[quote=“hansioux”][quote=“MikeN”]Habemus Caliph!
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … phate.html
And of course he’s a direct descendant of Muhammid.[/quote]
wait… I’m confused… i thought being a direct descendant of Muhammad only matters to Shia… and ISIS is Sunni, so… what gives…[/quote]
Yeah,now that you mention it,it does seem strange.
[quote=“hansioux”]
Bush Jr. should have read his father’s book.[/quote]
My belief is the only reason the US/we invaded Iraq was because Bush Jr. believed he was righting his fathers wrongs for not taking Baghdad and taking down Saddam in the Gulf War. To me, there is no other explanation for the sudden need to take Saddam down and making up the stories about chemical WMD. His father (who I thought was a good man) and Schwarzkopf when asked why they did not capture Baghdad, stated they had no exit strategy (once they went in could never leave). Bush Jr (who I believe was truly feeble minded) also had none and the results are obvious, regression to a state of chaos.
So why after Bush Jr’s “Mission Accomplished” speech did we stay in so long? Because everyone knew (but would not say) as soon as the armed forces left, the same cultural, ethnic, and religious forces would resurface.
My prediction for the future Iraq, without external forces, will best be described as IRAN II. Once everyone is gone, they will be free to choose the Ayatollah of their choice (after the fight off for which religious group gets the job), and they will make him the over ridding law. What a great story line, take down a dictator, spend an incredible amount of money, cause the death of a large number of people including civilians, and generate another large anti-US state just like Iran run by an Ayatollah.
I am no fortune teller, but for the record, I did predict the Iraq invasion would be a disaster(and watched with confused amazement as we did) and predicted once the troops left, chaos would ensue. Lets watch and see what happens with the rest of this story.
Five assessment reports by the US Senate, British Parliament and others indicate that there were no “lies.” The conclusions were that while no wmds were found that programs were in place to rapidly ramp up when the UN sanctions regime collapsed and that was something that Saddam had great confidence would happen. He cited in particular the roles of the UN, the French and the Russians. Wonder why. The Iraq Liberation Act was signed by Bill CLINTON and passed with near unanimity in Congress BEFORE George W ever took office. It called for regime change and stipulated any and all action be taken by the US to achieve these aims. 17 UN resolutions called for Saddam to comply with PROVING that he did not have wmds. It was not up to us to prove anything. Hans Blix believed Saddam to be lying and NOT in compliance with his treaty-bound commitments. ALL intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had wmds and wmd programs.
And yet by 2007, the worst was over and for nearly five years, Iraq was at relative peace… This I suggest indicates that the US plan to leave a stabilizing force of 25,000 to 35,000 troops for decades like South Korea, Germany and Japan was the right one… and a wise one… too bad that it is now too late to know how this would have panned out.
[quote=“fred smith”][quote]My belief is the only reason the US/we invaded Iraq was because Bush Jr. believed he was righting his fathers wrongs for not taking Baghdad and taking down Saddam in the Gulf War. To me, there is no other explanation for the sudden need to take Saddam down and making up the stories about chemical WMD. His father (who I thought was a good man) and Schwarzkopf when asked why they did not capture Baghdad, stated they had no exit strategy (once they went in could never leave). Bush Jr (who I believe was truly feeble minded) also had none and the results are obvious, regression to a state of chaos. [/quote]
Five assessment reports by the US Senate, British Parliament and others indicate that there were no “lies.” The conclusions were that while no wmds were found that programs were in place to rapidly ramp up when the UN sanctions regime collapsed and that was something that Saddam had great confidence would happen. He cited in particular the roles of the UN, the French and the Russians. Wonder why. The Iraq Liberation Act was signed by Bill CLINTON and passed with near unanimity in Congress BEFORE George W ever took office. It called for regime change and stipulated any and all action be taken by the US to achieve these aims. 17 UN resolutions called for Saddam to comply with PROVING that he did not have wmds. It was not up to us to prove anything. Hans Blix believed Saddam to be lying and NOT in compliance with his treaty-bound commitments. ALL intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had wmds and wmd programs.
.[/quote]
In other words, 5 assessment reports by the people who chose to invade Iraq found that those same people didn’t lie. Woohoo.
