CDZ Facts About the Iraq War

[jwoodie]

OK, let's cut the BS and acknowledge some FACTS about the Iraq War:

1. Saddam Hussein had used poison gas against the Kurds and Iranians.

2. He refused to comply with UN inspections regarding WMDs.

3. Bush used this and the 9/11 attacks to get rid of Saddam and install a democracy in Iraq.

4. Bush hoped this would change the Arab-Israeli equation in the Middle East.

5. Bush won the war but allowed a weak, corrupt government to take power in Iraq.

6. Obama hurriedly pulled our troops out of Iraq and allowed its government to collapse.

7. Age-old religious rivalries then tore Iraq apart and allowed ISIS to establish a foothold in Iraq.

8. ISIS has spread to other countries and sponsors worldwide terrorism.

9. Iran was emboldened by Iraq's collaspe and seeks hegemony over the Middle East.

10. Obama's nuclear deal with Iran guarantees this eventuality.

Have I missed anything?

 

[oldsoul]

No, I think you got all the basics. Anything else would be in the details.

 

[alang1216]

OK, let's cut the BS and acknowledge some FACTS about the Iraq War:

1. Saddam Hussein had used poison gas against the Kurds and Iranians.

2. He refused to comply with UN inspections regarding WMDs.

3. Bush used this and the 9/11 attacks to get rid of Saddam and install a democracy in Iraq.

4. Bush hoped this would change the Arab-Israeli equation in the Middle East.

5. Bush won the war but allowed a weak, corrupt government to take power in Iraq.

6. Obama hurriedly pulled our troops out of Iraq and allowed its government to collapse.

7. Age-old religious rivalries then tore Iraq apart and allowed ISIS to establish a foothold in Iraq.

8. ISIS has spread to other countries and sponsors worldwide terrorism.

9. Iran was emboldened by Iraq's collaspe and seeks hegemony over the Middle East.

10. Obama's nuclear deal with Iran guarantees this eventuality.

Have I missed anything?

3. I doubt the Sunnis welcome a democracy where the Shiites hold power. I wonder how Southern whites would have reacted if freed slaves were given political power after the Civil War? Oh yeah, we know the answer to that.
6. Obama didn't or couldn't renegotiate a deal Bush made to remove US troops from Iraq. Troops not wanted by the government put in power by Bush.
7. Bush should have been able to foresee that "age-old" rivalries might be a problem for Iraq's stability.
9. Bush should also have foreseen that removing Saddam and replacing him with a Shiite led gov't would cause Iraq to tilt to Shiite Iran.
10. Obama and his allies were able to negotiate a deal to forestall it.

You neglected to mention the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of Iraqis who where killed removing Saddam from power. You also neglected to mention how we upset our Arab allies by removing the most powerful Sunni gov't in the region. We also upset our allies, the Turks, by freeing the Kurds from Saddam's yoke.

 

[Elvis Obama]

No, I think you got all the basics. Anything else would be in the details.

"Anything else would be in the details."

Yeah, little details like the neocons lusting after Saddam's head for decades. That despite their obsession with Iraq they had no idea what that country was about or what effect toppling the dictator would have. They had no post invasion plans, despite the fact that the whole point of the exercise was to control what happened afterwards. They concentrated entirely on the military aspect, then, when they had blown the place to hell, they stood there looking at each other, saying, "what now?".

De-Ba'athification was a perfect example of what fumbling idiots these people were. Obama inherited a ridiculous mess where a "pseudo-peace" was being maintained by bribing the most extreme insurgents, who were glad to take the money, since the period of "time-out" was literally the blink of an eye to these people. They'd been fighting for centuries, what did a time out of a few months matter?

The Bush administration were fools who decided to kick a hornet's nest to find out what would happen. They found out. Obama had zero chance of fixing what they broke.

