2010 0:39:49 GMT -5
Yes, the intelligence agencies have been made the scapegoat of the whole affair, and the politicians have been able to whitewash themselves. Whatever, it's all just what will be written in the history books, which of course has always been bullshit. But I will go to my grave believing that the Bush administration was totally aware that Saddam had no WMDs (the Democrats were their usual gullible selves), for what it's worth. Which is nothing, of course. You can say they are the scapegoats of the whole affair if you want. Explain why so many people of different political beliefs, agendas, etc. all believed in the same thing? IMO, I believe that had Al Gore been elected we still would have had an 80% chance that we STILL would have invaded Iraq for the SAME reason(s). As stated before, many Democrats were raising the bar for action against Saddam Hussien prior to the attack on 9/11 and, in fact, prior to Bush being elected! There is little need to discuss how the war WOULD HAVE been handled under Al Gore after the initial invasion as there is absolutely no way to tell. The issue that "W" invaded Iraq for his father's revenge makes less sense than Obama's location of birth debate! "W's" revenge would be to leave Iraq alone and prove his father a failure when Saddam Hussien attacked another again! I won't dispute Al Gore may have invaded Iraq too despite the propaganda from Democrat apologists. I still refuse to feel guilty for voting for Ralph Nader. I'm sorry, Gore was just a crappy candidate. Bill Clinton continued air attacks on Saddam's Iraq throughout his administration, so the Democrats are hardly innocent. I'd love to pretend I believed the propaganda about Saddam having WMD's, it would save me from so much derision claiming I am just saying I knew better only in hindsight. But it's the truth I was unconvinced and to say otherwise would be lying, so I have to let the chips fall where they may. The so-called "evidence" just seemed so thin and contrived that I never will believe Bush and his cronies believed it. And I am skeptical of the psychoanalysis that claims Bush invaded Iraq for any reason to do with his father. I just think he decided to take American intervention in the region to the next level. He thought the benefits outweighed the costs (As Al Gore might have also) . He was totally wrong in my subjective opinion, of course. But I still think the CIA had to fall on it's sword for Bush. I believe they were pressured to come up with evidence for WMD's , no matter how thin, by the Bushistas, and when it was all proved to be false, it was a political imperative that the President of the United States came out as an innocent rube, not a conniving warmonger.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Sept 5, 2010 0:47:14 GMT -5
But I still think the CIA had to fall on it's sword for Bush. I believe they were pressured to come up with evidence for WMD's , no matter how thin, by the Bushistas, and when it was all proved to be false, it was a political imperative that the President of the United States came out as an innocent rube, not a conniving warmonger. You forget, the information didn't just come from the CIA. Agencies for Britain and (I believe) two other countries all contributed to the "source" that there were WMD in Iraq. Although not what they were looking for, there were some chemical agents (WMD) found that they were not supposed to have. Quantities of such have not been released to my knowledge though.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Sept 13, 2010 19:47:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Sept 16, 2010 1:03:27 GMT -5
This was passed on from a friend of the Serviceman's family. (names and picture removed) Hey, Everybody!
I just wanted to send a quick update and give y'all the REAL story on what's going on over here with the troop withdrawal.
The picture is of my crew and I on a break during a mission. The guy to the far left is my gunner (*****) and the guy in the middle is my driver (*****). They go with me on every mission and are great guys.
The reason I'm sending this out is because I have had a few people ask if I left Iraq early because all of the combat troops are out of Iraq and I wanted to let everyone know the real deal. It's kind of ridiculous how the news is saying that the last of the "combat" troops are out of Iraq because of Pres Osama (I mean Obama). He says that it was his campaign promise.
Take our Brigade for example. We were originally called a HBCT (Heavy Brigade Combat Team). Well, since Obama said he would pull all of the "combat" troops out by Aug, all they did before we left was change our name from a HBCT to a AAB (Advise and Assist Brigade). We have the same personnel/equipment layout as before and are doing the same missions. The ONLY difference is that they changed our name from a HBCT to an AAB and that's how he is getting away with saying that he has pulled all of the "combat" troops out.
It is really ridiculous what he's doing and he has ticked a lot of people off. And it's funny how the media is buying all of it, too. So no, the last combat troops are not out of Iraq. We are still here. There are other Brigades just like ours that are doing the same missions that are still over here.
Sorry for going on about it but we are just sitting over here watching it and are like "You've got to be kidding me!" So, anyway now you know the REAL story. That's why I'm not coming back early. You have to watch those liberal, they're sneaky! Anyways I hope everyone is doing well and I'll see you soon! *****
This is typical government reorganization! Just rename everything and leave all else the same! Another lie to the public!
