|
Post by nikki on Dec 29, 2011 23:58:01 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! I totally agree with your assessment, CV.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Dec 30, 2011 0:55:51 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! I really can't argue with you about Obama being a blundering failure in foreign policy. I was simply amused that the Kagans were still trying to influence our actions in Iraq. Maybe they can, but I think their time may have come and gone. And I never did care whether the Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis are butchering each other, and I won't in the future. That Bush got us into the middle of it is American blood on his hands IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Dec 30, 2011 1:35:41 GMT -5
I really can't argue with you about Obama being a blundering failure in foreign policy. I was simply amused that the Kagans were still trying to influence our actions in Iraq. Maybe they can, but I think their time may have come and gone. And I never did care whether the Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis are butchering each other, and I won't in the future. That Bush got us into the middle of it is American blood on his hands IMO. The Kagens know that we will not reenter Iraq as a force we were. But they are trying to bring pressure upon Obama to get advisers who can "walk" him through how to put pressure within our area of influence that may help balance Iraq. Something that Obama will likely continue to ignore. i.e. LOST CAUSE with Obama in the picture. As for Bush getting us into the war, we have been over that. Blame it on intelligence gathering from multiple countries. He depended on our intelligence agencies along with other countries and got bogus information. Iraq's "tribal/sect" issues were not the reasons for being there, but like the Balkins, it was a reason for continued negotiations to bring the factions toward some sort of peaceful living conditions WITH each other.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Dec 30, 2011 3:20:23 GMT -5
I really can't argue with you about Obama being a blundering failure in foreign policy. I was simply amused that the Kagans were still trying to influence our actions in Iraq. Maybe they can, but I think their time may have come and gone. And I never did care whether the Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis are butchering each other, and I won't in the future. That Bush got us into the middle of it is American blood on his hands IMO. The Kagens know that we will not reenter Iraq as a force we were. But they are trying to bring pressure upon Obama to get advisers who can "walk" him through how to put pressure within our area of influence that may help balance Iraq. Something that Obama will likely continue to ignore. i.e. LOST CAUSE with Obama in the picture. As for Bush getting us into the war, we have been over that. Blame it on intelligence gathering from multiple countries. He depended on our intelligence agencies along with other countries and got bogus information. Iraq's "tribal/sect" issues were not the reasons for being there, but like the Balkins, it was a reason for continued negotiations to bring the factions toward some sort of peaceful living conditions WITH each other. Yes, we have been all over that...and I still blame Bush. What ever happened to "The Buck Stops Here"? No one else but Bush could have given the green light. And of course the Kagans have every right to try and influence policy as much as they can...I'm just not sure anyone is listening anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Dec 30, 2011 17:57:15 GMT -5
Yes, we have been all over that...and I still blame Bush. What ever happened to "The Buck Stops Here"? No one else but Bush could have given the green light. And of course the Kagans have every right to try and influence policy as much as they can...I'm just not sure anyone is listening anymore. Bush has ACCEPTED responsibility for his action concerning Iraq! I am just reminding you of the premisis leading to such a decision. Now, YOUR Obama has YET to accept responsibility for any action other than the tragic Obamacare bill! He still points to anyone he can to deflect responsibility. If he is correct, then HE is not running this country.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Dec 30, 2011 20:16:31 GMT -5
Yes, we have been all over that...and I still blame Bush. What ever happened to "The Buck Stops Here"? No one else but Bush could have given the green light. And of course the Kagans have every right to try and influence policy as much as they can...I'm just not sure anyone is listening anymore. Bush has ACCEPTED responsibility for his action concerning Iraq! I am just reminding you of the premisis leading to such a decision. Now, YOUR Obama has YET to accept responsibility for any action other than the tragic Obamacare bill! He still points to anyone he can to deflect responsibility. If he is correct, then HE is not running this country. No, I won't argue with you on Obama's lack of leadership.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jan 5, 2012 4:18:13 GMT -5
Fresh off his plea for continued intervention in Iraq in the Washington Times, my old friend, AEI hack Fred Kagan, pops up at the LA Times telling us why we should take it to Iran... www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kagan-iranian-threats-demand-a-strong-respon-20120104,0,111766.story 'It is important, therefore, for the United States to declare its commitment to using all necessary force to keep the Strait of Hormuz open. Such a declaratory policy would be explicitly defensive: If Iran violates international law by attacking shipping in transit through the strait, the U.S. will act in defense of international law to stop the illegal action and eliminate the capabilities of the violator to persist in such behavior." How far will this back-and-forth saber rattling go? All the way, I believe. I'm fairly certain that war with Iran is not just if, but when, no matter which party is in the WH...
