I think we all agree

[Derideo_Te]

But what could you have done over the Taliban and their involvement with AQ in Afghanistan?

Seriously. I look at this day in and day out and cannot come up with anything you could have done during the Clinton years.
Hells bells Hillary was Benazir's buddy remember? She was backing the Taliban's take over of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was actually executed well in the beginning but then botched when the focus shifted to Iraq. The war in Afghanistan should have been concluded and all troops withdrawn before the needless war in Iraq. History tells us that Afghanistan is where empires go to die. We should have heeded that lesson by taking down ALQ and then getting out with the implicit threat that we would come right back again if they tried anything again.

That's why Obama fucked up when he changed focus to Afghanistan?
Bush's strategy was right both places. Large military force in Iraq to unseat Saddam and bring order. Small elite force to help the Northern Alliance unseat the Taliban.

Obama inherited two quagmires from Bush and there were no good options. The advice of the military for a surge in Afghanistan was a mistake but Obama was smart enough to set benchmarks and stick to them. They weren't achieved so he did what he should have done originally and started the drawdown and withdrawal process. Obama was also smart enough not to get sucked into Iran, Libya and Syria. Overall Obama has a better track record than Bush when it comes to wars.

 

[Redfish]

I think you are mistaken, especially as to the bolded portion. In reality, we do NOT "all agree."

So you are happy seeing our kids brought home missing arms and legs or in body bags? You think we should try to inject our since of values on the rest of the world and sacrifice our young to make that happen?

you are correct that we do not all agree, very correct !

Are you trying to channel RDean here?
Are you happy to see thousands dead in NYC, with people jumping out of skyscrapers in total desperation?

I did not say we should not have hit back after 9/11. We should have and did, the problem is that we did not do it smartly.

I am not saying that we should sit on our asses when threatened, we just have no business trying to inject our troops to settle regional conflicts (viet nam, kosovo, etc) when there is no threat to the USA

 

[Peach]

My heart really hurts on this. I've not a problem in my life on admitting I was wrong, but to admit abject defeat has been a bit of a life changing event for me. I was hating the Taliban when other people thought they were a "body wrap" and not Bhutto's mercenaries.

20 years. Nothing has changed. All our babies blood for naught. It hurts.

When the towers came down, I wanted SO BAD to just blow the SHIT out of SOMETHING. To turn the entire fucking Middle East into a fucking parking lot. But for some reason it all changed when I saw the size of the force going into Afghanistan. I knew somehow that it was wrong. Iraq was a different story, I was against that from the beginning.

You're definitely not alone - we were all so shocked and angry and fucking frustrated that we just wanted to DO SOMETHING. I just hope we've learned from our mistakes.

.

We are in the same boat on this. We all wanted to hit back. We were all angry and hurt. The hit on OBL was the right approach, not a stupid ground war that we could not win. We knew who did it, we could have hit them one by one and very publicly, it would have been effective and would have saved innocent lives on both sides.

But we are too civilized for covert hits, right? we prefer the flaming deaths of thousands to surgical strikes on the individuals responsible.

I agree, covert actions certainly have their place; I thought Saddam could have been removed with such, and some money well spent.

 

[Redfish]

Afghanistan was actually executed well in the beginning but then botched when the focus shifted to Iraq. The war in Afghanistan should have been concluded and all troops withdrawn before the needless war in Iraq. History tells us that Afghanistan is where empires go to die. We should have heeded that lesson by taking down ALQ and then getting out with the implicit threat that we would come right back again if they tried anything again.

That's why Obama fucked up when he changed focus to Afghanistan?
Bush's strategy was right both places. Large military force in Iraq to unseat Saddam and bring order. Small elite force to help the Northern Alliance unseat the Taliban.

Obama inherited two quagmires from Bush and there were no good options. The advice of the military for a surge in Afghanistan was a mistake but Obama was smart enough to set benchmarks and stick to them. They weren't achieved so he did what he should have done originally and started the drawdown and withdrawal process. Obama was also smart enough not to get sucked into Iran, Libya and Syria. Overall Obama has a better track record than Bush when it comes to wars.

