Posted on 08/12/2014 11:33:45 PM PDT by Innovative
Take the fight to the enemy`s backyard!
Don`t wait til they`re on your doorstep.
“The problem is we have fewer and fewer real Americans every day.”
Absolutely right; we don’t have enough people to win these wars. We’re 0-2 in our recent wars against Islam.
Why doesn’t Obama use his “smart power.” It’s always worked in the past. /sarc
Syria and Egypt all over again. Wait until hundreds are dead, then think about it, then check the polls, then do something. And that something is to send money, weapons with no intent to save anyone but himself. No will to win, no desire to save. And great point.. having to rescue people from the death blow and slavery of islam is to admit he was dishonest about it to the American people.
“The American people have the steel and the will.”
The same people who elected Obama twice? They are a broken, defeated people, rushing to Boshevism in the vain hopes that it will somehow preserve a socio-economic way of life that died years ago.
hmmmm.....let’s see, the peace and security of the entire world vs. Obama’s arrogant self-righteousness and the angry raging rabble of his Democrat voter base.
I think I know which way this will break.
Do y’all think another Iraq war is a good idea?
Thousands of young men are dead, many more thousands maimed. Trillions of dollars spent. For what result?
If the war had been done correctly from the beginning things might have turned out differently. But it wasn’t. We have not fought a war to win since WWII.
It is not isolationist to refuse to be the policeman for the world.
Obama’s malice and incompetence notwithstanding, this is on Bush.
That is a summation of NeoCon talking points designed to re-write the history of Iraq.
We went into Iraq on a NeoCon lie and the legal basis for invading and being in Iraq was the UN Mandate, which was not an open ended basis.
We would waltz in, set Chalabi up on the throne, and be out in 2 years max, probably shorter. And the oil revenue would pay for it all. We disbanded the military and police, who would become the combatants and insurgents.
Chalabi was rejected so Bush and the NeoCons started fishing around for someone else, who we would set up. Maliki was the man.
That had this phony election that the Sunnis boycotted, so you could say the Iraq civil war started on election day.
So Bush and the NeoCons decided to take part in the civil war on the side of the Shia, but we had to beef up our military, which was called the Surge.
The reason we did this was because in 2006 it became evident that there would be no more extensions to the UN Mandate. Without the mandate, Bush would have had to begin the orderly withdrawal of troops in 2007. That would have been utter defeat for Bush and left Iraq in a broken chaos. No matter how bad it was in Iraq, Iraq was unwilling to negotiate a legal agreement for the US to stay.
So Bush and Cheney rolled the dice. Their last shot would be the surge. A huge increase in troop levels which Patreaus would command to defeat the Sunnis, while General Allen passed out huge sums on money to Sunni leaders to get them to switch sides and support the Shia govt. And to be accurate, Sunnis were given positions of power in the govt and military. Unfortunately, they would eventually be purged.
The Surge was never the great success it was made out to be, but it did buy some time. They killed a lot of Sunnis and won a lot of battles, but many of the Sunnis fled to Syria. And the US military bombed these Sunnis in Syria, as part of the surge. And you need to realize it was these sunnis from Iraq in Syria that would be the beginning of the unrest in Syria. And, it would be Maliki's complete purge of the Sunnis in Iraq, that led to the wide support of ISIS in Iraq by the Iraqi sunnis.
dfwgator gave you a link and you should read that thoroughly. There was a great deal of vagueness In Bush's SOFA as to what degree immunity would be granted American troops and contractors. There was a great deal vagueness and opinion as to what the troop levels would be in the event a second SOFA could be negotiated. And even though, Bush's SOFA was approved by parliament, many Iraqis approved that SOFA only because that was the quickest way to get the US troops out of Iraq and they never had any intention negotiating or approving another SOFA for a residual force beyond the 2011 pullout.
Which brings you to another NeoCon talking point. In this talking point the NeoCons acknowledge that because of the events in Iraq, it was not likely Obama could have gotten the Iraqi parliament to approve a second SOFA. But, the NeoCons say that Maliki would have been willing to sign an Executive SOFA with Obama and Obama should have signed that and used it as the basis for leaving troops in Iraq. However, since Bush's SOFA did have approval from parliament, a replacement Obama SOFA without the same approval would have been worthless.
If we go back to those days, the NeoCons said the democratization of Iraq would be a beacon of light to the poor and oppressed throughout the mideast. They would all be clamoring for democracy. But that is not what happened.
We democratized the Palestinians which brought Hamas to power. We destabilized Iraq which has destabilized the entire region. And it ain't anywhere near being over.
Drop supplies, arm the opposition. But keep our guys out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.