 

[oldsoul]

OK, let's cut the BS and acknowledge some FACTS about the Iraq War:

1. Saddam Hussein had used poison gas against the Kurds and Iranians.

2. He refused to comply with UN inspections regarding WMDs.

3. Bush used this and the 9/11 attacks to get rid of Saddam and install a democracy in Iraq.

4. Bush hoped this would change the Arab-Israeli equation in the Middle East.

5. Bush won the war but allowed a weak, corrupt government to take power in Iraq.

6. Obama hurriedly pulled our troops out of Iraq and allowed its government to collapse.

7. Age-old religious rivalries then tore Iraq apart and allowed ISIS to establish a foothold in Iraq.

8. ISIS has spread to other countries and sponsors worldwide terrorism.

9. Iran was emboldened by Iraq's collaspe and seeks hegemony over the Middle East.

10. Obama's nuclear deal with Iran guarantees this eventuality.

Have I missed anything?

3. I doubt the Sunnis welcome a democracy where the Shiites hold power. I wonder how Southern whites would have reacted if freed slaves were given political power after the Civil War? Oh yeah, we know the answer to that.
6. Obama didn't or couldn't renegotiate a deal Bush made to remove US troops from Iraq. Troops not wanted by the government put in power by Bush.
7. Bush should have been able to foresee that "age-old" rivalries might be a problem for Iraq's stability.
9. Bush should also have foreseen that removing Saddam and replacing him with a Shiite led gov't would cause Iraq to tilt to Shiite Iran.
10. Obama and his allies were able to negotiate a deal to forestall it.

You neglected to mention the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of Iraqis who where killed removing Saddam from power. You also neglected to mention how we upset our Arab allies by removing the most powerful Sunni gov't in the region. We also upset our allies, the Turks, by freeing the Kurds from Saddam's yoke.

So, it's all Bush's fault. When will you Obamaites get with the program and stop blaming EVERYONE but Obama? Is your messianic veiw of him so ingrained that he can do no wrong? Is he really the Messiah, come to wash the sins of the masses away?
As for the "deal" with Iran...When was allowing a religious theocracy, bent on the destruction of our allies, a path to nuclear weapons forestalling it? They had no path, within the confines of international law, until Obama and his "allies" gave it to them.

 

[oldsoul]

No, I think you got all the basics. Anything else would be in the details.

"Anything else would be in the details."

Yeah, little details like the neocons lusting after Saddam's head for decades. That despite their obsession with Iraq they had no idea what that country was about or what effect toppling the dictator would have. They had no post invasion plans, despite the fact that the whole point of the exercise was to control what happened afterwards. They concentrated entirely on the military aspect, then, when they had blown the place to hell, they stood there looking at each other, saying, "what now?".

De-Ba'athification was a perfect example of what fumbling idiots these people were. Obama inherited a ridiculous mess where a "pseudo-peace" was being maintained by bribing the most extreme insurgents, who were glad to take the money, since the period of "time-out" was literally the blink of an eye to these people. They'd been fighting for centuries, what did a time out of a few months matter?

The Bush administration were fools who decided to kick a hornet's nest to find out what would happen. They found out. Obama had zero chance of fixing what they broke.

All Bush's fault. so predictable.

 

[jwoodie]

OK, let's cut the BS and acknowledge some FACTS about the Iraq War:

1. Saddam Hussein had used poison gas against the Kurds and Iranians.

2. He refused to comply with UN inspections regarding WMDs.

3. Bush used this and the 9/11 attacks to get rid of Saddam and install a democracy in Iraq.

4. Bush hoped this would change the Arab-Israeli equation in the Middle East.

5. Bush won the war but allowed a weak, corrupt government to take power in Iraq.

6. Obama hurriedly pulled our troops out of Iraq and allowed its government to collapse.

7. Age-old religious rivalries then tore Iraq apart and allowed ISIS to establish a foothold in Iraq.

8. ISIS has spread to other countries and sponsors worldwide terrorism.

9. Iran was emboldened by Iraq's collaspe and seeks hegemony over the Middle East.

10. Obama's nuclear deal with Iran guarantees this eventuality.

Have I missed anything?