Horseshit------Obama inherited Iraq and Afghanistan because he was elected president-------BOTH parties caused the mess, Bush did not do it all by himself, and obama did not inherit it all on his personal shoulders------------Congress is to blame----both parties in congress.

Get over the partisan bullshit and put the blame where it belongs.

 

[Kondor3]

.

I've sat in enough airports watching enough legless soldiers being pushed in enough wheelchairs by their young sons. We've spent enough trillions of dollars on enough erroneous "intelligence" reports. We've wasted enough lives and limbs and minds and dollars building countries that will fall back to the enemy the moment we leave. We've inspired enough young men to join terrorist organizations out of hatred for our interference.

Madness.

.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, I've heard it said that we intervene beyond our shores nowadays, to avoid intervening once the trouble reaches our shores.

As with anything, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[tinydancer]

I dont think we all agree on that.
We got involved in Afghanistan to counter the Russians. We retreated and allowed the Talibam to take over. The result was 9/11. There is no telling what will become a vital American interest. Pretending that it isn't a problem until the planes are crashing into your buildings is just stupid. At the same time not every conflict is our conflict. It takes some wisdom, not hard and fast rules, to know when intervention is appropriate and what is should be.

But what could you have done over the Taliban and their involvement with AQ in Afghanistan?

Seriously. I look at this day in and day out and cannot come up with anything you could have done during the Clinton years.
Hells bells Hillary was Benazir's buddy remember? She was backing the Taliban's take over of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was actually executed well in the beginning but then botched when the focus shifted to Iraq. The war in Afghanistan should have been concluded and all troops withdrawn before the needless war in Iraq. History tells us that Afghanistan is where empires go to die. We should have heeded that lesson by taking down ALQ and then getting out with the implicit threat that we would come right back again if they tried anything again.

I know I have a weirdo take on Iraq and yes I know who Art Bell is but honest he has no influence over me.

I always thought that Blair and Bush took out the kids because Saddam was going to be packing it in early and the last thing the whole world needed was his whacko kids taking over. His kids were beyond insane. Just a side thought on the importance of the Iraq invasion.

 

[freedombecki]

I'll give myself up. I was thrilled when we all went into Afghanistan. I yes a conservative have been a womans right's activist in the ME for a long time and at war on the net with the Taliban since the 90's.

I thought we could rebuild. I thought we could change things. I believed.

Oh I have been so sadly mistaken. And my heart is broken that we lost so many good young men and women fighting such a losing battle.

All for a dream that in the end will never come true.

In 11 recent years we've lost what--6,805? Faces of the Fallen - The Washington Post?

In 4 years in WWII, we lost 418,500 with a population of 1,300,000

My heart is broken,, too, that many more lost body parts and have conditions related to their injuries and experiences. And this government has proven itself not serious about taking care of them until Republicans got downright ugly about their neglect at the negligence of President Barack Obama.

 

[Dot Com]

rw backpedal thread? Too late for that. You people went all-in w/ Bu$h II/Cheney on vietraq

If we were all in with Bush and Cheney, then you dem/libs were all in with Clinton, Kerry, Reid, Gore, and all the rest of the dems who authorized and funded that fiasco.

THEY WERE ALL WRONG ABOUT IT------EVERY FRICKEN ONE OF THEM. WAKE THE FUCK UP.

yeah. They authorized it based on sexed-up intel provided by people like Doug Feith in the previous REPUBLICAN ADMIN. If his name doesn't ring a bell then maybe this thread is over your head.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The US should not try to police the world and should not engage in nation building. We should not enter foreign conflicts unless the USA or its people have been physically attacked.

Comments-------------------

I think you are mistaken, especially as to the bolded portion. In reality, we do NOT "all agree."

So you are happy seeing our kids brought home missing arms and legs or in body bags? You think we should try to inject our since of values on the rest of the world and sacrifice our young to make that happen?

you are correct that we do not all agree, very correct !

I AM correct that we do not all agree. Thank God I am right and thank God you are wrong.

And your rhetorical questions are plodding, ignorant, childish, stupid and sophomoric.