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Nov 26, 2010 5:05:43 GMT -5
www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq-sadr-20101125,0,1708589.story "Reporting from Baghdad — Anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada Sadr, whose feared militia was crushed by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki two years ago, has leveraged support for his former enemy's government into renewed influence over the country's security forces, governors' offices and even its prisons." Here's what all our billions of dollars and thousands of GI lives may have bought us: Another Iran.
|
|
|
Post by dj on Nov 26, 2010 12:58:50 GMT -5
This was passed on from a friend of the Serviceman's family. (names and picture removed)Hey, Everybody! I just wanted to send a quick update and give y'all the REAL story on what's going on over here with the troop withdrawal. The picture is of my crew and I on a break during a mission. .... Another mass email urban legend. It was announced many months before this email that part of the withdrawal program was to convert combat brigades to advise and assist brigades. The fact remains, the soldiers still Iraq are conducting non-combat, "advise and assist" operations. In fact, the units training in the U.S. for rotation to Iraq for much of the last year have been training specifically for the new mission as "Advise and Assist" brigades. The 50,000 troops still in Iraq are NOT "doing the same missions" as before. Unless of course, they were already conducting advise-and-assist, NON-combat operations. Here is an official article from the Army. www.army.mil/-news/2010/08/05/43362-bcts-change-to-aabs-to-meet-new-role/Note real quotes from real people with named units. Excerpts:
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Oct 31, 2011 1:03:13 GMT -5
www.weeklystandard.com/articles/defeat-iraq_604179.html"Iraq is not Vietnam. There are certainly analogies: the length and unpopularity of the wars; the late escalation and increase in forces; the counterinsurgency success that came after public support for the effort seemed already exhausted; the decision to abandon the effort and thus snatch failure from the jaws of possible victory; and the arguments about the irrelevance of the conflicts to the core interests of an America riven with internal strife and economic troubles." Here are those lovable neocons, the Kagans, whining about the way the war they promoted is ending, after 20 years of intervention by the US. Will Iraq devolve into Civil War? Who cares?
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Oct 31, 2011 17:36:01 GMT -5
I’m certainly not broken hearted we are pulling out of Iraq. Many months ago I said the Iraqis are incapable of governing themselves. I also predict Iraq will be in chaos by July and it will be viewed as Obama’s failure.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Oct 31, 2011 18:46:59 GMT -5
I’m certainly not broken hearted we are pulling out of Iraq. Many months ago I said the Iraqis are incapable of governing themselves. I also predict Iraq will be in chaos by July and it will be viewed as Obama’s failure. I agree about the chaos. Insurgents used the occupation by the U.S. troops as their reason for fighting. Now they will focus heavily on the government as being a U.S. puppet administration. They will not stop until radical Islam controls the entire country of Iraq and join forces with Iran. Obama knows this but is gambling that leaving will give him more votes than being viewed as a failure. Besides, it will fit in with the Arab spring where the radicals are likely taking control. I have a feeling that the whole Arab spring took place BECAUSE Obama was our president! I believe that funding from outside the U.S. gave him the edge in 2008 and is all by design. A Manrian Candidate by another name?
|
|
|
Post by nikki on Oct 31, 2011 19:10:08 GMT -5
I’m certainly not broken hearted we are pulling out of Iraq. Many months ago I said the Iraqis are incapable of governing themselves. I also predict Iraq will be in chaos by July and it will be viewed as Obama’s failure. I agree about the chaos. Insurgents used the occupation by the U.S. troops as their reason for fighting. Now they will focus heavily on the government as being a U.S. puppet administration. They will not stop until radical Islam controls the entire country of Iraq and join forces with Iran. Obama knows this but is gambling that leaving will give him more votes than being viewed as a failure. Besides, it will fit in with the Arab spring where the radicals are likely taking control. I have a feeling that the whole Arab spring took place BECAUSE Obama was our president! I believe that funding from outside the U.S. gave him the edge in 2008 and is all by design. A Manrian Candidate by another name? I agree. I don't think Obama cares one wit and probably even believes it desirous that the entire Middle East and North Africa develop governments consistent with strict Islamic law.
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Dec 15, 2011 13:33:45 GMT -5
When you all commiserate and contemplate your navels, going on about how Hussein was not that bad... read this and then try to say the same with a straight face. Also understand, this was just ONE of many events that took place under Hussein. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Dec 29, 2011 2:39:12 GMT -5
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/28/iraq-surges-advocates-fear-gains-will-be-lost/"The outside advisers who worked to persuade President Bush in 2006 to send a “surge” of reinforcement troops to Iraq now fear their efforts are on the verge of being erased." "The advisers comprise some of the best national security minds in Washington - strategists such as retired ArmyGen. John Keane, Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Frederick W. Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute." My old friend, neocon hack Fred Kagan refuses to just fade away...What does he want us to do now, re-invade Iraq? He should be happy about the GOP candidate's sabre-rattling at Iran, though.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Dec 29, 2011 21:40:51 GMT -5
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/28/iraq-surges-advocates-fear-gains-will-be-lost/"The outside advisers who worked to persuade President Bush in 2006 to send a “surge” of reinforcement troops to Iraq now fear their efforts are on the verge of being erased." "The advisers comprise some of the best national security minds in Washington - strategists such as retired ArmyGen. John Keane, Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Frederick W. Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute." My old friend, neocon hack Fred Kagan refuses to just fade away...What does he want us to do now, re-invade Iraq? He should be happy about the GOP candidate's sabre-rattling at Iran, though. I am going to ASSUME that you read the entire article..... He and the AEI were correct in their strategy. They are also correct in fearing the loss of the gains accomplished. The surge was successful but was not the complete plan. President Bush had signed a timetable withdrawal based upon further negotiations, which Obama neglected, to prepare a security force to stay to assist the transition of all sides learning to live together much like what occurred in the Balkins. As was also written in that article: That war became a failure, and the deaths of so many soldiers a GREATER tragedy, much because of Obama’s lack of effort to reach a new deal that would allow an international force to remain to keep the peace. With Obama’s sword rattling over Iran, he basically gave Iraq to Iran! Obama DOE'S NOT HAVE the skill to maximize the leverage we have in the area and will continue to fail in foriegn policy!
|
|