Iraq - Not about WMDs or Bush's Daddy

[Charles]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Because the GOP would have voted against it out of fear of its ultimate quick and (relatively) painless success. Coupled with Obama taking out Al Qaeda's #1 and (now) #2 guys, Obama the meek is making the Chicken Hawks of the GOP look even more feckless than they always were. They're gonna have to change their mantel of the GOP from "party of national security" to the party of "you can do it better, but you can't spend more."

Obama did it, huh?

obama-sealteam.jpg

Spare me.

Chas

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Charles

Obama did it, huh?

Attachment 914

Spare me.

Chas

Dat's my boy. He needs a cool codpiece though.

I was just painting a deliberately hyperbolic picture reflecting how the GOP says either; Obama shouldn't have gone into Libya (the majority), or Obama should have gun in stronger and harder (McCain, Graham). It seems his admittedly squirrelly approach (aka "leading from behind") seems to have succeeded at relatively minor expense in terms of $$$, lives, and public option (both in the Arab world and the world at large).

I, like you, have grown pretty ambivalent about our actions in the Mideast. However, it's easier for me to accept our actions in Libya than Iraq (at this moment anyway).

[Charles]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Dat's my boy. He needs a cool codpiece though.

I was just painting a deliberately hyperbolic picture reflecting how the GOP says either; Obama shouldn't have gone into Libya (the majority), or Obama should have gun in stronger and harder (McCain, Graham). It seems his admittedly squirrelly approach (aka "leading from behind") seems to have succeeded at relatively minor expense in terms of $$$, lives, and public option (both in the Arab world and the world at large).

I, like you, have grown pretty ambivalent about our actions in the Mideast. However, it's easier for me to accept our actions in Libya than Iraq (at this moment anyway).

From what I've read, our initial foray into Afghanistan consisted of bribing warlords to do our fighting while supporting them with special ops and air power. Kind of like what's happening in Libya.

Apparently, we were unable to reach our goals with such measures, not only under the Bush administration, but the Obama administration as well.

But after 10 years I can only hope that we can wrap this up in less than another 10. The Pentagon was right whenever they called this "The Long War".

Chas

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I'm firmly convinced that the Iraq invasion was a NeoCon wetdream to restructure the Mideast, via the domino theory, into a peaceful region compliant to our (and Israel's) geopolitical interests.

The whole WMD threat was nothing more than a "bureaucratic" justification that they thought would work in the wake of 9/11, and Wolfowitz said as much.

Saddam was a convenient boogeyman and the WMD/terrorism rationale was a threatening enough reason to justify their big adventure in the sandbox. The Downing Street memo cast further light upon this (as did the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson brouhaha). The NeoCon's had a compliant nincompoop in the White House (with a grudge), an strong ally there as well (Cheney), and a cabal of NeoCons in DoD (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith) and a weak, easy to roll National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice.

Sincerely, I have no doubt about this being the case. However, America is unwilling to admit to itself that we spent so much in blood and treasure on such a cynical misadventure.

No other post is necessary on this subject.
This clearly explains exactly "why" to anyone rational and semi well read.

[piece-itpete]

But it sure doesn't explain what we should've done about infidels in the holy land.

Pete

[Bigerik]

Originally Posted by noonereal

No other post is necessary on this subject.
This clearly explains exactly "why" to anyone rational and semi well read.

In other words, damn few will get it.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

But it sure doesn't explain what we should've done about infidels in the holy land.

Pete

Translate into modern day American English, please.

[piece-itpete]

Sorry, I've said it so many times I figgered it'd be known

Osama yo Momma said after 9-11 that the main reason (and certainly Koranic btw), was foreign troops in the holy land: US troops in Saudi Arabia.

Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Sorry, I've said it so many times I figgered it'd be known

Osama yo Momma said after 9-11 that the main reason (and certainly Koranic btw), was foreign troops in the holy land: US troops in Saudi Arabia.

Pete

This is by no means an outlandish statement. If one has read about bin Laden's motivations, one of the larger ones was that resented that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia relied upon (infidel) American troops to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. Bin Laden was feeling his oats after being part of kicking the USSR out of Afghanistan and wanted to be part of a similar effort to defend the cradle of Islam against the secular thug to the north.

It makes a lot more sense than Shrub's "They attacked us because they hate our freedoms."

[piece-itpete]

Right up there with non hostile hostilities Finn. I was just pointing out that it wasn't simply because Saddam was a convienient scapegoat.

I love saying, wait and see the fruits of what we've done America doesn't think small, never have.

Pete