NOBODY that I know of relishes war. NOBODY that I know of relishes the injuries that are inflicted by the ravages of war, or the deaths and the misery and the mourning.

Are you a complete fucking idiot?

What I was objecting to was YOUR initial sophistry to the effect that we are (or even ought to be) in agreement that "we" should never go to war until and unless we are attacked.

Such short-sighted "thinking" has no place in the real world which is capable of being a very dangerous place that provides little lead time and often no notice.

But sometimes we do have the good fortune of knowing in advance that an attack is planned or about to begin. We are not obligated to wait (and it would be fool-hearty to wait) until AFTER their first blows land on us before we act.

So, no.

We are NOT in agreement.

You are wrong. And your "advice" is most unwise.

 

[Kondor3]

That's why Obama fucked up when he changed focus to Afghanistan?
Bush's strategy was right both places. Large military force in Iraq to unseat Saddam and bring order. Small elite force to help the Northern Alliance unseat the Taliban.

Obama inherited two quagmires from Bush and there were no good options. The advice of the military for a surge in Afghanistan was a mistake but Obama was smart enough to set benchmarks and stick to them. They weren't achieved so he did what he should have done originally and started the drawdown and withdrawal process. Obama was also smart enough not to get sucked into Iran, Libya and Syria. Overall Obama has a better track record than Bush when it comes to wars.

Horseshit------Obama inherited Iraq and Afghanistan because he was elected president-------BOTH parties caused the mess, Bush did not do it all by himself, and obama did not inherit it all on his personal shoulders------------Congress is to blame----both parties in congress.

Get over the partisan bullshit and put the blame where it belongs.

Seems to me, the fault lies in...

1. those who advocated for such interventions...

...followed, hard-on-the-heels, by...

2. those who signed-off on (approved) such interventions...

...followed, hard-on-the-heels, by...

3. us, for allowing them to get away with it.

 

[tinydancer]

I know I'm flipping that some how some way we are getting involved in the world police stuff in the Ukraine. I'm spitting bullets over this.

Honestly If there is a true genocide going down I have no problem with any of us jumping in and laying down a smackdown quick hard and dirty.

But why are we getting involved over bitchy moments? I'm not getting this.

 

[Redfish]

rw backpedal thread? Too late for that. You people went all-in w/ Bu$h II/Cheney on vietraq

If we were all in with Bush and Cheney, then you dem/libs were all in with Clinton, Kerry, Reid, Gore, and all the rest of the dems who authorized and funded that fiasco.

THEY WERE ALL WRONG ABOUT IT------EVERY FRICKEN ONE OF THEM. WAKE THE FUCK UP.

yeah. They authorized it based on sexed-up intel provided by people like Doug Feith in the previous REPUBLICAN ADMIN. If his name doesn't ring a bell then maybe this thread is over your head.

Both parties had access to exactly the same intel and they all came to the same erroneous conclusions--------as did the UN, EU, UK, France, Russia, China, Japan Spain, et al.

the GOP did not dream up the bad intel, it came from the CIA, FBI. MI5, and the UN. They all bought it. Saddam fooled them all, and he hung for it.


Stop rewriting history for partisan reasons.

 

[Redfish]

I think you are mistaken, especially as to the bolded portion. In reality, we do NOT "all agree."

So you are happy seeing our kids brought home missing arms and legs or in body bags? You think we should try to inject our since of values on the rest of the world and sacrifice our young to make that happen?

you are correct that we do not all agree, very correct !

I AM correct that we do not all agree. Thank God I am right and thank God you are wrong.

And your rhetorical questions are plodding, ignorant, childish, stupid and sophomoric.

NOBODY that I know of relishes war. NOBODY that I know of relishes the injuries that are inflicted by the ravages of war, or the deaths and the misery and the mourning.

Are you a complete fucking idiot?

What I was objecting to was YOUR initial sophistry to the effect that we are (or even ought to be) in agreement that "we" should never go to war until and unless we are attacked.

Such short-sighted "thinking" has no place in the real world which is capable of being a very dangerous place that provides little lead time and often no notice.