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Jan 6, 2012 4:12:01 GMT -5
Fresh off his plea for continued intervention in Iraq in the Washington Times, my old friend, AEI hack Fred Kagan, pops up at the LA Times telling us why we should take it to Iran... www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kagan-iranian-threats-demand-a-strong-respon-20120104,0,111766.story 'It is important, therefore, for the United States to declare its commitment to using all necessary force to keep the Strait of Hormuz open. Such a declaratory policy would be explicitly defensive: If Iran violates international law by attacking shipping in transit through the strait, the U.S. will act in defense of international law to stop the illegal action and eliminate the capabilities of the violator to persist in such behavior." How far will this back-and-forth saber rattling go? All the way, I believe. I'm fairly certain that war with Iran is not just if, but when, no matter which party is in the WH... I believe that our stance is to ignore their threats and proceed with sanctions. It will NOT stop the Iranian government from stopping their progress with their nuclear ambitions though. Eventually, their facilities will have to be taken out if they are not to deeply buried. If they are, then when weapons arise out of the depths they will be destroyed. If Iran closes off the Straits, they can do it, it won't last more than a few days. The retaliation will be by many countries and will not stop at just opening the Strait but will likely include their nuclear facilities and definately will include a major portion of their defense facilities. This is likely a scenario that Obama would like to push Iran into. Attacking Iran with missles, rockets and bombs and destroying most of their defenses and possibly their nuclear facilities would give Obama a strong boost in this election cycle. I suspect that late summer might be a time frame to watch for but it could be sooner.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jan 6, 2012 5:46:16 GMT -5
Fresh off his plea for continued intervention in Iraq in the Washington Times, my old friend, AEI hack Fred Kagan, pops up at the LA Times telling us why we should take it to Iran... www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kagan-iranian-threats-demand-a-strong-respon-20120104,0,111766.story 'It is important, therefore, for the United States to declare its commitment to using all necessary force to keep the Strait of Hormuz open. Such a declaratory policy would be explicitly defensive: If Iran violates international law by attacking shipping in transit through the strait, the U.S. will act in defense of international law to stop the illegal action and eliminate the capabilities of the violator to persist in such behavior." How far will this back-and-forth saber rattling go? All the way, I believe. I'm fairly certain that war with Iran is not just if, but when, no matter which party is in the WH... I believe that our stance is to ignore their threats and proceed with sanctions. It will NOT stop the Iranian government from stopping their progress with their nuclear ambitions though. Eventually, their facilities will have to be taken out if they are not to deeply buried. If they are, then when weapons arise out of the depths they will be destroyed. If Iran closes off the Straits, they can do it, it won't last more than a few days. The retaliation will be by many countries and will not stop at just opening the Strait but will likely include their nuclear facilities and definately will include a major portion of their defense facilities. This is likely a scenario that Obama would like to push Iran into. Attacking Iran with missles, rockets and bombs and destroying most of their defenses and possibly their nuclear facilities would give Obama a strong boost in this election cycle. I suspect that late summer might be a time frame to watch for but it could be sooner. As I said, I think an attack on Iran is probably inevitable, if justified or not (justification is of no consequence in our present political situation). But as a reelection ploy, it could backfire. Who knows what the unintended consequences would be? Win or lose, we could have major oil shortages which could wreck the world's economy.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Jan 7, 2012 3:22:14 GMT -5
As I said, I think an attack on Iran is probably inevitable, if justified or not (justification is of no consequence in our present political situation). But as a reelection ploy, it could backfire. Who knows what the unintended consequences would be? Win or lose, we could have major oil shortages which could wreck the world's economy. I believe that if Obama thinks he is lagging and may lose the election, he would definately pull that card out of the hat. He has proven that it is all about HIM and not about what is good for the country. He NEEDS another term to attempt to complete the damage he has started.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Jan 7, 2012 3:30:31 GMT -5
One more PROMISE made by the U.S. that the Obama administration is NOT honoring! Iran group say U.S. responsible for members in IraqPARIS (Reuters) - The leader of an Iranian dissident group in Iraq said Friday the United States would be responsible for any harm that came to 3,000 of its members who could be forcefully moved to a camp outside Baghdad that they describe as a prison. Maryam Rajavi, who heads the People's Mujahideen Organization of Iran (PMOI), had in principle backed a proposal to begin moving the residents of Camp Ashraf based on assurances from both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the United Nations that their safety and security would be respected. <clip> Rajavi's opposition group, exiled in Paris, invited dozens of former high-ranking U.S. and European officials -- including ex-U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, ex-Federal Bureau of Investigation chief Louis Freeh and General David Phillips, a former commander responsible for protecting Camp Ashraf -- to speak on its behalf. <clip> Camp Ashraf's future became unclear after Washington turned it over to the Iraqi government in 2009, a move that provoked a backlash in the United States, with former officials saying the country had broken promises to protect the residents. <clip> "Ashraf is not a side issue," said 2004 Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean. "We gave our word to protect them. When the U.S. makes a promise it should keep it." news.yahoo.com/iran-group-u-responsible-members-iraq-203347795.html
