New Iraq problems

The place for anything at all...
Post Reply
User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

New Iraq problems

Post by Uniform Two Six » Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:34 pm

Dick Cheney went on TV attacking the Obama Administration for "mishandling" the Iraq situation. Apparently, he felt that the administration should have kept troops in Iraq past the 2011 withdrawal deadline, and he's complaining that the President is showing weakness by not sending in military forces right away. Apparently, he's gaining traction with the American people who are polling at 57% disapproval for Obama's foreign policy. Why exactly is it that nobody seems to recall that this is the guy (Cheney) who claimed that we needed to go into Iraq in the first place because Saddam had nukes ("We can't let the smoking gun come in the form of a mushroom cloud"), and then as late as 2006 was assuring everybody who would listen that there really wasn't an insurgency in Iraq, and that it was "just a few dead-enders", and that the troubles were in their "last-throes"? Why exactly does anybody listen to this idiot?
:eyebrow:

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: New Iraq problems

Post by Uniform Two Six » Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:04 pm

Apparently he also wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal:
Winston Churchill is probably spinning in his grave.
:roll:
Oh, so, sort of like "Mission Accomplished"?
:?
Which yours never had, I'm sure.
Because a bunch of largely illiterate rubes stuck in a desert in one of the cr@ppiest countries on earth, and who have to steal all their weapons and equipment, are totally a threat to the United States. Better start calling out the National Guard -- or Chuck Norris, or something...
:ninja:
And what actions would you be referencing -- y'know since we have exactly zero military presence there?
:?
Which was never asked of George Bush.
Possibly because they were intended to create an opening for Maliki's government to achieve a power-sharing compromise intended to lead to a long-term peace -- which Maliki and pretty much all of the major players adamantly refused to do.
Friends like Saudi Arabia from whence almost all of the 9/11 hijackers came from, where Al Qaeda was principally financed from, and whom are now financing the very ISIL terrorists that you're currently b**ching about?
And as tempting as it is to go off on a rant drawing a parallel between you denying climate change exists and you denying that an insurgency exists in Iraq (in 2005) would be, I would instead point to what's happening here in California. Our water reserves are now dipping under 20% (in min-June) due to two years of devastating drought. So, illiterate idiots with rifles on the other side of the planet: Major national security threat. No water for an 8 billion dollar agriculture sector: no big deal.
:blink:
You saw that scene from Farenheit 9/11, right?
Yeah, dammit! Somebody should have handed him an intelligence estimate entitled "Al Qaeda Determined To Strike In United States" or something. Friggin' liberals!
:evil:
Y'know, with the minor exception of Osama Bin Laden...
And spending millions of U.S. taxpayer-dollars to essentially buy-off the Sunni tribals, had no impact whatsoever...
:roll:
Which the Iraqis also refused to do.
Which was why we spend billions of dollars more to build up Iraqi security forces -- y'know, so we'd have to do that job instead.
And how many terrorists were there before you guys decided to invade two predominately muslim countries and do things like 'extraordinary rendition' and waterboarding, or the Abu Gharib scandal in which intelligence folks wanted the detainees "softened up" before interrogation? Y'know, back when some CIA estimates put Al Qaeda membership globally at around 350?
:blink:
What?
:eyebrow:
Yeah, ceding the field to the Iranians is a really dumb idea -- totally unlike taking down Saddam Hussein, who hated the Iranians, fought a decade-long war with them, and generally acted as a strategic counterbalance to them. That one was pure genius, Dick.
:x

Because the policy of staying in Afghanistan forever worked out so well for the Soviet Union.
Yeah, I think that was part of his campaign slogan, even: "Yes -- We -- Can!... destroy America utterly.
:unclewolf:
And how quickly did America decline on your watch in the 2008 Financial Crisis?
:eyebrow:
So, did you ever make that point at any of the NATO conferences?
Whereas being overtly provocative -- totally isn't provocative at all...
Because Al Qaeda's new navy, air force and nuclear deterrent component is way scarier than the old Soviet Union ever was?
Y'know, like "the Iraq occupation will finance itself" -- or "we'll be greeted as liberators".
:thumbsup:
Because we can't let the smoking gun come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Quite unlike your policies of ripping out the heart and guts of the U.S. military in a second Vietnam, and ensuring that we don't have enough credible military muscle left to keep douchbags like Kim Jong Un in their little box.
He also said that "trickle-down" economics would work, and a decade later was having trouble remembering his own name, much less coming up with snappy sound-bites.
As the PATRIOT Act didn't.
:eyebrow:

User avatar
Terastas
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 5193
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:03 pm
Custom Title: Spare Pelican
Gender: Male
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: New Iraq problems

Post by Terastas » Thu Jul 03, 2014 5:27 pm

Because they hate President Blackenstein so much that they are willing to buy into any mound of bullshit as long as it's coming from someone that hates him too.

These people are so devoted to hating Obama that they can't even be consistent with themselves. Half of them were demanding the White House do whatever it could to release Bowe Bergdahl, then decided overnight that he was a deserter, traitor and terrorist after Obama gave them what they wanted.

Nobody actually trusts Cheney. In fact, pretty much everyone knows he is absolutely full of s***. They just don't care because they are full of s*** too.
Image

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: New Iraq problems

Post by Uniform Two Six » Fri Jul 04, 2014 2:17 am

I don't know. I get the sinking feeling that this is sort of like their views on climate change. When the facts are so overwhelmingly against them, one would expect that they would find a new avenue to go about it, like claiming that cutting carbon dioxide emissions would be prohibitively expensive in the short-term, or something. Instead, they attack the science itself. They claim some huge conspiracy to fake the numbers, and that's as far as they feel they have to go. And worse, a lot of them really believe that garbage. It's like reality itself and objective fact has become entirely optional. I was mentioning this to one of my Republican associates under the topic of Dick Cheney and his claims in 2002-2003 justifying the invasion in the first place. I essentially said that he had claimed that Saddam had nukes, and had been totally wrong. The answer was something like 'Well, that's your opinion.' The hell it is! He said there were nukes, and there weren't. That's not opinion, that's fact. 'And that's your opinion and you're entitled to it...'
:x

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: New Iraq problems

Post by Uniform Two Six » Sat Aug 23, 2014 12:35 pm

I love how the Iraqis are now blaming the rise of the Islamic State on the U.S. Apparently we left too early before the situation was fully stabilized, and before the Iraqi Army had been brought up to full capability. All of this quietly ignores the fact that the Iraqis were demanding the U.S. withdraw in the first place. Also quietly ignored is that the primary reason why the Iraqis wanted us out was because the Shiites in the government wanted to consolidate their power, and the U.S. wasn't playing that game (since doing so would have laid the foundation for something like the I.S. to fester). This also ignores the basic issue that alienating the Sunni minority basically set up the whole scenario we're seeing playing out right now.

They're complaining that we should have gone into Syria at the first sign of trouble -- which seems sort of hypocritical given how much they didn't like the U.S. going into their own country, but also ignores the fact that we have no real justification or national interest in doing so.

No good explanation has come out of their camp as to why their army threw in the towel and fled at the first sign of trouble, either (and left all their stuff behind, so now I.S. has Humvees and artillery).

Possibly the best part of this ongoing rant is that they blame the U.S. for not selling them the fighter aircraft they wanted. This despite the minor issue of the Iraqis themselves deferring payment for a year on the deal because Maliki wanted to use the funds to grease his own political wheels, and inexplicably missing their latest payment as well. The first two F-16s are sitting on the tarmac in Fort Worth right now because the Iraqis apparently can't get their sh*t together.

But, no. It's all our fault.

User avatar
Volkodlak
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:05 am
Gender: Male
Mood: Bored
Location: Slovenia

Re: New Iraq problems

Post by Volkodlak » Sat Aug 23, 2014 12:38 pm

heard that US is thinking about broad military action againsi ISIS do you know anything about this?
Image

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: New Iraq problems

Post by Uniform Two Six » Sat Aug 23, 2014 12:52 pm

I'd be cautious about the "broad" part of the broad military action thing. There will probably be some air strikes into Syria to target artillery, light armored vehicles, and suspected command and control nodes. There might be a special forces action or two, but I doubt it will go much beyond that. The strategy now (as far as I can tell) is to knock the I.S. capability back down to a poorly-armed terrorist group. The only wild card here is Assad's air defenses. If Assad is smart, he'll just tell everybody on his side to stand down while the United States Air Force happily bombs the ever-living-sh*t out of his I.S. adversaries, but at this point I take nothing for granted. Anyway, the strategy seems to be to leave the I.S. to the Syrians, the Kurds, and the Iraqi Army once their maneuver warfare capability and C-3 capacity have been reduced.

Post Reply