Five assessment reports by the US Senate, British Parliament and others indicate that there were no “lies.” The conclusions were that while no wmds were found that programs were in place to rapidly ramp up when the UN sanctions regime collapsed and that was something that Saddam had great confidence would happen. [/quote]
[/quote]
They stated they had “evidence” that Saddam was not only developing WMDs, but had WMDs, and was prepared to use them. These claims were latter disproved. So if they claimed they had evidence but did not, how can that be classified as anything but fabricated lies? Their defense, “it was just bad intelligence”. When one follows their intelligence trail, one finds hypothetical conditions and opinions, there was no evidence.
Recall one of these rapid ramp up facilities to produce WMDs was a milk factory. It is true that large doses of animal fat can be harmful and even fatal.
[quote=“fred smith”]
And yet by 2007, the worst was over and for nearly five years, Iraq was at relative peace… This I suggest indicates that the US plan to leave a stabilizing force of 25,000 to 35,000 troops for decades like South Korea, Germany and Japan was the right one… and a wise one… too bad that it is now too late to know how this would have panned out.[/quote]
huh? but the mission accomplished speech took place in 2003, and immediately followed by Sunni working with Al Qaeda Iraq to start a full-on civil war that only ended after 2007 and the surge because the US military gained Sunni support to drive out Al Qaeda. During those in between times, Iraq was not much better than what’s going on these days. The relative peace only fell apart because of Maliki only works to further Shia interests.
Not even the worst detractors of the Iraq effort will be able to disprove the above. They are facts, facts on the ground, that pretty much shut up the serious left and opposition, and like I said when the left LEFT Iraq, well, suddenly Bush and his plans don’t seem so ridiculous, do they?
There has never been relative peace. Relative peace with respect to what? Things fell apart once we started removing forces and allowed them to start governing themselves instead of under the barrel of our guns.
So, Bush was really clear on the fact he foresaw and planned a stay in Iraq modeled on Korea? Somehow I don’t recall that being discussed in earnest until much later. Didn’t guy who wanted the surge from day one got purged for it before the big kickoff?
Sure, timelines and predictions go wrong, but a very high standard? Kicking over the government of a hard to manage government is similar to the “War on Poverty”? In 2003 I recall a lot crowing about a new era in the Middle East. Well, it sure is different! Russia should be thanking us for the high oil prices. Iran should be thanking us for removing yet an impediment to their plans.
As for lies; the only people who get caught out in lies are those who are too stupid to lie directly. If you want to lie, you get the experts to lie for you. Careful parsing of data based on ashumptions and ashtimates lead to expert anashsis that point the direction you want it. All those known unknowns and unknown unknowns… The asholes that do it in business are cut from the same cloth as those in gubmint. I see it all the time. Charging politicians of lying is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500. We have to be merciful for those who lie… Those nabobs, I hate them. I do hate them.
This war’s gonna end someday.
[quote=“fred smith”]1. Those post-invasion reports were conducted precisely because no one understood why no wmds were found. All intelligence agencies stated that he had wmds. Again, it was for him to prove that he did not; he was not in compliance. It was discovered that he went to great lengths to indicate that he had wmds to keep the Iranians checked. Okay. So he was successful in keeping the Iranians checked by making them believe that he had wmds… so, er, he cannot have had this both ways.
2. The opposition to the invasion of Iraq was extensive and intensive outside the US. Those nations and their Parliaments would hardly whitewash the effort when they could make political hay at, for example, the Labour Party’s expense.
3. The invasion of Iraq did not go as originally planned. Yet, when the surge took place, it did result in the desired effort four years later. This seems to have been lost for good due to inability to leave a stabilizing force. In fact, both Obama and Biden believed that Iraq would be seen as THEIR administration’s greatest success. And, if timelines and predictions that go wrong are to be held to a very high standard, shall we open that box to include EVERYTHING that ALL OTHER administrations have tried to do? I merely ask because I have strong views on the
“War on Poverty,” “the War on Drugs,” and early childhood education and the overall public school effort. Wanna play that game? 60 years on?
Not even the worst detractors of the Iraq effort will be able to disprove the above. They are facts, facts on the ground, that pretty much shut up the serious left and opposition, and like I said when the left LEFT Iraq, well, suddenly Bush and his plans don’t seem so ridiculous, do they?[/quote]
The Iraq Invasion to many seems ridiculous.
You have it backward. Saddam promised to account for and disclose his WMD as a condition for the cease fire to end the first Gulf War.
Rather than do so, he repeatedly blocked examiners and made it known that he did have WMD.