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jan 7, 2012 13:07:25 GMT -5
One more PROMISE made by the U.S. that the Obama administration is NOT honoring! Iran group say U.S. responsible for members in IraqPARIS (Reuters) - The leader of an Iranian dissident group in Iraq said Friday the United States would be responsible for any harm that came to 3,000 of its members who could be forcefully moved to a camp outside Baghdad that they describe as a prison. Maryam Rajavi, who heads the People's Mujahideen Organization of Iran (PMOI), had in principle backed a proposal to begin moving the residents of Camp Ashraf based on assurances from both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the United Nations that their safety and security would be respected. <clip> Rajavi's opposition group, exiled in Paris, invited dozens of former high-ranking U.S. and European officials -- including ex-U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, ex-Federal Bureau of Investigation chief Louis Freeh and General David Phillips, a former commander responsible for protecting Camp Ashraf -- to speak on its behalf. <clip> Camp Ashraf's future became unclear after Washington turned it over to the Iraqi government in 2009, a move that provoked a backlash in the United States, with former officials saying the country had broken promises to protect the residents. <clip> "Ashraf is not a side issue," said 2004 Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean. "We gave our word to protect them. When the U.S. makes a promise it should keep it." news.yahoo.com/iran-group-u-responsible-members-iraq-203347795.htmlYou mean those Iranian dissidents don't trust the Iraqi regime we installed at the cost of 4,000 G.I.s and a trillion bucks and continue to bankroll? Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jan 7, 2012 14:02:55 GMT -5
One more PROMISE made by the U.S. that the Obama administration is NOT honoring! Iran group say U.S. responsible for members in IraqPARIS (Reuters) - The leader of an Iranian dissident group in Iraq said Friday the United States would be responsible for any harm that came to 3,000 of its members who could be forcefully moved to a camp outside Baghdad that they describe as a prison. Maryam Rajavi, who heads the People's Mujahideen Organization of Iran (PMOI), had in principle backed a proposal to begin moving the residents of Camp Ashraf based on assurances from both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the United Nations that their safety and security would be respected. <clip> Rajavi's opposition group, exiled in Paris, invited dozens of former high-ranking U.S. and European officials -- including ex-U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, ex-Federal Bureau of Investigation chief Louis Freeh and General David Phillips, a former commander responsible for protecting Camp Ashraf -- to speak on its behalf. <clip> Camp Ashraf's future became unclear after Washington turned it over to the Iraqi government in 2009, a move that provoked a backlash in the United States, with former officials saying the country had broken promises to protect the residents. <clip> "Ashraf is not a side issue," said 2004 Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean. "We gave our word to protect them. When the U.S. makes a promise it should keep it." news.yahoo.com/iran-group-u-responsible-members-iraq-203347795.htmlNow that I think about it, the cheapest thing to do would probably be just bringing them over here. We could use a few more Iranian restaurants.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Oct 1, 2012 21:28:15 GMT -5
www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/328692/losing-iraq"President Obama announced the “end of America’s war in Iraq” on December 14, 2011, with the words, “We’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people. We’re building a new partnership between our nations.” These were the conditions that he felt allowed him to describe the completion of America’s military withdrawal as a “moment of success.” Nine months later, Iraq does not seem like a success, even in these extremely limited terms. It is neither sovereign nor stable nor self-reliant. Its government does not reflect the will of its people; Sunni officials have been marginalized and, in some cases, driven out of office. And it is not a partner of the United States on any of the key issues in the region: From its evasion of economic sanctions on Iran to its support for the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad, Iraq stands in Tehran’s camp, not Washington’s. The reality is that the United States has not achieved its national-security objectives in Iraq and is not likely to do so." I always take notice when the Kagans chime in on foreign policy. They are some of the original neocons who came up with the "surge" in Iraq, and also helped convince Obama to lengthen our occupation of Afghanistan. It is interesting that foreign policy has gotten to be a campaign issue, when it was hardly mentioned during the primaries. Not that Romney has any new ideas other than vague promises to bring back "respect" for America.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Oct 2, 2012 21:32:26 GMT -5
Tell me I'm wrong? You are not suggesting Obama has any clue what the words "foreign policy" mean.
Who cares what Romney is or what he thinks, the issue is, he's not a turd circling the porcelain fixture like the piece of crap you voted for.
|
|