No, you said the opposite.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Iraq Blocks Twitter, Google, YouTube and Facebook
- Thread starter CommanderFrank
- Start date
Yep. He gets the credit for ending the Iraq War. Just like everything else he does, it's good credit right away...and a fucking catastrophe later.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
I think the perception now is that this whole Iraq War was a catastrophe from Day One. First we were told that Iraq was an imminent threat to US security. Not true. Then we were told it would be over in a matter weeks, months at the latest. Not true. Then we were told that we would be perceived and liberators and that all the peoples of Iraq would stand behind us and that there would be little sectarian violence. Unequivocally and verifiably beyond any reasonable doubt as not true.
Unless we occupy Iraq with hundreds of thousands of troops indefinitely there's no way no make this work militarily. And there's NO WAY that there's enough public support for that kind of action. At some point we needed to cut our losses in this and move on to something else. Getting involved in Holy Wars in the Middle East was NEVER what this war was supposed to be about.
Ya know, people blaming Obama for everything is incredibly annoying. I am not saying he's been a great President or anything but there are so many other factors at play that he's not the sole person responsible. How about blaming the Iraqi Army first and foremost for failing to stand and fight? Or how about blaming the Iraqi President for refusing to give the United States basing rights? Or how about Congress constantly being a bunch of team players instead of representing the people that elected them, regardless party allegiances...hell, there shouldn't even be party allegiances. Hell, blame the US Marines and soldiers for failing to train the IA better. There's a lot of moving parts in government and very rarely does a failure rest on the shoulders of a single person.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Very well said. The bottom line is that the wars in Iraq and even Afghanistan have become VERY unpopular because military force simply hasn't worked in those places like it had been sold from the beginning. And there's far too many players involved to lay this at any one person of even group. This is the Middle East. It's always been very complicated.
We never had a problem with that until Obama was president. Thanks Obama!
I mustn't feed the troll, lol.
TwistedAegis
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 8,958
It would be cheaper to drop brand new 4k TVs and Xbones to every militant than it would be to bomb them. Throw in some generators and gas, too. Then they'll be too busy playing COD: Halalalalalalala edition to think about shooting real people.
Only 10% joking, too.
Only 10% joking, too.
TwistedAegis
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 8,958
Also, why the hell are the same people that couldn't do it right the first time around getting airtime telling us how we should do it now?!
I believe the trillions wasted on the wars would be better spent giving hope and a future to these people instead of bombing away what little they have.
You mean like building schools, giving clothes and food, and toys like soccer balls? Ya, did that.
Two questions?
Do you know who where the ISIS forces came from and who supporting them and badly wanted to support them even more strongly?
Do you know who the leader of the ISIS forces in Iraq is and how he got free?
Blame Bush for the condition of Iraq and being fertile ground for this, even thought the condition in 2008 is quite a bit different than 6 years later. Fine.
But the butcherous conquering force is someone else creation. I like how that never gets discussed. ever.
Then there's the whole change in policy about supressing AQ safe havens. The attacks on the world cup venues have nothing to do with that I'm sure. What, you haven't heard much about those? Shock.
And of course this occurred AFTER the "shock and awe" campaign which destroyed vital infrastructure and killed numerous innocents (the count I read was 7,400 civilians). Schools, clothes, food, and toys are great and all but it hardly makes up for the 7,400 civilian deaths. I wonder how many "terrorists" were created by murdering 7,400 innocents?
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2000
- Messages
- 6,254
Unfortunately it's not about nation building or saving the children. Creating terrorists and overthrowing regimes is a cash cow for the military industrial complex and big oil
Americans should care about American interests. The only question IMO should have been if we got a return on our investment for the military intervention both short and long-term, or if special interest groups were the benefactors.
I've been reading that the threat of Western military intervention to intentionally destabilize an oil producing region is actually a strategy used to counter OPEC.
The argument was that otherwise there would be nothing to keep OPEC, with over 80% of the world's oil reserves, from deciding that gas should cost $10 a gallon and becoming the most wealthy and powerful nations on the planet (not that they aren't already quite rich). After all, oil is considered an inellastic commodity, meaning people will still buy it regardless of price (within reason). More than just have people bitch and moan a bit, our economy is actually dependent on cheap energy and it could cause businesses to close, people to lose their jobs, and decay that would ultimately eat away at the American way of life and shove us into a depression.
So OPEC will try and push the limits from time to time, but keep the spice flowing, because otherwise large powerful Western nations will resort to military force. The pretense for war of course for public relations has to be written off as something else, but it is ultimately an oil war.
And like it or not, our lives would be crap without oil.
I spent an exceedingly short time in Baghdad and saw the bombed out structures, never saw any blown up schools...though I guess it could have happened. So the bombing of what little they have, most likely didn't involve children's schools....so ya, we helped build something that wasnt there. Were Saddam's palaces bombed, hell ya they were, used them as bases as well....so ya, we took away some lavish buildings that only a few servants worked at, I'm sure the general populace wasn't too broken up about it.
Look, we are damned if we do, damned if don't. We don't invade/attack these extremists there's a safe haven for anti-western groups that like to target the biggest dog in the pack, the United States. Of course, invading....well we know what happens when we take that course of action. I'd much rather get my shit blown sideways driving down the road in an armored vehicle than get my shit blown sideways in a civilian tin can with my family and that is to say, I'd rather take the fight to them than to sit back and let them fight on our own turf.
There was no safe haven for extremists in Iraq before we invaded. We created that.
Next, pretending that you went to Iraq to protect America is bullshit, knock it off.
USA went to the middle east for oil.
To think that they went to protect us is bullshit.
How the hell are they going to come to the USA in thousands and fight us here? It's practically impossible as they would have to come through on civilian planes or be shot down as they try to come over on planes that they stole in their country.
There is no bridge from the middle eat to ours so they are no risk, and never were a risk for us.
I think that everyone should just let the insurgents fight the people already in the middle east as it's their problem to deal with.
I believe those safe havens were called Pakistan or Syria or Somali or any number of other countries that are anti-western.
Next, I never said, I went over thar to protect ur freedomz 'Merica! I may have said I protected THEIR newfound freedom but I was never disillusioned into thinking it had anything to do with our freedoms. George W. always reminded me of one of those little cymbal clapping monkey toys and I considered OIF/OEF a war he wanted to finish for his Daddy.
You've got to be kidding right? How many illegals cross the border every day into the US. Just because your from the Middle East or Asia or Europe doesn't mean you have to come in to America directly from those regions. Go to a neighboring country and cross the border. I've never been to our northern border with Canada but I imagine walking across that imaginary line in the ground could be fairly easy in some places.
It's also very narrow minded to think if the US engaged in isolationism that all our problems would disappear. While the US has created a lot of these problems with under the table dealings with these groups in attempts to disrupt other nations, many of these groups have an issue with our way of life, not politics, not invasion of X country, our culture. They don't like that you get to say whatever you want, worship (or not worship) whatever version of god you want, or engage in many of the activities you like to engage in.
Start from the beginning, I'm pretty confident I said something like, the reasons for war mean very little to Marines and soldiers on the ground when the fighting starts. I never once thought, "Wow, can't wait to get that oil!" or "Wow, I can't believe we are doin this shit for oil!" My thoughts were more like "Wow, this shit is crazy" or "Holy shit, you guys ok?!" or a common one said by many, "FUCK"
I'm not seeing what that has to do with the war in Iraq.
What gives you the idea that Canada has a "Welcome Terrorists" banner that makes it easy for them to arrive there in the first place? Even Mexico has stringent immigration controls at airports. The Mexicans who walk here were born there, hard to keep those ones out of Mexico.
I don't see all that many people targeting Canada, or Sweden, or Switzerland. The idea that some guy is going to sit around in Saudi Arabia and get all offended by Katy Perry and come blow us up is pretty out there. It happens rarely, not often enough for military action to be effective, never mind appropriate.
http://youtu.be/PpTtxdLdM6A
These civilians had their fingers cut off by the Taliban for voting in the Afghan election. So tell us again how they don't understand fighting for freedom, and only you, a teen who enlisted in armed forces, knowing he'd have the biggest gang in the world as backup, and would go home after some years and never see the people he was fighting again, are the person who knows about fighting for freedom.
These civilians had their fingers cut off by the Taliban for voting in the Afghan election. So tell us again how they don't understand fighting for freedom, and only you, a teen who enlisted in armed forces, knowing he'd have the biggest gang in the world as backup, and would go home after some years and never see the people he was fighting again, are the person who knows about fighting for freedom.
Im not sure why your wanting to pick a fight other than to possibly be a troll. If you look at the quoted text I am replying to you'll get the relevance of what I am saying. Sovern is stating we should stay out of the world's business and they will leave us alone. It doesn't matter what industry your looking at, when protecting against vulnerabilities, the more points of access for your opponent, the more difficult it is to protect against. I've also never said they didn't/wouldn't/couldn't protect their own freedom. Maybe it's because you can't convey emotion/body language out of text from a complete stranger but your completely misinterpreting what your reading with a bias that I am some sort of arrogant asshole know it all with a sense of entitlement. I can assure you there is nothing further from the truth than that.
Oh by the way:
Sweden:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Sweden
Canada:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Canada
Switzerland, though pretty clean, isn't completely immune:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/50264