[careinke]

Bush started the mess by allowing Cheny and Rumsfeld to run the show.

Obama is just an incompetent politician trying to fulfill what he said what he would do on his election runs. Unfortunately, it was wrong policy.

The poor people of Iraq.

regards

What is the right policy now? The whole thing sounds like playing three dimensional chess.

I would suggest: pulling our military out of ALL foreign countries, trade with everyone (subject to tariffs on carbon), regenerate our environment, and make all foreign aid private for those who WANT to contribute.

[efarmer]

The United States policy in Iraq collapsed on delivery 13 years ago. Obama made his share of mistakes and certainly Libya was an example. But mistakes of the magnitude of Neocon Iraq Strategy are writ large and play out for decades if not a century or more, and evolve towards bloody solutions with unintended outcomes for people who are born to people who aren't born yet themselves.

Tough cowboy talk to crowds of cheering Americans quite often turn out disastrous when applied to the actual world we live in as policy. Doubling down by "refusing to cut and run" is the stuff of 1950's
cowboy movies starring handsome Hollywood dudes. In real life, the vast majority of cowboys with
rash inclinations and stubborn refusal of reality received feedback in the form of immediate death and failure. They guys who sold horses and made six shooters found if profitable regardless of who "won".

[ennui2]

Yeah, maybe we should have voted for Planty's pacifist choice, John "Bomb, Bomb, Iran" McCain.

[shortonoil]

Dream on.

The neocons are very vulnerable. There is probably no more than 300 to 400 hundred of them in any kind of positions of much power. It took them 50 years to to get get there. Most of them work in the Executive Branch, and they work for the President. All that is needed is someone who has the guts to say "YOU'RE FIRED"!

[mmasters]

Like that loser Bernie Sanders could solve anything.

[Lore]

Dream on.

The neocons are very vulnerable. There is probably no more than 300 to 400 hundred of them in any kind of positions of much power. It took them 50 years to to get get there. Most of them work in the Executive Branch, and they work for the President. All that is needed is someone who has the guts to say "YOU'RE FIRED"!

The only way you can fire some of them is not elect them again.

[Lore]

Bush started the mess by allowing Cheny and Rumsfeld to run the show.

Obama is just an incompetent politician trying to fulfill what he said what he would do on his election runs. Unfortunately, it was wrong policy.

The poor people of Iraq.

regards

What is the right policy now? The whole thing sounds like playing three dimensional chess.

I would suggest: pulling our military out of ALL foreign countries, trade with everyone (subject to tariffs on carbon), regenerate our environment, and make all foreign aid private for those who WANT to contribute.

So, after centuries of expansion we're going to become isolationists? Not good for capitalism!

If you're looking at the middle class to jump in and help out the world's less fortunate then there is going to be a quick decrease of the population surplus. As for the wealthy if they can't make another buck off the cheap foreign labor that we support, we can forget about them too contributing.

The only reason the government gives foreign aid is so that we can have a wide open playing field where ever and when ever we want. That's why we're paying for NATO. It's our doorstep to sticking our nose into things. For one, Trump doesn't get that, among most other things.

[Plantagenet]

Doubling down by "refusing to cut and run" is the stuff of 1950's
cowboy movies starring handsome Hollywood dudes.

Exactly.

I wish Obama was smart enough to figure that out, but instead he keeps sending more and more and more US forces into Iraq to fight his dirty little war. In his latest escalation just last week Obama announced he was sending in US attack helicopters to fight on the front lines in Iraq. And fight for what? Why are we fighting to help Shia Islamic extremists defeat Sunni Islamic extremists in Iraq?

When you step back and look at it, they are both actually just different kinds of Islamic extremists.


Obama's Iraq War strategy---a giant loop.

[Lore]

Doubling down by "refusing to cut and run" is the stuff of 1950's
cowboy movies starring handsome Hollywood dudes.

Exactly.

I wish Obama was smart enough to figure that out, but instead he keeps sending more and more and more US forces into Iraq to fight his dirty little war. In his latest escalation just last week Obama announced he was sending in US attack helicopters to fight on the front lines in Iraq. And fight for what? Why are we fighting to help Shia Islamic extremists defeat Sunni Islamic extremists in Iraq?

When you step back and look at it, they are both actually just different kinds of Islamic extremists.

I thought he took most combat troops out of Iraq. Obama likes to fight from the air!