3. I doubt the Sunnis welcome a democracy where the Shiites hold power. I wonder how Southern whites would have reacted if freed slaves were given political power after the Civil War? Oh yeah, we know the answer to that.
6. Obama didn't or couldn't renegotiate a deal Bush made to remove US troops from Iraq. Troops not wanted by the government put in power by Bush.
7. Bush should have been able to foresee that "age-old" rivalries might be a problem for Iraq's stability.
9. Bush should also have foreseen that removing Saddam and replacing him with a Shiite led gov't would cause Iraq to tilt to Shiite Iran.
10. Obama and his allies were able to negotiate a deal to forestall it.

You neglected to mention the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of Iraqis who where killed removing Saddam from power. You also neglected to mention how we upset our Arab allies by removing the most powerful Sunni gov't in the region. We also upset our allies, the Turks, by freeing the Kurds from Saddam's yoke.

My FACTS vs. your OPINION.

 

[Camp]

No, I think you got all the basics. Anything else would be in the details.

"Anything else would be in the details."

Yeah, little details like the neocons lusting after Saddam's head for decades. That despite their obsession with Iraq they had no idea what that country was about or what effect toppling the dictator would have. They had no post invasion plans, despite the fact that the whole point of the exercise was to control what happened afterwards. They concentrated entirely on the military aspect, then, when they had blown the place to hell, they stood there looking at each other, saying, "what now?".

De-Ba'athification was a perfect example of what fumbling idiots these people were. Obama inherited a ridiculous mess where a "pseudo-peace" was being maintained by bribing the most extreme insurgents, who were glad to take the money, since the period of "time-out" was literally the blink of an eye to these people. They'd been fighting for centuries, what did a time out of a few months matter?

The Bush administration were fools who decided to kick a hornet's nest to find out what would happen. They found out. Obama had zero chance of fixing what they broke.

All Bush's fault. so predictable.

Even the leading Republican nomination for President see's it that way. So does most of the world.

 

[Elvis Obama]

No, I think you got all the basics. Anything else would be in the details.

"Anything else would be in the details."

Yeah, little details like the neocons lusting after Saddam's head for decades. That despite their obsession with Iraq they had no idea what that country was about or what effect toppling the dictator would have. They had no post invasion plans, despite the fact that the whole point of the exercise was to control what happened afterwards. They concentrated entirely on the military aspect, then, when they had blown the place to hell, they stood there looking at each other, saying, "what now?".

De-Ba'athification was a perfect example of what fumbling idiots these people were. Obama inherited a ridiculous mess where a "pseudo-peace" was being maintained by bribing the most extreme insurgents, who were glad to take the money, since the period of "time-out" was literally the blink of an eye to these people. They'd been fighting for centuries, what did a time out of a few months matter?

The Bush administration were fools who decided to kick a hornet's nest to find out what would happen. They found out. Obama had zero chance of fixing what they broke.

All Bush's fault. so predictable.

NO. Lord almighty, I cannot stand these hyper-partisan comments. I do not see the world through this ridiculous distorting lens. Bush did not make Arab culture primitive. Bush did not sit down with Churchill to devise the countries of the Middle East. He did what he did. He thoughtlessly invaded a country based on what in retrospect could only be considered crackpot theories. He is responsible for that, and for that alone, and believe me, that's plenty.

This thread seems to be attempting, dishonestly, to assign equal blame to Bush and Obama for the current mess in Iraq and Syria. Obama's done nothing positive, but he didn't thoughtlessly destabilize the region. Bush did.

 

[oldsoul]

No, I think you got all the basics. Anything else would be in the details.

"Anything else would be in the details."

Yeah, little details like the neocons lusting after Saddam's head for decades. That despite their obsession with Iraq they had no idea what that country was about or what effect toppling the dictator would have. They had no post invasion plans, despite the fact that the whole point of the exercise was to control what happened afterwards. They concentrated entirely on the military aspect, then, when they had blown the place to hell, they stood there looking at each other, saying, "what now?".

De-Ba'athification was a perfect example of what fumbling idiots these people were. Obama inherited a ridiculous mess where a "pseudo-peace" was being maintained by bribing the most extreme insurgents, who were glad to take the money, since the period of "time-out" was literally the blink of an eye to these people. They'd been fighting for centuries, what did a time out of a few months matter?

The Bush administration were fools who decided to kick a hornet's nest to find out what would happen. They found out. Obama had zero chance of fixing what they broke.