But sometimes we do have the good fortune of knowing in advance that an attack is planned or about to begin. We are not obligated to wait (and it would be fool-hearty to wait) until AFTER their first blows land on us before we act.

So, no.

We are NOT in agreement.

You are wrong. And your "advice" is most unwise.

Your ignorance is showing, better pull your panties up. Hurling insults is an obvious means of admitting that you are wrong or are incapable of understanding the issue.


these things are NOT complicated, they are SIMPLE. Politicians make them complicated as they try to deceive us.

You, my ignorant friend are wrong, I am right.


BTW, do you know the difference between 'threatened' and 'attacked' ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The US should not try to police the world and should not engage in nation building. We should not enter foreign conflicts unless the USA or its people have been physically attacked.

Comments-------------------

Bush should have had you as a counselor before invading Iraq.

Bush did not invade Iraq on his own, congress (both parties) authorized and funded that stupid fiasco.

If asked, I would have told them to use covert action to hit Saddam and his top cronies, a ground war was a foolish waste of lives and money.

Bush was the CiC, the buck stops there.

He was given the information he wanted and convinced the Congress to invade Iraq.

If you had counseled against the invasion or like Shinseki advising Rumsfeld and Congress the forces being allocated were insufficient to win the peace, you would have been forced into retirement.

 

[GWV5903]

We tried that after WWI, did not work out.

Uhhhhhh, can you say Pearl Harbor? We did not start that shit, but we finished it---as we should have.

That's the point, in a dream world your approach is solid, in the real world that we live in your approach never works...

 

[tinydancer]

I'll give myself up. I was thrilled when we all went into Afghanistan. I yes a conservative have been a womans right's activist in the ME for a long time and at war on the net with the Taliban since the 90's.

I thought we could rebuild. I thought we could change things. I believed.

Oh I have been so sadly mistaken. And my heart is broken that we lost so many good young men and women fighting such a losing battle.

All for a dream that in the end will never come true.

In 11 recent years we've lost what--6,805? Faces of the Fallen - The Washington Post?

In 4 years in WWII, we lost 418,500 with a population of 1,300,000

My heart is broken,, too, that many more lost body parts and have conditions related to their injuries and experiences. And this government has proven itself not serious about taking care of them until Republicans got downright ugly about their neglect at the negligence of President Barack Obama.

F'n eh girl.

I'm so pissed off I don't know whether to piss shit or steal third and this is all while I am trying to post and plant my garden at the same time.

 

[Derideo_Te]

That's why Obama fucked up when he changed focus to Afghanistan?
Bush's strategy was right both places. Large military force in Iraq to unseat Saddam and bring order. Small elite force to help the Northern Alliance unseat the Taliban.

Obama inherited two quagmires from Bush and there were no good options. The advice of the military for a surge in Afghanistan was a mistake but Obama was smart enough to set benchmarks and stick to them. They weren't achieved so he did what he should have done originally and started the drawdown and withdrawal process. Obama was also smart enough not to get sucked into Iran, Libya and Syria. Overall Obama has a better track record than Bush when it comes to wars.

Horseshit------Obama inherited Iraq and Afghanistan because he was elected president-------BOTH parties caused the mess, Bush did not do it all by himself, and obama did not inherit it all on his personal shoulders------------Congress is to blame----both parties in congress.

Get over the partisan bullshit and put the blame where it belongs.

Facts are pesky things!

Congress was party to the invasion of Afghanistan and the majority to the population was behind it because it was a direct strike against those that attacked on 9/11. The initial execution was done properly.

Everything went downhill after the Bush administration started lying to Congress and the American people about Iraq and started a deliberate campaign of disinformation. The facts all point to the single cause of that unnecessary war, which is the point of your OP, as being what was coming from the Whitehouse.

Your entire OP falls apart if you cannot admit to the truth about the illegal and unnecessary invasion of Iraq.

No, I am not going to debate the FACTS because they stand on their own merits. The Bush Administration lied to Congress and the American people in order to illegally invade Iraq. Everything else is secondary to that. If you cannot be honest enough to admit to the FACTS then you have just destroyed your OP position.

 

[Dot Com]

If we were all in with Bush and Cheney, then you dem/libs were all in with Clinton, Kerry, Reid, Gore, and all the rest of the dems who authorized and funded that fiasco.

THEY WERE ALL WRONG ABOUT IT------EVERY FRICKEN ONE OF THEM. WAKE THE FUCK UP.

yeah. They authorized it based on sexed-up intel provided by people like Doug Feith in the previous REPUBLICAN ADMIN. If his name doesn't ring a bell then maybe this thread is over your head.

Both parties had access to exactly the same intel and they all came to the same erroneous conclusions--------as did the UN, EU, UK, France, Russia, China, Japan Spain, et al.

the GOP did not dream up the bad intel, it came from the CIA, FBI. MI5, and the UN. They all bought it. Saddam fooled them all, and he hung for it.


Stop rewriting history for partisan reasons.

I see you didn't name Doug Feith. Here let me help you since you seem unable/unwilling to discuss his role in the Bush II Admin & the lead up to Cheney/Bush II's war:

Douglas J. Feith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feith joined the administration of President George W. Bush as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy in 2001. His appointment was facilitated by connections he had with other neoconservatives, including Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. With his new appointment in hand, Feith proved influential in having Richard Perle chosen as chairman of the Defense Policy Board.[10] Feith was criticized during the first term of the Bush administration for creating the Office of Strategic Influence. This office came into existence to support the War on Terror. The office's aim was to influence policymakers by submitting biased news stories into the foreign media. Feith played a significant role in the buildup to the Iraq war.[11] As part of his portfolio, he supervised the Pentagon Office of Special Plans, a group of policy and intelligence analysts created to provide senior government officials with raw intelligence, unvetted by the intelligence community.[12] The office, eventually dismantled, was later criticized in Congress and the media for analysis that was contradicted by CIA analysis and investigations performed following the invasion of Iraq.

 

[Redfish]

I know I'm flipping that some how some way we are getting involved in the world police stuff in the Ukraine. I'm spitting bullets over this.

Honestly If there is a true genocide going down I have no problem with any of us jumping in and laying down a smackdown quick hard and dirty.

But why are we getting involved over bitchy moments? I'm not getting this.

We have no business in Ukraine or Crimea. If those people vote to rejoin Russia, its none of our fricken business. If Russia takes them by force, let the chips fall where they may. We are not the world's police force. Unless there is a theat or attack on US interests, then we need to stay the fuck out of it.

 

[Redfish]

Obama inherited two quagmires from Bush and there were no good options. The advice of the military for a surge in Afghanistan was a mistake but Obama was smart enough to set benchmarks and stick to them. They weren't achieved so he did what he should have done originally and started the drawdown and withdrawal process. Obama was also smart enough not to get sucked into Iran, Libya and Syria. Overall Obama has a better track record than Bush when it comes to wars.

Horseshit------Obama inherited Iraq and Afghanistan because he was elected president-------BOTH parties caused the mess, Bush did not do it all by himself, and obama did not inherit it all on his personal shoulders------------Congress is to blame----both parties in congress.

Get over the partisan bullshit and put the blame where it belongs.

Facts are pesky things!

Congress was party to the invasion of Afghanistan and the majority to the population was behind it because it was a direct strike against those that attacked on 9/11. The initial execution was done properly.

Everything went downhill after the Bush administration started lying to Congress and the American people about Iraq and started a deliberate campaign of disinformation. The facts all point to the single cause of that unnecessary war, which is the point of your OP, as being what was coming from the Whitehouse.

Your entire OP falls apart if you cannot admit to the truth about the illegal and unnecessary invasion of Iraq.

No, I am not going to debate the FACTS because they stand on their own merits. The Bush Administration lied to Congress and the American people in order to illegally invade Iraq. Everything else is secondary to that. If you cannot be honest enough to admit to the FACTS then you have just destroyed your OP position.

I am totally consistent, I was opposed to the stupid Iraq fiasco from the beginning. I am just trying to set the record straight that Bush did not, and could not, do it on his own. The entire congress, the UN, the EU, UK and others are responsible, not one person.