When are Republicans&warmongers going to take responsibility for the Iraq disaster?

[Doubter]

Quote from dddooo:

You bet they cooperated, they should not have but they did. Bush got his authorization to go to war, he got the money, he got the troops, he got everything, there was not a single thing as far as Iraq was concerned that he wanted and did not get. He got full cooperation on Iraq and therefore what has happened there is his full responsibility.

Now, you don't expect the dems to be responsible for what will happen in Iraq if Bush does not cooperate and insists on his own decisions, do you? You're not trying to have it both ways with Bush ignoring democratic proposals and the dems accepting responsibility for failure, are you? You're not that stupid, right?


We already discussed it before, charity is not the democratic, it's the republican mantra.

____________________________________________

Oh right they were so cooperative. Why is Ahmadenijad virtually repeating the dim play book word for word. The dims and the MSM have done more to weaken us, cancel our resolve, and embolden our enemies than anyone can imagine.

If the Rep warmongers are to accept responsibility for the Iraq situation will the dim weanies accept responsibility for giving the world the view that we will cut and run and emboldening or enemies?

I can bet the dims will never own up to their part in it.

The biggest mistake Bush made was in thinking the weanies somehow got some cajones after 9/11. This whole mess isn't over by a long ways and the dims trying to weaken us is beneath contempt.

 

[Doubter]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

You are insane with your all or nothing thinking...

__________________________________________________

No, the arguments with you are never about issues or facts only about your psychoses and need to self gratify and aggrandize.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

More all or nothing insanity...

It just never seems to end...

Please, stop the insanity...

Wait, you are a republiklown and Bush apologist, so I guess that isn't an option for you...

Okay, now the mowwwwwron club can chime in with their flames...

Quote from Doubter:

__________________________________________________

No, the arguments with you are never about issues or facts only about your psychoses and need to self gratify and aggrandize.

 

[Doubter]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

More all or nothing insanity...

It just never seems end...

Please, stop the insanity...

Wait, you are a republiklown and Bush apologist, so I guess that isn't an option for you...

______________________________________________

Z, you need to take a long hard look in the mirror and deal with whatever is motivating you. If I was the lone one in recognizing your problems you might have a point but unfortunately for you it is almost universal.

However, it just another example of why liberals are so unhappy.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from hapaboy:

Sorry, Nik, I disagree.

This has never been tried before in the Middle East.

Hi hap

I understand. I would say that although it's never been tried by the US in the Middle East, it's been tried many times, historically, by many different cultures. And I do see this as nothing less than an attempt to change their culture. Let's set aside for the moment the fact that our culture (the one that values freedom) is better . In India it sort of worked, but the British weren't necessarily trying to effect change and then leave. They were there for what, 200 years? There are probably other examples of this process working, but in the modern age?

In my opinion, hap, the problem was just what you said - that the US population didn't have the stomach for what it would take. That's why it was a mistake, not because it wasn't theoretically a good idea. I believe that an objective analysis before the invasion would have led to the same conclusion.

There is no doubt in my mind that the majority (maybe not a huge majority, but a majority) of Iraqis would like the chance to move their lives into the modern era and have the opportunity to have what we in the West have (freedom of opportunity), without fear that they will be beheaded for their religious beliefs. That in itself isn't enough, though. There are cultural forces at work that will prevent those people from speaking out. Eventually those forces will be vanquished, but not by cultural conquerors. They'll die off just like slavery died off here. It's inevitable.

I personally don't subscribe to the war-for-oil theory. There would be way cheaper and more effective ways to exert an influence over Mid-East oil.

 

[Doubter]

Quote from traderNik:

Hi hap

I understand. I would say that although it's never been tried by the US in the Middle East, it's been tried many times, historically, by many different cultures. And I do see this as nothing less than an attempt to change their culture. Let's set aside for the moment the fact that our culture (the one that values freedom) is better . In India it sort of worked, but the British weren't necessarily trying to effect change and then leave. They were there for what, 200 years? There are probably other examples of this process working, but in the modern age?

In my opinion, hap, the problem was just what you said - that the US population didn't have the stomach for what it would take. That's why it was a mistake, not because it wasn't theoretically a good idea. I believe that an objective analysis before the invasion would have led to the same conclusion.

There is no doubt in my mind that the majority (maybe not a huge majority, but a majority) of Iraqis would like the chance to move their lives into the modern era and have the opportunity to have what we in the West have (freedom of opportunity), without fear that they will be beheaded for their religious beliefs. That in itself isn't enough, though. There are cultural forces at work that will prevent those people from speaking out. Eventually those forces will be vanquished, but not by cultural conquerors. They'll die off just like slavery died off here. It's inevitable.

I personally don't subscribe to the war-for-oil theory. There would be way cheaper and more effective ways to exert an influence over Mid-East oil.

_____________________________________________

I agree with everything you said. Also I believe that the Kurds have done very well since the invasion and seem to be relatively at peace and happy. Things seem to be pretty good around Bahsra and much of the south. So Baghdad, Anbar, and the Sunni triangle are the contentious areas or basically a band across the center of the country from Iran to Syria. So some are doing okay and others are definitely not. I also believe we are fighting a proxy war with both Iran and Syria that is the root of the resistance, maybe even more so than the Shia Sunni rivalry.

I think Turkey is also very worried about the influence of the Iraqi Kurds on their own Kurd population. Anyway it is a big colossal mess that has been brewing for several thousand years and we may live long enough to see its' climax and finale.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Doubter:

Anyway it is a big colossal mess that has been brewing for several thousand years and we may live long enough to see its' climax and finale.

Clearly, as you say, regional/sectarian differences have existed for millenia. Add Israel into the mix and it is indeed a huge mess. Your point that this action is by proxy a fight against Iran and Syria is also well taken.

My fear is that we will not live long enough to see its climax. I see simmering tensions in the area for a very long time to come. They have enough internal problems to keep the IEDs exploding for a few decades.

 

[CaptainObvious]

It was the U.S. government that didn't have the stomach to do what was needed to win, specifically the Bush administration. The American people would have supported clear military victories. Had they put a bullet in Al Sadrs head a couple of years ago, leveled a couple of Mosques that were being used as fighting positions, flattened Ramadi and Fallujah, we'd be seeing an entirely different look in Iraq today. More importantly, our enemies and the Iraqi people would have received a loud and clear message...we ain't playin'!! But none of that was PC, and the pussies that run our government make all decisions considering PC first and foremost. The end result is, we lose again.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Typical republiklown response, telling others what they should be doing...when their own eyes are full of logs...

It never seems to end, does it...

Quote from Doubter:

______________________________________________

Z, you need to take a long hard look in the mirror and deal with whatever is motivating you. If I was the lone one in recognizing your problems you might have a point but unfortunately for you it is almost universal.

However, it just another example of why liberals are so unhappy.

 

[Doubter]

Quote from traderNik:

Clearly, as you say, regional/sectarian differences have existed for millenia. Add Israel into the mix and it is indeed a huge mess. Your point that this action is by proxy a fight against Iran and Syria is also well taken.

My fear is that we will not live long enough to see its climax. I see simmering tensions in the area for a very long time to come. They have enough internal problems to keep the IEDs exploding for a few decades.

___________________________________________________

If Iran gets nukes and fulfills their promise to annihilate Isreal and bring on another holocaust or armageddon then we may witness the climax of that endeavor.

5 or 6 years ago I would have said, not for a very long time but now too many pieces are falling into place.