All Bush's fault. so predictable.

NO. Lord almighty, I cannot stand these hyper-partisan comments. I do not see the world through this ridiculous distorting lens. Bush did not make Arab culture primitive. Bush did not sit down with Churchill to devise the countries of the Middle East. He did what he did. He thoughtlessly invaded a country based on what in retrospect could only be considered crackpot theories. He is responsible for that, and for that alone, and believe me, that's plenty.

This thread seems to be attempting, dishonestly, to assign equal blame to Bush and Obama for the current mess in Iraq and Syria. Obama's done nothing positive, but he didn't thoughtlessly destabilize the region. Bush did.

I seriously doubt Bush's actions where from a lack of thought. Hindsight is 20/20, and we do not have all the information that was available to Bush at the time of his decision. Unless and until, you have ALL the same info/intel, you have no basis on which to assert such a claim.
Did his actions, directly or indirectly, destablize the region? Yes. Should he have acted differently? I cannot assess wheather or not he made the best decision, until I have all the same info/intel he had at that time.
Is Obama's actions, or inaction, further destablizing the region? I would argue, yes. I would argue that the only realistic path to re-stablizing the region is to eliminate ISIS. It is not the end, but it is a start.

 

[alang1216]

So, it's all Bush's fault. When will you Obamaites get with the program and stop blaming EVERYONE but Obama? Is your messianic veiw of him so ingrained that he can do no wrong? Is he really the Messiah, come to wash the sins of the masses away?
As for the "deal" with Iran...When was allowing a religious theocracy, bent on the destruction of our allies, a path to nuclear weapons forestalling it? They had no path, within the confines of international law, until Obama and his "allies" gave it to them.

I think your hatred of Obama has clouded your memory. Obama has not been the greatest President of all time, some of which is attributable to the GOP and some to his own shortcomings. However, Bush was, in my opinion, the worst President in, at least, the last 100 years. He did more to harm the country and less to make it better than any other I know of. In comparing the two, Obama looks far superior.
As for "no path" that is naïve, we had sanctions on Iran since 1979 yet they were well on their way to developing nuclear weapons. Although Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), uranium enrichment was allowed under the treaty.

 

[alang1216]

9. Iran was emboldened by Iraq's collaspe and seeks hegemony over the Middle East.

10. Obama's nuclear deal with Iran guarantees this eventuality.

My FACTS vs. your OPINION.

Your opinions. You don't know what Iran wants and you don't know the future.

 

[oldsoul]

So, it's all Bush's fault. When will you Obamaites get with the program and stop blaming EVERYONE but Obama? Is your messianic veiw of him so ingrained that he can do no wrong? Is he really the Messiah, come to wash the sins of the masses away?
As for the "deal" with Iran...When was allowing a religious theocracy, bent on the destruction of our allies, a path to nuclear weapons forestalling it? They had no path, within the confines of international law, until Obama and his "allies" gave it to them.

I think your hatred of Obama has clouded your memory. Obama has not been the greatest President of all time, some of which is attributable to the GOP and some to his own shortcomings. However, Bush was, in my opinion, the worst President in, at least, the last 100 years. He did more to harm the country and less to make it better than any other I know of. In comparing the two, Obama looks far superior.
As for "no path" that is naïve, we had sanctions on Iran since 1979 yet they were well on their way to developing nuclear weapons. Although Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), uranium enrichment was allowed under the treaty.

I would agree that bush was by far not a great President, but the worst in 100 years? Worse than Nixon? Worse than Carter? Worse than Wilson? Come on, you know as well as I do that he was not the worst in 100 years. Hatred of Obama? No, I do not Hate Obama, I dislike his agenda, and think his actions in many cases has been questionable at best (constitutionally speaking), but hate? That is a very strong word that I do not take lightly. I do, however, think that the Obama Presidency was the logical direction considering the last 60 years or so.
No legal path is what I said, please do not misrepresent what I said. They did not have a LEGAL Path to nuclear weapons. Now they do.
"They had no path, within the confines of international law..." to refresh your memory.

