The United States Has Attacked ISIS

Well Liked Greasemonkeys takes survey of the options:

popularmechanics.com/technol … ck=pm_news

Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.

This is one of the rare instances where Neoclowns and the rest of us are in agreement. Bomb those murderous ISIS cretins in Iraq back to the Stone Age, just try not to take out a half million civilians in the process and write them off as ‘collateral damage’. Where we might not be in agreement is it’s time for Saudi Arabia to stop funding them in Syria.

On another note, while Neoclowns are clucking their tongues and telling everyone ‘I told you so’ it’s worth remembering that they were the ones who opened this Pandora’s box in Iraq in the first place.

[quote=“Winston Smith”]This is one of the rare instances where Neoclowns and the rest of us are in agreement. Bomb those murderous ISIS cretins in Iraq back to the Stone Age, just try not to take out a half million civilians in the process and write them off as ‘collateral damage’. Where we might not be in agreement is it’s time for Saudi Arabia to stop funding them in Syria.

On another note, while Neoclowns are clucking their tongues and telling everyone ‘I told you so’ it’s worth remembering that they were the ones who opened this Pandora’s box in Iraq in the first place.[/quote]

Oh, great. Everyone’s having a temper tantrum and looking for someone to blame. Well, you should blame human stupidity. And the Pandora’s box was opened many centuries before the neocons came along.

It doesn’t matter how righteous the casus belli is if the people leading the charge have no idea what they’re doing. We need grand strategists, not community organizers. War is serious business. It’s not for amateurs.

The US is not in any shape to police the world. If it ever was, it’s certainly not now. The military has been ruined by spending cuts and political correctness. The world is without effective leadership right now, and there’s nothing to be done about it. This is not the neocons’ moment. It’s the survivalists’ moment.

All this talk about what to do about ISIS is beside the point. We’re not in a position to do anything that will make a difference.

[quote=“rowland”]
Oh, great. Everyone’s having a temper tantrum and looking for someone to blame. Well, you should blame human stupidity. And the Pandora’s box was opened many centuries before the neocons came along.

It doesn’t matter how righteous the casus belli is if the people leading the charge have no idea what they’re doing. We need grand strategists, not community organizers. War is serious business. It’s not for amateurs.

The US is not in any shape to police the world. If it ever was, it’s certainly not now. The military has been ruined by spending cuts and political correctness. The world is without effective leadership right now, and there’s nothing to be done about it. This is not the neocons’ moment. It’s the survivalists’ moment.

All this talk about what to do about ISIS is beside the point. We’re not in a position to do anything that will make a difference.[/quote]

We started this particular ball rolling and have given it a couple of hefty kicks along the way. We’ll regret it if we adopt this attitude. For a change everyone will probably agree with us. Hell even Winston agrees.

[quote=“Tempo Gain”]
We started this particular ball rolling and have given it a couple of hefty kicks along the way. We’ll regret it if we adopt this attitude. For a change everyone will probably agree with us. Hell even Winston agrees.[/quote]

Public opinion is fickle.

Right! The Democrats agreed with taking out Saddam until they disagreed.

I don’t know, the western press has for a long time being going out of its way to assure everyone Islam is a religion of peace, and don’t get me wrong, for many it is, many are quite tolerant of others beliefs. But now when they see Wahhabism it seems they find it hard to call it what it is.

Freedom to chose or reject a religion should be one of the most basic rights everyone has, yet apparently, if you asked people in muslim countries what should be the penalty for apostasy, an even higher percentage of people than those who support Wahhabism will say death, the majority of people in a country like Egypt for example.

Some countries have a law which includes a death penalty for apostasy but rarely if ever implement it, which is not enough, freedom to choose a religion or be an atheist is basic human right. It would be nice if the rest of the world could shun and sanction countries that fail to allow their citizens this basic freedom of choice. But I guess the rest of the world is too reliant on Saudi oil to make this moral statement.

Right! The Democrats agreed with taking out Saddam until they disagreed.[/quote]

When was that? The 2002 vote was supported by 40% of Dems in the House and 58% of Dems in the Senate- basically they were split.
In 1991 only 18% of Dem Senators and 32% of Dem House members voted in favor, and that was only to drive Saddam out of Kuwait.

Right! The Democrats agreed with taking out Saddam until they disagreed.[/quote]

When was that? The 2002 vote was supported by 40% of Dems in the House and 58% of Dems in the Senate- basically they were split.
In 1991 only 18% of Dem Senators and 32% of Dem House members voted in favor, and that was only to drive Saddam out of Kuwait.[/quote]

Nobody is referencing 1991 at the moment. :unamused:

Of course… forgive me for stating the fact in an absolute. Some Dems ideed did not agree. But, many did… the point is that opinion is fickle.

See this Snopes post, as if I really need to cite this… :unamused:

[quote=“Tigerman”]
Nobody is referencing 1991 at the moment. :unamused:

Of course… forgive me for stating the fact in an absolute. Some Dems ideed did not agree. But, many did… the point is that opinion is fickle.

See this Snopes post, as if I really need to cite this… :unamused:[/quote]

the democrats who voted yes back in 2002 believed in the government intelligence that there would be WMD.

[quote=“hansioux”][quote=“Tigerman”]
Nobody is referencing 1991 at the moment. :unamused:

Of course… forgive me for stating the fact in an absolute. Some Dems ideed did not agree. But, many did… the point is that opinion is fickle.