[careinke]

Bush started the mess by allowing Cheny and Rumsfeld to run the show.

Obama is just an incompetent politician trying to fulfill what he said what he would do on his election runs. Unfortunately, it was wrong policy.

The poor people of Iraq.

regards

What is the right policy now? The whole thing sounds like playing three dimensional chess.

I would suggest: pulling our military out of ALL foreign countries, trade with everyone (subject to tariffs on carbon), regenerate our environment, and make all foreign aid private for those who WANT to contribute.

So, after centuries of expansion we're going to become isolationists? Not good for capitalism!

If you're looking at the middle class to jump in and help out the world's less fortunate then there is going to be a quick decrease of the population surplus. As for the wealthy if they can't make another buck off the cheap foreign labor that we support, we can forget about them too contributing.

The only reason the government gives foreign aid is so that we can have a wide open playing field where ever and when ever we want. That's why we're paying for NATO. It's our doorstep to sticking our nose into things. For one, Trump doesn't get that, among most other things.

Well, what we are doing now will not work for much longer. Do you have a better replacement?

[Plantagenet]

I thought he took most combat troops out of Iraq.

Obama declared the Iraq War was over and withdrew all US troops from Iraq in 2010---every single one of them.

How come you don't know that?

But since 2014 Obama has been sending US troops back into Iraq. There are several thousand US military personal in Iraq now.

How come you don't know that either?

Obama-sends-more-troops-to-iraq-after-ISIS-rocket-kills-marine (March 3, 2016)

If the Iraq War ended in 2010 as Obama said then, then what in heck is he doing sending in more US troops and starting another Iraq War now? And what authorization does Obama have to unilaterally start another war in Iraq anyway---shouldn't Obama at least explain what in heck he is doing in Iraq to the American people and send a bill to Congress for a vote on his new war?

Cheers!

[Lore]

I thought he took most combat troops out of Iraq.

Obama declared the Iraq War was over and withdrew all US troops from Iraq in 2010---every single one of them.

How come you don't know that?

But since 2014 Obama has been sending US troops back into Iraq. There are several thousand US military personal in Iraq now.

How come you don't know that either?

Obama-sends-more-troops-to-iraq-after-ISIS-rocket-kills-marine (March 3, 2016)

If the Iraq War ended in 2010 as Obama said then, then what in heck is he doing sending in more US troops and starting another Iraq War now? And what authorization does Obama have to unilaterally start another war in Iraq anyway---shouldn't Obama at least explain what in heck he is doing in Iraq to the American people and send a bill to Congress for a vote on his new war?

Cheers!

Why should he? The last President just tacked it on to the budget. How come you didn't know that?



Several thousand troops? There are only 3,600 - 4,000? The latest group is a small detachment. Then again Fox does like to play the double standard.

[Plantagenet]

Several thousand troops? There are only 3,600 - 4,000?

SO you are in favor of Obama's new war in Iraq? And you don't care that O has sent thousands of US military personal to Iraq?
And you don't care if he gets Congressional authorization or not for this new war?

I didn't think you were such a big war hawk, Lore. Oh well---I guess we'll just have to disagree on all those things.

Personally, I wish Obama would follow the constitution and go to Congress and ask for Congressional authorization to fight this new war in Iraq. If the Rs voted against it, then Obama would have a perfect excuse to pull out all the troops he's been putting into Iraq.

[Poordogabone]

Like that loser Bernie Sanders could solve anything.

When is the last time that you have been elected mayor or senator ?
I know a loser when I read one.
Bernie has already won by making socialism (a taboo subject in the US) palpable again.

[Lore]

Several thousand troops? There are only 3,600 - 4,000?

SO you are in favor of Obama's new war in Iraq? And you don't care that O has sent thousands of US military personal to Iraq?
And you don't care if he gets Congressional authorization or not for this new war?

I didn't think you were such a big war hawk, Lore. Oh well---I guess we'll just have to disagree on all those things.

Personally, I wish Obama would follow the constitution and go to Congress and ask for Congressional authorization to fight this new war in Iraq. If the Rs voted against it, then Obama would have a perfect excuse to pull out all the troops he's been putting into Iraq.

Actually, Obama wanted to keep at least 10,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely at the end of major conflict. Some of the Neocons of course wanted much more, but in the end it was the Iraqi government that wanted us almost completely out, or did you forget? Now of course they'd be happy for us to build up our advisory troops.