 

[jwoodie]

This thread seems to be attempting, dishonestly, to assign equal blame to Bush and Obama for the current mess in Iraq and Syria. Obama's done nothing positive, but he didn't thoughtlessly destabilize the region. Bush did.

Exactly where is the "dishonesty" to which you refer? I agree that Bush's attempt to turn Iraq into a Western-style democracy was a naive gambit for peace in the Middle East, but that region hasn't been "stable" since WW1. However, it wasn't until the 9/11 attacks that it became an issue of our national security. (Do you believe those attacks were Bush's fault, too?)

The idea that Obama was forced to pull all of our troops out of Iraq is pure poppycock. This was nothing more than a fulfillment of his 2008 campaign rhetoric to get us out of Bush's "bad" war in Iraq (as opposed to the "good" war in Afghanistan). Virtually all Republicans opposed this precipitous action, which directly resulted in the creation of ISIS.

This action, which constitutes one of the greatest foreign policy blunders in our history, is madly being reframed as simply following through with a decision to withdraw already made by Bush. If so, why was it such a major campaign issue? Hasn't Obama already revised his timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan? Reality is sometimes a bitter pill to swallow, but it is better than ignoring the disease of appeasement.

 

[jwoodie]

9. Iran was emboldened by Iraq's collaspe and seeks hegemony over the Middle East.

10. Obama's nuclear deal with Iran guarantees this eventuality.

My FACTS vs. your OPINION.

Your opinions. You don't know what Iran wants and you don't know the future.

Do you dispute them? I deal with what is; you deal with what "should" be.

 

[Elvis Obama]

No, I think you got all the basics. Anything else would be in the details.

"Anything else would be in the details."

Yeah, little details like the neocons lusting after Saddam's head for decades. That despite their obsession with Iraq they had no idea what that country was about or what effect toppling the dictator would have. They had no post invasion plans, despite the fact that the whole point of the exercise was to control what happened afterwards. They concentrated entirely on the military aspect, then, when they had blown the place to hell, they stood there looking at each other, saying, "what now?".

De-Ba'athification was a perfect example of what fumbling idiots these people were. Obama inherited a ridiculous mess where a "pseudo-peace" was being maintained by bribing the most extreme insurgents, who were glad to take the money, since the period of "time-out" was literally the blink of an eye to these people. They'd been fighting for centuries, what did a time out of a few months matter?

The Bush administration were fools who decided to kick a hornet's nest to find out what would happen. They found out. Obama had zero chance of fixing what they broke.

All Bush's fault. so predictable.

NO. Lord almighty, I cannot stand these hyper-partisan comments. I do not see the world through this ridiculous distorting lens. Bush did not make Arab culture primitive. Bush did not sit down with Churchill to devise the countries of the Middle East. He did what he did. He thoughtlessly invaded a country based on what in retrospect could only be considered crackpot theories. He is responsible for that, and for that alone, and believe me, that's plenty.

This thread seems to be attempting, dishonestly, to assign equal blame to Bush and Obama for the current mess in Iraq and Syria. Obama's done nothing positive, but he didn't thoughtlessly destabilize the region. Bush did.

I seriously doubt Bush's actions where from a lack of thought. Hindsight is 20/20, and we do not have all the information that was available to Bush at the time of his decision. Unless and until, you have ALL the same info/intel, you have no basis on which to assert such a claim.
Did his actions, directly or indirectly, destablize the region? Yes. Should he have acted differently? I cannot assess wheather or not he made the best decision, until I have all the same info/intel he had at that time.
Is Obama's actions, or inaction, further destablizing the region? I would argue, yes. I would argue that the only realistic path to re-stablizing the region is to eliminate ISIS. It is not the end, but it is a start.

"I seriously doubt Bush's actions where from a lack of thought."
Everything they did was based on pet theories, and these pet theories were revealed, when put into action, to be incredibly poorly thought out. Regime change, as a method of force feeding democracy to a bunch of primitives, was a theory. Paul Wolfowitz worked on this nonsense for 20 years. It's astounding to me, after twenty years of obsessing, that the neocons weren't better prepared. The gap between theory and practice in this case was given a name. The name is ISIS.