Funny this. Spook was always on me about this neoconservative conspiracy to “control” Iraq. We discussed and argued this much in 2002… BEFORE the invasion. You may not recall but we certainly discussed this and I was aware of this effort to turn Iraq into an American ally in the region.
Interesting then that you would want to understand the crowing of Obama and Biden in 2008 and 2009 that Iraq would be one of THEIR administration’s greatest accomplishments… why is that?
Hmmmm but then it was all about US desire to control Iraq’s oil and reduce oil prices. So that has not happened? and what does the US care when it is now an energy exporter? But wait! We wanted to control, no we wanted to lower, no we wanted to raise… what is it?
haha now it was careful and not blatant lying… what are you on about? If this is now the new “stance” on Bush lied; troops died, I think that we can all agree that this is a major stepback from the originally bandied about charges… and like I said with all the analyses and reports… they put paid to the suggestion of any blatant lying and manipulation.
so unknown unknowns… huh? and you just were suggesting that this was all decided immediately upfront with the administration claiming to know and be able to control everything that would happen… ironic especially given that the father of said president and his team warned about this extensively. The difference was that after 911, we were not going to wait to lead from behind…
It has for us. Would you agree that it might have been better to try to leave 25,000 to 35,000 troops behind? Seemed to do the trick for the Sunnis. Now, well, it is never too late but it is regrettable, no? given that Iraq was going to be a great success only as recently as 2009/2010?
There has never been relative peace. Relative peace with respect to what? Things fell apart once we started removing forces and allowed them to start governing themselves instead of under the barrel of our guns.[/quote]
I’d say no open armed conflicts between Shia and Sunni with no significant Al Qaeda presence is relative peace.
Maliki has been in power since before the surge started, his predecessor was replaced because Jaafari too ignored Kurdish and Sunni interests. Maliki turns out much worse at making the 3 parties happy though. He had a great opportunity to make things right post Surge through out 2008 to 2012, but he squandered the opportunity and grew increasingly close to Iran.
Yes, he did squander a very good opportunity. I really wish though that the US had left 25,000 to 35,000 troops in Iraq. I think that would have done wonders to stabilize the situation. Regardless, the issue is and always was that Saddam was a great force for destabilization. His tenure involved nothing but wars and threats and instability. The world is better off without him. No doubt.
Yes, he did squander a very good opportunity. I really wish though that the US had left 25,000 to 35,000 troops in Iraq. I think that would have done wonders to stabilize the situation. Regardless, the issue is and always was that Saddam was a great force for destabilization. His tenure involved nothing but wars and threats and instability. The world is better off without him. No doubt.[/quote]
would leaving 25,000 to 35,000 troops in Iraq get Maliki to stop being an ass? Because the last time when Iraq Sunnis worked with Al Qaeda, US troops weren’t so effective. Things only got better when the Sunnis were on our side.
Maliki wanted the US troops to leave since 2008. There’s no amount of US pressure that would come remotely close to ISIS capturing Mousul and moving towards Baghdad, and yet Maliki still would not cooperate with Sunnis and Kurds. Unless he stops being the premiere of the Shia and becomes the premiere of Iraq, things would not turn around, or perhaps at this point, he needs to get out of the picture all together.
Lying? Wasn’t me…I always said careful parsing. They force fit the facts to justify what they were doing. Reality doesn’t care what “facts” you used to make your argument.
It’s my understanding that is expressly why Senior didn’t go. Smart man.
[quote] It has for us. Would you agree that it might have been better to try to leave 25,000 to 35,000 troops behind? Seemed to do the trick for the Sunnis. Now, well, it is never too late but it is regrettable, no? given that Iraq was going to be a great success only as recently as 2009/2010?
[/quote]
I never felt Iraq was going to be a success, or at least the odds of success too slim. Did we have a choice to stay once Maliki got into power?
It is too bad. So much blood and treasure for what? So Russia can think it can afford to annex Crimea and show to the world what weaklings the EU are?
"Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was “the intelligence failure” in Iraq,[17] while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration “misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq”.[18] A key CIA informant in Iraq admitted that he lied about his allegations, “then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war”.[19
Bush senior understood that possibility, and expected it.
Why not just use the executive summary and not edit out points 1-17 or did they counter your point too much? I have read this front to back and am very familiar with it. I think that you, too, are NOW very familiar with it as well… hence your choice of providing only 17-19… I think that we all know what is in 1-17 and how it supports one of our positions but not the other… wanna bet which one of us wins? 