Oh, and it's not Obama's war, It's G.W. Bush's war. It's the same war isn't it? However, technically Iraq is not a war since Congress has the sole responsibility of declaring one and Congress only voted to authorize limited military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Maybe you better brush up on your history and Constitutional law?

[Plantagenet]

Obama wanted to keep at least 10,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely at the end of major conflict.

Well, if thats what he wanted to do then he failed to do it.

it's not Obama's war, It's G.W. Bush's war. It's the same war isn't it?

Actually, no. Obama declared the Iraq War to be over in 2010 when he withdrew all US troops from Iraq. This new war started in 2014 when Obama sent US troops back into Iraq.

technically Iraq is not a war

That is a bizarre claim. If the war in Iraq isn't a war then what is it?

Let me guess....is the new line from the BO people that the war in Iraq is a police action like Korea 1950....is that right?

Cheers!

[Lore]

Obama wanted to keep at least 10,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely at the end of major conflict.

Well, if that's what he wanted to do then he failed to do it.

It failed because the al-Maliki government wouldn't grant the remaining troops immunity which meant that we had to fall back on the old Bush plan for total troop withdrawal. It was a decision made by the Iraqi government.

Actually, no. Obama declared the Iraq War to be over in 2010 when he withdrew all US troops from Iraq. This new war started in 2014 when Obama sent US troops back into Iraq.

Since it was not a war then I am correct. He declared the end to the major military engagement there according to plan but stating it as a war is a misnomer. Currently, any action there is a direct extension of the protracted armed conflict that began with the 2003 invasion of Iraq by a United States-led coalition. The conflict goes on and on.... thank you, George!

That is a bizarre claim. If the war in Iraq isn't a war then what is it?

No, it is military engagement authorized by Congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarati ... ted_States

Let me guess....is the new line from the BO people that the war in Iraq is a police action like Korea 1950....is that right?

Wrong again, technically, the Korean conflict was a military engagement authorized by United Nations Security Council Resolutions and funded by Congress.

This may seem like splitting hairs, but it's important in terms of conduct under the rules of engagement.

Again, I suggest you brush up on your history!

[Plantagenet]

stating it as a war is a misnomer.

The people who are dying in the war and abandoning their homes to flee the killing zones might just disagree with you.

[Timo]

Plant, Lore, you both are forgetting, or not even paying attention to the target and focus of the reinstatement of troops in Iraq. Those troops are not there to continue the war that Bush started. The troops have been sent in again to HELP fight ISIL! If we do nothing, and just watch from the sidelines, that would cede victory to ISIL, and that would render the entire purpose of the trillion dollar war completely mute! The original war enabled ISIL to come into existence. Obama's prosecution of the war enabled ISIL to expand their territories. ISIL is a very, VERY dangerous consequence of the initial invasion under Bush. Obama's not perfect, but at least he didn't invade the homeland of most of the 9-11 terrorists who actually flew into the World Trade Center. (Hint: It's NOT Iraq!)

To be perfectly blunt about this entire clusterfuck, there is absolutely no way to "win." The only way to stop the fighting is to completely obliterate the enemy that is.... who again? Where exactly do religious loyalties in the ME start and stop? How many are there? How do you stop new recruits from elsewhere in the world? Do we know where they are? How do you heal the wounds left by killing an entire population from the face of the earth? Would the rest of the world have any respect left for us if we did that? And would that accomplishment really be interpreted as "winning"? Hitler tried that approach.

OH!!! Silly me! It's just easier to blame Obama for everything. Those details about all of the unintended consequences of the original war are so 10 years ago. Times change. Time to blame the current leadership for the mistakes of the previous leadership. Obama's to blame for everything! Sorry to bring reality into the discussion. Carry on.

[Lore]

stating it as a war is a misnomer.

The people who are dying in the war and abandoning their homes to flee the killing zones might just disagree with you.

People die in conflicts all the time as well.

There is a big difference in Nations making a formal declaration of war on one another as to how combat is conducted. And for another thing, Obama cannot start a war unless Congress approves it under the War Powers Act, but I thought you knew that?

A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. The document Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications gives an extensive listing and summary of statutes which are automatically engaged upon the US declaring war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarati ... ted_States