Rumsfeld had his pet theories too. Limited war, or as it has been described "just enough troops to lose". The reason there was so much chaos in the aftermath of the actual fighting. Why funds and important figures slipped the noose.

If you think the Bush Administration's administration of the Iraq war was thoughtful, OK. I can't say I understand why though. The premise of this thread is simple, let's try to get Bush off the hook and blame Obama. Bush won the war, they argue, and Obama snatched defeat from the jaws of victory! Nonsense. Who deserves the greatest blame? Eisenhower? He's the one who thoughtlessly destabilized Iran in the first place, out of fear of the commies and at the behest of British petroleum interests. How about the Mongols and the crusades and the black death? Those are the forces which turned a once vibrant culture into a backwards, tribal, cultural dead zone.

Did Obama contribute his own stupidity to the region? Yes. Was his contribution in any way comparable to Bush's. No. The main difference, imo, is that Obama foolishly believed he could help coax the democracy eaglet called the Arab Spring from its shell. He didn't invent the Arab Spring. Bush, OTOH, used an actual event, 911, to attack the wrong enemy. I also believe he did so on the basis of falsified intel. I cannot prove that, but either Richard Clark is telling the truth or the Bush admin is. I believe Clark.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Blair is as guilty as Bush. Both war criminals.

 

[Coyote]

OK, let's cut the BS and acknowledge some FACTS about the Iraq War:

1. Saddam Hussein had used poison gas against the Kurds and Iranians.

2. He refused to comply with UN inspections regarding WMDs.

3. Bush used this and the 9/11 attacks to get rid of Saddam and install a democracy in Iraq.

4. Bush hoped this would change the Arab-Israeli equation in the Middle East.

5. Bush won the war but allowed a weak, corrupt government to take power in Iraq.

6. Obama hurriedly pulled our troops out of Iraq and allowed its government to collapse.

7. Age-old religious rivalries then tore Iraq apart and allowed ISIS to establish a foothold in Iraq.

8. ISIS has spread to other countries and sponsors worldwide terrorism.

9. Iran was emboldened by Iraq's collaspe and seeks hegemony over the Middle East.

10. Obama's nuclear deal with Iran guarantees this eventuality.

Have I missed anything?

Yes...

Numbers 6 and 10 are not fact but opinion.

#6 - the agreement to pull troops preceeded Obama's presidency.
#10 - there is no guarantee

 

[alang1216]

9. Iran was emboldened by Iraq's collaspe and seeks hegemony over the Middle East.

10. Obama's nuclear deal with Iran guarantees this eventuality.

My FACTS vs. your OPINION.

Your opinions. You don't know what Iran wants and you don't know the future.

Do you dispute them? I deal with what is; you deal with what "should" be.

I think you can't tell fact from opinion. I dispute they are facts and have little faith in your opinions or your ability to see the future.

Does Iran seek hegemony or does it see itself as the defender of Shiites? The Shiites are an oppressed group in many Sunni countries, just as they were in Iraq.

Is it possible the delaying Iran's nuclear progress will give moderates there a chance to achieve power? Maybe, maybe not but there are certainly no guarantees.

 

[jwoodie]

Patriotism may be the refuge of the scoundrel, but word mincing is the refuge of the disingenuous. Rather then disputing FACTS, which should be judged by their TRUTH or FALSITY, they play around the edges of logic with half-truths and deliberate omissions. For example:

"6. Obama hurriedly pulled (all) our troops out of Iraq and allowed its government to collapse." Rather than address its salient points (underlined), they pose a false analogy that Bush intended to withdraw some troops at some time after a stable Iraqi government was functioning.

"10. Obama's nuclear deal with Iran guarantees this eventuality (Iranian hegemony)." Rather than dispute this fact, they quibble that the words "guarantee" and "hegemony" are not actually contained in the referenced document. By that reasoning, Chamberlain's agreement with Hitler had nothing to do with the fate of Czechoslovakia because it didn't contain the word "invasion."

While it is theoretically true that we can't know the future, lighting the fuse to a stick of dynamite is as near a certainty of an explosion as we are likely to get.