See this Snopes post, as if I really need to cite this… :unamused:[/quote]

the democrats who voted yes back in 2002 believed in the government intelligence that there would be WMD.[/quote]

Riiiight! So, what better intelligence did we have in 1998 when so many Dems were calling for air strikes to deal with Saddam’s WMD? The only difference I see is in the party of the POTUS sitting in the WH at the time. :laughing:

[quote=“Tigerman”]

Riiiight! So, what better intelligence did we have in 1998 when so many Dems were calling for air strikes to deal with Saddam’s WMD? The only difference I see is in the party of the POTUS sitting in the WH at the time. :laughing:[/quote]

the 1998 vote was based on the UNSCOM report.

[quote=“hansioux”][quote=“Tigerman”]

Riiiight! So, what better intelligence did we have in 1998 when so many Dems were calling for air strikes to deal with Saddam’s WMD? The only difference I see is in the party of the POTUS sitting in the WH at the time. :laughing:[/quote]

the 1998 vote was based on the UNSCOM report.[/quote]

Yes. And, what about calls for Saddam’s head in 2002 and 2003?

[quote=“Tigerman”]
Yes. And, what about calls for Saddam’s head in 2002 and 2003?[/quote]

UN inspectors said Iraq is making progress with cooperation and had no evidence of WMD in January of 2003. Powell presented US evidence to the UN in Feb of 2003. Many inspectors and foreign intelligence warned the US to not take the words of “Curveball” seriously. The 2002~2003 evidence for going to war was provided by the US government.

Yes, what did the Democrats believe and when did they believe that they believed it until they stopped believing it because they believed something else… Many, MANY conveniently forget that the US was ALREADY COMMITTED to regime change in Iraq by LAW through the following CONGRESSIONAL ACT passed by ALL Democrats in the Senate and the VAST MAJORITY in the House.

[quote]The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government. The bill was sponsored by Representative Benjamin A. Gilman (Republican, NY-20) and co-sponsored by Representative Christopher Cox (Republican, CA-47). The bill was introduced as H.R. 4655 on September 29, 1998. [size=150]The House of Representatives passed the bill 360 - 38 on October 5, and the Senate passed it with unanimous consent two days later. President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law on October 31, 1998.[3]

Findings and declaration of policy[edit]The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had:

1.committed various and significant violations of international law,
2.had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed following the Gulf War and
3.further had ignored resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.

The law’s stated purpose was: “to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.” Specifically, Congress made findings of past Iraqi military actions in violation of International Law and that Iraq had denied entry of United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) inspectors into its country to inspect for weapons of mass destruction. Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.

President Clinton stated in February 1998: Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production…Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq’s remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits…It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons… [b]Now, let’s imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he’ll use the arsenal…

President Clinton ~[/b] 1998[6][/quote]

It’s pretty clear at this point that if America knew back in 2003 what it knows now that Operation Fool Me Once would never have gotten off the ground. What’s not clear is if America consequently learned the all important lesson that if something is 100% wrong it’s stupid calling it ‘intelligence’.

Per your view. What I would like to show is that from the First Gulf War, the US and its ENTIRE leadership including Congress, Intelligence, Defense, State and many other organizations INCLUDING multiple administrations from the President on down, viewed Saddam as a threat period. This was not only because he had wmds or the capacity to develop them but for the overall character of his regime and its intent.

Well, what are the lessons? that Saddam was not a threat? that armed extremists may commit acts of terrorism against US targets at home and abroad? that the Middle East is a mess WHEN we are involved BUT ALSO when we are not precisely BECAUSE we are involved but then again BECAUSE WE ARE NOT involved. So, gosh, I guess the US and the administrations and Congressional leaders and defense leaders and intelligence agencies of the US, UK, France, Russia, Israel, Germany, Italy, among others were sooooo stupid and incompetent to have what was essentially a uniform, agreed-upon view of Saddam and the risks that he presented until MIRACLE OF MIRACLES there was disagreement prior to the invasion and a subsequent rewriting of history but those who chose to make political hay at George W’s expense in the aftermath.

So my lesson: politics is an ugly business that does not always equate to national interests or even acting with integrity.

Don’t meddle in areas you have no current intelligence for, or unreliable intelligence.
Don’t make grandiose claims about what your meddling will achieve when the above pertains.

Those are some lessons.

Be humble and realistic over what you can actually achieve.
Know when you are beat.
Honesty is the best policy.
Don’t alienate people on your side because they do not side with you on every issue.

These are good lessons too.

I will remind posters to not post in large font. It reads like you are shouting. It just leads to a font war.
I have edited a few posts above as per.
Please gentlemen, conform to the norm. It does not further one’s point of view to either post in large font, or in red colour. At least, in an opinion forum. These functions were designed for more of the buy/sell type of fora.

[quote]Don’t meddle in areas you have no current intelligence for, or unreliable intelligence.
Don’t make grandiose claims about what your meddling will achieve when the above pertains.

Those are some lessons.

Be humble and realistic over what you can actually achieve.
Know when you are beat.
Honesty is the best policy.
Don’t alienate people on your side because they do not side with you on every issue.

These are good lessons too.[/quote]

Yes, thanks for those lessons… um, so when does one apply them and how does one know given all the “available” evidence when one should/should not act? I merely mention this as W. took heat for not preventing 911 and then for responding to it… so what if he prevented another 911 but we don’t know about it… would that be “no current” or “unreliable” intelligence? and would you suggest that, despite conventional wisdom that the US was “beat,” that George W. was wrong to implement the surge which ironically led the Obama Administration to claim that Iraq would be one of ITS administrations greatest triumphs? or was that the Obama Administration making grandiose claims regarding the “non” meddling that it would do while the Middle East burns… which is good because it is not grandiose and therefore intelligent? Help me out here… I am trying to wrap my mind around your definitions… sorry, but you know… since the whole human rights thing sorta kinda went into “beat” mode, I assume that I need to clarify your views on “important” matters. I hope that does not make me “alienate” you… wouldn’t want that to happen… would you? :sunglasses: