So we won the Iraq war, Obama is getting the credit, and leftists are still crabby

[asterism]

Really, now. So exacltly where did the driven out Taliban go and exactly how did they return?

I laugh when I see people on here type posts that are ludicrous.

Yes, we had them "dispersing" and yes, we screwed up by easing off and concentrating on Iraq.

But the taliban did not take American Airlines out of the country and relaxed in the carribean waiting for an opening to return.

You are pathetic Maggie. Know what you are talking about before you post. You are starting to sound like Truthmatters.

Since both of ya'll seem to be pointing at the Taliban as the central parasite in this matter, I'll pose this question here:

Why is Petraeus, obviously acting on orders, wanting to reel the Taliban in to be part of a peace process in the region?
When did they stop being an enemy combatant?
What can they bring to the table?

There's two factions of The Taliban, the good guys and the bad guys (although they all LOOK like bad guys). It depends on the tribe and where they live. As this article points out, better than the one I previously posted, it's complicated. I think Petraeus will use his skills at persuasion, just as he did during "The Awakening" in Iraq where he managed to cull out the good guys from the bad and convince them that they would be better off if they laid down their arms and became part of the solution, not the problem.

Pakistan and the Taliban: It’s Complicated - ShaveMagazine.com

Sounds a bit like his strategy with Iraqi Shi'a, which is rejected by leftists who say things were better off under Saddam.

 

[rdean]

Anyone else notice the lack of celebration on the left for the Iraq war being effectively over? Spare me the distinctions, the "war" in Iraq was over in 1991 but that didn't make Kurdistan safe by any means. However, today is a momentous day.

So why is the left so crabby? Their guy just proved himself to be not only a statesman, but someone who is willing to admit a previous error AND STILL deliver a great military accomplishment as Commander in Chief.

Is there some sense of perpetual unhappiness?

Believe me, Democrats want Republicans to take ALL THE CREDIT for what happened in Iraq.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This statement is known as "common knowledge." It is acceptable as it is. If you can disprove it, your welcome to do so.

Interesting twist. "Common knowledge" as a proof. Ok.

Your position is unstable and growing more so at the moment.

I suggest that you reread pages 535 to 562 in Embracing defeat: Japan in the wake and come back tell us what you forgot to tell us above.

I have no idea what you are talking about, so feel free to correct me. This was your claim:

Was that the case in 1952? No.

If you can prove that, go for it, asterism. I will tell you right now: you can't.

This shows that not to be the case:

...

...

Japan had not been transformed from militarism to that of a non-Christian culture that interacts fully with western civilization by 1952. Post war Japan was chaotic. We could go on and on debating snippets from books and I doubt it would change either of our minds. However, your claim to fact by virtue of "common knowledge" has been repudiated and disproven. It is at this point just your opinion, of which you have offered no substantiation.

That is your claim: people were facing the uncertainty of the future? They certainly weren't killing one another in tens of thousands based on differing religious concepts. They certainly were not attacking the occupation authority at all in any way shape or form as occurred in Iraq.

If you were to submit this in a history class, you paper would fail, period.

 

[MaggieMae]

Since both of ya'll seem to be pointing at the Taliban as the central parasite in this matter, I'll pose this question here:

Why is Petraeus, obviously acting on orders, wanting to reel the Taliban in to be part of a peace process in the region?
When did they stop being an enemy combatant?
What can they bring to the table?

There's two factions of The Taliban, the good guys and the bad guys (although they all LOOK like bad guys). It depends on the tribe and where they live. As this article points out, better than the one I previously posted, it's complicated. I think Petraeus will use his skills at persuasion, just as he did during "The Awakening" in Iraq where he managed to cull out the good guys from the bad and convince them that they would be better off if they laid down their arms and became part of the solution, not the problem.

Pakistan and the Taliban: It’s Complicated - ShaveMagazine.com

Sounds a bit like his strategy with Iraqi Shi'a, which is rejected by leftists who say things were better off under Saddam.

Nothing like lumping the majority of "leftists" who did NOT think that with the few who did. When the war was at its peak, 2005, most Iraqis THEMSELVES said that they were better off under Saddam--and they were. There were many who thought the Patreaus strategy couldn't work because we had so alienated the two Iraqi factions the situation was beyond any change in strategy. So when that was proposed, there was much skeptism. Once it began to work, there was also much praise, also from all us evil "lefties."

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So we won the Iraq war, Obama is getting the credit, and leftists are still crabby

Anyone else notice the lack of celebration on the left...

Is there some sense of perpetual unhappiness?

How stupid can you be? The left is anti-war. D'oh!!!

Liberals and Democrats are not leftists, and that is what the Left didn't get about Obama vs Hillary.

But you? What is your excuse for being so fuckin' stupid?

 

[asterism]

That is your claim: people were facing the uncertainty of the future? They certainly weren't killing one another in tens of thousands based on differing religious concepts. They certainly were not attacking the occupation authority at all in any way shape or form as occurred in Iraq.

If you were to submit this in a history class, you paper would fail, period.

Nice try moving the goalposts. The Japanese did not mount a violent insurgency and I never claimed they did. I said it was chaotic and not at all as you claimed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, I did not, and the goalposts are artificial in the first place and without merit.

The fact remains that the U.S. will have an Iraq antithetical to American interests for a good long and most likely will ally with Iran against those interests.

 

[rdean]

Anyone else notice the lack of celebration on the left for the Iraq war being effectively over? Spare me the distinctions, the "war" in Iraq was over in 1991 but that didn't make Kurdistan safe by any means. However, today is a momentous day.

So why is the left so crabby? Their guy just proved himself to be not only a statesman, but someone who is willing to admit a previous error AND STILL deliver a great military accomplishment as Commander in Chief.

Is there some sense of perpetual unhappiness?

Believe me, Democrats want Republicans to take ALL THE CREDIT for what happened in Iraq.

Not only should Republicans get the credit for what happened in Iraq, they should also get the credit for what happened to the women in Iraq, and the Christians and the new "future" of Iraq. Republicans deserve ALL the credit and Democrats want to give it to them.

 

[Sheldon]

No, I did not, and the goalposts are artificial in the first place and without merit.

The fact remains that the U.S. will have an Iraq antithetical to American interests for a good long and most likely will ally with Iran against those interests.

I think that's the main thing. Saddam was a hedge against the Shi'ite majority in Iraq, the same sect that dominates Iran.

So I think you're right here, Iraq and Iran would develop parallel interests and policies. I won't be surprised if, like twenty-ish years from now, a Shi'ite strongman/Iranian puppet emerges from a weak Iraqi parliament; I hope I'm wrong though.

Thing is, now Israel and Saudi Arabia have come closer. They may not be BFFs, but they've got a shared and growing antagonist in Iran. We sold a bunch of F15 fighters to Riyadh last month, and Israel was like "cool story bro".

It's like a soap opera, but with thousands and thousands of lives at stake.

 

[asterism]

No, I did not, and the goalposts are artificial in the first place and without merit.

The fact remains that the U.S. will have an Iraq antithetical to American interests for a good long and most likely will ally with Iran against those interests.

I'll file that with the predictions of "10,000 body bags before we reach Baghdad."

 

[asterism]

No, I did not, and the goalposts are artificial in the first place and without merit.

The fact remains that the U.S. will have an Iraq antithetical to American interests for a good long and most likely will ally with Iran against those interests.

I think that's the main thing. Saddam was a hedge against the Shi'ite majority in Iraq, the same sect that dominates Iran.

So I think you're right here, Iraq and Iran would develop parallel interests and policies. I won't be surprised if, like twenty-ish years from now, a Shi'ite strongman/Iranian puppet emerges from a weak Iraqi parliament; I hope I'm wrong though.

Thing is, now Israel and Saudi Arabia have come closer. They may not be BFFs, but they've got a shared and growing antagonist in Iran. We sold a bunch of F15 fighters to Riyadh last month, and Israel was like "cool story bro".

It's like a soap opera, but with thousands and thousands of lives at stake.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the culturally similar Shi'a in Iran will see that there is an alternative and enact change themselves. Stranger things have happened. That's just idle speculation with no value though.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Whoever said ten thousand body bags before reaching Baghdad had no real understanding of American power.

Besides sharing a common interest to oppose U.S. interests in the Middle East, perhaps the majority shi'a in Iran and Iraq will begin a savage suppression of Sunnis and Sunni institutions. The Sunnis have done that with various success and failure against the Shi'a in the last seven years, and are doing it more vigorously right now.

I would not be surprised if the Iraqi government would look the other way if Iranian troops took care of such Sunni strongholds near the joint border.

 

[MaggieMae]

No, I did not, and the goalposts are artificial in the first place and without merit.

The fact remains that the U.S. will have an Iraq antithetical to American interests for a good long and most likely will ally with Iran against those interests.

I'll file that with the predictions of "10,000 body bags before we reach Baghdad."

The only prediction I recall was Mubarak's, who said on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, "...you will invite 100 bin Ladens..." [paraphrased]